JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby 8bitagent » Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:50 pm

sunny wrote:
MinM wrote:The Mafia did not have the power to make the Secret Service Stand Down


Or to botch the autopsy and make a mockery of it's record, to create the Warren Commission and put the fired by Kennedy former head of the CIA Allen Dulles on the panel, or put Oswald on the FBI and CIA payroll or send him to the Soviet Union....you could go on for days listing evidence of gov't fingerprints all over the cover-up. I'm sure elements of the mob were used in the hit and they had motivations to get involved, but the mob didn't plan the hit and other than getting Ruby to kill Oswald and possibly other witenesses, they didn't orchestrate the massive cover-up.


I couldnt agree more.

There's an amazing JFK assassination documentary, the most powerful one Ive seen, called "The Grassy Knoll" that came out last year
(trailer) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NCNo2DIqno
It goes deep into a lot of this stuff, further than any other film Ive seen

(I also cannot recommend "RFK Must Die" as well )
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12243
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby 8bitagent » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:00 pm

StarmanSkye wrote:Here's another wrinkle that really blew my mind -- An FBI investigator claimed to find an envelope in accused MLK assassin James Earl Ray's abandoned Ford Mustang that had the telephone number of Jack Ruby's Houston nightclub on it. The same nightclub where witnesses spoke of seeing Ruby and Oswald together. So BOTH JFK and MLK alleged-killers/patsies were linked through Jack Ruby. Also, LBJ's mistress Brown stated she was introduced to Jack Ruby long before the JFK murder by LBJ's lawyer. A pretty damn amazing 'coincidence' indicating ALL these guys implicated in these and related political crimes and cover-up were linked directly or indirectly, by only 1, 2 or 3 degrees of separation. Even Zapruder can't be excluded as likely an unwitting accomplice who was 'directed' to be at Dealy Plaza with his camera.


Not to mention best buddy to LBJ Byrd actually owned the Texas Book Depository.

The pro JFK story people will say "Oswald fired a gun randomly into a house the day before in an act of frustration. This was a desperate man
who wanted to be famous and do something with his pathetic life. Witnesses positively id'd him as the Tippet killer as well, and the Zapruder film doesnt prove anything".

They dont realize Oswald was seen hanging with David Ferrie and Guy Banister, who themselves worked with Carlos Marcello. The Daniel Hopsicker documentary on Barry Seal revealed that Oswald had also been seen with CIA spooks.

RFK whistleblowers claim some of the same CIA hitmen involved in the JFK plot were also involved in the RFK plot, like David Morales. Some claim he even bragged about involvement
http://www.alternet.org/story/44551/

It makes perfect since the triple assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK were all tied together, all black ops...like the WTC 1993, OKC 1995 and 9/11 trilogy of horrors.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12243
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby sunny » Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:29 pm

8bitagent wrote:
I agree strongly with the thesis as well, that it wasnt the CIA/FBI, Mafia or Cubans(pro/against castro) that were involved, BUT ALL THREE.
Much how 9/11 has footprints of Pakistani ISI, Saudi GID, Mossad and other agencies.

And I agree that Carter seemed like an unwilling pawn, a real God fearing Christian man if such a thing exists judging by a recent documentary I saw on him.

But Clinton I see as a complete globalist puppet. It was his two terms where the 9/11 attacks were created and incubated with al qaeda protected at every level, where the Taliban was financed to win Kabul in 1996, where Islamic jihadists were secretly used to fight the Serbs, when the WTC 1993 and OKC 1995 staged black ops went down, when the USS Cole/Khobar towers/Dar Es Salam-Nairobi 1998 bombs went off, and countless other things.

Now days the elites dont even need to steal the elections like in 2000/2004. They can just control who becomes the final candidates and outright by the election, like Obama's "win".

RFK, even more a radical than JFK, I believe elements within the CIA and LAPD were involved with when it came to his assassination. MLK was probably elements of the FBI, given the FBI's use of informants to murder civil rights leaders like Viola Luizzo.


Here's what you have to understand about the involvement of the different factions: There were agents and double agents infiltrated into all of these groups. The pro-Castro groups were full of anti-Castro Cubans and right-wing militants, the CIA, FBI, and probably ONI and several other alphabet agencies. The CIA was all loved up on the Mafia. The anti-Castro groups were fully funded and run by CIA, and tracked by the KGB. And then there are were at least two factions of the CIA, as demonstrated by the story of Richard Case Nagell, who was not only tracking the plot and Oswald on behalf of one branch of the CIA, he was also, probably unbeknownst to him, tracking the efforts of the KGB to monitor and put a stop to the plot, for the other faction of the CIA.

They were all being led around by the nose, essentially. Maneuvered and coerced, cajoled, blackmailed, sheep-dipped, threatened, murdered, incarcerated, appealed to, paid off, take your pick of any combination of tactics to not only get the right people into place and playing their roles, but to prevent dislosure of the plot and to provide several possible cover stories/explanations of a plot should a limited hangout become necessary.

Who was pulling the strings? The highest levels of the military, the crazy-mad Generals who wanted to obliterate Cuba during the missile crisis, who wanted to shoot down airplanes and kill American citizens on the streets, engage in thermonuclear war with the Soviet Union...in comparison to these wild fantasies a plot to kill the President was positively tame.

Oligarchs like GHWB could stand back and watch the whole thing unfold from their great and high positions, giggling and rubbing their hands together in glee at the thought of all that money to be made. But Bush had to take it further-he couldn't resist not only getting involved in the case by throwing the FBI a red herring, he had to be there to witness the murder itself. He's a sick and evil individual. :evil:
Choose love
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby jfshade » Wed Jul 15, 2009 6:26 pm

On another thread, Alice The Kurious commented that:

I haven't read everything that's been written and published about the Kennedy assassination, but what I've read so far has already persuaded me that this event is a Rosetta stone, a key to understanding the profound transformation of the United States that has occurred since the early 1960s.


I think Douglass' book explicates this point so coherently and completely that it's the only one I'd recommend as an introduction to the subject.

Sunny wrote:
And then there are were at least two factions of the CIA, as demonstrated by the story of Richard Case Nagell, who was not only tracking the plot and Oswald on behalf of one branch of the CIA, he was also, probably unbeknownst to him, tracking the efforts of the KGB to monitor and put a stop to the plot, for the other faction of the CIA.


Nagell is arguably the most important participant to go somewhat public before the assassination. This from Jim DiEugenio's review of Dick Russell's recent "On the Trail of the JFK Assassins":

A most compelling piece of evidence that Nagell had at the time of his arrest in September of 1963 was a near duplicate of Oswald's Uniformed Services Identification and Privileges Card. (See p. xvii) As Russell notes, it had the picture and the apparent signature of Oswald on it. Russell did not recall this card in the Warren Commission volumes. Neither did two other researchers he consulted with at the time. (ibid) The only other place the card had appeared was in an obscure book by Judy Bonner called Investigation of a Homicide. Bonner had gotten the card from the Dallas Police. But there is something even more interesting about the mystery. In the card seized by the Dallas Police, there is an overstamp that appears which says "October 1963". In the version that Nagell had, the imprint does not appear. Why? Because Nagell was in jail after September 20, 1963. Also, the photo of Oswald in the Nagell version is different. That photo is from a different ID card. And on that card, Oswald used his Alex J. Hidell alias. As Russell notes, this second card is believed to have been fabricated by Oswald himself, including the added picture. In other words, Nagell had to have been very close to Oswald prior to his September 1963 arrest. For he actually had access to Oswald's identification cards. Some versed in espionage would say that this indicates Nagell might have been either a "control agent" or a "surveillance operative" for Oswald. (The cards are pictured in the photo section of this book.)

From this information in the Preface, Russell cuts to chapter one of the text. It is aptly titled, "The Man Who Got Himself Arrested". At this time, Nagell had other things in his possession similar to what Oswald had in November: names in their notebooks, Cuba-related leaflets, and miniature spy cameras. (p. xviii)

Russell details Nagell's actions in El Paso on the morning of 9/20 better than anyone ever has. Nagell first went to a nearby post office before entering the bank. He mailed five hundred dollar bills to an address in Mexico. He then mailed two letters to the CIA. (p. 1. Later on, the author reveals that one was addressed to Desmond Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald was heavily involved in both Clandestine Services and Cuban operations at the time.)

From the post office, Nagell walked over to the State National Bank. There was a young police officer in plain sight. Nagell walked over to a teller and asked for a hundred dollars in American Express traveler's checks. (ibid) But before Nagell could retrieve the checks, he turned and fired two shots into a wall right under the ceiling. He calmly returned the revolver to his belt and walked out the front door into the street. He stepped into his car and waited. When no one came out, he pulled his car halfway into the street. He saw the policeman from inside and stopped his car. When the policeman came over to his car with his gun pulled, Nagell put his hands up and surrendered.

The arresting officer was one Jim Bundren. When Bundren searched Nagell one of the odd things he found on him was a mimeographed newsletter from the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC). (p. 2) When Bundren notified the FBI, lest the arresting officers forget, Nagell asked them to get the machine gun out of the trunk of his car. Of course, there was no machine gun. But there was a suitcase, two briefcases filled with documents, a 45-rpm record box, two tourist cards for entry into Mexico (one in the name of Aleksei Hidel), a tiny Minolta camera, and a miniature film development lab. As previously noted, the personal effects Nagell had uncannily resemble Oswald's.

On the way to the El Paso Federal Building, Nagell issued a statement to the FBI: "I would rather be arrested than commit murder and treason." (ibid)

Now, to anyone familiar with the JFK case, just the above would be enough to certify that Richard Case Nagell was in the know about who Oswald was and what was going to happen. But Bundren related to Russell an incident that makes it all even clearer. At a preliminary hearing for Nagell, the defendant related to the officer the obvious: that he wanted to be caught. To which Bundren replied that he knew Nagell was not out to rob the bank. The following colloquy then occurred:

Nagell: Well, I'm glad you caught me. I really don't want to be in Dallas.

Bundren: What do you mean by that?

Nagell: You'll see soon enough. (p. 3)

When Kennedy was assassinated, the full impact of Nagell's prediction did not hit Bundren. But when Jack Ruby shot Oswald, it did. Bundren exclaimed to himself, "How the hell would he have previous knowledge of it? How would he know what was coming down in Dallas?" (ibid) When Bundren went to the FBI to try and talk about Nagell's stunning prognostication, the agent he knew there told him he was not at liberty to discuss it. Bundren concluded from the experience that "Nagell know a lot more about the assassination then he let on, or that the government let on. Its bothered me ever since." (ibid) Indicating Bundren was right about what the government knew, Russell notes at this point that one of the notebooks seized from Nagell that day was not returned to him for eleven years. The other notebook was not returned at all.

As Nagell told Russell, the CIA was not the only government agency he tried to notify in advance of the murder. He also was in contact with the FBI. In fact, an FBI agent's phone number was in his notebook. But that wasn't all. He also had written down the names of two Soviet officials, six names under the rubric of CIA, a LA post office box for the FPCC, and an address and phone number for one Sylvia Duran of the Cuban Consulate in Mexico. This last was in Oswald's notebook also. (p. 6) And not revealed until many years later, Nagell had a Minox miniature spy camera in the trunk of his car upon his arrest. The same kind of spy camera that the FBI tried to deny Oswald had for many, many years. (p. 6)

I think it's important to note: If the above was part of the contents of the notebook that the FBI finally returned to Nagell, imagine what was in the notebook they never returned to him.

On March 20, 1964 Nagell wrote a note to Warren Commission Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin. In that correspondence Nagell revealed his warning to the FBI. But he also revealed that he had made a request through the prison authorities for the Bureau to get into contact with the Secret Service about an upcoming assassination attempt. The date: November 21, 1963. Incredibly, Nagell's name does not appear either in the Warren Report or in the accompanying 26 volumes.

But probably the most interesting correspondence to survive is a letter that Nagell wrote to Senator Richard Russell. Russell was the former Warren Commissioner who had expressed doubts about what the Commission was doing. So much so, that he had conducted his own mini-investigation using his own investigators. Apparently, Nagell had heard of this. And in this letter Nagell, for the first time, revealed some of the specifics of what he knew about Oswald. He began by saying that he had been monitoring Oswald in both 1962 and 1963. This surveillance, plus information gathered from others, led him to conclude that: 1.) Oswald had no real relations with the FPCC 2.) He also had no real relations with pro-Castro elements, but he was gulled into believing he did 3.) He had no real relations with any Leftist or Marxist group 4.) He was not an agent or informant, in the generally accepted sense of the word. 5.) He was involved in a conspiracy to murder President Kennedy which was not communist inspired or instigated by a foreign government. (p.7, Russell's italics.)

The date of this letter is January 3, 1967. Before any of the discoveries of the Garrison investigation were made public. Before the domestic publication of the works of Mark Lane or Sylvia Meagher. In fact, Nagell was still in prison when he wrote it. And he had yet to be visited by any investigator for Jim Garrison.

Later on, in a letter to Representative Don Edwards, Nagell revealed that his letter of warning to the FBI was specifically addressed to J. Edgar Hoover. He wrote it using one of his aliases, Joseph Kramer. In it he said that Oswald was part of a conspiracy to murder President Kennedy which he thought would take place in late September of 1963. (The mistaken date is why Nagell did what he did in El Paso on September 20th.) He gave the Bureau a complete description of Oswald including his true name, physical description, two aliases and his residential address. He conveyed certain data about the plot including one overt act which was a violation of federal law. And he used the name Kramer because two FBI agents in Miami knew him by that alias at the time.

No wonder Garrison called Nagell the most important witness there is.
jfshade
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:20 pm
Location: Chicago
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:32 pm

The work done by CIA to frame up Oswald during the several months preceding the deed are proof of who is ultimately responsible for making sure that what many factions wanted to happen...did happen.

Plus the preparative security-stripping and sending the cabinet out of town and other things that could only be done from within the Secret Team, as Prouty called it.

The cover-up from within the USG and in the media prove other things, not the actual murder. Almost everyone covering up 9/11 did not 'do it.'
They are guilty of other crimes.

The insider accounts from Richard Case Nagell and L. Fletcher Prouty, one out in the cold and the other in the elite planning offices, tell us how secrecy and compartmentalization provide the perfect opportunity for insider coups.
Last edited by Hugh Manatee Wins on Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Peter Dale Scott presentation.

Postby slimmouse » Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:33 pm

I dont know if anyones ever put this up before, but Ive just finished watching an excellent presentation by Peter Dale Scott, which touches on many replies to the OT, and dovetails rather nicely with the topic.

If youve got an hour to spare, its well worth a look.

"JFK and 9/11 - insights gained from studying both"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... +Scott+JFK
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Postby MinM » Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:52 am

Oliver Stone: JFK and the Unspeakable
Image

Oliver Stone
Award-winning filmmaker
Posted: July 23, 2009 05:05 PM


The murder of President Kennedy was a seminal event for me and for millions of Americans. It changed the course of history. It was a crushing blow to our country and to millions of people around the world. It put an abrupt end to a period of a misunderstood idealism, akin to the spirit of 1989 when the Soviet bloc to began to thaw and 2008, when our new American President was fairly elected.

Today, more than 45 years later, profound doubts persist about how President Kennedy was killed and why. My film JFK was a metaphor for all those doubts, suspicions and unanswered questions. Now an extraordinary new book offers the best account I have read of this tragedy and its significance. That book is James Douglass's JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. It is a book that deserves the attention of all Americans; it is one of those rare books that, by helping us understand our history, has the power to change it.

The subtitle sums up Douglass's purpose: Why He Died and Why it Matters. In his beautifully written and exhaustively researched treatment, Douglass lays out the "motive" for Kennedy's assassination. Simply, he traces a process of steady conversion by Kennedy from his origins as a traditional Cold Warrior to his determination to pull the world back from the edge of destruction.

Many of these steps are well known, such as Kennedy's disillusionment with the CIA after the disastrous Bay of Pigs Invasion, and his refusal to follow the reckless recommendations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis. (This in itself was truly JFK's shining moment in the sun. It is likely that any other president from LBJ on would have followed the path to a general nuclear war.) Then there was the Test Ban Treaty and JFK's remarkable American University Speech where he spoke with empathy and compassion about the Soviet people, recognizing our common humanity, the fact that we all "inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's futures. And we are all mortal."

But many of his steps remain unfamiliar: Kennedy's back-channel dialogue with Khrushchev and their shared pursuit of common ground; his secret opening to dialogue with Fidel Castro (ongoing the very week of his assassination); and his determination to pull out of Vietnam after his probable re-election in 1964.

All of these steps caused him to be regarded as a virtual traitor by elements of the military-intelligence community. These were the forces that planned and carried out his assassination. Kennedy himself said, in 1962, after he read Seven Days in May, which is about a military coup in the United States, that if he had another Bay of Pigs, the same thing could happen to him. Well, he did have another "Bay of Pigs"; he had several. And I think Kennedy prophesied his own death with those words.

Why does it matter? The death of JFK remains a critical turning point in our history. Those who caused his death were targeting not just a man but a vision -- a vision of peace. There is no calculating the consequences of his death for this country and for the world. Those consequences endure. To a large extent, the fate of our country and the future of the planet continue to be controlled by the shadowy forces of what Douglass calls "the Unspeakable." Only by unmasking these forces and confronting the truth about our history can we restore the promise of democracy and lay claim to Kennedy's vision of peace.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/oliver-st ... 43924.html

Covert History: Huffington Post: Oliver Stone plugs JFK and the Unspeakable
Earth-704509
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3286
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby redsock » Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:31 pm

Vince Salandria, one of the very first Warren Report critics:

"I'm afraid we were misled. All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one - not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official - no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless."

I can't help but think about 9/11 in this context, as people blather on for years about nose cones and death indexes and fat Osamas and whatever else ...

There is so much obvious evidence and contradictory statements out there than nails Cheney et al. on 9/11 -- and that's the stuff the MSM and many 9/11 researchers don't touch. In fact, they go out of their way to not even acknowledge this material exists.

edit: "not"
Last edited by redsock on Sun Jul 26, 2009 10:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
redsock
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 3:28 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby StarmanSkye » Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:26 pm

redsock wrote:
In fact, they go out of their way to even acknowledge this material exists.


I get, you mean they go out of their way NOT to even acknowledge the material that contradicts & confounds the official explanation; As you point out and Peter Dale Scott elaborates in his excellant video, yet another way that 911 is similiar to the JFK coup.

It may be self-evident but is important enough to reflect on, that in these in most cover-stories crudely obscuring the truth of elaborate conspiracies by agents of the PTB -- cover stories aren't intended to be perfect, they don't need to be; They take advantage of the mass-media tendency for most of the public to accept the official story no matter how implausable or problematic, because of a deep-seated and culturally-conditioned need to avoid acknowledging evidence of widespread, enedemic fraud, corruption and criminality of the state's most powerful officials and agencies, since the whole ediface of state's legitimacy, authority and legal responsibility extends as a top-down heirarchal system. Society is conditioned to refuse accepting such a monumental failure and perversion of the social order as necessitated by the JFK coup & 911 inside-job conspiracies.

I guess there are established psychological and propaganda-science terms and theories to account for this, such as bias-reinforcement, cognitive-dissonance avoidance, ideological maintenance, world-view stability, cognitive self-validation -- mostly referring to the same thing.

Many of the same kinds of supposed intelligence and security 'failures' cited that didn't prevent the JFK assassination also resulted in the 'non-prevention' of 911, directly blamed on governmental-bureaucratic inefficiency, lack of cross-and-inter-departmental communication, lapses in official judgement, ineffective policy and gaps, inadvertant and guileless misconduct, carelessness or negligence, etc. And then, after the fact, there appeared what seemed to be, at the very least, an extensive if unofficial policy of cover-up and censorship, to hide crucial facts, or manufacture false 'evidence', in order to disguise or obscure the contributing factors of personal fault and bureaucratic bungling that allowed the JFK killing and 911 attacks to occur. With secondary implications and potential consequences we'll never know, ie. the extent that Oswald HAD to be a lone-nut in order to prevent Johnson and the Joint Chiefs from waging war on Cuba or USSR as if THEY were responsible, or in the case of 911, OTHER nations like Saudi Arabia or Israel or other terrorist parties who may have been perceived to be responsible, and against which conflict was untenable. Which then became the cause to marshall the finding of blame on the 19 Al Qaeda terrorists.

Wheels within wheels.

It's inconceiveable that unless Oswald was quite willing to accept responsibility for killing JFK, that he wouldn't have made careful plans to evade suspicion and capture -- including either a false evidence trail leading away from him and carefully hiding his true involvement, or allowing his escape and disappearance with false-identity and hideout, etc.

Likewise in the case of 911. Since 'Al Qaeda' wasn't going to accept responsibility for it, why wouldn't its leaders have tried to hide their involvement, since they could reasonably expect a reprisal that would be out all proportion to whatever limited political & moral 'value' the 911 attacks would have for their 'cause'?
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby sunny » Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:52 pm

Good ol' Stone, still plugging away. Actually, Stone was holding Douglass's book during an interview with Bill Maher a couple of weeks ago and that is what prompted me to start this thread.

redsock wrote:I can't help but think about 9/11 in this context, as people blather on for years about nose cones and death indexes and fat Osamas and whatever else ...

There is so much obvious evidence and contradictory statements out there than nails Cheney et al. on 9/11 -- and that's the stuff the MSM and many 9/11 researchers don't touch. In fact, they go out of their way to even acknowledge this material exists.


So true. A gov't conspiracy re 911 is as blatantly obvious as it was in the JFK murder.

StarmanSkye wrote:It's inconceiveable that unless Oswald was quite willing to accept responsibility for killing JFK, that he wouldn't have made careful plans to evade suspicion and capture -- including either a false evidence trail leading away from him and carefully hiding his true involvement, or allowing his escape and disappearance with false-identity and hideout, etc.


WC defenders dispense with that inconsistency quite handily by falsely asserting that Oswald wanted to be caught and to become "known" as the man who killed Kennedy. The genesis of this legend has it's origins in a deliberate misquotation by the Warren Commission of Roger Craig. Craig counted 14 instances where the Commission had misquoted or changed what he said. What happened to that upstanding man was a sin and a shame. :(

Roger Craig wrote:I first saw my testimony in January of 1968 when I looked at the 26 volumes which belonged to Penn Jones. My alleged statement was included. The following are some of the changes in my testimony:


*Arnold Rowland told me that he saw two men on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository 15 minutes before the President arrived: one was a Negro, who was pacing back and forth by the southwest window. The other was a white man in the southeast corner, with a rifle equipped with a scope, and that a few minutes later he looked back and only the white man was there. In the Warren Commission: Both were white, both were pacing in front of the southwest corner and when Rowland looked back, both were gone;

*I said the Rambler station wagon was light green. The Warren Commission: Changed to a white station wagon;

*I said the driver of the Station Wagon had on a tan jacket. The Warren Commission: A white jacket;

*I said the license plates on the Rambler were not the same color as Texas plates. The Warren Commission: Omitted the not -- omitted but one word, an important one, so that it appeared that the license plates were the same color as Texas plates;

*I said that I got a good look at the driver of the Rambler. The Warren Commission: I did not get a good look at the Rambler. (In Captain Fritz's office) I had said that Fritz had said to Oswald, "This man saw you leave" (indicating me). Oswald said, "I told you people I did." Fritz then said, "Now take it easy, son, we're just trying to find out what happened", and then (to Oswald), "What about the car?" to which Oswald replied, "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine. Don't try to drag her into this." Fritz said car -- station wagon was not mentioned by anyone but Oswald. (I had told Fritz over the telephone that I saw a man get into a station wagon, before I went to the Dallas Police Department and I had also described the man. This is when Fritz asked me to come there.) Oswald then said, "Everybody will know who I am now;" the Warren Commission: Stated that the last statement by Oswald was made in a dramatic tone. This was not so. The Warren Commission also printed, "NOW everybody will know who I am", transposing the now. Oswald's tone and attitude was one of disappointment. If someone were attempting to conceal his identity as Deputy and he was found out, exposed -- his cover blown, his reaction would be dismay and disappointment. This was Oswald's tone and attitude -- disappointment at being exposed!
Choose love
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby streeb » Tue Jul 28, 2009 1:05 am

Craig's daughter Michelle Palmer made some noise at the Education Forum last year. Honestly don't know what to make of it, or if she's really who she claims to be. Roger Craig is a powerful witness -- really one of the clinchers for a lot of people because of his evident sincerity and persistence, not to mention his very sad fate.

I think JFK and the Unspeakable is outstanding and I've recommended it many times to people who were looking for a primer on the assassination.


Email from Roger Craig's daughter:

There are a few items in your article about Roger Craig you just might want to correct for the sake of accuracy and truth in reporting. i) His marriage didn't end due to repeated harassment or threats - unless you count his repeated threats to end his own life. ii) The man was disturbed. As his daughter I would place money on the fact that he suffered from either Borderline Personality Disorder or Bi-polar depression. Those last two attempts on his life? The husband of the woman he was fooling around with. Trust me, I met her AND her daughters before the bastard killed himself. The husband met him at the door with that shoulder shot.

Articles like yours only serve to continue the myth. My father was a disturbed man. I'm not disputing that what he thought he saw was something different than what was reported. But let's face it, my dad didn't know a Mauser from a whatever. He was a Wisconsin farmboy who joined the army illegally, and was released from duty because he kept injuring himself - I note you don't mention all the self-inflicted scars from his tour of duty. Furthermore, it is EXACTLY this kind of dramatic license that killed my father. It fed his disease. It fed his paranoia. And in the end, it contributed to his self-destruction. You should be ashamed of yourself for perpetuating this garbage.


Link
User avatar
streeb
 
Posts: 1061
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: Zona, BC
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby 8bitagent » Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:05 am

sunny wrote:WC defenders dispense with that inconsistency quite handily by falsely asserting that Oswald wanted to be caught and to become "known" as the man who killed Kennedy.


Yeah. Allegedly Oswald was spose to have randomly shot a guy's window the week of the JFK killing. Yet, the funny thing is BOTH HE and Jack Ruby proclaimed that the truth of the plot went high up and that they were just dupes.

Now why would Oswald and Ruby both state this unequivocally if they didnt know eachother, and just were randomly fated together, and if there was no conspiracy past a lone nut and a club owner seizing a random oppurtunity?
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12243
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby 8bitagent » Tue Jul 28, 2009 11:02 pm

Man look how virulently the pro JFK story proponents come out of the woodwork here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/oliver-st ... 43924.html

Notice how apeshit angry so many on the left get at people who question 9/11, JFK, etc...

Its like that Cohen guy on Huffington post. He has some good articles on Israeli war crimes, the lies and the horror of the Afghan war, etc...but then says how there is not one single shred of evidence to refute the 9/11 story and that people questioning 9/11 are dangerous nuts. I mean, wtf?
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12243
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Skunkboy » Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:46 am

Here's Bill Hicks take on the JFK assassination. Isn't it funny that the last six letters of assassination is nation? Anyway... here's Bill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11Fl9ZVJ7B8

In another piece by Bill, he mentions that life is just a ride, and we can go into that ride with either fear, or love.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTzNLhxPzjo

He also mentions that people throughout history who call our attention to the fact that life is just a ride, are usually killed off fairly quickly. Now, God knows that I'm not saying that JFK was like Jesus. JFK had a multitude of sins, but I think that in the final analysis, Kennedy could see the difference between good and evil, and this is what got him killed.
The first reason was that he wanted to gut the CIA, and bust it into a thousand pieces. Second, he wanted to take away control of the US monetary policy from the Federal Reserve and give it back to the government, and last he wanted to pull out of Viet Nam. Jees, if you ever wanted to get on the bad side of the PTB, this was the way to do it. I don't think Obama will be making any similar moves in the near future.


http://www.911truth.org/article.php?sto ... 3214130200
http://www.ctka.net/2008/jfk_unspeakable.html
http://www.jfk-online.com/farewell00.html
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p ... E2B6F92500
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html
http://www.magia.gildia.pl/wywiady/kentroversy-english
http://www.ctrl.org/essay2/JFKHIT1.html
http://www.michaelparenti.org/JFKAssassination.html
If every man helped his neighbor, no man would be without help.

-Bruce Lee
User avatar
Skunkboy
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: The High Lonesome
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby brekin » Sat Aug 01, 2009 8:58 pm

I'm a hundred pages in and have to say it's the best book I've read dealing with this. I think without a doubt one of the few introductory "R.I" books you could pass on to friends and families with out any reservations.

Should be in every public library and school.
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests