ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags assassinations , Kennedy conspiracies , RFK assassination , Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Reply
Old 28th May 2018, 09:26 PM   #41
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,667
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post

Cite the part were JFK:

1. Orders the coup.

2. Orders the assassination of the Diem brothers.
No such documentation exists, but documentation does exist that as early as '61 The Kennedy administration was making contacts with SVN military officers that objected to the Diem regime, and eventually when those contacts planed their coup they sought and received permission from the Kennedy administration to carry out their operation to overthrow Diem:

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/index.htm

Records of the Kennedy national security meetings, both here and in our larger collection, show that none of JFK's conversations about a coup in Saigon featured consideration of what might physically happen to Ngo Dinh Diem or Ngo Dinh Nhu. The audio record of the October 29th meeting which we cite below also reveals no discussion of this issue. That meeting, the last held at the White House to consider a coup before this actually took place, would have been the key moment for such a conversation. The conclusion of the Church Committee agrees that Washington gave no consideration to killing Diem. (Note 12)

The weight of evidence therefore supports the view that President Kennedy did not conspire in the death of Diem. However, there is also the exceedingly strange transcript of Diem's final phone conversation with Ambassador Lodge on the afternoon of the coup (Document 23), which carries the distinct impression that Diem is being abandoned by the U.S. Whether this represents Lodge's contribution, or JFK's wishes, is not apparent from the evidence available today.

A second charge has to do with Kennedy administration denials that it had had anything to do with the coup itself. The documentary record is replete with evidence that President Kennedy and his advisers, both individually and collectively, had a considerable role in the coup overall, by giving initial support to Saigon military officers uncertain what the U.S. response might be, by withdrawing U.S. aid from Diem himself, and by publicly pressuring the Saigon government in a way that made clear to South Vietnamese that Diem was isolated from his American ally. In addition, at several of his meetings (Documents 7, 19, 22) Kennedy had CIA briefings and led discussions based on the estimated balance between pro- and anti-coup forces in Saigon that leave no doubt the United States had a detailed interest in the outcome of a coup against Ngo Dinh Diem. The CIA also provided $42,000 in immediate support money to the plotters the morning of the coup, carried by Lucien Conein, an act prefigured in administration planning Document 17)


Astute observers of history will no doubt note the mortality rates for deposed leaders. A retirement lunch of the sort preferred by mafiosi is the rule, rather than the exception.

If officials of the Kennedy administration and JFK himself believed they were signing off on a bloodless operation I believe that was most likely a hope born from optimism, not a rational examination of conditions on the ground in SVN.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 05:16 AM   #42
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,007
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Here is an interview with the coroner, Thomas Noguchi:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DHVrnB...TfkKNMy3Hds1yw

1-1.5 inch from behind. Sirhan was never closer than ca 2 feet from in front of RFK (with his pistol) according to the withesses who wrestled him down on a table. They were in between Sirhan and RFK at all time.
You seem to always find that eye witnesses are better evidence than real evidence, why is that. In the flash of gunshots, I remember almost everyone ducking for cover rather than judging the distance Sirhan was from RFK.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 05:35 AM   #43
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,760
I see the usual CTist double-standard shuffle is in full play here. In the JFK thread, manifesto proclaims that Lyndon Johnson, Allen Dulles, and J. Edgar Hoover were "in on" the assassination of JFK, based on no more than "a whole lot of circumstantial evidence and means motive and opportunity" (and the "circumstantial evidence" is only an assertion); while, in this thread, he won't believe that RFK could have been involved in any attempted assassination of Castro unless he can be quoted plotting it in a meeting, or that JFK could have been involved in Diem's deposition and death unless someone can "cite orders" from him to that effect.


Heh. CTists are funny people- it's gotten to where I don't bother debating them on details anymore, I just sit back and wait for the inevitable comedy.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 06:04 AM   #44
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
You can go read the documents yourself.
If you claim that the documents contains evidence of JFK ordering the assassinations of the Diem brothers, you should quote the relevant text and explain how you come to your conclusion.

It is not me who shall find support for your claims.

Quote:
The CIA works on behalf of the White House and Congress, mostly the NSC. Everything they've ever done was green-lit by the White House, and the House Intelligence Oversight Committee. The CIA does not act on its own behalf.

You'd know this if you'd read real history books.
Not when JFK was president, no.

Quote:
His original draft letter justifying the coup:

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/vn14.pdf

Meeting checklist about the coup:

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/vn18.pdf

Conference where General Taylor advises JFK not to think of Vietnam like a football game, and RFK agrees, yet they press on:

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/vn19.pdf

White House advising Ambassador Lodge that they will back the RVN Generals in the coup:

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/vn21.pdf

Ambassador Lodge lying to Diem:

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/vn23.pdf

CIA memo touting success of the coup:

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/vn24.pdf

Saying that JFK had no idea Diem would be killed is the same as Bush saying he had no idea there would be an Iraqi Insurgency.
Same here. Posting links to documents allegedly supporting your claim isn’t enough. You have to quote the relevant text and explain how you think it supports your claim.

I neither should or can do it for you.

Quote:
Uh huh, Pax Americana, and he built up the military, created covert commando units in the Army and Navy, and broadened the CIA's operational scope beyond its charter. "Post Colonial" Vietnam was his model.

Bottom Line under JFK: Our way or else.
No, you are wrong, completely inverting the historical record. Shamelessly. Yes, he initiated the Green Berets and yes he gave the military additional funding in different areas, but his reasons for doing this stemmed from a completely different outlook on the role US should play on the geopolitical arena. Look at his track record:

1. He never ordered US combat troops to open fire in any of the international conflicts that developed during his precidency. Bay of Pigs. Berlin. Laos. Vietnam. Middle East. Missile crisis. Vietnam. Always using diplomacy.

2. Initiated a broad national information campaign creating a public mandate for the first atmospheric test ban treaty with the Soviet Union.

3. Consistently diverting US bilateral aid to post colonial nation’s civil institutions, not to their military.

4. Consistently turning down the ’advise/demands’ from the chicken hawks in US National Security State.

5. Working on secret rapproachment with Castro at the very instant he got assassinated.

6. Working to end the Cold War wanting to create joint ventures with the Soviets in space and other areas where cooperation were suitable.

All this and more was in sharp conflict with US National Security State and it all changed 180˚ the very second they assassinated him in Dallas, putting crazy LBJ in charge. We all know what happened then. That is recorded History with millions of innocent lives sacrified in racist megalomania.

Everything else is revisionist history writing in service of the US National Security State. Some get paid doing it. Some do it as misguided patriotism. Some do it because they are stupid and misinformed.

I’m still not sure on what motivates you.

Quote:
And yet that's what he did.
Show it.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 06:10 AM   #45
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Everybody knows Stephen King murdered John Lennon.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...ot-john-lennon
Everyone knows when someone is trying to divert critical scrutiny away from the issue at hand.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 06:27 AM   #46
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
You seem to always find that eye witnesses are better evidence than real evidence, why is that. In the flash of gunshots, I remember almost everyone ducking for cover rather than judging the distance Sirhan was from RFK.
What ”real” evidence contradict the witnesses in the case of Sirhans positions and movents on the murder scene?
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 06:38 AM   #47
ahhell
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,797
I'm moderately surprised I've never heard of a CT about a second gunmen for RFK before.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 06:49 AM   #48
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
No such documentation exists, but documentation does exist that as early as '61 The Kennedy administration was making contacts with SVN military officers that objected to the Diem regime, and eventually when those contacts planed their coup they sought and received permission from the Kennedy administration to carry out their operation to overthrow Diem:

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/index.htm

Records of the Kennedy national security meetings, both here and in our larger collection, show that none of JFK's conversations about a coup in Saigon featured consideration of what might physically happen to Ngo Dinh Diem or Ngo Dinh Nhu. The audio record of the October 29th meeting which we cite below also reveals no discussion of this issue. That meeting, the last held at the White House to consider a coup before this actually took place, would have been the key moment for such a conversation. The conclusion of the Church Committee agrees that Washington gave no consideration to killing Diem. (Note 12)

The weight of evidence therefore supports the view that President Kennedy did not conspire in the death of Diem. However, there is also the exceedingly strange transcript of Diem's final phone conversation with Ambassador Lodge on the afternoon of the coup (Document 23), which carries the distinct impression that Diem is being abandoned by the U.S. Whether this represents Lodge's contribution, or JFK's wishes, is not apparent from the evidence available today.

A second charge has to do with Kennedy administration denials that it had had anything to do with the coup itself. The documentary record is replete with evidence that President Kennedy and his advisers, both individually and collectively, had a considerable role in the coup overall, by giving initial support to Saigon military officers uncertain what the U.S. response might be, by withdrawing U.S. aid from Diem himself, and by publicly pressuring the Saigon government in a way that made clear to South Vietnamese that Diem was isolated from his American ally. In addition, at several of his meetings (Documents 7, 19, 22) Kennedy had CIA briefings and led discussions based on the estimated balance between pro- and anti-coup forces in Saigon that leave no doubt the United States had a detailed interest in the outcome of a coup against Ngo Dinh Diem. The CIA also provided $42,000 in immediate support money to the plotters the morning of the coup, carried by Lucien Conein, an act prefigured in administration planning Document 17)


Astute observers of history will no doubt note the mortality rates for deposed leaders. A retirement lunch of the sort preferred by mafiosi is the rule, rather than the exception.

If officials of the Kennedy administration and JFK himself believed they were signing off on a bloodless operation I believe that was most likely a hope born from optimism, not a rational examination of conditions on the ground in SVN.
No one is claiming that JFK did not take part in discussions on the future of US puppet Diem regime. South Vietnam was a CIA puppet State created by General Lansdale in order to hinder a complete take over by Ho Chi Mihns nationalists forces of the former part of French Indochina that today constitutes Vietnam.

Diem was a catholic in a buddhist country and extremely impopular from the get go. The only force keeping him in power was the US National Security State. When it became obvious that Diem no longer could muster a defence from the nationalist forces inside his own country the chicken hawks in US National Security State began looking for other suitable leadership among the leaders in the South Vietnam military.

Yes, they were waiting for US to ”ok” a coup, but there is no undisputable record of JFK giving that ”ok”. And, there is certainly not any record of JFK allowing the plotters to assassinate the Diem brothers.

Yes, Lodge is implicated in the assassinations and so are the CIA, but that is not the case with JFK. This is just another instance of CIA doing stuff against the will of JFK, making their own policies using their own methods bypassing US laws and democratic institutions.

Corrupting everything within their reach.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 06:53 AM   #49
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
I'm moderately surprised I've never heard of a CT about a second gunmen for RFK before.
A good testament to LN water tight insulation from reality if there ever was one.

Amazing.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 06:59 AM   #50
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,546
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
I'm moderately surprised I've never heard of a CT about a second gunmen for RFK before.
That's because it's pretty loopy
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Gidget, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 07:20 AM   #51
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,760
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No one is claiming that JFK did not take part in discussions on the future of US puppet Diem regime. South Vietnam was a CIA puppet State created by General Lansdale in order to hinder a complete take over by Ho Chi Mihns nationalists forces of the former part of French Indochina that today constitutes Vietnam.

Diem was a catholic in a buddhist country and extremely impopular from the get go. The only force keeping him in power was the US National Security State. When it became obvious that Diem no longer could muster a defence from the nationalist forces inside his own country the chicken hawks in US National Security State began looking for other suitable leadership among the leaders in the South Vietnam military.

Yes, they were waiting for US to ”ok” a coup, but there is no undisputable record of JFK giving that ”ok”. And, there is certainly not any record of JFK allowing the plotters to assassinate the Diem brothers.

Yes, Lodge is implicated in the assassinations and so are the CIA, but that is not the case with JFK. This is just another instance of CIA doing stuff against the will of JFK, making their own policies using their own methods bypassing US laws and democratic institutions.

Corrupting everything within their reach.
(Re the highlighted)
Really? Cite the orders. Show it.

FWIW, I actually agree with you that JKF didn't order the killings- my sense is that the situation just got away from him, and his only culpability is on the "buck stops here" principle, that he didn't foresee a possibility that certainly should have occurred to him as one. But the same can be said for Lodge/the CIA- unless you can, using your own standard that exonerates JKF, "cite the order," from Lodge/to someone identifiably in the CIA, that implicates them in a plot to kill Diem. Otherwise, at least in the case of the CIA, you're just saying "the CIA" in the same way religious fundies say "satan," responsible for all evils because that's just what he does- a tautological definition in place of an evidenced (therefore falsifiable) hypothesis. It's easy to attribute any chosen evil to something you've essentially invented as the father of them all- it's harder to construct a chain that makes the evil attributable or the father real.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King

Last edited by turingtest; 29th May 2018 at 07:36 AM. Reason: add thought
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 07:35 AM   #52
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
I'm moderately surprised I've never heard of a CT about a second gunmen for RFK before.
There is only a very limited number of people who have this information. We are fortunate that the information has been first exposed right here on this very forum, before it is released to national media. Now that it is out it will be front page headlines on all national media. Keep watching.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 10:54 AM   #53
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,007
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
What ”real” evidence contradict the witnesses in the case of Sirhans positions and movents on the murder scene?
Ballistics from the weapon taken from Sirhan.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 11:10 AM   #54
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,091
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
I'm moderately surprised I've never heard of a CT about a second gunmen for RFK before.

This has been debated pretty much since it happened. There are reports/speculation that more shots were fired than Sirhan's revolver held.

Here's a 1991 account of an investigation that started with a 1985 discussion.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...=.254e57b87af5
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 11:36 AM   #55
ahhell
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,797
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
This has been debated pretty much since it happened. There are reports/speculation that more shots were fired than Sirhan's revolver held.

Here's a 1991 account of an investigation that started with a 1985 discussion.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...=.254e57b87af5
I am not surprised really, just that I hadn't heard much about it. Probably because JFK conspiracy theories really dominate the market.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 11:44 AM   #56
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
(Re the highlighted)
Really? Cite the orders. Show it.

FWIW, I actually agree with you that JKF didn't order the killings-
Of course he didn’t. This is Chief of Staff Maxwell Taylors description of how JFK reacted to the news that the Ngo brothers had been executed:
“Kennedy leaped to his feet and rushed from the room with a look of shock and dismay on his face which I had never seen before. He had always insisted that Diem must never suffer more than exile and had been led to believe or had persuaded himself that a change in government could be carried out without bloodshed.”

Quote:
my sense is that the situation just got away from him, and his only culpability is on the "buck stops here" principle, that he didn't foresee a possibility that certainly should have occurred to him as one. But the same can be said for Lodge/the CIA- unless you can, using your own standard that exonerates JKF, "cite the order," from Lodge/to someone identifiably in the CIA, that implicates them in a plot to kill Diem. Otherwise, at least in the case of the CIA, you're just saying "the CIA" in the same way religious fundies say "satan," responsible for all evils because that's just what he does- a tautological definition in place of an evidenced (therefore falsifiable) hypothesis. It's easy to attribute any chosen evil to something you've essentially invented as the father of them all- it's harder to construct a chain that makes the evil attributable or the father real.
Ok. When the coup makers attacked the presidential palace, the Ngo brothers fled in a tunnel to a chineese merchants house in central Saigon. From there they called Cabot who promised them protection and escort out of country. Meanwhile CIA’s Lucien Conein was stationed in the coup headquarters with radio contact with US Embassy and the White house situation room (McGeorge Bundy).

The only one who knew where the Ngo brothers were hiding was Cabot and he was in contact with Conein who was in direct contact with the coup leaders in their HQ.

Early the next morning the military picked the Ngo brothers up outside a catholic church, forced them down the hatch of an armed vehicle and shot them in head.


So, why would Conein and Cabot have the Ngo brothers killed? Well, they were massively hated by the vietnamese people and their execution provided much needed credit to the military junta that became the new government. Credit that fast evaporated since no real change in policy occured.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 11:45 AM   #57
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,430
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Same here. Posting links to documents allegedly supporting your claim isn’t enough. You have to quote the relevant text and explain how you think it supports your claim.

.
Nope. You're a grown-up, read them yourself. Only babies get spoon-fed.



Quote:
No, you are wrong, completely inverting the historical record. Shamelessly. Yes, he initiated the Green Berets and yes he gave the military additional funding in different areas, but his reasons for doing this stemmed from a completely different outlook on the role US should play on the geopolitical arena.
Yes, PAX Americana, and having a larger military gave us the ability to conduct combat operations anywhere in the world at will. It was called "Flexible Response", and it translated into "Vietnam". Every President since JFK has embraced a version of this.

He initiated the Special Forces and Navy SEALs as part of an expansion of the US's covert military capabilities. After the Bay of Pigs it was clear that t to be a player on the world stage we would need a force to counter Spetznaz.

Quote:
Look at his track record:

1. He never ordered US combat troops to open fire in any of the international conflicts that developed during his precidency. Bay of Pigs. Berlin. Laos. Vietnam. Middle East. Missile crisis. Vietnam. Always using diplomacy.
Our Special Forces in SE Asia certainly directed men to kill. JFK's CIA backed the installation of the Baath Party in Iraq which we're still paying for today.

There wasn't much wasn't much we could do in Berlin.

Quote:
2. Initiated a broad national information campaign creating a public mandate for the first atmospheric test ban treaty with the Soviet Union.
That was common sense. Any President at that time would have done the same thing. We continued testing nukes underground as did the Russians.

Quote:
3. Consistently diverting US bilateral aid to post colonial nation’s civil institutions, not to their military.
Uh huh...

Quote:
4. Consistently turning down the ’advise/demands’ from the chicken hawks in US National Security State.
Not really.

Quote:
5. Working on secret rapproachment with Castro at the very instant he got assassinated.
No, he was actively trying to kill Castro right up to October, 1963.

Quote:
6. Working to end the Cold War wanting to create joint ventures with the Soviets in space and other areas where cooperation were suitable.
No.

Quote:
All this and more was in sharp conflict with US National Security State and it all changed 180˚ the very second they assassinated him in Dallas, putting crazy LBJ in charge...[blah,blah,blah]
Here's the thing you need to accept. JFK was not perfect, RFK was not perfect. They were indeed trying to kill Castro.

Look into the Cuban Coordinating Committee sometime, here were some of their considered plans:

Operation Dirty Trick - Should one of the Mercury space shots fail, it would be blamed on Cuban sabotage, thus justifying an invasion.

Operation Bingo - a simulated attack on Guantanamo Bay used to justify an invasion of Cuba.

These were all forwarded to RFK, who oversaw the CCC. RFK approved Cuban Exile training camps in Central America, and Mongoose camps in Louisiana. Mongoose was one of the reasons Khrushchev put missiles in Cuba. After October, 1962, the plan evolved into OPLAN 380-63 , code named AM/TRUNK (which had sub-operations named MH/APRON, Opeation PICADOR & TOREADOR, inside Cuba the op was known as Opertion Judas).

RFK was planning a large-scale invasion of Cuba, it is safe to assume that JFK, though insulated, knew about the plans.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 12:04 PM   #58
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,487
I wonder what Sirhan Sirhan said to RFK Jr. Obviously, it's in his best interest to tell a convincing story about a second gunman who did the actual killing. But unless RFK Jr. is actually in a position to make his life better on the strength of his story, there's probably not much point in trying to tell him any kind of story at all.

"Was there a second gunman?"

"Sure, buddy. There was a second gunman."

"What did you know about the second gunman, and when did you know it?"

"Look, you believe what you want to believe. For a pack of smokes, I'll even play along."

"Tell me the truth!"

"What can you do for me?"

"Do you want to go back to your cell?"

"I can carry on for another couple hours, but I'm gonna run out of material at some point."
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 12:27 PM   #59
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I wonder what Sirhan Sirhan said to RFK Jr. Obviously, it's in his best interest to tell a convincing story about a second gunman who did the actual killing. But unless RFK Jr. is actually in a position to make his life better on the strength of his story, there's probably not much point in trying to tell him any kind of story at all.

"Was there a second gunman?"

"Sure, buddy. There was a second gunman."

"What did you know about the second gunman, and when did you know it?"

"Look, you believe what you want to believe. For a pack of smokes, I'll even play along."

"Tell me the truth!"

"What can you do for me?"

"Do you want to go back to your cell?"

"I can carry on for another couple hours, but I'm gonna run out of material at some point."
I do not think that Sirhan was pushing the second gunman narrative on RFKjr, and certainly not in the way you are suggesting. I think that Sirhan was telling RFKjr what he has been saying since day one. That he doesn’t remembering anything from the actual shooting event and therefore do not know if and how he acted during the event.

I guess that RFKjr have had a good look at the case, the technical ’evidence’, the autopsy and the testimonies and from this come to his own conclusions.

If the JFK assassination is covered in crap and sloppy cover ups, the RFK assassination is even more so.

It is almost comical in its obvious sloppy cover up masquerading as an investigation.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 01:13 PM   #60
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,721
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
I guess that RFKjr have had a good look at the case, the technical ’evidence’, the autopsy and the testimonies and from this come to his own conclusions.
Watch out folks, here it comes; the autopsies were falsified, the x-rays and photographs were faked, the pathologists were in on the conspiracy...... yada, yada, yada.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 01:14 PM   #61
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Nope. You're a grown-up, read them yourself. Only babies get spoon-fed.
So, you haven’t read whats behind the links that you say contain support for your bald assertions?

What a strange way to argue a case.

Quote:
Yes, PAX Americana,
Where do JFK say that he believes in a ”Pax Americana”? Cite. Explain. Make your case.

Quote:
and having a larger military gave us the ability to conduct combat operations anywhere in the world at will. It was called "Flexible Response", and it translated into "Vietnam". Every President since JFK has embraced a version of this.
JFK’s ”flexible respons” to every international crisis and conflict he had to deal with as president was, diplomacy.

Flexible response was a recognition of a need to reorganize the military to make it relevant in the new type of warfare that developed after WWII. The point is how and when and against whom you are using it.

JFK never used it. Never.

Quote:
He initiated the Special Forces and Navy SEALs as part of an expansion of the US's covert military capabilities.
Yes, he had the opinion that the military should be in charge of all types of warfare, including more or less covert such until the the domain of the CIA which he did not trust.

Quote:
After the Bay of Pigs it was clear that t to be a player on the world stage we would need a force to counter Spetznaz.
The Bay of Pigs was forced upon him and he understood that the CIA pulled an ugly one on him when they demanded that he should send in the Marines when the exile invation force got beaten by Castro at the beach.

This was the plan from the get go, to create a pretext for an all out US military invasion. JFK did not take the bait and refused to comply.

Quote:
Our Special Forces in SE Asia certainly directed men to kill. JFK's CIA backed the installation of the Baath Party in Iraq which we're still paying for today.
CIA was pretty much out of control when JFK was inaugurated. He had plans to rein it in and close it down when they assassinated him. He was going to take away the ”fun and games” from them once and for all.

Quote:
There wasn't much wasn't much we could do in Berlin.
The chicken hawks was whining and wanted an armed conflict. When the Wall came up, JFK was labeled a traitor.

Quote:
That was common sense. Any President at that time would have done the same thing.
No, it was not, not in the US National Security State. They were all outraged and believed that the country was without a leader.

Quote:
We continued testing nukes underground as did the Russians.
One step at a time ...

Quote:
Uh huh...

Not really.
....

Quote:
No, he was actively trying to kill Castro right up to October, 1963.
Keep repeting a claim doesn’t make it more true. Supporting evidence, does. Have any?

Quote:
No.
....

Quote:
Here's the thing you need to accept.
Where have I given the impression of believing he was? Cite. Explain. Make your case.

Quote:
JFK was not perfect, RFK was not perfect. They were indeed trying to kill Castro.
Not perfect ≠ trying to assassinate somebody.

Quote:
Look into the Cuban Coordinating Committee sometime, here were some of their considered plans:

Operation Dirty Trick - Should one of the Mercury space shots fail, it would be blamed on Cuban sabotage, thus justifying an invasion.
Did JFK accept this ”plan”?

Quote:
Operation Bingo - a simulated attack on Guantanamo Bay used to justify an invasion of Cuba.
Did JFK accept this ”plan”?

Quote:
These were all forwarded to RFK, who oversaw the CCC.
Did he accept false pretext/false flags in order to justify an invasion of Cuba?

Quote:
RFK approved Cuban Exile training camps in Central America, and Mongoose camps in Louisiana. Mongoose was one of the reasons Khrushchev put missiles in Cuba. After October, 1962, the plan evolved into OPLAN 380-63 , code named AM/TRUNK (which had sub-operations named MH/APRON, Opeation PICADOR & TOREADOR, inside Cuba the op was known as Opertion Judas).
JFK inherited the Cuban exile problem from the Eisenhower administration. He had to very delicately keep the situation under control after the Bay of Pigs fiasco showing his comitment to the exile cuban cause while at the same time stay true to his commitment not to use US military brute force against the will of the people in any post colonial country.

When giving his ”ok” to the Bay of Pigs operation he did so on information provided by the CIA saying that the Cuban people would revolt against Castro the very moment the exile Cubans landed on the beach.

Nothing could have been further from the truth. The Castro regime had a massive popular support at the time of the invasion attempt and continued to have it all the way through the JFK precidency.

Quote:
RFK was planning a large-scale invasion of Cuba, it is safe to assume that JFK, though insulated, knew about the plans.
No. There were contingency planning in case it should develop a popular uprising which at the time was utterly improbable.

Why do you think that JFK was trying to seek out a rapproachment with Castro while at the same time trying to assassinate him?

Where is the logic?
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 01:20 PM   #62
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Watch out folks, here it comes; the autopsies were falsified, the x-rays and photographs were faked, the pathologists were in on the conspiracy...... yada, yada, yada.
No, the autopsy of RFK was exemplary. Thomas Noguchi knew his trade and did not back down when they tried to intimidate him.

The problem was Sirhans defence. It convinced Sirhan that he should confess to the murder and make an insanity plea in order to avoid the death penalty. He did and the defence ”stipulated” all technical evidence as culpatory.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 02:29 PM   #63
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,430
Quote:
JFK’s ”flexible respons” to every international crisis and conflict he had to deal with as president was, diplomacy.

Flexible response was a recognition of a need to reorganize the military to make it relevant in the new type of warfare that developed after WWII. The point is how and when and against whom you are using it.

JFK never used it. Never.
He didn't live long enough. The military build-up in Florida during the missile crisis was breathtaking.

Quote:
Yes, he had the opinion that the military should be in charge of all types of warfare, including more or less covert such until the the domain of the CIA which he did not trust.
And yet they were designed to work with the CIA, whose powers he expanded.

Quote:
The Bay of Pigs was forced upon him and he understood that the CIA pulled an ugly one on him when they demanded that he should send in the Marines when the exile invation force got beaten by Castro at the beach.
He could have stopped it. He didn't.

Quote:
CIA was pretty much out of control when JFK was inaugurated. He had plans to rein it in and close it down when they assassinated him. He was going to take away the ”fun and games” from them once and for all.
Not true. The CIA has always been under control of the elected government. Every once in a while the get caught, and Congress and the President is "Shocked and Outraged", and somebody takes an early retirement, and hearings are held to "get to the bottom" of something they'd all been briefed about - and signed off on - long before it happened.

Quote:
The chicken hawks was whining and wanted an armed conflict. When the Wall came up, JFK was labeled a traitor.
Nobody wanted WWIII.

Quote:
No, it was not, not in the US National Security State. They were all outraged and believed that the country was without a leader.
No, they were relieved.

Need to point out that "National Security State" is a neo-Nazi phrase. You might want to stop using it.


Quote:
Not perfect ≠ trying to assassinate somebody.

Did JFK accept this ”plan”?

Did JFK accept this ”plan”?

Did he accept false pretext/false flags in order to justify an invasion of Cuba?
He was killed before anything could happen. LBJ shut it down.

Quote:
JFK inherited the Cuban exile problem from the Eisenhower administration. He had to very delicately keep the situation under control after the Bay of Pigs fiasco showing his comitment to the exile cuban cause while at the same time stay true to his commitment not to use US military brute force against the will of the people in any post colonial country.
Not even close.


Quote:
Why do you think that JFK was trying to seek out a rapproachment with Castro while at the same time trying to assassinate him?
It's called Rope-A-Dope.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 03:19 PM   #64
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,648
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
...FWIW, I actually agree with you that JKF didn't order the killings- my sense is that the situation just got away from him, and his only culpability is on the "buck stops here" principle, that he didn't foresee a possibility that certainly should have occurred to him as one. But the same can be said for Lodge/the CIA- unless you can, using your own standard that exonerates JKF, "cite the order," from Lodge/to someone identifiably in the CIA, that implicates them in a plot to kill Diem. Otherwise, at least in the case of the CIA, you're just saying "the CIA" in the same way religious fundies say "satan," responsible for all evils because that's just what he does- a tautological definition in place of an evidenced (therefore falsifiable) hypothesis. It's easy to attribute any chosen evil to something you've essentially invented as the father of them all- it's harder to construct a chain that makes the evil attributable or the father real.

From what I read, it was something of a "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest" thing. JFK was discussing what to do about the increasingly problematic Diem and uttered something along the lines of "can't we do something about this guy?" Which started certain wheels rolling that culminated in the assassination -- which upon hearing about, JFK reportedly freaked and literally ran from the room, in apparent realization of his role in the process. Whether he consciously called for the murder, or was just releasing some otherwise harmless exasperation and forgot the "but it would be wrong" part, probably no one will ever know for certain.
__________________
Another Shameless Googlebomb Plug for www.stopsylvia.com

Last edited by Stellafane; 29th May 2018 at 03:23 PM.
Stellafane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 06:16 PM   #65
Allen773
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 930
I find it insane that people are still arguing about who killed the Kennedys when after all it was you and me Mick Jagger recorded an audio confession in 1968.

(Maybe because he accused his fans of being in on it as well? How many of you were named unindicted co-conspirators? Don't all raise your hands at once.)
Allen773 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 06:26 PM   #66
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,837
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
That's because it's pretty loopy
Indeed. I have a hard time thinking anyone could work with someone as loopy as Sirhan Sirhan.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 06:46 PM   #67
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,760
Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
From what I read, it was something of a "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest" thing. JFK was discussing what to do about the increasingly problematic Diem and uttered something along the lines of "can't we do something about this guy?" Which started certain wheels rolling that culminated in the assassination -- which upon hearing about, JFK reportedly freaked and literally ran from the room, in apparent realization of his role in the process. Whether he consciously called for the murder, or was just releasing some otherwise harmless exasperation and forgot the "but it would be wrong" part, probably no one will ever know for certain.
Yeah, that sounds about right- the only people that we can be certain were implicated were the leaders of the coup, the ones who did the actual killing. And manifesto's claim that only Lodge knew where the brothers were hiding isn't completely accurate. In fact, they were accompanied by a couple of loyalists, one of whom, Air Force Lieutenant Ðỗ Thơ, happened to be a nephew of Colonel Đỗ Mậu, the director of military security and a participant in the coup plot; Thơ later wrote in his diary that "I consider myself responsible for having led them to their death." A tragedy of errors, it seems, for the most part...


In fact, manifesto has nothing but inference to support the idea that Lodge/the CIA were directly implicated in the killings. It's not wild inference, it's certainly possible; but the problem with the sort of CT methodology that rests on inference is that there can be plenty of inference to go around, it's a sword that can cut many ways.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 08:03 PM   #68
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
Yeah, that sounds about right- the only people that we can be certain were implicated were the leaders of the coup, the ones who did the actual killing. And manifesto's claim that only Lodge knew where the brothers were hiding isn't completely accurate. In fact, they were accompanied by a couple of loyalists, one of whom, Air Force Lieutenant Ðỗ Thơ, happened to be a nephew of Colonel Đỗ Mậu, the director of military security and a participant in the coup plot; Thơ later wrote in his diary that "I consider myself responsible for having led them to their death." A tragedy of errors, it seems, for the most part...
Ok, my mistake, there were probably other channels than Lodge/Conein available. But this is not all that points to Lodge/CIA culpability in the assassinations.

Quote:
In fact, manifesto has nothing but inference to support the idea that Lodge/the CIA were directly implicated in the killings. It's not wild inference, it's certainly possible; but the problem with the sort of CT methodology that rests on inference is that there can be plenty of inference to go around, it's a sword that can cut many ways.
It’s not just inference. Since Conein was supervising the coup at their HQ and was in radio contact with Lodge and the White house situation room (JFK was asleep) while the coup developed, they were fully informed of the developments leading up to the assassinations.

They did nothing to stop it. Could they have stopped it? Of course they could. The coup makers knew that they were 100% dependent on the approval of the US National Security State in order to survive more than a week after the coup.

They would never have killed the Ngo brothers without an OK from, in this case, CIA’s man on the spot, Lucien Conein.

Why was it important for CIA to have Diem and his brother killed? To give cred to the new rulers. The Diem regime was the most hated by its own people in modern time.

A boost in the morale in a crumbling puppet state in order to save it from its own people.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 08:06 PM   #69
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
Indeed. I have a hard time thinking anyone could work with someone as loopy as Sirhan Sirhan.
Sirhan was not knowingly involved in a conspiracy to assassinate RFK.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 08:13 PM   #70
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
From what I read, it was something of a "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest" thing.
No, it was not. JFK didn’t push for a coup since he had already decided to withdraw all US personel from South Vietnam no matter how the conflict developed.

NSAM 263.

Quote:
JFK was discussing what to do about the increasingly problematic Diem and uttered something along the lines of "can't we do something about this guy?" Which started certain wheels rolling that culminated in the assassination -- which upon hearing about, JFK reportedly freaked and literally ran from the room, in apparent realization of his role in the process. Whether he consciously called for the murder, or was just releasing some otherwise harmless exasperation and forgot the "but it would be wrong" part, probably no one will ever know for certain.
THIS is pure speculation without any documented support. Have any?
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 09:56 PM   #71
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,430
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No, it was not. JFK didn’t push for a coup since he had already decided to withdraw all US personel from South Vietnam no matter how the conflict developed.

NSAM 263.

THIS is pure speculation without any documented support. Have any?
I just posted the documents. You've ignored them. They detail step-by-step the meetings where the coup was discussed and planned complete with a list of potential successors we could back afterwords.

His plan to dial back our presence in Vietnam hinged on what happened after Diem was removed, and as it turned out the new guys were even worse which lead to our build-up of forces in 1964-65.

In short, Kennedy ignored the CIA and General Taylor and green-lit the coup plan. Maybe he knew Diem would die, maybe he didn't, for a visionary JFK was often short sighted.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 09:57 PM   #72
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,430
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Sirhan was not knowingly involved in a conspiracy to assassinate RFK.
Because he acted alone.

Good, you're learning.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2018, 01:49 AM   #73
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,396
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
This is Chief of Staff Maxwell Taylors description of how JFK reacted to the news that the Ngo brothers had been executed:
“Kennedy leaped to his feet and rushed from the room with a look of shock and dismay on his face which I had never seen before. He had always insisted that Diem must never suffer more than exile and had been led to believe or had persuaded himself that a change in government could be carried out without bloodshed.”
Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
From what I read, it was something of a "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest" thing. JFK was discussing what to do about the increasingly problematic Diem and uttered something along the lines of "can't we do something about this guy?" Which started certain wheels rolling that culminated in the assassination -- which upon hearing about, JFK reportedly freaked and literally ran from the room, in apparent realization of his role in the process. Whether he consciously called for the murder, or was just releasing some otherwise harmless exasperation and forgot the "but it would be wrong" part, probably no one will ever know for certain.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post

THIS is pure speculation without any documented support. Have any?
You mean, apart from what you yourself quoted?
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2018, 04:42 AM   #74
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,721
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
You mean, apart from what you yourself quoted?



I wonder if he knows what "hoisted by one's own petard" means?
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2018, 05:16 AM   #75
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,007
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
You mean, apart from what you yourself quoted?
That is classic!
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2018, 05:46 AM   #76
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
I just posted the documents. You've ignored them. They detail step-by-step the meetings where the coup was discussed and planned complete with a list of potential successors we could back afterwords.

His plan to dial back our presence in Vietnam hinged on what happened after Diem was removed, and as it turned out the new guys were even worse which lead to our build-up of forces in 1964-65.

In short, Kennedy ignored the CIA and General Taylor and green-lit the coup plan. Maybe he knew Diem would die, maybe he didn't, for a visionary JFK was often short sighted.
Cite. Explain. Argue.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2018, 06:03 AM   #77
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
You mean, apart from what you yourself quoted?
”Apparently realized his role in the process”. What ”role” did he have in what ”process”?

I claim he once more realized that the CIA was out of control. A criminal organization committing ongoing crimes against the US constitution, democracy and against humanity. He fired its leadership after the Bay of Pigs but soon realized that the cancer was deeply rooted and had metastasized through out both the military and civil society.

They assassinated him before he had the chance to root it out once and for all.

JFK was the last US president who served the American people, not the US Security State = the permanent War State = the Oligarchy = the Hidden Government = US Gangster State = US Military Industrial Complex = The Belt Way Gravy Train = The New World Order = ...

Call it what you want. It’s in power, sucking the life blood of everything it touch upon. Sooner or later.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2018, 06:04 AM   #78
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
You mean, apart from what you yourself quoted?
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
That is classic!
Is it? Explain.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2018, 06:26 AM   #79
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Because he acted alone.

Good, you're learning.
The world leading expertise has explained that Sirhan was showing all known signs of post hypnotic suggestion when arrested at the Ambassador Hotel, and still does 40 years later. He was a victim of unvoluntary mind control including hypnosis, drugs and brain washing in the months preceding the assassination. Probably in connection to the CIA MKUltra project.

Sirhan is exeptionally easy to hypnotize according to all expertise reviewing his case and/or testing him on site.

The stated reason for not granting him parole have since 1985 been that he doesn’t own up to what he have done and therefore can’t be released to society.

In spite of this, Sirhan insist that he can’t remember what happened before or during the event and therefore can not explain what he did and why he did it.

That is, he would have been a free man for the last 20 years if he had ’played ball’. He is still in jail. 40 years later still counting.

His case is now under review by OAS for crimes against Sirhans human rights.

Last edited by manifesto; 30th May 2018 at 06:48 AM.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2018, 06:47 AM   #80
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Robert Kennedy’s death, like the President’s, was mourned as an extension of the evils of senseless violence; events moved on, and the profound alterations that these deaths … brought in the equation of power in America was perceived as random …. What is odd is not that some people thought it was all random, but that so many intelligent people refused to believe that it might be anything else. Nothing can measure more graphically how limited was the general understanding of what is possible in America.

~ Congressman Allard Lowenstein
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:06 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.