Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(55,745 posts)
228. Quit with the Sideshow, Bolo Boffin. When it comes to Dallas, CIA calls up its assets in the media.
Tue Oct 29, 2013, 07:54 AM
Oct 2013

The facts are the point of how the nation's mass media are manipulated by the CIA.

CIA Document #1035-960, marked "PSYCH" for presumably Psychological Warfare Operations, in the division "CS", the Clandestine Services, sometimes known as the "dirty tricks" department.

CIA Instructions to Media Assets

RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with (?)and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing that Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)

4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:

a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)

b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent--and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.

c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.

d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.

e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service. (Archivist's note: This claim is demonstrably untrue with the latest file releases. The CIA had an operational interest in Oswald less than a month before the assassination. Source: Oswald and the CIA, John Newman and newly released files from the National Archives.)

f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)

5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.

SOURCE: http://www.boston.com/community/forums/news/national/general/cia-instructions-to-media-assets-doc-1035-960/80/6210620

From 2003, first OP on DU I could find on it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x765619

So, when you can't argue the facts, the instructions call for an attack on the messenger.

What a co-incidence.
yup zappaman Oct 2013 #1
All they have to do is make sure that every fragment of evidence has been released to the public JDPriestly Oct 2013 #76
Was it ever explained why Ruby shot Oswald? KansDem Oct 2013 #87
Ruby's cryptic response... MinM Oct 2013 #91
What is the question he answers... Whiskeytide Oct 2013 #166
At 0'28" KansDem Oct 2013 #216
Thanks. n/t Whiskeytide Oct 2013 #218
Thanks... KansDem Oct 2013 #217
Yes. In Texas. That's why people are not happy with the conclusions of the Warren Report. JDPriestly Oct 2013 #148
When's the last time you read the Warren Report? stopbush Oct 2013 #133
When did you last read it? JDPriestly Oct 2013 #147
Two years ago. stopbush Oct 2013 #151
I haven't read it. But you have inspired me to do so. JDPriestly Oct 2013 #170
Good for you. At least you're open minded. It's available online for free stopbush Oct 2013 #205
what is he selling a book warrior1 Oct 2013 #2
He supports secrets being kept, too RobertEarl Oct 2013 #4
Selling books is what JFK CT'ers do best cpwm17 Oct 2013 #5
I was in college when the assassination occurred. I remember it clearly. I am not happy JDPriestly Oct 2013 #77
And the vast majority of those who discount the Warren Report have never actually read it. stopbush Oct 2013 #135
More than lefties were shot, or shot at. GreenStormCloud Oct 2013 #177
Because he has tons of evidence and a humanly possible scenario on his side Schema Thing Oct 2013 #8
"fucking unicorns"!!!.... SidDithers Oct 2013 #38
How did Oswald get in and out of the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War? KurtNYC Oct 2013 #96
Great questions Kurt... MinM Oct 2013 #124
Actually, Kurt, the WCR answers all of those questions, and in detail. stopbush Oct 2013 #136
what page or section? I find no mention of Ferrie or Ruby in the Oswald bio of WCR. KurtNYC Oct 2013 #146
That's the point. stopbush Oct 2013 #152
Someone in this exchange seems to think bullets have brakes and steering KurtNYC Oct 2013 #157
Someone seems to not know the definition of the word "pristine." stopbush Oct 2013 #206
Its not a theory its a single bullet fact. BootinUp Oct 2013 #208
The bullet looks like it was shot into cotton wadding. Octafish Oct 2013 #219
Similar looking bullets have been produced from experiments BootinUp Oct 2013 #222
No. Just on tee vee. Octafish Oct 2013 #223
Gee thanks BootinUp Oct 2013 #227
he went to the Soviet Union and was accepted just as we accepted dozens of grantcart Oct 2013 #153
Perhaps you either haven't read or have forgotten how Oswald got into the USSR. KurtNYC Oct 2013 #163
So you are or are not aware of how Oswald got into the USSR? grantcart Oct 2013 #167
"the last person picked by anyone for a high profile operation" unless you need a patsy perhaps. KurtNYC Oct 2013 #172
The RW did not believe that he was soft on Communism. GreenStormCloud Oct 2013 #183
There was no air cover for the Bay of Pigs invasion KurtNYC Oct 2013 #233
When a target is moving directly away, it is as if the target is standing still. GreenStormCloud Oct 2013 #179
Oswald was an accomplished marksman. Gravitycollapse Oct 2013 #185
Yes. He passed the Marines qualification standards to be a combat rifleman. GreenStormCloud Oct 2013 #190
I don't believe the official story, never will n/t doc03 Oct 2013 #3
Me either Shampoyeto Oct 2013 #178
There is a show on Reelz channel this Sunday at 8pm I beleive doc03 Oct 2013 #180
Neither did Sen. Richard Schweiker MinM Oct 2013 #181
Could be because the nitty gritty of the whole story has been under secrecy wraps since it happened. shraby Oct 2013 #6
CA Atty Gen Earl Warren provided racist rhetoric to Lt. Gen DeWitt, OnyxCollie Oct 2013 #7
He later said he: BootinUp Oct 2013 #9
Its funny that you call him a conspiracy entrepeneur BootinUp Oct 2013 #10
Conspiracy Theories by Sunstein & Vermeule. OnyxCollie Oct 2013 #12
I don't see anything there to support calling Earl Warren BootinUp Oct 2013 #14
There was nothing to support the internment of the Japanese OnyxCollie Oct 2013 #15
As he later regretted. You are not ignorant of that I assume? BootinUp Oct 2013 #16
As I had added to my first post, OnyxCollie Oct 2013 #17
Of course you also make this huge leap BootinUp Oct 2013 #20
Heres a decent attempt to explain Warren on Japanese Internment You probably aren't interested BootinUp Oct 2013 #23
Well, what does it say? OnyxCollie Oct 2013 #24
It puts things in context. BootinUp Oct 2013 #25
I'm not interested in reading a long article to see if you had a point. OnyxCollie Oct 2013 #29
Oh yeah, research like I just did, yeah. BootinUp Oct 2013 #32
And here is a link to the relevant part of BootinUp Oct 2013 #33
From Personal Justice Denied OnyxCollie Oct 2013 #35
You're insulting remarks have become boring and dull BootinUp Oct 2013 #44
My wife, a political science major in the early '50s, still vividly recalls one of her professors, indepat Oct 2013 #36
You should read Justice Douglas' notes. OnyxCollie Oct 2013 #37
The secret Notes? Your attempts at sliming Warren are really pathetic BootinUp Oct 2013 #55
Your tantrums are really pathetic. OnyxCollie Oct 2013 #68
The grassy knoll refuses to die. RC Oct 2013 #11
Magical thinking. A route change? Not really. stopbush Oct 2013 #138
The Key To The Warren Report |American Heritage BootinUp Oct 2013 #13
Nobody knows a fucking thing about Oswald. RagAss Oct 2013 #18
Clearly a silly statement on its face. Maybe what you mean to say BootinUp Oct 2013 #22
No...I meant what I said.... RagAss Oct 2013 #165
Bullshit Politicalboi Oct 2013 #19
LOL, the truth is boring I understand. But Oswald did it alone. n-t Logical Oct 2013 #49
The SS testified as to why they weren't on JFK's limo that day. stopbush Oct 2013 #139
How to tell a conspiracy theory is pure bullshit... Archae Oct 2013 #21
We as citizens couldn't handle the truth......its easier to swallow what we are told.... Good god Gin Oct 2013 #26
The truth may be that Oswald acted alone but many refuse to consider that. Kaleva Oct 2013 #28
The truth may be that Oswald didn't act alone, but many refuse to consider that. villager Oct 2013 #40
I read my first JFK conspiracy book in grade school BootinUp Oct 2013 #56
"Murder by Cartoon" villager Oct 2013 #57
Meyers responded to these claims apparently BootinUp Oct 2013 #59
Since you credit the HSCA then, I guess -- since you don't cherry pick, right? -- you agree villager Oct 2013 #60
I think they made a mistake with regards to using the acoustic BootinUp Oct 2013 #61
Of course you do. villager Oct 2013 #62
In your case, I gather your real problem with the official story BootinUp Oct 2013 #63
And I could sift through the other evidence that points to a conspiracy.... villager Oct 2013 #64
But why is the lone nut theory wobbly? BootinUp Oct 2013 #65
Let me turn the question around: Do you believe that all three major 60's assassinations were really villager Oct 2013 #66
I will try to answer that question BootinUp Oct 2013 #67
lol YoungDemCA Oct 2013 #213
That's, this will help me ignore your other posts! nt Logical Oct 2013 #122
Too bad that Hale Boggs who was on the Warren Commission and wanted to re-open an investigation AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2013 #27
Boggs was the most outspoken critic among the three dissenting members dflprincess Oct 2013 #45
The first odd thing was that the police, FBI, et al immediately knew that (1) Oswald was the shooter AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2013 #50
Another unexplainable thing was why the Secret Service agents were called off Nay Oct 2013 #79
Simple, they weren't called off. BootinUp Oct 2013 #83
It's on video. Last Stand Oct 2013 #169
See post #139 above BootinUp Oct 2013 #188
The puzzled "what the hell" gesture can be seen here: AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2013 #95
Well he was identified as the only employee who his employer was certain wasn't missing. grantcart Oct 2013 #154
Yep, stop looking for anyone else if an employer is reportedly missing one employee. Good call. AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2013 #155
You raised the question "how did the police know it was Oswald so quickly" grantcart Oct 2013 #156
Not true. Anyone can see the questions at #50: "How did they know that he was the only one involved? AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2013 #158
And I am dealing with the first question: grantcart Oct 2013 #159
At #156, you said I "raised the question 'how did the police know it was Oswald so quickly' AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2013 #160
So we are clear on this point: There is absolutely nothing unusual or mysterious grantcart Oct 2013 #161
What we are clear on is that you create strawmen and falsely attribute statements to others. AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2013 #162
I found your post ambiguous and am trying to understand exactly what it is you are alleging. grantcart Oct 2013 #164
Maybe he wasn't in a good mood? BootinUp Oct 2013 #200
Having doubts in the 60s and 70s, and now are two different things BootinUp Oct 2013 #53
I agree oswaldactedalone Oct 2013 #30
lol nt BootinUp Oct 2013 #31
The birth of conspiracy theories was a huge detriment to the intelligence of American society. BluegrassStateBlues Oct 2013 #34
The JFK CT BS was the precursor to birtherism n/t SamYeager Oct 2013 #52
CTs are older than JFK KamaAina Oct 2013 #111
I agree with you on this... YoungDemCA Oct 2013 #211
We all know it was George HW Bush... SidDithers Oct 2013 #39
heehee BootinUp Oct 2013 #42
Yeah. It's not like George Herbert Walker Bush wasn't in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Octafish Oct 2013 #71
Sid is soooo bad. greytdemocrat Oct 2013 #74
''Bite'' is the operative word. Octafish Oct 2013 #81
Why would Bush have to be in Dallas to be involved in the assassination? PAMod Oct 2013 #142
So, why not ask George Herbert Walker Bush? Octafish Oct 2013 #144
There you go, posting something logical in response to the CT'ers... YoungDemCA Oct 2013 #209
Tyler, Texas is not Dallas, Texas. It's not even all that close. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #212
So why did Gerald Ford have to alter the report? Octafish Oct 2013 #41
With more recent (last 15 years or so) analysis on the bullet path BootinUp Oct 2013 #43
Thanks, but all that makes assumptions and cherry-picks in order to buttress the Warren Commission. Octafish Oct 2013 #82
An independently certified 3D computer model says Mr. Griffith is very wrong. BootinUp Oct 2013 #84
Got a link to that? Octafish Oct 2013 #86
Sure! BootinUp Oct 2013 #186
"I Don't Think Lee Harvey Oswald Pulled the Trigger" Dale Myers MinM Oct 2013 #201
Take it up with the independent certifying party. nt BootinUp Oct 2013 #203
ABC News, the company Bill Casey rebuilt for the Company... Octafish Oct 2013 #220
A fine example of the genetic fallacy, Octafish Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #221
Your expert opionion, Bolo Boffin? What's not true in what I posted? Octafish Oct 2013 #224
None of that has anything to do with the video. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #225
Quit with the Sideshow, Bolo Boffin. When it comes to Dallas, CIA calls up its assets in the media. Octafish Oct 2013 #228
Another fine example of the genetic fallacy, Octafish. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #231
Jumping to that conclusion would be a logical fallacy. Octafish Oct 2013 #232
I know you didn't say outright that i am CIA. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #234
So why continue to say what I didn't say, Bolo Boffin? Octafish Oct 2013 #236
What have I said you said that you didn't? Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #237
''This self-martyrdom act of yours does get tiresome.'' Octafish Oct 2013 #239
Well, it does. What did I say you said that you didn't? n/t Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #240
Who cares? Octafish Oct 2013 #244
So you intend to keep climbing up on that cross, nailing yourself on, and wailing? Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #250
How much time do you have to dedicate yourself to a subthread on an old thread? Octafish Oct 2013 #255
What subthread on an old thread are you referring to? Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #262
Hours spent on this one. Octafish Oct 2013 #264
This thread? *scoff* Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #268
Really, Bolo Boffin? Octafish Oct 2013 #272
Really, Octafish. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #273
Really monitoring away. Octafish Oct 2013 #274
Maybe you should calm down. I'm not monitoring you. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #275
You say alter. I say more accurately describe. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #69
Either way, Ford lied. Octafish Oct 2013 #85
Bullshit he did. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #88
Why defend a puke liar, Bolo Boffin? And your question has nothing to do with the subject. Octafish Oct 2013 #89
What do you care about attacking Republicans, Octafish? Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #90
Got a link for any of that? Octafish Oct 2013 #92
It amazes me that you deny what you do in other threads, Octafish. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #93
No link to back up what you say. Here's a link from me: Octafish Oct 2013 #94
I just added the link to your posted article smearing Bobby Kennedy. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #97
Out of context, of course. Octafish Oct 2013 #99
The hell it is. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #101
Show where I smeared Bobby Kennedy, Bolo Boffin. Octafish Oct 2013 #103
Right here, Octafish. Third time's the charm? Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #105
Wow, Bolo Boffin. No where do I smear Robert Kennedy. So, there is that. Octafish Oct 2013 #109
That says RFK is an accessory to his brother's murder. It doesn't get more "smear" than that. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #110
Not what I wrote, Bolo Boffin. And yet you insist on saying that's what I wrote. Octafish Oct 2013 #116
Why did you post it here, Octafish? Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #119
More words you made up, Bolo Boffin. Octafish Oct 2013 #127
I didn't make you post that article here! Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #129
What's sad is you continue to smear me by alleging what I did not write, Bolo Boffin. Octafish Oct 2013 #131
You. Posted. That. Article. And. Refuse. To. Disavow. The. RFK. Smear. n/t Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #132
I didn't write what you said, though. Octafish Oct 2013 #145
Yes, you did. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #168
If you're willing to misrepresent what I write, what else do you misrepresent? Octafish Oct 2013 #173
Why can't you answer a simple question? zappaman Oct 2013 #175
I haven't misrepresented you. You posted that link that smeared Bobby Kennedy. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #176
Simple question. zappaman Oct 2013 #123
Why do you want fewer people to learn what happened to President Kennedy, zappaman? Octafish Oct 2013 #128
So you can't answer the question? zappaman Oct 2013 #134
Wow! Tag Team propaganda. Octafish Oct 2013 #143
You really do think Robert Kennedy was an accessory after the fact in his brother's murder. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #196
That's a propaganda technique. Octafish Oct 2013 #245
So you do not think RFK was an accessory to his brother's murder? Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #253
You bring up things I didn't say and try to make me use my time defending them. Octafish Oct 2013 #256
No, that's not what you think. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #260
Don't write things I didn't write, then. Octafish Oct 2013 #266
I haven't. n/t Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #269
So you post where I show how you cherry-pick a quote? Octafish Oct 2013 #98
Cherry pick??? It's an entire section of the article! Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #100
Why should I spend time fighting your straw man, Bolo Boffin? Octafish Oct 2013 #102
You linked to an article that smeared Bobby Kennedy. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #104
That's not what I wrote or what the article stated. Octafish Oct 2013 #106
You are wrong. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #107
So where did I smear Robert Kennedy, Bolo Boffin? Octafish Oct 2013 #113
When you posted the article that smears him. That's when you did it. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #115
So, I didn't say what you allege and I have to apologize? Octafish Oct 2013 #118
What doesn't escape me is your unwillingness to disavow the smear of RFK. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #120
WOW! zappaman Oct 2013 #114
Tag Team! Octafish Oct 2013 #117
It's not out of context at all zappaman Oct 2013 #121
Tag Team! Yay! Octafish Oct 2013 #125
You didn't answer the question, but you never do. zappaman Oct 2013 #126
Tag Team! Yay! What I wrote 10 years ago today... Octafish Oct 2013 #130
Here's also what you wrote earlier this year... zappaman Oct 2013 #137
Wow, zappaman. You're so wise, you're repeating the same thing twice. Octafish Oct 2013 #141
"Show where Oswald killed JFK or anyone..." Sure. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #195
So what? Bugliosi ignores what we've learned over the past 50 years. Octafish Oct 2013 #226
Bugliosi manifestly does not do that. Thompson's assertion is ludicrous. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #235
So now you don't like Bugliosi? Octafish Oct 2013 #238
I didn't say that, Octafish. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #241
Why should I answer your demands, Bolo Boffin? Octafish Oct 2013 #243
"demands" - you must mean my questions. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #247
I have, all up and down this thread. Octafish Oct 2013 #249
You posted an article that smeared Robert Kennedy and commended the author to us. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #251
No.That's what you said I wrote. Octafish Oct 2013 #254
So what I said you wrote is you commending the author to us? That's where Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #258
No where there did I write what you said, Bolo Boffin. Octafish Oct 2013 #259
You aren't fooling anyone. n/t Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #261
Not my problem. Octafish Oct 2013 #265
America knew the truth the minute Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested. duffyduff Oct 2013 #46
+1000! n-t Logical Oct 2013 #48
Oh no, the grassy knoll people will be freaking out. n-t Logical Oct 2013 #47
50 years later and water is still wet. Rex Oct 2013 #51
Conspiracy theorists are like true religious believers. kiva Oct 2013 #54
The real fervor is from those who have stayed willingly blind through three major "coincidental" villager Oct 2013 #58
And three men who had been opponents of Richard Nixon for the Presidency, Art_from_Ark Oct 2013 #72
Coincidences happen. YoungDemCA Oct 2013 #214
Two times is a coincidence Art_from_Ark Oct 2013 #215
In 1964, when the Warren report was issued, meanit Oct 2013 #70
Nothing wrong with being skeptical BootinUp Oct 2013 #73
Those who want to squelch any inquiry may be understood by remembering a quote from Einstein. AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2013 #78
United States House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1976 concluded it was a likely conspiracy. grahamhgreen Oct 2013 #140
Oh dear. The only problem is that conclusion was all based on a very flawed BootinUp Oct 2013 #184
HSCA came to the correct conclusion in spite of CIA obstruction. MinM Oct 2013 #193
Nope. The Dictabelt recorded a motorcycle two miles away from Dealey Plaza. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #194
Admittedly that was the weakest evidence... MinM Oct 2013 #197
That was the only thing that got them to conclude conspiracy. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #198
MinM, the whole basis for the "conspiracy" was the flawed 4th shot nonsense. BootinUp Oct 2013 #199
Skepticism is not the main goal of conspiracy theorists... Gravitycollapse Oct 2013 #189
I just want a reasonable, coherent explanation for DiverDave Oct 2013 #75
That movie is legendary for its inaccuracies, but sure I know exactly BootinUp Oct 2013 #80
nope, aint no way a ballistic object DiverDave Oct 2013 #171
Your just f'in with me, lol. BootinUp Oct 2013 #182
Easy to fire that fast. The bullet was a full metal jacket bullet, designed to penetrate. GreenStormCloud Oct 2013 #191
How dare they criticize my middle class hobby! The Midway Rebel Oct 2013 #108
Like when the Government swore Iraq had WMDs. Octafish Oct 2013 #149
Wow, a blue link to one of your own posts. The Midway Rebel Oct 2013 #174
Right, like where did you write about lying America into wars for profit? Octafish Oct 2013 #192
Awesome. The Midway Rebel Oct 2013 #202
So, your answer should be: ''I haven't written anything on DU about wars for profit.'' Octafish Oct 2013 #230
I haven't written anything on DU about wars for profit... The Midway Rebel Oct 2013 #277
That was a fairly easily obtained conspiracy. The level of complexity to the JFK assassination... Gravitycollapse Oct 2013 #187
No conspiracy? KamaAina Oct 2013 #112
Fuck that I wouldn't trust the god damn Warren Commission gopiscrap Oct 2013 #150
While there seems to be a few folks interested BootinUp Oct 2013 #204
Mission accomplished. Rex Oct 2013 #207
The responses in this thread prove that conspiratorial thinking is not just for the Right... YoungDemCA Oct 2013 #210
What's amazing is how closed-minded some people are. Octafish Oct 2013 #229
Not amazing, so typical that it is scary. Social engineering seems to work like a charm. Rex Oct 2013 #242
Remember who was elected on a platform to eliminate the Department of Education? Octafish Oct 2013 #246
Amazing. Rex Oct 2013 #248
Remember Steve Kangas? Octafish Oct 2013 #252
I did not know that about Kangas! Rex Oct 2013 #257
Yes, Kangas committed suicide in Scaife's offices. Bolo Boffin Oct 2013 #263
That makes me want to vomit. Some lost soul still trying to sell that POS report. Zen Democrat Oct 2013 #267
Well if you have to, stick your head out the window at least! BootinUp Oct 2013 #270
To the brave 13 who reccd this thread... BootinUp Oct 2013 #271
Nonsense. That anyone can still advance the "official" story as true is laughable. GoneFishin Oct 2013 #276
Why didn't you just post that BootinUp Oct 2013 #278
Because that is not the truth. It's that simple. n/t GoneFishin Nov 2013 #279
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Nov. 22, 1963: 50 years, ...»Reply #228