Celebs and Fams of Kennedy, MLK Demand New Probes

[Robert Reeves]

Noguchi is on record for saying "Sirhan Sirhan carried out the assassination on his own"  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/6126892/Dr-Thomas-Noguchi-LA-coroner-confidential.html

"Even now, Noguchi is unsure what really happened. His professional instinct, he says, tells him that Sirhan Sirhan carried out the assassination on his own. ?Based on the available information, I?m certain there was just one gunman, but I?m also aware that, like theories of the universe, things keep changing."

The article you linked is fascinating. The editorial commentary inserts in each case this article covers cleverly steer the reader away from 'a conspiracy'. It doesn't go any further in revealing the background of several statements. This is something I've only really recently began to be careful of when reading articles in MSM. I guess living in the fake news era has better informed me to be much more cautious and cynical when reading articles.

For instance ... from the article re Marilyn Monroe's autopsy.

Along with samples of blood, the internal organs were sent off for toxicology tests. Several hours after he had completed the autopsy, Noguchi received the toxicology report. The tests on the blood showed 8.0 mg per cent of chloral hydrate ? another sleeping pill ? while the liver tests revealed 13.0 mg per cent of pentobarbital (or Nembutal). Both of these were well above the fatal dose.

However, Noguchi admits he made a mistake at this point. The toxicology tests had only been performed on the blood and the liver ? not on the other internal organs. He should, he feels now, have insisted that all the organs were examined. ?I am sure that this could have cleared up a lot of the subsequent controversy, but I didn?t follow through as I should have.? As a junior member of staff, he says, he didn?t want to risk displeasing anyone.

The editorial comment I've underlined and bolded, above, this is what fascinates me most. Presumably, Noguchi, made the point to the interviewer that he was a junior member of staff, a reason/excuse for his inability to perform his full duties? it doesn't get expanded upon!?!?! why not --- surely this is the most interesting fact during the whole article. Why did Noguchi risk displeasing, editorial comment inserts  Noguchi didn't want to risk displeasing 'anyone' --- if he insisted that all the organs were examined? Who was pressuring Noguchi to conduct the autopsy a certain way? conduct the autopsy in a way that didn't actually fulfill his duties in examining every vital organ. Did Noguchi during this interview reveal who was displeased with Noguchi's attempts to conduct a thorough autopsy investigation? is there a full transcript of this interview?.

Would Noguchi allow 'anyone' to steer his autopsy had the deceased person on the slab been a random Joe Bloggs?. What type of pressure was being put upon Noguchi not to thoroughly investigate the death of Marilyn Monroe? These are the questions that any real journalist would surely be asking? Or does the Telegraph editorial not really care? This is why there's a market, even a need, for conspiracy genre when we've been spoon fed by the MSM bullcrap investigative journalism. Zero willingness to investigate/print truth.

Dr-Thomas-Noguchi's willingness to follow orders under pressure from higher ups obviously marked him out. His willingness to not conduct a full autopsy investigation into the death of Marilyn Monroe would have made him the perfect choice to then conduct an autopsy of RFK --- should his death need to be not fully investigated. Or am I missing something? You actually think this man is not just some helpful idiot  in the plot(s)?

At a press conference later that day, his boss, Dr Curphey, announced that Monroe had committed suicide. Noguchi did not disagree with his conclusion. None the less, he was sufficiently troubled by the oversight to go back to the toxicology lab a few weeks later and ask if they could test the other organs that he?d sent over. But when he did, he was told that the organs had already been disposed of as the case had been marked as closed.

?I think that was a great shame,? he says, speaking very deliberately. ?Not suspicious. I?m not saying that; it was a perfectly normal procedure. But still a shame.?

Dr-Thomas-Noguchi knows he was a participant in the cover up. Obviously he cannot say it was suspicious. He admits to being a junior member of staff, he didn?t want to risk displeasing anyone (in authority)

@ Dennis, You are simply quoting the editorial commentary of the Telegraph when you copy paste 'Even now, Noguchi is unsure what really happened. His professional instinct, he says, tells him that Sirhan Sirhan carried out the assassination on his own'

The text you copy and pasted from the article reads as follows. And is complete Telegraph editor commentary.

Even now, Noguchi is unsure what really happened. His professional instinct, he says, tells him that Sirhan Sirhan carried out the assassination on his own. ?Based on the available information, I?m certain there was just one gunman, but I?m also aware that, like theories of the universe, things keep changing.?

Are you even aware of what you copy and pasted? the significance of that first sentence? The Telegraph doesn't even seem to be concerned with it, so I doubt many of their readers cared (back in 2009).

Even now, Noguchi is unsure what really happened

Profoundly the point. All except the powers that be. Those people that were displeased with Noguchi. Who are the people that could have seen to it that the truth is brought forwards?. Why isn't journalist John Preston, of the Telegraph, concerned with finding out who pressured Noguchi and then printing those names in the article?.

[Denis Pointing]

The article you linked is fascinating. The editorial commentary inserts in each case this article covers cleverly steer the reader away from 'a conspiracy'. It doesn't go any further in revealing the background of several statements. This is something I've only really recently began to be careful of when reading articles in MSM. I guess living in the fake news era has better informed me to be much more cautious and cynical when reading articles.

For instance ... from the article re Marilyn Monroe's autopsy.

The editorial comment I've underlined and bolded, above, this is what fascinates me most. Presumably, Noguchi, made the point to the interviewer that he was a junior member of staff, a reason/excuse for his inability to perform his full duties? it doesn't get expanded upon!?!?! why not --- surely this is the most interesting fact during the whole article. Why did Noguchi risk displeasing, editorial comment inserts  Noguchi didn't want to risk displeasing 'anyone' --- if he insisted that all the organs were examined? Who was pressuring Noguchi to conduct the autopsy a certain way? conduct the autopsy in a way that didn't actually fulfill his duties in examining every vital organ. Did Noguchi during this interview reveal who was displeased with Noguchi's attempts to conduct a thorough autopsy investigation? is there a full transcript of this interview?.

Would Noguchi allow 'anyone' to steer his autopsy had the deceased person on the slab been a random Joe Bloggs?. What type of pressure was being put upon Noguchi not to thoroughly investigate the death of Marilyn Monroe? These are the questions that any real journalist would surely be asking? Or does the Telegraph editorial not really care? This is why there's a market, even a need, for conspiracy genre when we've been spoon fed by the MSM bullcrap investigative journalism. Zero willingness to investigate/print truth.

Dr-Thomas-Noguchi's willingness to follow orders under pressure from higher ups obviously marked him out. His willingness to not conduct a full autopsy investigation into the death of Marilyn Monroe would have made him the perfect choice to then conduct an autopsy of RFK --- should his death need to be not fully investigated. Or am I missing something? You actually think this man is not just some helpful idiot  in the plot(s)?

Dr-Thomas-Noguchi knows he was a participant in the cover up. Obviously he cannot say it was suspicious. He admits to being a junior member of staff, he didn?t want to risk displeasing anyone (in authority)

@ Dennis, You are simply quoting the editorial commentary of the Telegraph when you copy paste 'Even now, Noguchi is unsure what really happened. His professional instinct, he says, tells him that Sirhan Sirhan carried out the assassination on his own'

The text you copy and pasted from the article reads as follows. And is complete Telegraph editor commentary.

Are you even aware of what you copy and pasted? the significance of that first sentence? The Telegraph doesn't even seem to be concerned with it, so I doubt many of their readers cared (back in 2009).

Even now, Noguchi is unsure what really happened

Profoundly the point. All except the powers that be. Those people that were displeased with Noguchi. Who are the people that could have seen to it that the truth is brought forwards?. Why isn't journalist John Preston, of the Telegraph, concerned with finding out who pressured Noguchi and then printing those names in the article?.

Robert, you were the one that suggested RFK Jn was basing his call for a new investigation on the work of Dr Thomas T. Noguchi. What you failed to mention, perhaps you weren't aware, is that Dr Noguchi is quoted as stating that he believes Sirhan Sirhan to be the sole gunman.
Seems to me the best example of "fake news" is your own post!

[Denis Pointing]

[quote Tom Scully
BTW, Denis.... will your Orange occupiers "wall off" Derry?
[/quote]

Tom, I'm sure you're saying something extremely profound here but frankly, I haven't a clue what it is!! Are you under the impression I'm a Catholic from Ireland? Would you care to try again in Queens English or at least when sober?

[Tom Scully]

[quote Tom Scully
BTW, Denis.... will your Orange occupiers "wall off" Derry?

Tom, I'm sure you're saying something extremely profound here but frankly, I haven't a clue what it is!! Are you under the impression I'm a Catholic from Ireland? Would you care to try again in Queens English or at least when sober?

Denis, not profound,  merely attempted a pragmatic reply to the premise of the thread. I only assumed you are informed of the Irish backstop
issue which is symbolic of the consequence of the Putin influenced/assisted, Brexit vote result. I do not assume more awareness of your circumstances
than my assumption you reside somewhere in the UK.

JFK was assassinated because, contrary to what is emphasized by the haves, violence has been the historical norm to achieve a desired political outcome.
The English commonwealth and the U.S. are under attack by Putin's Russia and it is silly to discuss the possibility of U.S. legislative reinvestigation of
assassinations of JFK, RFK, or MLK. We in the U.S. no longer are reasonable enough to pursue fact finding because the weight of any evidence would
be marginalized to discredit it.

Racism and xenophobia are the dominant forces today as they were in the Dallas JFK had the misfortune of visiting in late 1963.
The European Union and a U.S. liberal immigration policy were meaningful enhancements while they lasted but they were not directly achieved
by violent means and did not last.

My mother's people migrated from Nazeing, Essex in 1632, my father's mother was born in Scotland (of Ayrshire and Midlothian parents), migrated
to New York in 1913 and married a US immigrant of Northumberland born parents of Southern Ireland origin who worked in Northumberland chemical plants because Irish were not locally regarded as suitable for employment in coal mining.

The good guys do not generally win, in the end. The Ed Forum posters and single issue CTs posting here should understand that the founding
fathers of the U.S., the Haganah of King David Hotel notoriety, and the IRA owed their success by resorting to violence. Hitler was not talked off
his perch.

Summing up, the forces resulting in Trump and Brexit and those who covered up the facts related to the three 1960s US assassinations are winning,
so far. Trump and Brexit are threats dwarfing threats stemming from 50 years old US assassinations.

[Paul May]

Denis, not profound,  merely attempted a pragmatic reply to the premise of the thread. I only assumed you are informed of the Irish backstop
issue which is symbolic of the consequence of the Putin influenced/assisted, Brexit vote result. I do not assume more awareness of your circumstances
than my assumption you reside somewhere in the UK.

JFK was assassinated because, contrary to what is emphasized by the haves, violence has been the historical norm to achieve a desired political outcome.
The English commonwealth and the U.S. are under attack by Putin's Russia and it is silly to discuss the possibility of U.S. legislative reinvestigation of
assassinations of JFK, RFK, or MLK. We in the U.S. no longer are reasonable enough to pursue fact finding because the weight of any evidence would
be marginalized to discredit it.

Racism and xenophobia are the dominant forces today as they were in the Dallas JFK had the misfortune of visiting in late 1963.
The European Union and a U.S. liberal immigration policy were meaningful enhancements while they lasted but they were not directly achieved
by violent means and did not last.

My mother's people migrated from Nazeing, Essex in 1632, my father's mother was born in Scotland (of Ayrshire and Midlothian parents), migrated
to New York in 1913 and married a US immigrant of Northumberland born parents of Southern Ireland origin who worked in Northumberland chemical plants because Irish were not locally regarded as suitable for employment in coal mining.

The good guys do not generally win, in the end. The Ed Forum posters and single issue CTs posting here should understand that the founding
fathers of the U.S., the Haganah of King David Hotel notoriety, and the IRA owed their success by resorting to violence. Hitler was not talked off
his perch.

Summing up, the forces resulting in Trump and Brexit and those who covered up the facts related to the three 1960s US assassinations are winning,
so far. Trump and Brexit are threats dwarfing threats stemming from 50 years old US assassinations.

Well stated Tom.

[Tom Scully]

Well stated Tom.

Paul, glad to see you "get" it. BTW, I am in the preliminary planning stages of creating a site patterned after MF.org.
Would you be open at all to considering a collaboration?

Outside another yellow moon
Has punched a hole in the nighttime, yes
I climb through the window and down the street
I'm shining like a new dime.....
- Tom Waits

Update: I was impressed that the FBI investigation of alleged presidential assassin JW Booth to the
extent I subjected myself just now to a two hour crash course on the Lincoln Assassination controversy, resulting in this new thread.:
Lincoln Assassination Status: a Still Open or Reopenable FBI Investigation?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1657.0.html

[Mark A. Oblazney]

Paul, glad to see you "get" it. BTW, I am in the preliminary planning stages of creating a site patterned after MF.org.
Would you be open at all to considering a collaboration?



Update: I was impressed that the FBI investigation of alleged presidential assassin JW Booth to the
extent I subjected myself just now to a two hour crash course on the Lincoln Assassination controversy, resulting in this new thread.:
Lincoln Assassination Status: a Still Open or Reopenable FBI Investigation?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1657.0.html

Trust me, Denis, Tom's not been drunk-posting, like many un-named others (including myself..... sumtimes).  Taken as a whole, his research is far removed from that.  Listen to what he says. 

[Tim Nickerson]

Denis, not profound,  merely attempted a pragmatic reply to the premise of the thread. I only assumed you are informed of the Irish backstop
issue which is symbolic of the consequence of the Putin influenced/assisted, Brexit vote result. I do not assume more awareness of your circumstances
than my assumption you reside somewhere in the UK.

  Putin is the man.  Is there anything he can't do?