Tucker Carlson on the Kennedy Assassination

[Richard Smith]

The mainstream media has been an accomplice in the JFK assassination coverup. Tucker Carlson is part of the MSM but he's the exception, not the rule.

Why would the mainstream media be an "accomplice in the JFK assassination"?  Particularly nearly 60 years after the event.  That is another example of the Catch 22 of conspiracy theories.  The inability to prove the conspiracy is blamed on the cover up. 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Why would the mainstream media be an "accomplice in the JFK assassination"?  Particularly nearly 60 years after the event.  That is another example of the Catch 22 of conspiracy theories.  The inability to prove the conspiracy is blamed on the cover up.

Multiple generations of people in the mainstream media would have to be accomplices. Not just a Walter Cronkite (really?) from 60 years ago. Generation after generation after generation. Three generations? Hundreds of reporters, editors? And the historians who've done books on the major figures such as LBJ and Hoover and the CIA, e.g., Tim Weiner. They've covered this up too?

The same media that during that time uncovered the CIA's abuses, the FBI's abuses, the lies of Vietnam et al. have covered up for the murder of the sainted Jack Kennedy? Why would they do that? For what purpose? What did they gain? And covered what up?

If one wants to say they've been manipulated, sloppy, incompetent or engaging in a sort of "group think" and missed this, that's a real reach but fine, go for it. But to claim they've deliberately covered up what happened is not believable.  The "they" here is lots of people, many of who admired JFK and would have loved to break this story.

[Jon Banks]

Why would the mainstream media be an "accomplice in the JFK assassination"?  Particularly nearly 60 years after the event.  That is another example of the Catch 22 of conspiracy theories.  The inability to prove the conspiracy is blamed on the cover up.

I said they're an "accomplice" in the "coverup", not the assassination.

And yes, the coverup is part of why we may never be able to conclusively know what really happened on 11/22/63.

[Michael Walton]

I think this thread explains a lot about what people believe and who they believe in. Carlson is nothing but a showman. A liar. He'll say anything as long as it drums up ratings for the network he works for. You simply cannot trust anything that comes out of his mouth, yet there are people - like those replying here - who do actually believe the nonsense he talks about.

And he was sued for it too.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/

And when things get too close to home this is what happens:

I'm amazed there are people on here who actually take his word for anything he says. At the same time, I shouldn't be too amazed on here as there really are a huge number of biased folks on here who simply can't handle the truth about the JFK murder.

[Jon Banks]

Multiple generations of people in the mainstream media would have to be accomplices. Not just a Walter Cronkite (really?) from 60 years ago. Generation after generation after generation. Three generations? Hundreds of reporters, editors? And the historians who've done books on the major figures such as LBJ and Hoover and the CIA, e.g., Tim Weiner. They've covered this up too?

If you are up and coming in the news media and want to be successful, you know that there are certain topics that you can't touch. It's a form of self-censorship. What part of that is difficult to understand?

Do you remember how the mainstream media trashed Oliver Stone's 1991 'JFK' film months before it was released in theaters?

A few years ago, Secretary of State John Kerry was publicly bullied by the mainstream media for simply hinting that he thinks there might've been a conspiracy. Do you remember that?

Shot - 'To this day, I have serious doubts that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone,' Kerry told NBC's Tom Brokaw in an interview timed with the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's death.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2492911/John-Kerry-doesnt-believe-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-acted-shot-President-Kennedy-says-government-investigation-didnt-the-assassination.html


Chaser - Secretary of State John Kerry is declining to further elaborate on his belief that the assassin of President John F. Kennedy was part of a broader conspiracy.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-now/2013/11/kerry-wont-talk-about-kennedy-conspiracy-177167

The same media that during that time uncovered the CIA's abuses, the FBI's abuses, the lies of Vietnam et al. have covered up for the murder of the sainted Jack Kennedy? Why would they do that? For what purpose? What did they gain? And covered what up?

What CIA or FBI abuses has the media exposed recently? Like in the past decade?

I recall CIA director, John Brennan, getting a slap on the wrist for spying on the US senate but it wasn't exposed by the news media and it didn't get wall to wall coverage.

The CIA plot to assassinate Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, got little to no media coverage in the US.

If one wants to say they've been manipulated, sloppy, incompetent or engaging in a sort of "group think" and missed this, that's a real reach but fine, go for it. But to claim they've deliberately covered up what happened is not believable.  The "they" here is lots of people, many of who admired JFK and would have loved to break this story.

No manipulation or conspiracy is required.

It's a combination of "Group Think" (among mostly smug Liberal elites) and the fact that most editors and producers support the US National Security State. They don't have an adversarial relationship and they don't want to lose their access to government sources.

Meaning, if you rely on sources inside the CIA or FBI for your coverage of foreign affairs or national security, wouldn't you hesitate to write articles that might embarrass those agencies? This isn't limited to the JFK assassination. Lots of stories that implicate the CIA or FBI in abuses of their power barely get covered by the mainstream media.

And I'm not arguing that people "know the truth and are covering it up". But I am agreeing with Carlson's view in this instance, that they don't even cover stuff that's factual but makes the CIA look bad like the Jolly West story he referenced.

[Charles Collins]

I don’t know about anyone else, but I cannot help but be reminded of Geraldo Rivera and his “The Mystery of Al Capone’s Vaults” special…


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mystery_of_Al_Capone%27s_Vaults

[Martin Weidmann]

I give Tucker credit for questioning the status quo.  Something the leftist press will never do.  He isn't always right but he is also not a parrot of what he is told or a propaganda arm of the state.  So CTers who believe they have evidence that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" or think there is "credible evidence" to support Lifton's insane body alteration theory or altered autopsy results should provide that evidence to Tucker to share with the world.  Give it a try.  Don't limit yourself to an Internet forum.  Surely these folks believe their own claims enough to make them widely known.  Imagine believing that you have "evidence" that proves a conspiracy to assassinate a US president but never trying to make that case to the authorities or media.   I wonder why?

So CTers who believe they have evidence that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" or think there is "credible evidence" to support Lifton's insane body alteration theory or altered autopsy results

Who are these so-called CTers that believe they have such evidence or think that?

[Andrew Mason]

Surprisingly good rant by Carlson.

The analogy to lightning strikes is silly.  The assassination of JFK by Oswald and the shooting of Oswald by Ruby were not independent events. Ruby would not have shot Oswald if Oswald had not been arrested for the shooting of JFK.

Notice that he does not name or give any information about the person who identifies the CIA as being involved in this conspiracy.  It seems that anything that supports the pretense of a rogue "deep state", which is a big money-maker for Fox, gets their stamp of approval.