JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Jake Maxwell on April 18, 2022, 03:46:18 PM
-
Referring to Nicholas Katzenbach, the deputy attorney general at the time, Hoover dictated: "The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin."
The next day, November 25, 1963, Katzenbach wrote in a memo that "the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."
There is no way to justify such statements from top law enforcement officials just two days after the assassination - the day of Oswald’s murder…
Regardless of any “higher” motivation any might suggest… these government officials were intent on making Oswald the lone assassin… the lone nut... and gathering their evidence to support it...
They had done NO thorough investigation by any means…
They are guilty… and no sense of fairness can exonerate them…
In essence, Hoover was saying:
“Let the COVER-UP begin…….”
-
Referring to Nicholas Katzenbach, the deputy attorney general at the time, Hoover dictated: "The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin."
The next day, November 25, 1963, Katzenbach wrote in a memo that "the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."
There is no way to justify such a statement from top law enforcement officials just two days after the assassination - the day of Oswald’s murder…
Regardless of any “higher” motivation any might suggest… they were intent on making Oswald the lone assassin… the lone nut.
They had done NO thorough investigation by any means…
They are guilty… and no sense of fairness can exonerate them…
In essence, Hoover was saying:
“Let the COVER-UP begin…….”
They had done NO thorough investigation by any means…
They are guilty… and no sense of fairness can exonerate them…
Hoover is a perfect example of the old axiom..." Power corrupts....and Absolute power corrupts absolutely"
John Edgar Hoover and Adolph Hitler were cast from the same mold......
Great post, Jake .... Thumb1:
-
These two memos are very damning evidence, in my opinion...
They do add doubt to the official government position that came from the WC... and would seem to be enough to cause everyone at least to consider a wide conspiracy that might have involved top government officials...
This, of course, would not necessarily exonerate Oswald... I suppose he might have been a “player” in the mix... and at some point “chosen" to be the “patsy” as he called himself...
But regardless of our position on a conspiracy to assassinate the president, this should be enough evidence to convince us that there was a conspiracy to pin the dirty deed on Oswald... and even cover-up any evidence that might suggest otherwise...
Just think what a good attorney would have done with these two memos if a case against Oswald had gone to trial!!
-
There was no way that two egos like J. Edgar Hoover and Nicholas Katzenbach were going to make their statements about trying to " convince the public that Oswald " was the Lone assassin mainly because they felt like they had to make a statement so they just talked and said what they said which didn't take long for people to figure out that these two " Brain Trust " were going to open the door for a conspiracy to start taking shape . Loose Lips do sink ships and then you throw in the Bethesda Autopsy and it was shaping up to be the " Big Lie " ...
-
There was no way that two egos like J. Edgar Hoover and Nicholas Katzenbach were going to make their statements about trying to " convince the public that Oswald " was the Lone assassin mainly because they felt like they had to make a statement so they just talked and said what they said which didn't take long for people to figure out that these two " Brain Trust " were going to open the door for a conspiracy to start taking shape . Loose Lips do sink ships and then you throw in the Bethesda Autopsy and it was shaping up to be the " Big Lie " ...
Actually Mike, I believe that the idea of the lying memo originated with LBJ.... It's difficult to say who was more culpably John Hoover, or Lyndon Johnson,...It's akin to trying to determine which of two skunks stink the most.....
-
Actually Mike, I believe that the idea of the lying memo originated with LBJ....
Thumb1:
In 1971 ....The New York Times began publishing the Pentagon Papers, a documentary history tracing the ultimately doomed involvement of the United States in a grinding war in the jungles and rice paddies of Southeast Asia.
They demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance.
The Government sought and won a court order restraining further publication after three articles had appeared. Other newspapers then began publishing. They, too, were restrained, until finally, on June 30, 1971, the United States Supreme Court ruled, by a vote of 9 to 0, that publication could resume.
Then as now, the fight over the top-secret papers, whose compilation had been ordered by Robert S. McNamara when he was Defense Secretary, stood as a pivotal moment in the ages-old struggle between the Government and the press. But few would have guessed how much it would change the news media, how much it would change the public view of the news media and the Government and how little it would change the way the Government conducts its business.
Opponents of the Vietnam war, including Daniel Ellsberg, the onetime hawk turned dove who played a key role in making the papers public, hoped that doing so might persuade President Richard M. Nixon to change his policy on Vietnam. It did not. Less than a year after publication, Haiphong Harbor was mined, and the war dragged on.
Oh do read on---- https://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/23/weekinreview/25-years-later-lessons-from-the-pentagon-papers.html
James Spader portrayed Daniel Ellsberg in the 2003 movie [just click full screen for the big picture]..............
-
There were legitimate reasons to convince the public of Oswald's guilt. First, LHO was the assassin. The evidence is overwhelming. Even after nearly 60 years there is no credible evidence of the involvement of anyone else. Second, given Oswald's bizarre political background, there was a legitimate concern that some nutty conspiracy theory might have prompted WWIII by falsely convincing the public that the Russians or Cubans were behind the assassination. Thank goodness the authorities responsible for the investigation of this matter promptly uncovered and disclosed the truth.
-
These two memos are evidence that top US officials were in collusion to cover-up evidence in the president’s assassination... apprarently discussing their plan only two days after the assassination...
Let’s allow that to sink in...
Top government officials planning to cover-up evidence from the public regarding the president’s assassination... so that one man alone would be their “posthumous” patsy... and then they would seal up most evidence from being examined for decades following...
It is unlikely that Hoover and Katzenbach were planning to cover-up evidence to avert any confrontation with Cuba or Russia... and much, much more likely that they were planning a cover-up to protect themselves... and to protect those Jackie and Robert are said to have believed killed JFK... his “domestic enemies.”
They killed the president... they killed Oswald and framed him “posthumously”... they covered-up the evidence to show Oswald as the lone assassin... most likely to protect themselves from reprisals... and they’ve kept documents classified for decades... far beyond any reasonable time frame that might create an international crisis...
This is the most likely scenario, in my opinion... these two were in on a huge plot to assassinate our president... and the cover-up was only for the sake of self-protection...
-
There were legitimate reasons to convince the public of Oswald's guilt. First, LHO was the assassin. The evidence is overwhelming.
Once again, “Richard” illustrates how easily overwhelmed he is.
Thank goodness the authorities responsible for the investigation of this matter promptly uncovered and disclosed the truth.
LOL
-
Once again, “Richard” illustrates how easily overwhelmed he is.
We have heard about preaching to the choir.
In that guys case folks...you are preaching to the dead.
-
There were legitimate reasons to convince the public of Oswald's guilt.
Cool, will you tell us this time?
First, LHO was the assassin.
Any clown can accuse somebody of something, so?
The evidence is overwhelming underwhelming.
Error fixed.
Even after nearly 60 years there is no credible evidence of the involvement of anyone else Oswald.
Error fixed.
Second, given Oswald's bizarre political background, there was a legitimate concern that some nutty conspiracy theory might have prompted WWIII by falsely convincing the public that the Russians or Cubans were behind the assassination.
"Background" -- LOL
Thank goodness the authorities responsible for the investigation of this matter promptly uncovered and disclosed the truth.
Correction: 888 pages of lies and deception.
Remember the Maine! Bring on WWIII because some commie nut killed the president. LOL. Thankfully the United States had responsible leaders at that time to avoid being pressured into war by crazy conspiracy theorists.
-
Remember the Maine! Bring on WWIII because some commie nut killed the president. LOL. Thankfully the United States had responsible leaders at that time to avoid being pressured into war by crazy conspiracy theorists.
Name the "crazy conspiracy theorists" who were pressuring for war?
And while you're at it, why don't you tell us precisely, how those "responsible leaders" of the US would get the country into WWIII because of the murder of Kennedy, regardless whether a lone nut or a conspiracy was behind it?
-
Name the "crazy conspiracy theorists" who were pressuring for war?
And while you're at it, why don't you tell us precisely, how those "responsible leaders" of the US would get the country into WWIII because of the murder of Kennedy, regardless whether a lone nut or a conspiracy was behind it?
It seems obvious. If the public were convinced that the Russians or Cubans were behind the assassination of the US President, that would be deemed an act of war. Necessitating a military response. In fact, some CTers alleged the involvement of Russia/Cuba was actually covered up and the blame placed solely on LHO to avoid a war. Any CTer (such as Mark Lane) who was attempting to convince the public of a fake conspiracy risked causing WWIII.
-
It seems obvious. If the public were convinced that the Russians or Cubans were behind the assassination of the US President, that would be deemed an act of war. Necessitating a military response. In fact, some CTers alleged the involvement of Russia/Cuba was actually covered up and the blame placed solely on LHO to avoid a war. Any CTer (such as Mark Lane) who was attempting to convince the public of a fake conspiracy risked causing WWIII.
What have you been smoking now?
The topic based on that cornjecture should then be--- 'Hoover's effort to convince the public that Cuba or the Soviets were not involved'
Your spookulations permeates the entire forum.
(https://media.istockphoto.com/videos/repulsion-to-bad-smell-brunette-girl-grabbing-nose-with-fingers-to-video-id1264892675?s=640x640)
It seems obvious.
What is obvious to you is comical to everyone else here with any inkling of skepticism.
-
What have you been smoking now?
The topic based on that cornjecture should then be--- 'Hoover's effort to convince the public that Cuba or the Soviets were not involved'
Your spookulations permeates the entire forum.
(https://media.istockphoto.com/videos/repulsion-to-bad-smell-brunette-girl-grabbing-nose-with-fingers-to-video-id1264892675?s=640x640)
What is obvious to you is comical to everyone else here with any inkling of skepticism.
What is obvious to you is comical to everyone else here with any inkling of skepticism.
Richard's ideas would be "comical".... if they weren't so pathetic.
-
What have you been smoking now?
The topic based on that cornjecture should then be--- 'Hoover's effort to convince the public that Cuba or the Soviets were not involved'
Your spookulations permeates the entire forum.
(https://media.istockphoto.com/videos/repulsion-to-bad-smell-brunette-girl-grabbing-nose-with-fingers-to-video-id1264892675?s=640x640)
What is obvious to you is comical to everyone else here with any inkling of skepticism.
Read the title of this thread and try to understand the implication. Why was it necessary to "convince" the public of Oswald's guilt? One interpretation is that Hoover and members of the US government placed the blame for the assassination on LHO to cover up the involvement of others. Right? You believe something along those lines. So who are the typical suspects behind the assassination? Granted CTers are all over the place but Oswald's nutty political background including defecting to the USSR and making trips to the Cuban embassy just months before the assassination lends itself to Russia and Cuba as being involved in the assassination. In fact, CTers like Walt have suggested that blame was placed on Oswald to avoid war. Meaning that the Hoover and LBJ knew the Cubans or Russians were really behind the assassination, and rather than go to war, they made a patsy of Oswald. The lunacy of that kind of thinking is on your side, however. It's comical not to understanding that you are mocking the basic premise of your own theory. There was a legitimate basis to conclude: 1) Oswald was the assassin; and 2) there was a risk that the public might falsely be convinced of the involvement of Russia or Cuba based on Oswald's background and the dishonesty of CTers such as Mark Lane that could result in WWIII. Thankfully sane people were in charge at that time.
-
It seems obvious. If the public were convinced that the Russians or Cubans were behind the assassination of the US President, that would be deemed an act of war. Necessitating a military response. In fact, some CTers alleged the involvement of Russia/Cuba was actually covered up and the blame placed solely on LHO to avoid a war. Any CTer (such as Mark Lane) who was attempting to convince the public of a fake conspiracy risked causing WWIII.
It seems obvious. If the public were convinced that the Russians or Cubans were behind the assassination of the US President, that would be deemed an act of war. Necessitating a military response.
Really? The President has been killed by the Russians or Cubans, so just because the public wants it, let's nuke them and blow up the entire world, including ourselves. That seems obvious to you? You can't be this naive...
In fact, some CTers alleged the involvement of Russia/Cuba was actually covered up and the blame placed solely on LHO to avoid a war.
And others think that the alleged involvement of Russia/Cuba was just an excuse to cover up what really happened and put the blame on Oswald alone.
The whole idea of WWIII over the assassination of a President is just as idiotic as the nuclear arms race itself was. Sure, if Russia or Cuba were involved (which I seriously doubt they were), there would be a major political crisis but no regime would be stupid enough to fire the first nuke, as selfdestruction would most certainly follow.
-
Name the "crazy conspiracy theorists" who were pressuring for war?
And while you're at it, why don't you tell us precisely, how those "responsible leaders" of the US would get the country into WWIII because of the murder of Kennedy, regardless whether a lone nut or a conspiracy was behind it?
Name the "crazy conspiracy theorists" who were pressuring for war?
Hi Martin, I can name one without searching my memory for others.... Curtis Le May
-
The President has been killed by the Russians or Cubans, so just because the public wants it, let's nuke them and blow up the entire world, including ourselves. That seems obvious to you? You can't be this naive...
Can....is :-\
-
Any clown can accuse somebody of something, so?
[...]
888 pages of lies and deception.
Anybody can pretend there's "no evidence" against Oswald. But such a ridiculous activity, which is something that Internet CTers engage in daily, won't make the evidence against him cease to exist.
It would appear as though most conspiracy theorists still haven't figured out the above basic truth---even 58 years after the evidence was collected.
~shrug~
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/09/was-all-of-this-evidence-planted.html
-
Remember what happened when you claimed rock solid chain of possession of #2 on your list?
The two non-Poe shells indeed do have a rock-solid chain of custody. All CTer protests to the contrary notwithstanding, of course.
-
Anybody can pretend there's "no evidence" against Oswald. But such a ridiculous activity, which is something that Internet CTers engage in daily, won't make the evidence against him cease to exist.
It would appear as though most conspiracy theorists still haven't figured out the above basic truth---even 58 years after the evidence was collected.
~shrug~
Anybody can pretend there's "no evidence" against Oswald.
Here's a basic truth for you;
Sure, there is evidence against Oswald. The real question is; is it persuasive and conclusive enough and any objective person would have to conclude that it really isn't. It's mainly a circumstantial case with here and there some physical pieces of evidence thrown in. And even those physical pieces of evidence have their own individual problems. To ignore the problems there are with the evidence and the way it was gathered is just as dishonest as claiming that there is no evidence against Oswald.
-
It seems obvious. If the public were convinced that the Russians or Cubans were behind the assassination of the US President, that would be deemed an act of war. Necessitating a military response.
Really? The President has been killed by the Russians or Cubans, so just because the public wants it, let's nuke them and blow up the entire world, including ourselves. That seems obvious to you? You can't be this naive...
In fact, some CTers alleged the involvement of Russia/Cuba was actually covered up and the blame placed solely on LHO to avoid a war.
And others think that the alleged involvement of Russia/Cuba was just an excuse to cover up what really happened and put the blame on Oswald alone.
The whole idea of WWIII over the assassination of a President is just as idiotic as the nuclear arms race itself was. Sure, if Russia or Cuba were involved (which I seriously doubt they were), there would be a major political crisis but no regime would be stupid enough to fire the first nuke, as selfdestruction would most certainly follow.
Talk about a strawman! Who said anything about nukes? I said that if the public were led to believe the Russians or Cubans were behind the assassination of the US President that there would be WWIII. That might have involved nuclear weapons or it might not. The point is a lot of people would have died needlessly as the result of the act of one loon. To suggest that the assassination of the US President by a Communist government during the Cold War would not have resulted in a large scale military response is ridiculous even from you.
-
Talk about a strawman! Who said anything about nukes? I said that if the public were led to believe the Russians or Cubans were behind the assassination of the US President that there would be WWIII. That might have involved nuclear weapons or it might not. The point is a lot of people would have died needlessly as the result of the act of one loon. To suggest that the assassination of the US President by a Communist government during the Cold War would not have resulted in a large scale military response is ridiculous even from you.
Who said anything about nukes? I said that if the public were led to believe the Russians or Cubans were behind the assassination of the US President that there would be WWIII.
At the height of the cold war and only a year after the Cuba crisis? Yeah right... the risk of a nuclear exchange was and would be far to great. Besides, the whole thing was and still is preposterous. Even if Russia or Cuba was behind the assassination, what was the US going to do, that could spark of WWIII? Invade Cuba and/or Russia with conventional weapons? If you really believe that could be done, you are truly delusional.
That might have involved nuclear weapons or it might not. The point is a lot of people would have died needlessly as the result of the act of one loon.
Sure, just like is happening now in Ukraine and guess who is threatening with nuclear weapons....
To suggest that the assassination of the US President by a Communist government during the Cold War would not have resulted in a large scale military response is ridiculous even from you.
BS the risk alone of the thing going nuclear would be enough to think again. Just like is happening now with Nato in the Ukraine. They are helping as much as they can, but stop short at direct involvement (with air cover) so as not to provoke the Russians into an escalation. It wouldn't have been any different in 1963.
It's all well and good to talk about a "large scale miltary response", but where exactly would that have to take place, if not by invasion of Cuba and/or Russia?
The whole thing is a croc anyway. When Katzenback wrote his memo they had no solid evidence of any kind for the involvement of Cuba or Russia. They decided that Oswald was a lone nut long before they really knew who was behind the assassination. The WWIII excuse was just that; an excuse to focus the public's reaction on the lone nut!
-
Who said anything about nukes? I said that if the public were led to believe the Russians or Cubans were behind the assassination of the US President that there would be WWIII.
At the height of the cold war and only a year after the Cuba crisis? Yeah right... the risk of a nuclear exchange was and would be far to great. Besides, the whole thing was and still is preposterous. Even if Russia or Cuba was behind the assassination, what was the US going to do, that could spark of WWIII? Invade Cuba and/or Russia with conventional weapons? If you really believe that could be done, you are truly delusional.
That might have involved nuclear weapons or it might not. The point is a lot of people would have died needlessly as the result of the act of one loon.
Sure, just like is happening now in Ukraine and guess who is threatening with nuclear weapons....
To suggest that the assassination of the US President by a Communist government during the Cold War would not have resulted in a large scale military response is ridiculous even from you.
BS the risk alone of the thing going nuclear would be enough to think again. Just like is happening now with Nato in the Ukraine. They are helping as much as they can, but stop short at direct involvement (with air cover) so as not to provoke the Russians into an escalation. It wouldn't have been any different in 1963.
It's all well and good to talk about a "large scale miltary response", but where exactly would that have to take place, if not by invasion of Cuba and/or Russia?
The whole thing is a croc anyway. When Katzenback wrote his memo they had no solid evidence of any kind for the involvement of Cuba or Russia. They decided that Oswald was a lone nut long before they really knew who was behind the assassination. The WWIII excuse was just that; an excuse to focus the public's reaction on the lone nut!
The US was on the verge on vaporizing Cuba over the mere presence of some Russian missiles, but you take issue with military retaliation for the assassination of the President? What could be a greater act of war than murdering the head of state? WWI started over an assassination. The legitimate concern was that the public would be convinced of the involvement of Russia or Cuba based on Oswald's nutty background due to the efforts of crazy conspiracy theorists and pressure the government into retaliation. A very legitimate concern.
-
The US was on the verge on vaporizing Cuba over the mere presence of some Russian missiles, but you take issue with military retaliation for the assassination of the President? What could be a greater act of war than murdering the head of state? WWI started over an assassination. The legitimate concern was that the public would be convinced of the involvement of Russia or Cuba based on Oswald's nutty background due to the efforts of crazy conspiracy theorists and pressure the government into retaliation. A very legitimate concern.
The US was on the verge on vaporizing Cuba over the mere presence of some Russian missiles.
Really? Kennedy wasn't bluffing? Are you sure about that?
but you take issue with military retaliation for the assassination of the President?
BS... All I asked you was where and how that "military retaliation" was to take place and you seem clueless.
What could be a greater act of war than murdering the head of state? WWI started over an assassination.
You better start reading some history books, because the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was merely the excuse they needed to start a war that was long overdue. The tension in Europe was already building up since the 1870 German/French war, which resulted in the formation of Germany as we know it today. The Austrians didn't like what was happening and the Balkan was full of tension.
The legitimate concern was that the public would be convinced of the involvement of Russia or Cuba based on Oswald's nutty background.
BS. Oswald was who he was. He had been the Russia and was pro-Cuba (according to the official story), so that leap could easily have been made, but it wasn't. At least not by the general public or the media.
due to the efforts of crazy conspiracy theorists and pressure the government into retaliation. A very legitimate concern.
There were no "crazy conspiracy theorists" when Katzenbach wrote his memo, nor was there any pressure on the government. All there was were US Goverment officials who instantly decided that Oswald was a lone nut and that's all they wanted to know. The WWIII thing was never anything more than an excuse.
-
The US was on the verge on vaporizing Cuba over the mere presence of some Russian missiles.
Really? Kennedy wasn't bluffing? Are you sure about that?
but you take issue with military retaliation for the assassination of the President?
BS... All I asked you was where and how that "military retaliation" was to take place and you seem clueless.
You want me to specify where and how the "military retaliation" would have taken place? LOL. The point is that there was a real risk of military retaliation if the public were convinced of the involvement of Russia and Cuba in the assassination of JFK. The evidence proved that Oswald was the assassin. Thus, the memo is suggesting that is important that the public be convinced of Oswald's guilt for this important reason (i.e. it was true and eliminates the risk of war based on false pretenses).
-
You want me to specify where and how the "military retaliation" would have taken place? LOL. The point is that there was a real risk of military retaliation if the public were convinced of the involvement of Russia and Cuba in the assassination of JFK. The evidence proved that Oswald was the assassin. Thus, the memo is suggesting that is important that the public be convinced of Oswald's guilt for this important reason (i.e. it was true and eliminates the risk of war based on false pretenses).
The point is that there was a real risk of military retaliation if the public were convinced of the involvement of Russia and Cuba in the assassination of JFK.
No there was no such real risk. The only country to start such a war in this scenario would be the United States and there is zero possibility that the Government would start a highly risky war simply because the public were convinced of anything. Cooler heads, who understood what the consequences of such a war would be, would have prevailed.
The evidence proved that Oswald was the assassin. Thus, the memo is suggesting that is important that the public be convinced of Oswald's guilt for this important reason (i.e. it was true and eliminates the risk of war based on false pretenses).
More BS. Katzenbach wrote his memo a day after Hoover had decided that Oswald was the lone nut. At that time some evidence had been gathered but Hoover admitted it was no way enough to convict Oswald of anything. So, why does the public need to be convinced that Oswald was the lone gunman even before the investigation had produced credible results? It wasn't because of a possible WWIII. That was just the excuse they used to put the focus on Oswald als the lone nut, in the same way that the murder of Franz Ferdinand was used as the excuse to start a war which was already inevitable.
The notion that the public can succesfully demand that their Government starts a war is idiotic!
-
The point is that there was a real risk of military retaliation if the public were convinced of the involvement of Russia and Cuba in the assassination of JFK.
No there was no such real risk. The only country to start such a war in this scenario would be the United States and there is zero possibility that the Government would start a highly risky war simply because the public were convinced of anything. Cooler heads, who understood what the consequences of such a war would be, would have prevailed.
Speculate much? Coming from you this is rich. I like the part where you state that the "only country to start such a war...would be the United States." As though someone suggested a different country would start a war if the President of the United States was murdered by the Russians. HA HA HA. That would be like saying only the US would start a war with Japan after Pearl Harbort to suggest somehow that no war would have been declared for that event.
-
Speculate much? Coming from you this is rich. I like the part where you state that the "only country to start such a war...would be the United States." As though someone suggested a different country would start a war if the President of the United States was murdered by the Russians. HA HA HA. That would be like saying only the US would start a war with Japan after Pearl Harbort to suggest somehow that no war would have been declared for that event.
Speculate much?
It's no more speculation as claiming there would be WWIII. It seems I have more confidence in the common sense of the Goverment and am less of a warmonger than you.
The bombing of Pearl Harbor was an obvious act of war by a known agressor. To equate that to the assassination of the President, when there is no known agressor is pathetic.
-
Speculate much?
It's no more speculation as claiming there would be WWIII. It seems I have more confidence in the common sense of the Goverment and am less of a warmonger than you.
The bombing of Pearl Harbor was an obvious act of war by a known agressor. To equate that to the assassination of the President, when there is no known agressor is pathetic.
I said there would be a "risk" of WWIII. You interjected all manner of nonsense including speculation about nuclear war. That risk was premised upon the public being convinced of the involvement of Russian or Cuban involvement rather than any actual involvement. And you have more confidence in the common sense of the government than I do!!!! The same guy who questions the evidence against Oswald as the product of a frame up that potentially involves the FBI, CIA, and other government agencies and rejects the conclusions of the "official" investigation. I have truly heard it all now. Breathtaking hypocrisy.
-
The point is that there was a real risk of military retaliation if the public were convinced of the involvement of Russia and Cuba in the assassination of JFK.
No there was no such real risk. The only country to start such a war in this scenario would be the United States and there is zero possibility that the Government would start a highly risky war simply because the public were convinced of anything. Cooler heads, who understood what the consequences of such a war would be, would have prevailed.
The evidence proved that Oswald was the assassin. Thus, the memo is suggesting that is important that the public be convinced of Oswald's guilt for this important reason (i.e. it was true and eliminates the risk of war based on false pretenses).
More BS. Katzenbach wrote his memo a day after Hoover had decided that Oswald was the lone nut. At that time some evidence had been gathered but Hoover admitted it was no way enough to convict Oswald of anything. So, why does the public need to be convinced that Oswald was the lone gunman even before the investigation had produced credible results? It wasn't because of a possible WWIII. That was just the excuse they used to put the focus on Oswald als the lone nut, in the same way that the murder of Franz Ferdinand was used as the excuse to start a war which was already inevitable.
The notion that the public can succesfully demand that their Government starts a war is idiotic!
More BS. Katzenbach wrote his memo a day after Hoover had decided that Oswald was the lone nut.
Actually one of Hoover's agents, James Hosty, had pinned the blame on Lee Oswald just minutes after Lee was arrested at the Texas theater. Hostry told DPD detective Jack Reville that Oswald was the guilty culprit who had shot JD Tippit. Hosty made this statement to Reville at about 2:50. Hoover had been monitoring the events in Dallas through his agents, and apparently knew Lee Oswald's name when he was dragged from the Texas theater. ( That's correct, I said that Hoover knew Lee Oswald's name at the time he was taken from the Texas Theater. There were three of Hoover's agents at the Texas theater at the time that Lee was arrested)
Lee was arrested at about 1:50 pm, and he arrived at DPD headquarters at about 2:15. In his book "ASSIGNMENT: OSWALD" Hosty said that at 2:15pm he was asked to get the "Oswald file" and take to SAC Gordon Shanklin. Shanklin was talking on the phone to Hoover's assistant, Alan Belmont, at FBI headquarters in Washington DC when Hosty entered Shanklin's office. At that time Shanklin told Hosty that Washington wanted him (Hosty) to get his butt over to the DPD and sit in on the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald who had just been arrested.
QUESTION:..... How did Hoover know the name of the man who had been dragged from the Texas Theater about 20 minutes earlier???
-
I said there would be a "risk" of WWIII. You interjected all manner of nonsense including speculation about nuclear war. That risk was premised upon the public being convinced of the involvement of Russian or Cuban involvement rather than any actual involvement. And you have more confidence in the common sense of the government than I do!!!! The same guy who questions the evidence against Oswald as the product of a frame up that potentially involves the FBI, CIA, and other government agencies and rejects the conclusions of the "official" investigation. I have truly heard it all now. Breathtaking hypocrisy.
I said there would be a "risk" of WWIII.
Yes, you did say that and it was BS. If you really think that WWIII could be fought with only conventional weapons and that no party would employ nuclear power, then you are a bigger fool than I thought.
And you have more confidence in the common sense of the government than I do!!!! The same guy who questions the evidence against Oswald as the product of a frame up that potentially involves the FBI, CIA, and other government agencies and rejects the conclusions of the "official" investigation.
More shallow crap. There is a massive difference between the Government as a whole (when it comes to declaring war) and parts of that same Government or even elements within those parts of the Government. Do I believe the Government as a whole was involved in Kennedy's assassination? No ot course not. I don't even believe that parts of the Government had anything to do with it, but when we get to the level of individuals working at those departments, that's a different matter.
Was the entire Government in on Watergate and/or Iran-contra or was it only some rotten apples within that Government? Was the entire Government involved in trying to blackmail Ukraine to get dirt on Biden or was it only some rotten apples?
I reject the conclusions of the official investigation on their lack of merit and credibility as well as a biased and poorly run "investigation".
-
I said there would be a "risk" of WWIII.
Yes, you did say that and it was BS. If you really think that WWIII could be fought with only conventional weapons and that no party would employ nuclear power, then you are a bigger fool than I thought.
And you have more confidence in the common sense of the government than I do!!!! The same guy who questions the evidence against Oswald as the product of a frame up that potentially involves the FBI, CIA, and other government agencies and rejects the conclusions of the "official" investigation.
More shallow crap. There is a massive difference between the Government as a whole (when it comes to declaring war) and parts of that same Government or even elements within those parts of the Government. Do I believe the Government as a whole was involved in Kennedy's assassination? No ot course not. I don't even believe that parts of the Government had anything to do with it, but when we get to the level of individuals working at those departments, that's a different matter.
Was the entire Government in on Watergate and/or Iran-contra or was it only some rotten apples within that Government? Was the entire Government involved in trying to blackmail Ukraine to get dirt on Biden or was it only some rotten apples?
I reject the conclusions of the official investigation on their lack of merit and credibility as well as a biased and poorly run "investigation".
Again, I simply noted that there was a "risk" of WWIII if the public were convinced that Russia (considered a hostile foreign power at time) was involved in the assassination of the US President. I'm not sure why you are going on and about nuclear weapons vs conventional war as though someone has to produce a crystal ball to demonstrate exactly how such a war might have played out to suggest that there was a "risk" of war. That doesn't seem very controversial except to yourself. Most astounding is that I'm the one expressing admiration for the government's handling of the investigation while you are suggesting that many US government agencies were involved in the frame up of Oswald and perhaps even the assassination. But I'm the one you claimed has a distrust of the government! Unreal. That is Alice-in-Wonderland logic. Like trying to convince someone that 4-3=0. Breath taking hypocrisy and lack of logic.
-
Who said anything about nukes? I said that if the public were led to believe the Russians or Cubans were behind the assassination of the US President that there would be WWIII.
At the height of the cold war and only a year after the Cuba crisis? Yeah right... the risk of a nuclear exchange was and would be far to great. Besides, the whole thing was and still is preposterous. Even if Russia or Cuba was behind the assassination, what was the US going to do, that could spark of WWIII? Invade Cuba and/or Russia with conventional weapons? If you really believe that could be done, you are truly delusional.
That might have involved nuclear weapons or it might not. The point is a lot of people would have died needlessly as the result of the act of one loon.
Sure, just like is happening now in Ukraine and guess who is threatening with nuclear weapons....
To suggest that the assassination of the US President by a Communist government during the Cold War would not have resulted in a large scale military response is ridiculous even from you.
BS the risk alone of the thing going nuclear would be enough to think again. Just like is happening now with Nato in the Ukraine. They are helping as much as they can, but stop short at direct involvement (with air cover) so as not to provoke the Russians into an escalation. It wouldn't have been any different in 1963.
It's all well and good to talk about a "large scale miltary response", but where exactly would that have to take place, if not by invasion of Cuba and/or Russia?
The whole thing is a croc anyway. When Katzenback wrote his memo they had no solid evidence of any kind for the involvement of Cuba or Russia. They decided that Oswald was a lone nut long before they really knew who was behind the assassination. The WWIII excuse was just that; an excuse to focus the public's reaction on the lone nut!
I think you’ve absolutely nailed it here...
When both memos were written, there was no solid evidence of any kind... as you noted... "They decided that Oswald was a lone nut long before they really knew who was behind the assassination."... and then they suppressed all evidence that might have suggested any other conclusion than the one they wanted... from the very beginning!!
The most likely explanation for this... and I would think every fair judge and jury would agree... Hoover and company were part of a big cover-up... for themselve and their partners in crime... and some might even suggest Oswald’s past record looks a little better than Hoover’s...
-
I think you’ve absolutely nailed it here...
When both memos were written, there was no solid evidence of any kind... as you noted... "They decided that Oswald was a lone nut long before they really knew who was behind the assassination."... and then they suppressed all evidence that might have suggested any other conclusion than the one they wanted... from the very beginning!!
The most likely explanation for this... and I would think every fair judge and jury would agree... Hoover and company were part of a big cover-up... for themselve and their partners in crime... and some might even suggest Oswald’s past record looks a little better than Hoover’s...
There was "no solid evidence of any kind"? Oswald's rifle was left at the crime scene. The shots were fired from the building in which he worked. He had no credible alibi for the moment of the assassination. He fled the building and was implicated in the murder of a police officer less than an hour later. They were aware of his suspect political background. Pretty much a slam dunk case at that point. Nevertheless, they conducted an extensive investigation which proved his guilt. To this day, nearly six decades later, there is no doubt as to his guilt and no credible evidence of the involvement of anyone else.
-
There was "no solid evidence of any kind"? Oswald's rifle was left at the crime scene. The shots were fired from the building in which he worked. He had no credible alibi for the moment of the assassination. He fled the building and was implicated in the murder of a police officer less than an hour later. They were aware of his suspect political background. Pretty much a slam dunk case at that point. Nevertheless, they conducted an extensive investigation which proved his guilt. To this day, nearly six decades later, there is no doubt as to his guilt and no credible evidence of the involvement of anyone else.
There was "no solid evidence of any kind"?
In the sense that it was enough to convict? No, there wasn't. And most certainly not in the first 48 hours. That's what Hoover told LBJ!
Nevertheless, they conducted an extensive investigation which proved his guilt.
Wrong, it was an extensive investigation to only find material that could prove his guilt.
For crying out loud, the entire FBI investigation was supervised by Hoover, a known blackmailer of Presidents, members of Congress and anybody else who he considered a threat and who even denied that there was any such thing as a mafia. The guy was a criminal with no scruples whatsoever. To believe that he would conduct a fair and unbiased investigation is an insult to anybody's intelligence.
-
There was "no solid evidence of any kind"?
In the sense that it was enough to convict? No, there wasn't. And most certainly not in the first 48 hours. That's what Hoover told LBJ!
Nevertheless, they conducted an extensive investigation which proved his guilt.
Wrong, it was an extensive investigation to only find material that could prove his guilt.
For crying out loud, the entire FBI investigation was supervised by Hoover, a known blackmailer of Presidents, members of Congress and anybody else who he considered a threat and who even denied that there was any such thing as a mafia. The guy was a criminal with no scruples whatsoever. To believe that he would conduct a fair and unbiased investigation is an insult to anybody's intelligence.
Yes, it was a plan from the beginning to frame Oswald as a lone nut and then cover-up all evidence that might prove otherwise...
It is exactly how corruption works...
And yes... Hoover was corrupt...
-
There was "no solid evidence of any kind"?
In the sense that it was enough to convict? No, there wasn't. And most certainly not in the first 48 hours. That's what Hoover told LBJ!
All the evidence noted was known within 48 hours (e.g. that Oswald's rifle was left at the crime scene, that he had fled, that he was the prime suspect in the murder of a police office, and that he had a suspect political background known to the FBI who had kept tabs on him). The presence of his rifle alone was sufficient to convict absent a credible alibi or alternative explanation for its presence.
-
All the evidence noted was known within 48 hours (e.g. that Oswald's rifle was left at the crime scene, that he had fled, that he was the prime suspect in the murder of a police office, and that he had a suspect political background known to the FBI who had kept tabs on him). The presence of his rifle alone was sufficient to convict absent a credible alibi or alternative explanation for its presence.
that Oswald's rifle was left at the crime scene
More BS. All they knew within 48 hours of the assassination is that, according to Kleins' the rifle they found at the TSBD was ordered and sold to somebody called A. Hidell.
that he had fled
Nope.. they didn't know that either. All they knew Oswald was one of several TSBD employees who was not present at the roll call
that he was the prime suspect in the murder of a police office,
That's what they arrested him for. No the murder of the President. So, how do you get from "we suspect him of killing a police officer" to "he is the lone nut that killed the President"?
that he had a suspect political background known to the FBI
It's not a crime to have a particular political background (whatever that means) and having such a background doesn't make somebody a lone nut killer.
The presence of his rifle alone was sufficient to convict absent a credible alibi
Knock it off with this "his rifle" crap. Until this day we don't know for sure if it was his rifle or not.
They did not know if Oswald could offer a credible alibi or not. The mere fact that he didn't give one to Fritz doesn't mean he had none. He has the right to remain silent and that can not be held against him
or alternative explanation for its presence.
They never investigated any alternative explanation for the presence of the rifle at the TSBD.
As per usual, you are blowing hot air.
-
that Oswald's rifle was left at the crime scene
More BS. All they knew within 48 hours of the assassination is that, according to Kleins' the rifle they found at the TSBD was ordered and sold to somebody called A. Hidell.
that he had fled
Nope.. they didn't know that either. All they knew Oswald was one of several TSBD employees who was not present at the roll call
that he was the prime suspect in the murder of a police office,
That's what they arrested him for. No the murder of the President. So, how do you get from "we suspect him of killing a police officer" to "he is the lone nut that killed the President"?
that he had a suspect political background known to the FBI
It's not a crime to have a particular political background (whatever that means) and having such a background doesn't make somebody a lone nut killer.
The presence of his rifle alone was sufficient to convict absent a credible alibi
Knock it off with this "his rifle" crap. Until this day we don't know for sure if it was his rifle or not.
They did not know if Oswald could offer a credible alibi or not. The mere fact that he didn't give one to Fritz doesn't mean he had none. He has the right to remain silent and that can not be held against him
or alternative explanation for its presence.
They never investigated any alternative explanation for the presence of the rifle at the TSBD.
As per usual, you are blowing hot air.
You are really suggesting here that by Nov. 25 the authorities did not know that Hidell was an alias used by Oswald? He had such an ID in his wallet when arrested! The authorities knew the rifle found was linked to Oswald per Klein's via both Oswald's PO Box AND an alias he was known to use. And now you are admitting there was a roll call! Wow. Oswald had been questioned. He failed to provide a credible alibi or explanation for the presence of his rifle. Instead he lied. There was no doubt of his guilt as of the time the memo was written. Nevertheless, the federal government conducted the most extensive investigation in criminal history on their own motion. It was not required.
-
that Oswald's rifle was left at the crime scene
More BS. All they knew within 48 hours of the assassination is that, according to Kleins' the rifle they found at the TSBD was ordered and sold to somebody called A. Hidell.
that he had fled
Nope.. they didn't know that either. All they knew Oswald was one of several TSBD employees who was not present at the roll call
that he was the prime suspect in the murder of a police office,
That's what they arrested him for. No the murder of the President. So, how do you get from "we suspect him of killing a police officer" to "he is the lone nut that killed the President"?
that he had a suspect political background known to the FBI
It's not a crime to have a particular political background (whatever that means) and having such a background doesn't make somebody a lone nut killer.
The presence of his rifle alone was sufficient to convict absent a credible alibi
Knock it off with this "his rifle" crap. Until this day we don't know for sure if it was his rifle or not.
They did not know if Oswald could offer a credible alibi or not. The mere fact that he didn't give one to Fritz doesn't mean he had none. He has the right to remain silent and that can not be held against him
or alternative explanation for its presence.
They never investigated any alternative explanation for the presence of the rifle at the TSBD.
As per usual, you are blowing hot air.
"The mere fact that he didn't give one to Fritz doesn't mean he had none. "
The mere fact that he didn't give one ( an alibi ) to Fritz doesn't mean he had none.
Captain Fritz: Where were you at the time the president passed by the building ?
Lee Oswald: I was eating my lunch in the first floor lunchroom.
Lee had a rock solid alibi , and he gave it to Fritz..... That alibi was verified by Junior Jarman and Harold Norman.
Lee said that at the time that he was in the first floor lunchroom eating his lunch he saw Jarman and Norman walk by the lunchroom. Jarman and Norman confirmed that they had in fact walked by that 1st floor lunchroom at about 12:26 / 12:27.
-
You are really suggesting here that by Nov. 25 the authorities did not know that Hidell was an alias used by Oswald? He had such an ID in his wallet when arrested! The authorities knew the rifle found was linked to Oswald per Klein's via both Oswald's PO Box AND an alias he was known to use. And now you are admitting there was a roll call! Wow. Oswald had been questioned. He failed to provide a credible alibi or explanation for the presence of his rifle. Instead he lied. There was no doubt of his guilt as of the time the memo was written. Nevertheless, the federal government conducted the most extensive investigation in criminal history on their own motion. It was not required.
You are really suggesting here that by Nov. 25 the authorities did not know that Hidell was an alias used by Oswald?
They might have suspected it, but they had no way of knowing until they examined the handwriting on the order documents.
He had such an ID in his wallet when arrested!
Really? Are you sure about that? When Paul Bentley took Oswald's wallet from him in the car he only found an ID in Oswald's name. The first time the Hidell ID showed up was when Gus Rose was given a wallet at the police station, by a never identified officer, who told him that it was Oswald's wallet. There is not one single DPD report by any of the officers in the car with Oswald that says Bentley found a Hidell ID.
And now you are admitting there was a roll call! Wow.
When did I ever deny there was a roll call at the TSBD?
There was no doubt of his guilt as of the time the memo was written. Nevertheless, the federal government conducted the most extensive investigation in criminal history on their own motion. It was not required.
If you say so... :D
-
You are really suggesting here that by Nov. 25 the authorities did not know that Hidell was an alias used by Oswald?
They might have suspected it, but they had no way of knowing until they examined the handwriting on the order documents.
He had such an ID in his wallet when arrested!
Really? Are you sure about that? When Paul Bentley took Oswald's wallet from him in the car he only found an ID in Oswald's name. The first time the Hidell ID showed up was when Gus Rose was given a wallet at the police station, by a never identified officer, who told him that it was Oswald's wallet. There is not one single DPD report by any of the officers in the car with Oswald that says Bentley found a Hidell ID.
So it was dishonest and incomplete to say: "All they knew within 48 hours of the assassination is that, according to Kleins' the rifle they found at the TSBD was ordered and sold to somebody called A. Hidell." The authorities knew that A. Hidell was a known alias associated with Oswald and that the Klein's order reflected a PO Box that belonged to Oswald. They had a sound basis within less than 48 hours to conclude that the rifle found at the crime scene belonged to Oswald. And that this rifle had been used to assassinate JFK (e,g, witnesses saw a rifle pointed out the 6th floor window at the moment of the assassination). When asked about this rifle Oswald lied and could not account for its presence there. A sound basis to conclude that Oswald was guilty but one they decided to investigate further without any legal obligation to do so after he was dead.
-
So it was dishonest and incomplete to say: "All they knew within 48 hours of the assassination is that, according to Kleins' the rifle they found at the TSBD was ordered and sold to somebody called A. Hidell." The authorities knew that A. Hidell was a known alias associated with Oswald and that the Klein's order reflected a PO Box that belonged to Oswald. They had a sound basis within less than 48 hours to conclude that the rifle found at the crime scene belonged to Oswald. And that this rifle had been used to assassinate JFK (e,g, witnesses saw a rifle pointed out the 6th floor window at the moment of the assassination). When asked about this rifle Oswald lied and could not account for its presence there. A sound basis to conclude that Oswald was guilty but one they decided to investigate further without any legal obligation to do so after he was dead.
The authorities knew that A. Hidell was a known alias associated with Oswald
No they didn't know that.
that the Klein's order reflected a PO Box that belonged to Oswald.
I seriously doubt they knew that when Katzenbach wrote his memo
They had a sound basis within less than 48 hours to conclude that the rifle found at the crime scene belonged to Oswald.
No they didn't. They had bits and pieces of information that needed to be put together by further investigation. What you are talking about is a rush to judgement
And that this rifle had been used to assassinate JFK
BS. All they knew is that a rifle had been found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. They didn't even know if it had been fired, because nobody checked.
When asked about this rifle Oswald lied
You can only conclude that he lied if you have previously established that it was in fact his rifle. That hasn't been done conclusively until today.
A sound basis to conclude that Oswald was guilty but one they decided to investigate further without any legal obligation to do so after he was dead.
:D You're funny.... yes they "investigated further, but only based on the assumption that Oswald was the lone nut gunman.
-
FACT: Hoover and Katzenbach in essence, were not interested in the evidence in the case - within 48 hours, or 48 years - by their own words... they were interested in a cover-up...
FACT: Hoover and Katzenbach actually planned to hide from the public any evidence to suggest that Oswald was not a lone assassin...
VERY LIKELY FACT: Hoover and Katzenbach planned the cover-up to protect themselves and their cohorts...
-
FACT: Hoover and Katzenbach in essence, were not interested in the evidence in the case - within 48 hours, or 48 years - by their own words... they were interested in a cover-up...
FACT: Hoover and Katzenbach actually planned to hide from the public any evidence to suggest that Oswald was not a lone assassin...
VERY LIKELY FACT: Hoover and Katzenbach planned the cover-up to protect themselves and their cohorts...
Is there information still being hidden from the public?
-
Is there information still being hidden from the public?
Hi Jake... You da man! I always enjoy your posts because you post FACTS.
There probably isn't any crucial evidence still being hidden ( anything that was incriminating to the authorities and unknown to the public has probably been destroyed.) However, there is ample evidence that reveals the treachery and perfidy of the authorities, but unfortunately most of that evidence has been "debunked" with LNer BS.
There is ample evidence.... but most folks simply cannot accept that a venerated institution like the FBI could be so corrupt.
And therein lies the major hurdle......
-
Yes, most likely some evidence destroyed...
This C-SPAN interview with Jefferson Morley is very, very insightful...
Link below: 10:15-11:15 / 12:15-14:01 / 41:30 -
The whole interview is very, very good... but the above sections are to the point...
A credible and insightful interview...
PART OF WASHINGTON JOURNAL 12/20/2021
Washington Journal
Jefferson Morley on the Release of New JFK Assassination Records
https://www.c-span.org/video/?516751-3/washington-journal-jefferson-morley-discusses-release-jfk-assassination-records