JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Jon Banks on December 16, 2022, 03:30:49 AM
-
Surprisingly good rant by Carlson.
-
Surprisingly good rant by Carlson.
Surprisingly misinformed. When do you think he will identify the person he is quoting?
-
U. S. Government lied about the JFK assassination. And the U. S. Government lied about the Roswell crash. The logical conclusion? The the government conspired to kill JFK? And conspired to hide the truth about Space Aliens? Possibly conspired not just among themselves but with the Space Aliens as well? Is this really true? No. People, and governments, tell lies for all sorts of reasons.
The term "Conspiracy Theory" was not invented in 1964. This term had been used for over one hundred years before the Kennedy assassination. It has been a term used to argue against the probability of Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracies. A logical type of argument used by rational skeptics over the course of many generations before 1963. Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracies just naturally appeal to people, despite improbable nature of these theories, when some serious thought is given to them.
While it can be argued that a conspiracy to kill JFK does not need to be Large-Secret-Enduring, it could be Small-Secret-Enduring, the truth is that the average person who believes in a JFK conspiracy, envisions a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy. This is the notion that is pushed by supporters, like in the movie "JFK". People go "Ho-Hum" over Small-Secret-Enduring conspiracy theories, but not Large ones.
-
Surprisingly misinformed. When do you think he will identify the person he is quoting?
I didn’t really care for that part but I assume he has some friends who work at the agency or used to.
I found his story about Jack Ruby and Jolly West to be a very good example of how the media ignores the many strange coincidences in the case. Ruby was visited by an MKULTRA doctor before going crazy and most of the news media overlooked that fact.
-
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?
-
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?
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.
-
I didn’t really care for that part but I assume he has some friends who work at the agency or used to.
I found his story about Jack Ruby and Jolly West to be a very good example of how the media ignores the many strange coincidences in the case. Ruby was visited by an MKULTRA doctor before going crazy and most of the news media overlooked that fact.
You lot tend to see that which is not there
AKA paranoia
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mystery_of_Al_Capone%27s_Vaults)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
LOL.
-
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?
Perhaps it’s the same reason that “Richard” never tries to make any evidence-based case that Oswald did it.
“Richard” thinks Tucker is a journalist. Surprise, surprise.
-
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.
On what do we blame “Richard’s” inability to prove that Oswald did it?
-
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?
LOL.
So you admit you just made it up? Why am I not surprised?
-
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.
Sadly the "Deep State" is real. It's also known as the "Military Industrial Complex", or "the Blob" in the Liberal media.
The Blob:
The phrase was coined by Ben Rhodes, a speechwriter turned top national security aide in the Obama Administration. The blob is the “foreign policy establishment.” This includes “Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and other Iraq-war promoters from both parties.” Basically, the blob represents the Washington foreign policy consensus pushing for a robust military presence around the world. Kind of a less refined version of Bacevich’s “Washington Rules.”
https://www.duckofminerva.com/2020/03/deconstructing-teh-blob.html
I'm politically on the Left and generally don't agree with Tucker Carlson but I give him credit for addressing topics that the rest of the media is afraid to touch. Everyone knows the intelligence community influences and manipulates the news media but few will admit it publicly.
-
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.
Good post except for the "deep state" pretense. Yes, that's the new schtick by the Trumpian right (they complain that it was behind the promotion of the Russian collusion story and the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story) but its origins comes from the left. There are lots of leftists who believe there was/is a "deep state" - they killed JFK for example (read Morley or David Talbot or Garrison/Stone/DiEugenio) - that corruptly influence American politics. I believe the origins of the term "deep state" comes from Peter Dale Scott? He is most definitely not on the right <g>.
The "horseshoe theory" of politics where the hard right and hard left meet or come together has problems but there is some substance to it. The anti-Establishment right and left do agree about the corruption of the "Establishment." They just disagree on how to defeat it, who it serves, and what to replace it with. One wants Trumpian populists the other wants Bernie Sanders socialism.
There is "something" like a "deep state" but it's not deep and it's not a state. It's the bureaucracy, the "administrative state" that carries out policies. It's the CIA, yes, but also the Interior Department that manages national parks. It's agencies and divisions and, most important, people with their own interests who promote their own policies and views. Nothing sinister, nothing Machiavellian; it's the way modern governments work.
-
So you admit you just made it up? Why am I not surprised?
LOL.
-
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?
Nobody. Just another one of Strawman “Smith’s” strawmen.
-
that's the new schtick by the Trumpian right (they complain that it was behind the promotion of the Russian collusion story and the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story)
And they were vindicated...
Investigations proved that the FBI spied on Trump's campaign and that the "Russia collusion" stuff originated from Clinton campaign's opposition research. That stuff wouldn't have been exposed if Hillary won in 2016.
And we know that some in the media tried to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story despite the fact that the DHS confirmed in 2020 that it wasn't a product of Hacking or Russian propaganda.
-
LOL.
Is it really this easy to shut up an otherwise pathetic loudmouth?
Just ask him to substantiate his bogus claims and he falls to pieces. Hilarious!
-
And they were vindicated...
Investigations proved that the FBI spied on Trump's campaign and that the "Russia collusion" stuff originated from Clinton campaign's opposition research. That stuff wouldn't have been exposed if Hillary won in 2016.
And we know that some in the media tried to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story despite the fact that the DHS confirmed in 2020 that it wasn't a product of Hacking or Russian propaganda.
Sorry, that isn't a "deep state", not as I see it. That was a handful of anti-Trump people in the FBI and in the Clinton campaign working with reporters to get him. And they believed what they had. And of course all of it was exposed.
Stuff like this has gone on for decades. There were people in the FBI - Mark Felt/Deep Throat - who were leaking to the media about the investigation in order to undermine Nixon. Lots of example. In the US and elsewhere. It's called politics. Is it a problem? Yes, but its not some "deep state" apparatus that is manipulating the country.
Question: You don't think there would be people in this "deep state" who would leak to the media about their plans to kill JFK? And cover it up?
-
Is it really this easy to shut up an otherwise pathetic loudmouth?
Just ask him to substantiate his bogus claims and he falls to pieces. Hilarious!
Personal commentary - check. Insults - check. No substance - big check on that one. The usual Martin contribution. It makes me miss Otto. How are things in "Europe"?
-
Sorry, that isn't a "deep state", not as I see it. That was a handful of anti-Trump people in the FBI and in the Clinton campaign working with reporters to get him. And they believed what they had. And of course all of it was exposed.
Stuff like this has gone on for decades. In the US and elsewhere. It's called dirty politics. Is it a problem? Yes, but its not some "deep state" apparatus that is manipulating the country.
"The Deep State" is described broadly as 'unelected bureaucrats who influence public policies or manipulate politicians and the press'. I would extend the definition to include people outside of government like defense policy Think-Tanks and National Security contractors. But the broad understanding is that there are people in the foreign policy establishment who have a disproportionate level of power to manipulate the government to their own Ends.
I think that describes the high-ranking FBI officials who overreached in their investigations of Trump's campaign in 2016. And they thought they could get away with it because they assumed that Hillary would win in 2016.
Question: You don't think there would be people in this "deep state" who would leak to the media about their plans to kill JFK? And cover it up?
I don't think the 'Deep State' is a monolith or a conspiracy. People can have similar interests and move towards achieving those interests without making any agreements. So in short, might there have been people in the 'Deep State' who opposed murdering JFK? Possibly. I don't think everyone in the national security State hated Kennedy but he didn't have many friends in that group either.
-
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
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.
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.
It's a combination of "Group Think" (among mostly smug Liberal elites)
-
Personal commentary - check. Insults - check. No substance - big check on that one. The usual Martin contribution. It makes me miss Otto. How are things in "Europe"?
So predictable.....
What has happened to Otto? Do you see him in the mirror?
When everything else fails..... :D
A dead giveaway for Richard getting stuck.... Hilarious!
What's next? The "Europe" thing again?
-
Everyone knows the intelligence community influences and manipulates the news media but few will admit it publicly.
I have strong reason to believe that Fox "News" is not affected by anything resembling intelligence.
-
Unnamed source: The CIA killed Kennedy.
Tucker: Good enough for me!
::)
-
I have strong reason to believe that Fox "News" is not affected by anything resembling intelligence.
CNN and MSNBC don't even hide it. They regularly hire former intelligence officials and put them on the air.
But aside from that, there are journalists who are willing to launder information into the news media for the intelligence community (Pricilla Johnson-McMillan style).
Ken Dilanian, who currently works for NBC News, was outed years ago for his relationship with the CIA:
Ex-Tribune reporter said to have ‘collaborative’ relationship with CIA
https://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-tribune-dilanian-20140904-story.html
In documents made public by the website, Dilanian appeared to promise positive news coverage and on occasion sent the CIA press office entire story drafts for review prior to publication. In at least one instance, the CIA’s reaction appears to have led to significant changes in a story eventually published by Tribune newspapers, according to the emails.
“I’m working on a story about congressional oversight of drone strikes that can present a good opportunity for you guys,” Dilanian wrote in one email to a CIA press officer, explaining that what he intended to report would be “reassuring to the public” about CIA drone strikes, according to the Intercept.
In another exchange, the website reported, Dilanian sent a full draft of an unpublished report about drone strikes along with the subject line, “does this look better?” In another, he directly asks the agency officer: “You wouldn’t put out disinformation on this, would you?”
The guy basically does PR for the CIA. Is there any wonder why fewer and fewer Americans trust the news media?
-
Good post except for the "deep state" pretense. ....
There is "something" like a "deep state" but it's not deep and it's not a state. It's the bureaucracy, the "administrative state" that carries out policies. It's the CIA, yes, but also the Interior Department that manages national parks. It's agencies and divisions and, most important, people with their own interests who promote their own policies and views. Nothing sinister, nothing Machiavellian; it's the way modern governments work.
There is a marked difference between: 1. agencies operating within government that have difficulty distinguishing between their agency's interests and the public interest (or assume that those interests are necessarily the same) and 2. an array of agencies essentially at odds with the government all linked by conspirators and operating together to achieve a common goal that they know to be different than the public interest that the democratically elected government sees.
-
Unnamed source: The CIA killed Kennedy.
Tucker: Good enough for me!
::)
Actually, I remember him only saying that “he believes” that the CIA was involved. It seems to me that they are trying (again) to make something out of nothing…
-
I didn’t really care for that part but I assume he has some friends who work at the agency or used to.
I found his story about Jack Ruby and Jolly West to be a very good example of how the media ignores the many strange coincidences in the case. Ruby was visited by an MKULTRA doctor before going crazy and most of the news media overlooked that fact.
There were a number of coincidences that day. Some of them point to Oswald’s guilt but, Carlson made no effort to point those out. There is no audience or money for the media in just admitting LHO did the deed.
-
There were a number of coincidences that day. Some of them point to Oswald’s guilt but, Carlson made no effort to point those out. There is no audience or money for the media in just admitting LHO did the deed.
That’s not true. For example, Gerald Posner is a proven plagiarist yet still appears on national news shows about the JFK assassination. From the CT community, Jefferson Morley is the only researcher that the mainstream media gives air time to.
Secondly, Dr. Jolly West visited Ruby in prison after he was convicted for killing Oswald. Ruby was never the same afterwards.
-
Secondly, Dr. Jolly West visited Ruby in prison after he was convicted for killing Oswald. Ruby was never the same afterwards.
He was never the same before Wests visit. He had already smashed his head off his cell wall before West showed up.
If "they" wanted to shut Ruby up, it makes no sense to wait until after he was arrested, detained, tried and convicted. Much like it makes no sense to shut Oswald up on the Sunday when hes been in police custody for 2 days. Could've already told them everything about a plot.
And then who shuts up West....
West also worked with Patty Hearst. He did good work there.
-
Jolly West’s MKULTRA work overlapped with the time that he visited Jack Ruby:
After he shot Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby’s psychosis was diagnosed by the same CIA doctor who had once killed an elephant with psychedelics
Some researchers in the JFK assassination community are aware of the fact that one of the doctors that treated Jack Ruby was none other than Louis Jolyon West, a figure equally infamous for allegedly killing an elephant with LSD and for his work in MKULTRA - the Central Intelligence Agency’s infamous interrogation, hypnosis, and mind control program. An analysis of available documents from the CIA’s declassified archives and the recovered MKULTRA files shows that not only did West want to continue his work with the Agency during the period he was treating Ruby, the University he researched at thought that’s exactly what he was doing.
In the first subsection of the proposal itself, West says that he wants to continue the work for another 11 years. ”It is proposed that the experiments begun during 1955-56 involving hypnotizability, suggestibility, and the roles of certain drugs in altering these attributes, be continued and extended during 1956-67.” This would place West’s treatment of Ruby about three years before the proposed end of this particular MKULTRA subproject. In the proposal, West describes several elements of experiments that match the isolated experience of Ruby and West’s stated reason for going to see him…
In his report, West said that “hypnosis and intravenous sodium pentothal were included among possible techniques” to be used on Ruby. In his proposal to CIA for continuing his MKULTRA work with them, he proposed that “the combined use of hypnotic techniques and autonomic drugs be exercised.” Sodium pentothal, as a barbiturate, is one such autonomic drug that - frequently used in various MKULTRA experiments and other interrogation or hypnosis related programs. In total, West requested an additional $35,995.00 for the next year’s work, not including the other ten years of research he had proposed. This included $5000.00 for “polygraphic, electroencephalographic, electromyographic, and special stimulatory apparatus.”
https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/dec/19/mkruby/
-
That’s not true. For example, Gerald Posner is a proven plagiarist yet still appears on national news shows about the JFK assassination. From the CT community, Jefferson Morley is the only researcher that the mainstream media gives air time to.
Secondly, Dr. Jolly West visited Ruby in prison after he was convicted for killing Oswald. Ruby was never the same afterwards.
Did Tucker Carlson not just attempt to create the conspiracy argument on national TV? What about Cyril Wecht, he is still around. There is no shortage of conspiracy proponents. The only shortage is based in the believability sphere.
It is hard to find someone who can overcome the lack of coherency of the argument that a conspiracy existed. The whole idea of a conspiracy is based on connecting imaginary random dots. Just like what Tucker Carlson just attempted to do.
-
That’s not true. For example, Gerald Posner is a proven plagiarist yet still appears on national news shows about the JFK assassination. From the CT community, Jefferson Morley is the only researcher that the mainstream media gives air time to.
Secondly, Dr. Jolly West visited Ruby in prison after he was convicted for killing Oswald. Ruby was never the same afterwards.
Secondly, Dr. Jolly West visited Ruby in prison after he was convicted for killing Oswald. Ruby was never the same afterwards.
Looking at the linked article, Dr. Hubert Winston Smith is cited in the April 26, 1964 report as having requested Dr. West’s visit. Dr. Smith was one of Ruby’s lawyers, and appears to have been well qualified.
Where are you getting the idea that “Ruby was never the same afterwards”? Rabbi Silverman was in regular, close, and in person, contact with Ruby before, during, and after this. As far as I know, he hasn’t indicated anything of the sort.
-
Carlson is probably citing the research of Tom O’Neill. Here’s a clip of him from Joe Rogan’s show:
-
Carlson is probably citing the research of Tom O’Neill. Here’s a clip of him from Joe Rogan’s show:
Is this in response to my question? The video says West was court appointed. I don’t believe that and I am not going to spend twenty minutes of my time watching this silly crap. If you cannot answer the question and cannot show where the court “appointed” West, then please stop disseminating this nonsense.
-
Is this in response to my question? The video says West was court appointed. I don’t believe that and I am not going to spend twenty minutes of my time watching this silly crap. If you cannot answer the question and cannot show where the court “appointed” West, then please stop disseminating this nonsense.
I encourage you to watch and make up your own mind. It never hurts to hear different points of view.
O’Neill has done in-depth research into the CIA’s MKULTRA programs and says he only accidentally stumbled upon information about Jolly West and Jack Ruby. He doesn’t address other JFK assassination related issues. He didn’t begin his research looking for a connection to the Kennedy assassination.
-
I encourage you to watch and make up your own mind. It never hurts to hear different points of view.
O’Neill has done in-depth research into the CIA’s MKULTRA programs and says he only accidentally stumbled upon information about Jolly West and Jack Ruby. He doesn’t address other JFK assassination related issues. He didn’t begin his research looking for a connection to the Kennedy assassination.
According to the April 26, 1964 report, all of this was done with prior knowledge of the American Psychiatric Association, assistance of some qualified Texas assistants, and with results of the examination completely available to the court. Why the heck you think that he “stumbled upon” some dark secret is beyond me. The first thirty seconds of that sham video is as much as I could handle.
Are we going to have to assume that you cannot answer my questions?
-
According to the April 26, 1964 report, all of this was done with prior knowledge of the American Psychiatric Association, assistance of some qualified Texas assistants, and with results of the examination completely available to the court. Why the heck you think that he “stumbled upon” some dark secret is beyond me. The first thirty seconds of that sham video is as much as I could handle.
Are we going to have to assume that you cannot answer my questions?
The first thirty seconds of that sham video is as much as I could handle.
How can you call it a sham video without having watched it? :D
-
According to the April 26, 1964 report, all of this was done with prior knowledge of the American Psychiatric Association, assistance of some qualified Texas assistants, and with results of the examination completely available to the court. Why the heck you think that he “stumbled upon” some dark secret is beyond me. The first thirty seconds of that sham video is as much as I could handle.
Are we going to have to assume that you cannot answer my questions?
Charles, in 1964 no one, except maybe high-ranking people at the CIA and the people wittingly involved with the research, knew the MKULTRA program existed. So it's reasonable to assume that few people would've thought it was strange for a psychiatrist with Jolly West's background to be treating Jack Ruby.
"MKUltra was so highly classified that when John McCone succeeded Dulles as CIA director late in 1961, he was not informed of its existence until 1963. Fewer than half a dozen agency brass were aware of it at any period during its 20-year history."
https://theintercept.com/2019/11/24/cia-mkultra-louis-jolyon-west/
Fast forward to the 1970s. After the program was brought to light, researchers have gone back and looked into the relationships and patients of people like Jolly West and Sidney Gottlieb. It may be coincidental that West treated Jack Ruby but given his involvement with MKULTRA, it can't be ruled out that West experimented on Ruby (which may have contributed to his psychosis).
Was West asked to find a way to silence Ruby before he spoke to the Warren Commission? That's a question worthy of further investigation.
-
The whole idea of a conspiracy is based on connecting imaginary random dots.
As is the whole idea that Oswald did it.
-
Charles, in 1964 no one, except maybe high-ranking people at the CIA and the people wittingly involved with the research, knew the MKULTRA program existed. So it's reasonable to assume that few people would've thought it was strange for a psychiatrist with Jolly West's background to be treating Jack Ruby.
"MKUltra was so highly classified that when John McCone succeeded Dulles as CIA director late in 1961, he was not informed of its existence until 1963. Fewer than half a dozen agency brass were aware of it at any period during its 20-year history."
https://theintercept.com/2019/11/24/cia-mkultra-louis-jolyon-west/
Fast forward to the 1970s. After the program was brought to light, researchers have gone back and looked into the relationships and patients of people like Jolly West and Sidney Gottlieb. It may be coincidental that West treated Jack Ruby but given his involvement with MKULTRA, it can't be ruled out that West experimented on Ruby (which may have contributed to his psychosis).
Was West asked to find a way to silence Ruby before he spoke to the Warren Commission? That's a question worthy of further investigation.
I called the video a sham due to the apparent fallacy that West was “court appointed” as seen in the beginning graphics. And nothing you have written leads me to believe that the video has any worthwhile “revelations” that this guy has uncovered. What exactly is it about the video that you think is so important?
-
I called the video a sham due to the apparent fallacy that West was “court appointed” as seen in the beginning graphics. And nothing you have written leads me to believe that the video has any worthwhile “revelations” that this guy has uncovered. What exactly is it about the video that you think is so important?
So the biggest issue for you are the details of "how" West got involved with Ruby's psychiatric care, not the fact the a doctor who was prominently involved with MKULTRA was treating Ruby? ::)
I think it's relevant to ask how he got involved with Ruby but like I said previously, in 1964, almost no one had heard of MKULTRA. Someone like him could've been placed in that role but easily slipped through the cracks in terms of vetting because of the lack of awareness of the program at that time...
-
So the biggest issue for you are the details of "how" West got involved with Ruby's psychiatric care, not the fact the a doctor who was prominently involved with MKULTRA was treating Ruby? ::)
I think it's relevant to ask how he got involved with Ruby but like I said previously, in 1964, almost no one had heard of MKULTRA. Someone like him could've been placed in that role but easily slipped through the cracks in terms of vetting because of the lack of awareness of the program at that time...
The point is that if, at the very beginning, the video claims something that isn’t true, then I have no interest in learning about the other falsehoods that are likely to be contained in that video.
I think I remember reading in the article you posted that West claimed that he had no knowledge that the CIA was funding the research until many years later.
You posted the video in response to my question about where you got the idea that Ruby “wasn’t the same” after West’s visit. Does the video contain that gem? Rabbi Silverman was probably the person closest to Ruby during the time period in question. And I know of no one who was actually in contact with Ruby that makes the claim that Ruby “wasn’t the same” after West’s visit.
Ruby did ask for a lie detector test and/or truth serum in order for him to hopefully have more credibility when he testified that he wasn’t involved with a conspiracy. Perhaps (just speculating here) he got the idea of a truth serum test from Dr. West’s visit.
At any rate, the idea that West “might have caused Ruby’s mental decline “accidentally on purpose” is just another example of the conspiracists’ MO of conjecture and innuendo. If there was any credible evidence that this actually happened, you would surely have stated it by this point in this conversation…
-
The point is that if, at the very beginning, the video claims something that isn’t true, then I have no interest in learning about the other falsehoods that are likely to be contained in that video.
I've seen other accounts that Ruby's lawyer appointed Jolly West. I'm not sure if O'Neill is wrong or maybe should've given more details. Your expectation that every detail be accurate seems unreasonable for an informal live interview. In live interviews, it's pretty common for guests to err on some details that they discuss. Especially an informal interview like Joe Rogan's podcast. I just don't think that detail that you're referring to is the most relevant information that he shared.
If you watched the whole clip (it's not that long), O'Neill explains that he's not an expert on the Kennedy assassination. He just happened to come across the West-Ruby connection while researching the MKULTRA program.
I think I remember reading in the article you posted that West claimed that he had no knowledge that the CIA was funding the research until many years later.
Like other CIA assets, he might've lied in his denial. How many people in history have admitted to being CIA assets? Carter Page, one of the people caught up in the Trump-Russia investigations, is the only person I can think of. (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/carter-page-says-he-was-never-paid-one-cent-for-serving-as-cia-fbi-informant-as-bureau-paid-danchenko-200k)
It's legal for people who work with or (undercover) for the CIA to lie about their relationship with the agency. I imagine they get into more trouble for telling the truth than they do if they lie about it.
But even if he told the truth, are you not familiar with the MKULTRA program? It's one of the worst crimes against humanity committed by the CIA. They conducted experiments on unwitting Americans without their consent. An unknowable number of people died due to those experiments (only two people are confirmed to have died in the program). So the fact that West spent years working on that project is bad enough.
If people were aware of MKULTRA in 1964, I doubt West would've been allowed to treat Ruby.
At any rate, the idea that West “might have caused Ruby’s mental decline “accidentally on purpose” is just another example of the conspiracists’ MO of conjecture and innuendo. If there was any credible evidence that this actually happened, you would surely have stated it by this point in this conversation.
Ruby wasn't diagnosed with psychosis until after West began working with him. Coincidence? Maybe. But given West's background as part of MKULTRA, a program that included researching techniques for inducing psychosis, it can't be ruled out that something fishy happened.
Obviously, we'll never know but It seems very naïve to brush it off as a possibility.
-
I've seen other accounts that Ruby's lawyer appointed Jolly West. I'm not sure if O'Neill is wrong or maybe should've given more details. Your expectation that every detail be accurate seems unreasonable for an informal live interview. In live interviews, it's pretty common for guests to err on some details that they discuss. Especially an informal interview like Joe Rogan's podcast. I just don't think that detail that you're referring to is the most relevant information that he shared.
If you watched the whole clip (it's not that long), O'Neill explains that he's not an expert on the Kennedy assassination. He just happened to come across the West-Ruby connection while researching the MKULTRA program.
Like other CIA assets, he might've lied in his denial. How many people in history have admitted to being CIA assets? Carter Page, one of the people caught up in the Trump-Russia investigations, is the only person I can think of. (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/carter-page-says-he-was-never-paid-one-cent-for-serving-as-cia-fbi-informant-as-bureau-paid-danchenko-200k)
It's legal for people who work with or for the CIA to lie about their relationship with the agency. I imagine they get into more trouble for telling the truth than they do if they lie about it.
But even if he told the truth, are you not familiar with the MKULTRA program? It's one of the worst crimes against humanity committed by the CIA. They conducted experiments on unwitting Americans without their consent. An unknowable number of people died due to those experiments (only two people are confirmed to have died in the program). So the fact that West spent years working on that project is bad enough.
If people were aware of MKULTRA in 1964, I doubt West would've been allowed to treat Ruby.
Ruby wasn't diagnosed with psychosis until after West began working with him. Coincidence? Maybe. But given West's background as part of MKULTRA, a program that included researching techniques for inducing psychosis, it can't be ruled out that something fishy happened.
Obviously, we'll never know but It seems very naïve to brush it off as a possibility.
If you want to pretend that you don’t see that the claim that the court appointed West is important because it insinuates a sinister act by the “conspirators” go ahead. ::)
I seem to remember reading, in the article that you posted, that West’s research was funded through a company. I don’t remember the actual name. But it seems reasonable to me that West probably had no way of knowing that that company was funded by the CIA.
A snip from “Reclaiming History” by Bugliosi:
MKULTRA: MKULTRA was one of several CIA projects in the area of mind control. The first project was approved on April 20, 1950, right in the midst of the cold war, by CIA Director Roscoe Hillenkoetter. Originally code-named BLUEBIRD, it was soon rechristened ARTICHOKE. The goal was to “control an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against such fundamental laws of nature as self-preservation.” The means was to be hypnosis (with psychiatric consultation) in conjunction with any other feasible aid, including neurosurgery and electroshock treatments, and some of the first subjects were twenty-five North Korean prisoners of war.
MKULTRA, approved by CIA Director Allen Dulles on April 14, 1953, with a budget of $300,000, was merely an offshoot of the original BLUEBIRD program, with the emphasis being on the use of biological and chemical agents, mostly psychedelic drugs such as LSD, to achieve the same end. Most of the subjects experimented on were inmates of the federal drug hospital in Lexington, Kentucky, who volunteered for the program with the understanding they would get a reduction of their sentences. However, under MKULTRA, LSD was apparently also administered to some subjects without their knowledge. Allen Dulles’s biographer, Peter Grose, writes that “at safe houses in New York’s Greenwich Village and San Francisco’s Telegraph Hill, hired prostitutes and hustlers secretly administered LSD to their varied . . . clientele as CIA men watched for reactions through one-way mirrors.” And apparently, and unbelievably, the CIA at least once administered the drug to one of its own people, with tragic consequences. Grose writes that “on November 27, 1953, seven months into MKULTRA, an American physician [who was] engaged in the project, Dr. Frank Olson, was found dead under a broken tenth-floor window of the Statler Hotel in New York City. Eight days earlier he had swallowed 70 micrograms of LSD, administered by a CIA colleague without his knowledge, in a glass of Cointreau as the team sat discussing their researches in New York. Olson apparently did not know that a week earlier the directors of MKULTRA had concluded . . . that ‘an unwitting experiment would be desirable.’” Per Grose, the CIA was of the opinion that the death of Olson was directly related to the LSD, although testimony from an LSD expert at one of my murder trials was that LSD leaves the body within twenty-four hours after ingestion. But then again there’s the well-known phenomenon of “flashbacks,” which may occur much later. Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, the CIA’s Dr. Strangelove, presided over most of the CIA’s mind control programs, and after two decades of feckless and silly efforts, he and the CIA abandoned their search for the Manchurian candidate in June of 1972. Although the CIA made an effort to destroy all of the documents that arose out of its mind control program, many of MKULTRA’s financial records survived and led to the exposure of the program in hearings before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 1977. (Marks, Search for the “Manchurian Candidate”, pp.21–23, 26, 29, 56–63, 204–208; New York Times, April 25, 1966, p.20; Grose, Gentleman Spy, pp.392–396; Leonard, Perfect Assassin, pp.3–5)The fantasy that Armstrong has come up with would seem to be outside the psychedelic scope of MKULTRA, and in any event, he does not produce for his readers one speck of evidence that Oswald was ever a part of MKULTRA, or of any other behavioral modification or mind control project run by the CIA. For the notion that not only Oswald but also Jack Ruby were under mind control (by German-Argentines trying to drive the stock market down at least thirty points) at the time of their acts through the use of techniques called Radio-Hypnotic Intracerebral Control, and Electronic Dissolution of Memory, see Lawrence, Were We Controlled? pp.23–24, 165–168.
Frankly I don’t claim to be an expert on MKULTRA but maybe if Gottlieb had gone to see Ruby (instead of West) you might have something interesting…
-
If you want to pretend that you don’t see that the claim that the court appointed West is important because it insinuates a sinister act by the “conspirators” go ahead. ::)
What difference does it make whether the court or Ruby's lawyer hired West? I don't understand why you're fixated that detail.
I seem to remember reading, in the article that you posted, that West’s research was funded through a company. I don’t remember the actual name. But it seems reasonable to me that West probably had no way of knowing that that company was funded by the CIA.
So that makes it "okay" if West conducted weird experiments with LSD and possibly drugged people without their consent?
Also, I think you're a bit gullible if you believe West worked on the MKULTRA project for over a decade yet had no idea who was running the program.
His denial proves nothing just as LHO saying that "he didn't shoot anyone" proved nothing.
For the notion that not only Oswald but also Jack Ruby were under mind control (by German-Argentines trying to drive the stock market down at least thirty points) at the time of their acts through the use of techniques called Radio-Hypnotic Intracerebral Control, and Electronic Dissolution of Memory, see Lawrence, Were We Controlled? pp.23–24, 165–168.
O'Neill never suggested that Oswald or Ruby were under "Mind-Control" at the time of the assassinations. His only theory, if you want to call it that, is that Jolly West might've induced Ruby to go insane prior to his Warren Commission interview.
Maybe watch the whole clip before making anymore assumptions...
-
Surprisingly good rant by Carlson.
Since Tucker Carlson is not a neo-conservative Republican, it is not surprising that he is open-minded about the evidence of conspiracy in the JFK assassination. The majority of Republicans still believe in the Warren Commission's lone-gunman theory, as exemplified by Ben Shapiro's recent error-filled defense of the lone-nut view. Yes, probably about one-third of Republicans favor the conspiracy view, but the remainder do not.
Conversely, the majority of Democrats believe that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, while about one-fourth to one-third of Democrats lean toward the lone-gunman view.
-
What difference does it make whether the court or Ruby's lawyer hired West? I don't understand why you're fixated that detail.
So that makes it "okay" if West conducted weird experiments with LSD and possibly drugged people without their consent?
Also, I think you're a bit gullible if you believe West worked on the MKULTRA project for over a decade yet had no idea who was running the program.
His denial proves nothing just as LHO saying that "he didn't shoot anyone" proved nothing.
O'Neill never suggested that Oswald or Ruby were under "Mind-Control" at the time of the assassinations. His only theory, if you want to call it that, is that Jolly West might've induced Ruby to go insane prior to his Warren Commission interview.
Maybe watch the whole clip before making anymore assumptions...
What difference does it make whether the court or Ruby's lawyer hired West? I don't understand why you're fixated that detail.
What difference do you think it would make if Buell Wesley Frazier was the suspected conspirator instead of “the authorities”? No one would give a rat’s behind, that’s what difference it would make.
In music, a hook is simply the part of the song that catches the ear of the listener. And when it comes to news about the JFK assassination, the hook is always about the “authorities” doing something suspicious. And that is exactly why the creators of that sham video put their hook at the beginning of the video (a hook, to catch the attention of the viewers).
However, since West stated that he was asked by Ruby’s attorney, and there is no evidence that I am aware of that the court appointed him, I don’t give a rat’s behind about whatever else might be in that video.
So that makes it "okay" if West conducted weird experiments with LSD and possibly drugged people without their consent?
LSD became a something of a recreational drug later on in the sixties. I know people who conducted experiments on themselves with it and appeared to have fun doing it. It was wrong to experiment with people without their consent. But I haven’t seen any evidence that West did that.
Also, I think you're a bit gullible if you believe West worked on the MKULTRA project for over a decade yet had no idea who was running the program.
As you said, very few people that were in the CIA knew about this program. I believe that the few that knew and ran the program would make sure that West had no idea the CIA was funding the research.
His denial proves nothing just as LHO saying that "he didn't shoot anyone" proved nothing.
Unlike LHO’s claim, it isn’t just his denial. There is no evidence that I know of that he knew. And there is ample reason to believe that the CIA wouldn’t want him to know and would keep it hidden from him.
O'Neill never suggested that Oswald or Ruby were under "Mind-Control" at the time of the assassinations. His only theory, if you want to call it that, is that Jolly West might've induced Ruby to go insane prior to his Warren Commission interview.
I didn’t say that he did suggest anything about “mind control”. It was just a part of the note from Bugliosi’s book.
There were at least five different doctors who examined and evaluated Ruby’s mental condition over the period of time in question. Dr. John Holbrook, Dr. Stubblefield, Dr. West, Dr. Tanay, and Dr. William Robert Beavers all psychiatrists and outstanding men. If anyone wants to claim that Dr. West’s visit was the cause of Ruby’s mental decline, I invite them to point it out in the reports of the five psychiatrists. Otherwise it is just suspicions, conjecture, and innuendo.
Maybe watch the whole clip before making anymore assumptions...
No thanks…
-
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?
Sure, challenging the government on the release/withholding of these documents is welcome. You don't have to be a nutjob like the Garrisonites are to ask what's happening. My guess is that this is just people protecting their fannies, that these will show some corrupt dealings with the Mexican government, maybe the Mob. Embarrassing stuff. Nothing more. Tunheim of the ARRB said he's read all of this and there's nothing he saw that was related to the assassination.
But Carlson needs to challenge those who give their answers too. And none of this anonymous stuff either. It's not an invitation to go off into conspiracy crazyville and say whatever you want. He needs to challenge them too and not uncritically accept their answers.
-
Since Tucker Carlson is not a neo-conservative Republican, it is not surprising that he is open-minded about the evidence of conspiracy in the JFK assassination. The majority of Republicans still believe in the Warren Commission's lone-gunman theory, as exemplified by Ben Shapiro's recent error-filled defense of the lone-nut view. Yes, probably about one-third of Republicans favor the conspiracy view, but the remainder do not.
Conversely, the majority of Democrats believe that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, while about one-fourth to one-third of Democrats lean toward the lone-gunman view.
In the history of national prime time TV, I don’t think anyone has ever talked about the JFK assassination the way Tucker did.
On the Left side of the aisle, Jeff Morley has been all over NBC and CNN pushing for Biden to release more files.
The fact that it’s becoming more acceptable to speculate about a conspiracy in the mainstream media is a positive sign. For decades, they have treated JFK assassination speculation as taboo.
-
Sure, challenging the government on the release/withholding of these documents is welcome. You don't have to be a nutjob like the Garrisonites are to ask what's happening. My guess is that this is just people protecting their fannies, that these will show some corrupt dealings with the Mexican government, maybe the Mob. Embarrassing stuff. Nothing more. Tunheim of the ARRB said he's read all of this and there's nothing he saw that was related to the assassination.
But Carlson needs to challenge those who give their answers too. And none of this anonymous stuff either. It's not an invitation to go off into conspiracy crazyville and say whatever you want. He needs to challenge them too and not uncritically accept their answers.
What did Jon Stewart say about Tucker Carlson?
“You have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you've failed miserably,” Stewart said to Carlson. “You need to get a job at a journalism school,” responded Carlson.
“You need to go to one,” Stewart fired back.
-
Does Tucker Carlson know what FMJ ammo is designed to do?
Do any conspiracy freaks?
-
Does Tucker Carlson know what FMJ ammo is designed to do?
Do any conspiracy freaks?
Forget about the ammo - they don't know (or care) about any of these details - do they know who JFK was? They've created this mythical Arthurian JFK who was a threat to "the Establishment" or the "military industrial complex" and it was for that threat that they killed him. You know the old "He was pulling out of Vietnam" nonsense. No, he was not going to pull out of Vietnam at that time; he had just approved the removal of Diem and he and his people thought that American power/resources could win out.
The conspiracy believers have a mythical Oswald - he was really a CIA agent pretending to hold radical views - and a mythical JFK - he was really a critic of American foreign policy and was going to end the Cold War - and out of these myths they create this incredible conspiracy involving hundreds of people over decades. It's insanity.
The assassination is an instrument, an event, a tragedy that these people who are angry at the CIA or "the Establishment" use to go after them. Usually we have people on the hard left like Oliver Stone or hard right like Roger Stone. Carlson is angry at the FBI and CIA for the Trump stuff. So are a lot of the Trumpian right (and some of their complaints have merit). The JFK assassination is the perfect vehicle for people to use to go after whatever monsters they have in their heads. It's why we have so many different explanations as to what happened. It was the CIA, no it was the Pentagon, no it was rich Texas oilmen, no it was the FBI, no it was LBJ. So many different culprits.
-
Forget about the ammo - they don't know (or care) about any of these details - do they know who JFK was? They've created this mythical Arthurian JFK who was a threat to "the Establishment" or the "military industrial complex" and it was for that threat that they killed him. You know the old "He was pulling out of Vietnam" nonsense. No, he was not going to pull out of Vietnam at that time; he had just approved the removal of Diem and he and his people thought that American power/resources could win out.
The conspiracy believers have a mythical Oswald - he was really a CIA agent pretending to hold radical views - and a mythical JFK - he was really a critic of American foreign policy and was going to end the Cold War - and out of these myths they create this incredible conspiracy involving hundreds of people over decades. It's insanity.
The assassination is an instrument, an event, a tragedy that these people who are angry at the CIA or "the Establishment" use to go after them. Usually we have people on the hard left like Oliver Stone or hard right like Roger Stone. Carlson is angry at the FBI and CIA for the Trump stuff. So are a lot of the Trumpian right (and some of their complaints have merit). The JFK assassination is the perfect vehicle for people to use to go after whatever monsters they have in their heads. It's why we have so many different explanations as to what happened. It was the CIA, no it was the Pentagon, no it was rich Texas oilmen, no it was the FBI, no it was LBJ. So many different culprits.
Corrections:
Oliver Stone(d)
Roger Stone(d)
-
MSNBC mildly criticized Biden this week for not declassifying more JFK files. The Dam is breaking
-
"California makes the best in the world now... All my life I've been doing it, off and on. I can stop marijuana... I'm not addicted. I enjoy it. I also enjoy alcohol.
"Cocaine, I stay away from, but I believe in LSD, mescaline, mushrooms, ayahuasca."
Ollie can stop using dope. Sure. :D
______
Oliver Stone's JFK: A Basket Case for Conspiracy (https://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/apr/28/jfk-oliver-stone-john-f-kennedy)
Your brain on drugs.
'Mumbo-jumbo'
_What Oliver replied when a TV interviewer explained the jump seat effect in the limo.
-
The conspiracy believers have a mythical Oswald - he was really a CIA agent pretending to hold radical views - and a mythical JFK - he was really a critic of American foreign policy and was going to end the Cold War - and out of these myths they create this incredible conspiracy involving hundreds of people over decades. It's insanity.
The WC faithful have a mythical Oswald too — one who murdered the president.
-
Long read and deep-dive into the career of Dr. Jolly West:
The Intercept: INSIDE THE ARCHIVE OF AN LSD RESEARCHER WITH TIES TO THE CIA’S MKULTRA MIND CONTROL PROJECT
The most sensitive work was conducted far from Langley — farmed out to scientists at colleges, hospitals, prisons, and military bases all over the United States and Canada. The CIA gave these scientists aliases, funneled money to them, and instructed them on how to conceal their research from prying eyes, including those of their unknowing subjects.
Their work encompassed everything from electronic brain stimulation to sensory deprivation to “induced pain” and “psychosis.” They sought ways to cause heart attacks, severe twitching, and intense cluster headaches. If drugs didn’t do the trick, they’d try to master ESP, ultrasonic vibrations, and radiation poisoning. One project tried to harness the power of magnetic fields.
MKUltra was so highly classified that when John McCone succeeded Dulles as CIA director late in 1961, he was not informed of its existence until 1963. Fewer than half a dozen agency brass were aware of it at any period during its 20-year history.
West’s professional fascination with LSD was practically as old as the drug itself. For several decades, he was one of an elite cadre of scientists using it in top-secret research. Lysergic acid diethylamide was synthesized in 1938 by chemists at Switzerland’s Sandoz Industries, but it was not introduced as a pharmaceutical until 1947. In the fifties, when the CIA began to experiment on humans with it, it was a new substance. Albert Hofmann, the Swiss scientist who’d discovered its hallucinogenic qualities in 1943, described it as a “sacred drug” that gestured toward “the mystical experience of a deeper, comprehensive reality.”
In the ’50s, even before hippies embraced the drug, “Very few people took LSD without having somebody being a ‘trip leader,’” Charles Fischer, a drug researcher, told me. The suggestibility from LSD was akin to that associated with hypnosis; West had studied the two in tandem. “You can tell somebody to hurt somebody, but you call it something else,” Fischer explained. “Hammer the nail into the wood, and the wood, perhaps, is a human being.”
Surviving records named 80 institutions, including 44 universities and colleges, and 185 researchers, among them Louis Jolyon West. The Times identified West as one of less than a dozen suspected scientists who’d secretly participated in MKUltra under academic cover.
Yet not one researcher was ever federally investigated, nor were any victims ever notified. Despite the outrage of congressional leaders and more than three years of headlines about the brutalities of the program, no one — not the “Black Sorcerer” Sidney Gottlieb, nor senior CIA official Richard Helms, nor Jolly West — suffered any legal consequences.
https://theintercept.com/2019/11/24/cia-mkultra-louis-jolyon-west/
-
Jeff Morley: Tucker Carlson, the Liberal Media, and JFK
The coverage of the U.S. government’s latest JFK document dump on December 15 marked a sea change in how American mass media talks about Kennedy's assassination.
“I turned on “Morning Joe” and I thought I was at a conference in Dallas,” one researcher told me. Jim DiEugenio, producer of Oliver Stone’s JFK documentary, laughed at out loud when I asked him about Tucker Carlson’s scorching JFK segment on Fox, which JFK’s nephew, Robert Kennedy Jr., called, in a now-deleted tweet, “the most courageous broadcast in 60 years,”
Katy Tur at MSNBC expressed hope for full JFK disclosure soon. So did Jim Acosta at CNN. NBC’s Chuck Todd was even tougher, reporting “The law demands full JFK record release, but ‘clearly the CIA doesn’t care about those consequences.”’
When I got together with two experienced national security reporters, Mike Isikoff of Yahoo News, and Phil Shenon, former New York Times reporter, we had a serious discussion about details at the heart of the enduring controversy about the causes of Kennedy’s murder. They made a cogent case for their views. I did the same for mine. We didn’t bicker about conspiracy theories. We talked about the facts.
The coverage on the Smithsonion magazine web site was respectful. The New York Post published a fine feature on Mary Ferrell, a Dallas legal secretary whose JFK research became the basis for the web site of the Mary Ferrell Foundation. The internet’s largest collection of searchable, authenticated JFK documents. (Full disclosure: the author is the vice president of the foundation.)
The traditional mode of mainstream JFK journalism—airy (or vitriolic) dismissal of anyone with doubts about the official story—was replaced by common sense skepticism about the CIA’s penchant for assassination secrecy, a willingness to hear alternative views, and in Carlson’s case, a full-throated prime time TV attack on the government’s credibility.
Nothing like this has happened in decades. The landscape of the JFK assassination story has shifted beneath our feet.
https://jfkfacts.substack.com/p/tucker-carlson-the-liberal-media
I mentioned earlier how the mainstream media seems to be shifting away from the habit of avoiding conspiracy speculation in JFK assassination reporting. Jeff seems to have noticed the trend as well.
While this is a welcome change, the real test for the media will be their handling of the 60th anniversary next year. Hopefully the coverage won't be as one-sided as the 50th anniversary.
-
Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on December 18, 2022, 04:37:42 PM
The conspiracy believers have a mythical Oswald - he was really a CIA agent pretending to hold radical views - and a mythical JFK - he was really a critic of American foreign policy and was going to end the Cold War - and out of these myths they create this incredible conspiracy involving hundreds of people over decades. It's insanity.
Really? CIA and FBI agents who were working in a covert capacity pretended to hold different political views rather frequently. There's nothing wild or insane about assuming that Oswald was doing the same, especially given the evidence we now have regarding his intelligence connections.
And who says the conspiracy involved "hundreds of people"? "Hundreds"? Where do you get that? Most of the people who took part in the cover-up were not conspirators, had no knowledge of a conspiracy, and were just following orders. All the military medical aides/technicians at the autopsy were placed under a gag order and were threatened with a court martial if they violated it--that's why many years passed before any of them began to talk about what they had seen. The few Dallas law enforcement officers who spoke out about suspicious things they had witnessed were subject to harassment and threats--one of them was murdered.
Do you have any idea how many secret and illegal government operations went undiscovered for decades, even though dozens of people participated in them? It took over 20 years before the Tuskegee syphilis experiments on blacks were uncovered. It took at least 10 years before information about the illegal radiation tests on inmates in the early 1960s began to come to light, and only in the 1990s did we learn the full scope of the illegal program. Take a guess how many years passed before the 1962 Joint Chiefs of Staff's Operation Northwoods proposal was revealed? 35 years--it was finally uncovered in 1997 by the ARRB.
-
And who says the conspiracy involved "hundreds of people"? "Hundreds"? Where do you get that?
It’s a strawman that the WC faithful invented so that they can say “Isn’t this insane? Therefore Oswald did it”.
-
Really? CIA and FBI agents who were working in a covert capacity pretended to hold different political views rather frequently. There's nothing wild or insane about assuming that Oswald was doing the same, especially given the evidence we now have regarding his intelligence connections.
True. While I believe Oswald probably was politically Liberal (like Ruth and Michael Paine), I don't believe he 'hated America' or was a devoted Communist.
His actions in 1959 and when he moved to New Orleans in 1963 smell like intelligence operations. He typically was a quiet and private guy but in both cases (Russia in 1959 and New Orleans in 1963) he went out of his way to draw attention to himself and get noticed by the Press.
And who says the conspiracy involved "hundreds of people"? "Hundreds"? Where do you get that? Most of the people who took part in the cover-up were not conspirators, had no knowledge of a conspiracy, and were just following orders. All the military medical aides/technicians at the autopsy were placed under a gag order and were threatened with a court martial if they violated it--that's why many years passed before any of them began to talk about what they had seen. The few Dallas law enforcement officers who spoke out about suspicious things they had witnessed were subject to harassment and threats--one of them was murdered.
Do you have any idea how many secret and illegal government operations went undiscovered for decades, even though dozens of people participated in them? It took over 20 years before the Tuskegee syphilis experiments on blacks were uncovered. It took at least 10 years before information about the illegal radiation tests on inmates in the early 1960s began to come to light, and only in the 1990s did we learn the full scope of the illegal program. Take a guess how many years passed before the 1962 Joint Chiefs of Staff's Operation Northwoods proposal was revealed? 35 years--it was finally uncovered in 1997 by the ARRB.
Conflating the plausible conspiracy and confirmed coverups is how they avoid addressing legit questions about the former.
Of course, no one here has assumed that every person involved with the conspiracy or coverups knew the truth. People who are directly or indirectly involved stay silent in order to protect their livelihoods and families. Some people don't want to know the truth if it's going to get them in trouble.
-
Anyone else find it strange how Carlson accusing the CIA of killing JFK was broadly ignored by the mainstream media?
Carlson currently has the most popular prime time news show and the MSM has covered him when he has said other controversial stuff. Most notably when he accused the NSA of tapping his phone.
But it's been crickets from them on the JFK assassination episode. So weird...
-
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.
I don't have subscription TV, but I do watch Clips of Tucker's show on YouTube. I like him. I think he's the most honest of the bunch. He does occasionally say stupid or unsupportable things from time to time though. I don't know what he was hoping to accomplish by throwing that bone to the conspiracy believers. It all over the web that the CIA admitted to being involved in the assassination. People are stupid.
Tucker's show is not really a straight up news program. It is an entertainment program to some degree. The program's team of lawyers did what they were hired to do. They used the same defense that Rachel Maddow's lawyers did. That's not something that lefties like you ever bring up.
https://timesofsandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/MADDOW-DISMISS.pdf
-
I don't have subscription TV, but I do watch Clips of Tucker's show on YouTube. I like him. I think he's the most honest of the bunch. He does occasionally say stupid or unsupportable things from time to time though. I don't know what he was hoping to accomplish by throwing that bone to the conspiracy believers. It all over the web that the CIA admitted to being involved in the assassination. People are stupid.
Tucker's show is not really a straight up news program. It is an entertainment program to some degree. The program's team of lawyers did what they were hired to do. They used the same defense that Rachel Maddow's lawyers did. That's not something that lefties like you ever bring up.
https://timesofsandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/MADDOW-DISMISS.pdf
"The most honest of the bunch." The judge and Fox News lawyers agreed Tucker is not to be taken seriously.
His performances are bait to attract eyeballs to his high paying advertisers' messaging.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51327868517_1515f2b54c_b.jpg)
OAN employed a Kremlin paid journalist and the political propaganda OAN puts out is identical to Russian disinfo,
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/568213-oan-loses-appeal-in-defamation-lawsuit-against-rachel-maddow/
OAN loses appeal in defamation lawsuit against Rachel Maddow
by Celine Castronuovo - 08/17/21
A columnist of this right wing extremist newspaper supports my point about the difference between Carlson and Maddow,
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/sad-at-being-called-out-for-russian-propaganda-one-america-news-threatens-to-sue-the-daily-beast
By Tom Rogan, National Security Writer & Online Editor July 31, 2019
"..One America News network and the Kremlin's Sputnik outlet like to spread fake news relating to Syria. At times they do so using the same Russian government front. This effort serves the Kremlin's interests.
And that's why One America News network will fail to get the Daily Beast retract a story on OAN's sometime-synergy with the Kremlin. OAN's lawyers are making the same demand of MSNBC, which referenced the Daily Beast's reporting on a recent episode of Rachel Maddow's show.."
-
I don't have subscription TV, but I do watch Clips of Tucker's show on YouTube. I like him. I think he's the most honest of the bunch. He does occasionally say stupid or unsupportable things from time to time though. I don't know what he was hoping to accomplish by throwing that bone to the conspiracy believers. It all over the web that the CIA admitted to being involved in the assassination. People are stupid.
Tucker's show is not really a straight up news program. It is an entertainment program to some degree. The program's team of lawyers did what they were hired to do. They used the same defense that Rachel Maddow's lawyers did. That's not something that lefties like you ever bring up.
https://timesofsandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/MADDOW-DISMISS.pdf
There was a time when the liberals questioned what they were told by the government, supported free speech, and opposed endless war. Sadly those days are long gone. It's now the conservatives who do those things while the leftist media tows the line like a state sponsored propaganda network. Tucker gets some things wrong like this bit about a conspiracy to kill JFK. But at least he questions the nonsense that is espoused by the corrupt establishment. Most recently that Russia blew up its own pipeline. Something that makes absolutely no sense but that is what they told the public. And then silence.
-
There was a time when the liberals questioned what they were told by the government, supported free speech, and opposed endless war. Sadly those days are long gone. It's now the conservatives who do those things while the leftist media tows the line like a state sponsored propaganda network. Tucker gets some things wrong like this bit about a conspiracy to kill JFK. But at least he questions the nonsense that is espoused by the corrupt establishment. Most recently that Russia blew up its own pipeline. Something that makes absolutely no sense but that is what they told the public. And then silence.
On this we agree. I consider myself to be politically Progressive and vehemently disagree with most of Tucker's content.
But what annoys me the most is that there's currently no one in the so called "Liberal media" that questions US foreign policies and challenges the military industrial complex as strongly as Tucker does. People like Michael Moore and Oliver Stone have basically been neutered by today's Liberal media which frequently defends the FBI and CIA.
The truth about the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage will be swept under the rug because it's clear that Russia didn't do it.
-
"The most honest of the bunch." The judge and Fox News lawyers agreed Tucker is not to be taken seriously.
His performances are bait to attract eyeballs to his high paying advertisers' messaging.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51327868517_1515f2b54c_b.jpg)
OAN employed a Kremlin paid journalist and the political propaganda OAN puts out is identical to Russian disinfo,
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/568213-oan-loses-appeal-in-defamation-lawsuit-against-rachel-maddow/
OAN loses appeal in defamation lawsuit against Rachel Maddow
by Celine Castronuovo - 08/17/21
A columnist of this right wing extremist newspaper supports my point about the difference between Carlson and Maddow,
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/sad-at-being-called-out-for-russian-propaganda-one-america-news-threatens-to-sue-the-daily-beast
By Tom Rogan, National Security Writer & Online Editor July 31, 2019
"..One America News network and the Kremlin's Sputnik outlet like to spread fake news relating to Syria. At times they do so using the same Russian government front. This effort serves the Kremlin's interests.
And that's why One America News network will fail to get the Daily Beast retract a story on OAN's sometime-synergy with the Kremlin. OAN's lawyers are making the same demand of MSNBC, which referenced the Daily Beast's reporting on a recent episode of Rachel Maddow's show.."
interesting stuff, oui, tom? merry christmas+
-
Anyone else find it strange how Carlson accusing the CIA of killing JFK was broadly ignored by the mainstream media?
Carlson currently has the most popular prime time news show and the MSM has covered him when he has said other controversial stuff. Most notably when he accused the NSA of tapping his phone.
But it's been crickets from them on the JFK assassination episode. So weird...
Carlson had an anonymous guest on making completely unsubstantiated claims. What is there to report on? You think this was good journalism on Carlson's part? Challenging the government is fine but that doesn't mean the challenges themselves go unchallenged. Isn't the complaint that people who challenged the Trump Administration and President Trump were uncritically relied upon?
Question: Why would the same media that exposed the abuses by Hoover and the FBI, e.g., Cointelpro, the CIA's abuses, the lies of Vietnam and Watergate and other abuses/crimes cover up for the CIA's murder of JFK? Why would they expose one but not the other?
This was the sainted JFK, a hero to the liberal establishment. I find it completely illogical for the media like the NY Times and Washington Post who certainly didn't care for LBJ or Hoover or the CIA to then turn around and cover for the murder of Kennedy. It's even worse than illogical, there isn't the slightest evidence for it. No one who worked for those outlets, to my knowledge, has ever come forward and exposed this corruption.
The idea that all of these people over nearly 60 years - several generations of Americans in government and outside - have covered up for the CIA's murder of JFK has no basis in fact whatsoever. Is there a group of guardians in government over these decades who have kept this secret? Even today? Is this remotely possible?
-
About two months before the assassination, Oswald goes to Mexico City to try to defect to Cuba. He tells the Soviet Embassy people/KGB agents that he meets that he needs to escape the US, that "I am afraid...they'll kill me!" He brings out a revolver and says he needs it to protect himself.
This is a man who does not like the US, he thinks "they'll kill me". If he did like it, he wouldn't be trying to escape to Cuba.
But if you think this was all an act, that when he was 16 and 17 and expressed radical views that he was really pretending to hold them (for what reason? He's a 17 year old HS dropout; is he nuts?), then never mind.
-
Carlson had an anonymous guest on making completely unsubstantiated claims. What is there to report on? You think this was good journalism on Carlson's part?
As I said, in the past, when Tucker has made controversial or hateful remarks on his show, the mainstream media has covered it even when they were skeptical about his credibility.
The best example from last year was his claim that the NSA spied on him:
Tucker Carlson claimed the NSA is spying on him. Even his own colleagues don’t seem to believe it
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/29/media/tucker-carlson-nsa-spying/index.html
The AP, NY Times, and NBC News also published articles about Tucker's claim about the NSA.
Do I think Tucker refusing to name his CIA source is good journalism? No. I don't think he should've made such a bold claim without citing documentary evidence or naming his source. But regardless of how weak his allegation is, it's newsworthy that such a serious allegation was made on a popular prime time cable TV show. Tucker has a huge audience.
As they did with Tucker's NSA allegation, why couldn't the mainstream media reported on Tucker's JFK claim with heavy skepticism and fact-checks? Their silence speaks volumes.
I'm not saying the silence means that Carlson's claim is credible. What I believe it mean is, JFK assassination conspiracy speculation is still very taboo in the mainstream media even while there are signs that things may be changing.
Question: Why would the same media that exposed the abuses by Hoover and the FBI, e.g., Cointelpro, the CIA's abuses, the lies of Vietnam and Watergate and other abuses/crimes cover up for the CIA's murder of JFK? Why would they expose one but not the other?
The media didn't expose all of those things. Whistleblowers came forward and the news media at least did their jobs and reported on the revelations that the Whistleblowers highlighted. The same is true of the Wikileaks and Edward Snowden stuff. The media reported on their information but didn't break the stories via their own investigations.
In contrast, revelations about the assassinations of JFK, MLK, and RFK have been for the most part ignored or downplayed by the mainstream media. You have to be blind to not see how their behavior is different on those sensitive topics.
This was the sainted JFK, a hero to the liberal establishment. I find it completely illogical for the media like the NY Times and Washington Post who certainly didn't care for LBJ or Hoover or the CIA to then turn around and cover for the murder of Kennedy. It's even worse than illogical, there isn't the slightest evidence for it. No one who worked for those outlets, to my knowledge, has ever come forward and exposed this corruption.
It's not corruption. News outlets have the right or privilege to cover or not cover whatever stories they want and put whatever spin on the stories that they want. We can speculate on their motives but we'll never know for certain. It's not something that would need to be explained in court.
Operation Mockingbird was real and it didn't end in the 1970s. The example of NBC's Ken Dilanian is proof of that.
National security reporters build close relationships with their sources in the FBI, CIA, DOJ, etc and don't want to ruin those relationships by publishing stuff that embarrasses the military or spy agencies.
But also, people like me don't get hired at the Washington Post or NBC News. They hire likeminded people who are middle of the road in their political views, not people who are critics of the military industrial complex and the CIA.
So Groupthink plays a role too. There's no need for a conspiratorial explanation when certain explanations are more obvious. These folks attend the same elite colleges, live in the same neighborhoods between DC and NYC, think alike, and have the same interests.
-
Indie media reaction
-
But what annoys me the most is that there's currently no one in the so called "Liberal media" that questions US foreign policies and challenges the military industrial complex as strongly as Tucker does. People like Michael Moore and Oliver Stone have basically been neutered by today's Liberal media which frequently defends the FBI and CIA.
Maybe it is because the "liberal media" requires evidence before reporting a story.
-
It's all fake...
Told you.
-
Maybe it is because the "liberal media" requires evidence before reporting a story.
Only true if you’ve forgotten their lack of critical reporting on WMDs during the run-up to the Iraq war and their frequent mistakes in reporting on Trump from 2016-2020.
All news reporting contains some level of bias. The mainstream media tends to be biased in favor of the national security state and people within the US national security state were uncharacteristically rattled by Trump. I mean, hundreds of articles about Trump were published citing nothing more than anonymous sources as evidence.
And the mainstream media tends to accept anonymous intelligence sources as credible often even though those types of stories have a mixed record for accuracy.
So while I don’t think Tucker citing an anonymous CIA source is good journalism, he’s not alone. That sort of thing happens often nowadays.
And regardless of whether it’s true or not, it’s newsworthy given the size of Carlson’s audience…
-
Tucker has posted a lot of nonsense about UFOs and vaccines. He is sometimes off the mark but I give him credit for questioning what he is told. Something the mainstream leftist media never does. They are foot soldiers for the Biden administration. If a woman is arrested for silently praying by authoritarian goons, it is only someone like Tucker who comes to their defense. Tucker has one of the most highly rated shows on cable TV. Why don't our contrarian CTers go to him with their evidence that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and Lifton's body alteration nonsense? He is clearly not part of the endless conspiracy to cover up the JFK assassination.
-
Because Tucker is an even bigger purveyor of nonsense than “Richard Smith”.
-
Tucker has posted a lot of nonsense about UFOs and vaccines. He is sometimes off the mark but I give him credit for questioning what he is told. Something the mainstream leftist media never does. They are foot soldiers for the Biden administration. If a woman is arrested for silently praying by authoritarian goons, it is only someone like Tucker who comes to their defense. Tucker has one of the most highly rated shows on cable TV. Why don't our contrarian CTers go to him with their evidence that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and Lifton's body alteration nonsense? He is clearly not part of the endless conspiracy to cover up the JFK assassination.
Today the term "Conspiracy Theory" is applied to pretty much anything the mainstream media doesn't want to talk about. The problem with them doing that is that sometimes, the stuff that they label "Conspiracy Theories" are partially or mostly true.
As I said earlier, the only good thing to me about Tucker is that he covers topics that most of the mainstream media won't touch. And he occasionally allows Leftwing commentators like Glenn Greenwald to come on his show and speak out against the national security state and US foreign policies.
In the absence of any similar content in the so called "Liberal Media", I give Tucker credit for that even though I disagree with him most of the time on most topics.
-
And they were vindicated...
Investigations proved that the FBI spied on Trump's campaign and that the "Russia collusion" stuff originated from Clinton campaign's opposition research. That stuff wouldn't have been exposed if Hillary won in 2016.
And we know that some in the media tried to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story despite the fact that the DHS confirmed in 2020 that it wasn't a product of Hacking or Russian propaganda.
I would enjoy watching you attempt to support your conclusion with links to credible sources. All you've done in your post is support that John Durham (and Musk's paid stooges)_accomplished their real purpose, right wing extremist disinfo history alteration, as opposed to non-partisan, evidence justified indictments and prosecutions. Opinions that Trump is anyone's victim are unfounded signs of extremist radicalization.
https://twitter.com/awprokop/status/1204173871869571072
-
I would enjoy watching you attempt to support your conclusion with links to credible sources. All you've done in your post is support that John Durham (and Musk's paid stooges)_accomplished their real purpose, right wing extremist disinfo history alteration, as opposed to non-partisan, evidence justified indictments and prosecutions. Opinions that Trump is anyone's victim are unfounded signs of extremist radicalization.
https://twitter.com/awprokop/status/1204173871869571072
Prokop twittered that right before the pandemic. Then it gets lost in the pancake.
-
I would enjoy watching you attempt to support your conclusion with links to credible sources. All you've done in your post is support that John Durham (and Musk's paid stooges)_accomplished their real purpose, right wing extremist disinfo history alteration, as opposed to non-partisan, evidence justified indictments and prosecutions. Opinions that Trump is anyone's victim are unfounded signs of extremist radicalization.
https://twitter.com/awprokop/status/1204173871869571072
Michael Horowitz, an Obama appointed inspector general, confirmed that the FBI went on a wild goose chase after Steele Dossier leads like Carter Page. He confirmed that the FBI omitted relevant facts from their FISA application, most notably, the fact that Page was a CIA asset:
...the FBI concealed that Page had been working with the CIA in connection with his dealings with Russia and had notified CIA case managers of at least some of those contacts after he was “approved as an ‘operational contact'” with Russia; the FBI lied about both the timing and substance of Page’s relationship with the CIA; vastly overstated the value and corroboration of Steele’s prior work for the U.S. Government to make him appear more credible than he was; and concealed from the court serious reasons to doubt the reliability of Steele’s key source.
Moreover, the FBI’s heavy reliance on the Steele Dossier to obtain the FISA warrant – a fact that many leading national security reporters spent two years denying occurred – was particularly concerning because, as the IG Report put it, “we found that the FBI did not have information corroborating the specific allegations against Carter Page in Steele’s reporting when it relied upon his reports in the first FISA application or subsequent renewal applications.”
https://theintercept.com/2019/12/12/the-inspector-generals-report-on-2016-fb-i-spying-reveals-a-scandal-of-historic-magnitude-not-only-for-the-fbi-but-also-the-u-s-media/
The Horowitz report - https://oig.justice.gov/node/16547
The John Durham investigation confirmed that the Steele Dossier and the Alfa Bank conspiracy theories originated political consultants linked to the Clinton campaign or DNC:
These new disclosures suggest that Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, the two former Wall Street Journal reporters behind Fusion, used the same strategy to publicize the Steele dossier and the Alfa Bank pinging story. Along with others, they simultaneously funneled information about suspected collusion to journalists, the FBI, and lawmakers—and then told reporters that government officials were investigating the issue. The result was a feedback loop that convinced journalists who already abhorred Trump for good reasons to believe they were on the right track.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/alfa-bank-ping-russiagate/
So in short, consultants connected to Hillary's campaign used their connections to the DOJ and FBI to get the FBI to look into the Steele Dossier. The FBI concluded that the most explosive claims in the Dossier lacked corroboration yet they still referenced the Dossier in their FISA warrant applications.
Aside from the Carter Page issue, the FBI used undercover agents and assets to target George Papadopoulos. One example was described by the NY Times:
F.B.I. Sent Investigator Posing as Assistant to Meet With Trump Aide in 2016
Ms. Turk went to London to help oversee the politically sensitive operation, working alongside a longtime informant, the Cambridge professor Stefan A. Halper. The move was a sign that the bureau wanted in place a trained investigator for a layer of oversight, as well as someone who could gather information for or serve as a credible witness in any potential prosecution that emerged from the case.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/fbi-government-investigator-trump.html
Who is Stefan Halper?
The FBI Informant Who Monitored the Trump Campaign, Stefan Halper, Oversaw a CIA Spying Operation in the 1980 Presidential Election
Four decades ago, Halper was responsible for a long-forgotten spying scandal involving the 1980 election, in which the Reagan campaign – using CIA officials managed by Halper, reportedly under the direction of former CIA Director and then-Vice-Presidential candidate George H.W. Bush – got caught running a spying operation from inside the Carter administration. The plot involved CIA operatives passing classified information about Carter’s foreign policy to Reagan campaign officials in order to ensure the Reagan campaign knew of any foreign policy decisions that Carter was considering...
https://theintercept.com/2018/05/19/the-fbi-informant-who-monitored-the-trump-campaign-stefan-halper-oversaw-a-cia-spying-operation-in-the-1980-presidential-election/
Cambridge Prof With CIA, MI6 Ties Met With Trump Adviser During Campaign
Halper has links to the CIA stretching back decades. His late father-in-law was Ray Cline, a CIA legend who served as director of the agency’s bureau of intelligence and research. Halper also worked with a team of former CIA officers on George H.W. Bush’s unsuccessful 1980 presidential primary bid. Halper was reportedly in charge of a team of former CIA analysts who kept tabs on the Jimmy Carter campaign.
At Cambridge, Halper has worked closely with Dearlove, the former chief of MI6. In recent years they have directed the Cambridge Security Initiative, a non-profit intelligence consulting group that lists “UK and US government agencies” among its clients.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/05/17/halper-trump-page-papadopoulos/
So the evidence is overwhelming that the FBI (and possibly the CIA and MI6) spied on Trump's campaign. It's also clear now that the media narrative about Trump-Russia collusion originated from Clinton campaign operatives laundering uncorroborated Steele Dossier claims to the public via the news media.
Dirty politics isn't new, nor is it illegal. What's most concerning about the stuff was the role played by the intelligence community. It's scary when they meddle in domestic politics. I don't think that was the first time, nor the last that intelligence operatives have spied on domestic political campaigns.
-
Only true if you’ve forgotten their lack of critical reporting on WMDs during the run-up to the Iraq war and their frequent mistakes in reporting on Trump from 2016-2020.
I seem to recall the NY Times among others reporting that the leaders of all other countries except the U.K. were saying the evidence of WMDs is false. I am not aware of "frequent mistakes" in reporting on Trump while he was in office. In any event, they were much more likely to report unbecoming verified facts concerning President Trump than were the Fox "News" and their like.
All news reporting contains some level of bias.
That is recognized by good journalists and that is why they go through an objective process to determine reliability of alleged facts before publishing.
The mainstream media tends to be biased in favor of the national security state and people within the US national security state were uncharacteristically rattled by Trump. I mean, hundreds of articles about Trump were published citing nothing more than anonymous sources as evidence.
There is nothing wrong with reporting anonymous sources so long as the reporter does the due diligence to verify the credibility and reliability of the source. This was, after all, how Woodward and Bernstein broke the Watergate story using the anonymous "deep throat" source.
The problem with Fox "News" and Trump using "anonymous" sources is that they either make them up or, if they exist at all, are not objectively vetted for reliability and credibility.
And regardless of whether it’s true or not, it’s newsworthy given the size of Carlson’s audience…
It is only newsworthy if it is very likely true. That is the problem with Fox and other "news" services (Info Wars, National Enquirer etc.). They don't care whether it is true. There is not much difference between that and outright lying.
-
There is nothing wrong with reporting anonymous sources so long as the reporter does the due diligence to verify the credibility and reliability of the source. This was, after all, how Woodward and Bernstein broke the Watergate story using the anonymous "deep throat" source.
Credible sources are sometimes wrong. Credible sources sometimes lie. It's not always clear what motivates someone to anonymously leak serious allegations. Sometimes they don't act in good faith. Citing people who are willing to go on record is always preferable to off the record quotes.
Still, I don't think it's always bad to cite sources who prefer to remain anonymous. But if they're not giving documents or other evidence to corroborate their claims, it's not a good journalistic practice to rely on them.
In the Trump years, there were dozens of anonymously sourced stories about him that turned out to be wrong. They got very sloppy with their reliance on those types of sources when it came to Trump. Sometimes reporters were held accountable for sloppy reporting but not always:
3 CNN Journalists Resign After Retracted Story on Trump Ally
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/business/3-cnn-journalists-resign-after-retracted-story-on-trump-ally.html
The problem with Fox "News" and Trump using "anonymous" sources is that they either make them up or, if they exist at all, are not objectively vetted for reliability and credibility.
Again, even credible sources and credible news outlets get things wrong from time to time. All I'm saying is that Tucker's use of an anonymous source isn't that uncommon in today's news media environment.
However, I don't think Tucker's reporting holds any weight if he's not willing to name his source. I just think it's significant to hear someone on a prime time news talk show discuss the JFK assassination in the way that he did (beginning with the factual story about Jolly West and Jack Ruby).
-
Credible sources are sometimes wrong. Credible sources sometimes lie.
If a source lies, the source is not credible. There are established methods of verifying and continuing to verify credibility. See, for example, this paper. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233127063_Source_credibility_and_journalism)
However, I don't think Tucker's reporting holds any weight if he's not willing to name his source. I just think it's significant to hear someone on a prime time news talk show discuss the JFK assassination in the way that he did (beginning with the factual story about Jolly West and Jack Ruby).
Tucker's reporting does not hold any weight because he is not a journalist. He makes things up. He doesn't care about accuracy. He appears to care only about feeding his ego and keeping his audience.
-
If a source lies, the source is not credible. There are established methods of verifying and continuing to verify credibility. See, for example, this paper. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233127063_Source_credibility_and_journalism)
I agree HOWEVER, throughout the Trump years, mainstream media outlets were burned by sources that they deemed "credible" dozens of times.
Hence why I continue to say that they shouldn't "rely" on anonymous sources. Sometimes those sources are wrong. Sometimes they intentionally lie.
Former MI-6 spy, Christopher Steele was considered a "credible" intelligence source by the FBI and the mainstream media until he was discredited by the FBI's Inspector General.
Tucker's reporting does not hold any weight because he is not a journalist. He makes things up. He doesn't care about accuracy. He appears to care only about feeding his ego and keeping his audience.
What he said about Jolly West and Jack Ruby is 100% true.
Without knowing who Tucker's CIA source is, I can't treat his claim about the classified documents as credible. But I give Tucker credit for at least addressing the issue of potential CIA involvement in the Kennedy assassination and/or the coverup.
-
I agree HOWEVER, throughout the Trump years, mainstream media outlets were burned by sources that they deemed "credible" dozens of times.
Hence why I continue to say that they shouldn't "rely" on anonymous sources. Sometimes those sources are wrong. Sometimes they intentionally lie.
Former MI-6 spy, Christopher Steele was considered a "credible" intelligence source by the FBI and the mainstream media until he was discredited by the FBI's Inspector General.
What he said about Jolly West and Jack Ruby is 100% true.
Without knowing who Tucker's CIA source is, I can't treat his claim about the classified documents as credible. But I give Tucker credit for at least addressing the issue of potential CIA involvement in the Kennedy assassination and/or the coverup.
I mostly agree with your observation about the lack of skepticism by the media in uncritically reporting damaging allegations about Trump, about the alleged collusion, the Steele Dossier, the Hunter laptop story, and other matters. You don't have to be a Trump supporter - I'm certainly not one - to recognize that a lot of the media, for ratings reasons and for political ones, were repeating allegations without fully or even partially vetting them.
I don't think that was due to any sympathy towards the FBI or CIA; it was due to their dislike of Trump and to feed their audience. Sure, Carlson feeds his viewers what they want to hear but he's an opinion host. We had supposed straight reporters on the other networks promoting these stories without any skepticism at all. CNN was the worst at this.
But, again, I don't see any pro-national security state type motivation behind this. Which is why I don't see any relationship to these latest claims about the CIA and the JFK assassination. There's nothing there. If there was some serious revelations about the CIA being involved I'm sure they would jump on it. The fact that they may be too close to the CIA today doesn't mean they would defend the CIA of 60 years ago.
What's to report, Jon? Morley's claims? Based on what? He makes a lot of very specious allegations that are based on little more than his imagination. He throws out a lot of claims - Joannides here and AMSPELL there and Veciana over here and Operation Northwoods there - and to people not versed on the matter it sounds like there's something of significance. But there isn't. Or at least he hasn't presented any evidence of one; it's why he's asking for the release of Joannides files. As I said before, I can't see any reason why Angleton/CI would want to embarrass the FPCC in New Orleans using Oswald. For what purpose? Oswald? The FPCC's support was in the north, in New York and other cities with liberal communities (the late Norman Mailer was a member). Why do this where it had no support?
-
I don't see any pro-national security state type motivation behind this.
Are you saying that you don't believe there are current or former intelligence and/or military officials who believe there was a conspiracy and coverup in the JFK assassination? I can think of several off the top of my head.
I don't know of any who have publicly pointed the finger directly at the CIA but most of the few individuals that I'm thinking of acknowledge that there was an intelligence coverup and probable conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination (some of them point the finger at Castro).
How numerous those types are or how common that sort of speculation is within the national security community, I have no idea. But it doesn't seem far-fetched that Tucker, who was raised in a wealthy politically connected family and has friends in the Intelligence Community, would know an insider or two who would tell him that.
Which is why, despite my skepticism, I'm not going to assume that Tucker is lying. He or his source could be wrong but it doesn't mean Tucker made the whole thing up. Until Tucker provides more than hearsay from an anonymous source, I don't think anyone should view Tucker's allegation as credible.
But I still think the fact that the allegation was made on a prime time cable TV show (one of the highest rated prime time cable news shows) is as newsworthy as Tucker's unfounded allegation in 2021 about the NSA spying on him. The mainstream media covered Tucker's NSA allegation in-depth back in 2021 but crickets from them in 2022 after his CIA-JFK claim.
Which is why I don't see any relationship to these latest claims about the CIA and the JFK assassination. There's nothing there. If there was some serious revelations about the CIA being involved I'm sure they would jump on it. The fact that they may be too close to the CIA today doesn't mean they would defend the CIA of 60 years ago.
I'm NOT sure that they would given the fact that the mainstream media often ignores or buries scandals involving the CIA. Not just JFK assassination related stories. I can think of a number of other embarrassing and scandalous stories about the CIA in the last decade or so that were buried in the news headlines. How many Americans know about the CIA's death squads in Afghanistan and Syria? Or the CIA getting caught spying on the Senate's torture investigations? The most recent scandal that I'm aware of was the revelation that the CIA, under director Mike Pompeo, plotted to kill or assassinate Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks. The information about the plot originated from a case in a Spanish court involving one of the contractors the CIA used to spy on Assange but 30 former CIA officials confirmed aspects of the allegation. Outside of Yahoo News, I don't think any major news outlets in the US covered that story.
Link - https://news.yahoo.com/cia-pitched-trump-officials-plans-130727657.html
Is the mainstream Press making a judgement that the public doesn't care about holding the CIA accountable? Or are they intentionally burying those types of stories for "other" reasons? It's difficult to know why they do it but it's a familiar pattern now.
Hence why I have doubts that they would seriously cover any credible JFK assassination news unless they were forced to in the event that a "Smoking Gun" surfaces.
What's to report, Jon? Morley's claims? Based on what?
You seem to be giving these intelligence agencies the benefit of the doubt, which is fine but I believe Morley is a good faith actor who is just seeking the truth. And I appreciate his effort to keep this stuff in the news in the mainstream Press. Morley is a Liberal, anti-Trump guy so moderate and liberal media will be more receptive to him than Tucker Carlson.
I don't assume that the secrecy proves that the CIA was involved with the plot against JFK. But they're running out of excuses for not making public the files that Morley has requested. I also don't think it's fair to call people "conspiracy theorists" or "crazies" for demanding that the files be declassified after almost 60 years.