It was thirty-seven years ago today.

Did Robert really think the powers that killed his brother would allow him to win the White House? Survivor's guilt?

And, do you think it was the same apparatus that murdered both brothers?

Stan

It certainly is damned suspicious now isn't it?

Whatever had been gained by the murder would pretty much be lost if the younger brother returned to the White House.

And if John Kennedy could be painted as "red" "pink" or some kind of security clearance incapacity case, then so could Bobby.

Whatever the pretext for one fit the other, you understand........

They certainly look related, historically.

The Robert Kennedy murder takes us much deeper into Shakespearean type historical tragedy, and show that universal urge to hunt the clan you are jealous of, like the CENTURIONS knifing the second century emperors, that is what the ROBERT KENNEDY ASSASSINATION brings forward in my reading of that time in history, a Roman Empire type political upheaval.

Force, violence ........ I see illegitimacy usurping power by force and violence.

Stan

It certainly is damned suspicious now isn't it?

Whatever had been gained by the murder would pretty much be lost if the younger brother returned to the White House.

And if John Kennedy could be painted as "red" "pink" or some kind of security clearance incapacity case, then so could Bobby.

Whatever the pretext for one fit the other, you understand........

They certainly look related, historically.

The Robert Kennedy murder takes us much deeper into Shakespearean type historical tragedy, and show that universal urge to hunt the clan you are jealous of, like the CENTURIONS knifing the second century emperors, that is what the ROBERT KENNEDY ASSASSINATION brings forward in my reading of that time in history, a Roman Empire type political upheaval.

Force, violence ........ I see illegitimacy usurping power by force and violence.

I thought Aristotle Onassis killed RFK.

It seems logical to connect the assassinations of the sixties but the logic MAY be superficially appealing but nonetheless wrong.

It has been said so often that everyone old enough remembers where he or she was when he or she heard of the assassination of JFK. I bet the same is true with respect to the assassination of RFK. I vividly remember how I heard about it.

It seems logical to connect the assassinations of the sixties but the logic MAY be superficially appealing but nonetheless wrong.

Tim, it appears that you've been holding out on us...what EVIDENCE do you have that these assassination are NOT connected? Or is it as I suspect...that you have no evidence, but only a strong belief that, to connect these assassinations [JFK, RFK, MLKjr, and the attempt on George Wallace] would be ann attempt to stain the robes of "Saint Milhaus the Pure"? After all, his resignation wasn't REALLY affected by the articles of impeachment, based upon his total and absolute respect for the sanctity of the laws, either...he just thought it'd be a nice additon to his resume', I suppose, and it gave that nice boy, Gerry Ford, a hand up when he needed it.

Take the blinders off, Tim. Republicans are just as capable of committing illegal acts--including murders--as Democrats, Masons, Episcopalians, soccer fans, and drug addicts with anger-management issues...or any other segment of society.

Maybe Nixon was involved...maybe he wasn't...but to use your devotion to "Tricky Dick" to assert that there was NO connection among the assassinations of the '63-'72 era is a bigger leap of faith than LOOKING for evidence that Nixon MIGHT have been involved. That's analagous to the Warren Commission assuming that there was NO conspiracy in JFK's assassination, and THEN taking testimony and looking at evidence...and we ALL know that's the wrong way to investigate ANYTHING.

To me the most obvious evidence that the Kennedy assassinations were connected is that a magic bullet was used in both cases. In the case of RFK, the lone nut involved shot at the Kennedy involved from a few feet in front of the Kennedy and hit him point-blank behind the ear.

If that wasn't magic, I'd like to see Al, Ryan, or John reenact that shot on a dummy.

Ron

Hi all

I have heard that there are suspicious circumstances in the Robert Kennedy assassination just as there are in the JFK assassination, if it was not the complex imbroglio that the Dallas affair was -- the murder of a political candidate versus the murder of the President of the United States, in and of themselves different orders of magnitude with differing implications and ramifications, even if the murders were Kennedy and Kennedy.

I have not read extensively enough about the RFK murder to really comment. However, what about the copycat scenario wherein Sirhan Sirhan just wanted his bit of fame. Did Lee Harvey Oswald begat Sirhan Sirhan begat Walter Bremer begat Mark David Chapman begat John Hinkley? Are we to see conspiracies in all those events as well? Or does it make it different that Kennedys were involved?

Best regards

Chris George

Copycats? Sirhan Sirhan would probably have a hard time even reading about LHO let alone wanting to share in the 'glory' the man received.

However, LHO did demonstrate the value of the 'Lone Nut' gunman so well that the same technique has been used again and again. Check out the Warren Beatty movie 'Executive Action' for how the LNs could have been recruited and placed.

I have often wondered about the Lennon murder and the attempted Reagan hit. Hoover hated Lennon beyond reason and Reagan was not a member of the Trilateral commision, Bush Sr. was. So motives abound.

Stan:
On January 16, 1992, Robert Kennedy's press secretary, Frank
Mankiewicz, appeared on "Larry King Live." This exchange between King and
Mankiewicz was quite interesting"

King: "Did Bobby ever express an interest in opening up the files, looking into
it?" (The JFK assassination)

Mankiewicz: "He indicated a couple of times--once to me and I gather once to
Arthur Schlesinger and once to Richard Goodwin, at least---that he was concerned about the Warren Commission verdict; that he didn't quite believe it. He asked me to learn as much as I could. And then a week or two, as I recall, before he was killed in Los Angeles, at a political meeting, he was asked if he would open the files on the assassination of President Kennedy and he said yes---if he were elected President---and he said yes, he would." ("Larry King Live" television
program, CNN, January 16, 1992)

Bill Cheslock

Bill, but did Robert really think the power that murdered his brother -- and I think he had a real good idea what/who that power was -- would allow him to win the White House? It seems to me that when he announced his run for the presidency, he willingly signed his own death warrant. I wonder why.

Stan:
I believe that only the Kennedy family and its tight circle of friends really know what Robert was thinking when he made a run for the White House. I think
Senator Ted Kennedy knows an awful lot about both assassinations. The Kennedy family was a very powerful entity in Washington, and I find it hard to believe that
the secrets of the assassinations could be kept from them.
This is only speculation, but perhaps Robert felt that the powers that be
had killed one Kennedy, and wouldn't kill another without bringing the wrath of the country down on them, with a demand for a complete and thorough investigation.
RFK may have been counting on the powers to pull back and say, "we assassinated
one kennedy, we can't get away with assassinating another." If this was Robert's
thinking, and it's only speculation on my part, then he woefully underestimated his
adversaries.
Yet another theory I have thought of over the years has been the possible guilt that Robert carried with him after JFK's assassination. Some have written that
Robert's war against organized crime brought the wrath of the Mafia down on JFK
in Dallas, and Robert blamed himself for this for years after the guns of Dealey Plaza. Again, speculation brings me to theorize that perhaps Robert decided to go for broke, and make a run for the White House. I remember reading that he said
the road to the truth behind his brother's murder has to go through the oval office.
I wish I could remember where I read that, as I like to use references for quotes like that. I will look for the source. However, Robert may have felt that he had no choice but to go for broke, make a run for the White House, reopen his brother's assassination investigation like his press secretary said he would, and let the chips fall where they may. It may have been something similar to a death wish charge made by Robert Kennedy in 1968.
Bill Cheslock

Similarly, I remember reading that LBJ told someone, after he announced that he would not seek reelection, that he didn't know who would be the next president, but that "it won't be a Kennedy." He didn't mean it in a nice, speculative way. But I don't know where I read it and how credible the source was. I wish I could find it again.

Ron

To Mark Knight:

No, sir, you have it backwards, I submit.

If it is your position the assassinations were connected you need to offer evidence to show the connection; it is insufficient to merely assime they were.

It is difficult to determine whether they were or were not connected (planned by the same sponsor(s)) without first solving one of them.

My only point was that it is easy to assume they were connected but the assumption could be wrong.

Since we do not know for sure who planned either assassination we cannot determine whether they were or were not connected.

I did not state whether or not the assassinations were connected. If I am right that Castro plotted the JFK assassination, it is even possible he also plotted RFK's since Castro knew that RFK was the driving force behind JFK's Cuban policy. But I have seen no evidence that would connect Castro to the RFK assassination.

All I was saying is it is premature to assume a connection between the assassinations.

I do need to add that your attitude is disrespectful and probably goes a long way toward explaining why few conservatives are willing to join the research committee. I am confident I want to solve the assassination as much as any member of this Forum. Your ridicule does not bother me because all it does, in my opinion, is reflect adversely on your intelligence. It is obviously absurd for you to argue that I do not want to see a connection between the assassinations to protect the reputation of Richard Nixon. As I stated above the only point I made was that the easy assumption that the assassinations were connected could turn out to be false.

Let me go a little further on this theme. As I argued in a different thread, there is no way Nixon could have assumed he could achieve the presidency in 1968 if he had JFK assassinated.

Had JFK served two full terms, Nixon would have been running against a non-incumbent in 1968. Whereas, with JFK dead, Nixon would have had to assume he would be running against President Johnson in 1968. There was no way for Nixon to predict that LBJ would "self destruct" in large part due to his Vietnam policies.

Throughout American history the cases in which incumbent presidents were not re-elected have been rare.

So, from the perspective of 1963, it was not in Nixon's political interest to cause the presidency of LBJ.

I also do not believe there is sufficient evidence to malign the reputation of LBJ as a possible sponsor of the JFK assassination. But if LBJ killed JFK he may have also killed RFK since he allegedly hated RFK. But as I said, I do not think it appropriate to even name LBJ as a possible conspirator in the JFK case without any more evidence than we now have. (The quote Ron attributes to LBJ is certainly interesting, however.)

If Castro killed JFK, there is no evidence that he was involved in the RFK assassination, and it is probably unlikely that he killed RFK.

If organized crime killed JFK, it is possible it also killed RFK since it would be logical to assume that RFK would resume his "mob-busting" if he became president. And I understand there are a few items that suggest possible mafia involvement in the assassination of RFK.

But I understand the recent book about RFK (is it "Nemesis") makes a fairly strong argument that Onassis killed RFK. Has any member read the book and can comnent on it?

OK, Tim; so when you said that assumptions that the assassinations may be connected were wrong, you merely meant to say they MAY be wrong. Pardon me for taking you at your word, and not being clairvoyant enough to see into your mind. [My "Madame Zelda's Mind-Reading Course" hasn't come in the mail yet.]

I don't think that any Nixon involvement in the JFK assassination would have been predicated upon the '64 or '68 elections; my theory is that, if he was involved, his motive in 1963 would've been strictly based upon revenge, with perhaps a bit of "for the good of the country" thrown in, if Bernice's post on Hoover providing info from his Kennedy dossier to Nixon--from the "Communications Breakdown" thread--is correct. So any Nixon element to the JFK assassination would be based upon "correcting" past events, and not in anticipation of future elections. In '63, Nixon was still smarting from '62's California gubernatorial debacle, and his subsequent "won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore" comments. Nixon had a brooding nature--as is demonstrated in conversations on the White House tapes--and was a creature who relished revenge--as is ALSO demonstrated on the White House tapes. So to say that a revenge killing--one done by others, mind you, but one of which Nixon may have had foreknowledge--is beneath Nixon is to deny Nixon's very nature. Since Nixon's career was at its lowest point since his '48 election to Congress in 1963, to assume that he had ANY designs on the White House in '64 or '68 as of 1963 is stretching the envelope a bit. So therefore, whether LBJ was in the White House in '64 or not didn't matter one whit to Nixon in 1963...but taking revenge on the man who had, effectively, ruined his political life, appears to have some possible appeal to Nixon.

More on this topic--the JFK/MLKjr/RFK/Wallace shootings and their possible connection, and not SIMPLY Nixon and the JFK assassination--later. Tim, I still see your arguments against any connection as being colored more by personal politics than anything else. I, On the other hand, see BOTH the Republican and Democrat parties as nothing more than two respective pits of vipers out to bamboozle the American public; and so I have no incentive to promote--or protect--the reputation of EITHER. Hope this doesn't reflect adversely on my intelligence, this ability to think beyond what either party tells me to think.

Mark, as you may know, Nixon had the opportunity to legally contest the results of the 1960 election, and in fact was counseled to do so but he decided not to do so, for the good of the country. Had he done so 1960 could have been like 2000, even worse.

So without any evidence I think it quite improper to speculate that RN killed JFK to avenge for a stolen election. Don't you suppose if LBJ had any inlking that RN did it he would have closed in on the man who he could reasonably expect to be his strongest rival in 1968?

I don't believe that Nixon was involved in the JFK assassination to avenge a "stolen election"; rather, I believe that Nixon saw his political career, which was constantly rising until the 1960 election, hit rock-bottom when he couldn't even get elected governor of his home state--a state that was apparently proud of him being vice-president--just two short years after his loss to Kennedy. Or did someone ELSE say "you won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore" after the '62 gobernatorial debacle, and we overlooked the ventriloquist's wizardry?

You can't ignore that statement, Tim. It's the statement of a defeated man. And if his prospects looked as bleak to him as the statement indicates, it's not difficult to imagine--maybe it is for YOU, since I still haven't received that mind-reading course in the mail--that Nixon realized that his downward spiral began with the 1960 election...and, by extension, for Nixon to blame Kennedy for his fate in '62.

Now, if Nixon was to have been made aware of a plot to snuff JFK, it's not a long reach to conclude that, as attuned to revenge that he was, he would have enjoyed the prospect and NOT interfered...even though, as an attorney and an "officer of the court," he had a duty to report such a conspiracy, his conduct as recorded on his own White House tapes leads me to believe that no such reporting would have been made by him.

And as far as LBJ having any inkling that Nixon may have been involved...if the Nixon scenario occurred, I honestly doubt that LBJ would've been privy to any of the details.

But if I were to try to concoct an alibi for myself, as a public figure such as Nixon, what better one would there be than LEAVING the city where the murder is to occur, earlier on the DAY of the murder, via air, where it's impossible to leave the plane and then return unless you're Clark Kent? You now have an airtight alibi that you were nowhere on earth--you were in the sky--when the murder occurred, so YOU couldn't POSSIBLY have done it yourself. But it's rather curious that, later, Nixon couldn't even remember being in Dallas that day...and yet nearly every American who was over the age of six can remember in great details where they were that day. Or maybe, in the words of one of his successors, Nixon was merely "disassembling" [I KNOW the correct word is "dissembling", Tim].

And if Nixon was trying to cover up his presence in Dallas on 11/22/1963--despite witnesses who placed him there--one must ask WHY. To date, I've not heard an explanation that has the ring of truth.

Mark, I hate to say it but this is another post in which the logic is hard to politely describe.

There is no evidence, none, zilch, zip, that Nixon had prior knowledge of a plot to kill Kennedy.

But you write:

Now, if Nixon was to have been made aware of a plot to snuff JFK, it's not a long reach to conclude that, as attuned to revenge that he was, he would have enjoyed the prospect and NOT interfered...even though, as an attorney and an "officer of the court," he had a duty to report such a conspiracy, his conduct as recorded on his own White House tapes leads me to believe that no such reporting would have been made by him.

Why do you say "it's not a long reach to conclude" Nixon would not have reported a plot to kill JFK? If he HAD knowledge, we KNOW he did not report it. One does not need logic to ASSUME that. As a matter of fact, he did NOT report any such plot.

But it's an academic question since he had no foreknowledge of the assassination.

You are right, however, that Nixon assumed he was finished politically when he lost the 1962 gubernatorial election. Hence his injudicious remark to the press.

There is no evidence, none, zilch, zip, that Nixon had prior knowledge of a plot to kill Kennedy.

Y'know, Tim...until the White House tapes emerged, there was no evidence that Nixon was involved in the obstruction of justice in the Watergate case, either.

BUT THAT DIDN'T PRECLUDE HIS PARTICIPATION IN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, DID IT?

Using your logic, Tim, just because Jimmy Hoffa's not been seen since 1975 is no reason to conclude that he was kidnapped or murdered, SINCE THERE'S NO EVIDENCE. Maybe he just took a long vacation without telling anyone, or seeing--or being seen by--anyone on his way to his destination.

As with any theories about Nixon's involvement, there are only unanswered questions. And anyone who has read any of the Warren Commission's report knows that it's not polite to pursue unanswered questions. And since you already know for absolutely certain that Nixon not only wasn't involved in, but also had no foreknowledge of, the JFK assassination, it would be pointless to search for answers to these questions concerning inconsistencies in his statements.

I stand enlightened by your thinking, Tim. I'm a new man, free to go on to other things now that I know that any unanswered questions about Mr. Nixon don't matter, since we have your word that he absolutely, positively wasn't involved in, and had no foreknowledge of, the JFK assassination.

Tim,

Nixon was in Dallas that morning. It could have been a coincidence, but I'm sick of coincidences.

And no, he wasn't there to shoot Kennedy. I wouldn't want to be within miles of Nixon trying to shoot a gun. He had enough trouble just trying to erase a tape. (after 18 minutes or so he gave up.) He was in Dallas as a sign of moral support for the killers. But that's just my opinion.

Ron

Ron, coincidences do, of course, happen.

For instance, I must assume it no more than a coincidence that George DeMohrenschildt was so close to Jackie Kennedy's mother.

It was not a coincidence that Nixon was in Dallas. As you know Nixon was in Dallas to attend the Pepsi-Cola bottlers convention, Pepsi being one of his most substantial law clients. So unless that convention was set to coincide with the JFK trip to Dallas, Nixon's presence in Dallas is explained.

All that being said, your humor is outstanding (as always)!

Mark, there you go again!

Again, anything is possible, but absent evidence one cannot assume something happened.

Now Mark we have no evidence that Captain Kangaroo and Mr. Green Jeans were involved, but then again the absence of evidence does not preclude their involvement.

So you tell me with no evidence of involvement by Nixon, what the heck good does it do to speculate?

I think everytime I see baseless speculation about someone who was probably innocent I will start a new thread about another possible suspect.

Does anyone really know where the Captain was on November 22nd?

That is how pointless all this speculation is. If Nixon was involved, since there is no evidence of his involvement, by golly he got away with it. The same may be said about Captain Kangaroo.

And by the way your history is wrong again. It is from my recollection but I am quite sure the House had already voted Articles of Impeachment against Nixon relating to obstruction of justice before the so-called "smoking gun" emerged and precipiated his resignation. But it is quite likely that Nixon would not have been impeached but for the revelations on the tapes. And even his obscenities on the tape eroded his support among conservative Americans.

Which, I think, raises another point that proves his innocence in Dallas. Nixon may have been a crook but he was a lousy crook. As a crook, he was so stupid he could not figure out he should have destroyed all the tapes before their existence was disclosed. Just as Ron so humoursly pointed out about not wanting to be anywhere near Nixon shooting a gun, one would not want to be a co-conspirator in any criminal enterprise with Richard Nixon!

Tim, I am shocked--shocked!!--that you would, even in jest, impugn the characters of not one but TWO loyal, patriotic Americans such as Captain Kangaroo [obviously a graduate of the same school of psuedomilitary titles as one famous but enigmatic Colonel Parker, manager of the late Mr. Presley] and Mr. Greenjeans.

The difference is, Nixon had associates such as Mitchell, Stans, Dean, Hunt, Liddy, Colson, Haldeman, Erlichmann, and Magruder...men who would break the law for their Commander-In-Chief, some of whom would NOT draw the line at murder. Pardon me this one generality, but a man does not gather this type of associates in an instant; they are accumulated over a period of years.

Unless there is a coverup regarding the backgrounds of Bunny Rabbit or Mr. Moose, Captain Kangaroo and Mr. Greenjeans had no such unsavory associates.

In another thread, you revealed that you worked in Nixon's 1960 campaign. Could it be you're simply too close to the trees to accept that there might be a forest out there somewhere?

Or did Tricky Dick TELL you he wasn't involved [and from the Watertgate tapes, we KNOW Mr. Nixon would never, EVER, tell a lie]?

Again, anything is possible, but absent evidence one cannot assume something happened.

Tim, you're correct...but I'm not assuming it DID happen. I'm merley postulating that it MIGHT have happened. But one cannot assume something DIDN'T happen until the evidence has been examined. For some reason, you're becoming a bit shrill about even LOOKING for any evidence, either to prove or DISprove Nixon's involvement.

And, as usual, you missed my point about Nixon's meeting with Pepsi-Cola in Dallas. It wasn't his BEING in Dallas that I find suspicious; rather, it's the fact that he apparently never told the same story twice about about either being in Dallas, OR about how and when he heard of the JFK shooting.

But I've come to expect such a response from you; to explain away the parts that AREN'T in question, so that you can ignore the parts that ARE.

Again, your personal politics are coloring your assessment of the facts, apparently.

Anyone check out the title of this thread recently