Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Cory Santos

Interesting interview, ABC news

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Well, I take 3 things away, 1) Hoover told RFK about JFK in a cold voice, no emotion.  2) RFK thought "they" would go after him 3) There was a conspiracy to protect the bureaucracy.

It would be nice to ask, based on the new records, did you know A?  or B? or C?  Does that change your mind about if there was a conspiracy?

https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=131457&page=1

Edited by Cory Santos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

"I believe that Oswald, operating alone, killed President Kennedy. I can't prove it, and I have about a two or three percent doubt in the corner of my mind about that it's conceivable, possible maybe, in a very remote circumstance that [...conspiracy is...] an exceedingly marginal possibility and I only raise it because I can't absolutely rule it out."

Was a man ever less pregnant?

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Well, I take 3 things away, 1) Hoover told RFK about JFK in a cold voice, no emotion.  2) RFK thought "they" would go after him 3) There was a conspiracy to protect the bureaucracy.

It would be nice to ask, based on the new records, did you know A?  or B? or C?  Does that change your mind about if there was a conspiracy?

https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=131457&page=1

Having read the article you linked, and being in the middle of my own investigation into the RFK involvement with Cuba, I think it confirms the obvious. Yes there was a conspiracy and it does point towards the Mafia in New Orleans working in conjunction with, and for combined interests with, a bunch of people based in Texas.

At the same time I am investigating the 1959 movements of Lee Harvey Oswald, and if ever there was a convoluted story about what is now called 'grooming', the journey of Lee Harvey Oswald on his way to the USSR via England (!) has to be it.

His trip to England has not been thoroughly researched, it is almost impossible to explain and the entire episode wreaks of a young man being given instructions along the way as to where he is going and how to get there. The question is: who is giving him the instructions and why did he have to go to the USSR via England, when he told everyone he was off to college in Switzerland? In case you are wondering, Switzerland is in the opposite direction and on the side of the English Channel from which LHO had to cross in order to get to England, when all he had to do after his ship sailed from New Orleans to France, was to get off the ship and catch a train to Switzerland.

You don't cross the English Channel and go to England to get to Switzerland!

I see a very confused young man being given a strange historical background long before JFK was even elected President.

To me this sounds just like the sleeper cells groomed by KGB at Cambridge University to penetrate CIA, only in Oswald's case, it sounds more like MI6 grooming him for some future use, at the time unknown and unspecified. But that is how sleepers are groomed.

It makes perfect sense for LHO to one day wake up (too late) and shout that he was a 'patsy'.

Mervyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Mervyn interesting points.  I cannot agree on your comments about the KGB or MI6 because I need more facts to support that, but I realize you are just giving your opinion which is why we are here.

Similarly, I find it odd that James Earl Ray was able to escape the country and get to Europe so easily apparently.

I would like to know more about that and I think what you said about LHO being in England is worth a look.

Edited by Cory Santos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Mervyn interesting points.  I cannot agree on your comments about the KGB or MI6 because I need more facts to support that, but I realize you are just giving your opinion which is why we are here.

Similarly, I find it odd that James Earl Ray was able to escape the country and get to Europe so easily apparently.

I would like to know more about that and I think what you said about LHO being in England is worth a look.

Hi Cory. The person is documenting LHO in England, is Jason Ward. Mervyn

See this thread: What is known about Oswald's time in England?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Having read the article you linked, and being in the middle of my own investigation into the RFK involvement with Cuba, I think it confirms the obvious. Yes there was a conspiracy and it does point towards the Mafia in New Orleans working in conjunction with, and for combined interests with, a bunch of people based in Texas.

At the same time I am investigating the 1959 movements of Lee Harvey Oswald, and if ever there was a convoluted story about what is now called 'grooming', the journey of Lee Harvey Oswald on his way to the USSR via England (!) has to be it.

His trip to England has not been thoroughly researched, it is almost impossible to explain and the entire episode wreaks of a young man being given instructions along the way as to where he is going and how to get there. The question is: who is giving him the instructions and why did he have to go to the USSR via England, when he told everyone he was off to college in Switzerland? In case you are wondering, Switzerland is in the opposite direction and on the side of the English Channel from which LHO had to cross in order to get to England, when all he had to do after his ship sailed from New Orleans to France, was to get off the ship and catch a train to Switzerland.

You don't cross the English Channel and go to England to get to Switzerland!

I see a very confused young man being given a strange historical background long before JFK was even elected President.

To me this sounds just like the sleeper cells groomed by KGB at Cambridge University to penetrate CIA, only in Oswald's case, it sounds more like MI6 grooming him for some future use, at the time unknown and unspecified. But that is how sleepers are groomed.

It makes perfect sense for LHO to one day wake up (too late) and shout that he was a 'patsy'.

Mervyn

Umm, nevermind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Umm, nevermind.

Nice one Ron. Let's ignore LHO's bizarre actions in 1959 which seem to indicate that he is not in charge of his own travel plans - or destiny, or that it takes a lot of time to 'groom' a 'sleeper'. I suggest you begin to look at the convoluted story involving Kim Philby and all of the others who came out Cambridge University and were planted in very strategic locations to spy on the UK and USA. Their activities 'matured' during the Sixties. I am sure that the KGB did not have a patent on this idea and that CIA was doing exactly the same sort of thing in reverse. These individuals were 'groomed' for future use, and not a specific project at the time they began their trek. They were also contained within a 'need to know' framework. Since CIA came out of OSS and OSS came out of Churchill's England during WWII, I think that it is at least worthy of a glance to consider whether in fact this is the world that LHO got roped into. Keep in mind that CIA never uses a prefix such as 'THE', because although it has a formal framework it is an organization by nature that is composed of a lot of loose cannons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/8/2018 at 9:03 PM, Cory Santos said:

Well, I take 3 things away, 1) Hoover told RFK about JFK in a cold voice, no emotion.  2) RFK thought "they" would go after him 3) There was a conspiracy to protect the bureaucracy.

It would be nice to ask, based on the new records, did you know A?  or B? or C?  Does that change your mind about if there was a conspiracy?

https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=131457&page=1

Contradictions undermining his no conspiracy conclusion abound.

For instance, Thomas claims distrust in govt happened because they were ‘covering up’ anything to assure the public Oswald acted alone and the communists didn’t do it.

But RFK INSTANTLY suspected the Cuban/CIA nexus, and he was better informed than most on that front.. 

Then Thomas admits JFK did separate himself from his national security state following the BoP,  and the fact that gap only grew is now clearer than ever and could’ve served as a motive behind the assasination with govt plotters using the very real fear of nuclear war to avoid investigation.

Also what Thomas doesn’t address is if the intel agencies covered their tracks in the interest of calming the citizenry why the CIA continued to lie and obstruct justice in the case for decades leading up to the present day.

Sorry, ain’t buying it. More blinders and ignorance from a MSM journalist on the assassination. He even trots out the condescending and insulting ‘a little man killed a big man’ theory on why thinking adults don’t believe the official story.

BTW the reason the American people still love JFK isn’t based on some myth Jackie made up. It comes from the fact that he was a helluva smart guy who had the American people’s best interests at heart and was committed to a creating a peaceful world in a very dangerous time. 

 

 

 

Edited by Mike Kilroy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike Kilroy said:

BTW the reason the American people still love JFK isn’t based on some myth Jackie made up. It comes from the fact that he was a helluva smart guy who had the American people’s best interests at heart and was committed to a creating a peaceful world in a very dangerous time. 

 

 

 

Mike, Americans have been fed a lot of drivel about a lot of things and JFK died before his disasters could be pinned on him. They were pinned on LBJ (who was no shining star) and a lot of other people (many who deserved it.) But as for JFK he was an image without substance who created one heck of a mess - just like his brothers and just like their father. As for Jackie, well the fact that she got away with her myth only goes to show how stupid the public are and why TV producers never aimed above a 13 year old mentality. No I am not a Kennedy fan at all. Over the years Americans have become a lot more cynical and because moral codes have been removed they are not judgmental about the lives of politicians in general, although the current hoopla by bimbos, sometimes decades after the fact is now creating another wrecking ball for the idea of American 'justice'. It is almost another aspect of religious and racial bigotry. But just as the witch trials of old eventually became seen for what they really were, so this bimbo phase will also pass, but not without creating a wave of destroyed lives in its wake. The Kennedys unfortunately have so far got away with a lot that they should be blamed for, and perhaps that day will also dawn. However, the question of who shot Jack and why, still remains to be answered. Whether it was or was not LHO, I am convinced that he was as he claimed he was, a 'patsy' in someone else's game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Mike, Americans have been fed a lot of drivel about a lot of things and JFK died before his disasters could be pinned on him. They were pinned on LBJ (who was no shining star) and a lot of other people (many who deserved it.) But as for JFK he was an image without substance who created one heck of a mess - just like his brothers and just like their father. As for Jackie, well the fact that she got away with her myth only goes to show how stupid the public are and why TV producers never aimed above a 13 year old mentality. No I am not a Kennedy fan at all. Over the years Americans have become a lot more cynical and because moral codes have been removed they are not judgmental about the lives of politicians in general, although the current hoopla by bimbos, sometimes decades after the fact is now creating another wrecking ball for the idea of American 'justice'. It is almost another aspect of religious and racial bigotry. But just as the witch trials of old eventually became seen for what they really were, so this bimbo phase will also pass, but not without creating a wave of destroyed lives in its wake. The Kennedys unfortunately have so far got away with a lot that they should be blamed for, and perhaps that day will also dawn. However, the question of who shot Jack and why, still remains to be answered. Whether it was or was not LHO, I am convinced that he was as he claimed he was, a 'patsy' in someone else's game.

Well, you got the last part right ;)

i dissgree about your assessment of JFK. I think the Camelot crap actually trivializes and distracts from what a unique president he was in modern times. 

For instance, he understood nationalist movements for what they were - people yearning for freedom and self-determination not simply places to stop communist influence. 

Also, his attempts to end the Cold War a good 25 years before it did are obvious. The test ban treaty was a huge first step in lessening nuclear tension while his call for a joint mission to the Moon with the Russians was out and out radical even to this day.

 Not sure what you mean by the bimbos and American justice unless you’re talking about Trump’s issues which go far beyond his affairs, IMO.

Edited by Mike Kilroy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

M.Haggar.

Respect everyone's own opinion about most everything.

Would like to express my own regards the subject M. Haggar addresses.

I am not an educated presidential historian.

However, I feel compelled to debate your post stating Americans have been fed a lot of drivel regarding JFK and your other comments such as JFK being an image without substance who created one heck of a mess-just like his brothers and just like their father. Also Jackie and her self perpetuated myth.

I was only 9 when JFK was elected President. Just a kid. But I have been able to observe every presidency since JFK. That's 15 presidencies!

I was very precocious in being interested in JFK even at my young age of 9 through 12. I couldn't get enough of watching JFK speak on TV, and would read anything I could find JFK related in our local newspaper and even in our school weekly reader. I remember reading about the Peace Corps, JFK's inspired message of space exploration and his challenge for our young people to become public duty minded and more physically fit, etc.

I had two older brothers actually take on JFK's challenge of 50 mile hikes. One made it. The other collapsed at the 35 mile mark and had to be thrown moaning and semi-conscious onto a flat bed truck to be brought back and unceremoniously dumped at the starting point.

There was absolutely a very real inspired energy and excitement among young people in this country while JFK was president. His more youthful and fit appearance and his equally energized and inspiring speeches truly made young people feel something special and more hopeful about their future as Americans. Eisenhower was respected, but much more in a grandfatherly way.

The fact that both JFK and Jackie Kennedy looked like beautiful and glamorous movie stars just added to this real excitement about them .

We also saw other countrie's citizens go bananas with similar enthusiasm when our young President and First Lady visited them. We could see how JFK  was inspiring them as well. We knew we had something very special with JFK and Jackie and felt a sense of showing off pride when they traveled abroad and encountered these massive wildly adoring receptions and crowds.

I grew up in California. Perhaps in racially divided areas of the country JFK was portrayed as a very bad person and American due to the growing perception of his stance on racial equality. Maybe my youthful memories of JFK were only regional. However, my guess is that my take on JFK as a young American was much more widely held than hateful racially biased ones.

My point here though is that I believe JFK and Jackie's iconic images were much more created by just who they were ( their inborn character and talents ) versus some self-perpetuated myth as you suggest.

And one of the easiest ways to measure John F. Kennedy's true abilities and image is simply to look at the 15 successive presidents and their own images and achievements in comparison.

Talk about a self-perpetuated overblown presidential image myth? Ronald Reagan and Nancy were poster stars for this kind of fluff.

To this day, much of our media "still" portrays the great Gipper/Napper RR as some kind of heroic savior.  And astrology addicted, "my Ronnie" fawning and "Just Say No"  Nancy as the real class of First Ladydom. Please.

Now there's a self-perpetuated myth.

And compare G.W.Bush and now Trump to JFK. Dear God!

And as far as JFKs policy achievements, how much would you expect to see the final fruits from in just the first 3 years of any presidential term?  It's during and after those second four years where anything could be truly defined as successes and failures.

 

Edited by Joe Bauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe I guess you said it all in your last few lines. I don't buy into party politics, obviously you do. I stand by my previous comments. Mervyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

MH: Mike, Americans have been fed a lot of drivel about a lot of things and JFK died before his disasters could be pinned on him. They were pinned on LBJ 

Mr. Hagger, you are not  serious with the above, are you?

This is from a tape dated February 20, 1964, only three months after Kennedy was killed.

LBJ: I always thought it was foolish for you to make any statements about withdrawing.  I thought it was bad psychologically.  But you and the president thought otherwise, and I just sat silent.

McNamara: The problem is...

LBJ: Then come the questions, how in the hell does McNamara think, when he's losing the war, he can pull men out of there?  (Virtual JFK, James Blight, p. 310)

About two weeks later, in another conversation, LBJ actually wants McNamara to write a memo saying he did not really mean what he said in October of 1963 about bringing American troops home. (Blight, p. 310.)

Now, I really hope I don't have to tell you how just days after that, LBJ did something JFK never did.  He had the JCS submit plans to him for a combined air/sea assault on North Vietnam. (Gordon Goldstein, Lessons in Disaster, p. 108) This  resulted in NSAM 288, which many historians consider today to be the ultimate reversal of NSAM 263.

All one needs to know about NSAM 288 is what the Pentagon Papers say about it.  In Volume 3, Chapter 1 of the Gravel Edition, it begins with the following, "In enunciating the policies of NSAM 288 we had rhetorically committed ourselves to do whatever was needed to achieve our stated objectives in South Vietnam.  The program decided upon and spelled out in NSAM 288 reflected our recognition that the problem was greater than we had previously supposed and the  the progress that we had previously thought we were making was more apparent than real. The program constituted a larger effort than we had undertaken before: it corresponded to our increased estimate of the magnitude of the task before us."  (emphasis added)

In other words, what JFK would not do in three years, LBJ had done in three months. He had made an unlimited American commitment to save Saigon.

As you can see from the tape above, the first person to try and distort and conceal the difference between JFK's withdrawal plan and Johnson's escalation plan was President Johnson.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

MH: Mike, Americans have been fed a lot of drivel about a lot of things and JFK died before his disasters could be pinned on him. They were pinned on LBJ 

Mr. Hagger, you are not  serious with the above, are you?

This is from a tape dated February 20, 1964, only three months after Kennedy was killed.

LBJ: I always thought it was foolish for you to make any statements about withdrawing.  I thought it was bad psychologically.  But you and the president thought otherwise, and I just sat silent.

McNamara: The problem is...

LBJ: Then come the questions, how in the hell does McNamara think, when he's losing the war, he can pull men out of there?  (Virtual JFK, James Blight, p. 310)

About two weeks later, in another conversation, LBJ actually wants McNamara to write a memo saying he did not really mean what he said in October of 1963 about bringing American troops home. (Blight, p. 310.)

Now, I really hope I don't have to tell you how just days after that, LBJ did something JFK never did.  He had the JCS submit plans to him for a combined air/sea assault on North Vietnam. (Gordon Goldstein, Lessons in Disaster, p. 108) This  resulted in NSAM 288, which many historians consider today to be the ultimate reversal of NSAM 263.

All one needs to know about NSAM 288 is what the Pentagon Papers say about it.  In Volume 3, Chapter 1 of the Gravel Edition, it begins with the following, "In enunciating the policies of NSAM 288 we had rhetorically committed ourselves to do whatever was needed to achieve our stated objectives in South Vietnam.  The program decided upon and spelled out in NSAM 288 reflected our recognition that the problem was greater than we had previously supposed and the  the progress that we had previously thought we were making was more apparent than real. The program constituted a larger effort than we had undertaken before: it corresponded to our increased estimate of the magnitude of the task before us."

In other words, what JFK would not do in three years, LBJ had done in three months. He had made an unlimited American commitment to save Saigon.

As you can see from the tape above, the first person to try and distort and conceal the difference between JFK's withdrawal plan and Johnson's escalation plan was President Johnson.

James, of course I am serious, what makes you think that I am joking?

Oh, yes, you leap to conclusions and assume you know what I was referring to. But your rebuttal was in vain. That is not what I was referring to. No, I will not clarify my statement because it is a side issue.

Mervyn

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What other "disaster" are you referring to then?

Indonesia?   Congo? The Civil Rights Act of 1964?  Anti poverty programs?  Model Cities? 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×