The Anniversary Of The Assassination Of RFK

[Stan Wilbourne]

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?

[Shanet Clark]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[Shanet Clark]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[Tim Gratz]

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.

Edited June 9, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Knight]

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.

[Ron Ecker]

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

[Christopher T. George]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

[Norman T. Field]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[Bill Cheslock]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

[Stan Wilbourne]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[Bill Cheslock]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

[Ron Ecker]

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.

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

[Tim Gratz]

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.

[Tim Gratz]

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?

Edited June 11, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Knight]

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.