Johnny Cairns

Yes it was President Kennedy whose courage saved the world in 1962, but others like Robert Kennedy played a vital role and helped Jack to this decision. For example, in the October 18 meeting in the cabinet room, when the pressure of a preemptive strike was ramping up, Robert Kennedy told his brother, “I think it’s the whole question of, you know, assuming that you do survive all this, what kind of country we are… we did this against Cuba. We’ve fought for 15 years with Russia to prevent a first strike against us. Now, in the interest of time, we do that to a small country. I think it’s a hell of a burden to carry.” Robert Kennedy also, played a pivotal role in back-channel negotiations with the Soviet Union. On October 27, 1962, he met secretly with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin to convey a crucial message. In this meeting, Robert Kennedy offered a deal where the U.S. would publicly agree not to invade Cuba and secretly agree to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey in exchange for the Soviet withdrawal of missiles from Cuba. Have you read these transcripts, in their entirety, for yourself?

Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change the world which yields most painfully to change. Robert Francis Kennedy.

Aaron what country are you in? In the UK, I bought the 4K version on iTunes.

It’s very candid. He talks about Jack a lot. Every time Robert Kennedy talks openly about his brother, I hear the grief, the pain of November 1963 still in his voice.

It would have been a disaster. Greg is right, it was Christ like the stance the President took in October 1962. Have you ever heard this? Robert Kennedy was interviewed weeks before his death in 1968 by David Frost. He talks about his greatest achievement, his contribution during the Cuban Missile Crisis. https://historical-records.com/records/david-frost-talks-to-bobby-kennedy/

I agree Jim. When JFK asks LBJ what his thoughts were at the first meeting Johnson states, ”I think that we’re committed at any time that we feel that there’s a buildup that in any way endangers, to take whatever action we must take to assure our security… I think the question with the base is whether we take it out or whether we talk about it, and either alternative is a very distressing one. But, of the two, I would take it out.” Thank god Kennedy was President.

This book is simply a must read. The transcripts of the White House meetings held during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It shows just what certain elements of President Kennedys government were advocating for to deal with the Cuban problem in 1962. Terrifyingly if it wasn’t for the humanity and leadership of The President, The Attorney General and Ted Sorensen to name a few, this world would have effectively ended during October 1962. It also proves quite clearly that we will never see the likes of men like Jack and Bobby Kennedy again, and we are all the lesser for it.

I couldn’t agree more Jim. By Mr Morrows insinuations, JFK was so unhinged and compromised that he was a reckless President. The reality is Jack Kennedy was the last great American President who wanted to take his country in a new direction, One of peaceful co-existence with the Soviet Union. Instead of blackmailing this “reckless, sexually unhinged” President with “gutter morals”, Mr Morrows words, President Kennedy was ear marked for assassination. Says it all really.

If you could please address the last part of my last comment that would be great.

I think I’ll let Arthur Schlesinger, JR. do the talking on this one… “Some think today that there was an an unending procession of bimbos through Kennedy‘s White House and that the Washington press corps knew about it but covered up for him because newspapermen liked him… as one who worked in the White House I never saw anything untoward. Kennedy was a hard-working president concentrating intently on the matters at hand. One sometimes here’s the argument that recklessness in private life leads to recklessness in public life. But history shows no connection between private morals and public behaviour. Martin Luther King Jr. for example had wayward sexual habits but was all the same a tremendous moral force for his people and for his nation . On the other hand, Pol Pot of Cambodia was apparently devoutly religious and a faithful family man. All he did was to murder hundreds of thousands of his countryman.” A Thousand Days- p. xiii, xiv.

It’s quite clear by your response that you have no facts but rather unsubstantiated hearsay to back up your slander of President Kennedy. Also why are you rambling on about LBJ? He’s not the topic of discussion, Jack Kennedy is.

If it wasn’t for the courage and humanity of President John Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, this world would have undergone total nuclear annihilation in 1962. Think about that next time you feel the need to slander the man.

Mark Twain once said; Who so clinging from a rope by his hands severith it above his hands must fall. It being no defense to claim that the rest of the rope is sound. As for Mr Bugliosis statement if Jim Marrs, “would want to know if Oswald had killed Kennedy, not whether he would get off on a legal technicality” Question, if the state cannot vouch for the veracity of its evidence then how do they A. Know that the accused is guilty? B. Prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt? Why is chain of custody important? Chain of custody is a crucial concept in legal proceedings that refers to the process of maintaining and documenting the handling of evidence. This starts at the moment the evidence is collected at the crime scene and continues through to its presentation in court. The purpose of this process is to protect the evidence from tampering, contamination, or mishandling, and to provide a documented history of its management and control. As for the letter enclosed above, how does that prove that the bullet Johnsen and Rowley had is the bullet designated as CE399? Also according to this very letter the stretcher the bullet came from had rubber gloves, a stethoscope and other doctors’ paraphernalia, which is consistent with whose stretcher? Ronald Fuller. Fullers’ stretcher was described as having sheets which were soiled in blood. Rosa Majors told Tink Thompson that she and Era Lumpkin had used gauze pads to clean the child, that either she or Era had been wearing rubber gloves, and that Era had a stethoscope. She cannot remember what happened to this equipment... but it was possible that it was left behind on the stretcher when the two aides carried Ronald Fuller into Major Medicine.” (Six Seconds In Dallas; p. 161/164.) Again I will re-affirm for the benefit of the thread. Tomlinson, couldn't ID bullet. Stated that he wasn’t sure which stretcher the bullet came from. Wright, Flat out rejected CE399 as the bullet he held in his possession that day. Personal friend of Bardwell Odum. Johnsen, couldn’t ID the bullet when shown to him by Todd. Rowley, couldn’t ID the bullet when shown to him by Todd. Odum, claims never to have had in his possession, let although take to Parkland Hospital, CE399. This is not a chain of custody. This is a complete deterioration of the credibility of the evidence. Again why would you want these men testifying at trial about these points?

I would be very happy for Wade to call Tomlinson and Wright to the stand, by why stop there? Why not also called Richard Johnsen and James Rowley also? These men were also in the custody chain. Tomlinson, who wasn’t shown and asked to ID 399 during his Commission testimony, wouldn’t be a good witness for the state unfortunately, why? Because he refused to state that the bullet came from Connolly’s stretcher. Also the very nature of the discovery of the bullet, would throw up major problems as this was allegedly found on an unguarded stretcher, meaning anyone could place or remove anything from it. He also refused to ID 399 when shown it by JT at Parkland in 1966. As for Wright, whom the Commission neglected to call, when he was shown pictures of CE399 by Thompson at Parkland, he flat out rejected that specific bullet as looking like the bullet he held in his possession that day. He claimed that the bullet had a pointed tip, not round. If you would like some quotes of his rejection of 399, I can of course provide them. Why would Wade/you want to call him as a witness? CE2011, also states that SA Johnsen and Rowley couldn’t ID, CE399 when asked to ID it, why did you leave that out? Of course Odum, who was alleged to have shown Tomlinson and Wright 399, according to CE2011, flat out rejected that he had done so! Again, why would you want him to take the stand? Then to top it all off, you would have to sell to the jury that this virtually pristine bullet caused all the non fatal wounds in two men, breaking bones along the way. Dr Joseph Dolce, Chief Consultant of Wound Ballistics for the US Army, supervised the ballistic test conducted by the Warren Commission. Even though he oversaw the Commission’s own ballistics tests, he was not called to give testimony before the Warren Commission. This is what Dr Dolce had to say regarding Commission Exhibit 399: “No it could not have caused all the wounds, because our experiments have showed beyond any doubt that merely shooting the wrist deformed the bullet drastically and yet this bullet [399] came out as almost a perfectly normal pristine bullet… And so, they gave us the original rifle, the Mannlicher Carcano plus 100 bullets, 6.5mm, and we went, and we shot the cadaver wrist as I have just mentioned and in every instance the front or the tip of the bullet was smashed. It’s impossible for bullet to strike a bone, even at low velocity and still come with the perfectly normal tip. The tip of this bullet was absolutely not deformed in no instance whatsoever, in no amount. Under no circumstances do I feel that this bullet [399] could hit the wrist and still not be deformed. We proved that by experiments.” Of course, men like Dr. Robert Shaw and even Humes and Finck would cast serious doubt on 399 having even caused one of the governors wounds. Arlen Specter “And could it [CE399] have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?” Pierre Finck. “No; for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist.” (Volume II; p. 382) Arlen Specter. “Dr. Humes, under your opinion which you have just given us, what effect, if any, would that have on whether this bullet, 399, could have been the one to lodge in Governor Connally's thigh?” Commander James Humes. “I think that extremely unlikely. The reports, again Exhibit 392 from Parkland, tell of an entrance wound on the lower midthigh of the Governor, and X-rays taken there are described as showing metallic fragments in the bone, which apparently by this report were not removed and are still present in Governor Connally's thigh. I can't conceive of where they came from this missile.” (Volume II; p 375-376) Arlen Specter. “What opinion, if any, do you have as to whether that bullet could have produced the wound on the Governor's right wrist and remained as intact as it is at the present time?” Dr Charles Gregory. “In examining this bullet, I find a small flake has been either knocked off or removed from the rounded end of the missile. I was told that this was removed for the purpose of analysis. The only other deformity which I find is at the base of the missile at the point where it Joined the cartridge carrying the powder, I presume, and this is somewhat flattened and deflected, distorted. There is some irregularity of the darker metal within which I presume to represent lead. The only way that this missile could have produced this wound in my view, was to have entered the wrist backward.” (Volume IV; P. 121) Arlen Specter. What is your opinion as to whether bullet 399 could have inflicted all of the wounds on the Governor, then, without respect at this point to the wound of the President’s neck? Dr Robert Shaw. I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet. (Discussion off the record.) So just to sum up. 1. Serious chain of possession issues. 2. Serious Identification issues. 3. Serious problems with the condition of 399. 4. Ambiguous origins, as evidence strongly suggestions that bullet was found not on Connolly stretcher but of the stretcher of Ronald Fuller. 5. Experiments conducted by the Warren Commission, couldn’t replicate condition of 399. You said getting 399 into a court of law would be a piece of cake? I don’t think so…