Jump to content
The Education Forum

Not all damaging WC testimony was changed! What gives?


Recommended Posts

Clearly THE changes THAT WERE MADE were made to suit the Warren Commission's aims, not to thwart them.

Your statement above, of course, assumes that the WC had any "aims" to begin with (such as nailing Oswald to the wall at all costs).

I don't think they had any such "aim".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly THE changes THAT WERE MADE were made to suit the Warren Commission's aims, not to thwart them.

Your statement above, of course, assumes that the WC had any "aims" to begin with (such as nailing Oswald to the wall at all costs).

I don't think they had any such "aim".

Well of course they did. The Katzenbach memo spelled it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the Katzenbach memo is yet another thing that conspiracy theorists have been misrepresenting and misinterpreting for decades now.

There is certainly more than one way to interpret the words that Nicholas Katzenbach wrote in his memo to Bill Moyers on 11/25/63, as I discuss HERE and as Mr. Katzenbach himself explains in the HSCA audio excerpt below:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Another interesting non-conspiratorial portion of the Katzenbach memo is this part:

"I think this objective may be satisfied by making public as soon as possible a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the assassination."

Do conspiracy theorists think that Katzenbach was really talking in some kind of secret code or something when he said that a "complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the assassination" should be made public "as soon as possible"?

I.E., was Katzenbach REALLY saying that only a "phony" or a "fake" FBI report about Oswald and the assassination should be made public? Because if Katzenbach really knew about Oswald's rumored involvement with the FBI (and CIA), and Katzenbach was "in" on some cover-up operation from the get-go, he certainly wouldn't REALLY want the FBI to release a "complete and thorough" report concerning Oswald, now would he?" -- DVP; Oct. 27, 2007

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the Katzenbach memo is yet another thing that conspiracy theorists have been misrepresenting and misinterpreting for decades now.

There is certainly more than one way to interpret the words that Nicholas Katzenbach wrote in his memo to Bill Moyers on 11/25/63, as I discuss HERE and as Mr. Katzenbach himself explains in the HSCA audio excerpt below:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Another interesting non-conspiratorial portion of the Katzenbach memo is this part:

"I think this objective may be satisfied by making public as soon as possible a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the assassination."

Do conspiracy theorists think that Katzenbach was really talking in some kind of secret code or something when he said that a "complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the assassination" should be made public "as soon as possible"?

I.E., was Katzenbach REALLY saying that only a "phony" or a "fake" FBI report about Oswald and the assassination should be made public? Because if Katzenbach really knew about Oswald's rumored involvement with the FBI (and CIA), and Katzenbach was "in" on some cover-up operation from the get-go, he certainly wouldn't REALLY want the FBI to release a "complete and thorough" report concerning Oswald, now would he?" -- DVP; Oct. 27, 2007

Katzenbach made it perfectly clear that the public should be shown that Oswald was the assassin, even though he hadn't even been tried let alone convicted. And that there was no conspiracy, even though there had hardly been an investigation to show such a thing. And that all the facts be presented in a way that would convince the public of these things.

And that is exactly what the Warren Commission did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Katzenbach made it perfectly clear that the public should be shown that Oswald was the assassin, even though he hadn't even been tried let alone convicted. And that there was no conspiracy, even though there had hardly been an investigation to show such a thing.

As I said, it's a matter of interpretation. There's not just one way to interpret what Katzenbach meant in his memo. Play the video I posted above. Listen to Katzenbach explain it himself.

Plus, why on Earth would Katz write such a memo if his objective was a secretive one involving a cover-up and a bunch of lies? In such a situation, you think Katzenbach would commit it to WRITING? That's absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...