Anthony Thorne Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 Kampmark teaches at my old school in Melbourne. He's a smart guy, but not at all on this subject, and his article is idiotic. Trump just tweeted about the files again, btw. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/923277142271684609 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Langendoen Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 So it is really going to happen... As soon as it becomes available I will try to download it and start looking at interesting information. I guess most of you here will be doing the same thing. I hope there will be some interesting information about Oswald’s trips to Mexico, but also about his trip from Sovjet Union via Germany and Holland to the States. Let’s see if the files will shed some new light on these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Santos Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 42 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said: Always interesting to note otherwise informed commentators weigh in on the case. This has been posted by the academician Binoy Kampmark. https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/25/when-conspiracies-meet-donald-trump-and-the-jfk-files/ Here is his conclusion, evidence to the effectiveness of the calculated black-out of information developed since 1992: “The Kennedy files that are promised for release are hardly going to rock the boat, alter the world, or change a single mind. Historians will be able to bring out modestly updated versions of old texts; official accounts might be slightly adjusted on investigations, locations and suspects, but the conspiracy set is bound to stick with grim determination to ideas long formed and re-enforced by assumptions that refuse revision.” It also speaks to the longstanding success of the CIA’s 1967 memo which established the talking points used to discredit the so-called conspiracists. It set a framework which sidestepped the factual record in favour of speculating on the psychological makeup of those who would question the official account. Most if not all of the mainstream coverage in the past week or two has posited a simple dichotomy of reasonable historians (who accept Oswald’s guilt) opposed to factually/mentally challenged c-theorists. That said, the advance of knowledge allowed by the JFK Records Act, particularly in tracking the extent of the cover-up, has forced the emergence of a fall-back position embodied by Shenon and Sabato: “yes there was a coverup, but it was designed to hide the incompetence of the CIA and FBI, who were aware that Oswald was dangerous but failed to stop him. “ That will likely be the position of “responsible” historians for the foreseeable future. Academics? Look, how can anyone say what the secret information is and how relevant it is unless they have seen it? Not a very scientific approach for any historian to suggest that, let alone any social scientist. But, then again, he might know everything. Who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Thorne Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 Just dumb. I mean, look - Quote official accounts might be slightly adjusted on investigations, locations and suspects Suspects, plural? If he's conceding that there's more than one potential suspect, he's conceding the whole ball game, yet his article sticks with throwing mud at 'conspiracy buffs'. Kampmark has written good things on other topics, but I'm concerned that he's going to be spouting this rubbish about the JFK assassination to his students. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Cory Santos said: Well one thing, if, as some suggest, President Bush was part of the conspiracy based on fuzzy photos and two memos and that Netflix documentary, then why would he ok the release of information if anything pointed back to him? Makes no sense. Or, will this be the big joke, as opposed to the big event (pun on Hunt there), that the records all along point the finger at Cuba and/or Russia in the biggest 25 year joke ever with nothing pointing in any direction. It seems by the articles I have been reading that this could be the direction this will go. More smoke and mirrors? If so, the truth really will never be known because, the physical evidence which was essential in proving the case was either destroyed (clothes, cars, records, autopsy photos) or missing, etc. I think Bush signed the act because it passed unanimously. That's pretty much unheard of as Mr. Kelly noted. To have not signed it would have brought unwanted attention to Bush and the CIA he was once director of. With the level of interest at that time, which is why it passed unanimously, people would have wanted to know what reason he had for not signing it. He knew they could still fight, stall, stonewall and delay release of any documents they most wanted to protect. Edited October 26, 2017 by Ron Bulman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 9 hours ago, Bart Kamp said: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/john-f-kennedy-assasination-cuba-cia-lee-harvey-oswald-antonio-veciana-a7957481.html good article for msm newspaper Thanks for posting this. They talk about Phillips, Veciana and Fonzi, mention Morales along with ZR/RIFLE and even elaborate a little on Operation Mongoose. More than anything I've seen in the msm in the good old USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 2 hours ago, Anthony Thorne said: Kampmark teaches at my old school in Melbourne. He's a smart guy, but not at all on this subject, and his article is idiotic. Trump just tweeted about the files again, btw. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/923277142271684609 So it's the night before Christmas? And no lump of coal in our stocking in the morning? He didn't outright say all the files, with no redactions or illegible/blank pages. I await with baited breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 Ron just hit on something key. I did a show today with Moscow TV and i noted just one page of one spreadsheet with 35 documents listed: 22 of them were described as illegible. And when it says illegible, it is really illegible, that is you cannot see anything on it, just a blur. You could not even put it back together with optical recognition since there is nothing to recognize. Now two of those deal with ZR Rifle and one with JM Wave. Question: What is the point of declassifying something you cannot read? It might as well stay declassified. Have any of our pundits like Dallek or Shenon or Posner noted this on TV? Not as far as I know. This is why the MSM has become such a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 What's the point in keeping something that's illegible secret for 53 years. Defying an act of congress the last 25 to do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 Because I do not think that what the CIA gave to NARA was originally illegible. At the close of the ARRB I think what they gave to NARA was deliberately copied so badly you cannot read it. Then they thought that whoever was in office would just let it pass by. But Trump, with advice from Roger Stone, has apparently crossed them up. Once I get a look at these, if they are still illegible I am going to call Martha Murphy, who did not reply to my first letter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Ron just hit on something key. I did a show today with Moscow TV and i noted just one page of one spreadsheet with 35 documents listed: 22 of them were described as illegible. And when it says illegible, it is really illegible, that is you cannot see anything on it, just a blur. You could not even put it back together with optical recognition since there is nothing to recognize. Now two of those deal with ZR Rifle and one with JM Wave. Question: What is the point of declassifying something you cannot read? It might as well stay declassified. Have any of our pundits like Dallek or Shenon or Posner noted this on TV? Not as far as I know. This is why the MSM has become such a joke. Shenon's on everything! Tonight it was Rachel Maddow! You'd think MSNBC at least would try to find someone besides this well known dis-information agent to inform their viewers regards anything JFK related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 Hey i say: If Trump and Stone don't finally solve this assassination once and for all tomorrow. Let's impeach their as-es!! Impeach Trump as President and impeach Stone as the self appointed savior of our JFK conspiracy movement! ---Oh I'm sorry for any Trumpsters, I got carried away---Well how about Stone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 (edited) Rachel Maddow had Shenon on? What a disgrace. This is what I mean about the broken promise of the New Media. Cable TV has turned out to be as big of a vast wasteland as the networks. Except instead of the Beverly Hillbillies we get a clown like Shenon. Edited October 26, 2017 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 On 10/24/2017 at 8:33 PM, Cory Santos said: slapping my head, ok folks, if I am reading and interpreting some comments above correctly, the CIA is NOT investigating President Trump. The FBI and several other agencies are investigating various aspects of the election. The CIA is investigating foreign influence on the election-it is not investigating President Trump. Mueler is a special prosecutor investigating the election on behalf of the Department of Justice. Please stop saying or implying the CIA is investigating President Trump. That just is not correct. Right! It is the FBI doing the investigating. And it is Trump's campaign they are investigating. http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/03/politics/mueller-investigation-russia-trump-one-year-financial-ties/index.html Though it does seems reasonable to assume that the CIA must be involved in the investigation, considering it involves Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 Bad news. This was on today's WAPO home page... The records, held by the National Archives and Records Administration, could shed more light on Lee Harvey Oswald’s six-day trip to Mexico City, when he met with Cubans and Soviets two months before he shot John F. Kennedy in Dallas. Question....how would they know this without first seeing the docs? Nothing we want revealed is going to be released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now