Jump to content
The Education Forum

RFK Jr Does Not Agree that Lee Harvey Oswald Acted Alone


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The country was in shock looking for answers Vince. They would have gone wherever AG Bobby would have taken them. RFK Jr.s interpretation that raising their voices and questioning the findings of the WC was a distraction from the Civil Rights movement hardly seems adequate. But there were a number of  coals on the fire and RFK did politically have to deal with own ambitions as well, so it being exposed before RFK's  death is somewhat understandable, but the silence of the Kennedy family for generations (and Teddy ) given what we're now presented, was a serious abdication of public duty. They were the powerful voices  that particularly the first generations of  those raising questions of the Warren Report were counting on.

Now a clip with quotes, 50 years later, is way to little, way too late.

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

The country was in shock looking for answers Vince. They would have gone wherever AG Bobby would have taken them. RFK Jr.s interpretation that raising their voices and questioning the findings of the WC was a distraction from the Civil Rights movement hardly seems adequate. But there were a number of  coals on the fire and RFK did politically have to deal with own ambitions as well, so it being exposed before RFK's  death is somewhat understandable, but the silence of the Kennedy family for generations (and Teddy ) given what we're now presented, was a serious abdication of public duty. They were the powerful voices  that particularly the first generations of  those raising questions of the Warren Report were counting on.

Now a clip with quotes, 50 years later, is way to little, way too late.

I don't think you've thought this through, Kirk. What would you have done in RFK's shoes? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kirk said:But there were a number of  coals on the fire and RFK did politically have to deal with own ambitions as well, so it being exposed before RFK's  death is somewhat understandable,

Again, Chris you don't read very carefully. 

But OK, So you believe the excuse given that RFK's  silence was about the Civil Rights movement?  That sounds like a family excuse, a sort of a political BS, "walk and chew gum" rationalization.  RFK lived another 4 years after the passing of the Civil Rlghts Act and that and the Warren Commission Report were done by Sept. 64.  If RFK had any doubts about the findings, he never made a public statement and  the public never knew. I think it's more likely, what I said,several things on the fire and subsequent ambitions.

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts. So you think the family's silence for 50 years was justified?

I think it's the single biggest opportunity that was flubbed for keeping the JFKA in the public's mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Kirk said:But there were a number of  coals on the fire and RFK did politically have to deal with own ambitions as well, so it being exposed before RFK's  death is somewhat understandable,

Again, Chris you don't read very carefully. 

But OK, So you believe the excuse given that RFK's  silence was about the Civil Rights movement?  That sounds like a family excuse, a sort of a political BS, "walk and chew gum" rationalization.  RFK lived another 4 years after the passing of the Civil Rlghts Act and that and the Warren Commission Report were done by Sept. 64.  If RFK had any doubts about the findings, he never made a public statement and  the public never knew. I think it's more likely, what I said,several things on the fire and subsequent ambitions.

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts. So you think the family's silence for 50 years was justified?

I think it's the single biggest opportunity that was flubbed for keeping the JFKA in the public's mind.

It was really your quip at the end that caught my attention. You just went all Cathy Newman on me, throwing the straw man in there. I have asked you a simple question as to what you'd have done in RFK's shoes, as you are disappointed in his course of action and that of the family. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No RFK JR does not believe LHO acted alone, or that Sirhan did either.  This piece is main stream media pablum.  They seem to dismiss the truth almost out of hand.  It's mainly them seeming skeptic of a conspiracy.

More detail can be found in RFK JR's American Values.

American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family: Kennedy Jr., Robert F.: 9780060848347: Amazon.com: Books

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 2/6/2021 at 8:35 PM, Ron Bulman said:

No RFK JR does not believe LHO acted alone, or that Sirhan did either.  This piece is main stream media pablum.  They seem to dismiss the truth almost out of hand.  It's mainly them seeming skeptic of a conspiracy.

More detail can be found in RFK JR's American Values.

American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family: Kennedy Jr., Robert F.: 9780060848347: Amazon.com: Books

"American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family" by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

From the excellent book review that is full of revelations:

American Values revolves around the long war between the Kennedys and the CIA that resulted in the deaths of JFK and RFK.  All the other chapters, while very interesting personal and family history, pale in importance.  

No member of the Kennedy family since JFK or RFK has dared to say what RFK, Jr. does in this book.  He indicts the CIA.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RFK Jr's social media accounts were recently deleted and permanently removed. He had roughly 800k followers. Additionally, his niece wrote a hit piece for the NY Times (or another high profile paper, I forget) that was full of factual inaccuracies. They did not allow RFK Jr to publish a response! Many other accounts were purged at the same time last week that related to questioning the covid narrative, vaccines, etc...

We all know what happens when only one side of a story is promulgated through the authoritarian "official" channels of information delivery, this is bad news. It is to the point where big tech has censored clips from C-SPAN! The flat earth society apparently does not need to be censored; this has nothing to do with misinformation or inaccurate statements by RFK Jr.

One more example. Hank Aaron died last month. RFK Jr pointed out that Mr. Aaron actually went public and there was a news story about himself getting the moderna vaccine and how it is something all black people should do. The MSM responded by saying the local coroner's office said his death was not related to the vaccine. It turns out the coroner never examined Aaron's body at all. That was then used to remove his instagram account.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/national-media-vaccine-misinformation-hank-aaron/?itm_term=home

Edited by Dennis Berube
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

RFK Jr's social media accounts were recently deleted and permanently removed. He had roughly 800k followers. 

He was kicked off Instagram for promoting anti-vax.

Parler is back up.

Dennis, do you think the US Government should bar Instagram from banning RFK jr?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff, if you read my entire post I mentioned the exact post regarding Hank Aaron that IG used to remove him after they took him out of context and then apparently lied about information related to the case.

What does Parler have to do with this?

We are in a situation that requires some logic and reasonable lawmaking, I hope we get it. Just about everyone under the age of 20 are on their phones constantly. In terms of information they are exposed to or are given, the majority of of them use private companies like YouTube, Twitter, and IG. Those are all censored media outlets. Private companies (some with heavy military complex ties) are now serving as public information services akin to the newspapers of old and should be regulated as such. One of the main ways many young people get involved in politics these days is through social media. We are allowing private citizens who answer to no one or someone unknown decide what people are allowed to discuss and think based on whatever interests they serve. If that isn't a concern to you, fine. I think its a recipe for disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

Cliff, if you read my entire post I mentioned the exact post regarding Hank Aaron that IG used to remove him after they took him out of context and then apparently lied about information related to the case.

You didn’t answer my question: should the US Government bar Instagram from banning RFK Jr.?

Quote

What does Parler have to do with this?

It’s a popular, unmoderated social media site.  It’s not as if RFK Jr doesn’t have options.

Quote

We are in a situation that requires some logic and reasonable lawmaking, I hope we get it.

Like barring all forms of moderation on the internet because by definition any form of moderation is censorship?

Quote

Just about everyone under the age of 20 are on their phones constantly. In terms of information they are exposed to or are given, the majority of of them use private companies like YouTube, Twitter, and IG.

MySpace used to be a massively popular social media site.  Tastes and trends change.  People who resent moderation can find venues on the internet where there isn’t any.

Quote

Those are all censored media outlets.

They are moderated, if that’s what you call censorship.  Should all forms of internet moderation be illegal?

Quote

Private companies (some with heavy military complex ties) are now serving as public information services akin to the newspapers of old and should be regulated as such.

Which includes the criminalization of internet moderation since moderation is a form of censorship?

What government regulation of newspapers do you want applied to social media?

Quote

One of the main ways many young people get involved in politics these days is through social media. We are allowing private citizens who answer to no one or someone unknown decide what people are allowed to discuss and think based on whatever interests they serve.

And these nefarious private citizens who decide what people are allowed to think and discuss should be replaced by government officials with the power to dictate social media content?

I’m sure glad I’m not on any social media, ‘cause I don’t want Zuckerberg or Dorsey dictating what I’m allowed to think! (Who knew they had soooo much power?!)

Quote

If that isn't a concern to you, fine. I think its a recipe for disaster.

And the remedy for that disaster is the de facto nationalization of social media?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You didn’t answer my question: should the US Government bar Instagram from banning RFK Jr.?

It’s a popular, unmoderated social media site.  It’s not as if RFK Jr doesn’t have options.

Like barring all forms of moderation on the internet because by definition any form of moderation is censorship?

MySpace used to be a massively popular social media site.  Tastes and trends change.  People who resent moderation can find venues on the internet where there isn’t any.

They are moderated, if that’s what you call censorship.  Should all forms of internet moderation be illegal?

Which includes the criminalization of internet moderation since moderation is a form of censorship?

What government regulation of newspapers do you want applied to social media?

And these nefarious private citizens who decide what people are allowed to think and discuss should be replaced by government officials with the power to dictate social media content?

I’m sure glad I’m not on any social media, ‘cause I don’t want Zuckerberg or Dorsey dictating what I’m allowed to think! (Who knew they had soooo much power?!)

And the remedy for that disaster is the de facto nationalization of social media?

Cliff, what is social media?   By its name one assumes media and therefore not necessarily press but simply a medium for people to contribute her/his opinions on a matter.  Assuming it is more like the press -which lacks the social media public input but is more output by the entity- this “media“ can be regulated to some extent by the government, i.e. newspapers, television, radio, magazines etc.

If it is not press, but more of a forum for discussion, it is more like a business and can be regulated by the government.  

It is odd that people are concerned with the government regulating -or nationalization as you call it- speech but fine with businesses regulating speech.  Regulation of speech by any entity is still regulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis, Cliff's right,

You should be careful what you wish for. As an anti vaxxer or maybe you see yourself as a vaxxer  truther, do you really think you will have more freedom to express that under a government that's pursuing a public policy of vaccination in order to stem the tide of a pandemic and spur an economic recovery, whether you believe that or not?

If I started a social media business, and I decide I don't like the content you're providing, I can tell you to go walk, just as it is not a God given right that you can post on twitter. You can choose to try to sue me.

If my business becomes so big, and I have no moderation policy, so anybody can say whatever they please(because after all, that's more business for me ,right?) And then a group, starts spreading lies about another group, and say, starts fomenting and coordinating violent attacks on another group. Then soon people are redressing the government to regulate me because I'm perceived as a business whose only attention is to profit and I don't care what happens because the bucks  are rolling in. At a certain point I will have to decide that for better public relations and to not have the government come in and regulate me. I will have to regulate myself, clamp down and tell the troublemakers to leave.  People can cry about it all they want. Go to another site!.

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

Cliff, what is social media?  

I don’t do social media myself, so I rely on Wikipedia:

Social media is interactive digitally-mediatedtechnologies that facilitate the creation or sharing/exchange of information, ideas, career interests, and other forms of expression via virtual communities and networks.[1][2] While challenges to the definition of social media arise due to the broad variety of stand-alone and built-in social-media services currently available, there are some common features:[2]

  1. Social media are interactive Web 2.0 Internet-based applications.[2][3]
  2. User-generated content—such as text posts or comments, digital photos or videos, and data generated through all online interactions—is the lifeblood of social media.[2][3]
  3. Users create service-specific profiles for the website or app that are designed and maintained by the social-media organization.[2][4]
  4. Social media facilitate the development of online social networks by connecting a user's profile with those of other individuals or groups.[2][4]

Users usually access social media services via web-based apps on desktops and laptops, or downloadservices that offer social media functionality to their mobile devices (e.g., smartphones and tablets). As users engage with these electronic services, they create highly interactive platforms through which individuals, communities, and organizations can share, co-create, discuss, participate, and modify user-generated content or self-curated content posted online.[1] Additionally, social media are used to document memories; learn about and explore things; advertise oneself; and form friendships along with the growth of ideas from the creation of blogs, podcasts, videos, and gaming sites.[5] This changing relationship between human and technology is the focus of the emerging field of technoself studies.

Some of the most popular social media websites, with over 100 million registered users, include Facebook (and its associated Facebook Messenger), TikTok, WeChat, Instagram, QZone, Weibo, Twitter, Tumblr, Baidu Tieba, and LinkedIn. Depending on interpretation, other popular platforms that are sometimes referred to as social media services include YouTube, QQ, Quora, Telegram, WhatsApp, LINE, Snapchat, Pinterest, Viber, Reddit, Discord, VK, Microsoft Teams, and more. Wikis are examples of collaborative content creation.

Social media outlets differ from traditional media(e.g., print magazines and newspapers, and TV and radio broadcasting) in many ways, including quality,[6] reach, frequency, usability, immediacy, and permanence.[7] Additionally, social media outlets operate in a dialogic transmission system (i.e., many sources to many receivers), while traditional media outlets operate under a monologictransmission model (one source to many receivers). For example, a newspaper is delivered to many subscribers and a radio station broadcasts the same programs to an entire city.[8]

Observers have noted a wide range of positive and negative impacts of social media use. Social media can help to improve an individual's sense of connectedness with real or online communities and can be an effective communication (or marketing) tool for corporations, entrepreneurs, non-profit organizations, advocacy groups, political parties, and governments. </q>

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

By its name one assumes media and therefore not necessarily press but simply a medium for people to contribute her/his opinions on a matter.  Assuming it is more like the press -which lacks the social media public input but is more output by the entity- this “media“ can be regulated to some extent by the government, i.e. newspapers, television, radio, magazines etc.

If it is not press, but more of a forum for discussion, it is more like a business and can be regulated by the government.  
 

Okay, what government regulations should be brought to bear on social media?

If I develop a social media platform that becomes popular with members of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, should the Government force me to carry any non-pornographic NAMBLA content in the name of free speech?

Should Instagram be forced to carry RFK Jr.’s anti-vax message?

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

It is odd that people are concerned with the government regulating -or nationalization as you call it- speech but fine with businesses regulating speech.  Regulation of speech by any entity is still regulation.

A private citizen moderating the content on their privately owned entity isn’t the same as the US Government dictating internet content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

And these nefarious private citizens who decide what people are allowed to think and discuss should be replaced by government officials with the power to dictate social media content?

Are you serious Cliff? Government officials serve and answer to the public, obviously private citizens do not. With government, the public at least theoretically has the capability to hold them responsible or at least demand answers. I agree with Cory's statements, it is odd people are fine with so much private influence, but can't stand it from government. I would at least partially attribute that to many years of anti-government propaganda from such areas as the Koch brothers, Rockefellers, CFR types etc... Of course government is bad for them, its the only feasible entity standing in their way. But having "left" wingers believe that too is rather amazing.

 

15 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

As an anti vaxxer or maybe you see yourself as a vaxxer  truther, do you really think you will have more freedom to express that under a government that's pursuing a public policy of vaccination in order to stem the tide of a pandemic and spur an economic recovery, whether you believe that or not?

Kirk, I fully expected heavier censorship of this issue many months ago when I realized Trump authorized Operation Warp Speed which basically allowed criminally convicted companies like Pfizer (specifically for withholding drug safety data in one case btw) the ability to take a process that normally takes 7-10 years and condense it into a few months. Oh, and also completely remove any liability from their products side effects, which will never be knowable scientifically as the placebo groups are already being vaxxed after less than a years worth of study. That type of approach to vaccines requires censorship and propaganda to work.

 

 

15 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

You should be careful what you wish for.

This is exactly what the entire Democratic party should be thinking right now. They have championed the social media censorship of all the things they disagree without apparently thinking about the long term consequences. If a POTUS can effectively be censored (like when Trump was tweeting to the mob to go home and respect police on Jan 6th), then its only a matter of time before your guy is censored. Instead, the left wing value set is now almost indistinguishable from corporate America value set, identity politics, virtue signaling and complete adherence/deference to some of the largest power structures this world has. Biden's AG secretary Vilsack is a great example of this, not much noise from the left on "Mr. Monsanto" joining the ranks. 

 

20 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

And the remedy for that disaster is the de facto nationalization of social media?

Cliff, make the remedy whatever you want. Any democracy requires freedom of information that gets to the public. That concept is already largely gone from public discourse, but if we are to have any hope of holding onto America, it must happen in some way. Saying "goto another platform" is akin to saying, "goto the corner where no one can hear you". A milder version of this is exactly what has prevented the reality of the JFK case from being reality. At least in the 60's and 70's you could occasionally have someone debate the facts on a mass media platform, as slanted and biased as it was. Nowadays its far worse. When does Jim DiEugenio get on television to debate the facts with any news anchor? It will never happen and it is censorship of the facts from the public discussion which enables these things to continue.

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...