The Killing Floor

[Cory Santos]

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

HERE HERE!

Thank you Joe.   We will wait for DVP to respond.   

[Ken Davies]

What do do waddling ducks say?

 

[David Von Pein]

13 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Reading that memo from a legal standpoint really shows the old saying “you can polish a turd and put sprinkles on it, but it’s still a turd”.   That memo set the tone for what was to follow.

But if Katzenbach's November 25th memo had, indeed, truly been "conspiratorial" or "covert" in some fashion, then the big question all conspiracy theorists should be asking is this one (which no CTer ever seems to want to ask):

Why on Earth would Nicholas Katzenbach write such a crazy memo in the first place IF he had truly been part of some kind of a cover-up operation that was in place after JFK's murder?

Do CTers really think Katzenbach was so stupid (and brazen) that he would memorialize on paper his very own cover-up plan?!

That's nuts.

Therefore, since it couldn't be more obvious that only an insane man would want to WRITE DOWN (and have RETAINED) his conspiratorial thoughts and cover-up plan for everybody to read for decades to come, then that means that the words we find in Mr. Katzenbach's 11/25/63 memorandum must have a meaning other than the conspiratorial and covert meaning that JFK conspiracy theorists are constantly applying to the Katzenbach memo.

More:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/The Katzenbach Memo

 

Edited November 5, 2022 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Nice one Miles.

Don Gibson did a good analysis of this long ago.

It is almost as if Katzenbach copied Hoover.

But I also think Katzenbach was influenced by Eugene Rostow, about the commission idea.  When Rostow talked to Moyers, he said that Katzenbach was kind of groggy.

[David Von Pein]

More discussion about the Katzenbach memo here.

Excerpts from above link:

GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Nick [Katzenbach], don't you think it's important that all the facts be made public without any thought as to how the public will regard it? If the public is not satisfied with the facts, so be it, but facts are facts. It's not really our job to put out the facts while worrying about whether the public will be satisfied with those facts, don't you agree? This is not a political issue, it's a criminal investigation.

I suggest you rewrite the first sentence of your memo. If you don't, it leaves you open to criticism that you have an underlying motive for revealing the facts and thus might want those facts tweaked to attain your motive.

I am glad you let me see this before you sent it. I wouldn't want people to get the wrong idea.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good post, Garry. And very good points indeed.

As Vincent Bugliosi said in his book, Katzenbach's memo is "clumsily written". The way it was written can most certainly be interpreted by many people as being the words of a man who really DIDN'T want "all the facts" to come out.

But, as I said in my last post, I find it impossible to believe that Deputy AG Nick Katzenbach had any thoughts in his head of "cover-up" or suppressing the facts when he wrote his memo on 11/25/63.

Interpretation is everything when we attempt to evaluate Mr. Katzenbach's "clumsily written" memorandum. CTers look at it and see signs of whitewash and cover-up in every paragraph. But I see the words of a man who doesn't want a bunch of FALSE rumors to start spreading to the public.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

David,

Thanks for your compliment. I guess the satire was too subtle, though, huh? That's the trouble with satire sometimes.

I believe Katzenbach knew exactly what he wanted to say and said it. I'm willing to bet that never in his life did he write a "clumsily worded" memo. Guys like him just didn't operate that way.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, Garry, you're suggesting that Nick Katzenbach was promoting the following idea:

*** I don't care if the real facts indicate that twelve other people were involved in the assassination of JFK, I think the American public should be told that it was Oswald who did it ALONE. And I don't care what my boss, Bobby Kennedy, might think. I don't care if the killers of Bobby's brother get away and are never caught. I'm only concerned about pinning the whole thing on Lee Oswald--and to heck with the facts and the truth. ***

Is that about the size of it, Garry? It sure sounds as if you are saying Katzenbach had the exact frame-of-mind that is spelled out above. And I couldn't disagree more.

 

Edited November 5, 2022 by David Von Pein

[John Cotter]

21 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Whoa, I come back here tonight, and it does seem to be a rather childish over reaction that I assume  may have been boiling below the surface. You must be very easily intimidated, John. No  John , just because I don't think Ruth Paine is a 60 year CIA agent, doesn't mean I'm a LNer.It was playful little nudge, John to remind to relax. Nothing more.

As I nicely told you before, and I'll elaborate now. No,  I don't think your release of Linnie Mae testimony means anything other than she was probably anticipating for months her testimony before the big Feds in Washington, who are  trying  to link her as bringing LHO to the assassins perch. Particularly in light of the intimidation tactics used by the Dallas Police on her brother! If it sounds rehearsed, it probably was! And I do think understanding the context is important!

If she had even  gotten legal counsel before that, I wouldn't have blamed her, but maybe she couldn't afford it! As I said before,  She mentioned and repeated that there might be a job there, but she didn't know, but Wesley had applied.

Draw whatever conclusions from that you want, and  investigate her further and good luck! Whether you hit pay dirt or it ends up being another "soggy loofah of logical fallacy" we shall see. My guess is that it will end up being another waste of time, but we got plenty of that.

To the forum. If I actually started an  unwanted diversion with DVP, I apologize.

 

 

.

Kirk,

I can assure you that your ongoing “playful little nudges” don’t intimidate me at all.

In fact, I’ll be so bold as to call your latest nudges ad hominems, which typically suggest the person indulging in such fallacies feels he lacks valid arguments.

I agree that understanding the context is important. The context is that, as Gene Kelly lucidly explained upthread, Oswald was being sheep-dipped specifically in relation to the JFKA for seven months (since the General Walker incident in April).

That being the case, we can take it as given that the conspirators were controlling Oswald during that time so that he wouldn’t disrupt the plot by, say, not being in Dallas when the assassination took place. Since Oswald was being thus controlled, his getting the job in the TSBD must have been similarly controlled.

If there are any flaws in the foregoing reasoning, I would be grateful if you could let us know.

[Matt Allison]

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

If there are any flaws in the foregoing reasoning, I would be grateful if you could let us know.

There are numerous flaws, which have been explained to you, and which you ignore. Why should Kirk play that game?

[Kirk Gallaway]

Ad hominem attacks!

You're changing the subject. You hijacked the thread to LinnieMaeLand as if it that testimony was highly suspicious, and I gave you the context, as the reason why I think you have nothing there. And I said if you can drum up more suspicion in the future, be my guest, but I'm not holding my breathe that it ultimately will go anywhere. We'll see where it goes. Good luck! 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[Cory Santos]

6 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

But if Katzenbach's November 25th memo had, indeed, truly been "conspiratorial" or "covert" in some fashion, then the big question all conspiracy theorists should be asking is this one (which no CTer ever seems to want to ask):

Why on Earth would Nicholas Katzenbach write such a crazy memo in the first place IF he had truly been part of some kind of a cover-up operation that was in place after JFK's murder?

Do CTers really think Katzenbach was so stupid (and brazen) that he would memorialize on paper his very own cover-up plan?!

That's nuts.

Therefore, since it couldn't be more obvious that only an insane man would want to WRITE DOWN (and have RETAINED) his conspiratorial thoughts and cover-up plan for everybody to read for decades to come, then that means that the words we find in Mr. Katzenbach's 11/25/63 memorandum must have a meaning other than the conspiratorial and covert meaning that JFK conspiracy theorists are constantly applying to the Katzenbach memo.

More:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/The Katzenbach Memo

 

That is not logical.  I disagree.   You are enthusing your anti-conspiracy feelings into observing facts on this one.    You have that right but it fails the turd test.   

[David Von Pein]

19 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

That is not logical.  

What I said about Katzenbach is perfectly logical.

Some additional logic:

CTers think that Katzenbach's words "in a way which will satisfy people" indicate that Katz was up to no good and that he couldn't have cared less what the true "facts" were--he was only interested in pinning the whole thing on Oswald.

But to think that Katzenbach had such a "cover-up" mindset is (IMO) ridiculous, particularly since he worked so closely with his boss, Attorney General Robert Kennedy.

Does anyone really believe that Nicholas Katzenbach would have wanted to aid or assist, in any way at all, a plot or cover-up that would have allowed the real killer or killers of RFK's brother to get away unpunished? Katzenbach merely wanted to keep FALSE rumors about Oswald and conspiracy from spreading.

 

19 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

I disagree.  

Gee, there's a surprise.

Edited November 6, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Cory Santos]

Anyone looking at a historical or legal document should shake their head when reading clear bias such as this :

I find it impossible to believe that Deputy AG Nick Katzenbach had any thoughts in his head of "cover-up" or suppressing the facts when he wrote his memo on 11/25/63.

Edited November 6, 2022 by Cory Santos

[Cory Santos]

29 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

What I said about Katzenbach is perfectly logical.

Some additional logic:

CTers think that Katzenbach's words "in a way which will satisfy people" indicate that Katz was up to no good and that he couldn't have cared less what the true "facts" were--he was only interested in pinning the whole thing on Oswald.

But to think that Katzenbach had such a "cover-up" mindset is (IMO) ridiculous, particularly since he worked so closely with his boss, Attorney General Robert Kennedy.

Does anyone really believe that Nicholas Katzenbach would have wanted to aid or assist, in any way at all, a plot or cover-up that would have allowed the real killer or killers of RFK's brother to get away unpunished? Katzenbach merely wanted to keep FALSE rumors about Oswald and conspiracy from spreading.

 

Gee, there's a surprise.

DVP logic:

I would never hit her for you see she is my wife.   
 

Yes I disagree with bad logical assumptions such as the ones you are making.   

[David Von Pein]

26 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

DVP logic:

I would never hit her for you see she is my wife.

Non sequitur.

[Cory Santos]

And you still haven’t responded to the Mark Lane comment I made.    At least I didn’t see any response on that.   

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Non sequitur.

Let's see if we can find some common ground. I suspect Katzenbach had no intention of covering up the truth, per se. He just thought time was of the essence and that the people should be told as soon as possible that it was Oswald acting alone. He'd looked at some of the facts, and had made up his mind. And he wanted the American public told those facts. 

So, no, he didn't want to lie. But he didn't want the public to be in the dark while awaiting the outcome of a thorough investigation, either. 

I think he thought it best to tell the public it was Oswald acting alone so everyone would calm down. I think he thought as well that if it turned out there was more to it that the American people would be told.

Boy, was he naive.