W. Niederhut Posted June 2, 2023 Share Posted June 2, 2023 I notice that some of the members here are starting threads and endlessly debating about debunked JFKA disinformation lately-- e.g., ignoring the fact that the fatal head shot blew the occipital skull (Harper) fragment behind the limo, extravasating the cerebellum, and that the sham Bethesda autopsy "findings" bore little resemblance to the Parkland medical observations. Two particularly absurd posts were David Von Pein referencing Bugliosi's meticulously debunked Reclaiming History disinformazia, and Gerry Down arguing that the CIA wasn't necessarily involved in the JFKA op and psy op! To these absurdities, we have Kevin Shahrdar postulating that Fletcher Prouty was complicit in JFK's murder, and Michael Griffith endlessly arguing that JFK wasn't determined to get out if Vietnam in 1963. What has happened to the Education Forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Griffith Posted June 2, 2023 Share Posted June 2, 2023 13 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said: I notice that some of the members here are starting threads and endlessly debating about debunked JFKA disinformation lately-- e.g., ignoring the fact that the fatal head shot blew the occipital skull (Harper) fragment behind the limo, extravasating the cerebellum, and that the sham Bethesda autopsy "findings" bore little resemblance to the Parkland medical observations. Two particularly absurd posts were David Von Pein referencing Bugliosi's meticulously debunked Reclaiming History disinformazia, and Gerry Down arguing that the CIA wasn't necessarily involved in the JFKA op and psy op! To these absurdities, we have Kevin Shahrdar postulating that Fletcher Prouty was complicit in JFK's murder, and Michael Griffith endlessly arguing that JFK wasn't determined to get out if Vietnam in 1963. What has happened to the Education Forum? It is truly sad that you equate (1) defending the SBT and repeating Bugliosi's debunked claims with (2) questioning Prouty's veracity and character and citing evidence that JFK had no intention of abandoning South Vietnam after the election. Once again, we get back to the core problem that some of you folks here go way beyond the basic and sound case for conspiracy and then attack anyone who does not embrace your vastly expanded conspiracy scenario. Lots of people who believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy view Prouty as a dubious source and reject the Stone-Prouty-Newman version of JFK's Vietnam policy. But you and a few others act like no one can sincerely believe that a plot killed JFK unless they accept every single aspect of your version of the plot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted June 2, 2023 Author Share Posted June 2, 2023 57 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said: It is truly sad that you equate (1) defending the SBT and repeating Bugliosi's debunked claims with (2) questioning Prouty's veracity and character and citing evidence that JFK had no intention of abandoning South Vietnam after the election. What's sad is that you and a few other newbies around here have been cluttering the forum with debunked nonsense-- quoting Bugliosi, denying the CIA/Mockingbird cover up of JFK's assassination, posting false, defamatory propaganda about Prouty, and denying JFK's NSAM 263 policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted June 2, 2023 Share Posted June 2, 2023 (edited) How can anyone watch the 1963 Walter Cronkite interview of JFK where JFK says the famous line..."It's their war. They're the ones that have to win it or lose it." and not clearly see that JFK was "in the least" not wanting to commit our troops there except for tactical support in an advisory way? JFK mentions the fact that Viet Nam was embroiled in constant fighting for the last 20 years. You can tell that JFK held the view that Viet Nam was a trap of never ending conflict quicksand that needed to be treaded around very carefully lest we get stuck in that muck ourselves. This Viet Nam part of the interview begins at the 12 minute mark. Earlier in the interview JFK shares some very interesting personal feelings about the black American ( he refers to them as negroes ) unrest and civil rights movement which was growing exponentially under his term. The violence inciting repercussions of the Martin Luther King led Southern civil rights protests and marches in Alabama was specifically mentioned by Cronkite. JFK again clearly reveals his personal feelings of sympathizing with the movement and that black Americans deserved the same rights and privileges afforded all Americans under our constitution. He thoughtfully acknowledged that this effort was complicated and would not be without setbacks and would take a long time to deal with. Cronkite reminded JFK that several Southern states did not vote for him in 1960. JFK looked pensive while acknowledging that fact and even stated that he expected to again lose some Southern states in the upcoming 1964 presidential election. What most Americans who liked JFK or didn't personally hate him never really grasped while JFK was alive in my opinion, was the fact that JFK wasn't just unliked by tens of millions of their fellow Americans ... but hated to a "murder wishing" degree. Seriously, JFK haters ( millions ) felt that deeply about him. I'm sure the majority of those millions of JFK haters were shocked by his murder in Dallas on 11,22,1963, but not truly sorry that it happened. Our official history books do not adequately and honestly report this true level of JFK hatred that was imbued in the mind sets of millions of Americans during JFK's presidency up until his murder. JFK and his brother obviously underestimated that hatred and how much danger they truly faced when campaigning in public. 21:35NOW PLAYING September 2, 1963 - President John F. Kennedy's interview with Walter Cronkite 92K views2 years ago HelmerReenberg President John F. Kennedy's interview with CBS Evening News Anchor W Edited June 2, 2023 by Joe Bauer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Griffith Posted June 2, 2023 Share Posted June 2, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said: How can anyone watch the 1963 Walter Cronkite interview of JFK where JFK says the famous line..."It's their war. They're the ones that have to win it or lose it." and not clearly see that JFK was "in the least" not wanting to commit our troops there except for tactical support in an advisory way? Did you somehow miss the part of the interview when JFK made it clear that he was opposed to withdrawing from Vietnam, when he said that withdrawing would be a "great mistake"?: All we can do is help, and we are making it very clear, but I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. I know people don't like Americans to be engaged in this kind of an effort. Forty-seven Americans have been killed in combat with the enemy, but this is a very important struggle even though it is far away. We took all this--made this effort to defend Europe. Now Europe is quite secure. We also have to participate--we may not like it--in the defense of Asia. And look what JFK said when asked about De Gaulle's then-recent statement (regarding neutrality in Vietnam): Mr. Cronkite: Mr. President, have you made an assessment as to what President de Gaulle was up to in his statement on Viet-Nam last week? THE PRESIDENT. NO. I guess it was an expression of his general view, but he doesn't have any forces there or any program of economic assistance, so that while these expressions are welcome, the burden is carried, as it usually is, by the United States and the people there. But I think anything General de Gaulle says should be listened to, and we listened. What, of course, makes Americans somewhat impatient is that after carrying this load for 18 years, we are glad to get counsel, but we would like a little more assistance, real assistance. But we are going to meet our responsibility anyway. It doesn't do us any good to say, "Well, why don't we all just go home and leave the world to those who are our enemies." Look at what JFK said on the White House tapes. He made it as clear as English can be that he was determined to win the war. Selverstone documents this beyond any rational dispute in his new book The Kennedy Withdrawal. Yes, certainly, JFK did not want to send regular combat troops to South Vietnam, but that is a galaxy away from the spurious claim that he was determined to abandon South Vietnam after the election. Although he wanted to avoid deploying regular infantry units in South Vietnam, he was determined to keep providing military and economic aid to keep South Vietnam free. Every public statement he made supports this fact, and we now know that his private comments--recorded on the White House tapes--confirm this fact. Never, never, never, not one single time, not once on the White House tapes do we hear JFK express even a hint of an intention to abandon South Vietnam after the election. We hear just the opposite, as Selverstone documents. Edited June 2, 2023 by Michael Griffith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted June 2, 2023 Share Posted June 2, 2023 1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said: Yes, certainly, JFK did not want to send regular combat troops to South Vietnam, but that is a galaxy away from the spurious claim that he was determined to abandon South Vietnam after the election. Although he wanted to avoid deploying regular infantry units in South Vietnam, he was determined to keep providing military and economic aid to keep South Vietnam free. Every public statement he made supports this fact, and we now know that his private comments--recorded on the White House tapes--confirm this fact. There it is in your own words. JFK did NOT want to deploy regular infantry units to South Vietnam. That is where he was drawing the line. JFK is removed. And soon enough we have "500,000" military troops and support staff over there? 500,000? That's 50 divisions! And we also pour billions and billions of dollars worth of combat material support including massive naval operations including massive bombings in the next 9 years? And to what end? The fall of South Vietnam to the North? With us leaving in absolute anarchy chaos with hundreds of desperate Vietnamese clinging on the landing rails of our escape helicopters as they are lifting off to the navy carriers? This is what JFK feared might happen. Think of the domestic and social need infrastructure improvement and lifting we could have seen here at home with the massive spending and physical effort we put into that decade long debacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Cummings Posted June 2, 2023 Share Posted June 2, 2023 (edited) Ignore the threads. Edited June 2, 2023 by Paul Cummings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Carter Posted June 2, 2023 Share Posted June 2, 2023 1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said: Did you somehow miss the part of the interview when JFK made it clear that he was opposed to withdrawing from Vietnam, when he said that withdrawing would be a "great mistake"?: All we can do is help, and we are making it very clear, but I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. I know people don't like Americans to be engaged in this kind of an effort. Forty-seven Americans have been killed in combat with the enemy, but this is a very important struggle even though it is far away. We took all this--made this effort to defend Europe. Now Europe is quite secure. We also have to participate--we may not like it--in the defense of Asia. And look what JFK said when asked about De Gaulle's then-recent statement (regarding neutrality in Vietnam): Mr. Cronkite: Mr. President, have you made an assessment as to what President de Gaulle was up to in his statement on Viet-Nam last week? THE PRESIDENT. NO. I guess it was an expression of his general view, but he doesn't have any forces there or any program of economic assistance, so that while these expressions are welcome, the burden is carried, as it usually is, by the United States and the people there. But I think anything General de Gaulle says should be listened to, and we listened. What, of course, makes Americans somewhat impatient is that after carrying this load for 18 years, we are glad to get counsel, but we would like a little more assistance, real assistance. But we are going to meet our responsibility anyway. It doesn't do us any good to say, "Well, why don't we all just go home and leave the world to those who are our enemies." Look at what JFK said on the White House tapes. He made it as clear as English can be that he was determined to win the war. Selverstone documents this beyond any rational dispute in his new book The Kennedy Withdrawal. Yes, certainly, JFK did not want to send regular combat troops to South Vietnam, but that is a galaxy away from the spurious claim that he was determined to abandon South Vietnam after the election. Although he wanted to avoid deploying regular infantry units in South Vietnam, he was determined to keep providing military and economic aid to keep South Vietnam free. Every public statement he made supports this fact, and we now know that his private comments--recorded on the White House tapes--confirm this fact. Never, never, never, not one single time, not once on the White House tapes do we hear JFK express even a hint of an intention to abandon South Vietnam after the election. We hear just the opposite, as Selverstone documents. Where does the proposed "Prouty- Newman -Stone" faction ever say JFK was determined to "abandon" S Vietnam regardless of the consequences? Please cite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Down Posted June 2, 2023 Share Posted June 2, 2023 4 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: Gerry Down arguing that the CIA wasn't necessarily involved in the JFKA op and psy op! I never stated this. You said that the CIA proclaimed that LHO alone killed JFK and I simply pointed out that the CIA have never made any official proclamation on the JFK assassination. I asked you to provide a quote of the CIA ever making any official proclamation on the JFK assassination and you failed to provide such a quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted June 2, 2023 Author Share Posted June 2, 2023 29 minutes ago, Gerry Down said: I never stated this. You said that the CIA proclaimed that LHO alone killed JFK and I simply pointed out that the CIA have never made any official proclamation on the JFK assassination. I asked you to provide a quote of the CIA ever making any official proclamation on the JFK assassination and you failed to provide such a quote. Gerry, I advised you to study the history of CIA asset, C.D. Jackson, and his purchase and suppression of the Zapruder film-- in order to promote the CIA's false Lone Nut narrative. Secondly, I reminded you that Allen Dulles aggressively promoted the Lone Nut narrative on the Warren Commission-- while working with Angleton, Hoover, et.al., to suppress the contrary evidence. Here's strike three. The CIA issued an executive order ordering all agency personnel to do whatever was necessary to promote public acceptance of the Warren Commission Report-- the false Lone Nut narrative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Griffith Posted June 2, 2023 Share Posted June 2, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: What's sad is that you and a few other newbies around here have been cluttering the forum with debunked nonsense-- quoting Bugliosi, denying the CIA/Mockingbird cover up of JFK's assassination, posting false, defamatory propaganda about Prouty, and denying JFK's NSAM 263 policy. I've never quoted Bugliosi unless it was to refute him. I've never denied the possibility that a CIA-Mockingbird operation aided the cover-up (I think it's at least entirely plausible). Every word I've said about Prouty has been documented, and much of it comes from Prouty's own statements and from pro-Prouty sources. And I've never denied JFK's "NSAM 263 policy"--you have simply ignored the evidence about the background and intent of that policy. The point is that it is harmful and illogical to attack people who posit a JFKA conspiracy just because they don't agree with every facet of your outlandish, fringe version of the conspiracy. Edited June 2, 2023 by Michael Griffith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 3, 2023 Share Posted June 3, 2023 (edited) The most "absurd" assertion made by conspiracy theorists at this forum (or any other) is the assertion that Vincent T. Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" has (in any major way at all) been "debunked". Such a notion concerning Bugliosi's mammoth 20-year effort is not only utterly laughable, but also provably wrong (based on the sum total of evidence in the JFK case). Edited June 3, 2023 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted June 3, 2023 Share Posted June 3, 2023 19 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: The most "absurd" assertion made by conspiracy theorists at this forum (or any other) is the notion that Vincent T. Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" has (in any major way at all) been "debunked". Such a notion concerning Bugliosi's mammoth 20-year effort is not only utterly laughable, but also provably wrong (based on the sum total of evidence in the JFK case). DVP-- I concur with you that commenters dismissing all viewpoints (except their own) as "debunked"...is tiresome. On the other hand, the HSCA had a lot of smart guys, probably put in more human-hours combined than Bugliosi, and they concluded the likelihood was that JFK had been shot as a result of a conspiracy. So...has the HSCA been "debunked"? IMHO, the JFKA shot sequence (bang....bang-bang) does not fit with a lone gunman armed with a single-shot bolt action rifle. Then, the many many witnesses who smelled gunsmoke in the Dealey Plaza in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. Then, JBC's testimony that he was pushed forward by the shot that struck him in the back (that we know was not tumbling) and which encountered a large segment of JBC's hard rib (meeting resistance). JBC is pushed forward ~Z295, and JFK is shot a Z313. That fits with "bang-bang" and does not allow enough time for a lone gunman armed with a single-shot bolt-action rifle. Not dispositive, but very suspicious, two different law enforcement officers (Dallas sheriff and Dallas police) testifying they encountered a man near the GK flashing Secret Service ID, in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA. I would say no reasonable view on the JFKA has been debunked. (UFOs, I do rule out). I am partial to my views, and would give maybe 10-to-one odds the "LHO lone gunman" story is not the truth. You have a different point of view. That is fine, that is why we have a forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 3, 2023 Share Posted June 3, 2023 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said: DVP-- I concur with you that commenters dismissing all viewpoints (except their own) as "debunked"...is tiresome. On the other hand, the HSCA had a lot of smart guys, probably put in more human-hours combined than Bugliosi, and they concluded the likelihood was that JFK had been shot as a result of a conspiracy. So...has the HSCA been "debunked"? The Dictabelt junk has been debunked, yes. No doubt about it, IMO. At the very least, the HSCA/4th Shot/Dictabelt evidence has a very dark cloud hanging over it (based on Steve Barber's "Hold everything secure" discovery alone). And even most CTers should be able to acknowledge the existence of that "dark cloud". (See the webpage below.) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / JFK Acoustics--Charles Rader Interview Re: The smell of "Gunsmoke".... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Smell Of Gunpowder In Dealey Plaza Re: Bang....Bang-Bang.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Spacing Of The Gunshots Re: The SBT and Governor Connally's reactions.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Ultimate In SBT Denial Among Conspiracy Theorists Edited June 3, 2023 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted June 3, 2023 Share Posted June 3, 2023 1 hour ago, David Von Pein said: The Dictabelt junk has been debunked, yes. No doubt about it, IMO. At the very least, the HSCA/4th Shot/Dictabelt evidence has a very dark cloud hanging over it (based on Steve Barber's "Hold everything secure" discovery alone). And even most CTers should be able to acknowledge the existence of that "dark cloud". (See the webpage below.) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / JFK Acoustics--Charles Rader Interview Re: The smell of "Gunsmoke".... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Smell Of Gunpowder In Dealey Plaza Re: Bang....Bang-Bang.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Spacing Of The Gunshots Re: The SBT and Governor Connally's reactions.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Ultimate In SBT Denial Among Conspiracy Theorists DVP-- I can't make heads nor tails of the dicta-belt evidence, and to be honest, the HSCA rested somewhat upon it...but not only on that. How anyone not deep into acoustics and magnetic images on a tape can say the dicta-belt was debunked or not.... On the other side of the coin, the CIA did a snow job on the HSCA, and much has come out since. We disagree on other aspects of the JFKA---the gunsmoke, the timing of shots, the man with the SS ID. So it goes. 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