Martin Luther King Jr. assasinated by the FBI april 4th 1968

[alien autopsy]

jim douglas reports on chicago npr's worldview with jerome macdonald. (http://www.wbez.org/Program_WV.aspx?episode=20142)

*click on the listen button.


heres the closing arguments from the actual wrongful death civil suit from 1999 cited in the above interview:

part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-mlYaWOu4E&feature=related)
part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9WYWvgo5t0&feature=related)
part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWJtKKOUBAE&feature=related)
part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsk1P2WJCH0&feature=related)
part 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6GfQwde27g&feature=related)
part 6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqcf2hq24fg&feature=related)
part 7 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ_d3OKVZCw&feature=related)
part 8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtQgyfPNO5g&feature=related)
part 9 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sbc0_ZNdcM&feature=related)
part 10 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iBQN9tciNM&feature=related)

[alien autopsy]

ATLANTA . . . On behalf of The family of Martin Luther King, Jr, Martin Luther King III today issued the following statement on the U.S. Justice Department's release of its report on their "limited investigation" of recent evidence regarding the assassination of Dr. King

"We learned only hours before the Justice Department press conference that they were releasing the report of their results of their "limited investigation," which covered only two areas of new evidence concerning the assassination of Dr. King. We had requested that we be given a copy of the report a few days in advance so that we might have had the opportunity to review it in detail. Since that courtesy was not extended to us, we are only able at this time to state the following:
1. We initially requested that a comprehensive investigation be conducted by a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, independent of the government, because we do not believe that, in such a politically-sensitive matter, the government is capable of investigating itself.
2. The type of independent investigation we sought was denied by the federal government. But in our view, it was carried out, in a Memphis courtroom, during a month-long trial by a jury of 12 American citizens who had no interest other than ascertaining the truth. (Kings v. Jowers)
3. After hearing and reviewing the extensive testimony and evidence, which had never before been tested under oath in a court of law, it took the Memphis jury only 1½ hours to find that a conspiracy to kill Dr. King did exist. Most significantly, this conspiracy involved agents of the governments of the City of Memphis, the state of Tennessee and the United States of America. The overwhelming weight of the evidence also indicated that James Earl Ray was not the triggerman and, in fact, was an unknowing patsy.
4. We stand by that verdict and have no doubt that the truth about this terrible event has finally been revealed.
5. We urge all interested Americans to read the transcript of the trial on the King Center website and consider the evidence, so they can form their own unbiased conclusions.
Although we cooperated fully with this limited investigation, we never really expected that the government report would be any more objective than that which has resulted from any previous official investigation. In a reasonable period of time, when we have had an opportunity to study the report, we will provide a detailed analysis of it to the media and on the aforementioned website."

source: king center archives (http://www.thekingcenter.com/news/trial.html#Statement)

[DroppinScience]

Meh, I watched the MLK special on CNN tonight discussing the events surrounding the assassination. James Earl Ray looks pretty damn guilty (the rifle was his, he had it with him in the boarding house, his fingerprints and only his fingerprints were found on the weapon).

I fully recognize (and don't blame) those who would think the FBI was behind it (afterall, that asshole Hoover kept harassing and wiretapping King) because their dealings with King don't look good, but any investigations into Ray's claims (such as his imaginary friend "Raoul" being behind it) don't pan out.

[abcdefz]

RIP MLK

[Helvete]

RIP DR MLK JR WTF BBQ

[saz]

Meh, I watched the MLK special on CNN tonight discussing the events surrounding the assassination. James Earl Ray looks pretty damn guilty (the rifle was his, he had it with him in the boarding house, his fingerprints and only his fingerprints were found on the weapon).

I fully recognize (and don't blame) those who would think the FBI was behind it (afterall, that asshole Hoover kept harassing and wiretapping King) because their dealings with King don't look good, but any investigations into Ray's claims (such as his imaginary friend "Raoul" being behind it) don't pan out.

Martin Luther King's family believed Ray was not the killer. In 1997 Ray met with King's son, Dexter to talk about the murder: Ray came as close as he ever would to being absolved in King's assassination in a March 1997 meeting with one of the civil rights leader's sons, Dexter King.

"I had nothing to do with shooting your father," Ray told King.

Later, King asked Ray directly, "I want to ask for the record: did you kill my father?"

"No, I didn't, no, no," Ray said.

"I believe you, and my family believes you, and we will do everything in our power to see you prevail," King replied.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson says it's a plot: "I have always believed that the government was part of a conspiracy, either directly or indirectly, to assassinate Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.," he wrote in the forward to James Earl Ray's autobiography Who Killed Martin Luther King Jr.? Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young believes the government was responsible for King's death, as well. "I've always thought the FBI might be involved in some way," he said. "You have to remember this was a time when the politics of assassination was acceptable in this country. It was during the period just before Allende's murder. I think it's naïve to assume these institutions were not capable of doing the same thing at home or to say each of these deaths (King and the two Kennedys) was an isolated incident by 'a single assassin.' It was government policy."

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/04/was-james-earl-ray-martin_n_95030.html)

[IzzyNYC]

Tibute to Dr. King and Rosa Parks. R.I.P.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyK3rqQobN0

[DroppinScience]

Martin Luther King's family believed Ray was not the killer. In 1997 Ray met with King's son, Dexter to talk about the murder: Ray came as close as he ever would to being absolved in King's assassination in a March 1997 meeting with one of the civil rights leader's sons, Dexter King.

"I had nothing to do with shooting your father," Ray told King.

Later, King asked Ray directly, "I want to ask for the record: did you kill my father?"

"No, I didn't, no, no," Ray said.

"I believe you, and my family believes you, and we will do everything in our power to see you prevail," King replied.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson says it's a plot: "I have always believed that the government was part of a conspiracy, either directly or indirectly, to assassinate Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.," he wrote in the forward to James Earl Ray's autobiography Who Killed Martin Luther King Jr.? Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young believes the government was responsible for King's death, as well. "I've always thought the FBI might be involved in some way," he said. "You have to remember this was a time when the politics of assassination was acceptable in this country. It was during the period just before Allende's murder. I think it's naïve to assume these institutions were not capable of doing the same thing at home or to say each of these deaths (King and the two Kennedys) was an isolated incident by 'a single assassin.' It was government policy."

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/04/was-james-earl-ray-martin_n_95030.html)

Yeah, I know King's family thinks the assassination was some kind of plot. Like I said, I wouldn't blame them for thinking that, because the relationship between the FBI and MLK just doesn't look good (in fact, they anonymously sent threatening letters that more or less indicated King should commit suicide or they'd expose him for the "fraud" that he was). Having said that, the facts at the crime scene aren't on the conspiracy's side. Yeah, there's lingering suspicions behind what happened, but I really don't think they're strong enough to indicate conspiracy when all the evidence points to Ray and any allegation to the contrary has led nowhere. And in fact, if it was a conspiracy, why did Ray live up to 30 years after the fact? He'd be dead and done almost immediately if there was one.

Sorry, not buying it. And it's not because I give the FBI a pass either.

[Whatitis]

Funny thing about conspirists. The government is behind everything. E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G!

[saz]

Yeah, I know King's family thinks the assassination was some kind of plot. Like I said, I wouldn't blame them for thinking that, because the relationship between the FBI and MLK just doesn't look good (in fact, they anonymously sent threatening letters that more or less indicated King should commit suicide or they'd expose him for the "fraud" that he was). Having said that, the facts at the crime scene aren't on the conspiracy's side. Yeah, there's lingering suspicions behind what happened, but I really don't think they're strong enough to indicate conspiracy when all the evidence points to Ray and any allegation to the contrary has led nowhere. And in fact, if it was a conspiracy, why did Ray live up to 30 years after the fact? He'd be dead and done almost immediately if there was one.

Sorry, not buying it. And it's not because I give the FBI a pass either.

i think i've heard this before (http://beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=85113). ;)

[DroppinScience]

i think i've heard this before (http://beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=85113). ;)

Okay, here's how my logic train works.

Let's pretend I believe you, that there was some kind of conspiracy for JFK, RFK, and MLK (I really know very little on the big details for the conspiracists' claims for RFK's assassination, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there).

Okay, remember the leaks throughout the years like Daniel Ellsberg with the "Pentagon Papers," the COINTELPRO programs, Watergate, and CIA disclosure on having some sort of involvement (be it direct or indirect) on assassinations or assassination attempts on foreign leaders? Well, how come there have been no credible leaks for anything to do with JFK/RFK/MLK?

We know that there are plenty of Ellsbergs and Deep Throats in the world who will talk and reveal the various wrongdoings by the U.S. govt, as has been stated. Why are they so adept at keeping secrets on these conspiracies yet the dirty laundry of virtually everything else they've done is now out for all to see?

I know you think I'm a dupe on this subject, but at least indulge me.

[Bob]

Funny thing about conspirists. The government is behind everything. E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G!

thing is though, i bet the government is behind some stuff. like i remember one thing, some declassified government document about something called "operation northwood" or something like that; i generally recall that the idea was to simulate terrorist activities in and around florida and blame it on the cubans or something. they ended up scrapping it, but the point is they were considering it, they had a memo and everything, all official and shit. i bet they pull some shit now and then. but if they ever got called out on something they actually did, nobody would ever believe it because conspiracy theorists do in fact blame the government for everything that happens. they're the boy that cried government, that's what they are.

edit: i state for the record that i have no opinion either way about whether the FBI killed MLK

[funk63]

whos marthin luther king jr?

[Bob]

martin luther king sr's son

dexter king's dad

[DroppinScience]

thing is though, i bet the government is behind some stuff. like i remember one thing, some declassified government document about something called "operation northwood" or something like that; i generally recall that the idea was to simulate terrorist activities in and around florida and blame it on the cubans or something. they ended up scrapping it, but the point is they were considering it, they had a memo and everything, all official and shit. i bet they pull some shit now and then. but if they ever got called out on something they actually did, nobody would ever believe it because conspiracy theorists do in fact blame the government for everything that happens. they're the boy that cried government, that's what they are.

edit: i state for the record that i have no opinion either way about whether the FBI killed MLK

Exactly, except the thing is that Operation Northwoods was shot down and rejected and the people who concocted the plan got their asses fired.

Look, we know what the government has done, and it's done some heinous shit that should be condemned vigorously. But that doesn't give one the right to fabricate extra shit with no factual basis.

[alien autopsy]

if you are interested in knowing the factual basis, eyewitnesses and testimony from the trial, jim douglass gives a good synopsis of the wrongful death and conspiracy civil suit. he was one of TWO reporters who actually showed up for the trial. why were no other media outlets there?

i was going to cut and past a lot of the article, but it became confusing as i took a lot out of context and it was very long and i figured no one would read. so if you want a serious look at what happened at that case here you go:

Martin Luther King Assassination Exposed in Memphis (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/MLKconExp.html)

[alien autopsy]

p.s. there is factual basis for the assasination claims, its no longer a conspiracy theory when the judge rules in favor of wrongful death and conspiracy to kill a man. it becomes established. check out that article.

[Bob]

p.s. there is factual basis for the assasination claims, its no longer a conspiracy theory when the judge rules in favor of wrongful death and conspiracy to kill a man. it becomes established. check out that article.

so then it's established that mumia had a fair trial? because a bunch of judges ruled in favor of that

[alien autopsy]

unfortunately, not all judges are as good intentioned and honest as the judge who presided over the MLK JR civil case. its also interesting to note that this judge chose this as his last case ever, deciding beforehand to step down and retire after the case was over. He was aware of the trial, the significance and the danger of ruling in truth.

[alien autopsy]

the mumia trial is engulfed in hatred, racism and bitterness that has lasted over 30 years, not exlusively upon him, but on the entire black community in philadelphia- including MOVE

[QueenAdrock]

unfortunately, not all judges are as good intentioned and honest as the judge who presided over the MLK JR civil case.

Yeah Bob, it's easy to tell who are good-intentioned and honest judges, they're the ones who agree with you.

[funk63]

martin luther king sr's son

dexter king's dad

ok i thought it was the son of the famouse one. i dont read stuff too well ok.

[Documad]

I'm not going to get involved in another moronic argument, but let me just say that you can't prove anything against the US government in a civil case in which the government was not a party and thus never defended itself, asked cross examination questions, etc. There are loads of crazy old guys who want to admit to responsibility for old conspiracies and I hope that we're not going to invest millions of taxpayer dollars on courtrooms, judges, juries, etc. to let people make a political point with no legal purpose.

(The movie JFK was a terrific movie, but the real story of that prosecutor is similarly appalling.)

[saz]

Okay, here's how my logic train works.

Let's pretend I believe you, that there was some kind of conspiracy for JFK, RFK, and MLK (I really know very little on the big details for the conspiracists' claims for RFK's assassination, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there).

Okay, remember the leaks throughout the years like Daniel Ellsberg with the "Pentagon Papers," the COINTELPRO programs, Watergate, and CIA disclosure on having some sort of involvement (be it direct or indirect) on assassinations or assassination attempts on foreign leaders? Well, how come there have been no credible leaks for anything to do with JFK/RFK/MLK?

We know that there are plenty of Ellsbergs and Deep Throats in the world who will talk and reveal the various wrongdoings by the U.S. govt, as has been stated. Why are they so adept at keeping secrets on these conspiracies yet the dirty laundry of virtually everything else they've done is now out for all to see?

I know you think I'm a dupe on this subject, but at least indulge me.

i don't think you're a "dupe" on this subject at all, nor a dupe in general. i'm just not particularly crazy about your smugness, and simply patronizing and regarding me as a mere "conspiracist". i wish you were more open-minded. did you even bother to watch that documentary i posted in your oswald thread, in which experts, such as dr. cyril wecht, tore apart the logistics of the preposterous single, or magic bullet theory?

anyways, that's a great question you posed. there have been all sorts of leaks that have come out of the government over the years, such as the ones you particularly cited.

however, what a lot of people don't comprehend with this topic, is that the government, and its main bodies or agencies, such as the cia, fbi etc, might not be the main players. you made a great point, that it can be very difficult for the government to keep secrets.

but on the contrary, just who can so easily keep secrets? well, the military. and in particular, those who are involved in deep, covert, black budget operations:
"When you go to work on those locations, you sign away your constitutional rights. You sign a piece of paper saying that if you violate your security agreement, and you discuss programs that you were working on, without a trial, without the right of appeal, you're going to go to the Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary for twenty years. That's a real big incentive to keep your mouth shut." - 133rd Airborne Wing officer James Goodell

deeply classified black budgets (http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Check-Pentagons-Black-Budget/dp/0446514527) and operations (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/science/01patc.html?ex=1364788800&en=93801fcd873620f7&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink) involve billions of dollars, massive secret infrastructures, no accountability whatsoever, no congressional oversight, which finance just who knows how many deeply covert military and military intelligence operations. the cia and fbi pale in comparison to the office of naval intelligence, military and air force intelligence, even the national security agency. they follow orders and keep their mouths shut. so essentially, they can do whatever they want. and it's very real.

rfk and martin luther king were huge critics of the vietnam war. they were also extremely influential, charismatic, and had massive, nation-wide followings. and of course they were also beloved by millions. plus, jfk was opposed to expanding american involvement in southeast asia. (yes, kennedy did dramatically increase the number of american military advisors in vietnam in the early 60s, and did oversee a massive arms build-up, but he was very adament about not getting involved). yes, this is getting into speculative territory about why they might have been killed, but at least it's providing a somewhat cohesive reasoning for why they might have been permanently removed.

but anyways i don't think we'll ever learn about the truth behind these political assassinations. i just don't think it'll ever happen. but what we can be sure of, especially with the jfk assassination, is that we were sold one colossal load of outright lies.


(The movie JFK was a terrific movie, but the real story of that prosecutor is similarly appalling.)

i agree. another thing too is that the film was simply meant to be a hypothesis, to get people asking questions.

[alien autopsy]

i think the point of this case was to show that Ray was part of a broader conspiracy- whether he killed king or not (looks like he might not have after all). its sort of an opening of the door...

i think the point of this case was to bring to light evidence that was never considered...evidence that was ignored or trashed in the chaos that followed kings death. hopefully, this new information will be used in a future trial, or in conjunction with more evidence. hopefully more people will step forward.

im glad the trial happened. this was the first time i heard of it, on this latest aniversary of kings death. i think its important for the american public to understand the ramifications of the verdict.

and of course, there will be many who will shrug it off as bullshit. people have funny ways of dealing with the truth, people have funny ways of dealing with things that are damaging to the walls they set up around themselves to protect their reality.

[alien autopsy]

i don't think you're a "dupe" on this subject at all, nor a dupe in general. i'm just not particularly crazy about your smugness, and simply patronizing and regarding me as a mere "conspiracist". i wish you were more open-minded. did you even bother to watch that documentary i posted in your oswald thread, in which experts, such as dr. cyril wecht, tore apart the logistics of the preposterous single, or magic bullet theory?

anyways, that's a great question you posed. there have been all sorts of leaks that have come out of the government over the years, such as the ones you particularly cited.

however, what a lot of people don't comprehend with this topic, is that the government, and its main bodies or agencies, such as the cia, fbi etc, might not be the main players. you made a great point, that it can be very difficult for the government to keep secrets.

but on the contrary, just who can so easily keep secrets? well, the military. and in particular, those who are involved in deep, covert, black budget operations:
"When you go to work on those locations, you sign away your constitutional rights. You sign a piece of paper saying that if you violate your security agreement, and you discuss programs that you were working on, without a trial, without the right of appeal, you're going to go to the Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary for twenty years. That's a real big incentive to keep your mouth shut." - 133rd Airborne Wing officer James Goodell

deeply classified black budgets (http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Check-Pentagons-Black-Budget/dp/0446514527) and operations (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/science/01patc.html?ex=1364788800&en=93801fcd873620f7&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink) involve billions of dollars, massive secret infrastructures, no accountability whatsoever, no congressional oversight, which finance just who knows how many deeply covert military and military intelligence operations. the cia and fbi pale in comparison to the office of naval intelligence, military and air force intelligence, even the national security agency. they follow orders and keep their mouths shut. so essentially, they can do whatever they want. and it's very real.

rfk and martin luther king were huge critics of the vietnam war. they were also extremely influential, charismatic, and had massive, nation-wide followings. and of course they were also beloved by millions. plus, jfk was opposed to expanding american involvement in southeast asia. (yes, kennedy did dramatically increase the number of american military advisors in vietnam in the early 60s, and did oversee a massive arms build-up, but he was very adament about not getting involved). yes, this is getting into speculative territory about why they might have been killed, but at least it's providing a somewhat cohesive reasoning for why they might have been permanently removed.

but anyways i don't think we'll ever learn about the truth behind these political assassinations. i just don't think it'll ever happen. but what we can be sure of, especially with the jfk assassination, is that we were sold one colossal load of outright lies.



i agree. another thing too is that the film was simply meant to be a hypothesis, to get people asking questions.


sad to say, i think you are right about learning the entire truth- such as everyone who was involved, their names, and their affiliations, in any political asassination. however, there are many whistleblowers in many cases, who come forward. just because we dont hear about them in the mainstream press doesnt mean they didnt try.

there are many whistleblowers out there

[Documad]

I suspect that the reason the media didn't make a big deal out of the verdict in that case brought by the King family is that it had no real ramifications. Who was the defendant in that case? It was just one crazy old guy who decided not to attend the trial and defend himself, is that right? The government wasn't on trial.


I have no problem with people being skeptical that anyone acted alone in a political killing. My problem is when people make the leap and start accusing faceless government types without evidence.

I also find it unsurprising that there are many old stories of people taking credit for playing some part in the killing of JFK or MLK or alluding to knowing something about a conspiracy. They were unpopular at the time in certain circles and it's human nature that drunks and nut jobs would be overheard spouting off about the murders shortly after they happened.

Also, to be a whistleblower you have to actually speak out loud--you have to blow the whistle. I think that if a credible whistleblower (i.e. someone who isn't mentally ill) blew the whistle on President Johnson being responsible for JFK's death, it would make the news. I don't believe that I've missed that story. Look how much press Deep Throat got!

[DroppinScience]

i don't think you're a "dupe" on this subject at all, nor a dupe in general. i'm just not particularly crazy about your smugness, and simply patronizing and regarding me as a mere "conspiracist". i wish you were more open-minded. did you even bother to watch that documentary i posted in your oswald thread, in which experts, such as dr. cyril wecht, tore apart the logistics of the preposterous single, or magic bullet theory? at the government, and its main bodies or agencies, such as the cia, fbi etc


If you really think that I think you're a "conspiracist" in the same sense of the word that folks like alienautopsy get marginalized for (and deservedly so), you'd be sorely mistaken. I know you to be quite intelligent on the many issues that have been brought about on this board, but it's just my opinion that you're mistaken when it comes to these infamous assassinations of the 1960s. I think when we view these moments of tragedy (and this goes for all of us), we project our hopes and aspirations onto a sort of "what if?" scenario. We know things turned out horribly after we lost these three figures, especially with the presidency of Nixon.

rfk and martin luther king were huge critics of the vietnam war. they were also extremely influential, charismatic, and had massive, nation-wide followings. and of course they were also beloved by millions. plus, jfk was opposed to expanding american involvement in southeast asia. (yes, kennedy did dramatically increase the number of american military advisors in vietnam in the early 60s, and did oversee a massive arms build-up, but he was very adament about not getting involved). yes, this is getting into speculative territory about why they might have been killed, but at least it's providing a somewhat cohesive reasoning for why they might have been permanently removed.

I think that if that there were indeed conspiracies for any (or all) of the three men, the establishment would have the most reason to eliminate MLK, and as I've said earlier, the FBI file and J. Edgar Hoover's almost fanatical obsession with discrediting MLK definitely gives us reason to be suspicious, but as I've also maintained, the facts of the crime itself aren't particularly strong to give any real indication that it was anybody else but James Earl Ray behind the assassination.

JFK and RFK, I have trouble with the so-called establishment wanting to eliminate them because they WERE the establishment. For all intensive purposes, they were active in pursuing the Vietnam war (it is difficult to say whether JFK would have been interested in a LBJ-style escalation if he had lived to react to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, but he was more than happy to have a nice little small war that the media wouldn't pay attention to, but he certainly was no advocate for the withdrawl of U.S. forces) and eagerly thought up many CIA covert plans to have Castro assassinated, and need we forget they played their part in the bugging of MLK (and the Kennedys had ties to McCarthy in the '50s, RFK aggressively pursued sindicalists like Jimmy Hoffa). This is hardly the quality of idealist peaceniks that were such a threat to the social order that the power elites felt they must be stopped. It's quite simply wishful thinking shared among a nostalgic general public and conspiracy theorists alike.

Yes, RFK definitely broke with LBJ over Vietnam as he ran for President, but almost up to that point he was a backer of that war because he believed it's what his brother would have wanted. In fact, when he ran for President, he realized he'd have to be running AGAINST his own brother's policies (which he was guilty of propogating as Attorney General).

Even if he was genuinely sincere in his about-face (he may have been, and I hope that he was, but there have been those who said he was simply just being an opportunist), I don't think it's enough of a motive if we are to believe that there was a conspiracy there.

[saz]

no, you obviously didn't watch the documentary. it is absolutely ludicrious to believe for one second that people project their hopes and aspirations into a sort of "what if" scenario, regarding jfk's assassionation. the warren commission and its findings aren't rejected because of people's hopes and aspirations into a "what if" scenario, but rather because the warren commission's findings, jfk's autopsy, and the single bullet theory are such colossal shams, and have been torn to shreds by experts, such as one of america's leading forensic pathologists, dr. cyril wecht (http://www.cyrilwecht.com/). your aloof attitude regarding this topic really is perplexing, it reminds me of right-wingers who you simply can't reason with. the fact that you come across like knowing all you need to know about this topic, yet won't even watch a documentary on the matter, speaks volumes.

yes, it is quite obvious that both of the assassinated kennedys were establishement politicians. nowhere have i said otherwise nor disputed that.
the gulf of tonkin incident was a lie perpetuated by lyndon johnson. considering how kennedy responded to the cuban missile crisis with an embargo and negotiation with the soviets, it is extremely and highly improbable that kennedy would have pursued fabricating an incident which would result in direct warfare with north vietnam and eventually the viet cong. you stated "U.S. forces". kennedy certainly increased the number of military advisors in south vietnam, however there were no proper "U.S. forces" or tens of thousands of troops in the country during his brief administration. i'm glad you brought up castro as well, because it was also kennedy who refused to call in the air force to provide air support during the bay of pigs fiasco, which undoubtedly pissed off many, many people in the air force and the cia. nowhere did i state that the kennedys were "idealist peaceniks". but by 1968, both rfk and king were vehemently opposed to the vietnam war, and at the time it looked like rfk had a huge chance of winning the presidency and ending the war, and if that transpired it would have ended much sooner than when it ended during the nixon administration. regardless, this is getting into speculative territory, and i like to predominantly deal with the facts, and science. again, i do not subscribe to "wishful thinking", nor do the majority of serious academics, scholars, and forensic experts who have completely torn apart the warren comission's findings, and certainly know so much more than you do on this topic.

[DroppinScience]

no, you obviously didn't watch the documentary. it is absolutely ludicrious to believe for one second that people project their hopes and aspirations into a sort of "what if" scenario, regarding jfk's assassionation. the warren commission and its findings aren't rejected because of people's hopes and aspirations into a "what if" scenario, but rather because the warren commission's findings, jfk's autopsy, and the single bullet theory are such colossal shams, and have been torn to shreds by experts, such as one of america's leading forensic pathologists, dr. cyril wecht (http://www.cyrilwecht.com/). your aloof attitude regarding this topic really is perplexing, it reminds me of right-wingers who you simply can't reason with. the fact that you come across like knowing all you need to know about this topic, yet won't even watch a documentary on the matter, speaks volumes.

yes, it is quite obvious that both of the assassinated kennedys were establishement politicians. nowhere have i said otherwise nor disputed that.
the gulf of tonkin incident was a lie perpetuated by lyndon johnson. considering how kennedy responded to the cuban missile crisis with an embargo and negotiation with the soviets, it is extremely and highly improbable that kennedy would have pursued fabricating an incident which would result in direct warfare with north vietnam and eventually the viet cong. you stated "U.S. forces". kennedy certainly increased the number of military advisors in south vietnam, however there were no proper "U.S. forces" or tens of thousands of troops in the country during his brief administration. i'm glad you brought up castro as well, because it was also kennedy who refused to call in the air force to provide air support during the bay of pigs fiasco, which undoubtedly pissed off many, many people in the air force and the cia. nowhere did i state that the kennedys were "idealist peaceniks". but by 1968, both rfk and king were vehemently opposed to the vietnam war, and at the time it looked like rfk had a huge chance of winning the presidency and ending the war, and if that transpired it would have ended much sooner than when it ended during the nixon administration. regardless, this is getting into speculative territory, and i like to predominantly deal with the facts, and science. again, i do not subscribe to "wishful thinking", nor do the majority of serious academics, scholars, and forensic experts who have completely torn apart the warren comission's findings, and certainly know so much more than you do on this topic.

Look, you accuse ME of being smug? There's plenty of smuggery to go around apparently.

Yeah, you caught me red-handed, I didn't watch your documentary, but then again, I doubt you've started on Bugliosi's 1600-page book either, even if it's a long-ass read you could at least take a look at what he says if you want to know whether he's peddling a bunch of crap or whether he's got merit, plus he contributed much of his own original research and didn't just re-hash what others have written (BTW, there will be a 10-part miniseries from HBO produced by Tom Hanks to be completed for 2010 based on Bugliosi's book just in case you're interested). I wouldn't even call Bugliosi a "right-winger" who can't be reasoned with since he's also written a book calling for the impeachment of the 5 Supreme Court justices who voted against a Florida recount for the 2000 election. And what the hell is with these smear tactics comparing me to right-wingers anyway? But I digress. I'm done my school exactly two weeks from today, so I will promise you I WILL at least watch your YouTube links sometime. You can even follow-up with me if and when we meet again to discuss.

So you say there's several serious academics, scholars, forensic experts, etc. who have torn apart the Warren Commission's findings. Well, there's plenty of scholars in their respective fields who have torn down the vast majority of conspiracy theory allegations as well (I know you hate the use of this term when used for the assassination, but until there's a better word for it, lemme know), but who'd believe them, they're probably on the payroll of the CIA or right-wingers who can't be reasoned with. Though there are reputed experts who side against the Warren Commission, the vast majority lack all sorts of credibility (*cough*Mark Lane*cough*). Dr. Cyril Wecht, as you mentioned, is literally one of the very few to be considered top-notch. But how can his claims be considered right when throughout the years he keeps changing his story time and again about the location of a potential second-shooter. Not even he is entirely sure about what the Warren Commission got wrong.

And while we're on about Vietnam, how do you know it was LBJ who fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incident? I thought the most recent reports said (and I'm referring to the NSA report a few years back) that it was the result of faulty intelligence that served to mislead Johnson.

And if you don't believe me about JFK and his involvement with Vietnam, I've got a Noam Chomsky book (http://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Camelot-Vietnam-Political-Culture/dp/0896084582/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207707213&sr=1-1)for you:

Veteran critic/activist Chomsky ( Deterring Democracy ) analyzes the issue most prominently posed in Oliver Stone's film JFK : was President Kennedy a secret dove whose assassination extinguished a chance to end the Vietnam War? Those willing to follow Chomsky's dry, prosecutorial style will find strong arguments against Kennedy mythologists. He provides context for the Vietnam War with a history of U.S. "economic warfare" against "lesser breeds" and the roots of world inequality. Then, he analyzes the record of planning the war from 1961 to 1964. He notes that studies of the Vietnamese countryside showed overwhelming sympathy for the Vietcong, leading the U.S. to choose escalated violence. One of Kennedy's trusted, dovish advisors described the president in September 1963 as supporting the war, and Chomsky calls the record on this issue consistent. Shortly after the assassination, Kennedy doves supported Johnson's Vietnam policies, but changed their stance--and their historical memory--after the 1968 Tet Offensive. Chomsky suggests that fascination with Camelot, like support for H. Ross Perot, indicates a desire to project heroism in a time of cultural malaise.

[Documad]

I'm not going to be able to beat all your books and clips and citations guys, but I've always thought that the Gulf of Tonkin incidents were mistakes made by the US military and that LBJ then took political advantage. I can't believe that he completely made them up. Maybe that's not what you mean by fabricated though. Its been at least 3 years since I last read a book by one of the participants thought.

There is very little that bothers me more than the adoration for JFK. He had a shorter term so maybe he would have impressed me more if he had lived, but I think he was a pretty crappy president. He got elected by scaring the american public into believing that the soviets had more missiles than us, he authorized the bay of pigs thing without having a clue as to how large Cuba actually was, he made a big commitment to what became the Vietnam War and took shady actions that made our total commitment inevitable, etc. It was JFK who passed the civil rights legislation. He said that he was doing it in honor of JFK because that was the politically smart thing to do but JFK would not have gotten that legislation passed if he had lived. JFK did a lot less for the civil rights movement than he gets credit for.

RFK was a shady guy too, he never should have been his brother's attorney general because he left a bad legacy in that he started the trend of having politicians who blindly serve their president as attorney general, and he didn't have the guts to come out against Vietnam until after he saw where public opinion was heading. He was the Hillary Clinton of 1968. (Nixon was the Obama of 1968--he had a secret plan to get us out of the war without losing.)

[yeahwho]

RFK was a shady guy too, he never should have been his brother's attorney general because he left a bad legacy in that he started the trend of having politicians who blindly serve their president as attorney general, and he didn't have the guts to come out against Vietnam until after he saw where public opinion was heading. He was the Hillary Clinton of 1968. (Nixon was the Obama of 1968--he had a secret plan to get us out of the war without losing.)

That is good writing, I do not necessarily agree with what it says, but nice simile. :)

[DroppinScience]

I'm not going to be able to beat all your books and clips and citations guys, but I've always thought that the Gulf of Tonkin incidents were mistakes made by the US military and that LBJ then took political advantage. I can't believe that he completely made them up. Maybe that's not what you mean by fabricated though. Its been at least 3 years since I last read a book by one of the participants thought.

There is very little that bothers me more than the adoration for JFK. He had a shorter term so maybe he would have impressed me more if he had lived, but I think he was a pretty crappy president. He got elected by scaring the american public into believing that the soviets had more missiles than us, he authorized the bay of pigs thing without having a clue as to how large Cuba actually was, he made a big commitment to what became the Vietnam War and took shady actions that made our total commitment inevitable, etc. It was JFK who passed the civil rights legislation. He said that he was doing it in honor of JFK because that was the politically smart thing to do but JFK would not have gotten that legislation passed if he had lived. JFK did a lot less for the civil rights movement than he gets credit for.

RFK was a shady guy too, he never should have been his brother's attorney general because he left a bad legacy in that he started the trend of having politicians who blindly serve their president as attorney general, and he didn't have the guts to come out against Vietnam until after he saw where public opinion was heading. He was the Hillary Clinton of 1968. (Nixon was the Obama of 1968--he had a secret plan to get us out of the war without losing.)

You're right. RFK was simply stealing Eugene McCarthy's anti-war thunder. Your analogies are striking, but the only problem I have with RFK being compared to Hillary is that I'm not even convinced Hillary has "come out" against the Iraq war. She keeps voting to fund it and isn't apologizing for her vote to authorize it, yes? :rolleyes:

[saz]

Look, you accuse ME of being smug? There's plenty of smuggery to go around apparently.

well, i've already pointed out that you have been smug. and no, i'm trying to rationally argue that the single bullet theory and the warren commission's findings are completely ludicrous, and make a mockery out of the law of physics.


Yeah, you caught me red-handed, I didn't watch your documentary, but then again, I doubt you've started on Bugliosi's 1600-page book either, even if it's a long-ass read you could at least take a look at what he says if you want to know whether he's peddling a bunch of crap or whether he's got merit, plus he contributed much of his own original research and didn't just re-hash what others have written (BTW, there will be a 10-part miniseries from HBO produced by Tom Hanks to be completed for 2010 based on Bugliosi's book just in case you're interested).

bugliosi isn't one of america's leading forensic pathologists.


I wouldn't even call Bugliosi a "right-winger" who can't be reasoned with since he's also written a book calling for the impeachment of the 5 Supreme Court justices who voted against a Florida recount for the 2000 election.

this has nothing to do with right and left, but rather the sham that was the warren commission's findings.


And what the hell is with these smear tactics comparing me to right-wingers anyway? But I digress.

because you're being so incredibly difficult on this matter. you won't even examine the spot-on criticisms of the warren commission's findings by forensic experts and academics.


I'm done my school exactly two weeks from today, so I will promise you I WILL at least watch your YouTube links sometime. You can even follow-up with me if and when we meet again to discuss.

So you say there's several serious academics, scholars, forensic experts, etc. who have torn apart the Warren Commission's findings.

yes, and again, it is dr. cyril wecht (http://www.cyrilwecht.com/welcome.php) who is leading the charge.


Well, there's plenty of scholars in their respective fields who have torn down the vast majority of conspiracy theory allegations as well (I know you hate the use of this term when used for the assassination, but until there's a better word for it, lemme know),

anyone who argues the validity of the single bullet theory (which again, makes a complete mockery of the laws of physics) is a total clown.


but who'd believe them, they're probably on the payroll of the CIA or right-wingers who can't be reasoned with.

no, they just have their heads up their asses.


Though there are reputed experts who side against the Warren Commission, the vast majority lack all sorts of credibility (*cough*Mark Lane*cough*). Dr. Cyril Wecht, as you mentioned, is literally one of the very few to be considered top-notch. But how can his claims be considered right when throughout the years he keeps changing his story time and again about the location of a potential second-shooter. Not even he is entirely sure about what the Warren Commission got wrong.

because we know that the single bullet theory is fantasy. that is undeniable. what we don't know, and what we can only speculate about, including dr. wecht, is where and what the exact locations were of other shooters. that is what we don't know. we can only guess, or speculate about where the shooters might have been.


And while we're on about Vietnam, how do you know it was LBJ who fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incident? I thought the most recent reports said (and I'm referring to the NSA report a few years back) that it was the result of faulty intelligence that served to mislead Johnson.

good point. johnson lied through his teeth about the course and conduct of the war throughout the later years of his administration. i was also taught in university that he actively participated in perpetuating the lie about the gulf of tonkin incident. i have great sympathy for johnson, and any evidence out there that could cast doubt on this would be welcomed.


And if you don't believe me about JFK and his involvement with Vietnam, I've got a Noam Chomsky book (http://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Camelot-Vietnam-Political-Culture/dp/0896084582/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207707213&sr=1-1)for you:

no, i know exactly where you're coming from. once upon a distant war (http://www.amazon.com/Once-Upon-Distant-Arnett-Young-Correspondents/dp/0679772650) is an excellent account of the coverage of the vietnam conflict in the early 60s, and how american advisors began to actually participate in combat operations.


oh and i completely agree with documad about jfk. he was dragging his feet on civil rights in his brief administration, and it is highly likely that if kennedy lived to serve a second term, that he would've needed a very ballsy and political warrior like lbj to get civil rights legislation passed. there have also been accusations of ballot-box stuffing in illinois, in which i'm pretty sure jfk narrowly defeated nixon in that state. rfk certainly was no saint as well, however his opposition to the war, championing minority rights and social justice was genuine.

[DroppinScience]

I'll level with you on the single-bullet theory: the way it's been explained from both sides of the issue IS confusing. However, what conspiracy theorists/Commission critics, etc. argue and say what the Warren Commission claims happened is distorted from what the Warren Commission's actual findings. Under the narrative theorists give, yeah it would defy physics, the only problem is it's not the same thing as what the Warren Commission actually wrote down.

The bullets all match Oswald's rifle, plus the direction of the bullets are all from behind and not the front, plus up to 88% of "ear witnesses" say they heard 3 shots.

But we both know neither of us will be persuaded on this issue, but that's perfectly fine. The only problem with continuing this argument is that neither of us are reading/viewing the same things to properly comment on each other.

[saz]

I'll level with you on the single-bullet theory: the way it's been explained from both sides of the issue IS confusing.

no, only the warren commission has provided confusion and outright ridiculous theories.


However, what conspiracy theorists/Commission critics, etc. argue and say what the Warren Commission claims happened is distorted from what the Warren Commission's actual findings. Under the narrative theorists give, yeah it would defy physics, the only problem is it's not the same thing as what the Warren Commission actually wrote down.

The bullets all match Oswald's rifle, plus the direction of the bullets are all from behind and not the front, plus up to 88% of "ear witnesses" say they heard 3 shots.

the "bullets". one of those "bullets" emerged in near pristine condition, the same bullet the warren commission said wounded both kennedy and connally, breaking several bones and zig-zagging in mid-air, a feat a missile couldn't even perform. "88% of ear witnesses". i suppose then that doesn't include the dozens of witnesses, including police officers, who saw flashes of light, smoke, and heard gun shots eminating from the grassy knoll area. but of course, they contradict and throw a huge monkey wrench into the warren commission's findings. so therefore, they're obviously all crazy. or, were all witnesses to a natural weather phenomenon.

[alien autopsy]

hey you al qaeda hijackers, this was my thread on martin luther king jr! start your own thread on jfk damnit!

[DroppinScience]

"88% of ear witnesses". i suppose then that doesn't include the dozens of witnesses, including police officers, who saw flashes of light, smoke, and heard gun shots eminating from the grassy knoll area. but of course, they contradict and throw a huge monkey wrench into the warren commission's findings. so therefore, they're obviously all crazy. or, were all witnesses to a natural weather phenomenon.

A scene like that is extremely chaotic and confusing with a lot of commotion, so it's almost a given you'll find people mistakenly seeing things. Think of a car crash and 5 people seeing it as it happened. You're going to get slightly different variations of what happened from the witnesses, which also depends on where they were in relation to the crash. The JFK scene in Dallas had hundreds of people, so multiply the confusion some more. But the vast majority of the allegations range from those who were well-intentioned people who were mistaken to those few whose credibility was suspect (i.e. people who constantly changed their stories, made them more elaborate and exaggerated as the years went on, people whose family members vouched that they're prone to lying, exaggerating, etc.), which comprised only a scant minority.

The smoke from the grassy knoll is far-fetched because rifles like the Carcano and other such rifles do not give off very visible smoke. If there is any smoke, it vanishes very quickly. Plus, it was a windy day so it would have also vanished even quicker (in the "JFK" movie, Oliver Stone had to use a smoke machine because no rifle could give off the visible smoke he wanted).

And you have the point of view that Oswald is 100% innocent anyway, which is the most absurd part of it all. Even if you believe there was a conspiracy, Oswald not being part of it is the silliest thing to swallow since there is 52 incriminating pieces of evidence that connects him to the crime. No innocent person has that many signs pointing to his guilt. Come on.

[saz]

A scene like that is extremely chaotic and confusing with a lot of commotion, so it's almost a given you'll find people mistakenly seeing things.

oh my god you're serious.


Think of a car crash and 5 people seeing it as it happened. You're going to get slightly different variations of what happened from the witnesses, which also depends on where they were in relation to the crash.

right. that's just like the argument of the right-wing christian at the pep rally in bowling for columbine, ie not everybody who sees a car commercial is going to go out and buy the car, but a few will, so a few people will go out and kill people who listen to marilyn manson.


The JFK scene in Dallas had hundreds of people, so multiply the confusion some more.

right, so then according to your logic, every single witness, including police officers, which included many people, who all saw smoke, flashes of light, and heard gun shots coming from the grassy knoll were all wrong. but these "88 ear witnesses" were all correct. whatever.


But the vast majority of the allegations range from those who were well-intentioned people who were mistaken to those few whose credibility was suspect (i.e. people who constantly changed their stories, made them more elaborate and exaggerated as the years went on, people whose family members vouched that they're prone to lying, exaggerating, etc.), which comprised only a scant minority.

whatever.


The smoke from the grassy knoll is far-fetched because rifles like the Carcano and other such rifles do not give off very visible smoke. If there is any smoke, it vanishes very quickly. Plus, it was a windy day so it would have also vanished even quicker (in the "JFK" movie, Oliver Stone had to use a smoke machine because no rifle could give off the visible smoke he wanted).

whatever.


And you have the point of view that Oswald is 100% innocent anyway, which is the most absurd part of it all.

whatever, 88% of "ear witnesses" lol.


Even if you believe there was a conspiracy, Oswald not being part of it is the silliest thing to swallow since there is 52 incriminating pieces of evidence that connects him to the crime. No innocent person has that many signs pointing to his guilt. Come on.

i never stated that i believed oswald to be 100% innocent. i believe that he never fired a shot, but he probably was involved or connected. and sorry, i'm not buying any of the crap from bugliosi. anyone who pushes the single bullet theory is a total clown.

[DroppinScience]

Whatever. :cool:

[Carlos]

A scene like that is extremely chaotic and confusing with a lot of commotion, so it's almost a given you'll find people mistakenly seeing things.


LOL... your thoroughness and empirical prowess is un-paralleled :p fuckin classic..

..man there is a serious problem with people addressing specific empirical data, in other words science on this board.. I know america has the worst science results for a developed nation.. but basic physics is almost common sense..


btw - I am not espousing one thing or another, as I have not done the research that I have when it comes to 911 (i.e reading books).. merely observing the same inability to deal with details and specific empirical data that appears to contradict an established narrative..