sparky (and big_dave) do me a favor and read the very short Jefferson Morley piece that I linked to above. I'd genuinely like to hear your reactions.

connor wrote:No one's attempted to rebut my argument regarding the very nature of the CIA of the early 1960s and what HAS been declassified. Oh well. I suppose it's more entertaining for you all to pick fights with RR.

I have tried to make a similar point re:conspiracies before when people start insisting false flag black op operations could never possibly take place.
Even though we know they have and have no reason to think they have stopped.

I don't believe anyone responded to the point before.

I couldn't say why.

Earwicker wrote:

connor wrote:No one's attempted to rebut my argument regarding the very nature of the CIA of the early 1960s and what HAS been declassified. Oh well. I suppose it's more entertaining for you all to pick fights with RR.

I have tried to make a similar point re:conspiracies before when people start insisting false flag black op operations could never possibly take place.
Even though we know they have and have no reason to think they have stopped.

I don't believe anyone responded to the point before.

I couldn't say why.

Oh, uh...I missed it too. Sorry!

I linked to the "Family Jewels" dossier (the very recently declassified 1973 CIA dossier that details how the CIA worked with the Mafia to assassinate Castro) earlier in this thread. Yet sparky and big_dave refuse to read it and chose instead to engage RR.

This shit has been declassified, folks. CIA "Black Ops" are very real. The CIA-Mafia connection is...very real. Unless you want to tell me that the CIA made that up, which would make it a conspiracy to invent a conspiracy which is, in itself, a conspiracy. <wraps tinfoil around head>

connor wrote:No one's attempted to rebut my argument regarding the very nature of the CIA of the early 1960s and what HAS been declassified. Oh well. I suppose it's more entertaining for you all to pick fights with RR.

Anyways, here's a Jefferson Morley piece entitled "What JFK Conspiracy Bashers Get Wrong". The dude's one of the very, very few mainstream journalists (Washington Post, Washington Monthly) still looking into this story.

Oh wow, Bruce Willis. Consider me schooled.

But seriously, I agree with a lot of his points. My high school history teacher taught us that Oswald shot and missed.

It would be very cool if this was the sort of board where we could have a serious discussion about these things without having wear the correct jerseys, as it were.

connor wrote:

Earwicker wrote:I have tried to make a similar point

Oh, uh...I missed it too. Sorry!

No worries. it's probably buried amongst the recesses of the 9/11 thread.

I referenced a Craig Murray article (a sacked British ambassador who worked in Uzbekistan and started to shake the boat in case you dont know).
In it he says he was not allowed to mention in his book Murder in Samarkand his conclusions regarding bombs in Uzbekistan blamed (by Colin Powell) on an Islamic group.
He got round it by advising reading The Quiet Man which is about a false flag CIA operation - a CIA planted bomb blamed on the Viet Cong.

big_dave wrote:It would be very cool if this was the sort of board where we could have a serious discussion about these things without having wear the correct jerseys, as it were.

What's stopping us? That's what I've been trying to do in this thread...

You think I'm being hysterical or dismissive?

big_dave wrote:Oh wow, Bruce Willis. Consider me schooled.

That point had nothing to do with the validity of the claim. He was arguing against the pre-conception that "JFK conspiracy theories" are inherently tied to any political ideology; that it's not just "liberals" who believe in the possibility of a conspiracy.

There are dumb liberals and dumb conservatives who think it's possible as well as some intelligent liberals and intelligent conservatives who think it's possible.

It is definitely possible that someone other than LHO was involved in the murder of JFK.

However the majority of evidence that suggests so is circumstancial and contrarian in nature, whereas LHO was seen and heard to shoot JFK, and most primary evidence seems to support this.

big_dave wrote:However the majority of evidence that suggests so is circumstancial and contrarian in nature, whereas LHO was seen and heard to shoot JFK, and most primary evidence seems to support this.

I concede that it's possible.

My only 100% firm belief on the matter is that the CIA knows a good deal about the assassination that they are, for whatever reason, hiding from the public. This is a fact. Now, for all we know, the full-on "truth" is that LHO did act alone yet the CIA is simply embarrassed about the fact that they were tracking him yet somehow allowed this man to kill the president. Or maybe, yes, he acted alone, but was in some way associated with one of their bizarre Cold War adventures that must remain, for whatever reason, classified.

Rick Reuben wrote:

connor wrote:

big_dave wrote:However the majority of evidence that suggests so is circumstancial and contrarian in nature, whereas LHO was seen and heard to shoot JFK, and most primary evidence seems to support this.

I concede that it's possible.

Connor, did you notice the two major lies that Dave tried to tell, in the space of just those eight boldfaced words?

Uh, that's a bit embarrassing. I guess I just read "evidence suggests" and replied.