44 years and they're STILL finding stuff?

[seemslikeadream]

I thought by NOW we would have seen everything about the JFK assassination

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/021708dnmetjackruby.3bde49f.html

Exclusive: Dallas County DA's office finds cache of JFK memorabilia

01:32 AM CST on Sunday, February 17, 2008
By JENNIFER EMILY / The Dallas Morning News
[e-mail]

The Dallas County district attorney's office has unearthed a treasure trove of memorabilia from the aftermath of President John F. Kennedy's assassination in an old safe on the 10th floor of the courthouse.

It includes personal letters to and from former District Attorney Henry Wade, a gun holster, official records from the Jack Ruby trial, letters to Ruby and clothing that probably belonged to him and Kennedy's assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, said Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins.

Also Online
Archive: JFK – The story behind the story
And conspiracy theorists will rejoice over one find: a highly suspect transcript of a conversation between Ruby and Oswald plotting to kill the president because the mafia wanted to "get rid of" his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy.

"It will open up the debate again about whether there was a conspiracy," said Mr. Watkins, who at 40 was born four Novembers after Kennedy was killed in 1963.

[Bolo Boffin]

1. " The purported Oswald-Ruby conversation took place on Oct. 4, 1963, at Ruby's Carousel Club..."

"...it's well documented that Oswald was in Irving the evening of Oct. 4, at a home where his wife was staying. He could not have been at Ruby's club."

[seemslikeadream]

2. The point IS, to my way of thinking is.........

44 YEARS

[seemslikeadream]

3. Jim Garrison was right. Joan Mellen documented it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2880126

Octafish (1000+ posts) Sun Feb-17-08 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
6. Jim Garrison was right. Joan Mellen documented it.
Here's what we do know, courtesy of Prof. Mellen:




WHO RULES AMERICA? HOW DID WE GET HERE?

Joan Mellen
Stewart Mott House, Washington, D.C., September 14, 2007.

I like to begin my talks with a mantra. It goes like this. Jim Garrison, district attorney of Orleans Parish, whose investigation into the Kennedy assassination is the subject of my book, “A Farewell To Justice,” after it was all over and Clay Shaw was acquitted, was asked: how could you ever have believed that you could convict CIA operative Clay Shaw for participation in the conspiracy to kill President Kennedy in a state court in Louisiana?

“I guess I thought I was living in the country I was born in,” Garrison said.

This line has particular resonance today. Many of us were not born in a country where martial law was legitimized; where the President could countermand any law he wanted to with promiscuous signing statements; where there was illegal government surveillance of citizens accompanied by neither warrants nor probable cause; where what library books you took out could become known to the government; where America, having legalized the use of torture, was defined as a country inevitably pursuing preemptive foreign wars, and where, as in George Orwell's “1984,” war was a permanent part of the country's identity. You all know the litany.

It also has become clear even to those in deepest denial that the Democrats are not about to reverse these assaults on the U.S. Constitution. In policy, in principle and in action, the Democrats are revealing themselves as offering no substantive difference from the party in power. Howard Zinn made the point that there was little difference between the two parties in “A People's History of the United States,” first published in 1980. Zinn's observation is more true than ever today as some people, albeit half-heartedly, continue to be tempted to place their faith in a change of administrations in the hope of reversing the damage to the democratic fabric we have witnessed in the past eight years.

In our continuing attempt to understand when this assault on the Constitution began in earnest, so that in the administration of George W. Bush it accelerated at so astonishing a pace, I would like first to raise the question of whether it is in to fact true that with Bush and Cheney we have seen an inflation of the power of the Executive. Or has the power of the president in fact shrunk so drastically that it is entirely inappropriate to blame Bush for the war, or for the assault on the Constitution? Let me suggest that it is the organ grinder with whom we have to be concerned, rather than the monkey.

Sometimes there is a historical moment where a society suffers a dramatic reversal in political direction.

I would place that moment at the assassination of President Kennedy. At that instant, the Bushes and the Cheneys, serving so diligently the Bechtels and Halliburtons and their multifarious cohort, mostly in the western part of the country, seized the political control of this country. This is why discussion of the murder of President Kennedy is as relevant today as it was in 1963 and 1964, and why there has never been nor will there ever be an honest investigation of this crime so long as that investigation is government-sponsored. That the Kennedy family, in particular Robert Kennedy, opposed any open investigation of President Kennedy's death is one dimension of the story that has led me to the conclusion that we must not look today to the Democratic Party for redress.

I spent seven years on my investigation of the Kennedy assassination. I went beyond Jim Garrison's work to include the thousands of documents released after his death to the National Archives under the JFK Act passed by a Congress with some interest in transparency. We are not likely to see similar legislation to open the records of the 9/11 Commission. That is not speculation. Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, admitted on NPR that he was not about to make the same mistake the Warren Commission did; he was not about to release for public and scholarly scrutiny the documents his commission collected. When Lieutenant Colonel Tony Shaffer came forward with information about the “Able Danger” unit of military intelligence, he was swiftly discredited. The “New York Times” buried his astonishing revelations in its back pages. Col. Shaffer told me when I met him at the office of his attorney, Mark Zaid, that he had lost his job.

I interviewed more than a thousand people in my effort to contribute to the question of who planned the murder of President Kennedy. Among them was a former mercenary and soldier-of-fortune named Gerald Patrick Hemming, a shrewd former CIA asset, who remarked to me in passing, that “John F. Kennedy was the last president who thought he could take power.” In his youth, inexperience and sense of entitlement, Kennedy could not imagine that his CIA enemies would eliminate him.

President Kennedy knew that the CIA's clandestine service was undermining him at every turn. He knew that Richard Helms and his underlings were his blood enemies (you know the line, “I'll splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and cast them to the winds”), but he and we were astonished that the CIA and its military confreres would have so little respect for the office that represented the identity of the country that they would murder the head of state on the streets of an American city in broad daylight.

CONTINUED...

http://www.joanmellen.net/whorules.html

Mirage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAyLRNsiJw8

[halobeam]

4. Interesting take and info on Brzezinski

Is he advising or endorsing Obama's campaign? She seems to find a unique parallel to the position of JFK and Brzezinski regarding the military industrial complex, yet states he's not exactly "the prince of peace". I thought in reading further on she'd qualify that statement, it wasn't brought back into her writing. Do you know what she meant by that?

edit to add: I found this at Media Matters: really interesting... one brother advises McCain and the former Brzezinski and his other son advise Obama. http://mediamatters.org/items/200802070004

I'd really like to know what Joan meant by that.

[sarcasmo]

5. Bush 41, Why were you in Dallas?

[seemslikeadream]

9. The wife and son, gw, were there also

[Grateful for Hope]

11. Imagine that..

What WERE they all doing in Dallas?

[Bolo Boffin]

12. My goodness. Was anything notable going on in Dallas that day?

:eyes:

[Grateful for Hope]

13. Bolo

I do respect your views on things. I think you are a guy who researches and thinks.

But, I also think that you have tried your darndest to make me appear to be one of the most "disruptive" posters here.

You have viciously personally attacked me more than several times.

I say these things because I kind of understand why you would take an obscure post from me and try to make it become a major issue.

So, I will not engage with you again. But, I do have a question: What do you have against Beatrice Arthur?

Look up your posts, and, look how you mentioned her.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. This latest post of yours is a prime example of your MO, Hope.

My reply to you was rather tame, Hope. You are the one blowing this out of proportion right now. You're the one going on and on about how you're "not engaging me."

My remark concerning Bea Arthur came from a Comedy Central roast, and was made while Bea Arthur was on the stage. I'm willing to bet Ms. Arthur could DEAL, since she did so that day. Get over yourself.

[Grateful for Hope]

16. Hey Bolo

No I am not.

You really put Bea Arthur down.

Why?

[Bolo Boffin]

17. Hey Hope

Put down the toothbrush and we'll talk.

PS: PPPTPTPPTPTPTPTPTTTTTPPBBBTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!

[Grateful for Hope]

18. Hey, sweet boy

What do you mean?

[Bolo Boffin]

20. What I mean

If JFK had not been assassinated, the Bushes would have had a very good reason for being in Dallas that day.

JFK was visiting. It was what people would call a big deal. It's why there were a lot of people in Dallas that day.

The Bushes being in Dallas that day is not the sinister thing that JFK conspiracy theorists imagine it to be.

That's what I mean.

[Grateful for Hope]

23. Thank you for at least explaining where you were coming from

I appreciate it.

[Bolo Boffin]

25. If you had wanted to know "where I was coming from," you would have asked me.

You didn't. You took the opportunity to show off your toothbrush collection.

So take your appreciation and consider it a present from Bea Arthur.

[frylock]

42. funny that ghwb doesn't recall packing up the fam to go and see JFK..

go ahead and ask him.

[seemslikeadream]

43. You'd think he might remember where he was that day

wouldn't you? EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD REMEMBERS

[AZCat]

44. No, I don't.

But I have a perfectly good excuse - I wasn't born yet. :)

[sarcasmo]

22. Let's not forget 41 was the head of the CIA. Oh, I forgot, you are always right.

[Bolo Boffin]

24. Bush was made head of the CIA in 1975. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963.

Oh, I forgot. That doesn't matter in JFK conspiracy land.

[sarcasmo]

34. How do you think he became head of the CIA, he did no grunt work prior to that time?

You have your Government is great and always tells the truth fantasy land.

[Bolo Boffin]

36. Your prejudice against me isn't befitting a progressive and Democrat board.

It wouldn't surprise me to find out HW had been in the CIA before that.

But when it comes down to it, all the evidence is circumstantial. HW had done a lot of government work before his appointment to the CIA head.

Throughout his whole career, Bush had the backing of an established family, headed by his father, Prescott Bush, who was elected to the Senate from Connecticut in 1952. The family helped the young patrician become established in his early business ventures, a rich uncle raising most of the capital required for founding the oil company.

In the 1960s, Bush won two contests for a Texas Republican seat in the House of Representatives, but lost two bids for a Senate seat. After Bush's second race for the Senate, President Nixon appointed him U.S. delegate to the United Nations and he later became Republican National Committee chairman. He headed the U.S. liaison office in Beijing before becoming Director of Central Intelligence.

That's the actually documented work HW did before that time. It's not like he came out of nowhere.

[sarcasmo]

37. Because I feel you seem to think your answer is always right, makes me prejudice against you?

On Edit: My wife, who is neither a CT or Internet info junkie has always considered Bush 41 a stone cold killer.

[Bolo Boffin]

38. Stupid games.

That's not the statement I was referring to, and you damn well know it.

[SDuderstadt]

40. Well, that settles that....

"My wife, who is neither a CT or Internet info junkie has always considered Bush 41 a stone cold killer."

What were we thinking? We obviously should have consulted your wife to be set straight. Does she have a group rate?

[SDuderstadt]

14. This reminds me of the great scene from "The Usual Suspects"...

in which Kevin Pollack's character is confronted by the cops and told, "We can place you in Queens on the day of the heist". Pollack very sarcastically replies, "Really. I live in Queens.".

Here's my question. Even if all three of them were in Dallas (although evidence places G.H.W. in Tyler) when it happened, so what?

[BeachBaby]

19. SLaD and Hope!

How are my girls tonight? :hug:

44 years.....heck, I wasn't even a wet dream when 11/22/1963 happened, but I truly believed my entire life that I would be lucky to find out the truth before I died. Maybe my luck is working in my favor for a change.

I'm a firm advocate of the old saying "If it looks like a rat, and it smells like a rat....". And the events of 11/22/1963 absolutely REEK. My take on the whole thing has always been that it was an inside job. To me, it's so obvious that it's laughable. So, it doesn't surprise me at all that HW, being the CIA director, just HAPPENED to be there that day.

It's because of this same mindset that I understand why GWB has never been harmed. As long as he does what he's told, they'll take care of him. The same goes for why OBL and the AQ network didn't attack again - imho, the reason they haven't attacked again is because they never attacked us in the first place. The orchestrators of the attacks executed their plan in order to instill fear into its people, gain US support for the War on Terror, and then go full throttle into an invasion and occupation of the Middle East. Each player had a personal stake in the 9/11 event, and it was their big chance to achieve the agenda they've been dreaming of for so long. Again - soooooo obvious.

SLad - I love your posts. You put alot of thought into them, and you ask very valid, thought-provoking questions. I expected to find a couple of bashers in here, and they didn't disappoint me. Keep your chin up, girl - you have alot of us in your corner. :)

[seemslikeadream]

21. JerseyGirlDem SLaD and Hope!

One Voice

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMsUIUw5mEM

This is the sound of one voice
One spirit, one voice
The sound of one who makes a choice
This is the sound of one voice

This is the sound of voices two
The sound of me singing with you
Helping each other to make it through
This is the sound of voices two

This is the sound of voices three
Singing together in harmony
Surrendering to the mystery
This is the sound of voices three

This is the sound of all of us
Singing with love and the will to trust
Leave the rest behind it will turn to dust
This is the sound of all of us

This is the sound of one voice

[BeachBaby]

Beautiful!

Amen, sister. :)

[Bolo Boffin]

29. When shall you three meet again? n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

50. Yes, absolutely

Very beautiful and very true. Thanks for posting this!

[Grateful for Hope]

49. Sorry I missed this, JerseyGirlDem

SLaD's posts are excellent, as are your's. Both of you are a definite asset to this forum.

[hack89]

6. Pay attention - this is the future of the 911 truth movement.

a lifetime hobby on the fringes of society.

[noise]

7. It doesn't mean the JFK

researchers were wrong. Rather, it speaks to the power of corrupt officials to coverup the truth. It's only considered 'fringe conspiracy' because the mainstream media evidently wasn't interested in the truth either.

[salvorhardin]

8. Just out of curiosity...

How do you define "truth"? I'm interested in your personal operating definition of "truth", not the dictionary definition and there's no malice or snark implied. What is "truth" to you?

[Twist_U_Up]

10. reasonable question, coming from you.

just sayin :)

[noise]

26. Letting the facts lead where they may

With the JFK assassination and 9/11 this didn't happen. Instead there was concerted effort to fix the facts to fit a politically convenient narrative. Then the political/media establishment resorted to propaganda, fearmongering and authoritarianism to deal with 'conspiracy theorists.'

[salvorhardin]

27. How do you decide which facts are true though?

In other words, how do you ascertain something is, in fact, a fact?

[noise]

28. By way of an investigation

The investigation should be conducted in a honest manner which means the accumulated evidence and findings of fact should determine where the investigation leads.

The Warren Commission was all about backing the 'Oswald did it' theory.

The 9/11 Commission was all about the 'al Qaeda did it and US intel had too many systemic flaws to thwart it' theory.

Thus, the investigations were not honest.

Why are citizens labeled conspiracy theorists for not believing government propaganda?

[SDuderstadt]

30. "The Warren Commission was all about backing the 'Oswald did it' theory. "

Please prove this. Have you even read the Warren Commission Report? Have you read the volumes of testimony and perused the tons of physical evidence? Whether you believe it or not (or like it or not), the evidence is overwhelming that Oswald did it.

[salvorhardin]

31. I think you're missing the point

How do you personally ascertain something is true? What is "truth" to you?

[noise]

32. Truth=what actually happened

We don't know the truth about the JFK assassination or 9/11.

Was a 2nd shooter in Dealey Plaza ever 'on the table?'

Was the complicity of CIA officials in 9/11 ever 'on the table?'

In an honest investigation everything is on the table. It's a joke to fix the facts to a predetermined conclusion and then say that the evidence didn't point in another direction.

[AZCat]

33. This is a common misconception.

There are always things that are not "on the table". One does not need to constantly prove that the sun rises every morning. The Warren Commission did not investigate involvement of space-based lasers in the Kennedy assassination, nor should they have.

[noise]

35. A common tactic

is to associate alternative (to the state's authoritative findings) explanations with tin foil theories in order to get people to equate skepticism with tin foil conspiracy nuttery.

[AZCat]

39. Tactic-schmactic.

Your post is still incorrect.

[noise]

46. Two shooters

is not in the same category as space-based lasers. Two shooters is (IMO) more logical than the magic bullet theory. Why put forth such a contorted explanation when two shooters makes more sense? Easy, two shooters did not fit the predetermined conclusion. Two shooters=conspiracy.

[AZCat]

47. I think you're missing the point.

Your post (#32 in this thread) said the following:

In an honest investigation everything is on the table. It's a joke to fix the facts to a predetermined conclusion and then say that the evidence didn't point in another direction.

This is clearly a flawed explanation of a "honest investigation" because not everything is on the table. You yourself have ruled out space-based lasers! Some possibilities will always be excluded - you just don't agree about which ones.

[SDuderstadt]

48. Because given the forensic and ballistic evidence...

it rules out two shooters.

[SDuderstadt]

41. I repeat my question...

have you even read the Warren Commission Report or reviewed the mounds of evidence they collected?

[noise]

45. No I haven't n/t

[MinM]

51. CIA Still Stonewalls on JFK Mystery Man

And they're still covering up stuff:
CIA Still Stonewalls on JFK Mystery Man - The Washington Independent - U.S. news and politics - washingtonindependent.com

George Joannides role in the JFK story has never been explained by the agency.

A three-judge appellate court panel ruled in December that the agency had to search its files for records of Joannides' secret operations in 1963, when he served undercover in Miami running "psychological warfare" operations against the government of Fidel Castro. The court also ordered the CIA to explain why 17 reports on Joannides' secret operations in 1962-1964 are missing from the National Archives.

The CIA provided no written explanation of its actions during a hearing before Judge Richard Leon. Afterwords, agency attorney John Truong claimed orally that a search of files on Joannides operations found no records responsive to my 2003 Freedom of Information Act request.

Truong offered no explanation, written or oral of the missing records, In December, Judge Judith Rogers ruled that the CIA's previous explanation of the 17 missing reports was inadequate. "On remand the CIA must supplement its explanation," she wrote. That has yet to happen, despite the agency promising to comply with the appellate court order by April 30.

John Tunheim, a federal judge who chaired the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s, said the Joannides files should be made public.

"Had the Review Board known the truth about George Joannides everything bearing his name would have been made public," Tunheim said in an interview. The ARRB, a civilian review panel created by Congress in the wake of the controversy over Oliver Stone's "JFK," declassified thousands of assassination records between 1994 and 1998

Joannides, who died in 1991, is the most curious figure to emerge in the vast JFK literature in recent years. Unbeknownst to investigators, Joannides' propaganda network proved influential in the media reaction to JFK's murder. Declassified CIA records show that he gave $25,000 a month to the leaders of a Cuban student group whose members had a series of encounters with Lee Harvey Oswald in August 1963. When Kennedy was shot dead on a Dallas street three months later, the CIA-funded group made headlines around the world by publicizing Oswald's pro-Castro activities and linking him to the Cuban leader.

Joannides' role in enabling that story remained secret for 38 years. His financial support for Oswald's Cuban antagonists was not disclosed to the Warren Commission which investigated Kennedys' death and concluded that Oswald acted alone. In 1978 Joannides was called out of retirement to serve as the Agency's liaison to a congressional committee that reopened the JFK investigation. The Agency did not disclose his role in the events of 1963 to Congress. The story of Joannides' actions did not begin to emerge until 2001 when I published a story in a Miami newspaper...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2118906
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Octafish/211

[MinM]

52. Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins

District Attorney Craig Watkins gets credit for political courage from Jim DiEugenio here:

http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black364b.mp3


Brass knuckles and a pistol holster that were in Jack Ruby's possession at the time of his arrest after he murdered Lee Harvey Oswald are presented along with other historical documents and memorabilia connected to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy during a press conference in Dallas, Monday, Feb. 18, 2008