DebateGate

General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on November 20, 2006, 08:32:59 PM

Title: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Lanya on November 20, 2006, 08:32:59 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1952393,00.html

   
Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?


In 1968, Robert Kennedy seemed likely to follow his brother, John, into the White House. Then, on June 6, he was assassinated - apparently by a lone gunman. But Shane O'Sullivan says he has evidence implicating three CIA agents in the murder

[.............]
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: sirs on November 20, 2006, 11:04:37 PM
No, I think that'd be Bush's fault        ;D
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: BT on November 21, 2006, 12:45:07 AM
The CIA could kill the Kennedy's but they are too inept to have anything to do with Watergate or L'affaire Plame?
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Lanya on November 21, 2006, 01:14:06 AM
I gave up conspiracy theories years ago.  But this one's interesting.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: BT on November 21, 2006, 01:18:40 AM
No more or less interesting than Dallas, Memphis. Havana or DC. Either things are as they appear to be or they aren't. And in the end , does it matter?


Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Michael Tee on November 21, 2006, 01:19:44 AM
There were a few things that struck me about Bobby's murder.  
1.  Just like the killings of JFK, MLK and Walter Reuther, it was awfully convenient for anyone who didn't want to see America deviating from its path in the direction that those men appeared to want to steer it.

2.  The powder burns which the medical examiner felt couldn't have been inflicted from the distance that separated Bobby from Sirhan Sirhan.

3.  Sirhan's stated reason for killing RFK, that he favoured the Israelis over the Palestinians, when in fact Bobby had made no public pronouncement on the subject.

I ranked those factors in order of significance.  No. 1 was far and away the most significant - - there was a great social upheaval going on and three of the leaders who seemed most capable of changing America's direction were each assassinated by "lone nuts" acting on their own and the fourth, Walter Reuther, conveniently died in an "airplane accident."  GIVE ME A BREAK.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 21, 2006, 11:48:46 AM
Conspiracy theories are real.  Deep politics is real.

The Kennedy's were not killed by CIA directive.  They were killed by people who worked for the CIA and for reasons that weren't necessarily in the interests of the CIA itself but in the interests of those who did kill them who happened to work for the CIA and other agencies.

The Kennedy brothers were at the center of a circle of hate that was shared by numerous factions. 
CIA militant/black ops types who "watched their good men die" at the Bay of Pigs. 
Militant Anti-Castro Cubans who hated Kennedy for letting them be killed and captured at the Bay of Pigs.
Military Industrial Complex-types who didn't like Kennedy messing with their bread and butter war that was making them billions. 
Right-wing hate groups who didn't like Kennedy's overtures toward the civil rights movement. 
LBJ who didn't like the Kennedy's rich-boy attitudes. 
Nixon who was still stinging from his election being stolen in Chicago. 
Hoover who didn't want to be canned by the Kennedy's. 
Then you had Dulles, Bissell and Cabel who didn't like being shitcanned by two young punks. 
The MOB who wanted to be back in Cuba running the place and who really hated Bobby because his dad had promised to go easy on the mob if they helped swing that Chicago thing and he had then immediately started going after them harder than anyone had since Elliott Ness. 
Right-wing fascists types who didn't like the way the country was starting to lean left and on a slippery slope to communism. 
(And it is my opinion that the Secret Service guys who were protecting him were disgusted by A) his weakness for the broads and the way he treated Jackie and B) his rich-boy attittude.  But that's just a hunch on my part.)

Now, you take all these people who hated Bobby and Jack and tell me they couldn't kill the Kennedy's?  Conspiracies are real.  Deep politics is real.  This is all going on under the skin of America.  It's not like they have to have memos spelling out where someone is going to stand and how Oswald and Sirhan are going to take the fall.  They just do it.

These black ops types are taught to think independently within a scheme.  They go off the reservation when they want to.  Sure, if the CIA or somebody wants the president of Mugabi whacked, the military or somebody just goes and asks Joe if he wants to take the job.  If someone wants the POTUS whacked, that's a whole 'nother can of worms.  Even if "somebody" asks someone to whack the POTUS, not everyone is going to say yes no matter how willing they are to follow orders.  That's going to have to require (or it would be easier if that) someone is personally hateful towards that target.  Like a Frank Sturgis or a David Sanchez Morales.  And with all these groups that hate Kennedy, these factions, they're not going to be able to put together a team (or cells) to do the job?

Come on.

Common sense tells you a conspiracy is at work if you just look at all the things that happened.  The only way to discount different aspects, say like Jack Ruby killing Oswald to save Jackie from having to testify (come on), is to compartmentalize all the events and explain them away.  But all of it together?  No way.

Jack Ruby worked for Nixon.  Jack Ruby was mob.  Jack Ruby was identified with Ferrie and Oswald.  Jack Ruby was placed at Dealey Plaza by more than one witness.  Jack Ruby behaved like a robot after he killed Oswald.

So, this is the one guy who gets into the garage with a gun and takes out Oswald (or perhaps he didn't, perhaps Oswald was shot in the ambulance on the way to Parkland.  Reporters claim to have not seen any blood on Oswald before he got into the ambulance)?

So, when this new reporter (who according to some boards is nearly beyond reproach) thinks he knows who killed Bobby, I'm inclined to see what he has to say.

(PS.  The whole RFK assassination is riddled with the same kind of bullshit that the JFK murder was.  More bullet holes than Sirhan had bullets.  Powder burns on RFK when Sirhan was in front of him and too far to burn.  Evidence destroyed.  The whole nine yards.)
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Lanya on November 21, 2006, 08:52:53 PM
About RFK.....I didn't know most of that, Brass. 

I read just about every book that came out in those days pertaining to the JFK assassination, and  completely believed that there had been a conspiracy.   Which one, was the hard question, the unknowable.  But later...more reading, and I just didn't think it held up. 
It IS fascinating, though. 
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 21, 2006, 09:31:21 PM
Bobby Kennedy would have ended the Vietnam War, and with it, a sh*tload of arms sales. He was the onre politician that could have rallied the public around the idea of just leaving Vietnam, much as DeGaulle was the only French leader who could have extracted France from Algeria.

Sirhan didn't have that much of a motive: there are NO American presidential candidates who EVER have been anything but pro-Israeli. This was true of Nixon, Humphrey,McCarthy, Romney, Wallace everyone who was running that year. No US presidental aspirant in history has ever been anything but pro Israeli, except Pat Buchanon.

I observe that Sirhan is still in prison and NOTHING was heard of his ideas since the assasasination. Not one word. There was very little mentioned about him, nothing at all if you compare his history to that of Lee Harvey Osward.

Sirhan means "wanderer" in Arabic, or perhaps "nomad".

I am thinking that this was almost certtainly a conspiracy.

I campaigned in Oregon for Gene McCarthy. We won, too.
We thought at the time that Bobby was a bit of a hipocrite for waiting for McCarthy to prove that LBJ was beatable before entering the race. But we knew he was much more likely to win the election than McCarthy or Humphrey.

Humphrey was a nice fellow but he had a voice like a screaming chicken and was too much of a suck-up to LBJ. Nixon, or course was the nightmare candidate, and the bad thing is that it took six years for the assh*le public to realize what an evil devious phoney Nixon was.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 22, 2006, 01:33:15 PM
lanya,

I was just reading yesterday that George Plimpton said that Sirhan had a pleasant and calm look on his face whilst people were bringing him down.

His diary had odd pages that were interjected between banal, everyday pages.  Sirhan claims that he must have written them but could not recall having done it.  Also, the odd pages were filled with "I must kill RFK" in different forms over and over again but a couple of them had the words "port wine" on them in two or three spots.

The weird thing is that Sirhan claims that he couldn't remember actually killing RFK and that the last thing he remembered was a cute girl asking him for a glass of wine at the Ambassador and the next he knew, people were on top of him and beating him.

Sirhan had an eight shot pistol of some kind.  More than eight bullets were taken out of victims.  More bullets were found in the walls.  Up to 12 total.  there is speculation that he never even fired real shots, just blanks.

There is also the bizarre story of a woman running out of the building gleefully stating "We shot him!" as she was joined by a young man.  The woman was dark-haired, fair skinned with an "odd nose".  She was asked by two different people "Who was shot?" and she told both people the same thing.  "Senator Kennedy".  One of the people who had this exchange with the woman who were a polka dot dress was a young woman who was continually harangued by a man who was supposed to give her a polygraph test.  The recordings of it are pretty shocking.

Add to all this that there were three CIA agents who were based on the other side of planet and had no orders to be in California that day and it's just plainly conspiracy.  Not to mention, the local investigators who put on a big show about setting up a special operation to investigate the assassination, blew the whole thing by losing large amounts of the evidence including the wood from the walls where the other bullets were found.

The autopsy carried out by Coroner Thomas Noguchi showed that Senator Kennedy had been shot three times. One shot entered the head behind the right ear, a second shot near the right armpit and a third roughly one and a half inches below the second. All shots entered the body at a sharply upward angle, moving slightly right to left. These shots are incompatible with eyewitness reports of the shooting. Sirhan had no access to the Senator's rear, and Kennedy never turned more than sideways to Sirhan. In addition, Sirhan fired with his arm parallel to the floor, i.e. straight ahead. Maitre d' Karl Uecker, who had been leading Kennedy forward by the right hand at the time the shooting started, grappled Sirhan after his second shot and pushed the gun away. All these points, as well as the fact that the gun was one and a half to six feet from Kennedy, prove that Sirhan could not have inflicted the fatal wounds to the Senator.

http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~dlewis/compl.htm

This was parapolitics, pure and simple.  Just like JFK.  Just like 9.11.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: BT on November 22, 2006, 01:39:48 PM
If all this is true and all these dark forces are at work, does it really matter who is elected, does it really even matter if we vote?

Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: sirs on November 22, 2006, 01:41:27 PM
http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~dlewis/compl.htm

This was parapolitics, pure and simple.  Just like JFK.  Just like 9.11.

 ::)

Boy, the air must have been thin for a long time, in Brassland   
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 22, 2006, 02:15:52 PM
If all this is true and all these dark forces are at work, does it really matter who is elected, does it really even matter if we vote?

Seriously, it is a conversation that I have had with myself for several election cycles.  Mainly since 2000, of course.  It is a real concern to me.

I have to opt for a Pascal's Wager on voting.  I want it to be valid.  I want to think that Democracy is alive and well and that they really can't steal every election nor can some group or force kill every elected official that won't do "their" bidding but I see things like what happened in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 and in Dealey Plaza nearly exactly 43 years ago this very minute and at the Ambassador Hotel in 1968 and I can't help thinking that there is nothing but futility in voting.

It always comes off shrill and a little kooky when I post about these things but there is validity to it, if not for the everyone, for me.

Parapolitics can't work every time because that would be open fascism and somebody'd wind up hanged on the White House lawn that's why it is done under cover.

Nobody can believe that either of the Kennedy's were killed by one lone gunman without some serious ostrichism.  The amount of coincidences in the JFK thing is impossible.

But back to voting, for me, it can only be a hope-for-the-best, expect-the-worst type of situation.  Perhaps if so many people vote then it is impossible for the election to be stolen.  People-powered politics can defeat "them".  Not that there is a group of people who control everything.  That would be just plain crazy!

 ;)
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 22, 2006, 04:52:12 PM
You have got to see this.

A stabilized version of the Zapruder film.

http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/KF/0512/zapruder_-_stable.mov (http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/KF/0512/zapruder_-_stable.mov)
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Lanya on November 22, 2006, 06:01:59 PM
If all this is true and all these dark forces are at work, does it really matter who is elected, does it really even matter if we vote?


They do what they must do, we can do what we can do.  That's all we can do. 

Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: BT on November 22, 2006, 07:11:31 PM
Quote
Parapolitics can't work every time because that would be open fascism and somebody'd wind up hanged on the White House lawn that's why it is done under cover.

It doesn't have to. It just has to work often enough so that those who don't go along to get along, don't stray too far from their masters voice.

So riddle me this. If both Kennedy's were killed because they would end the war, and King was killed because he was becoming very vocal about the war, what will happen to the guy or gal who yanks forces from the Middle East before the Masters of War say it is time?

Wrap your head around GWB sharing the same exalted martyr status as Abraham, Martin and John.


 
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: sirs on November 22, 2006, 09:04:14 PM
Quote
Parapolitics can't work every time because that would be open fascism and somebody'd wind up hanged on the White House lawn that's why it is done under cover.

So riddle me this. If both Kennedy's were killed because they would end the war, and King was killed because he was becoming very vocal about the war, what will happen to the guy or gal who yanks forces from the Middle East before the Masters of War say it is time?  Wrap your head around GWB sharing the same exalted martyr status as Abraham, Martin and John.

Is this kinda-like back in the days that when accused of being a witch, in order to be found innocent of witchcraft, you had to die?
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: BT on November 22, 2006, 10:49:54 PM
Quote
Is this kinda-like back in the days that when accused of being a witch, in order to be found innocent of witchcraft, you had to die?

No.

Kennedy was going to reverse course in Nam. Many think that was the last straw, and was what got him killed.

If Bush does the same thing and regroups (not out of the question, by any means), will the same fate happen to him?

And will he join the ranks of martyrs to the antiwar cause?


Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: sirs on November 23, 2006, 12:21:39 AM
Quote
Is this kinda-like back in the days that when accused of being a witch, in order to be found innocent of witchcraft, you had to die?

No.  Kennedy was going to reverse course in Nam. Many think that was the last straw, and was what got him killed.  If Bush does the same thing and regroups (not out of the question, by any means), will the same fate happen to him?  And will he join the ranks of martyrs to the antiwar cause?

But, correct me if I'm wrong.....the 3 you mentioned are martyrs in the direct way of being killed, providing them their vaunted status.  So my query involves does it require the untimely death of Herr Bush, in whatever regrouping he may initiate, to vaunt him to the status of innocent martyr, in the vane of Lincoln, King, & Kennedy?
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Michael Tee on November 23, 2006, 12:34:53 AM
BT  <<If all this is true and all these dark forces are at work, does it really matter who is elected, does it really even matter if we vote?>>

Lanya  <<They do what they must do, we can do what we can do.  That's all we can do. >>

Good question, great answer.  I had a much longer and more pompous answer but it wouldn't add anything to Lanya's comment.

Another good question from BT was whether Bush wouldn't be assassinated by yet another "lone nut" gunman if he pulled out of Iraq now.  I wouldn't think so.  The victims of the "lone nut" gunmen are basically outsiders to the "national security state," "secret government," "CIA" or whatever shorthand or code name you want to give these networks.  JFK and Bobby were basically new-money scions of Irish immigrant families whose money came from relatively disreputable sources - - booze and Hollywood.  Walter Reuther was a working stiff.  Martin Luther King.  All of these guys were way outside the "national security" establishment and they were against the war when the national security state was for it.

Bush, by contrast, is a perfect instrument of the national security state.  Does what he's told and his dad was CIA director and Skull & Bones.  When these guys decide it's time to pull the plug (usually for financial reasons, as in Viet Nam) there aren't any "executive action" repercussions because the guy pulling out the plug is one of their own, doing what they reluctantly have come to condone.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: sirs on November 23, 2006, 12:50:36 AM
Bush, by contrast, is a perfect instrument of the national security state.  Does what he's told and his dad was CIA director and Skull & Bones.  When these guys decide it's time to pull the plug (usually for financial reasons, as in Viet Nam) there aren't any "executive action" repercussions because the guy pulling out the plug is one of their own, doing what they reluctantly have come to condone.

Gotta love it....more of that masterful Tee rationalization, at work again.  Just like whoever happens to win Iraqi elections, regardless of if the U.S was openly backing someone else, whoever wins is because the "forces of U.S. evil" willed it that way.  Here, we have the same scenario, working itself into one big rationalized pretzel, that no matter what happens, it must be due to some nefarious American/Neo-conservative master plan.  All with the continuous benefit of not 1 shred of hard evidence, but a titanic load of accusatory innuendo
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Plane on November 23, 2006, 01:02:14 AM



    There once was an old Jew liveing in Germany during the rise of the Natzi party.


       He was sitting on a park bench reading a paper when one of his freinds upbraided him.

      "What are you reading there? Don't you know that is a Natzi party rag? How can you stand to read that slander and stupid accusation?"

       " I like this much better than I like the Yiddish papers,"said the old man" In our papers everything is gloomy and everything is down, look at this paper , in it we Jews own everything , our agents and collaborators are everywhere , all business passes through our hands and we controll all of the political partys except one from the inside.   This strikes me as a much more cheerfull picture than what I get in our own  press."

[][][][][][][][][][]

As a conservative I really do like to see that we have insiders infiltrateing and controlling everything, I hate to think that the disorder that seems so real is really real.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 23, 2006, 01:03:25 AM
Quote
Parapolitics can't work every time because that would be open fascism and somebody'd wind up hanged on the White House lawn that's why it is done under cover.

It doesn't have to. It just has to work often enough so that those who don't go along to get along, don't stray too far from their masters voice.

So riddle me this. If both Kennedy's were killed because they would end the war, and King was killed because he was becoming very vocal about the war, what will happen to the guy or gal who yanks forces from the Middle East before the Masters of War say it is time?

Wrap your head around GWB sharing the same exalted martyr status as Abraham, Martin and John.
 

Well, consider this.  Who actually ended the Viet Nam war?  What happened to that guy?  We know he didn't catch a bullet with his head but did he get "assassinated" all the same?  Wrap your head around GWB sharing the same exalted status as Richard Milhouse Nixon.  We know he's headed down that road already.

Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Michael Tee on November 23, 2006, 01:15:33 AM
<<Gotta love it....more of that masterful Tee rationalization, at work again.>>

Did you ever stop to think, sirs, that YOU might be the master of rationalization?  Three major U.S. statesmen assassinated by "lone nuts" "acting alone" - - one of the "lone nuts" actually himself assassinated in a police station no less.  But nothing suspicious there.  It's just business as usual.  Were they ALL outstanding leaders with the ability to sway millions?  Well, yes.  All against the war in Viet Nam?  Well, yes.  So, any possibility that these guys were offed by the forces of war and militarism?  Naaah, it's all just one big series of coincidences.

And you're accusing ME of rationalizing?  Dream on, pal.

  <<Just like whoever happens to win Iraqi elections, regardless of if the U.S was openly backing someone else, whoever wins is because the "forces of U.S. evil" willed it that way.>>

I guess you probably believe that in those parts of Eastern Europe occupied by the Red Army after WWII, the elections that were held returned the genuine choices of the people, and the wishes and preferences of the Red Army had absolutely nothing to do with the election results.  You're a strange man, sirs.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Plane on November 23, 2006, 01:18:08 AM
"Well, consider this.  Who actually ended the Viet Nam war?  What happened to that guy?  We know he didn't catch a bullet with his head but did he get "assassinated" all the same?  Wrap your head around GWB sharing the same exalted status as Richard Milhouse Nixon.  We know he's headed down that road already."

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

Ooh man...

If you were presented witht he choice Bush seems to be presented with , would you choose to be disgraced or shot?
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 23, 2006, 01:21:05 AM
Did you ever stop to think, sirs,

Come on, MT, you could have stopped right there.  You know he doesn't bother to think!  His dear leader does his  thinking for him and just passes on The Truth via OpinionJournal.

Sirs is crazy but I don't think he's stupid enough to believe that none of the three assassinated leaders in the '60's were killed by the people who the government claims they were. 

If he is, I'd love to hear how he thinks smoke appeared on the grassy knoll at the same time Kennedy's head exploded.

Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 23, 2006, 01:30:04 AM
If you were presented witht he choice Bush seems to be presented with , would you choose to be disgraced or shot?

He doesn't get a choice.  And seeing as how he is in the mold of Nixon, he is headed towards disgrace.

Hell, Nixon was  VP when the VN war was getting ready to kick off.  Then he ended it as president in his shortened second term.

Bush 41 was POTUS when the Iraq "war" was actually started in a way.  Now Bush 43 is pResident and he's in a position to "end" it.  It's the same basic pattern.  Perhaps "they" knew that Gore wouldn't do Iraq and that's why he had the election stolen from him?  Who knows?  Easier to keep Gore out than to kill him when he's in like Kennedy.

Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: sirs on November 23, 2006, 01:50:32 AM
Did you ever stop to think, sirs, that YOU might be the master of rationalization? 

Naaa, not once.  I'm instead enjoying it being put on grand display by yourself.  I'll stick with logic and facts, on my end
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Michael Tee on November 23, 2006, 01:57:35 AM
<<Naaa, not once.  I'm instead enjoying it being put on grand display by yourself.  I'll stick with logic and facts, on my end>>

Logic and facts are good, sirs.  I'm still waiting to see you use either of them.  So far, all I've seen is a truly impressive faith that fantastic coincidences occur one after another in the political life of the United States of America and nowhere else.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Plane on November 23, 2006, 02:02:39 AM
<<Naaa, not once.  I'm instead enjoying it being put on grand display by yourself.  I'll stick with logic and facts, on my end>>

Logic and facts are good, sirs.  I'm still waiting to see you use either of them.  So far, all I've seen is a truly impressive faith that fantastic coincidences occur one after another in the political life of the United States of America and nowhere else.


Where are coincidences rare?
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: BT on November 23, 2006, 02:31:14 AM
Quote
Wrap your head around GWB sharing the same exalted status as Richard Milhouse Nixon.  We know he's headed down that road already.

Nixon apparently was brought down from the inside. What makes you think "shots" haven't been fired at GWB?
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: sirs on November 23, 2006, 02:33:51 AM
Logic and facts are good, sirs.  I'm still waiting to see you use either of them.

Been there, done that.  We'll keep the porch light on for you, when you decide to try it yourself.  Fact is, you're still using your idea of "coincidences", again devoid of any hard FACTS, to substantiate your continued nefarious neo-conservative conspiratorial rantings
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Michael Tee on November 23, 2006, 03:24:50 PM
<<. . . again devoid of any hard FACTS, to substantiate your continued nefarious neo-conservative conspiratorial rantings>>

LMFAO.  The "hard FACTS" are the assassinations themselves, the LOGIC is the utter improbability of coincidence being at work here and the "rantings" are your own ridiculous bullshit that all this HAS to be some unprecedented series of coincidence that never happens to occur in any other civilized nation on earth.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: BT on November 23, 2006, 03:34:48 PM
Quote
Perhaps "they" knew that Gore wouldn't do Iraq and that's why he had the election stolen from him?

There is strong evidence that if Gore were elected we would be much more heavily involved in Latin America. Specifically Columbia and Venezuela.

To the "Masters" does it matter where the war is fought as long as the profits are made?

Perhaps the Masters are competing factions like Coke and Pepsi and it is all about buying market share.

Did Nixon get toppled because he was a Pepsi guy and Carter was Coke?

Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Amianthus on November 23, 2006, 03:43:23 PM
the LOGIC is the utter improbability of coincidence being at work here

Logic does not require a disbelief in coincidence.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: sirs on November 23, 2006, 04:54:52 PM
Let's decipher this nonsense real quick.

The "hard FACTS" are the assassinations themselves,

Show us these "hard facts" of the U.S government assasinating those you opine that they have


the LOGIC is the utter improbability of coincidence being at work here

There can be plenty of coincidences without proving a specific point.  Happens all the time


the "rantings" are your own ridiculous bullshit that all this HAS to be some unprecedented series of coincidence that never happens to occur in any other civilized nation on earth.

And we'll chalk that unadulterated rant to perhaps not enough food, or lack of sleep perhaps.  Good thing it's Thangsgiving.  Don't hold back on the intake, Tee
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 23, 2006, 05:59:11 PM
Let's decipher this nonsense real quick.

The "hard FACTS" are the assassinations themselves,

Show us these "hard facts" of the U.S government assasinating those you opine that they have


the LOGIC is the utter improbability of coincidence being at work here

There can be plenty of coincidences without proving a specific point.  Happens all the time


the "rantings" are your own ridiculous bullshit that all this HAS to be some unprecedented series of coincidence that never happens to occur in any other civilized nation on earth.

And we'll chalk that unadulterated rant to perhaps not enough food, or lack of sleep perhaps.  Good thing it's Thangsgiving.  Don't hold back on the intake, Tee

People in government killed Kennedy, not necessarily EVERYONE IN or the whole of government.

You like to take the crackpot stances and apply that instead of asking questions and seeking truth.  You might try it for fun.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Plane on November 23, 2006, 06:03:52 PM
What was the CIA trying to do when Reagan was shot?

Or when Ford was shot at?

Or Garfeild?
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 23, 2006, 06:17:02 PM
What was the CIA trying to do when Reagan was shot?

Or when Ford was shot at?

Or Garfeild?


Who said they were?
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: sirs on November 23, 2006, 06:21:39 PM
People in government killed Kennedy, not necessarily EVERYONE IN or the whole of government.  You like to take the crackpot stances and apply that instead of asking questions and seeking truth.  You might try it for fun.

That's 1 opinion.  Amazing how the most likely and simple scenario of Oswald taking the fatal shot just can't be accepted.  It just can't....because, well, you know how evil those RW neo-conservatives are
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Michael Tee on November 23, 2006, 09:18:25 PM
<<Let's decipher this nonsense real quick.>>

Just watch me.

First bit of sirs' nonsense deciphered "real  quick"

1.  sirs  quotes me:  <<The "hard FACTS" are the assassinations themselves.>>
2.  sirs "rebuts" me:  << Show us these "hard facts" of the U.S government assasinating those you opine that they have>>
3.  sirs' nonsense deciphered real quick:  He has confused the evidence (a.k.a. the hard facts) with the conclusion drawn from the application of logic to fact.

Note:  I could also quibble with sirs' apparent assumption that to prove a conspiracy one must show that it was "the U.S. government" which assassinated JFK and the others.  I don't think anyone claims it was an official government act.  It was most likely high-placed elements at or near the top of one or more government "security" agencies acting with equally high-level cover-up, some or all of which cover-up may have been initiated after the fact.  In order to keep the debate focused, I have assumed that sirs meant the same thing that I do when he referred to "the U.S. government."

Second bit of sirs' nonsense deciphered "real  quick"

1.  sirs quotes me:  <<the LOGIC is the utter improbability of coincidence being at work here>>

2.  sirs "rebuts" me:  <<There can be plenty of coincidences without proving a specific point.  Happens all the time>>

3.  3.  sirs' nonsense deciphered real quick:  Every time a court of law convicts on fingerprint or DNA evidence, it has (in effect) deciphered sirs' nonsense real  quick.  Sure, somebody else could have similar DNA or prints.  Sure, the experts make mistakes now and then  So could the crime have been committed by somebody with similar or identical DNA or prints and/or could this be one of the times the experts are making a mistake in fingering the accused before them?  Sure it could be a couple of unfortunate coincidences, but [b]in fact[/b], a court which would adopt sirs' "logic" - - "plenty of coincidences happen without proving a specific point.  Happens all the time.  Don't mean a God-damn thing" - - with all due respect, now that would be a court of fucking idiots and raving lunatics. 

Third  bit of sirs' nonsense deciphered "real  quick"

1.  sirs quotes me:    <<the "rantings" are your own [i.e., sirs'] ridiculous bullshit that all this HAS to be some unprecedented series of coincidence that never happens to occur in any other civilized nation on earth.>>


2.  sirs "rebuts" me:  <<And we'll chalk that unadulterated rant to perhaps not enough food, or lack of sleep perhaps. >>

Brilliant rebuttal.  Sharp.  Factual.  Well-reasoned.  To the point.  Just what we've come to expect from our friend.  Well done, sirs!!   THAT should set the standard for intelligent debate and witty repartee in this club for the next hundred and ten years.  Not.  But there's more . . .

<<Good thing it's Thangsgiving.  Don't hold back on the intake, Tee>>

Uhh, sirs, Canadian Thanksgiving came and went about a month ago.  But don't let it stop you from enjoying the holiday.  When they pass round the turkey, ask if you can have the brains.  Ya never know, sirs.  Ya never know.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Lanya on November 23, 2006, 11:57:44 PM
http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/KF/0512/zapruder_-_stable.mov

Stabilized version of the Zapruder film.  (WARNING: GRAPHIC.) 
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Michael Tee on November 24, 2006, 12:14:51 AM


<<What was the CIA trying to do when Reagan was shot?

<<Or when Ford was shot at?>>

Thank you.  Now I hope you can see the difference between a REAL "lone nut" or "gang of crazies" and the professional hits that took out the Kennedy brothers and MLK.

<<Or Garfeild? >>

That was just for practice.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Plane on November 24, 2006, 01:30:38 AM


<<What was the CIA trying to do when Reagan was shot?

<<Or when Ford was shot at?>>

Thank you.  Now I hope you can see the difference between a REAL "lone nut" or "gang of crazies" and the professional hits that took out the Kennedy brothers and MLK.

<<Or Garfeild? >>

That was just for practice.


I don't see the diffrence really , the assination of Lincon really did include a set of colaborators , but the plan did not kill all of the intended victims , plans go oft awry.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: sirs on November 24, 2006, 03:40:24 AM
1.  sirs  quotes me:  <<The "hard FACTS" are the assassinations themselves.>>
2.  sirs "rebuts" me:  << Show us these "hard facts" of the U.S government assasinating those you opine that they have>>
3.  sirs' nonsense deciphered real quick:  He has confused the evidence (a.k.a. the hard facts) with the conclusion drawn from the application of logic to fact.

So, apparently according to Tee's logic....Fact is the sun rises in the east & sets in the west.  Application of Tee's logic to that fact, undoubtedly a conclusion of a master nefarious neo-Conservative plan, with obvious capitalistic intentions for big oil & big business buddies of Bush

You're 1st go around with the turkey tray didn't particularly do the trick yet.  Maybe tomorrow will be better


Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Michael Tee on November 24, 2006, 12:32:03 PM
<<So, apparently according to Tee's logic....Fact is the sun rises in the east & sets in the west.  Application of Tee's logic to that fact, undoubtedly a conclusion of a master nefarious neo-Conservative plan, with obvious capitalistic intentions for big oil & big business buddies of Bush>>

No, my logic applied to those facts  would conclude that the sun moves across the earth from east to west and then sinks under it at night and reappears in the morning.  With a few more facts at hand, in addition to the ones you provided, "my" logic - - which apparently is the logic of the entire sane and civilized world - - would probably come to more sophisticated conclusions.  The "logic" of conservatives and reactionaries has always come to other conclusions, but those are not my problem.

Apparently you didn't follow my recommendations about the turkey brains, but I hope nevertheless you had a pleasant Thanksgiving even though your reasoning abilities will remain what they always were.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: sirs on November 24, 2006, 12:59:52 PM
  The "logic" of conservatives and reactionaries has always come to other conclusions, but those are not my problem.

No, your "logic" concludes what you want it to conclude, regardless of the actual facts.  Case in point, your conspiratorial ramblings regarding the U.S. getting what it wants when it wants, and assisinates its own political and civil leaders, when it wants.  All without the benefit of 1 shred of proof.  Just a mountan load of "Tee-logic" accusatory innuendo, sprinkled with a generous portion of rationalization.   But I did have some good Thanksgiving eats, thank you very much.  I hope this day provides better for yourself.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 24, 2006, 01:31:40 PM
That's 1 opinion.  Amazing how the most likely and simple scenario of Oswald taking the fatal shot just can't be accepted.  It just can't....because, well, you know how evil those RW neo-conservatives are

Who said anything about rightwing neo-conservatives eing involved in JFK's murder?  If you have a link to someone saying that, I'd like to read it.

As for Oswald, the simple mechanics of the shooting could not have been performed by Oswald.  He was a poor shot when he was in the military.  If you believe the Oswald scenario, then you have to believe that he fired two shots in less time than it takes to re-cycle the rifle they alleged he used.  Simply impossible.  In order to believe the Oswald scenario, you have to put your head up your ass and hope no one points out facts to you.

That seems to be a modus operandi for you. 

If you do, however, believe the Oswald scenario, then could you explain how he got from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom without being seen by the two women on the stairs?  And why would he buy a coke and show a reporter where a phone was on the way out of the building?  Did he want to get caught?

You are so willing to take the word of the government.  Why is that?
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: sirs on November 24, 2006, 02:09:53 PM
Who said anything about rightwing neo-conservatives eing involved in JFK's murder?  If you have a link to someone saying that, I'd like to read it.

My apologies.  I simply assumed anything bad that occurs in this country, was undoubtedly a result of a far RW master plan, with the Bush family ususally somehow being connected to it, in some form or fashion.


As for Oswald, the simple mechanics of the shooting could not have been performed by Oswald.  He was a poor shot when he was in the military.  If you believe the Oswald scenario, then you have to believe that he fired two shots in less time than it takes to re-cycle the rifle they alleged he used.  Simply impossible. 

You ignore that I've never said I believe in the single shooter theory.  What i said is it's perfectly reasonable and logisitically plausible for Oswald to have taken the fatal shot.  You don't have to be a bonified expert.  I've heard of folks getting shot in the head purely by accident.  It simply helps to know how to use a rifle, which Oswald did, with a scope, which Oswald had, and an open target, which Oswald also had


You are so willing to take the word of the government.  Why is that?

What makes you think I've ever said such?  I'm simply saying that some "inconsistencies" don't amount to absolute proof of the contrary.  Simple as that
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Amianthus on November 24, 2006, 05:30:12 PM
As for Oswald, the simple mechanics of the shooting could not have been performed by Oswald.  He was a poor shot when he was in the military.  If you believe the Oswald scenario, then you have to believe that he fired two shots in less time than it takes to re-cycle the rifle they alleged he used.  Simply impossible.  In order to believe the Oswald scenario, you have to put your head up your ass and hope no one points out facts to you.

Oswald qualified to be a sharpshooter, scoring 212 out of 250 on his quals. How long does it take to recycle the rifle?
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Michael Tee on November 25, 2006, 12:07:17 AM
<<Case in point, your conspiratorial ramblings regarding the U.S. getting what it wants when it wants . . . >>

I'm really not sure what you're referring to here.  The U.S. doesn't always get what it wants - - their man Chiang lost China, their man Thieu lost Viet Nam, their man the Shah of Iran lost Iran and their man Chalabi has lost Iraq.  The People's Liberation Army kicked their ass out of North Korea, the Viet Cong kicked their ass out of Viet Nam, and the Islamic Resistance is in the course of kicking their ass out of Iraq.  I don't think I ever said, let alone "conspiratorially rambled," that the U.S. gets what it wants when it wants.  Usually, when people stand up to the bully and fight back, the bully will run like a whipped dog.  More and more, the U.S. is getting, not what it wants, but what it deserves.

<< . . . and assisinates its own political and civil leaders, when it wants.  >>

Yes, I did argue that the circumstantial evidence seems to point in that direction.

<<All without the benefit of 1 shred of proof. >>

Well, I've pointed to the evidence more than once - - the growing popular unrest, the rioting in the streets, the hunger among some Americans for a new direction, the views of the assassination victims, their influence on the masses, the same "official story" of a "lone nut" gunman in each case, the strange failure of any "lone nut" gunman to assassinate any of the architects or promoters of the war, the failures of the Warren Commission, the presence of powder burns on RFK's neck despite the distance that separated him from the assassin - - the list of facts goes on and on.  Of course in sirs' warped and fanatical views, not ONE of those facts is a shred of evidence and no logic at all connects them to a coherent and internally consistent narrative of a political assassination or right-wing conspiracy.

<< Just a mountan load of "Tee-logic" accusatory innuendo . . .>

Well, I thank you for suggesting that I am the inventor of logic and common sense, but I can't accept.  The logic I use is the logic of any sane and normal individual (obviously this does not include right-wing wingnuts like yourself) which I have outlined in some detail for you.  If you wish to avail yourself of it, fine.  If you wish to deny common sense and logic and instead interpret the facts as some kind of enormous one-in-many-trillions coincidence, that is also fine.  I did not really expect anything more intelligent or sensible from you.

<< sprinkled with a generous portion of rationalization.>>

Rationalization.  You really do love that word don't you?  Somehow you have come to believe that it is the trump card that will prove you right when all your other arguments have failed.  Well, newsflash, sirs:  all your other arguments HAVE failed and guess what?  "Rationalization" won't do it for you either.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Religious Dick on November 25, 2006, 01:34:26 PM

As for Oswald, the simple mechanics of the shooting could not have been performed by Oswald.  He was a poor shot when he was in the military.  If you believe the Oswald scenario, then you have to believe that he fired two shots in less time than it takes to re-cycle the rifle they alleged he used.  Simply impossible.  In order to believe the Oswald scenario, you have to put your head up your ass and hope no one points out facts to you.

That seems to be a modus operandi for you. 

If you do, however, believe the Oswald scenario, then could you explain how he got from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom without being seen by the two women on the stairs?  And why would he buy a coke and show a reporter where a phone was on the way out of the building?  Did he want to get caught?

You are so willing to take the word of the government.  Why is that?

The problem with this conspiracy theory is that the critics are in the same position as the creationists are vis a vis evolution: sure, you can make (sometimes valid) criticisms of the accepted theory, but at the end of the day the there's still no evidence in support of your theory.

I was a Kennedy assassination buff for decades, and I've probably read every significant work on the subject available. And here is my conclusion: while the Warren Report is indeed flawed, and leaves a number of matters unexplained, it still offers the best explanation of the facts based on the available evidence. And here is the available evidence: a.) you have Oswald placed on the 6th floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository at the appropriate time. b.) you have evidence establishing Oswald was the owner of the weapon from which the shots were fired. c.) no ammunition other than that fired from Oswald's rifle has been recovered from the murder scene to date. d.) You have an autopsy which indicates Kennedy was shot from a position accessable from Oswald's vantage point.

Yes, the autopsy could be faked, alternate ammunition could have been recovered and destroyed, witnesses might be lying or mistaken. The problem is that, to date, no hard evidence has surfaced indicating that to be the case. You have a theory like David Lifton's "Best Evidence", which presents a plausible explanation for what might have happened, but there's no supporting evidence indicating that such a scenario did happen.

Even the Warren Commisson acknowledged that they couldn't rule out a conspiracy. They simply stated they found no evidence to support one.

Whether or not there was a conspiracy involved, until contrary evidence emerges, I'm prepared to accept that Oswald was indeed the assassin, based on the physical evidence available. I accept the government explaination for the simple reason that no one has yet offered a better one. When they do, and they can back it up with hard evidence, I'm prepared to change my position.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 25, 2006, 01:41:02 PM
I accept the government explaination for the simple reason that no one has yet offered a better one. When they do, and they can back it up with hard evidence, I'm prepared to change my position.

No offence but that's the most ridiculous reason to believe in the Oswald scenario.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Amianthus on November 25, 2006, 01:52:38 PM
No offence but that's the most ridiculous reason to believe in the Oswald scenario.

You haven't answered my question about how long it would take Oswald to cycle his rifle. I can cycle my clip fed bolt action rifle in under a second, so three shots in 2 seconds is highly likely.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Michael Tee on November 25, 2006, 02:48:14 PM
<<You have a theory like David Lifton's "Best Evidence", which presents a plausible explanation for what might have happened, but there's no supporting evidence indicating that such a scenario did happen. >>

That's not true.  Lifton has quite a bit of evidence in his book, admittedly circumstantial, which does support a high-level conspiracy and cover-up and has never to my knowledge been refuted.  This included the evidence of the naval technician carrying the X-ray plates from the autopsy to or from the lab at the same time as the hearse, carrying what was said to be the body of the President was just pulling up to the hospital.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Religious Dick on November 25, 2006, 07:45:50 PM
<<You have a theory like David Lifton's "Best Evidence", which presents a plausible explanation for what might have happened, but there's no supporting evidence indicating that such a scenario did happen. >>

That's not true.  Lifton has quite a bit of evidence in his book, admittedly circumstantial, which does support a high-level conspiracy and cover-up and has never to my knowledge been refuted.  This included the evidence of the naval technician carrying the X-ray plates from the autopsy to or from the lab at the same time as the hearse, carrying what was said to be the body of the President was just pulling up to the hospital.

Well, therein lies your problem. What you're talking about is eye-witness evidence, which is notoriously unreliable, and in this case, not only do the witnesses disagree, but Lifton didn't interview them until many years after the actual event. You're always going to have witnesses that remember things differently, or confuse various events. I can't rule out that some funny business occurred, but there's no physical evidence to support that. If you're going to rely on the actual artifacts of evidence to tell the tale, you're again left with a gun, some bullet remnants and an autopsy, all of which support Oswald being the assassin. In absence of equally compelling evidence in support of an alternate conclusion, I have to believe that the Warren Commission, while sloppy on the details, got the larger picture substantially right.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 25, 2006, 08:14:04 PM
No offence but that's the most ridiculous reason to believe in the Oswald scenario.

You haven't answered my question about how long it would take Oswald to cycle his rifle. I can cycle my clip fed bolt action rifle in under a second, so three shots in 2 seconds is highly likely.

Dude, the two shots that hit Kennedy in the head were so simultaneous so as to be nearly undiscernible as two shots.  There is no way one man could do that with some kind of automatic weapon.

You talking about kid stuff.  We're talking about reality over here.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: sirs on November 25, 2006, 08:29:51 PM
Dude, the two shots that hit Kennedy in the head were so simultaneous so as to be nearly undiscernible as two shots.  There is no way one man could do that with some kind of automatic weapon.  You talking about kid stuff.  We're talking about reality over here.

and reality in this case demonstrates someone here who has no idea how a rifle can be handled.  And it would have been much easier had it been "an automatic weapon".  In this instance hwever, we are talking about a bolt-action rifle.  And yes, it can be cycled within the time frame of Kennedy being shot twice, as the shots that hit him were clearing NOT "simulataneous".  Even the Zapruder film makes that transparently clear from when the 1st shot hit him followed by when the 2nd fatal one did.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: sirs on November 25, 2006, 08:37:57 PM
<<Case in point, your conspiratorial ramblings regarding the U.S. getting what it wants when it wants . . . >>

 More and more, the U.S. is getting, not what it wants, but what it deserves.

Nice backtracking. 


<< . . . and assisinates its own political and civil leaders, when it wants.  >>

Yes, I did argue that the circumstantial evidence seems to point in that direction.

While actual FACTS point in other more reality based directions


<<All without the benefit of 1 shred of proof. >>

Well, I've pointed to the evidence more than once - - the growing popular unrest, the rioting in the streets, the hunger among some Americans for a new direction, the views of the assassination victims, their influence on the masses, the same "official story" of a "lone nut" gunman in each case, the strange failure of any "lone nut" gunman to assassinate any of the architects or promoters of the war, the failures of the Warren Commission, the presence of powder burns on RFK's neck despite the distance that separated him from the assassin - - the list of facts goes on and on.  

It's kinda fun watching Tee dig these abyss-like holes.  Yea, "popular unrest" is sure proof positive    ::)


<< Just a mountan load of "Tee-logic" accusatory innuendo . . .>

Well, I thank you for suggesting that I am the inventor of logic and common sense, but I can't accept.  

As well you shouldn't.  Smart move
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 25, 2006, 08:47:16 PM
Dude, the two shots that hit Kennedy in the head were so simultaneous so as to be nearly undiscernible as two shots.  There is no way one man could do that with some kind of automatic weapon.  You talking about kid stuff.  We're talking about reality over here.

and reality in this case demonstrates someone here who has no idea how a rifle can be handled.  And it would have been much easier had it been "an automatic weapon".  In this instance, we are talking about a bolt-action rifle.  and yes, it can be cycled within the time frame of Kennedy being shot twice, as the shots that hit him were clearing NOT "simulataneous"  Even the Zapruder film makes that transparently clear from when the 1st shot him followed by when the 2nd fatal one did.

Ok, you have no idea what I'm talking about.  So A) Go fuck yourself.

Secondly, you think I'm talking about the two shots being the one that went through Kennedy throat and then through Connoly all those times and then the other shot being the one that killed Kennedy by hitting him in the head.  That is NOT what I'm saying.  Sure, that would be easy.  Even Oswald with his crappy gun with the faulty sight that had to be repaired before the tests could be run with the rifle could have done that (maybe).

The fact is that Kennedy and Connolly were hit by different shots and Kennedy was actually hit in the head TWICE.  Once from the rear and once from the front.  The shots were nearly simultaneous.  It is barely perceptable in the Zapruder film.

Looking at frames Z313 and Z314, you can detect the slightest of movement of Kennedy's head to the front before his head is knock towards the back and left.  That is if you believe that the Zapruder film that people have been watching for years and years has not been tampered with.

I don't.

The Zapruder film is full of jump cuts and bizarre movements.  Most notable is the way Connolly's hat flips around as the emerge from behind the sign and when the Connoly's simply fold in half and the blurring of the SS agent's face in the right front seat.

Witnesses state that the care "nearly stopped" or "came to a stop".

No serious reader of assassination study and research believes for a second that Oswald ever even fired a weapon that day, let alone killed Kennedy.  No one who puts any real thought into considers the Warren Commission anything but a half-assed look at the basics of the case with no real consideration of what the truth is.

How could they with Hoover leaking the FBI report the week before they got started?
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 25, 2006, 08:53:59 PM
http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/KF/0512/zapruder_-_stable.mov (http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/KF/0512/zapruder_-_stable.mov)

Watch the hat and the Connoly's.



Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: sirs on November 25, 2006, 09:00:40 PM
Ok, you have no idea what I'm talking about.  So A) Go fuck yourself.

And that's supposed to facilitate civil debate.  Nice


Secondly, you think I'm talking about the two shots being the one that went through Kennedy throat and then through Connoly all those times and then the other shot being the one that killed Kennedy by hitting him in the head.  That is NOT what I'm saying.  Sure, that would be easy.  Even Oswald with his crappy gun with the faulty sight that had to be repaired before the tests could be run with the rifle could have done that (maybe).

Even with the "obvious", Brass still has to apply a qualifying maybe.   ::)


The fact is that Kennedy and Connolly were hit by different shots and Kennedy was actually hit in the head TWICE.  Once from the rear and once from the front.  The shots were nearly simultaneous.  It is barely perceptable in the Zapruder film.

In other words, that's your non-provable conspiratorial blathering.  That Oswald and someone else shot Kennedy at the same time.  Perhaps they both had an egg timer, that when they went off, they were supposed to both fire at the same time, thus confusing anyone from where the shots came from, right?


The Zapruder film is full of jump cuts and bizarre movements.  Most notable is the way Connolly's hat flips around as the emerge from behind the sign and when the Connoly's simply fold in half and the blurring of the SS agent's face in the right front seat.

Oh here's a thought....because it was a vintage 1963 video camera??  What a concept


No serious reader of assassination study and research believes for a second that Oswald ever even fired a weapon that day, let alone killed Kennedy. 

Meaning no consipratorial aluminum foil beanie brigade member would ever consider that Oswald fatally shot Kennedy.  Because there's too many "inconsistencies"  And inconsistencies trump facts and logic every time.  Or so we're told to believe
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Plane on November 25, 2006, 09:17:45 PM
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/

http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/emary.html

http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/c2766.html

Here is a computer animation (MPEG or QuickTime) of the Assassination (as described by the Warren Commission) from Oswald's point of view.

http://www.fail.com/gallery/jfk_trial.htm/

(http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/images/evidence.gif)
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: larry on November 25, 2006, 09:57:35 PM
I think both the Kennedy's were killed by members of organized crime. The more important question is why were they Killed? There are some clues that need to be considered.

In 1908, Congress passed the Aldrich-Vreeland Act. It authorized national banks to issue emergency currency. It also created the National Monetary Commission, whose task it was to develop a plan to deal with the periodic financial crises.

The Taft Administration (1909-1913)

In November 1910, a small group of international bankers, together with Senator Nelson Aldrich and Asst. Secretary of the Treasury A. Piatt Andrew met in a very secret meeting at J.P. Morgan's Jekyll Island Hunt Club, a private island preserve off Brunswick, Georgia, for the purpose of planning a private banking cartel in America similar to the ones in Europe controlled by the bankers. This soon became the Federal Reserve System. Baron Alfred Rothschild was the mastermind behind the plan. Paul Warburg, a partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Company, was Rothschild's representative at the meeting. A fascinating picture of this important cabal is presented in G. Edward Griffin's book, The Creature From Jekyll Island, which is also one of the best books available to explain money and banking in a clear and entertaining fashion
for a privately-owned banking system, the challenge was to figure out a way to get the U.S. Congress to approve it. Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, was fairly popular with the voters, seemed likely to be reelected, and was considered highly unlikely to support the bankers' plan. His Democratic opponent, Woodrow Wilson, under the strong influence of Rothschild agent ``Colonel'' Edward Mandel House, was much more agreeable to the globalist agenda. So the conspirators persuaded Republican Teddy Roosevelt to run on the Progressive Party (Bull Moose) ticket, giving him considerable financial support. As a result of the splitting of the Republican vote, Democrat Woodrow Wilson was elected President.

The Wilson Fiasco (1913-1921)

The election of globalist puppet Woodrow Wilson paved the way for three major abominations: The Income Tax, the Federal Reserve System and World War I.

In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution was supposedly adopted. This amendment is known as the income tax amendment. Actually, it did not repeal the existing constitutional provisions relating to taxes and thus created no new taxing powers. Furthermore, as proved by the exhaustive research of Bill Benson and Red Beckman, the alleged amendment was not properly approved by any of the 48 states then in existence, much less than by the required three-fourths of them, so the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified. Their book, The Law That Never Was, gives the details of their findings. The bottom line is that the income tax has been a massive fraud from the outset, totally lacking in a legal basis.

Also in 1913, the Federal Reserve Act was passed. The final vote occurred in the U.S. Senate on December 22, when most members of Congress were home for Christmas and only five selected senators were present at an evening session. This act created a private banking cartel entirely owned by the bankers which allows them to create money out of thin air, to expand it further by means of fractional reserve banking and to totally control our economy. The only connection to our government is that the President nominally appoints members to the Federal Reserve Board for 14-year terms but in practice the bankers' candidates have always been appointed. Paul Warburg, a German national, and one of the Jekyll Island conspirators, became the first Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in 1914. His brother Max was financing Germany's involvement in World War I at the same time.

All wars in modern times have been instigated by the greed of the international bankers (who lend vast sums of money at usurious interest rates to governments) and the international businessmen (who profit handsomely from the sale of war material). World War I was no exception. The assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Serbia on June 23, 1914, was the excuse for war in Europe.

The Kennedy's were very rich, but they were not globalist. I believe that was the reason for murdering them.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 25, 2006, 10:36:59 PM
Larry:

FIRST you say this:


I think both the Kennedy's were killed by members of organized crime. The more important question is why were they Killed? There are some clues that need to be considered.


THEN you say THIS:

The Kennedy's were very rich, but they were not globalist. I believe that was the reason for murdering them.

Which is it, then?
Are you suggesting that "organized crime", which normally would suggest the Mafia, in Kennedy's time Meyer Lansky or one of the Italian-American families and "global bankers" are one and the same?

This does not make any sense to me.

I have never heard anyone say that the Kennedys wanted to abolish the XVI Amendment, or wanted to strengthen it or do anything with it other than leave it as it was when JFK took office.

The Mafia does not care about the effing XVI Amendment: since all their activities are illegal, they are also tax-free.

Global bankers outside of the US also do not pay the IRS anything. This entire XVI Amendment thing is irrelevent.

If JFK, RFK or both were assassinated as part of a conspiracy, it would most likely have been a right wing conspiracy, because since the formation of the OSS during WWII, the OSS and its successor the CIA have specialized in political skulduggery around the world: rigging elections in France and Italy, arranging for the convenient deaths of Latin American, Filipino, Korean, Indonesian and other leftists they dislike.  Eisenhower's Secretary of State, John Foster and his brother, CIA chief Allan Dulles were behind a huge amount of plots and coups.

They may have had something to do with the international banking groups and very vaguely had something to do with hiring the Mafia to do some of their dirty work. But the fact is that the CIA was and is a whole lot more organized and efficient than the Mafia.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: BT on November 25, 2006, 11:55:16 PM
Quote
If JFK, RFK or both were assassinated as part of a conspiracy, it would most likely have been a right wing conspiracy,

The OSS was formed under FDR. The CIA under Truman. The CIA's main purpose was to counter Soviet brand expansion of communism. Can you name any Democrat candidates who ran on a pro-communist platfom during this time? Truman? Stevenson?Humprey? McGovern? Mondale? Dukakis?  Kennedy,Johnson,Carter and Clinton certainly didn't.

Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 26, 2006, 12:21:21 AM
Can you name any Democrat candidates who ran on a pro-communist platfom during this time? Truman? Stevenson?Humprey? McGovern? Mondale? Dukakis?  Kennedy,Johnson,Carter and Clinton certainly didn't.

===============================================
Of course not. But that does not mean that the CIA (or the FBI) might not have been used to eliminate presidents and others that ultra rightwing CIA people believed were a threat.

The John Birch publications in the 1950's and 1960's all frequently stated that Presoident Eisenhower and Chief Justice Earl Warren were pro-Communist, as was the entire civil rights movement and people who were in favor of flouridation of the public drinking water.

My father audited the books for a couple of REA rural water projects and was constantly getting calls from the Birchers about how flouridation, which he and everyone else at the local Clay Co. MO REA favored. When he ran for office as Recorder of Deeds they had a whisper campaign against him. He won anyway and held the office for 12 years, when he retired.

There were a seriously large group of ratwing fanatics those days, and I hardly think they no longer exist. Reagan's DCIA, William Casey, was clearly one of them.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: BT on November 26, 2006, 12:32:49 AM
I doubt the CIA had anything to do with it.

It is possible a faction within the CIA in cahoots with the mob and the Military industrial complex did.

If there was a cause, the cause was money.

You ever see that movie that came out in the mid 60's. I think it was called "Executive Action" I think Robert Ryan starred in it, but my memory might be off.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 26, 2006, 01:52:47 AM
If there was a cause, the cause was money.

====================================
If the reason those who did it for money, that was THEIR motive.

The ones that paid them might well have had other motives.
James Earl Ray killed MLK for money, but those who gave him the money clearly had another agenda.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: BT on November 26, 2006, 01:56:31 AM
Quote
The ones that paid them might well have had other motives.
James Earl Ray killed MLK for money, but those who gave him the money clearly had another agenda.

If tha assassinations of JFK,RFK and MLK are related the common denominator is Viet Nam. And ending that war would have cost some folks a lot of money.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Lanya on November 26, 2006, 02:44:33 AM
So if people start getting whacked now, do we look at Halliburton and whoever else makes money off wars as the culprits?   

(And no, I don't know what people I'm talking about...just go with me here, OK? I'm just thinking aloud.)
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: BT on November 26, 2006, 03:25:05 AM
Quote
So if people start getting whacked now, do we look at Halliburton and whoever else makes money off wars as the culprits? 

Why? Did you look to them for the Kennedy assassinations? Halliburton is the demon of the month, just like Enron was. Or Wal-Mart. Nader made a career out of demonizing GM. KBR which in various forms was involved in both wars is small potatoes compared to the big guns in the MI complex.

There was a scene in the movie NIxon by Oliver Stone. Nixon goes to the Lincoln Memorial to meet with anti war protestors and Nixon is explaining how he plans to end the war. One of the protestors realizes that Nixon couldn't end the war even if he wanted to. He can't control the beast. He can only try to nudge it.

You don't have to kill a man to render him impotent. Nixon was the victim of a coup d'etat same as Kennedy. They were the bookends of the decade.

Fast forward to Clinton and now Bush and you see the  same patterns. Both marginalized by scandals hyped to the max and bloodied by the sport of politics. And we all went along with it. Entertainment at its finest.

Maybe it isn't GE and Raytheon and Lockheed who is the beast.

Maybe it's us.


Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 26, 2006, 10:22:25 AM
Nader made a career out of demonizing GM.

=======================================
This is rubbish. Nader wrote accurately that the Corvair was seriously dangerous because of poor weight distribution, carbon monoxide poisoning, and various other problems and GM dispatched an army of investigators to find some scandal to pin on him, and they found squat.

They tried to discredit his book "Unsafe at any speed" and they could not. Nader was called to represent his side of the story everytime GM callecd for a forum. He always won the debate, and they invariably lost it. Always.

He doid not demonize GM. They made an unsafe product, probably knowingly, and he called them on it. Then they acted demonically, and he called them on that as well.

I have no clue where you get your distorted view, but the initials on it must read GM
 ***
. One of the protestors realizes that Nixon couldn't end the war even if he wanted to. He can't control the beast. He can only try to nudge it.

Nixon could have certainly ended the Vietnam War far sooner than it did end. As it turned out, the War outlived his sorry butt.

Kennedy did not deserve to die.

Nixon deserved jail time. He was utterly despicable, and got far less than he deserved.

***********
Maybe it isn't GE and Raytheon and Lockheed who is the beast.

Maybe it's us.

No, it's NOT us. All I do is read the effing news. Raytheon, Lockheed, GE,  Halliburton (how strange you would have left out mentioning them) are raking in big bucks from this misbegotton unnecessary war, which only Juniorbush and his puppeteers would have started, and indeed, planned to start from the get-go, far before 9/11.

The public is certainly manipulated. Some more than others.


Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Amianthus on November 26, 2006, 11:01:27 AM
I have no clue where you get your distorted view, but the initials on it must read GM

Actually, the initials read "NHTSA."

From a series of comparative tests run by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the conclusions about the Corvair read "[t]he 1960-63 Corvair compares favorably with contemporary vehicles used in the tests" and "[t]he handling and stability performance of the 1960-63 Corvair does not result in an abnormal potential for loss of control or rollover, and it is at least as good as the performance of some contemporary vehicles both foreign and domestic."
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: BT on November 26, 2006, 11:32:53 AM
Quote
Halliburton (how strange you would have left out mentioning them)

I didn't leave out Halliburton . I mentioned KBR (Kellogg,Brown Brothers and Root) which is the subsidiery that has most of te military contracts you moan about. This is the same KBR that built most of the airstrips in Nam and were backing LBJ from his first lanslide election to the Senate.

Quote
All I do is read the effing news.


You also comment upon it.

What is the difference between your attitude towards Bush and the attitude of Clinton critics from the last cycle?

Quote
The public is certainly manipulated. Some more than others.

Careful, we ae approaching common ground.



Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 26, 2006, 11:55:31 AM
What is the difference between your attitude towards Bush and the attitude of Clinton critics from the last cycle?

------------------------------------------
Basically, I am accurate in mt attitude that Juniorbush is an incompetent, warmongering, arrogant jerkoff, while they were inaccurate in their opinion that Clinton's lying about a blowjob was anywhere nearly as serious as the  poor intelligence that cause 9/11, and the misbegotten Iraq War, which has cause untold death and suffering.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Amianthus on November 26, 2006, 12:09:59 PM
[snip]

And I am accurate in my attitude that you are an egotistical blowhard.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: BT on November 26, 2006, 12:18:39 PM
Quote
What is the difference between your attitude towards Bush and the attitude of Clinton critics from the last cycle?

Thank you for proving my point.

Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Michael Tee on November 26, 2006, 03:59:13 PM
<<It is possible a faction within the CIA in cahoots with the mob and the Military industrial complex did. >>

You couldn't be in the CIA and NOT have contacts with both the mob and the military-industrial complex.  That was one of the points of Peter Dale Scott's "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK."  Scott's book was very well researched and pretty well demonstrated that no governmental or media investigation could ever get to the bottom of the assassination because of the interconnectedness of the mob, politics, "national security," law enforcement and the media.  The investigators would in effect be investigating themselves.

So far, the most plausible explanation of motive that I have seen is that in the wake of the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy fired three top CIA directors, one being of course Allen Dulles, another an Air Force general whose brother happened to be the mayor of Dallas and a third guy.  These guys, their supporters in the CIA and the Cuban mercenaries they employed, hated Kennedy with a passion, originally because they felt he had reneged on a promise to provide air cover to the Bay of Pigs invaders, thereby causing the death of some and the capture of the rest and then secondly, of course, for the firings.  This hatred alone, however, had not been acted out, but when, shortly before his murder, JFK had begun to consider publicly the need to pull back out of Viet Nam, which to these guys looked like treason.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: BT on November 26, 2006, 04:14:35 PM
Quote
You couldn't be in the CIA and NOT have contacts with both the mob and the military-industrial complex.

The operative phrase was in cahoots. Not in contact.
I am in contact with you.
Far be it for me to be in cahoots with you.
See the difference?
I knew that you could.


Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 26, 2006, 04:28:56 PM
What were the odds that Bobby Kennedy as president would have outed the Mafia's connections to the CIA?

There was a clear connection between the druglords in Marseilles and the OSS that dated back to WWII. The gangster connection was used to assure that the Maquis did not manage to gain control of France after WWII. The
 
It always seemed a bit strange to me that Eisenhower, who was a stated enemy of the military industrial complex, did not sack the evil Dulles brothers. His support for Nixon was certainly less than warm.



Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: BT on November 26, 2006, 04:55:47 PM
Quote
There was a clear connection between the druglords in Marseilles and the OSS that dated back to WWII.

The cooperation between the CIA and the mob was pretty well known at the time. Lucky Lucianno worked with the OSS to help control the Brooklyn Docks. Doubt Bobby would have exposed much that wasn't already known.

The bad blood with the mob was that they were expecting a quid quo pro for helping get John elected and that wasn't forthcoming.

Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 26, 2006, 06:06:33 PM
So, do you think the Mafia had one or both Kennedys assassinated?

Sirhan Sirhan and Oswald seem to be more CIA dupes set up to assassinate (or serve as patsys) than hirelings of the Mafia to me.

I don't see where Oswald or Sirhan had a sufficient motive to risk their lives in an assassination attempt.

JFK could have been more anti-Castro, and RFK was no more notably anti-Palestinian than any other politician.

Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: BT on November 26, 2006, 07:18:14 PM
Perhaps the Mafia contracted with renegade CIA agents working on their own.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 26, 2006, 08:01:50 PM
As with all discussions of the literal and verified conspiracy to kill Kennedy, this has devolved into a series of "what if this?" and "what about that's" that bear little to no significance to the Kennedy assassination.

The idea that a camera in 1963 would drop frames is laughable to the point of stupidity.  Outright fucking willful ignorance. 

No camera of the type that Zapruder used could possibly drop frames.  The film goes through and is exposed to light.  Not particular microseconds of light as it goes along.  A dropped frame is conspicuous.  There is a famous story of James Cameron deciding after being told that T2 was too long, to then remove frames every few seconds.  Of course, this proved impossible because the eye still catches it.  It will crap out the illusion of movement if the film speed is not dicked with in sme way I can't recall but then you have people slurring words and sounding crazy.

Connolly's hat flips around after they emerge from that sign because there are frames missing.  That's the only possible explanation.  Now the reason the frames are missing doesn't immediately present itself.  nincompoops will, no doubt, find some reason to believe the government's motives in order to believe in the fairy tale of Oswald being the lone assassin.  Because some people are more comfortable being sheeple.  Sirs is the pre-eminent specimine of this type of person.

Anyone who spends the time to read and view a lot of the material comes away with the inante sense that there was a conspiracy and that many people worked to make sure it stayed that way.  Now if that was the full force of the government at work, who knows?  But it is without doubt that Nixon was entirely mixed up in the Kennedy assassination and a lot of the deaths took place during his stay at the White House.

To continue to believe in a magic bullet and the Oswald as lone nut theiory is nothing short of absolute rejection of suspicion of any kind and willful belief in a government that is known to lie to start wars among other things.

So, until this starts being about the facts, I'm done with this horseshit other than to say that a number of forces came together to make the murder of Kennedy a successful coup in America.  Mob, CIA operatives, anti-Castro Cubans, FBI people and governmental agents like LBJ all conspired knowingly to kill Kennedy and benefit from his death.  Nothing short of a time machine taking me to November 22nd, 1963 to watch Oswald shoot from that window and no one else fire from the Grassy Knoll will convince me otherwise because I can't willfully ignore evidence that says otherwise.

Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: BT on November 26, 2006, 08:07:20 PM
Quote
As with all discussions of the literal and verified conspiracy to kill Kennedy, this has devolved into a series of "what if this?" and "what about that's" that bear little to no significance to the Kennedy assassination.

Threads often take on a life of their own. No sense pouting about it. If you believe someone is wrong , explain how.

Leave the insults to morons like Knute who can't do any better.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Religious Dick on November 26, 2006, 08:29:43 PM

Connolly's hat flips around after they emerge from that sign because there are frames missing.  That's the only possible explanation.  Now the reason the frames are missing doesn't immediately present itself. 

Actually, there's a well-known reason as to why the frames are missing. The film was originally purchased from Zapruder by Time/Life. The Time/Life technician charged with processing the film inadvertently damaged a number of frames.

That's a pretty well documented fact. Figured you would have known about that.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: larry on November 26, 2006, 08:34:33 PM
Which is it, then?
Are you suggesting that "organized crime", which normally would suggest the Mafia, in Kennedy's time Meyer Lansky or one of the Italian-American families and "global bankers" are one and the same?

When I said organized crime, I meant, a group of people within the CIA/FBI who were operating of their own accord. I don't believe the orders to kill the Kennedy's was contrived as official CIA/FBI covert assassinations.  
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: yellow_crane on November 26, 2006, 09:03:50 PM

When Bobby was Attorney General he had Marcello, don of New Orleans region, deported.

In fact,  Bobby loaded 50 agents and himself and fllew down to Louisiana and arrested Marcello, and expedited his deportment, hands on.

The theory is floated that Marcello had a hand in it.  Truth is, no don is going to assassinate the President of the United States on his own clout.  He would be dead an hour after the plane from Sicily arrived.  Marcello had to eat it, sentenced forever by code to gnash and chew over the injustice of being treated in such a way by the son of a business colleague.


Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: larry on November 26, 2006, 09:22:07 PM
Quote
The ones that paid them might well have had other motives.
James Earl Ray killed MLK for money, but those who gave him the money clearly had another agenda.

If tha assassinations of JFK,RFK and MLK are related the common denominator is Viet Nam. And ending that war would have cost some folks a lot of money.


One thing we know. The Democratic Social State Philosophy came to an end as a result of the killings. I would say the people behind the killings are the same people who financed Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush1 and Bush 2.  George Bush said Putin is a good man. Bush is helping Putin and Bush policies are unAmerican activities. I think the fascist killed all three JFK, RFK and MLK. They were all symbols and leaders of the working class and the poor. The Conservative elitist of Wall Street had their reasons to kill all three.    
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: BT on November 26, 2006, 11:01:51 PM
Quote
The Democratic Social State Philosophy came to an end as a result of the killings.

Nonsense.

Medicare, Medicaid, Affirmative Action and Quotas, Earned Income Credits, Healthy Kids Programs,  Headstart and other programs too numerous to list came after Dallas.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 27, 2006, 11:27:17 AM

Actually, there's a well-known reason as to why the frames are missing. The film was originally purchased from Zapruder by Time/Life. The Time/Life technician charged with processing the film inadvertently damaged a number of frames.

That's a pretty well documented fact. Figured you would have known about that.

Source?
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Religious Dick on November 27, 2006, 11:34:12 AM

Actually, there's a well-known reason as to why the frames are missing. The film was originally purchased from Zapruder by Time/Life. The Time/Life technician charged with processing the film inadvertently damaged a number of frames.

That's a pretty well documented fact. Figured you would have known about that.

Source?

Among others, see "High Treason" by Robert Groden and Harrison Livingstone. Groden is the one who did the enhancement of the original Zapruder film.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 27, 2006, 11:37:38 AM
Perhaps the Mafia contracted with renegade CIA agents working on their own.

Definitely, the most accurate so far of hypotheses.  I would add that those renegades used the apparatus of the CIA to make changes.  I would also add in a couple of Secret Service agents who changed the parade route and stopped the car.  Plus you have to have those TEAMS on the ground in Dealey Plaza as spotters and so forth.

Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 27, 2006, 11:40:27 AM

Connolly's hat flips around after they emerge from that sign because there are frames missing.  That's the only possible explanation.  Now the reason the frames are missing doesn't immediately present itself. 

Actually, there's a well-known reason as to why the frames are missing. The film was originally purchased from Zapruder by Time/Life. The Time/Life technician charged with processing the film inadvertently damaged a number of frames.

That's a pretty well documented fact. Figured you would have known about that.

Even if this is true, there were still copies made PRIOR to Time/Life's copies by Zapruder and a couple of reporters from Dallas.  And that story could have been constructed after the fact with little or no effort.

Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Religious Dick on November 27, 2006, 11:51:53 AM

Even if this is true, there were still copies made PRIOR to Time/Life's copies by Zapruder and a couple of reporters from Dallas.  And that story could have been constructed after the fact with little or no effort.


Yep. Could have, might have, should have.

But still no proof.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 27, 2006, 12:05:16 PM

Yep. Could have, might have, should have.

But still no proof.

And no proof that it wasn't.

Are you just being intellectually honest?  Is that all you're doing, or have you ruled out a conspiracy altogether?
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: sirs on November 27, 2006, 01:24:33 PM
Yep. Could have, might have, should have.  But still no proof.

And no proof that it wasn't.  Are you just being intellectually honest?  Is that all you're doing, or have you ruled out a conspiracy altogether?

Brass, pay attention.  Folks who don't buy into all this conspiratorial nonsense, aren't discounting the possibility.  You did pick up that I actually lean towards there 2 shooters involved, with JFK, right?  Point being, you can't prove a negative, so it requires folks like yourself who HAVE bought into this black helicopter conspiratorial blatherings, to actually PROVE it, vs simply claiming that "there's no proof that it wasn't", and then click enter as if that's all that was required.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 27, 2006, 01:41:36 PM
I just find it odd that you aren't giving BT any grief about his believing that there was a conspiracy and you seem to put a lot of onus on me to prove every little thing that happened.

The facts are that Kennedy was hit in the head twice nearly simoultaneously.  His head was thrown back and that proves that he was hit from the front.  The Book Depository was behind him.

Oswald was in the second floor lunchroom when it all went down.  That's where eyewitnesses put him.

Did LBJ direct the whole thing from his car in the parade with Hoover paying the guys off in a boxcar behind the depository?  No, obviously not.  It is that kind of ridiculous crap that people like you throw out like a gorilla throwing dust in the air that concerns me.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Amianthus on November 27, 2006, 02:00:10 PM
The facts are that Kennedy was hit in the head twice nearly simoultaneously.  His head was thrown back and that proves that he was hit from the front.  The Book Depository was behind him.

Not according to the autopsy. And inertia explains the head movement.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 27, 2006, 02:11:55 PM
The facts are that Kennedy was hit in the head twice nearly simoultaneously.  His head was thrown back and that proves that he was hit from the front.  The Book Depository was behind him.

Not according to the autopsy. And inertia explains the head movement.

LOL  The autopsy.

Every doctor who examined Kennedy said that the back of his head was blown out.  Exit wounds blow out.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Amianthus on November 27, 2006, 02:57:01 PM
LOL  The autopsy.

Every doctor who examined Kennedy said that the back of his head was blown out.  Exit wounds blow out.

Actually, no. Here is the statement from all three autopsy doctors (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hbf.txt).

The photographic and x-ray evidence of Kennedy's head show the back of his head relatively intact. How does it get "blown out" and remain intact?
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 27, 2006, 03:03:20 PM
Dude, you're using McAdams?

Give me a break.

Every other doctor not under the thumb of government types and who didn't burn their notes, is quoted ad nauseam and shown in video over and over again as saying the back of his head was blown out.

The photos that you love so much are doctored.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Plane on November 27, 2006, 03:07:50 PM
I once saw a film of an experiment .

A human Skull was packed full of hamburger set on a post and shot .

The high speed film showed the skull moved a little forward when the bullet struck the back but then moved much more to the rear when the bullet exited carrying a lot of hamburger with it.

I was wondering the whole time where this guy got this skull .
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Plane on November 27, 2006, 03:15:50 PM
Creepy??
Look what happens when an American President gets elected in a year with a "0"at the end.
1840: William Henry Harrison (died in office)
1860: Abraham Lincoln (assassinated)
1880: James A. Garfield (assassinated)
1900: William McKinley (assassinated)
1920: Warren G. Harding (died in office)
1940: Franklin D. Roosevelt (died in office)
1960: John F. Kennedy (assassinated)
1980: Ronald Reagan (survived assassination attempt)
2000: George W. Bush ????????????

Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.
Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.
John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.
Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.
Both wives lost their children while living in the White House.
Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.
Both Presidents were shot in the head.
Now it gets really weird.
Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy.
Kennedy's Secretary was named Lincoln.
Both were assassinated by Southerners.
Both were succeeded by Southerners named Johnson.
Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.
Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.
John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1839.
Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939.
Both assassins were known by their three names.
Both names are composed of fifteen letters.

Hang on to your seat.
Lincoln was shot at the theater named 'Ford.'
Kennedy was shot in a car called 'Lincoln' made by 'Ford.'
Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.

And here's the kicker.......
A week before Lincoln was shot, he was in Monroe, Maryland
A week before Kennedy was shot, he was with Marilyn Monroe.

Creepy huh?

http://moonsighting.com/math_jokes.html
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Amianthus on November 27, 2006, 03:42:44 PM
Every other doctor not under the thumb of government types and who didn't burn their notes, is quoted ad nauseam and shown in video over and over again as saying the back of his head was blown out.

The three doctors are the ones who performed the autopsy. Who are these other doctors?

Besides, you said "every doctor" - I provided three that disagree with that statement. Backpedaling, are you?
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: larry on November 27, 2006, 04:13:10 PM
Quote
The Democratic Social State Philosophy came to an end as a result of the killings.

Nonsense.

Medicare, Medicaid, Affirmative Action and Quotas, Earned Income Credits, Healthy Kids Programs,  Headstart and other programs too numerous to list came after Dallas.


What happen after Dallas, is what put Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in office. What happen after Dallas laid the groundwork for a more authoritarian type of government. What happen after Dallas was forty years of undermining the U.S. Constitution and as a result, we have George W. Bush, Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich types promoting racism and a fascist authoritarian state. The Democratic Social State ended with the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK. Rome was not built in a day and the fascist are still working on America, but they ain't looking as good as they did in 1980. The murderous regime of Reagan and Bush has lost much of its charm.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Plane on November 27, 2006, 04:21:29 PM
Quote
The Democratic Social State Philosophy came to an end as a result of the killings.

Nonsense.

Medicare, Medicaid, Affirmative Action and Quotas, Earned Income Credits, Healthy Kids Programs,  Headstart and other programs too numerous to list came after Dallas.


What happen after Dallas, is what put Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in office. What happen after Dallas laid the groundwork for a more authoritarian type of government. What happen after Dallas was forty years of undermining the U.S. Constitution and as a result, we have George W. Bush, Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich types promoting racism and a fascist authoritarian state. The Democratic Social State ended with the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK. Rome was not built in a day and the fascist are still working on America, but they ain't looking as good as they did in 1980. The murderous regime of Reagan and Bush has lost much of its charm.

How do you feel about the Johnson "Great Society" or the Republican initiative known as the "voteing rights act"?
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: larry on November 27, 2006, 05:13:16 PM
How do you feel about the Johnson "Great Society" or the Republican initiative known as the "voting rights act"?

Johnson's Great Society Program was a peace meal initiative in a time of hostilities, many aspects of the programs did more to keep people in poverty and segregate people than anything else.  I also feel many of the programs were used to fund radical fundametalist organizations. All in all I think Johnson, himself, was a bigot and a racist.  When government becomes too large and too complex, you can bet the general public have no idea of what is really being done.

The voting rights act was not sincere, the republicans knew they could rig elections with corrupt reapportionment tactics. Of course, Democrats have also used the same tactics. Term limitations for all members of both houses would bring real change.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: BT on November 27, 2006, 06:29:49 PM
Quote
What happen after Dallas, is what put Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in office.

What happened after Dallas was the largest growth of the federal government since it's inception. Your thesis is flawed, blinded by your own biases.

Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: larry on November 27, 2006, 06:58:29 PM
Quote
What happen after Dallas, is what put Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in office.

What happened after Dallas was the largest growth of the federal government since it's inception. Your thesis is flawed, blinded by your own biases.



No, BT, my comments are based on the results of "HUD, job training programs, and the foodstamp act. All of those acts were double edge swards. What they did is sustain a poverty class, so, employers could continue to pay low wages. The minimum wage laws, were yet another double edge sward. As long as an employer paid minimum wage, the employees could not go on strike for better wages. Where do I begin with the religious organization being funded as "social service" providers. Johnson, was either, stupid or prejudice to have signed those acts. How could congress not have known these acts would benefit corporate America far more than the would benefit the poor?
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: BT on November 27, 2006, 07:29:34 PM
Your original statementwas that Dallas killed the Democrat Socialist State. In fact the trend is towards just the opposite.

Keep calling for universal health care. The corporations would love for the government to take over payments.

Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Religious Dick on November 27, 2006, 07:44:52 PM

Yep. Could have, might have, should have.

But still no proof.

And no proof that it wasn't.

Well, I can't prove the Lord didn't create the earth 6000 years ago, complete with artifacts giving the impression it's billions of years old, either.

I can't find any evidence to support that conclusion, either.


Are you just being intellectually honest?  Is that all you're doing, or have you ruled out a conspiracy altogether?


Do I think it's possible Oswald had help in the planning and execution? Sure. Possible. But nobody has ever been to prove that. More than one gunman? Could be, but where are the bullets?

Now, I understand there are some parts of the official explanation that seem implausible, say the single bullet theory. But I'd still have to  say the single bullet theory is a lot more plausible than any conspiracy theory I've heard.

And that's my problem with the conspiracy theories - every one of them that I've heard requires at least as big a leap of faith as the Warren Report does, and usually then some.

I finally came to the conclusion that for all it's flaws, the Warren Report was at least as plausible as any conspiracy theory I've heard, and more so than most. And further, it offers the simplest explanation of the available facts.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: larry on November 27, 2006, 07:45:56 PM
Your original statementwas that Dallas killed the Democrat Socialist State. In fact the trend is toward just the opposite.

Keep calling for universal health care. The corporations would love for the government to take over payments.



The trend is not toward socialism, the trend is towrads something much closer to a police state and health care facilities and employers have been recruited to act as police operatives. What we see today in America is, sectarian violence toward a secular nation. Yes government is bigger, but it is not socialism, it is a kindlier gentler form of fascism. That change began with the assassinations of JFK,RFK and MLK.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Religious Dick on November 27, 2006, 07:52:21 PM
The trend is not toward socialism, the trend is towrads something much closer to a police state and health care facilities and employers have been recruited to act as police operatives. What we see today in America is, sectarian violence toward a secular nation. Yes government is bigger, but it is not socialism, it is a kindlier gentler form of fascism. That change began with the assassinations of JFK,RFK and MLK.

I agree with your assessment, but I'd say the change actually began under FDR.

Recommended reading: As We Go Marching, by John T. Flynn, available free as a PDF:

http://www.mises.org/books/aswegomarching.pdf
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: BT on November 27, 2006, 08:12:04 PM
Quote
I agree with your assessment, but I'd say the change actually began under FDR.

If that is the case, we never had a Democratic Socialist State. And Larry, Dallas could not have ended what we never had.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: larry on November 27, 2006, 08:20:54 PM
Thanks for the PDF. I saved the URL so I can read all of it when I have more time. What you said about FDR, I can agree with. I think the Conservatives took it to the next level, under Reagan's economic, domestic and foreign policies. The dramatic changes that began under Reagan open the door of imperial power a lot wider.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Amianthus on November 27, 2006, 08:51:46 PM
Now, I understand there are some parts of the official explanation that seem implausible, say the single bullet theory. But I'd still have to  say the single bullet theory is a lot more plausible than any conspiracy theory I've heard.

The single bullet theory works. Computer modelling shows that the bullet path is straight until it hits a bone, then it was straight again after the deflection.

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt-faa.jpg)
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: sirs on November 27, 2006, 09:10:00 PM
I just find it odd that you aren't giving BT any grief about his believing that there was a conspiracy and you seem to put a lot of onus on me to prove every little thing that happened.  The facts are that Kennedy was hit in the head twice nearly simoultaneously.  His head was thrown back and that proves that he was hit from the front.  The Book Depository was behind him.  Oswald was in the second floor lunchroom when it all went down.  That's where eyewitnesses put him.

Here's precisely why I don't give near the grief to BT as I rightly apply to you.  It's your OPINION that he was shot simulataneously, hardly a fact.  It's your OPINION that Oswald was in the lunchroom at PRECISELY the instance Kennedy was shot, hardly a fact.  It's that kind of ridiculous opinionated crap trying to be applied as some scientific fact, that folks like you keep throwing out like a "gorilla throwing dust in the air".  And no, it doesn't concern me about yourself, as I do acknowledge the Elvis factor, is likely in play
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 27, 2006, 10:03:37 PM
Keep calling for universal health care. The corporations would love for the government to take over payments.

When ( and it WILL happen) we get health care in this country, it will not be because Brassmask or I or any loiberals, socialists or logical setient beings call for it, it will be precisely because the corporations cannot pay for it and compete with the Europeans, Mexicans, Japanese and even Koreans who have it.

NO ONE pays more for health care than the people in the US, and the health care we get is NOT AS GOOD. If it were, all those people would not be outliving us.

A socialized healthcare plan would mean more control of things like tobacco, cornsyrup sweeteners and transfatty acids for sure.

And that would benefit most of us as well.

Even Sirs would live longer, enabling him to bitch even more.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: BT on November 27, 2006, 10:05:55 PM
Thanks for agreeing, XO
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: sirs on November 27, 2006, 10:13:35 PM
When ( and it WILL happen) we get health care in this country, it will not be because Brassmask or I or any loiberals, socialists or logical setient beings call for it, it will be precisely because the corporations cannot pay for it and compete with the Europeans, Mexicans, Japanese and even Koreans who have it.....Even Sirs would live longer, enabling him to bitch even more.

It's not the quantity of the bitching, it's the quality     ;)
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 28, 2006, 01:17:12 AM
I just find it odd that you aren't giving BT any grief about his believing that there was a conspiracy and you seem to put a lot of onus on me to prove every little thing that happened.  The facts are that Kennedy was hit in the head twice nearly simoultaneously.  His head was thrown back and that proves that he was hit from the front.  The Book Depository was behind him.  Oswald was in the second floor lunchroom when it all went down.  That's where eyewitnesses put him.

Here's precisely why I don't give near the grief to BT as I rightly apply to you.  It's your OPINION that he was shot simulataneously, hardly a fact.  It's your OPINION that Oswald was in the lunchroom at PRECISELY the instance Kennedy was shot, hardly a fact.  It's that kind of ridiculous opinionated crap trying to be applied as some scientific fact, that folks like you keep throwing out like a "gorilla throwing dust in the air".  And no, it doesn't concern me about yourself, as I do acknowledge the Elvis factor, is likely in play

You think I just made it up that witnesses placed Oswald in the lunchroom?  These are not just my idle musings here, jackass.  Thousands of people have gone over and over this. I've only just begun and even I know that Oswald couldn't have done the shooting and couldn't have made his rendezvous with the police officer in the time frames.  You're just some asshole who doesn't like me.

 Numerous FACTS point out that Oswald didn't do it.  And more than likely he was a hero who was trying to STOP any assassination but wound up a patsy.  The guy was STUNNED when he a reporter informed him he had been charged with the murders of Tippitt and KENNEDY.  Here's another guy's idle ramblings, moron.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/griffith/Problems_with_case_against_Oswald.html (http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/griffith/Problems_with_case_against_Oswald.html)

Quote
Oswald's Whereabouts at the Time of the Shooting

It goes without saying that a key component in any case against Oswald would be to place him at the scene of the crime when the crime was committed, i.e., to place him at the southeast corner window on the sixth floor of the TSBD at the time of the shooting. But here, too, a prosecutor would be in for some very rough going.

The WC said Oswald was at the sniper's nest on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting. If so, then how is it he was seen by the building manager, Roy Truly, and a pistol-waving police officer, Patrolman Marrion Baker, well under ninety seconds afterwards on the SECOND floor, standing in the lunchroom with a Coke in his hand, giving every appearance of being perfectly calm and relaxed?

Moore and other lone-gunman theorists assume that Oswald bought the Coke after the encounter with the manager and the policeman (53). However, the available evidence indicates Oswald purchased the Coke before the second-floor encounter (Marrs 50-52). Furthermore, Oswald had no reason to lie about when he bought the Coke. When he mentioned the Coke-buying during his questioning, he did so in passing, and he could not have known the important role the timing of this detail would subsequently play in the investigation. I agree with what David Lifton has said on this subject:

    The original news accounts said that when [Officer Marrion] Baker first saw Oswald, the latter was drinking a Coke. This seemingly minor fact was crucial, because if Oswald had time to operate the machine, open the bottle, and drink some soda, that would mean he was on the second floor even earlier than the Commission's reconstructions allowed. In a signed statement Officer Baker was asked to make in September 1964, at the tail-end of the investigation, he wrote: "I saw a man standing in the lunchroom drinking a coke." A line was drawn through "drinking a coke," and Baker initialed the corrected version. [Dallas] Police Captain Will Fritz, in his report on his interrogation of Oswald, wrote: "I asked Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him. He said he was on the second floor drinking a Coca Cola when the officer came in."

    If I were a juror, I would have believed Oswald already had the Coke in hand, and indeed, had drunk some of it, by the time the officer entered the lunchroom. (Lifton 351)

Oswald could not have made it to the second floor in well under ninety seconds, in time to be seen by Baker, and without being seen by Roy Truly. The evidence indicates that he was seen on the second floor about sixty to seventy-five seconds after the shots were fired. The Dallas police indicated that the alleged murder weapon was carefully hidden under and between a stack of book boxes at the OPPOSITE end of the sixth floor from where the shots were supposedly fired. It is reasonable to assume Oswald would have attempted to wipe his fingerprints off the rifle (at least those parts that he would have just handled while firing it). Someone wiped off the Carcano before it was "discovered" because the FBI found no identifiable prints on it when it examined the weapon on November 23. This would mean that in well under ninety seconds Oswald chambered another round, wiped off the rifle, squeezed out of the sniper's nest, ran all the way to the opposite end of the sixth floor, took the time to carefully hide the weapon under some boxes, ran down four flights of stairs to the second floor (actually eight small flights), made his way to the lunchroom, and then bought a Coke, and yet did not appear the least bit winded or nervous when seen by the manager and the policeman.

In most of his statements, Baker said that Oswald was walking away from him when he spotted him through the small window on the foyer door. Baker indicated that Oswald was about twenty feet from him when he saw him. The WC placed Oswald just past the foyer door, about eighteen feet from Baker when Baker allegedly spotted him. Yet, in Baker's final statement to the FBI, Baker said that when he spotted Oswald, Oswald was STANDING in the lunchroom.

The WC staged a reenactment to prove Oswald could have reached the second-floor lunchroom in about ninety seconds after supposedly shooting Kennedy. However, the person playing Oswald was only able to meet the ninety-second time limit when he skipped wiping off the rifle, simply leaned over as if to drop the weapon on the floor (instead of carefully hiding it, although there is a conflicting report on this point), and delayed buying the Coke until after encountering the manager and the police officer (Weberman and Canfield 143-144; see also Brown 200-201, and Weisberg 110-122). And these are not the only alleged Oswald actions that the reenactment failed to simulate.

Furthermore, after wiping off the rifle and stashing it at the opposite end of the sixth floor, Oswald would have had to use the back stairway to reach the second floor as soon as possible. However, none of the people who were on or near that stairway heard footsteps or saw Oswald racing down the stairs for his encounter with the manager and the policeman (Marrs 53). What's more, if Oswald had come down the stairs to get to the lunchroom, he would have been seen by Roy Truly, who was running ahead of Baker.

Another clear indication that Oswald could not have made it to the second-floor lunchroom in time to be seen by Baker is the fact that the door to the lunchroom had an automatic closer, and the building manager, who was running up the stairs leading to the second floor ahead of the policeman, did NOT see the door close (and Baker probably didn't see it closing either, even though he later tentatively suggested he did to the WC). Notes Harold Weisberg,

    With all the deliberateness of all the so-called reconstructions it still was not possible to get Oswald to and into that second-floor lunchroom before he would have been seen outside of it by the building manager, Roy Truly, who was rushing up those stairs ahead of police officer Marrion Baker.

    Oswald was inside that lunchroom--the door to which had an automatic closer and with a Coke in his hand when Baker saw him through the small window in the door, he said, and when Truly, ahead of Baker and farther up the stairs, did not see him or the door close. (Weisberg 88)

According to the WC, Oswald went through the foyer door just a second or two before Baker spotted him. If so, Truly would have seen Oswald going through or approaching the door, and if the former had been the case then the door would have been virtually wide open when Truly passed it. Yet, Truly said nothing in any of his statements about seeing the door open or in motion, and he did not see Oswald on the stairs or near the door. Baker only mentioned this (that the door might have been in motion as it was about to close) as a faint possibility when he appeared before the Warren Commission. Even then, Baker said that if the door was moving, it was almost shut. It would have had to be nearly closed, or else Baker would have had an even harder time spotting Oswald through its window; as it was, with the door shut the window would have been at a 45-degree angle to Baker. Moreover, how could the automatic door have closed or nearly closed behind Oswald (1) if Oswald was supposedly only a foot or two past the door when Baker spotted him, and (2) when Truly did not see Oswald coming down the stairs, even though Truly was running ahead of Baker? In fact, to judge from Truly's WC testimony, the door was CLOSED when Truly saw it.

There are indications that Baker and Truly arrived to the second-floor landing in right around a minute, not ninety seconds. Oswald could not have done everything the Commission and its witnesses said he did and still made it past the foyer door without being seen by Truly.

Photographs taken of the TSBD before and after the shooting show that someone was rearranging boxes in the sixth-floor window shortly after Kennedy was shot. This fact was corroborated by photographic expert Dr. Robert R. Hunt for the House Select Committee (4 HSCA 422-423). In fact, the Select Committee's photographic panel concluded: "There is an apparent rearranging of boxes within two minutes after the last shot was fired at President Kennedy" (6 HSCA 109). Obviously, Oswald could not have been in the second-floor lunchroom meeting the building manager and the policeman while moving boxes around on the sixth floor at the same time. So who was moving the boxes less than two minutes after the shooting? Whoever it was, it wasn't Oswald.

Several people reported seeing TWO men, one with a rifle, on the sixth floor of the Book Depository shortly before the shooting (Summers 40-46; Hurt 91-94). WC defenders have pointed out some inconsistencies in their accounts, but I believe the evidence supports the essential components of their stories. One of those witnesses saw the two men on the sixth floor at around 12:15 P.M., which is when Oswald was reportedly seen by another Book Depository employee eating lunch in the lunchroom on the SECOND floor. Who were the two men? None of the descriptions of them matches Oswald. So, whoever they were, evidently Oswald wasn't one of them.

Cohen asserts that two people identified Oswald in a police lineup as the person they had seen in the sixth-floor window (33). There was only one such witness, Howard Brennan, and he gave implausible, contradictory testimony (Marrs 25-27; Lane 83-99; Brown 119-130). In fact, Brennan failed to make a positive identification of Oswald in a police lineup on November 22, even though he had seen Oswald's picture on TV beforehand (Summers 78). Only after weeks of "questioning" by federal agents did Brennan positively identify Oswald as the sixth-floor shooter. Moreover, a number of points in Brennan's account actually cast doubt on the official version of the shooting (Brown 119-130). The House Select Committee found Brennan's testimony so problematic that it ignored his story entirely.

I am inclined to believe that Brennan DID see SOMEONE firing from the sixth-floor window, but that the gunman he saw was not Oswald. I believe Brennan later identified Oswald only because he was pressured into doing so. Brennan's description of the gunman's clothing matches that given by four other witnesses who reported seeing a man in the window. Brennan and the other witnesses described the man's shirt as a regular "light-colored" shirt. However, as mentioned, Oswald did not wear a light-colored shirt to work that day.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 28, 2006, 01:19:52 AM
It's not the quantity of the bitching, it's the quality     ;)

You're being such a suckup to capitalism, it is in your nature to try to make it into a volume product, though.  Hence your incessant need to assault everyone with your willful ignorance of reality.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: sirs on November 28, 2006, 01:24:07 AM
You think I just made it up that witnesses placed Oswald in the lunchroom?  These are not just my idle musings here, jackass. .... You're just some asshole who doesn't like me.

Well, obviously Brass, no longer having any substance to stand on, is degrading his responses to the point that no longer merit serious consideration or civil response.  Don't let that tinfoil get too tight around the head, their Brass, and try to get some rest
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 28, 2006, 01:29:42 AM
You think I just made it up that witnesses placed Oswald in the lunchroom?  These are not just my idle musings here, jackass. .... You're just some asshole who doesn't like me.

Well, obviously Brass, no longer having any substance to stand on, is degrading his responses to the point that no longer merit serious consideration or civil response.  Don't let that tinfoil get too tight around the head, their Brass, and try to get some rest

Ok I went too far.  I admit it.  I still believe this is just that you don't like it when I'm right.  But the FACTS are still that Oswald was seen in that lunchroom before the shooting and directly afterwards with no way in hell for him to get back up to where you think he was when you think he shot Kennedy and then get back down there to that lunchroom.  Unless you want to call the three witnesses (including a Dallas Police officer) liars.

You know thisis fact but you can't admit it because you know I posted it and until you can, you will never be right about anything.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: sirs on November 28, 2006, 01:32:38 AM
Ok I went too far.  I admit it.  I still believe this is just that you don't like it when I'm right.

I'll let you know when you're actually right some time
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: BT on November 28, 2006, 01:34:28 AM
Quote
I admit it.  I still believe this is just that you don't like it when I'm right.

You are gettiung down right evangelical about this Brass. What next, condemning them to everlasting hell if they don't believe.

Who knows what really happened.

The bottom line is JFK, RFK and MLK were shot.

Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 28, 2006, 01:45:55 AM

The bottom line is JFK, RFK and MLK were shot.

No, that is NOT the bottom line.  The bottom line is who, when, how, where, and most importantly WHY?  We, as a nation, MUST know the answers.  This cannot be just one of those things.

The guilty must hang.

American Experience tonight was the one about RFK.  They just talked about him as a person, not the deep politics of his death.  But someone on there said that when we think of RFK's death, we are actually thinking about what could have been.  This is true.  It could have been that he and JFK and MLK could have gone on to become dope fiends and disgraced, but they never got that chance.  They were deemed dangerous by someone and were snuffed out and that is wrong.  It is god damned wrong.

And in this country where everyone gets their nose in a twist when some guy jokes about killing a president, we can't allow someone to actually kill a president (and other high dignitaries in our history) and get away with it.  In the cases of RFK and JFK, there is plain evidence that there were conspiracies; therefore, so far, someone has "gotten away with it".

Reading what I've been reading of late, it is clear to me that neither Sirhan nor Oswald were anything but patsies.  Extended victims of the very crimes there were accused of committing.  And when people who don't know what they're talking about come along and say that there's no proof of so and so, it irks the shit out of me.  Those people are accessories after the fact, in my opinion.

When we get to the bottom line, I'll let YOU know.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: BT on November 28, 2006, 02:10:23 AM
Quote
No, that is NOT the bottom line.  The bottom line is who, when, how, where, and most importantly WHY?  We, as a nation, MUST know the answers.  This cannot be just one of those things.

Sorry. I don't see anything good coming from it. And until you have a case good enough to try in court all it is is some people talking. I don't think Oswald acted alone, he might have been a patsy, but i can't prove it. And so it goes.

I liked Bobby much more than Jack. Bobby had a bigger set, to use the vernacular. He,  I believe was smarter and a better strategist. I think life as we know it would have been different if he had been elected.

But he wasn't. So you deal with what is. And sometimes it rains and sometimes it doesn't.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 28, 2006, 02:21:53 AM
Quote
No, that is NOT the bottom line.  The bottom line is who, when, how, where, and most importantly WHY?  We, as a nation, MUST know the answers.  This cannot be just one of those things.

Sorry. I don't see anything good coming from it. And until you have a case good enough to try in court all it is is some people talking. I don't think Oswald acted alone, he might have been a patsy, but i can't prove it. And so it goes.

I liked Bobby much more than Jack. Bobby had a bigger set, to use the vernacular. He,  I believe was smarter and a better strategist. I think life as we know it would have been different if he had been elected.

But he wasn't. So you deal with what is. And sometimes it rains and sometimes it doesn't.


I doubt your attitude would be so cavelier/blase' if Reagan (or Bush 43) were riding in a car in Vermont and an alleged "terrorist sympathizer" "shot" him from a window but scads of people who saw someone shooting from a maple-shaded hillock were ignored.  I suspect that would not be described as a rainy period by many in this forum.

Having been only 3 when RFK was murdered by assassinS, I have no recollections of the men personally but my  idea of them agrees with your impressions.  Bobby was the fiery scrapper, JFK the contemplative statesman.

Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Plane on November 28, 2006, 02:22:45 AM
Remember that Yassir Arafat killed an American hostage that had been taken in hopes of getting Sirhan loose.


Was Sirhan on a mission from him?
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: yellow_crane on November 28, 2006, 02:43:45 AM
I am sure that Kennedy was assassinated by other than LHO.

I am equally sure that the matter will never be resolved.  

You cannot indict anybody who has great grease with the judge.

I salute your efforts to bring it to the light, which sustains the meaningfulness of truth to a truth starved nation regarding its greatest wound ever.   With each good fight,  new, until now duped, people realize just how corrupt it all is.  You understand, rightfully,  that this country, to be saved, must realize how corrupt it is.   All your opposition has to do is toss one stick in the gears and claim victory.

My own personal belief is that, while people are trying to pin it on the mafia, or members of the federal government, it is really not coming from there at all.   Several members of the federal government could be indicted, but only for cover-up.   Kennedy was a threat to big business in several ways, and the pentagon side of the military industrial complex as well as the war machines corporations were liking him less and less, but the oil mandarins went into steam mode when Kennedy toyed with the idea of divestiture of the big oil companies (which would have saved the country from the current metastasis of corporate tumor bloat that we have now, imho.)  

There were way too many situations in the assassination that required a lot of Dallas PD compliance to poof off as coincidence, and while the FBI or the CIA might exert some pressure on Texas lawmen, oil companies can make them dance like monkeys on a chain down there.   If they needed almost complete compliance, they would get it.   Believe it, or you have never lived in Texas.  

If everybody were indicted, the list would be long, and tentacles reached everywhere (thus, many theories), but it was them, I opine, who sold the contract.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: BT on November 28, 2006, 02:48:17 AM
Quote
I doubt your attitude would be so cavelier/blase' if Reagan (or Bush 43) were riding in a car in Vermont and an alleged "terrorist sympathizer" "shot" him from a window but scads of people who saw someone shooting from a maple-shaded hillock were ignored.  I suspect that would not be described as a rainy period by many in this forum.

Actually it would be.

I'm not big on AA meetings but i did pick a couple of things from back in the day.

This is one of them:

grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

I can't change Dallas.

 
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Amianthus on November 28, 2006, 07:21:59 AM
[snip]

So, when did these observers sync up their watches?

Or is it not possible that some people were just a few minutes out of sync with each other?
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 28, 2006, 10:26:08 AM
grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

I can't change Dallas.

 

Knowing a little about AA myself, there is no guidance to ignore injustice in the program.  Dallas was an injustice, in my opinion, on Humanity, not just America.  It was an affront to Democracy and the Human desire for Justice dictates and demands that restitution be made for that abominable act.

We can't bring Kennedy back to life.  I'm not suggesting that we can but Humans are wily and we can figure out who shot the President 43 years ago.  It may take us 100 years but by god we will find the truth.  Just as the Jack The Ripper case has all but been closed, we will someday put this to rest.  Until we do, we can't really trust our government or those in it.

And I daresay, we can't trust that the system is working properly.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 28, 2006, 10:31:38 AM
No, that is NOT the bottom line.  The bottom line is who, when, how, where, and most importantly WHY?  We, as a nation, MUST know the answers.  This cannot be just one of those things.

The guilty must hang.

========================================================
A noble statement, but it's not going to happen. These assassinations happened so long ago that most of the witnesses are dead. Unless some kingpin has a huge pang of remorse and fesses up, we won't ever get the truth, and the malefactors will not be punished.

It's like all the idiots that run around saying that this or that is "unacceptable".

Hey, it HAPPENED. It doesn't matter whether you want to say you accept it or not.

All you can say is that there is no bottom line.
We still arent' sure what happened to John Wilkes Booth. I think it's safe to say that he is dead now, but did he die in that barn, or did he change his identity and die much later?
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Amianthus on November 28, 2006, 10:34:33 AM
Just as the Jack The Ripper case has all but been closed, we will someday put this to rest.

Really? So, who was Jack the Ripper?
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 28, 2006, 10:41:46 AM

Really? So, who was Jack the Ripper?

===============================
The first victims were murdered by Prince Albert, but then Queen Victoria heard about it and became his accomplice.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: BT on November 28, 2006, 12:16:09 PM
Quote
Until we do, we can't really trust our government or those in it.

And I daresay, we can't trust that the system is working properly.

So what else is new?
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 28, 2006, 12:19:57 PM
Just as the Jack The Ripper case has all but been closed, we will someday put this to rest.

Really? So, who was Jack the Ripper?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/jack-the-ripper-the-end_b_34606.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/jack-the-ripper-the-end_b_34606.html)
According to this chick, apparently it was who the lead investigator thought it was the whole time:  some dude named George Chapman.  I'm sure you will take some humbrage at some sniggly part of it and say that it just couldn't have been him at all.  But you might surprise us somehow.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Amianthus on November 28, 2006, 01:18:50 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/jack-the-ripper-the-end_b_34606.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/jack-the-ripper-the-end_b_34606.html)
According to this chick, apparently it was who the lead investigator thought it was the whole time:  some dude named George Chapman.  I'm sure you will take some humbrage at some sniggly part of it and say that it just couldn't have been him at all.  But you might surprise us somehow.

No umbrage needed. It's just an opinion. There are 21 other suspects as well, including at least one woman, who was, at one time, a favored suspect of the lead investigator.

Also, Chapman was just 23 at the time of the murders, and all of the witnesses (except one) claimed that the Ripper was older than 30, possibly around 40 years old. The one who did not, estimated 28 years old. Also, the MO of the deaths that he was charged with (and convicted of one) did not fit with the Ripper - he was a poisoner, not a slasher.

There is a whole website about it. http://www.casebook.org/ (http://www.casebook.org/)
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 28, 2006, 01:29:04 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/jack-the-ripper-the-end_b_34606.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/jack-the-ripper-the-end_b_34606.html)
According to this chick, apparently it was who the lead investigator thought it was the whole time:  some dude named George Chapman.  I'm sure you will take some humbrage at some sniggly part of it and say that it just couldn't have been him at all.  But you might surprise us somehow.

No umbrage needed. It's just an opinion. There are 21 other suspects as well, including at least one woman, who was, at one time, a favored suspect of the lead investigator.

Also, Chapman was just 23 at the time of the murders, and all of the witnesses (except one) claimed that the Ripper was older than 30, possibly around 40 years old. The one who did not, estimated 28 years old. Also, the MO of the deaths that he was charged with (and convicted of one) did not fit with the Ripper - he was a poisoner, not a slasher.

There is a whole website about it. http://www.casebook.org/ (http://www.casebook.org/)

They constructed a description of the guy from eyewtinesses and feel pretty confident he was the guy.  Most everyone is going with the idea it was Chapman.  You're just being contrarian now.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Amianthus on November 28, 2006, 01:48:56 PM
They constructed a description of the guy from eyewtinesses and feel pretty confident he was the guy.  Most everyone is going with the idea it was Chapman. 

From the Casebook site:

"Was this the face of Jack the Ripper?

"There's been a flurry of press recently surrounding this portrait, said to be the 'face of Jack the Ripper'. The composite sketch was put together by an analyst at the London Metropolitan Police, to be unveiled as part of a Channel Five documentary in the UK called 'Jack the Ripper: The First Serial Killer'. The drawing is based on a number of contemporary witness descriptions as given to the police, newspapers and inquests at the time.

"How accurate is it? Its impossible to say, but in all likelihood, the sketch contains more artistic fancy than actual police science. While it is true that we do know of many witnesses who claimed to have seen Jack the Ripper, we simply don't know which - if any - did actually see the killer. Even then, the descriptions given at the time were very generalized. Modern police sketches, called facial composites, require an in-depth interview with a witness, asking detailed questions about eyes, nose, lips, cheeks, chin, hairline, etc. Most contemporary witness descriptions only went so far as to describe the suspect's height, clothing, and possibly hair and skin color, as well as a perceived 'ethnicity' (many, not surprisingly, claimed he was a 'foreigner' - which at that time and place was generally taken to mean, a Jew). There simply isn't enough information in the surviving witness testimony to make such a detailed facial sketch of 'Jack the Ripper.'

"All that being said, it is interesting to note that this facial composite bears a striking resemblance to Ripper suspect George Chapman (aka Severin Klosowski), who is currently voted as the #1 likely suspect in an ongoing Casebook.org poll."

You're just being contrarian now.

Actually, my wife has always had a fascination with the Ripper, so I keep up on it. It is far from "[m]ost everyone is going with the idea it was Chapman." As a matter of fact, if you go to the poll at the Casebook site, you'll see that while Chapman leads, the top 5 are in a statistical dead heat. And the next 5 are pulling nearly identical numbers, too. So, it's a near 10-way tie for who "[m]ost everyone is going with."
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 28, 2006, 04:46:41 PM
They constructed a description of the guy from eyewtinesses and feel pretty confident he was the guy.  Most everyone is going with the idea it was Chapman. 

From the Casebook site:

"Was this the face of Jack the Ripper?

"There's been a flurry of press recently surrounding this portrait, said to be the 'face of Jack the Ripper'. The composite sketch was put together by an analyst at the London Metropolitan Police, to be unveiled as part of a Channel Five documentary in the UK called 'Jack the Ripper: The First Serial Killer'. The drawing is based on a number of contemporary witness descriptions as given to the police, newspapers and inquests at the time.

"How accurate is it? Its impossible to say, but in all likelihood, the sketch contains more artistic fancy than actual police science. While it is true that we do know of many witnesses who claimed to have seen Jack the Ripper, we simply don't know which - if any - did actually see the killer. Even then, the descriptions given at the time were very generalized. Modern police sketches, called facial composites, require an in-depth interview with a witness, asking detailed questions about eyes, nose, lips, cheeks, chin, hairline, etc. Most contemporary witness descriptions only went so far as to describe the suspect's height, clothing, and possibly hair and skin color, as well as a perceived 'ethnicity' (many, not surprisingly, claimed he was a 'foreigner' - which at that time and place was generally taken to mean, a Jew). There simply isn't enough information in the surviving witness testimony to make such a detailed facial sketch of 'Jack the Ripper.'

"All that being said, it is interesting to note that this facial composite bears a striking resemblance to Ripper suspect George Chapman (aka Severin Klosowski), who is currently voted as the #1 likely suspect in an ongoing Casebook.org poll."

You're just being contrarian now.

Actually, my wife has always had a fascination with the Ripper, so I keep up on it. It is far from "[m]ost everyone is going with the idea it was Chapman." As a matter of fact, if you go to the poll at the Casebook site, you'll see that while Chapman leads, the top 5 are in a statistical dead heat. And the next 5 are pulling nearly identical numbers, too. So, it's a near 10-way tie for who "[m]ost everyone is going with."


That's nice.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: larry on November 28, 2006, 09:43:44 PM
grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

I can't change Dallas.

 

George H. W. Bush was a covert operative of the CIA at the time of the Bay Of Pigs Invasion. Jeb Bush, became the  Governor of Florida and George W. Bush, became President. The Florida connections to the 911 attack, clearly show many links to the Kennedy assassination. The MO for invading Cuba and the invasion of Iraq are from the same play book. The people who killed Kennedy, are still at large and living the good life in places like Miami and Huston.. Jeb Bush could have been governor of any state. Why Florida?  Connect the dots:
Hunt was typical of the opinion that the debacle had been Kennedy's fault, and not the responsibility of men like Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell, who had designed it and recommended it. After the embarrassing failure of the invasion, which never evoked the hoped-for spontaneous anti-Castro insurrection, Kennedy fired Allen Dulles, his Harrimanite deputy Bissell, and CIA deputy Director Charles Cabell (whose brother was the mayor of Dallas at the time Kennedy was shot).
During the days after the Bay of Pigs debacle, Kennedy was deeply suspicious of the intelligence community and of proposals for military escalation in general, including in places like South Vietnam. Kennedy sought to procure an outside, expert opinion on military matters. For this he turned to the former commander in chief of the Southwest Pacific Theatre during World War II, General Douglas MacArthur. Almost ten years ago, a reliable source shared with one of the authors an account of a meeting between Kennedy and MacArthur in which the veteran general warned the young president that there were elements inside the US government who emphatically did not share his patriotic motives, and who were seeking to destroy his administration from within. MacArthur's warned that the forces bent on destroying Kennedy were centered in the Wall Street financial community and its various tentacles in the intelligence community.
A body of leads has been assembled which suggests that George Bush may have been associated with the CIA at some time before the autumn of 1963. According to Joseph McBride of The Nation, "a source with close connections to the intelligence community confirms that Bush started working for the agency in 1960 or 1961, using his oil business as a cover for clandestine activities." 1 By the time of the Kennedy assassination, we have an official FBI document which refers to "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency," and despite official disclaimers there is every reason to think that this is indeed the man in the White House today. The mystery of George Bush as a possible covert operator hinges on four points, each one of which represents one of the great political and espionage scandals of postwar American history. These four cardinal points are:
1. The abortive Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, launched on April 16-17, 1961, prepared with the assistance of the CIA's "Miami Station" (also known under the code name JM/WAVE). After the failure of the amphibious landings of Brigade 2506, Miami station, under the leadership of Theodore Shackley, became the focus for Operation Mongoose, a series of covert operations directed against Castro, Cuba, and possibly other targets.
2. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas on November 22, 1963, and the coverup of those responsible for this crime.
3. The Watergate scandal, beginning with an April, 1971 visit to Miami, Florida by E. Howard Hunt on the tenth anniversary of the Bay of Pigs invasion to recruit operatives for the White House Special Investigations Unit (the "Plumbers" and later Watergate burglars) from among Cuban-American Bay of Pigs veterans.
4. The Iran-contra affair, which became a public scandal during October-November 1986, several of whose central figures, such as Felix Rodriguez, were also veterans of the Bay of Pigs.


Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: larry on November 28, 2006, 09:50:31 PM
Yes he was running an oil company and he used it as a front for CIA covert activities.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Amianthus on November 28, 2006, 10:19:47 PM
Yes he was running an oil company and he used it as a front for CIA covert activities.

No evidence of that.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: larry on November 29, 2006, 11:45:45 AM
Yes he was running an oil company and he used it as a front for CIA covert activities.

No evidence of that.

Actually, there is evidence as shown in post #58, there has never been an official investigation, so, at best all one can say is there is unproven evidence. Off course, Bush is only one of the Elite oil interest with their finger prints all over the MO of creating insurrection, to destabilize governments in South America, Africa and the Middle East. The game plan has not changed and the father like son, scenario, is clearly on display as a result of George W. calling up his father's crony to manage the insurrection of Iraq.

There is evidence of that
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Amianthus on November 29, 2006, 12:45:59 PM
so, at best all one can say is there is unproven evidence.

Otherwise known as "speculation" or "opinion."
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: sirs on November 29, 2006, 01:47:50 PM
Otherwise known as "speculation" or "opinion."

Ample "evidence" of that        ;)
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: larry on November 29, 2006, 04:54:04 PM
so, at best all one can say is there is unproven evidence.

Otherwise known as "speculation" or "opinion."

One day later after he reported Parrott to the FBI, Bush received a highly sensitive, high-level briefing from the Bureau:

Date: November 29, 1963
To: Director


Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Department of State


From: John Edgar Hoover, Director
Subject: ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY NOVEMBER 22, 1963

Our Miami, Florida, Office on November 23, 1963 advised that the Office of Coordinator of Cuban Affairs in Miami advised that the Department of State feels some misguided anti-Castro group might capitalize on the present situation and undertake an unauthorized raid against Cuba, believing that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy might herald a change in US policy, which is not true.

Our sources and informants familiar with Cuban matters in the Miami area advise that the general feeling in the anti-Castro Cuban community is one of stunned disbelief and, even among those who did not entirely agree with the President's policy concerning Cuba, the feeling is that the President's death represents a great loss not only to the US but to all Latin America. These sources know of no plans for unauthorized action against Cuba.

An informant who has furnished reliable information in the past and who is close to a small pro-Castro group in Miami has advised that those individuals are afraid that the assassination of the President may result in strong repressive measures being taken against them and, although pro-Castro in their feelings, regret the assassination.

The substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency and Captain William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency on November 23, 1963, by Mr. W.T. Forsyth of this Bureau.

William T. Forsyth, since deceased, was an official of the FBI's Washington headquarters; during the time he was attached to the Bureau's subversive control section, he ran the investigation of Rev. Martin Luther King. Was he also a part of the FBI's harassment of Dr. King? The efforts of journalists to locate Captain Edwards have not been successful.

This FBI document identifying George Bush as a CIA agent in November, 1963 was first published by Joseph McBride in The Nation in July, 1988, just before Bush received the Republican nomination for president. McBride's source observed: "I know [Bush] was involved in the Caribbean. I know he was involved in the suppression of things after the Kennedy assassination. There was a very definite worry that some Cuban groups were going to move against Castro and attempt to blame it on the CIA." 20 When pressed for confirmation or denial, Bush's spokesman Stephen Hart commented: "Must be another George Bush." Within a short time the CIA itself would peddle the same damage control line. On July 19, 1988 in the wake of wide public attention to the report published in The Nation, CIA spokeswoman Sharron Basso departed from the normal CIA policy of refusing to confirm or deny reports that any person is or was a CIA employee. CIA spokeswoman Basso told the Associated press that the CIA believed that "the record should be clarified." She said that the FBI document "apparently" referred to a George William Bush who had worked in 1963 on the night shift at CIA headquarters, and that "would have been the appropriate place to have received such an FBI report." According to her account, the George William Bush in question had left the CIA to join the Defense Intelligence Agency in 1964.

For the CIA to volunteer the name of one of its former employees to the press was a shocking violation of traditional methods, which are supposedly designed to keep such names a closely guarded secret. This revelation may have constituted a violation of federal law. But no exertions were too great when it came to damage control for George Bush.

George William Bush had indeed worked for the CIA, the DIA, and the Alexandria, Virginia Department of Public Welfare before joining the Social Security Administration, in whose Arlington, Virginia office he was employed as a claims representative in 1988. George William Bush told The Nation that while at the CIA he was "just a lowly researcher and analyst" who worked with documents and photos and never received interagency briefings. He had never met Forsyth of the FBI or Captain Edwards of the DIA. "So it wasn't me," said George William Bush. 21

Later, George William Bush formalized his denial in a sworn statement to a federal court in Washington, DC. The affidavit acknowledges that while working at CIA headquarters between September 1963 and February 1964, George William Bush was the junior person on a three to four man watch shift which was on duty when Kennedy was shot. But, as George William Bush goes on to say,

I have carefully reviewed the FBI memorandum to the Director, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Department of State dated November 29, 1963 which mentions a Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency....I do not recognize the contents of the memorandum as information furnished to me orally or otherwise during the time I was at the CIA. In fact, during my time at the CIA. I did not receive any oral communications from any government agency of any nature whatsoever. I did not receive any information relating to the Kennedy assassination during my time at the CIA from the FBI.

Based on the above, it is my conclusion that I am not the Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency referred to in the memorandum. 22

So we are left with the strong suspicion that the "Mr. George Bush of the CIA" referred to by the FBI is our own George Herbert Walker Bush, who, in addition to his possible contact with Lee Harvey Oswald's controller, may thus also join the ranks of the Kennedy assassination cover-up. It makes perfect sense for George Bush to be called in on a matter involving the Cuban community in Miami, since that is a place where George has traditionally had a constituency. George inherited it from his father, Prescott Bush of Jupiter Island, and later passed it on to his own son, Jeb.

bit more than speculation.

Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 29, 2006, 05:11:42 PM
I concur, larry.

I think I also read somewhere that that OTHER G W Bush was referred constantly as William and not George.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Amianthus on November 29, 2006, 05:30:22 PM
I concur, larry.

I think I also read somewhere that that OTHER G W Bush was referred constantly as William and not George.


Except that his name is George Herbert Walker Bush.

No William in there.

And again, that article consists of nothing but speculation that George William Bush is really George Herbert Walker Bush. Considering that "George Bush" is a common name (around 90,000 Bush families), I don't think it's a likely scenario.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 29, 2006, 06:16:40 PM
I concur, larry.

I think I also read somewhere that that OTHER G W Bush was referred constantly as William and not George.


Except that his name is George Herbert Walker Bush.

No William in there.

And again, that article consists of nothing but speculation that George William Bush is really George Herbert Walker Bush. Considering that "George Bush" is a common name (around 90,000 Bush families), I don't think it's a likely scenario.

Well, there you go again.

I was talking about the George William Bush not George HW Bush.  How do you not get that?

And I think I can dig up the article that shows how there was only that one G. William Bush list on any employee list from that time period.  George Herbert Walker Bush was covert and so would not appear on any list from that time, of course.

Here's a little something from Wikipedia.org backing up Larry.


When this second memo surfaced during the 1988 presidential campaign, GHW Bush spokespersons (including Stephen Hart) said Hoover's memo referred to another George Bush who worked for the CIA.[3] CIA spokeswoman Sharron Basso suggested it was referring to a George William Bush. However, others described this G. William Bush as a "lowly researcher" and "coast and beach analyst" who worked only with documents and photos at the CIA in Virginia from September 1963 to February 1964, with a low rank of GS-5.[4][5][6] In fact, this G. William Bush swore an affadavit in federal court denying that Hoover's memo referred to him:

"I have carefully reviewed the FBI memorandum to the Director, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Department of State dated November 29, 1963 which mentions a Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency.... I do not recognize the contents of the memorandum as information furnished to me orally or otherwise during the time I was at the CIA. In fact, during my time at the CIA, I did not receive any oral communications from any government agency of any nature whatsoever. I did not receive any information relating to the Kennedy assassination during my time at the CIA from the FBI. Based on the above, it is my conclusion that I am not the Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency referred to in the memorandum." (United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action 88-2600 GHR, Archives and Research Center v. Central Intelligence Agency, Affidavit of George William Bush, September 21, 1988.)

In his book The Immaculate Deception: The Bush Crime Family Exposed (1991), US Army Brigadier General Russell Bowen wrote there was a cover-up of Zapata's CIA connections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapata_Corporation
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Amianthus on November 29, 2006, 07:24:31 PM
[snip]

Still nothing more than speculation.

Unless you can provide records that George William Bush was the only "George Bush" that ever worked for the CIA?

As I said, 90,000 families are named Bush and George is one of the most popular given names in this country.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 30, 2006, 11:53:19 AM

Unless you can provide records that George William Bush was the only "George Bush" that ever worked for the CIA?

As I said, 90,000 families are named Bush and George is one of the most popular given names in this country.

What the hell does the popularity of the names Bush and George countrywide have to do with anything?

The important fact would be how many people worked at the CIA on November 29, 1963 (wasn't that the date of the memo?) were named George AND Bush and of those people who would swear that he never took a meeting with JE Hoover?

That's the imperative, not the commonality of the names Bush and George in America.  And the relevance of G. William Bush being referred to in person as William rather than George is pertinent as well.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: sirs on November 30, 2006, 12:01:40 PM
This older posting deserves to be re-posted in this thread, I do believe.

Holy Sepulcre!
"The Da Vinci Code" shows that conspiracy theories have no limits.


BY DANIEL HENNINGER
Friday, May 19, 2006
 

"The Da Vinci Code" would not be the subject of this column had it not sold 60.5 million copies, according to its publisher Doubleday. Of course this does not make it the best-selling book of all time. That title, as irony would have it, goes to the Bible, half of which one of Dan Brown's characters dismisses as "false."

Like the Bible but unlike Mr. Brown's novel, most of the books in the sales Pantheon have had utilitarian staying power--McGuffey's Reader, the Guinness Book of Records, Noah Webster's "The American Spelling Book," Dr. Spock's baby book and the World Almanac. Now comes "The Da Vinci Code," selling twice as many copies as the 30 million attributed to Jacqueline Susann's "The Valley of the Dolls."

"The Valley of the Dolls" was about people having sex. "The Da Vinci Code" is about Jesus leaving Mary Magdalene pregnant with his baby while he dies on the cross. So in a sense, Mr. Brown's novel respects tradition.

Still, it boggles the mind, and the struggling soul, that "The Da Vinci Code" has sold 60.5 million copies in 45 languages. Sales in the U.S. are 21.7 million, in the U.K. nine million, more than 4.7 million each in France and Japan, 3.6 million in Germany, 1.2 million in China and, no surprise, 143,000 in Romania.

A righteous army has formed to prove everything Dan Brown says about the early Christian church is false, which it most certainly is. Mr. Brown's history pales against the real story of Christianity's first centuries. I recommend two gems: Henry Chadwick's "The Early Church" (Penguin) and Peter Brown's "The Rise of Western Christendom" (Blackwell). Grand, thrilling drama.

But markets don't lie. Clearly Mr. Brown knows something that is true. What is it?

To answer the mystery of Dan Brown's unholy tale, I visited the church-like quiet of Barnes & Noble on Manhattan's Sixth Avenue and asked an attendant where the book was. He arched his brow--as Mr. Brown's characters tend to do every few paragraphs--and whispered, "The Da Vinci table is over there."

The table held many treasures. I discovered the polymathic physician Sherwin B. Nuland's "Leonardo da Vinci," a delightful Penguin biography that has nothing to do with Mr. Brown's book. Checking that no one who knew me was nearby, I opened "The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus" because its cover promised an "Interpretation" by the eminent English professor Harold Bloom, a sometime contributor to this page, who remarks that the book's first Saying "is not by Jesus but by his twin."

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, preparing for today's opening of Tom Hanks and Ron Howard's apparently awful movie, has created a "Da Vinci Code" Web site addressing such issues as "The Witch Killing Frenzies." A spokesman for the bishops, in a nice touch of self-confident understatement, said the bishops would be concerned "if only one person" came away from "The Da Vinci Code" confused about the church. OK, maybe three or four did.

During my own long, hard slog through "The Da Vinci Code" lectures on the sacred feminine and the pagan roots of iambic pentameter, I most appreciated how Dan Brown, his own authorial eyebrow raised, slyly slips in a wink-wink sentence lest people think he really is nuts.

Chapter 40: "Everyone loves a conspiracy." (Italics, needless to say, Mr. Brown's.)

Chapter 48: "It was all interconnected."

Chapter 55, after Prof. Teabing's arcane summary of eighty gospels (Mr. Brown's italic): "Sophie's head was spinning. 'And all of this relates to the Holy Grail?'" My thoughts exactly, Sophie.

But the final clue to the hoax arrives in Chapter 60: "Langdon held up his Mickey Mouse watch and told her that Walt Disney had made it his quiet life's work to pass on the Grail story to future generations." I'll bet that line isn't in the movie.

Here's my theory of "The Da Vinci Code." Dan Brown was sitting one night at the monthly meeting of his local secret society, listening to a lecture on the 65th gospel, and he got to thinking: "I wonder if there's any limit to what people are willing to believe these days about a conspiracy theory. Let's say I wrote a book that said Jesus was married. To Mary Magdalene. Who was pregnant at the Crucifixion. And she is the Holy Grail. Jesus wanted her to run the church as a global sex society called Heiros Gamos, but Peter elbowed her out of the job. Her daughter was the beginning of the Merovingian dynasty of France. Jesus' family is still alive. There were 80 gospels, not four. Leonardo DiCaprio, I mean da Vinci, knew all this. The 'Mona Lisa' is Leonardo's painting of himself in drag. Da Vinci's secret was kept alive by future members of 'the brotherhood,' including Isaac Newton, Claude Debussy and Victor Hugo. The Catholic Church is covering all this up."

Then Dan Brown said softly, "Would anyone buy into a plot so preposterous and fantastic?" Then he started writing.

The real accomplishment of "The Da Vinci Code" is that Dan Brown has proven that the theory of conspiracy theories is totally elastic, it has no limits. The genre's future is limitless, with the following obvious plots:

- Bill Clinton is directly descended from Henry VIII; Hillary is his third cousin.
- Jack Ruby was Ronald Reagan's half-brother.
- Dick Cheney has been dead for five years; the vice president is a clone created by Halliburton in 1998.
- The Laffer Curve is the secret sign of the Carlyle Group.
- Michael Moore is the founder of the Carlyle Group, which started World War I.
- The New York Times is secretly run by the Rosicrucians (this is revealed on the first page of Chapter 47 of "The Da Vinci Code" if you look at the 23rd line through a kaleidoscope).
- Jacques Chirac is descended from Judas.

None of this strikes me as the least bit implausible, especially the latter. I'd better get started.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110008395

Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Amianthus on November 30, 2006, 12:05:41 PM
The important fact would be how many people worked at the CIA on November 29, 1963 (wasn't that the date of the memo?) were named George AND Bush and of those people who would swear that he never took a meeting with JE Hoover?

And that's a fact that was never provided.

The argument that George HW Bush was in the employ of the CIA in 1962 goes like this:


Do you not see the leap from step 2 to step 3 of the "logic" chain? The fact that there can be a large number of "George Bushs" running around point out that it's not logic that connects step 2 and step 3, but pure speculation.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Amianthus on November 30, 2006, 12:08:25 PM
The genre's future is limitless, with the following obvious plots:

Buy a copy of the game "Illuminati" from Steve Jackson Games, and you can use the cards within to randomly "deal up" your own custom conspiracy. Many of them are just as believable as stuff I've heard here and around the 'net.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 30, 2006, 12:16:39 PM
[snip]

Why are you so opposed to the idea of a married Jesus and Mary Magdalen?

That article is rubbish, btw. 
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: sirs on November 30, 2006, 12:44:40 PM
Why are you so opposed to the idea of a married Jesus and Mary Magdalen?

Since the Bible made it clear they weren't

That article is rubbish, btw.   

Well, that's one opinion.  Can't be having of those commentaries critical of conspiracies being taken seriously now, can we.  There must be a financial incentive to the author of the piece.  Perhaps he works for Haliburton or is relative of the Bush family....twice removed of course.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 30, 2006, 01:11:39 PM
Why are you so opposed to the idea of a married Jesus and Mary Magdalen?

Since the Bible made it clear they weren't

That article is rubbish, btw.   

Well, that's one opinion.  Can't be having of those commentaries critical of conspiracies being taken seriously now, can we.  There must be a financial incentive to the author of the piece.  Perhaps he works for Haliburton or is relative of the Bush family....twice removed of course.


Where exactly does it say that Jesus and Mary Magdalen weren't married?

The article was just rubbish. 
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: sirs on November 30, 2006, 01:21:25 PM
Where exactly does it say that Jesus and Mary Magdalen weren't married?

Prove a negative?  How about showing us where exactly does it say they were?


The article was just rubbish

Yes, your opinion has already been duely noted on the article.  Repetition of the claim doesn't make it any more valid, however.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: sirs on November 30, 2006, 01:34:34 PM
Buy a copy of the game "Illuminati" from Steve Jackson Games, and you can use the cards within to randomly "deal up" your own custom conspiracy. Many of them are just as believable as stuff I've heard here and around the 'net.

 8)   Likely much more enlightening than the book Tee was recommending
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 30, 2006, 02:14:02 PM

Prove a negative?  How about showing us where exactly does it say they were?


That's not technically "proving a negative".  You could prove your point that they never were married by pointing a verse in the bible where it states that Jesus never married or specifically states that Jesus and MM were never married.  It could even be spun around to a positive, thusly:  Jesus was a confirmed bachelor all his life.

You are slipping, sirs.

The bible is not the be all, end all authority on Jesus.  While he is not historically catalogued, there is some information available to historians on how people of his time behaved.  One of them was that rabbis married.  Another is that men of Jesus' age rarely, if ever, remained bachelors.

Another source is the Gospel of Phillip.  This is merely the first site I found on a Google for "Mary Magdaline kiss Jesus".

The Gospel of Philip has caused quite a stir for several reasons. It says Jesus' companion (also translated as "consort") was Mary Magdalen, and that he "loved Mary more than the rest of us because he used to kiss her on the ____ [hole in the text]." Philip also speaks of a "stainless physical union" which has great power. Early scholars translated the 'union' phrase as "undefiled intercourse," which would mean that the text advises, "Understand/seek the undefiled intercourse, for it has great power." However, in recent years orthodox scholars have tended to translate the phrase as "pure embrace" or "marriage." Attridge claims that it is a reference to an early Christian practice of offering one's fellow worshipers a kiss, known in some circles as "passing the peace."

http://www.reuniting.info/wisdom/jesus_mary_magdalen_sex_gospel_of_philip

Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Amianthus on November 30, 2006, 02:33:43 PM
While he is not historically catalogued, there is some information available to historians on how people of his time behaved.  One of them was that rabbis married.  Another is that men of Jesus' age rarely, if ever, remained bachelors.

"This argument overlooks the fact that there were already exceptions to this sort of rule in early Judaism. The descriptions of the celibate Essenes in Josephus (Antiquities 18.1.5.20-21; Jewish War 2.8.2) and Philo (Hypothetica 11.14-17), and the paucity of female skeletons in the cemetery at Qumran, which many scholars identify as an Essene settlement, may all attest to the fact that some early Jews felt a calling to celibacy. There is no reason why Jesus could not have been one of them. In fact, it would appear that his cousin John the Baptist set such a precedent for his kin group, and there were earlier prophetic figures (Samuel, perhaps, and Hosea, until God commanded him to marry Gomer) who may also have remained single. Many scholars, probably rightly, see Matthew 19:10-12, which states that some have chosen to be eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom and presents this as a viable alternative to marriage, as Jesus’ own justification for remaining single. The Kingdom was coming and it was appropriate for him and his disciples to remain single and focus on their call to ministry."
http://www.landmark-lakewood.org/davinci_code.htm (http://www.landmark-lakewood.org/davinci_code.htm)
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: sirs on November 30, 2006, 02:58:11 PM

Prove a negative?  How about showing us where exactly does it say they were?


That's not technically "proving a negative".  You could prove your point that they never were married by pointing a verse in the bible where it states that Jesus never married or specifically states that Jesus and MM were never married.  It could even be spun around to a positive, thusly:  Jesus was a confirmed bachelor all his life.....

Apparently you missed my question.  Where in the Bible does it claim Jesus was married to Mary.  Ball in your court, as that is largely the end all to Christian doctrine.  Your speculation as to what he should have done, given his age doesn't quite cut it, I'm afraid
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 30, 2006, 04:54:01 PM
While he is not historically catalogued, there is some information available to historians on how people of his time behaved.  One of them was that rabbis married.  Another is that men of Jesus' age rarely, if ever, remained bachelors.

"This argument overlooks the fact that there were already exceptions to this sort of rule in early Judaism. The descriptions of the celibate Essenes in Josephus (Antiquities 18.1.5.20-21; Jewish War 2.8.2) and Philo (Hypothetica 11.14-17), and the paucity of female skeletons in the cemetery at Qumran, which many scholars identify as an Essene settlement, may all attest to the fact that some early Jews felt a calling to celibacy. There is no reason why Jesus could not have been one of them. In fact, it would appear that his cousin John the Baptist set such a precedent for his kin group, and there were earlier prophetic figures (Samuel, perhaps, and Hosea, until God commanded him to marry Gomer) who may also have remained single. Many scholars, probably rightly, see Matthew 19:10-12, which states that some have chosen to be eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom and presents this as a viable alternative to marriage, as Jesus’ own justification for remaining single. The Kingdom was coming and it was appropriate for him and his disciples to remain single and focus on their call to ministry."
http://www.landmark-lakewood.org/davinci_code.htm (http://www.landmark-lakewood.org/davinci_code.htm)

Point taken but certainly proves nothing if my sighted text proves nothing.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 30, 2006, 05:06:52 PM

Apparently you missed my question.  Where in the Bible does it claim Jesus was married to Mary.  Ball in your court, as that is largely the end all to Christian doctrine.  Your speculation as to what he should have done, given his age doesn't quite cut it, I'm afraid


I certainly agree that the bible is the end all to christian doctrine, but it is the end all to nothing else.  In fact, it is really about as "real" as The Divinci Code which I might add is far more a page-turner.

The point is that while it may be true that the bible does not emphatically say that Jesus and MM were married, it in no way spells out that they definitely WEREN'T married.  So, then it becomes like one of my son's "make your own story" books.  You prefer to think of Jesus as some kind of magical being who felt that marriage and intercourse were something of a distraction from his duties as a demi-god (which is crazy by any standard) and I prefer to think of him as a normal, nice guy a la Jimmy Carter who was married, study eastern philosophy, tried to blend it with his own Jewish faith and ran afoul of the Romans and the Jewish powers of the times and paid a heavy price. 

The idea that some believe a man could walk on water, heal the sick by laying on of hands, pulls loaves and fishes out of basket, rose from the dead and ascended to heaven 2000 years ago but don't believe in global warming or stem cell research in our age of enlightenment is kind of proof of my prescient and increasingly accepted stance that "faith" in a diety is a form of delusion.

If someone was going around stating he had done the things that Jesus is said to have done in the bible, people would call him crazy or a showman.  If he actually did that stuff in front of them, they would instantly be looking for the "trick".  Where are the wires?  What's behind that curtain?  And so forth.

Don't you agree?
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: _JS on November 30, 2006, 05:18:53 PM
Quote
I certainly agree that the bible is the end all to christian doctrine

That is absolutely not true. The largest organized religious body in the world (of any religion) is the Catholic Church and we believe in the Sacred Scripture as well as the Sacred Tradition. Even Protestant traditions use the Sacred Tradition, though they may not be quick to admit it (the Holy Trinity for example is never found explicitly in scripture, there is no concept of the Bible in the scriptures). So the Bible is not the "end all" of Christian doctrine. Far from it, in fact for most Christians.

As for the gnostic Gospels, which you mention, they haven't really caused as much of a stir as you might think. They also aren't as recently discovered as Dan Brown and others claim. The Church Fathers knew of them well, but discounted them when organising the 73 books of the Bible (changed to 66 for Protestants). Gnosticism is relatively easy to recognise and clearly did not belong - though makes for interesting reading if you like to know more about gnostic beliefs.



Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Amianthus on November 30, 2006, 05:38:18 PM
Point taken but certainly proves nothing if my sighted text proves nothing.

Proves that Jesus didn't have to be married.

I actually agree with you, it would make sense that Jesus was married. But it is not documented that he was, and it would not be that unusual for him to not be.

It's one of those things that no one will ever know.

Apparently Jesus' publicist was better at keeping his private life out of the press than those of modern celebrities.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 30, 2006, 05:45:46 PM
Proves that Jesus didn't have to be married.

I actually agree with you, it would make sense that Jesus was married. But it is not documented that he was, and it would not be that unusual for him to not be.

It's one of those things that no one will ever know.

Apparently Jesus' publicist was better at keeping his private life out of the press than those of modern celebrities.

Holy crap!  More consensus.

Would you also agree that simply because it doesn't say in the bible that Jesus WASN'T married, doesn't prove that he necessarily WASN'T MARRIED?
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 30, 2006, 05:59:50 PM
The various books of the New Testament were written decades after the death of Jesus, and significantly, after the Jews found another temporal Messiah, who organized them into a military force and threw the Romans the Hell outta Jerusalem.

The Romans, of course, would not and did not stand for this, and came back like gangbusters (or gangsters) and wiped out all jewish resistence, ending at Mossada, killed the men, raped the women and enslaved the children, burned Jerusalem to the ground and destroyed all of the Temple except for the famous Western Wall. It was probably at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem that the Ark of the Covenant disappeared, perhaps destroyed by the Romans, perhaps squirred away to be guarded for centuries by the secretive,  illiterate and possibly deranged Ethiopian priests we have seen on a couple of PBS specials.

All this happened between the crucifixion of Jesus and the writing of the NT, but very curiously there is not a peep about these utterly monumental events in any part of the Bible.

Jesus' birth date is not mentioned in the Bible, either. But Mithra, a competing deity who was worshipped by many Roman soldiers,  and was considered to be the Son of the Sun, also born of a virgin, was allegedly born on Dec. 25th.

I think that Mani, the leader of the Manichaeists, also was reported to have survived a crucifixion. Assuming that the story of Jesus in the NT is entirely accurate is like assuming that I could write an entirely accurate history of Pretty Boy Floyd.

 
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Amianthus on November 30, 2006, 06:08:28 PM
Would you also agree that simply because it doesn't say in the bible that Jesus WASN'T married, doesn't prove that he necessarily WASN'T MARRIED?

I think you intended to say "doesn't say in the bible that Jesus WAS married".

In the real world, more than likely (since it's what I have already said.) However, regardless of my personal opinion, there is no evidence that he was or was not married. It's wholly unknown.

The closest you can come to documentary evidence is a line in Isaiah, where the Savior is said to "see his own seed" which can generally be taken to mean that he saw his children before he died.

Of course, it could also mean that he masturbated.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 30, 2006, 06:12:18 PM
Would you also agree that simply because it doesn't say in the bible that Jesus WASN'T married, doesn't prove that he necessarily WASN'T MARRIED?

I think you intended to say "doesn't say in the bible that Jesus WAS married".

In the real world, more than likely (since it's what I have already said.) However, regardless of my personal opinion, there is no evidence that he was or was not married. It's wholly unknown.

The closest you can come to documentary evidence is a line in Isaiah, where the Savior is said to "see his own seed" which can generally be taken to mean that he saw his children before he died.

Of course, it could also mean that he masturbated.

WHAT?!?!  What is that verse?

And yes, I did mean to type what you said.

Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Amianthus on November 30, 2006, 06:18:23 PM
WHAT?!?!  What is that verse?

Isaiah 53:6-10

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand."
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 30, 2006, 06:27:23 PM
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand."

==================================================================
This sounds, well, deeply weird.

Very, very deeply weird.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on November 30, 2006, 06:45:52 PM
WHAT?!?!  What is that verse?

Isaiah 53:6-10

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand."

And that's referring to Jesus?

Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 30, 2006, 06:56:52 PM

And that's referring to Jesus?

-------------------------------------------
Yes. This is the chapter in Isaiah where the Messiah is predicted.
If Jesus was the Messiah, then this does refer to him.

The thought occurs to me that there is more proof for the guilt of OJ than there is for the divinity, and even the existence of Jesus.


Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Plane on December 01, 2006, 03:38:42 AM
How does Robert Kennedy segue into Jesus?


Jesus spoke on the subject of family concers several times , I am thinking particularly of the occasion of the crusifixion when he asked one of the deciples to look after his mother .

Seems like a wife might have been mentioned on an occasion like that.


Proof? I have no proof but I have a feel for the whole story as a gestalt and I opine that a wife would make it diffrent than it is.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: _JS on December 01, 2006, 10:13:47 AM
Quote
All this happened between the crucifixion of Jesus and the writing of the NT, but very curiously there is not a peep about these utterly monumental events in any part of the Bible.

There isn't? Are you certain?

The Book of Revelations might discuss that very topic in depth.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on December 01, 2006, 01:37:40 PM
How does Robert Kennedy segue into Jesus?


Jesus spoke on the subject of family concers several times , I am thinking particularly of the occasion of the crusifixion when he asked one of the deciples to look after his mother .

Seems like a wife might have been mentioned on an occasion like that.


Proof? I have no proof but I have a feel for the whole story as a gestalt and I opine that a wife would make it diffrent than it is.

If you go with the idea that MM was the Holy Grail then that would mean that Jesus took care of talking about her at the Last Supper.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: _JS on December 01, 2006, 04:19:36 PM
Out of curiosity Brass, why is it important to you whether Jesus was married or celibate?

Mary Magdalene was a great woman because she represents a truly penitent individual. That is the primary reason for her veneration as a Saint. I really don't understand this modern fascination with trying to force Mary M and Jesus together. In fact, the idea that Mary Magdalene was a harlot arose mostly from folk tales and the theory that she was the adulteress saved by Christ (though that link is not made clear in the scripture).

To Christians she is a symbol of true penitence for whatever sins she committed.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 01, 2006, 05:13:34 PM
There isn't? Are you certain?

The Book of Revelations might discuss that very topic in depth.

=====================================================
Supposedly Revelations deals with the End of Time as well as the Return of Jesus. It predicts the destruction of Israel, but not by the Romans.

It might discuss this, but from the point of view of a raving lunatic.

Then again, it might just be only the ravings of a loon about a fictional destruction of Jerusalem that never happened, written before the Romans actually did tear it down.

Jerusalem was destroyed, but was rebuilt later by the Romans as Aelia Capitalina and then rebuilt once more and renamed renamed Al Quds by the Arabs. The name Al Quds seems to be derived from the Roman name.

The Book of Revelation is not anything I am willing to take seriously.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: _JS on December 01, 2006, 05:22:18 PM
It depends on whom you ask.

Some scholars consider it a discussion of the politics and history of the eastern Mediteranean region during the very time period you are claiming is never mentioned in the Bible. The book would be written in veiled language due to the possibility of retribution. In fact, apocylyptical (sp?) literature was often written concerning current or recent events for that very reason.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on December 01, 2006, 05:46:39 PM
Out of curiosity Brass, why is it important to you whether Jesus was married or celibate?

Mary Magdalene was a great woman because she represents a truly penitent individual. That is the primary reason for her veneration as a Saint. I really don't understand this modern fascination with trying to force Mary M and Jesus together. In fact, the idea that Mary Magdalene was a harlot arose mostly from folk tales and the theory that she was the adulteress saved by Christ (though that link is not made clear in the scripture).

To Christians she is a symbol of true penitence for whatever sins she committed.

Jesus' alleged celibacy and bachelorhood is part of his myth.  A married Jesus is a Human Jesus.  It doesn't mean that he wasn't the son of a god but it does Humanize him just a little more.  

Also, I don't like the idea of an ultra-powerful, small group of people having as much power as the catholic church has especially when their power is the result of convincing billions of people throughout history that the leaders of that church have a direct pipeline to a mythical being who communicates his will through them.

Here's one reason point about her being a fallen woman or an adulteress.

Quote
WILLIAMS: Nothing in the New Testament says she was a prostitute. Luke writes that Jesus casts seven demons from her, after which she joins his disciples and provides for them. She witnesses the crucifixion from the foot of the cross, the male disciples having fled. And she was the first witness to the resurrection and was sent by Jesus to tell his other disciples of his return.

How did Mary Magdalene, the pivotal player in Christianity's defining moment, come to be so maligned? At the end of the 6th century, Pope Gregory the Great gave a sermon in which he characterized Mary Magdalene as a harlot.

Dr. KING: He tells us exactly how he did it -- by aligning her with the "sinful woman" in Luke, with Mary of Bethany in John, and with the Mary in -- from whom seven devils were ejected to produce this Mary, the prostitute.

WILLIAMS: Mary Magdalene became the patron saint of fallen women. Historians don't agree on why Pope Gregory did it. To simplify things? To create a figure that would show the redemptive and transforming nature of Christian faith? Or, as King believes, to stifle the legend of a strong female leader?

Dr. KING: If one wanted to discredit Mary Magdalene, simply saying that she was a woman and her witness was unreliable was not sufficient. Saying that she hadn't been an important disciple, or hadn't been with Jesus -- that was not possible, because that was in the tradition. But to see her as a prostitute -- this was a way of maligning her in a way that would stick, if you will.

WILLIAMS: Mary Magdalene's reputation as a bad girl who became the hope of all bad girls did indeed stick. It persists today even though in 1969 the Vatican, without commenting on Pope Gregory's reasoning, officially separated Luke's sinful woman, Mary of Bethany, and Mary Magdala.


http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week712/feature.html (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week712/feature.html)

Furthermore, a Human Jesus can apply to all Humans.  I like the idea of a Human Jesus, a man who is kind to all people, who rights wrong, who heals the sick.  That's something everyone should aspire to.  A metaphysical Jesus is not tied to reality.  At least, no more than say Superman who more and more is being related to Jesus and rightly so.

It is my opinion that a Jesus who is Human, married and having a family, is a Jesus who could join other great luminaries throughout History as examples of the best of Humanity.  I can envision (this may be profane to some) a pantheon on Humanist Saints that children are taught to emulate and whose words they repeat with the same fervency of a fundamentalist whackjob.  Not forced to emulate but given indepth instruction on and shown the inate goodness of their words.  Imagine a history class or course that focuses on the historical words of great Humans throughout History.  And they would come from all walks of life.  A Human Jesus could be studied right beside Ghandi, MLK, JFK, Washington, Jefferson, Mr. (Fred) Rogers, Carter.  It's true that Jesus' words could be used in such a way but inevitably someone would want to talk about his being the son of a god.  And that's no good.

My point is that if we could eventually take Jesus from being magical to be Human, he could have a more positive effect on Humanity that he has under the use of a church who made him more magical because when his legend was being formed, people weren't smart enough to know that his magical powers just weren't so.

Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 01, 2006, 06:22:33 PM
Some scholars consider it a discussion of the politics and history of the eastern Mediteranean region during the very time period you are claiming is never mentioned in the Bible. The book would be written in veiled language due to the possibility of retribution. In fact, apocylyptical (sp?) literature was often written concerning current or recent events for that very reason.

=-==================================================================
First off, if you read some Biblical "scholars", you soon realize that you are dealing with largely irrational beings and occasionally serious nutcases.

 Biblical "scholarship" is quite different from true scholarship. In the latter, one surveys the evidence and drwas a conclusion. Biblical "scholarship" dopes it all bass-ackwards: it begins with the conclusion and tries to assemble the proof from a potpourri of evidence: what does not fit is pitched out and possibly declared satanic. What can be made to fit is pounded into theories (like the one about how the Romans had some sort of KGB that arrested those who said naughty things about Rome). Biblical scholarship is less scientific by several orders than modern conspiracy theories, and is not to be taken seriously. Certainly not by me.


Retribution against whom? Scholars do not even agree who wrote the Book of Revelation. Presumably, Babylon (which had fallen long, long LONG) before the period in which it was prophesied to fall, was Rome itself. One observes that Jerusalem was in deed obliterated, and Rome has been looted from time to time, but never obliterated. So as prophesy, so far the Book of Revelation is a steaming load of crap.

Books were not published as they are today. They were copied out in longhand. They were not sold, either, but simply passed around as a letter might be passed around. In most cases, scrolls and books were mislabeled with the names of ancients who did not actually write them, so the Roman authorities would be quite unlikely to be able to nab the actual author of the Book of Revelations.

To say that Jesus cast seven demons out of Mary Magdalene indicates that (a) demons really do exist and are the cause of aberrent behavior (2) can actually be counted. That is, if we assume the Bible to be the Word of God, then we must accept that demons are at least a cause of wickedness as well as insanity (as in the schtick regarding the Gaderine swine).

To which I can only say, 'Oh, please' and 'Gimme a break'.


I have always found it interesting that the Jews insist on one single God, who is all powerful, but who strangely needs help from angels. Why?

And then one Satan is just not enough. There must also be a Beelzebub, an Azuriel and a legion of demons.

Even the Moslems believe in a plurality of jinns and evil spirits.

Weird!
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Plane on December 01, 2006, 07:38:25 PM
"My point is that if we could eventually take Jesus from being magical to be Human,..."

Why are you bothering Jesus?

Make yourself your ideal , Jesus is what he is.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on December 01, 2006, 08:36:02 PM
"My point is that if we could eventually take Jesus from being magical to be Human,..."

Why are you bothering Jesus?

Make yourself your ideal , Jesus is what he is.

Jesus is what we say he is.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Plane on December 01, 2006, 08:40:35 PM
"My point is that if we could eventually take Jesus from being magical to be Human,..."

Why are you bothering Jesus?

Make yourself your ideal , Jesus is what he is.

Jesus is what we say he is.

No more than you are what I call you.

Genius.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: sirs on December 02, 2006, 02:20:26 AM
Apparently you missed my question.  Where in the Bible does it claim Jesus was married to Mary.  Ball in your court, as that is largely the end all to Christian doctrine.  Your speculation as to what he should have done, given his age doesn't quite cut it, I'm afraid

...The point is that while it may be true that the bible does not emphatically say that Jesus and MM were married, it in no way spells out that they definitely WEREN'T married. .... 

So then what's your beef?  I'm not trying to convince you that they weren't.  Yet you're tripping all over yourself in trying to convince me, and everyone else otherwise.  If you want to believe that they were, minus any proof of such, by all means.  It wouldn't be the 1st time you've jumped into it, without any boots. 
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: _JS on December 06, 2006, 02:09:56 PM
Quote
Jesus' alleged celibacy and bachelorhood is part of his myth.  A married Jesus is a Human Jesus.  It doesn't mean that he wasn't the son of a god but it does Humanize him just a little more. 

Also, I don't like the idea of an ultra-powerful, small group of people having as much power as the catholic church has especially when their power is the result of convincing billions of people throughout history that the leaders of that church have a direct pipeline to a mythical being who communicates his will through them.

First of all, I find it peculiar that Jesus has to be married to be human. Isaac Newton and Immanuel Kant, the latter probably the most gifted thinker of modern times, were not married. In fact, both - it has been alleged, were possibly celibate (though such things are not so easily proven). Does that make them less human? Does that make their work less meaningful?

Secondly, I find it a strange argument from someone who professes to fight against the discrimination that homosexuals receive. Basically you are saying that someone who is married, be they gay or straight, is "more human" than someone who is celibate. Despite the fact that a great number of priests, monks, and nuns have chosen to take a vow of celibacy (and not only in the Catholic faith, but in other faiths as well) they are somehow less human? That argument is really no different than arguments to vote "yes" on amendment one this past November in Tennessee.

On to your second point, the Catholic Church has never taught that it has a "direct pipeline" to God. That is absolutely untrue. They are also not a "small group of people." In fact, they have been one of the largest, if not the largest organized religious group throughout the last two millennia. It would be rather difficult to keep such contemptible secrets in such a massive organisation for so long, wouldn't you think? The Church is based on Apostolic Succession, which we can discuss for sure, but that is not in any way a "direct pipeline" to God.



 
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: _JS on December 06, 2006, 02:17:05 PM
Quote
First off, if you read some Biblical "scholars", you soon realize that you are dealing with largely irrational beings and occasionally serious nutcases.

I'm talking about historical scholars as well XO. Apocalyptical literature was not new with Revelations, nor was it a genre completely confined to Christians. 

Quote
To say that Jesus cast seven demons out of Mary Magdalene indicates that (a) demons really do exist and are the cause of aberrent behavior (2) can actually be counted. That is, if we assume the Bible to be the Word of God, then we must accept that demons are at least a cause of wickedness as well as insanity (as in the schtick regarding the Gaderine swine).

To which I can only say, 'Oh, please' and 'Gimme a break'.

Or it could be that Jesus was able to heal the mentally ill, but the ability of the disciples and those to whom they preached to comprehend psychology and neuroscience was not quite up to par, so Luke simply refers to it as driving out demons. I believe in the Word of God, but God gave us the ability to comprehend literary devices and context XO.

Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on December 06, 2006, 03:09:55 PM
Quote
Jesus' alleged celibacy and bachelorhood is part of his myth.  A married Jesus is a Human Jesus.  It doesn't mean that he wasn't the son of a god but it does Humanize him just a little more. 

Also, I don't like the idea of an ultra-powerful, small group of people having as much power as the catholic church has especially when their power is the result of convincing billions of people throughout history that the leaders of that church have a direct pipeline to a mythical being who communicates his will through them.

First of all, I find it peculiar that Jesus has to be married to be human. Isaac Newton and Immanuel Kant, the latter probably the most gifted thinker of modern times, were not married. In fact, both - it has been alleged, were possibly celibate (though such things are not so easily proven). Does that make them less human? Does that make their work less meaningful?

Secondly, I find it a strange argument from someone who professes to fight against the discrimination that homosexuals receive. Basically you are saying that someone who is married, be they gay or straight, is "more human" than someone who is celibate. Despite the fact that a great number of priests, monks, and nuns have chosen to take a vow of celibacy (and not only in the Catholic faith, but in other faiths as well) they are somehow less human? That argument is really no different than arguments to vote "yes" on amendment one this past November in Tennessee.

On to your second point, the Catholic Church has never taught that it has a "direct pipeline" to God. That is absolutely untrue. They are also not a "small group of people." In fact, they have been one of the largest, if not the largest organized religious group throughout the last two millennia. It would be rather difficult to keep such contemptible secrets in such a massive organisation for so long, wouldn't you think? The Church is based on Apostolic Succession, which we can discuss for sure, but that is not in any way a "direct pipeline" to God.

First of all, the "married Jesus" would be directly in opposition to the mythical, celibate, pure Jesus thus it would decrease his mythical/mystical status that most christians hold him in.   This is not about marriage.  This is about Jesus.  I think you are taking my past posts in opposition to religion to the nth degree and applying it as being disdainful of everything religious in nature including Jesus.  The reality that I may have been remiss in my expressions of disdain is that I am more angry at the lies religion tells than the actual practice of it.  It is the way that Jesus walking on water is presented as reality that angers me.  How is Jesus walking on water any more believable than Peter Pan capturing his shadow?  Or Superman flying?  Or Hercules cleaning the Aegean stables in a day?  It's not.  Believers in Jesus' magic feats are cultists.

My point regarding Jesus' marriage is that it would be something that was tangible.  If it could be proven somehow that Jesus was married and his children and descendents live today, that would make him a man and not a demi-god.  (I'm aware that it could also lead christians to state that since we found out he lived, that must mean he was the son of a god as well.  That would be a fallacy.)  It is harder to accept that a man who lived and had children (say like MLK) could also have rose from the dead and ascended into the heavens before his wife's eyes. 

I've never stated that Jesus had to married to be human.  Jesus' work would be even more tangible if he were stripped of his magical nature.  A married Jesus with descendents would be a step in that direction.

Secondly, I've never said that being married makes everyone more human.  I've said that it makes JESUS more human and more accessible to the world.  MLK, Mandela, Ghandi, Mr. Rogers all real people.  More accessible.

And lastly, I'm sorry to tell you but the papacy thinks it is the be all, end all in relation to its god.  It may not say that it "has a pipeline" but it does say that the papacy is conferred on him by Jesus.  And if he doesn't have a pipeline, then why are people always trying to get him to pray for them? 

Check it out...

Quote
Status and authority
Main articles: Primacy of the Roman Pontiff and Papal infallibility
The status and authority of the Pope in the Catholic Church was dogmatically defined by the First Vatican Council in its Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ (July 18, 1870). The first chapter of this document is entitled "On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter", and states that (s.1) "according to the Gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the Lord" and that (s.6) "if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the Lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our Lord Jesus Christ Himself: let him be anathema..."

 
To maintain contacts with local clergymen and Catholic communities, the Popes grant private audiences too. Here seen are the Canons Regular of the Holy Cross from Uden (Netherlands) received by Pope Pius XII.The Dogmatic Constitution's second chapter, "On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs", states that (s.1) "that which our Lord Jesus Christ [...] established in the blessed apostle Peter [...] must of necessity remain forever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time," that (s.3) "whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ Himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church", and that (s.5) "if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema."

The Dogmatic Constitution's third chapter, "On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff," states that (s.1) "the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a worldwide primacy, and that the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole church and father and teacher of all Christian people," that (s.2) "by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a preeminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that the jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate" and that "clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world."

The powers of the Pope are defined by the Dogmatic Constitution (ch.3, s.8) such that "he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment" and that "the sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon" (can. 331 defines the power of the Pope as "supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power"). It also dogmatically defined (ch.4, s.9) the doctrine of Papal infallibility, sc. such that

when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
The Catholic Church teaches that "it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every creature to be united to the Roman Pontiff" (Pope Boniface VIII). This teaching is often summarized by the phrase "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" (outside the Church exists no salvation), which has been reaffirmed by many Popes throughout the centuries. Blessed John XXIII said: "Into this fold of Jesus Christ no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff, and only if they be united to him can men be saved." Pope Paul VI also said: "Those outside the Church do not possess the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church alone is the Body of Christ... and if separated from the Body of Christ he is not one of His members, nor is he fed by His Spirit."

However, this dogma has been interpreted in many different ways by both Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Many Popes stressed that those who are "invincibly ignorant of the Catholic religion" can still obtain salvation. Pope Pius IX stated in his encyclical Quanto conficiamur moeror (1868): "We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace." Pope John Paul II wrote in his encyclical Redemptoris Missio: "But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the Gospel revelation or to enter the Church.... For such people, salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally a part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation."

Moreover, the Catholic Church teaches that all Christians are "mysteriously" united through Baptism and the "invisible Church" (body of believers). However, Christians are not fully / "formally" united due to divisions in beliefs etc.

As stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church- for which often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (UR 3 1). The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy and schism-do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers (Cf. CIC, can.751.).
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church" (UR 3 1).

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" (LG 8 2) are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as the visible elements" (UR 3 2; cf. LG 15.). Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to Him, (Cf. UR 3.) and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity" (Cf. LG 8.).

The Pope has many powers which he exercises. He can appoint bishops to dioceses, erect and suppress dioceses, appoint prefects to the Roman dicasteries, approve or veto their acts, modify the Liturgy and issue liturgical laws, revise the Code of Canon Law, canonize and beatify individuals, approve and suppress religious orders, impose canonical sanctions, act as a judge and hear cases, issue encyclicals, and issue infallible statements on matters pertaining to faith and morals which, according to the Church, must be believed by all Catholics. Most of these functions are performed by and through the various dicasteries of the Roman Curia, with the Pope simply approving their actions prior to becoming official. While approval is generally granted, it is at the Pope's discretion.


And another thing.  Here is the only thing I could get on the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.  Even if you multiply this by the number of countries that the CC is in all over the world the number would still be miniscule compared to the number 7,000,000,000.  Let's say there were half a million (500,000), that is a small number of people controlling a lot of other people.

Quote
Roman Catholic Church Hierarchy
The Catholic clergy is organized in a strict, sometimes overlapping hierarchy:

Pope: Head of the church, he is based at the Vatican. The pope is infallible in defining matters of faith and morals.

Cardinal: Appointed by the pope, 178 cardinals worldwide, including 13 in the U.S., make up the College of Cardinals. As a body, it advises the pope and, on his death, elects a new pope.

Archbishop: An archbishop is a bishop of a main or metropolitan diocese, also called an archdiocese. A cardinal can concurrently hold the title. The U.S. has 45 archbishops.

Bishop: A bishop, like a priest, is ordained to this station. He is a teacher of church doctrine, a priest of sacred worship, and a minister of church government. The U.S. has 290 active bishops, 194 head dioceses.

Priest: An ordained minister who can administer most of the sacraments, including the Eucharist, baptism, and marriage. He can be with a particular religious order or committed to serving a congregation.

Deacon: A transitional deacon is a seminarian studying for the priesthood. A permanent deacon can be married and assists a priest by performing some of the sacraments.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on December 06, 2006, 04:03:48 PM
Roman Catholic Church Hierarchy
The Catholic clergy is organized in a strict, sometimes overlapping hierarchy:

Pope: Head of the church, he is based at the Vatican. The pope is infallible in defining matters of faith and morals.

Cardinal: Appointed by the pope, 178 cardinals worldwide, including 13 in the U.S., make up the College of Cardinals. As a body, it advises the pope and, on his death, elects a new pope.

Archbishop: An archbishop is a bishop of a main or metropolitan diocese, also called an archdiocese. A cardinal can concurrently hold the title. The U.S. has 45 archbishops.

Bishop: A bishop, like a priest, is ordained to this station. He is a teacher of church doctrine, a priest of sacred worship, and a minister of church government. The U.S. has 290 active bishops, 194 head dioceses.

Priest: An ordained minister who can administer most of the sacraments, including the Eucharist, baptism, and marriage. He can be with a particular religious order or committed to serving a congregation.

Deacon: A transitional deacon is a seminarian studying for the priesthood. A permanent deacon can be married and assists a priest by performing some of the sacraments.
=========================================================================
Between the Priest and the Bishop comes the Monsignor. Perhaps this is simply the leader of a group of priests, but it is a rank given some importance. A Monsignor is more important than a priest, he gets more respect, anyway.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: _JS on December 06, 2006, 04:48:19 PM
OK, I apologise for the misunderstanding, but I still think you have a peculiar view.

Jesus was a human, it is a teaching of the Church and most other Christians accept it as well. He had a mother (the first Christian) and a step-father. He had a family, what could be more human than that? Ultimately though, he was not only a man and I'm not sure why you ask Christianity to refute that. Moreover, why should we have to accept Dan Brown's borrowed theory? I certainly don't understand that.

Quote
And lastly, I'm sorry to tell you but the papacy thinks it is the be all, end all in relation to its god.  It may not say that it "has a pipeline" but it does say that the papacy is conferred on him by Jesus.

The church was established by Jesus when he built it upon Peter. That is the essence of Apostolic Succession, where the latest Pope is the latest in a line of successors to Peter. That does not mean that the Pope is "the end all and be all in relation" to God. It does not mean that the Pope is without sin. That is completely false.

Also, the infallibility of the Pope is often taken to extremes by those who attack the Church. That is only the case when he speaks ex cathedra which has happened a grand total of seven times in 2000 years. The last took place in 1950, before that it was 1854.

Also what do you mean "controlling other people." What makes you think that Catholic bishops, priests, or the pope "control" anyone?



Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on December 07, 2006, 02:41:05 PM
OK, I apologise for the misunderstanding, but I still think you have a peculiar view.

Jesus was a human, it is a teaching of the Church and most other Christians accept it as well. He had a mother (the first Christian) and a step-father. He had a family, what could be more human than that? Ultimately though, he was not only a man and I'm not sure why you ask Christianity to refute that. Moreover, why should we have to accept Dan Brown's borrowed theory? I certainly don't understand that.

Quote
And lastly, I'm sorry to tell you but the papacy thinks it is the be all, end all in relation to its god.  It may not say that it "has a pipeline" but it does say that the papacy is conferred on him by Jesus.

The church was established by Jesus when he built it upon Peter. That is the essence of Apostolic Succession, where the latest Pope is the latest in a line of successors to Peter. That does not mean that the Pope is "the end all and be all in relation" to God. It does not mean that the Pope is without sin. That is completely false.

Also, the infallibility of the Pope is often taken to extremes by those who attack the Church. That is only the case when he speaks ex cathedra which has happened a grand total of seven times in 2000 years. The last took place in 1950, before that it was 1854.

Also what do you mean "controlling other people." What makes you think that Catholic bishops, priests, or the pope "control" anyone?


You statement that Jesus had a "step-father" is exactly what I'm talking about.  The implication there is that a god was his father and Joseph was his "step-father".  A more plausible story of Jesus bastard status was that his mother was an adulteress or perhaps an underage girl who Joseph got pregnant and married subsequently, creating the "virgin birth" story as a cover.

Dan Brown's story of Jesus being married to MM and producing offspring didn't just spring out of his head whole cloth.  As you stated, it is borrowed from people who believe it to be the truth.  That is one of the reasons why the book was so popular, imo.  The book is a pretty run-of-the-mill mystery thriller but it is the implications of the rumors, historical data and religous myth that appeals so widely across the world.

IMO, the world is not what it was 2000 some odd years ago.  People are not half as gullible (for lack of a better word) as they were then.  Human Beings just KNOW that a person doesn't raise from the dead three days after he died.  That equation or process doesn't add up.  People inherently know that that is just not possible and if that story is being told, then somewhere along the line, someone is either lying or got it wrong somehow.   Some part of the story has to be wrong.  Maybe he wasn't dead.  Maybe it was three minutes not three days.  Maybe it never even happened.  And so, when someone comes along like Dan Brown and writes a book (fictional or otherwise) giving people a more realistic story relating to something that so many millions across the world have held so dear and had to really stretch to believe, it is like a cool drink of water in the desert. 

Personally, I just don't think that Jesus was the son of a god or anything mystical.  Most of his fantastic deeds are simply either outright lies or adopted tales from other religions.  Clearly, his rising from the dead is an Egyptian tale of one of their gods rising from the dead.  And the walking on water story is a ripoff as well.  However, having said that, I find his preachings regarding how we treat one another beautiful and worthy of study.  Taking the magic out of it is just something that makes Jesus more palatable to me.  When I talk about religion with friends and family, it turns into a "he was a god" discussion or how faith in god is imperative to live from day to day without suffering from depression.  Depending on who it is that I'm talking to, I usually just turn to whatever tv show we both like because it is head and shoulders more important to me that someone's delusions about a god.  Or if I try to talk about jesus and how he said we should take care of one another, they want to make it all about how I can't believe in Jesus' teachings without accepting that there is a god, which is utter bullshit.

And that leads me to the Humanization of Jesus.  If it were proven that Jesus had a family and had sex and did all the things that we all do, then he doesn't come off so pious and godlike.  He goes from a guy in a white robe with a staff walking the roads with this beatific smile on his face and gently holding someone's chin to this guy who had a wife and all that implies good and bad.

Now, it is true that he could have had a wife who had a child and STILL have been the son of a god and worn the robe and had the beatific smile but come on, is that more believable than he had to sit around with the apostles and have discussions and MM was there supporting him and offering him advice as one of his apostles and then offering her support as his wife after they got to bed?  What would that conversation had been like as they lay there together in the dark?  She offering him advice that he didn't want and he stating that he was the son of a god and didn't feel like talking right now.

I'm just postulating.  But that's what I thought of.

As for the Catholic Church "controlling" people.

Check it out...

Quote
The Roman Catholic Church - the largest branch of Christianity - says there are a total of 1.086 billion baptised members around the globe.
This figure is expected to exceed 1.1 billion in 2005, with rapid growth in Africa and Asia. However, there are no reliable figures for the number of practising Catholics worldwide. Click on the links below for facts about selected countries.
The Americas have the lion's share of baptised Catholics, with 49.8% (approx 541 million); Europe accounts for 25.8% (approx 282 million); Africa has 13.2% of the total (approx 143 million); Asia - 10.4% (approx 113 million); Oceania - 0.8% (approx 9 million).


Now, if we go with my more than generous number of people who are running the CC in the hierarchy, 500,000 and there are say 1.1 billion Catholics worldwide, then that billion takes the CC at its word for the most part.  If they say that gays can't married, then that's that, for the most part, Catholics will say that gays can't marry.  If the CC says that abortion and contraception are sins against their god, then, by damn, most of the Catholics won't be a party to abortion or contraception.

That is control.  How is it not?

I don't know what the story is on baptism with catholics, with baptists, of course, you can't get into heaven with it.  It may be the same with Catholics since they do all that christening at birth and what not.  But if that is the case, then Catholics will get baptized or christened.  That's control.

Catholics go to mass and for the most part give money to the church.  Any one of them says it is because they want to and that can be true in addition to "that's what catholics do" or "christians do" or whatever.  That's control.  The church demands the parishioners come to church and give money.

Why is the pope courted by heads of state?  Because he can suggest that his followers support X and Y and for the most part, they will.  That is a form of control.  The Pope is seen as Jesus' successor.  To Catholics, that means that the Pope is conducting himself as Jesus did (or as close as he can) and therefore should know what the hell he's talking about and so they are more inclined to support X and Y with the Pope's endorsement.  Even if the CC doesn't consider the Pope infallible or the pipeline to god or whatever, it is the perception of his followers on some level that that is EXACTLY what he is.  He's a surrogate Jesus or at worst, a surrogate Peter.

And I don't know how you can interpret this passage as anything but "control" and the claim that the Pope is the be-all, end-all.

Quote
The Dogmatic Constitution's third chapter, "On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff," states that (s.1) "the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a worldwide primacy, and that the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole church and father and teacher of all Christian people," that (s.2) "by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a preeminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that the jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate" and that "clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world."
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: _JS on December 07, 2006, 03:43:10 PM
Quote
You statement that Jesus had a "step-father" is exactly what I'm talking about.  The implication there is that a god was his father and Joseph was his "step-father".  A more plausible story of Jesus bastard status was that his mother was an adulteress or perhaps an underage girl who Joseph got pregnant and married subsequently, creating the "virgin birth" story as a cover.

One of the amazing things about Christianity is that it survived at all. You're right and are far from the first person to take the above view. In fact, when Christians first came to Rome, many Romans pondered why anyone would follow a Jewish bastard criminal. The fact that Christians continued to be so devoted to their faith, even after the persecutions of Nero astounded many of the Romans who had seen a number of religions (many with far more interesting and fantastical stories) come and go.

Quote
Dan Brown's story of Jesus being married to MM and producing offspring didn't just spring out of his head whole cloth.  As you stated, it is borrowed from people who believe it to be the truth.  That is one of the reasons why the book was so popular, imo.  The book is a pretty run-of-the-mill mystery thriller but it is the implications of the rumors, historical data and religous myth that appeals so widely across the world.

It also appeals because the Catholic Church is an easy target. Atheists are probably some of the more calm critics of the Church when considering the plethora of myths and lies spread about the Church. You'd think we all walk around with secret handshakes and covert plans to subvert the world. You think Dan Brown was clever in this? Chek out the far more succesful Left behind series where the Church is the sinister "Whore of Babylon". Hell, Dan Brown is an amateur in my opinion.

Quote
IMO, the world is not what it was 2000 some odd years ago.  People are not half as gullible (for lack of a better word) as they were then.  Human Beings just KNOW that a person doesn't raise from the dead three days after he died.  That equation or process doesn't add up.  People inherently know that that is just not possible and if that story is being told, then somewhere along the line, someone is either lying or got it wrong somehow.   Some part of the story has to be wrong.  Maybe he wasn't dead.  Maybe it was three minutes not three days.  Maybe it never even happened.

Really? These are the same human beings who allowed the Holocaust to take place? These are the same human beings who saw to the Rape of Nanking? These are the same human beings who brutally massacred one another in Rwanda? The same human beings who ate pygmies in the Second Congolese Civil War because they hoped to gain the pygmies' knowledge of the jungle? These are the same human beings who committed brutal atrocities upon one another in the Yugoslav Wars? These are the human beings who murdered innocents at Vukovar, Srebrenica, and Markale? These are the human beings who tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib? These are the human beings who watch children die in Lebanon and Gaza and praise the army that does it?

These are the human beings you find so enlightened that belief in Jesus and His ministry would be too illogical to them. These are the people who are so much more intelligent and enlightened than Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Bernard, John XXIII, Oscar Romero? Dan Brown is supposed to impress me?

Quote
Personally, I just don't think that Jesus was the son of a god or anything mystical.  Most of his fantastic deeds are simply either outright lies or adopted tales from other religions.  Clearly, his rising from the dead is an Egyptian tale of one of their gods rising from the dead.  And the walking on water story is a ripoff as well.  However, having said that, I find his preachings regarding how we treat one another beautiful and worthy of study.  Taking the magic out of it is just something that makes Jesus more palatable to me.  When I talk about religion with friends and family, it turns into a "he was a god" discussion or how faith in god is imperative to live from day to day without suffering from depression.  Depending on who it is that I'm talking to, I usually just turn to whatever tv show we both like because it is head and shoulders more important to me that someone's delusions about a god.  Or if I try to talk about jesus and how he said we should take care of one another, they want to make it all about how I can't believe in Jesus' teachings without accepting that there is a god, which is utter bullshit.

Your personal view is up to you. I'm not hear to preach. In fact, I cannot stand the "are you saved?" style either. On the other hand, why should Christians change their beliefs so that Jesus is more "palatable" to you?

Another thing, whereas heresies of old, such as the Cathars or Arians required solid logic and knowledge to understand and combat, it doesn't seem to be the case with modern atheism. People such as Dan Brown and Richard Dawkins are useful for religious discussions only for the most moribund of intellectual minds. It is a symptom of todays society that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. In this case Dan Brown is clearly anti-Catholic, but he is no friend to serious atheists. He is a two-bit carnival act on a stage of stage of authentic Shakespearean players.

Quote
Now, if we go with my more than generous number of people who are running the CC in the hierarchy, 500,000 and there are say 1.1 billion Catholics worldwide, then that billion takes the CC at its word for the most part.  If they say that gays can't married, then that's that, for the most part, Catholics will say that gays can't marry.  If the CC says that abortion and contraception are sins against their god, then, by damn, most of the Catholics won't be a party to abortion or contraception.

Look at the worldwide demographics for those situations and see if that is really the case. You are making broad generalizations about 1.1 billion people for goodness' sakes. By the way, to say that all of the bishops even agree is a stretch of the imagination. You make it seem as if the Pope gives an order and it is carried out without question. That is patently false and absurd. It is not a military organization, nor is it run as such.

Quote
I don't know what the story is on baptism with catholics, with baptists, of course, you can't get into heaven with it.  It may be the same with Catholics since they do all that christening at birth and what not.  But if that is the case, then Catholics will get baptized or christened.  That's control.

Baptism is a sacrament, as is the Eucharist. That isn't control, it is a central belief. They don't place a gun to your head and say "do this or else!" You are free to leave at any time. By your standard Brass the Church could not hold any beliefs. The Church demands that all Catholics believe in the Holy Trinity as well, under your logic that would be "control." Yet, it is a tenet central to nearly every Christian Church worldwide. By your standard a church should have no beliefs at all. Why would anyone attend? Just to meet and discuss "stuff"?

Quote
That's control.  The church demands the parishioners come to church and give money.

The Church does not "demand" attendance, but due to the importance of the Eucharist attendance is a must. Giving money is not "demanded" either. I'm not sure where you got this impression of the church, but next time you are in Nashville you should attend with me. You may just be surprised at how free you actually are.

An organization asking for attendance? Perish the thought! <gasp> That evil Catholic Church! Again, you aren't demanded and you may choose not to attend at any time.

Quote
Why is the pope courted by heads of state?

Both the former and current Pope advised President Bush to not go to war with Iraq, but he did anyway. So apparently his "control" of the 1.1 billion Catholics is not as vast as you claim. 

Quote
The Pope is seen as Jesus' successor.

No. That is blatantly false. He is Peter's successor and that does not mean the Pope is the equivalent of Peter.

Quote
He's a surrogate Jesus or at worst, a surrogate Peter

Absolutely false.

Quote
And I don't know how you can interpret this passage as anything but "control" and the claim that the Pope is the be-all, end-all.

If you knew the history of those passages then you'd understand them better.





Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on December 07, 2006, 06:24:48 PM
Lawsy laws!   ???  Where to start?
We're coming to agreement or at least understanding but let me try to clear up some of my generalities with more concise language.

Quote
You think Dan Brown was clever in this? Chek out the far more succesful Left behind series where the Church is the sinister "Whore of Babylon". Hell, Dan Brown is an amateur in my opinion.

We're kind of hung up and Dan Brown and, imo, he's not even part of the picture.  What he has done in The Da Vinci Code is taken rumors and facts and brought them together for an overall view.  Yes, he made the CC into the bad guy but it is not anything they haven't brought on themselves.  A long time ago, they did have a hand in the Crusades and there was the Inquisition.  It's not like they were pure as driven snow and he applied this air of secrecy to them.  The CC conducts a lot of its business in secret and they have been on the wrong side of history in some cases.  Is every Catholic evil and out to kill any non-catholic, certainly not as far as I can tell.  I know and love some Catholics and they have never once tried to kill me as far as I know.  However, the CC did recently apologize for its non-action in the Holocaust.  And the CC has put kinks in the hose of knowledge on occassion when it thought that the knowledge coming down would somehow invade on their assertations about the way things are in this world.

So, Dan Brown just built a story that used that secrecy and wrongness in a way.

And I wouldn't be caught dead reading one of those ridiculous Left Behind books.  No more than the authors of those books would be caught dead reading TDVC, I imagine.

Quote
It also appeals because the Catholic Church is an easy target.

Well, I disagree but I can understand why you'd say that as a Catholic.  That's fine.

Quote
These are the same human beings who allowed the Holocaust to take place?

No, clearly they are not the same.  But this is strawman stuff and unnecessary.  You'll note that I never said Humans were "enlightened".  I said they weren't as gullible.  Clearly, in a world where someone who does believe that Jesus walked on water 2000 years ago can get on a plane and fly around the world, the human race has gotten smarter.  Not necessarily wise or more enlightened, but definitely SMARTER and less gullible.  If you were to go back in time and tell someone of Jesus' time were told that a man had risen from the dead, they'd believe it if you told it right and gave the reason that the guy rose was that he was the messiah and he was the son of a god.

Tell that to someone in any industrialized nation today, they'd laugh in your face.  Go to some countries in Africa and tell it, they might believe it and do you know what country is seeing the greatest rise in Catholicism?  You got it.  The same country where babies are raped as a cure for AIDS and where Pygmies got et for their knowledge of the jungle.

People may still commit attrocities.  But they don't buy into religious mysticism as easily.  And you'll recall that I said they still have faith but there is a skepticism that has grown in our DNA over the last 2000 years as people acquire more knowledge of how the world really works.  No one would look at a guy in a fur suit and think he might be a wolfman.  Nor would anyone look at Ric Ocasek in the The Cars video for Magic and think, "Huh, that guy's walking on water."  Everyone assumes there is a something just below the water that we can't see that he is standing on.

Quote
In fact, I cannot stand the "are you saved?" style either.


And we find more consensus.  FWIW, I haven't seen a lot of that lately.

Quote
On the other hand, why should Christians change their beliefs so that Jesus is more "palatable" to you?


I don't think you intend to, but this is again putting words in my mouth.  Yes, I find religious belief annoying.  Yes, I find think that theists are at best wrong, at worst delusional (or even ill).  Yes, I think they should change but I DON'T think they should change them to make them more palatable to me per se.  My thoughts are that if the christian community took it upon themselves to adhere to the teachings of Jesus by "doing unto the least of [ourselves]" as we would to Jesus (whom they proclaim so much reverence) and dropped the "Jesus is a god"/magical side of the Jesus myth, the world would be an infinitely better place because not everyone can get with "Jesus cast out demons" but I can imagine a lot of people getting onboard with "Jesus said feed the hungry".  I know I could because that is universal.  That is realistic.  That is tangible aid to my fellow Human Beings.

And when we all find consensus, the world is a better place usually.  ( Of course, I know that the Nazis reached consensus on the Jews but that's not what I'm talking about.)  I'm talking about how it feels to be at the U2 show singing "Daydream Believer" karaoke-style with 22,000 people.

Also, if you take the magic out of Jesus that puts the onus on us to follow those words as opposed to praying to ourselves and hoping that Jesus does the work for us somehow in all his Father's machinations. 

Quote
In this case Dan Brown is clearly anti-Catholic, but he is no friend to serious atheists. He is a two-bit carnival act on a stage of stage of authentic Shakespearean players.

In a few years, we may find that since the release of TDVC, Catholicism has increased.  It wouldn't surprise me.  Is DB anti-catholic?  Probably, I don't know.  The book of his prior to TDVC was that Angels and Demons which was a little like TDVC but without the historical research.  In it, the CC was REALLY evil.  You'll be excited to learn that it is being re-written as a sequel to TDVC.  It had the same main character and I assume that once the book is re-written and re-released to greater fanfare, it will also be made into a movie with Tom Hanks.  We'll see.

I believe that Brown has said he is not an atheist at all nor is he anti-catholic but don't hold me to it.  Brown is actually a worse writer than that hack that wrote The Firm and stuff like that.  I had to look his name up even though he lives in Oxford, MS.  John Grisham.  Oy.  It is not my intention to hold Dan Brown up as a great writer nor someone to be followed as a leader.  He wrote a book that happens to be about subjects I even in certain contexts.  Conspiracy, adventure, history, religion.  It was a decent story that had to do with exciting and important subject matter.

Quote
Look at the worldwide demographics for those situations and see if that is really the case. You are making broad generalizations about 1.1 billion people for goodness' sakes. By the way, to say that all of the bishops even agree is a stretch of the imagination. You make it seem as if the Pope gives an order and it is carried out without question. That is patently false and absurd. It is not a military organization, nor is it run as such.

You'll note that I took great pains to use the word "most" in my reply.  Is it true or not that the CC holds abortion as a sin or sees it negatively?  Is it true that even if a catholic has an abortion, for the most part, that girl will agonize over it due, at least in part if not altogether, because of her catholic upbringing and its teaching regarding abortion?  Is the same also true of contraception?  Doesn't the CC teach that contraception is not a good thing?  And even when using Natural Family Planning that should only be used in certain cases and not always?

True, if some catholics uses birht control or has an abortion, the Swiss Guard isn't going to kick in their door and haul them off to some earthly pergatory.  But, all the same, the teachings of the church for most catholics will play a role in their decision making.  And the only authority of the church is the belief that the Pope is the successor to Peter who was a first-generational follower of Jesus.  If a Catholic is following all the rules, they would not use birth control of any kind.  Do you deny this?

I understand completely how you, as a Catholic can not see it this way.  You are on the inside and I'm on the outside throwing rocks.  To you, it is simply part of you.  You don't go to mass to get your marching orders or to find out what the Pope said your attitudes should be.  It is just part of you.  I get it.  Try to think of it on my side.  Out here, it looks like a control mechanism.  I'm just saying.

Further, the CC's waning control over its masses of followers is indicative of my suggestion that people are not as gullible as they used to be.  In the old days, a Pope could throw his weight around and could issue edicts informing it's followers of some new rule handed down by a god and they'd follow it.  Popes crowned kings.  And all because people thought the Pope talked to god.  Now, a Pope can't hardly make people do anything but show up when he gives a sermon.  He's more of a beloved politician than a spiritual powerhouse.

Quote
Baptism is a sacrament, as is the Eucharist. That isn't control, it is a central belief. They don't place a gun to your head and say "do this or else!" You are free to leave at any time.


Why then ex-communication?  Why then was Kerry threatened with denial of the Eucharist (or whatever it was)?  It is a control.  A catholic wouldn't shrug their shoulders if they were ex-communicated, would they?  It's not a powerful control these days but it is a control nonetheless.

The Church demands that all Catholics believe in the Holy Trinity as well, under your logic that would be "control."

If this is so, what is the punishment or adverse reaction for a catholic who doesn't believe in the holy trinity?   True, today, it might not be that big an issue, the punishment, but previously it could have been horrible for a catholic who believed that the CC was the only true church as was spelled out in my clip from WIKI.  I would bet the fallout from the decision to withold belief would be that you won't get into heaven.  And does the CC have any say so in that process?  Who gets in and who doesn't?  And here's another question, how is it that the CC is in the position to demand anything of anyone?  What power does it have?  Who gives the CC its power over anyone?   The People?  How can they, they don't get to pick the Pope.  If I remember right, they don't even get to pick their priest who gives their parishes sermon every week.   God?  Well, that takes us back to where we were when I said that the CC considers itself the pipeline to god as far as I'm concerned.  The People consider the CC God's Church built on the rock of Peter.  God's rep on earth.

Quote
By your standard a church should have no beliefs at all. Why would anyone attend? Just to meet and discuss "stuff"?


Absolutely right.  If I were to start a church (an idea that has crossed my mind any number of times, mostly after two margaritas), it would be very much to get together and discuss "stuff".  This is indicative of the idea that an atheist can't be anything like a happy, normal theist nor could atheists get together and have anythign positive to talk about because they're all about NOT believing in something.  Certainly that is not the case.  There are lots of songs that could be used in a Humanist/atheist church.  Think in terms of John Lennon's Imagine.  A Humanist sermon could be on the topic of self-improvement or love or friendship or anything else that any theistic sermonizer could put forth.  It just wouldn't have any worship of some magic being who will inspire us to do stuff or wait for his return.  I, as an atheist preacher, could even reference Jesus and probably would.

Atheist church would start at 1 or 2 in the afternoon on Sunday so that everyone could sleep in like they want to or get up and watch Meet The Press and Sunday Morning.  (Ooo, that Sunday Morning is very nearly an atheist church program.  It centers on the arts and mostly the good in humans.  And they have that moment of zen thing at the end where they have video of "the Salmons of the blah,blah,blah going upstream to spawn".  That's beautiful and universal.)

Quote
I'm not sure where you got this impression of the church, but next time you are in Nashville you should attend with me. You may just be surprised at how free you actually are.


Dude, I didn't realize that you were just up the road.  I had it in my head you were in Chattanooga or Knoxville or something. I may be driving up there with a friend in January to buy some monster aquarium.  Can I shoot you an email and maybe we can have dinner or at least a drink or something?  I've been to CC and I didn't develop my impressions of it there.  (There is way too much exercise though.)  Also, if you come to Memphis (I can't imagine that you would though), holler at me.

Quote
Both the former and current Pope advised President Bush to not go to war with Iraq, but he did anyway. So apparently his "control" of the 1.1 billion Catholics is not as vast as you claim.
 

This is true.  But can you really hold Bush up as the example of the rule or as the exception to that rule?  And as I stated, the Pope's political power isn't what it used to be like when they would crown kings.

Quote
If you knew the history of those passages then you'd understand them better.


This may be true but I doubt it would lessen my perceptions.




Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Lanya on December 08, 2006, 12:17:14 AM
Enjoyable to read, you two. 
Brass, a good church is kind of like college; they aren't going to hassle you if you don't attend.  You just don't get the benefits you otherwise would have gotten.   (If you are the type who'd get benefits from it in the first place, I mean.)

I thought my Catholic friends had it real good when I heard the mother of one girl say, "So, do you want to go to church Saturday afternoon so you can go skiing Sunday?"  !
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Plane on December 08, 2006, 12:30:43 AM
I think I have already asked about your Salvation Brassmask.


I am not required to do so twice , but if you ever want to I am required to then.
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: _JS on December 08, 2006, 10:57:39 AM
Quote
A long time ago, they did have a hand in the Crusades and there was the Inquisition.

There were actually numerous inquisitions. As I said much earlier, the Pope is not immune from sin by any means, neither are the clergy. Much of the most infamous atrocities in the inquisitions and the Crusades (the Spanish inquisition and the massacres of the Crusades) were done by laymen or zealous clergy specifically against Church instructions. Yet, that doesn't excuse where the Church has done wrong in those cases, or has looked away. It is difficult to become a 2000 year-old institution without making mistakes along the way. That does not excuse the mistakes at all and hopefully the Church has learned from them.

Quote
However, the CC did recently apologize for its non-action in the Holocaust

I wasn't aware of this. You should know that Angelo Roncalli (later Pope John XXIII) helped thousands of Jews escape through his office and was later honored by the state of Israel for his services. Pope Pius XII had a mixed history when it came to taking action against the Holocaust. Current historians, including Jewish historians, are undecided on Pius XII's final role in that war.

Quote
And the CC has put kinks in the hose of knowledge on occassion when it thought that the knowledge coming down would somehow invade on their assertations about the way things are in this world.

The Catholic Church has also been one of the world's primary sponsors of scientific knowledge. Did you know that it was a Catholic Priest who came up with the Big Bang theory? Check out Father Lemaître. I could list the scientific achievements of Roman Catholic scholars, priests, monks, and laymen, but quite honestly I don't have time and Bt wouldn't appreciate the use of bandwidth. Unlike many American churches, there is no problem in believing the principles of evolution or the Big Bang, etc and being a Catholic. The Church is tied to a myth that it denounces and even holds back scientific knowledge because of the Galileo issue. It is unfortunate because nothing could be further from the truth.

Quote
You'll note that I never said Humans were "enlightened".  I said they weren't as gullible.

Really? People today don't believe in ghosts? Psychics? Spells? Curses? Superstitions? They don't believe in the symbolism of nationalism? Pledging allegiance to cloth and textile fibers? They don't see a commercial on TV with an old man in a uniform saluting a flag with a tear in his eye and then buy the product being marketed? You honestly believe the Spanish, British, and Germans of the 14th Century were so vastly less intelligent than the average individual today?

Quote
If you were to go back in time and tell someone of Jesus' time were told that a man had risen from the dead, they'd believe it if you told it right and gave the reason that the guy rose was that he was the messiah and he was the son of a god.

And yet you made the same basic argument that some of the Romans made all those centuries ago. And still people believe Jesus is the son of God and that he rose from the dead. So your argument is really no different (in fact it is a bit mild in comparison to some) and the ability of Christendom to remain is still prevalent.

If Christianity were snake oil, as you claim, (and note that is not the argument Marx made - he had far greater respect for religion than modern atheists) then why use such an obviously weak story? As you said earlier, the Virgin Mary is easily countered by saying that she either got pregnant through fornication with Joseph or by another man and Joseph covered for her. I mean, that's a no-brainer, the Romans and others saw that one coming a mile away. The Gospel authors didn't dress it up at all. They sent an angel, "Hail Mary" and she went and talked with Elizabeth...I mean really. Even the Old Testament could top that. The Greeks and Egyptians had some real humdingers to beat that. Why such a mundane tale? Why would it last? Why would any sane individual suffer through Nero's persecutions for that? Do you know a snake oil salesman that good? It is one thing to suffer because a used car salesman sold you a Corvette, but a Datsun?

Quote
Tell that to someone in any industrialized nation today, they'd laugh in your face.

So Europe, Brazil, and the United States aren't industrialized?

Quote
Tell that to someone in any industrialized nation today, they'd laugh in your face.  Go to some countries in Africa and tell it, they might believe it and do you know what country is seeing the greatest rise in Catholicism?  You got it.  The same country where babies are raped as a cure for AIDS and where Pygmies got et for their knowledge of the jungle.

Africa is not a country and don't play the game of trying to put those atrocities upon the Catholic Church.

Quote
People may still commit attrocities.  But they don't buy into religious mysticism as easily.

Is there a may about it? I don't think anyone is asking for mysticism.

Quote
Everyone assumes there is a something just below the water that we can't see that he is standing on.

As I recall you could see it pretty clearly in the video. Still, they knew how to make videos back in the 80's didn't they? Now they just show the bands, though Evanescence video where Amy Lee is some sort of floating vampire with her backup singer minions is rather good!

I don't really see the problem with Jesus casting out demons. As I've said before, just read it in the context of the times. It is doubtful that Luke understood mental illness as we do now. But, even if he did (through some association with Christ) how could he relate that to the rest of humanity. It would be the equivalent of trying to explain the outside world to the folks inside Plato's allegorical cave. Therefore, "Jesus cast out demons" was far easier and still got the message across whereas "Jesus healed Mary Magdalene of her mental health problems relating to bichemical inconsistencies and past abuse issues dealing with..." just might not get a big "huh?" from the crowds and readers. The First Century wasn't familiar with SSRI's, brain chemistry, or psychology. That is why the Church is here today, so that such issues can be understood (and there are licensed psychologists within the Church).

Quote
I'm talking about how it feels to be at the U2 show singing "Daydream Believer" karaoke-style with 22,000 people.

I attended a U2 concert at the Liberty Bowl once. Rage Against the Machine opened.

Quote
You'll note that I took great pains to use the word "most" in my reply.  Is it true or not that the CC holds abortion as a sin or sees it negatively?  Is it true that even if a catholic has an abortion, for the most part, that girl will agonize over it due, at least in part if not altogether, because of her catholic upbringing and its teaching regarding abortion?  Is the same also true of contraception?  Doesn't the CC teach that contraception is not a good thing?  And even when using Natural Family Planning that should only be used in certain cases and not always?

Yes, the Church views an abortion as the taking of human life. As do I.

I cannot answer the second question because I'm not a Catholic female who has agonized over an abortion. Is there a guarantee that an atheist girl won't agonize over an abortion? I'd imagine that it would be a difficult decision, no matter what one's religious views are.

Yes, the Church sees contraception as sinful as well. Though this is an often ignored rule with many Catholics. Many see it as a personal decision. Natural Family Planning is always encouraged to my knowledge.

I should say that forgiveness is always offered. The only unforgivable offense is total rejection of God.

Quote
If a Catholic is following all the rules, they would not use birth control of any kind.  Do you deny this?

What am I, a trial witness? ;)
The Church is not built on laws and rules. No one is expected to be perfect.

Quote
I understand completely how you, as a Catholic can not see it this way.  You are on the inside and I'm on the outside throwing rocks.  To you, it is simply part of you.  You don't go to mass to get your marching orders or to find out what the Pope said your attitudes should be.  It is just part of you.  I get it.  Try to think of it on my side.  Out here, it looks like a control mechanism.  I'm just saying.

I've been a non-Catholic as well. I'm not a cradle Catholic, so I think I have a very good view from the outside. I think much of the fear of the Church is unfounded and shrouded in myth.

Quote
Why then ex-communication?  Why then was Kerry threatened with denial of the Eucharist (or whatever it was)?  It is a control.  A catholic wouldn't shrug their shoulders if they were ex-communicated, would they?  It's not a powerful control these days but it is a control nonetheless.

Excommunication is the same as denial of the Eucharist. I wouldn't call it a control. It doesn't prevent one from attending Mass, just from participating in the Eucharist. Is it important? It depends on the person, it probably should be. Technically, no Catholic should participate in the Eucharist if they are in a state of mortal sin (meaning they need to seek penance through confession first). Kerry was not excommunicated and rightly so. There are a few reasons for automatic excommunication and they date from the 14th century, Kerry broke none of those (and note that the term is "automatic" but there is still an investigation and ecclesiastical court).

Quote
If this is so, what is the punishment or adverse reaction for a catholic who doesn't believe in the holy trinity?

I honestly have no idea. My guess is that it would result in heresy and you would be excommunicated at the least. The issue is likely not to come up because it is such a fundamental principle to Christianity. It would be akin to a laissez faire capitalist joining the Communist Party or a radical Stalinist joining the Libertarian Party. Why would they do so?

Quote
And does the CC have any say so in that process?  Who gets in and who doesn't?  And here's another question, how is it that the CC is in the position to demand anything of anyone?

God is in control of the afterlife, not man, nor the Church. The Church doesn't demand anything, I thought I've said that already. It has established principles, beliefs, and practices, if you choose not to follow those then that is your right.

Quote
How can they, they don't get to pick the Pope.  If I remember right, they don't even get to pick their priest who gives their parishes sermon every week.

Again you are making the Pope out to have far more power than he does. No, the Church is not a democracy, why should it be? And we don't have "sermons", we have "homilies". Don't bring that dirty prod language into this discussion ;) (a joke to my Protestant friends, I promise).

Quote
Absolutely right.  If I were to start a church (an idea that has crossed my mind any number of times, mostly after two margaritas), it would be very much to get together and discuss "stuff".  This is indicative of the idea that an atheist can't be anything like a happy, normal theist nor could atheists get together and have anythign positive to talk about because they're all about NOT believing in something.  Certainly that is not the case.

I don't recall ever suggesting that atheists can't be happy or positive. Nor would I suggest that atheists don't believe in anything. By the way, such organizations do exist, you might think about checking them out.

Quote
Think in terms of John Lennon's Imagine.

A favorite song of mine.

Quote
I, as an atheist preacher, could even reference Jesus and probably would.

I could be mistaken (and someone please correct me if I am wrong), but I believe that Unitarians and non-orthodox Quakers work very much along these lines.

Quote
Dude, I didn't realize that you were just up the road.  I had it in my head you were in Chattanooga or Knoxville or something. I may be driving up there with a friend in January to buy some monster aquarium.  Can I shoot you an email and maybe we can have dinner or at least a drink or something?  I've been to CC and I didn't develop my impressions of it there.  (There is way too much exercise though.)  Also, if you come to Memphis (I can't imagine that you would though), holler at me.

Yes, I'm in Nashville. It would be cool to meet up. I know a few good restaurants and bars with decent music (depending on your tastes). I get to Memphis every once in a while for work or on my way to Dallas to visit my brother. And yes, no sleeping for our congregations!

Quote
Further, the CC's waning control over its masses of followers is indicative of my suggestion that people are not as gullible as they used to be.

Or it could be the fact that the Church is so vast and diverse that it is impossible to exert the kind of control you believe it once had. It could also be that the rise of the concept of nations has lessened the influence of the Church, whereas it was once the only credible authority for many people. I'd be careful about reducing historical (or any other) hypotheses down to one single variable, especially 2000 years of history.
















Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Brassmask on December 08, 2006, 02:02:35 PM
Well, that's all well and good.

I think we've walked it out as far as it needs to be.

In my estimation, we are very close to consensus and it is good to have discussion and not feel like the person that I'm talking to is just being contrary. 

I would summarize by saying that, yes, the church has done some good but it is also a very secretive society and that opens them up to supposition.  Jesus was a good and decent person by all accounts and that is good enough for me.  I don't have to worship him for reasons I don't believe but I can admire and emulate his goodness as I can Mr. Rogers, Jimmy Carter and MLK.  This, in my estimation, would be a way to influence more humans in a more realistic manner but the world may not be ready for a realistic type of religion. 

Not being a member of the Catholic Church, I realize that I have no influence over that body but it would hearten me to see them, for whatever reason, if not admit (I know that is a hot button word) that Jesus and MM were indeed married, then acknowledge her as just as imperative to the myth as the other apostles which would give some balance of influence to the fairer sex.

_JS is an awesome guy and the next time I'm on my way to Nashville, I'll shoot him an email and maybe we can have a nice dinner and meet face to face.

B
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: _JS on December 08, 2006, 02:52:49 PM
Thanks Brass. I look forward to it.

I will say one thing for the Church in relation to women. Perhaps it is myopic to look at Mary Magdelene as the only source of inspiration for Catholic women. Mary, the holy mother, has been an inspiration for women for centuries. Many of those women have made a real difference in the treatment and role of women around the world.

Also, to be fair, when you consider the Church as you think about her in your overall worldview, consider that in some of those African nations the only decent schools and healthcare are provided by the Church. In American inner-cities the Church has remained a constant while white flight changed the demographics and money became scarce. When many preach individualism and a society based on consumerism, the Church has always believed in a better society for all. While you may disagree on abortion, the Church also opposes capital punishment, and a just war by Catholic doctrine is far more difficult to obtain and requires meeting serious criteria as it was designed to prevent warfare and not encourage it. There is a real commitment to human life that goes beyond mere politics.

I digress though. It is just often that people pick out some issues to critique the Church on and conveniently forget that the institution has done good in its 2000 years as well.


We could look in the window of the fancy French Restaurant where the Country Music stars all eat (I can't afford to eat there). I always think it is funny to hear or see them sing about being working men and women who shop at Wal-Mart, drink beer at a rowdy bar, and drive an old beat-up truck - then read about them in the paper dressed to the nines and eating at a French restaurant that costs a couple hundred a meal (wine not included).
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: Amianthus on December 08, 2006, 05:44:59 PM
We could look in the window of the fancy French Restaurant where the Country Music stars all eat (I can't afford to eat there). I always think it is funny to hear or see them sing about being working men and women who shop at Wal-Mart, drink beer at a rowdy bar, and drive an old beat-up truck - then read about them in the paper dressed to the nines and eating at a French restaurant that costs a couple hundred a meal (wine not included).

You don't save up to take the Mrs. out once in a while? I just bought my wife a gift card to The Fig Tree Restaurant (http://www.charlottefigtree.com/) for Christmas. Way out of our price range normally. We're the "shop at Walmart, drive a beat-up pickup" type most days.

(Of course, I realize that country music stars are just as rich as rock stars and the Hollywood types...)
Title: Re: Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?
Post by: _JS on December 11, 2006, 11:27:15 AM
Quote
You don't save up to take the Mrs. out once in a while? I just bought my wife a gift card to The Fig Tree Restaurant for Christmas. Way out of our price range normally. We're the "shop at Walmart, drive a beat-up pickup" type most days.

(Of course, I realize that country music stars are just as rich as rock stars and the Hollywood types...)

'Twas really a statement on the "image" of country musicians, but mostly just a joke.

We own two vehicles, both of which have over 150,000 miles on them.