The RFK Case in Court

[Estro Felino]

Fame, notoriety, mental illness, the list goes on and on. Read your own sources. He was already spending what amounted to a life sentence in prison. Instead of being a nobody that tried and failed to kill two policeman , he could claim to have killed the President. That would give him status in prison.

Did you even read your source? Obviously not:

"In 1994, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was quoted as having investigated Files' allegation and found it "not to be credible".[3][6]"

"Vincent Bugliosi, author of Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, has characterized Files as "the Rodney Dangerfield of Kennedy assassins."[2] According to Bugliosi, very few within the majority of Americans (75%) who believe there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy respect him or his story.[2] However, psychology professor Jerome Kroth described Files as "surprisingly credible" and said his story "is the most believable and persuasive" about the assassination.[2]"

At the very best he is the most credible of a long line of loons that claimed to have shot JFK. His claims are simply another "So what?" claim.

His story is credible. Of course the Deep State will say he is a lunatic.
You can't expect the Deep State to confess to a crime they participated in 60 years ago.

 

[rocala]

Reagan survived though, which means his bodyguards' crew worked perfectly.

No, that is called luck

Subduction Zone is correct here. There is no such thing as perfect security. When guarding a VIP there is an enormous number of variables to factor in. For a walking client, a three-man team has really got its work cut out.

 

[Estro Felino]

Subduction Zone is correct here. There is no such thing as perfect security. When guarding a VIP there is an enormous number of variables to factor in. For a walking client, a three-man team has really got its work cut out.

Surely...but I believe the only ones who had a motive to eliminate both Kennedys brothers were not from the people.
They surely were from some elitist milieu, operating behind the scenes.

 

[Father Heathen]

As for facts...it turns out that RFK Jr was in Milan, in 2021. The crowd applauded him, hugged him and kissed him.

.

And feces attracts flies, so what's your point?

 

[Father Heathen]

His story is credible. Of course the Deep State will say he is a lunatic.
You can't expect the Deep State to confess to a crime they participated in 60 years ago.

Credibility is established by evidence and plausibility, each of which he lacks. Enough with the convoluted and cockamamie conspiracy theories. Life is not a ****ing cartoon.

 

[Estro Felino]

And feces attracts flies, so what's your point?

This thread is for analyzing, judicially, the RFK case.
Of course it's obvious Sirhan was a pawn... hired to kill Kennedy.
And he still won't confess.

 

[Subduction Zone]

His story is credible. Of course the Deep State will say he is a lunatic.
You can't expect the Deep State to confess to a crime they participated in 60 years ago.

How is it credible? Since when did you become an expert in such matters? Many think that he is even less credible than other kooks that have made the same claim.

 

[Father Heathen]

This thread is for analyzing, judicially, the RFK case.
Of course it's obvious Sirhan was a pawn... hired to kill Kennedy.
And he still won't confess.

Do you believe it was a.) The Freemasons, b.) The Jews, c.) The Illuminati, or d.) The Reptiloids?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you believe it was a.) The Freemasons, b.) The Jews, c.) The Illuminati, or d.) The Reptiloids?

e.) All four working together!!

 

[Estro Felino]

Do you believe it was a.) The Freemasons, b.) The Jews, c.) The Illuminati, or d.) The Reptiloids?

The Vatican too.

 

[rocala]

Surely...but I believe the only ones who had a motive to eliminate both Kennedys brothers were not from the people.
They surely were from some elitist milieu, operating behind the scenes.

I really am not qualified to speak on that point. I will say though, that in terms of threat assessment, three factors alone, he wants out of Vietnam, his recent comments about Israel/Palestine and his family's recent involvement in issues of race rights, the score goes off the charts.

 

[exchemist]

e.) All four working together!!

No, no, no, it was George Soros, obviously.

Or do I mean Bill Gates?

 

[Stevicus]

This thread is for analyzing, judicially, the RFK case.
Of course it's obvious Sirhan was a pawn... hired to kill Kennedy.
And he still won't confess.

It's possible, at least inasmuch as there are lingering questions about the assassinations, where there have been doubts about the official explanations. There will always be the "LNers" and the "CTers" arguing about it, though they tend to argue from the point of view of a "whodunit" novel. I tend to look at it in terms of the political ramifications and how it affected the direction of the country.

There is an implied fragility to the Republic and the political system to consider how a single lone nut without a cause can turn the country upside down after eliminating a single politician.

Oswald was a curiosity, especially considering he was, at least on a surface level, left-leaning. Yet by eliminating JFK, he paved the way for the escalation of the war in Vietnam and the Cold War overall. This would have been true even if Goldwater had won in '64 (although LBJ was practically a shoo-in at that point). JFK might have pursued a more restrained and diplomatic policy towards the Communist Bloc, so eliminating JFK seems counterproductive from the Communists' standpoint. Of course, the Soviets quickly realized the Oswald was a loon when he tried to defect to that country, and even they had no use for him.

So, at least from the standpoint of any actual political cause, Oswald had no apparent motive for killing JFK. Perhaps he might have done it for fame or notoriety, but if that was the case, why wouldn't he openly admit it upon capture, rather than claiming to be a "patsy"?

As for Sirhan Sirhan, he's another curiosity. He ostensibly killed RFK because he thought RFK wanted to help Israel, but in doing so, he paved the way for Nixon to win the presidency and left the Democratic Party in disarray (as manifested in the disastrous '68 Convention). The Republicans won 5 of the next 6 presidential elections ('68, '72, '80, '84, '88). Of course, it's pure speculation as to whether RFK could have beaten Nixon in '68, but considering the turmoil, tumult, and growing chaos in the country, with a war raging overseas and the growing threat of ICBMs and nuclear war, Nixon might still have won it.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's possible, at least inasmuch as there are lingering questions about the assassinations, where there have been doubts about the official explanations. There will always be the "LNers" and the "CTers" arguing about it, though they tend to argue from the point of view of a "whodunit" novel. I tend to look at it in terms of the political ramifications and how it affected the direction of the country.

Let's say that the two Kennedys would have been two big obstacles to the projects of certain technocrats behind the scenes.
It deals with a person who wanted the US to fight horrific wars in South East Asia (and the Kennedys wouldn't); a person who wanted to destroy the Socialist movements in South America (and he successfully did that through the Plan Condor). I guess you have understood who I am talking about.

So, at least from the standpoint of any actual political cause, Oswald had no apparent motive for killing JFK. Perhaps he might have done it for fame or notoriety, but if that was the case, why wouldn't he openly admit it upon capture, rather than claiming to be a "patsy"?

He was the patsy. He didn't fire the deadly shot. He would have said all the truth about how the Deep State hired him, in court.
They prevented him from doing it, by killing him.

 

[Stevicus]

Let's say that the two Kennedys would have been two big obstacles to the projects of certain technocrats behind the scenes.
It deals with a person who wanted the US to fight horrific wars in South East Asia (and the Kennedys wouldn't); a person who wanted to destroy the Socialist movements in South America (and he successfully did that through the Plan Condor). I guess you have understood who I am talking about.

I understand the factions which supported these actions and the kinds of people involved, such as McCarthy, Goldwater, Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover, the John Birch Society, and others of the ultra-patriotic, red-scaremongering ilk, who themselves saw conspiracies behind every bush. The entire Cold War was premised on a conspiracy theory.

I just see it as power politics at work in a world where geopolitical intrigue is the order of the day. It's the same basic principles and tactics which have been used for millennia, with slight variations due to improved technologies.

The details of intrigue might be obscured or remain hidden, so we may not ever be able to definitively prove "who did what," nor does it even really matter all that much in the grand scheme of things.

The only thing we can be certain about is the resulting consequences of what our government and politicians are publicly known to have done, said, or supported.

And we know about those horrific wars in Southeast Asia, along with the activities of our government in Latin America. The usual justification was that they did so to protect America from communism. Or it's sometimes put in terms of global economics and national interests. As Thomas Jefferson put it "Money, not morality, is the principle commerce of civilized nations."

But since Jefferson's time, we've developed into something different, where morality is important to enough people that government itself has had to change - or at least the image it presents to the public.

He was the patsy. He didn't fire the deadly shot. He would have said all the truth about how the Deep State hired him, in court.
They prevented him from doing it, by killing him.

It would have been an interesting trial, that's for sure.

The Church Committee suggested a possible conspiracy, but there wasn't enough evidence for them to make any conclusive statement about that.

I used to know a guy who was convinced that Howard Hunt was the shooter, as he showed a picture of some of the transients rounded up after the assassination from the railroad yard behind the grassy knoll. He believed that one of them bore a resemblance to Hunt. And then I recall hearing about Hunt making a deathbed confession, although I don't know if that was ever really verified. Hunt was also a key figure in the Watergate scandal, and the reason for the cover-up was not to cover up Watergate, per se, but to cover up all the other crooked things Hunt and his cohorts were involved in.

G. Gordon Liddy was another key player in Watergate, and I remember watching him speak at my university back in the early 1980s. It was actually kind of interesting, though he painted a rather bleak picture of the outside world and advocated a strong militaristic policy to deal with all the dangers we were facing at the time. The standard right-wing Cold Warrior militaristic viewpoint.

I've heard variations of the same argument from different people and different political backgrounds, but it all seems to revolve around a "dangerous world" that requires the US to maintain a strong global military presence and be ready to use it whenever deemed necessary.

It's the same Cold War mentality which seemed geared towards protecting America's national interests, protecting our nation, and "preserving our way of life." Even if it means the state has to do things which are considered unsavory or even immoral by most standards, even to the point of having to shroud it behind euphemisms like "deep state," there is an expected perception that it's "all for us" and for strictly patriotic, pro-American reasons - the "lesser of two evils." Just like those in the military might say they're protecting Americans' freedom.

Those who killed Caesar didn't hide; they were proud of what they did, as they thought it a noble and honorable act in defense of the Republic. But nowadays, politicians can't be quite so open about these things.

But again, we can look at the consequences and results of their actions and ask ourselves if it's all about freedom, democracy, or even America's economic interests. How has America fared since the death of the Kennedys (along with MLK and other Civil Rights leaders)? We had Nixon and Watergate, the collapse of South Vietnam, the Energy Crisis, runaway inflation, eventually leading us to Reagan and even more right-wing militarism, along with expansion of the intel and law enforcement communities to the point where police departments are militarized and armed to the teeth (and trigger-happy, too). Our economic situation has also stagnated and slowly declined, with crumbling infrastructure and governments bleeding red ink claiming they can't afford to fix it. Even though the Cold War ended, our government still had to find things for our military to do, as they continue to do to this day.

At the end of the day, I won't say that I don't care who killed the Kennedys, but I can't say that it has much relevance or any real bearing on my life in the here and now. At worst, it's a mystery that will never be solved, but life goes on, and the rest of us somehow manage to survive. As for conspiracies, I think that they're certainly possible.

However, if we're talking about typical power politics in action, presumably for the purpose of advancing the interests and well-being of a given nation-state (in this case, America), then I would say (by examining the results and consequences of where America stands in the here and now), any possible "conspirators" or abusers of state power have done a massively botched and incompetent job at it.

In the end, I don't really care all that much about their deep, dark secrets. I don't care what they're hiding at Area 51 or whether some banking cartel secretly runs things. Regardless of who runs it, the minimal expectation is that they do right by the people. Based on the results I see, they're not doing their job. That's all we really need to know at this point.

 

[Estro Felino]

I understand the factions which supported these actions and the kinds of people involved, such as McCarthy, Goldwater, Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover, the John Birch Society, and others of the ultra-patriotic, red-scaremongering ilk, who themselves saw conspiracies behind every bush. The entire Cold War was premised on a conspiracy theory.

Politicians, Presidents or Congresspeople are puppets, most of the times. Most of them aren't even aware of that.
They are manipulated through propaganda by banking and financial élites who benefit from wars and who want to conquer certain resources in specific countries.
The Venezuelan question is emblematic. If Venezuela hadn't been so rich in oil, the US financial élites, the Deep State wouldn't have cared at all about Venezuela.
As for the Cold War: if Russia wasn't so filled with natural gas and oil, there would have never been any Cold War.
And in my thread about WW2 I have already explained why the so called Jekyll Island Club expected Hitler to conquer the Caspian Sea, Baku, to be precise.

It's the same Cold War mentality which seemed geared towards protecting America's national interests, protecting our nation, and "preserving our way of life." Even if it means the state has to do things which are considered unsavory or even immoral by most standards, even to the point of having to shroud it behind euphemisms like "deep state," there is an expected perception that it's "all for us" and for strictly patriotic, pro-American reasons - the "lesser of two evils." Just like those in the military might say they're protecting Americans' freedom.

It's the principle of Machiavellianism. The end justifies the means.
I don't think the end is worth it, if the means are murders, murders and murders.

At the end of the day, I won't say that I don't care who killed the Kennedys, but I can't say that it has much relevance or any real bearing on my life in the here and now. At worst, it's a mystery that will never be solved, but life goes on, and the rest of us somehow manage to survive. As for conspiracies, I think that they're certainly possible.

I perfectly understand your perspective as an atheist.
But you should understand my perspective too, as a theist.
In my own perspective, I can feel the suffering, the dreams, the strive for justice, the optimism of these two young brothers, who wanted to change America. And who have been stopped. The fact that they have been stopped confirms that there is a Deep State, and back then they used murder as weapon. Now they use blackmailing, judicial scandals, etc.. etc...

In the end, I don't really care all that much about their deep, dark secrets. I don't care what they're hiding at Area 51 or whether some banking cartel secretly runs things. Regardless of who runs it, the minimal expectation is that they do right by the people. Based on the results I see, they're not doing their job. That's all we really need to know at this point.

It's not a secret cartel. It's aboveboard.
They own the Federal Reserve, which is private: so they own the FED Seigniorage which is a right that belongs to the American people, via Government.
They have stolen something from the American People and must give it back.
Simple as that.

 

[Father Heathen]

@Estro Felino From what particular rabbit hole are you dredging all of this up from?