RFK Jr. suspects a second gunman killed his dad.

He is as entitled to his opinion as anyone else is, but being RFK's son doesn't grant him anymore credibility that anyone else.

He was 14 years old when his father was assassinated. I doubt his father sat him down and had a heart-to-heart about who he believed may have been behind his brother's assassination and his opinion must be based more on hearsay than direct knowledge.
 
BStrong said:
He is as entitled to his opinion as anyone else is, but being RFK's son doesn't grant him anymore credibility that anyone else.

He was 14 years old when his father was assassinated. I doubt his father sat him down and had a heart-to-heart about who he believed may have been behind his brother's assassination and his opinion must be based more on hearsay than direct knowledge.
Click to expand...

What? RFK Jr. has concerns about the assassination of his own father, RFK, not JFK. And some of the questions he raises have also been raised by another victim of the shooting who survived.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
What? RFK Jr. has concerns about the assassination of his own father, RFK, not JFK. And some of the questions he raises have also been raised by another victim of the shooting who survived.
Click to expand...

https://radaronline.com/exclusives/...kennedy-family-believes-cia-killed-president/

In his new tell-all, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. confessed that his notorious political family believed the CIA killed late president John F. Kennedy, RadarOnline.com can exclusively reveal.

In the candid memoir, American Values: Lessons I learned from My Family, RFK Jr. ripped the lid off of the family’s best kept secrets. He confessed it was his father, Robert F. Kennedy, who doubted the intentions of the government’s intelligence agency.

ETA: RFK Jr also made this statement, familiar as a falsehood passed along by JFK CTists:

“Jack’s own conversations drifted repeatedly to the subject of assassination, including on the morning of Nov. 22, when Jack and Jackie saw the black-bordered front page of the Dallas Morning News accusing Jack of treason,” Kennedy Jr. wrote."

You can read the Warren Commission about the "Treason" Flyer and the ad on page 14 of the DMN:

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-2.html#dallas

Another reaction to the impending visit -- hostile to the President --came to a head shortly before his arrival. On November 21 there appeared on the streets of Dallas the anonymous handbill mentioned above. It was fashioned after the "wanted" circulars issued by law enforcement agencies. Beneath two photographs of President Kennedy, one full- face and one profile, appeared the caption, "Wanted for Treason," followed by a scurrilous bill of particulars that constituted a vilification of the President.71 And on the morning of the President's arrival, there appeared in the Morning News a full , black-bordered advertisement headed "Welcome Mr. Kennedy to Dallas," sponsored by the American Fact-finding Committee, which the sponsor later testified was an ad hoc committee "formed strictly for the purpose of having a name to put in the paper." The "welcome" consisted of a series of statements and questions critical of the


Various CT hawkers over the years asserted the front page location of the ad. I believe RFK Jr. believes what he wants to believe.
 
Last edited:
According to an RFK aid, the morning after the assassination CIA Director John McCone was at their home, and RFK took him out in the backyard where he grabbed McCone by the jacket, and asked him if the CIA was behind it.

Keep in mind that he idolized his brother, and that the two had been running Operation Mongoose WITH the CIA. When you run an assassination program you start to see assassins everywhere.
 
Another good conspiracy theory that RFK Jr bought into was the "Bush Stole Ohio" CT that he published in Rolling Stone. It's classic CT nuttery; he starts out by mentioning this:

The Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as ''conspiracy theories,'' and The New York Times declared that ''there is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale.''
Click to expand...

The media are always in on the plot, don't you see?

My favorite bit was the rural counties:

Despite the well-documented effort that prevented hundreds of thousands of voters in urban and minority precincts from casting ballots, the worst theft in Ohio may have quietly taken place in rural counties. An examination of election data suggests widespread fraud -- and even good old-fashioned stuffing of ballot boxes -- in twelve sparsely populated counties scattered across southern and western Ohio: Auglaize, Brown, Butler, Clermont, Darke, Highland, Mercer, Miami, Putnam, Shelby, Van Wert and Warren. (See The Twelve Suspect Counties) One key indicator of fraud is to look at counties where the presidential vote departs radically from other races on the ballot. By this measure, John Kerry's numbers were suspiciously low in each of the twelve counties -- and George Bush's were unusually high.
Click to expand...

See, he compared the votes that Kerry got in those counties to the vote that a liberal woman running for the state supreme court got, and the woman outpolled Kerry. He concluded:

Yet in the twelve questionable counties, Bush's margin over Moyer was fifty percent -- a strong indication that the president's certified vote total was inflated. If Kerry had maintained his statewide margin over Connally in the twelve suspect counties, as he almost assuredly would have done in a clean election, he would have bested her by 81,260 ballots. That's a swing of 162,520 votes from Kerry to Bush -- more than enough to alter the outcome.
Click to expand...

I pointed out how ludicrous this assumption was back in 2006 (when RFK Jr's article was written:

Let's take a look at the 12 "suspect" counties. First, in 2000, those counties voted for Bush by a large margin. Ignoring the third party candidates, Bush got 67.4% of the vote while Gore only managed 32.6%. In 2004, Bush upped that to 69.5% to Kerry's 30.5%. Very suspicious indeed. But looking at the big picture, what would it take to swing 80,000 votes to Kerry in those twelve "suspect" counties?

And that's where Kennedy's claim is exposed for the nonsense that it is. You see, these really are rural counties so the idea of shaking an 80,000 vote swing out of them is contrived. Bush got 382,000 votes in those counties, so we reduce that to 302,000. And we up Kerry's 168,000 to 248,000. So Bush got 54.9% in those twelve counties, as compared to his 67.4% the prior election a 12.5 percentage point decline in Bush's share of the major party vote in those twelve counties between 2000 and 2004. How does that stack up with the rest of Ohio? Well, actually Bush didn't lose 12.5 percentage points compared to 2000 in any other county. His worst performance was about a 5 percentage point drop.
Click to expand...
 
Axxman300 said:
According to an RFK aid, the morning after the assassination CIA Director John McCone was at their home, and RFK took him out in the backyard where he grabbed McCone by the jacket, and asked him if the CIA was behind it.

Keep in mind that he idolized his brother, and that the two had been running Operation Mongoose WITH the CIA. When you run an assassination program you start to see assassins everywhere.
Click to expand...

RFK went looking for answers, which makes perfect sense and he can't be faulted for it.

Allegedly he was concerned that his gang-busting and going after labor corruption precipitated his brothers assassination.

He never got answers to the questions he had, but I doubt RFK Jr. was a party to the proceedings.

If he isn't concerned enough with the facts to know something as basic as the Dallas Morning news "Treason" flyer evidence from the WC I question his motives.
 
This is really interesting. I had no idea that there was a grassy knoll, a stockade fence, a drain cover, a triple underpass or a Dal-Tex building right there inside the Ambassador Hotel.... who knew?
 
I confess I don't know as much about this as I probably should.

The linked article makes mention of an autopsy report that claims Kennedy was shot from behind, thus exculpating Sirhan.
Is this legit?
 
Cosmic Yak said:
I confess I don't know as much about this as I probably should.

The linked article makes mention of an autopsy report that claims Kennedy was shot from behind, thus exculpating Sirhan.
Is this legit?
Click to expand...

The autopsy report is the official one. The question at issue regards Sirhan's and RFK's positions relative to each other. The claim is that Sirhan was in front of RFK, making it hard for Sirhan to shoot him in the back. The response is that RFK turned away from the gunman in front of him, as anyone would.

I dunno who's right. I just find it interesting that the victim's son, a lawyer himself with substantial resources, has doubts about the official account.
 
Brainster said:
Another good conspiracy theory that RFK Jr bought into was the "Bush Stole Ohio" CT that he published in Rolling Stone. It's classic CT nuttery; he starts out by mentioning this:
....
Click to expand...

RFK Jr. might not be making the best case. But he's not the only person who suspects that multiple voting "irregularities," particularly involving the Diebold voting machines produced by a major Republican donor, cost the Democrats votes.

Here's Christopher Hitchens:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2005/03/hitchens200503

Here's John Kerry:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/negotiating-the-whirlwind

More:
https://www.motherjones.com/media/2005/11/recounting-ohio/
https://columbusfreepress.com/article/diebold-indicted-its-spectre-still-haunts-ohio-elections
 
Bob001 said:
The autopsy report is the official one. The question at issue regards Sirhan's and RFK's positions relative to each other. The claim is that Sirhan was in front of RFK, making it hard for Sirhan to shoot him in the back. The response is that RFK turned away from the gunman in front of him, as anyone would.

I dunno who's right. I just find it interesting that the victim's son, a lawyer himself with substantial resources, has doubts about the official account.
Click to expand...
The powder stains on the skin shows that the pistol had to have been fired inches from the entrance wound pointing upwards almost 90˚.

Sirhan were never closer than 2-3 feet from in front of RFK and was forced down over a table after firing the first two shots.

RFK was hit with three shots from behind and upwards and a fourth hitting his jacket.

Sirhan didn’t assassinate RFK.

Ray didn’t assassinate MLK.

Oswald didn’t assassinate JFK.

They were all patsies, carefully crafted and put in place to take the blame for three assassinations that changed America and the world to a much more sinister place.

Who was/are behind? Hmmm ...
 
manifesto said:
The powder stains on the skin shows that the pistol had to have been fired inches from the entrance wound pointing upwards almost 90˚.

Sirhan were never closer than 2-3 feet from in front of RFK and was forced down over a table after firing the first two shots.

RFK was hit with three shots from behind and upwards and a fourth hitting his jacket.

Sirhan didn’t assassinate RFK.

Ray didn’t assassinate MLK.

Oswald didn’t assassinate JFK.

They were all patsies, carefully crafted and put in place to take the blame for three assassinations that changed America and the world to a much more sinister place.

Who was/are behind? Hmmm ...
Click to expand...


UnsubstantiatedNonesense.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom