rigorousintuition.ca

Link

Because of his proclivity for operating in secret, RFK did not leave behind a documentary record of his inquiries into his brother's assassination. But it is possible to retrace his investigative trail, beginning with the afternoon of Nov. 22, when he frantically worked the phones at Hickory Hill -- his Civil War-era mansion in McLean, Va. -- and summoned aides and government officials to his home. Lit up with the clarity of shock, the electricity of adrenaline, Bobby Kennedy constructed the outlines of the crime that day -- a crime, he immediately concluded, that went far beyond Lee Harvey Oswald, the 24-year-old ex-Marine arrested shortly after the assassination. Robert Kennedy was America's first assassination conspiracy theorist.

this is an excellent link worth reading for information coming out now
that hasnt been widely published in past 40 years.

especially interesting that
bill walton of all people
[aka chair of white house fine arts commission]
went on mission to moscow on behalf of rfk and jacqueline k,
and that rfk's top sleuth walt sheridan told rfk
that garrison's investigation was 'a fraud.'

garrison hardly a fraud, found clay shaw links to permindex and other
interesting entities, so who was sheridan also working for? the maze gets
ever deeper with each passing decade. thanks a lot for the word on this
fascinating but strange new book.

According to "liberal" Air America radio host Thom Hartmann, in his book "Ultimate Sacrifice," RFK joined the conspiracy to cover-up a Mafia (not CIA) assassination of JFK because JFK and RFK had plotted to re-invade Cuba (!), so RFK was in danger of getting exposed, so he joined the cover-up bandwagon.

It's no joke, even though it's written by clowns. Weighing-in at 960 pages, ignoring all evidence pointing to anyone but the Mafia, and failing to explain how the Mafia controlled Bethseda or planted the stretcher bullet, or controlled LBJ & the Warren Commission, etc., it's still amazing to see the 5-star reviews on Amazon for the book.

What did RFK think? According to an American "progressive/liberal historian," RFK was in on it. Any wonder why America is turning itself & the world into such a shithole?

who was sheridan also working for?

Sheridan isn't the only JFK investigator to have come to the conclusion that Garrison fumbled/tanked his own investigation. http://www.jfk-online.com/ctsonjg.html

Don't ask me...I'm not that well-versed in the complexities of the case. My take on it is that if Garrison was missing the mark, some of the ricochets seem to have landed quite close to people who might have been involved in a JFK assassination conspiracy. But many did not.

No way "the Mafia" did it on their own. Out of the question.

Can't remember where I read it but-

I've read an account by a friend of RFK's brother-in-law, Peter Lawford, which said that RFK called his immediate family together to tell them that the murder of JFK was a high-level military-industrial plot but there wasn't anything he could do about it.
A tough scene to picture but there's that possibility.

As to Thom Hartmann's rediculous JFK book, I've been meaning to start a thread on Hartmann who has some remarkable CIA-type attributes in his biography. His 'the mafia-done-it' book only fuels my interest in his varied career from sheparding special needs children to neurolinguistic programming and living around the world.

Hartmann's books on economics and class warfare leave out any mention of
the Corporate Invisible Army.

He knows too much to ignore the cryptocracy AND exonerate them of JFK's murder, too.

Something doesn't add up. But then look what Air America is named after, a big kiss-you-on-the-lips keyword hijacking.

hi, i read more pages at salon link
and realized later that sheridan was also
working for NBC news, the network owned
by friendly defense contractor,
when he said garrison was 'fraud.'
and good point about name of air america,
i just think, well, birds of a feather.

Hugh wrote:

I've been meaning to start a thread on Hartmann who has some remarkable CIA-type attributes in his biography. His 'the mafia-done-it' book only fuels my interest in his varied career from sheparding special needs children to neurolinguistic programming and living around the world.

He knows too much to ignore the cryptocracy AND exonerate them of JFK's murder, too.

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. Hartmann's living around the world, especially (the list of places he's lived I've seen include Germany during the 1980s, Russia at the tail-end of the Cold War, Colombia, as well as multivarious other side trips into very non-tourist locations such as Libya, Morocco, etc.) is suspect.

I also wonder (maybe you know something, Hugh, about this?) about the background of Webster Tarpley. Tarpley's got 99% of the accurate interpretations of 9/11 clues woven into a fairly believable narrative. Yet on his RBN (now-defunct; a bizarre COINTELPRO-like story unto itself) Internet radio show, he dropped in a few intermittent whoppers (such as doubting openly that the U.S. landed on the moon -- not what you'd expect from someone who's not very fringe on his very plausible and intelligent 9/11 analysis).

Not to mention: Tarpley regularly broadcast his Internet radio show from such far-flung and wide-world locations as Rome, Paris, and London, and he seemed to be based in Washington, D.C., from whence the majority of his broadcasts originated.

My question about Tarpley is: where does the money come from for all that travel and all that free-time? What is his primary income source? Has he ever indicated a story (or cover-story) for himself?

In the event that Tarpley is a disinfo spook, what does it tell us that some intelligence agency or paramilitary/paraintelligence agency sees a need to provide a Tarpley? For whom is his 99% brilliant analysis and 1% disinformation?

Doesn't the existence of Tarpley-as-disinfo-spook (if he is) tell us (at least) that: (a) somebody's going to great lengths to create firewalls, disinfo ops for the most serious of amateur researchers, and discredit-op timebombs?; (and what type of lengths are those lengths?) (b) somebody somewhere takes very seriously the potential for 99% of Tarpley's (accurate-portion) narrative to damage the fascist coup; (c) somebody somewhere is leaving no stone unturned/nothing to chance in The Long Coup; (d) somebody somewhere is very, very serious about the fascist transformation.

I don't want to believe it about Tarpley, but I can't ignore what I see as red flags (and wouldn't an operation smart enough to wage those ultra-driven lengths also be smart enough to avoid the red flags?)...

Nevertheless, Tarpley's also a honeypot for people like me who suspend skepticism when I see the red flags, in an effort to sort out the golden honey from the disinfo (a dangerous enterprise to get seduced into).

I only trust Paul Thompson 100% of the entire 9/11 "Truth" field, and Peter Dale Scott is 99.7% too.

As for Air America, it gives me a headache. It's like watching Jamie Lee Curtis refusing to kill The Boogeyman in John Carpenter's "Halloween." No matter how many times she gets lucky and escapes death, she always drops the knife and lets The Boogeyman resurrect.

Air America is unlistenable.

I guess this is the wrong place and time to admit that I enjoy listening to Hartmann, but I have wondered about how he got the money and time to do all these things. I've never read his JFK book, but if it's being described accurately, the hypothesis is absurd. I have no patience for those mafia theories. This is indeed disappointing

Yathrib: I too found much to admire in Hartmann until his JFK book came out, which became the turd in the punchbowl, for me.

I find many similarities here to Noam Chomsky. They're both on-the-money about several issues: Chomsky on propoganda, Hartmann on the New Deal's ideals, Hartmann on the middle class/trade unions & the ruling class' warfare on them, Chomsky on social justice & Western nations' exploitation of the lesser developed nations, etc.

But (as Hugh points out above) Hartmann & Chomsky both are determined to subvert any serious examination of rogue secret networks and intelligence agencies as the heavyweight players that are undermining (and overthrowing) democracy.

Hartmann (as can be found at his archives) to his credit does subscribe to some conspiracies, particularly the October Surprise (Barbara Hoenegger, author of one of the two books both called "October Surprise," has been a guest on Hartmann's show and a few of the interviews are archived; the other author of the other "October Surprise" book, Gary Sick, has more stature and has not been a guest on the show to my knowledge).

Hartmann has given airtime to a handful of 9/11 Truth figures such as David Ray Griffin. Hartmann avoids subscribing to any particular 9/11 theories (the only progressive talk show host who explicitly subscribes to 9/11 Truth and believes that 9/11 was an inside job is, to my knowledge, Mike Malloy on Nova-M, fired by Air America a month after his 9/11-Was-An-Inside-Job extravaganza show) and Hartmann gives virtually zero airtime to the topic despite receiving weekly calls questioning the official 9/11 Myth.

Chomsky is worse, of course, in his refusal to question the official 9/11 story, but Chomsky refused to question even rogue intelligence operations within U.S. agencies before 9/11 (see Chomsky's declaration in "The Chomsky Reader" that the CIA is completely benign and has no autonomy to act outside lawful directives of whichever administration is in the White House --- !).

Unfortunately, both Hartmann and Chomsky don't even acknowledge the reality of Operation Mockingbird, which calls into question both their credentials at the least, or their legitimacy at worst. Aside from Operation Mockingbird, Gary Webb's CIA (the agency which imports cocaine & heroin for black-ops spending money) -- examined at length this month by Daniel Hopsicker at Madcow.com -- isn't ever examined by Hartmann or Chomsky.

Both Hartmann & Chomsky are sort of like a PG-rated version of the underbelly of U.S. imperialism abroad and subversion of democracy at home -- which is better than the official version that denies any underbelly. But I'm skeptical that (given the reality of Carl Bernstein's bombshells about Operation Mockingbird) Hartmann & Chomsky aren't both acting like "information gatekeepers" would. They're both acting exactly as you'd expect an information gatekeeper to act: we're allowed to see some of the sordid details, but most serious questions are "off the table."

So we can all learn from Hartmann & Chomsky, and they're a semi-nutritious alternative to eating cardboard, but in the long run, we're still getting processed foods from both of them.

judasdisney writes:

I also wonder (maybe you know something, Hugh, about this?) about the background of Webster Tarpley. Tarpley's got 99% of the accurate interpretations of 9/11 clues woven into a fairly believable narrative. Yet on his RBN (now-defunct; a bizarre COINTELPRO-like story unto itself) Internet radio show, he dropped in a few intermittent whoppers (such as doubting openly that the U.S. landed on the moon -- not what you'd expect from someone who's not very fringe on his very plausible and intelligent 9/11 analysis).

Now that opens up another can of worms. 1969 - antiquated technology - a flawless flight to the moon and back?! The same group of criminals were around working for Nixon then.
Tarpley's correct on this one, too. Unless, of course, it was interdimensional travel. I wonder if he's being fed this information or if he's just lucky to be alive.

...and what does RFK Jr think of the RFK assassination?

In this clip from a recent conversation with Corbett, RFK Jr requires only two minutes and nineteen seconds to demolish the case against Sirhan and show that his father was in fact murdered by CIA agent Thane Eugene Caesar:

@JeffWellsRigInt 27. Nov.

More than any other high crime this one demonstrated that our fight is with magicians. Evidence and science don't leave marks on a foe who can warp reality.

https://twitter.com/JeffWellsRigInt/sta ... 5500444683

But surely Covid is completely different to everything that's always happened forever before?