There are multiple ways in which the Bay of Pigs could be related to the JFK assassination. One theory that emerged soon after Nov. 22, 1963 was that rabid anticommunist Cubans were involved. Depending on how credible one believes Marita Lorenz's testimony to be in Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby (1985, Southern District of Florida), there is even reason to think some of the assassination team's names are known.
Here is an attempt to refute her credibility, but it relies on taking the word of people like Frank Sturgis to be credible, which is incredible in itself!
Here's another version of what the case means for the JFK assassination. As Mr. Morley knows as well as anyone, you have to expect to read and compare and contrast many different accounts of the three murders (JFK, Officer Tippit, and Lee Harvey Oswald) to gain some idea of the numerous contradictions and complexities in the record:
And all of this is just one more in a plethora of reasons why we need ALL the files released as soon as possible, this year, not next year, not "sometime in the future."
I know this is pointless semantics on my behalf as it does not change the gravity of his statement, but isn't he saying "the 'Who Shot John' thing"? Whenever i see this quoted i often see the word "thing" instead of "angle". Just curious if there's an official transcript.
I love this historical research, but I suspect it’s off base. The below 1986 William Safire NYT column says Nixon like to use the phrase “who shot John” more generally as an idiom to mean “a question that the speaker is not about to answer because it involves loathsome finger-pointing, unworthy of the fair-minded.”
Richard M. Nixon always liked the locution. In 1977, he told a reporter, Austin Scott, about the terrible personal pressures on former Attorney General John Mitchell, and concluded, ''And so, that's the human side of the story, which . . . I know that you and the press, you can't be interested in that. You can only be interested in 'Who shot John.' Well, go ahead. . . .''
"The U.S. media has the lowest credibility — 26 percent — among 46 nations, according to a 2022 report from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
"Once fact becomes interchangeable with opinion, once truth is irrelevant, once people are told only what they wish to hear, journalism ceases to be journalism and becomes propaganda."
There are multiple ways in which the Bay of Pigs could be related to the JFK assassination. One theory that emerged soon after Nov. 22, 1963 was that rabid anticommunist Cubans were involved. Depending on how credible one believes Marita Lorenz's testimony to be in Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby (1985, Southern District of Florida), there is even reason to think some of the assassination team's names are known.
Here is an attempt to refute her credibility, but it relies on taking the word of people like Frank Sturgis to be credible, which is incredible in itself!
www.jfk-assassination.net/denial.htm
Here's another version of what the case means for the JFK assassination. As Mr. Morley knows as well as anyone, you have to expect to read and compare and contrast many different accounts of the three murders (JFK, Officer Tippit, and Lee Harvey Oswald) to gain some idea of the numerous contradictions and complexities in the record:
spartacus-educational.com/JFKtrento.htm
And all of this is just one more in a plethora of reasons why we need ALL the files released as soon as possible, this year, not next year, not "sometime in the future."
I know this is pointless semantics on my behalf as it does not change the gravity of his statement, but isn't he saying "the 'Who Shot John' thing"? Whenever i see this quoted i often see the word "thing" instead of "angle". Just curious if there's an official transcript.
I love this historical research, but I suspect it’s off base. The below 1986 William Safire NYT column says Nixon like to use the phrase “who shot John” more generally as an idiom to mean “a question that the speaker is not about to answer because it involves loathsome finger-pointing, unworthy of the fair-minded.”
https://www.nytimes.com/1986/12/21/magazine/on-language-who-shot-john.html
Richard M. Nixon always liked the locution. In 1977, he told a reporter, Austin Scott, about the terrible personal pressures on former Attorney General John Mitchell, and concluded, ''And so, that's the human side of the story, which . . . I know that you and the press, you can't be interested in that. You can only be interested in 'Who shot John.' Well, go ahead. . . .''
Off-topic but important.
"The U.S. media has the lowest credibility — 26 percent — among 46 nations, according to a 2022 report from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
"Once fact becomes interchangeable with opinion, once truth is irrelevant, once people are told only what they wish to hear, journalism ceases to be journalism and becomes propaganda."
See:
https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/the-trump-russia-saga-and-the-death?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
"Who shot John?" has been a saying since the mid-1800's, so it doesn't necessarily refer to the JFK assassination.