General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI just don't get why people can't accept that a punk-ass loser killed JFK
It is heart breaking.
But what if Squeaky Fromme or Sara Jane Moore had succeeded. Or John Hinckley.
Psychos defy all logic.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)Paranoid ideology.
Before JFK it was restricted to the right-wing conservative types.
Now it has infected the whole political spectrum, progressives and Democrats as well as the Tea Party extremists.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)And even that was very loose. And it closely followed a war.
It is rather baffling how many assassinations or attempted assassinations there have been in this country not just against sitting Presidents, but against Presidential candidates and other politians or public figures.
Oh wait guns. 
That's right. Checking to see if a person was dangerously mentally ill or was a felon or had a restraining order would be a terrible crime against the Constitution.
Archae
(46,327 posts)McKinley's assassin was so far left he fell off the keyboard, an anarchist.
Garfield's killer was simply nuts.
He felt the universe owed him.
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)And since JFK neither are conspiracy theorists.
Archae
(46,327 posts)I've seen just about as many conspiracy theories coming from the Left, as I have from the Right.
A quite popular one from the Left is the "US government is picking on Venezuala."
eridani
(51,907 posts)It's really South American countries that have banded together to create a military command calles Northcom. Oh wait..I think that's us too.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)A belief that government lies to us about everything is a good example of an ideology.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I said that they lie to us consistently. And they do. It's not a matter of ideology. It's a matter of fact.
If someone lies to you consistently, you begin to mistrust everything that they say, and that's exactly what's happened with our government. It's not a matter of "ideology," it's a matter of good common sense, to no longer take a liar's word for anything.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Lots of witnesses saw the other three attempt assassinations.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 28, 2013, 09:23 AM - Edit history (1)
They just found his gun who no one else had owned with his prints on it.
And witnesses to him killing J.D. Tippet.
http://www.jdtippit.com/
changed link on edit.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Really, it's not even worth opening that link. The Daily Mail is the UK's version of the National Enquirer.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)You are seriously now debating whether that scumbag killed Officer Tibbit? Seriously? Wow.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)At least one witness saw him well enough to give a basic description, which helped police locate him. His fellow workers also put Oswald at the scene of the crime.
former9thward
(31,997 posts)The description was of a "stocky" and "bushy haired man". Oswald was neither. After Oswald was arrested no one could identify him. Oswald at the scene of the crime? Yeah, well he worked there didn't he? They were all the scene of the crime too.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Howard Leslie Brennan's 22 November 1963 description of assassin: http://www.jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brennan1.htm
I saw a man in this window. I had seen him before the President's car arrived. He was just sitting up there looking down apparently waiting for the same thing I was to see the President. I did not notice anything unusual about this man. He was a white man in his early 30's, slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds. He had on light colored clothing but definately [sic] not a suit. I proceeded to watch the President's car as it turned left at the corner where I was and about 50 yards from the intersection of Elm and Houston and to a point I would say the President's back was in line with the last windows I have previously described I heard what I thought was a back fire. It run [sic] in my mind that it might be someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick building and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the barrel of the gun... I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again.
former9thward
(31,997 posts)How could anyone looking at an angle 6 stories up from a street to someone in a window know someone was "slender" and weighed 165-75? That would never hold up in court. Like many of the WC witnesses they turned out to have super powers compared to the average witness. As I stated before no one specifically identified Oswald.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)The police were not looking for a "stocky" and "bushy haired man."
Howard Leslie Brennan temporarily got cold feet when he thought there was a conspiracy. He thought he may be in danger. He later reaffirmed his description and ID.
former9thward
(31,997 posts)Police immediately bring witnesses into a line-up for i.d. purposes before pictures are thrown all over the media. No one i.d.ed him. "later" counts for nothing in any courtroom proceeding. 75% of the country would i.d. him "later."
Mrs Helen Markham described the killer of Tippet as "short and stocky and bushy haired wearing a white coat". She then retracted that description after being questioned by Dallas police. The other witness to the Tippet slaying, Domingo Benavidas (who used Tippet's police radio to call in the killing) could not identify Oswald.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Oswald's gun fired the bullets that killed Tippit. Shell casings were recovered from the scene. They matched his revolver. A bullet was recovered from Tippit's body. It matched Oswald's revolver. Oswald's discarded jacket was discovered along the escape route taken by the shooter. It was positively identified as his by laundry marks. He had the revolver used to shoot Tippit in his possession when he was arrested. If he didn't actually shoot Tippit, how did his jacket get there? How did he come to be in possession of the gun that killed Tippit? ("All of that evidence was obviously planted as part of the frameup!" is not an actual answer to these questions, by the way.)
meanit
(455 posts)How does a revolver eject shell casings at the scene? Did he stop to reload after shooting? Curious....
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)alphafemale
(18,497 posts)
delrem
(9,688 posts)I recall that at the age of 13 I only thought "huh??" for a very short time before realizing that this was a managed crime. I wouldn't have put it in the more precise terms of "a managed crime" back then, but that was the first time my antennas went up.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)Obviously.
Response to alphafemale (Reply #13)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)Not exactly an automatically lethal shot.
oooohhh ooohhhh Conspiracy.
Response to alphafemale (Reply #173)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)And a loser killed JFK?
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)very peculiar movements to Russia and Cuba at the same time the CIA was launching its own secret operations in Cuba ...
If nobody had witnessed Hinkley shoot Reagan ...
If there were no film showing Hinkley shooting Reagan ...
If Reagan's wounds showed entry from the opposite direction of Hinkley ...
If Hinkley had not been gunned down by a guy with deep mob connections before he could be examined by objective experts ...
then we would have a lot of doubts about whether Hinkley acted alone. And likewise for Fromm.
But none of it happened that way.
delrem
(9,688 posts)I mentioned Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald point blank in the heart, two days after JFK was murdered (or, much better, assassinated).
I mentioned that I (aged 13) was shocked by this, so soon after I was shocked by JFK's death.
I'll also mention that I was a student at a RC school at the time, and RC movers and shakers were very proud of JFK, so when our classes were interrupted so as to suspend school because JFK was shot, we were all shaken.
You may laugh at folk who consider this whole scenario to be a black hole of an anomaly.
1. JFK shot by Oswald
2. two days later, Oswald shot point blank by Ruby.
However, when I point this anomaly out, I'm not acting as a 'conspiracy theorist', because I'm just pointing out facts, facts that are on record true.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Others tried to make the argument that somehow it is unfair for the large majority of Americans to have grave suspicious about the two Kennedy assassinations when most people don't have those same suspicious about Hinkley or Squeaky Fromm.
I think most people accept the idea that some things are just tragedies perpetrated by people who are not sane. Sandy Hook seems to be such a case. But the Oswald affair is not one of those cases.. Virtually every facet of the Warren Commission "investigation" appears faulty -- and intentionally so, so as to placed a disoriented public as RFK said or to avoid something that people thought could spiral into WWIII.
Maybe a whitewash was necessary at that moment. But not for 50 years. It is time that we got to the truth.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)(snip)
In 1999, a research team headed by Marina Abalakina-Paap, a psychologist at New Mexico State University, published a study of US college students. The students were asked whether they agreed with statements such as "Underground movements threaten the stability of American society" and "People who see conspiracies behind everything are simply imagining things". The strongest predictor of general belief in conspiracies, the authors found, was "lack of trust".
(snip)
The common thread between distrust and cynicism, as defined in these experiments, is a perception of bad character. More broadly, it's a tendency to focus on intention and agency, rather than randomness or causal complexity. In extreme form, it can become paranoia. In mild form, it's a common weakness known as the fundamental attribution error – ascribing others' behaviour to personality traits and objectives, forgetting the importance of situational factors and chance. Suspicion, imagination, and fantasy are closely related.
The more you see the world this way - full of malice and planning instead of circumstance and coincidence - the more likely you are to accept conspiracy theories of all kinds. Once you buy into the first theory, with its premises of coordination, efficacy, and secrecy, the next seems that much more plausible.
Many studies and surveys have documented this pattern. Several months ago, Public Policy Polling asked 1,200 registered US voters about various popular theories. Fifty-one per cent said a larger conspiracy was behind President Kennedy's assassination; only 25 per cent said Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Compared with respondents who said Oswald acted alone, those who believed in a larger conspiracy were more likely to embrace other conspiracy theories tested in the poll. They were twice as likely to say that a UFO had crashed in Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947 (32 to 16 per cent) and that the CIA had deliberately spread crack cocaine in US cities (22 to 9 per cent). Conversely, compared with respondents who didn't believe in the Roswell incident, those who did were far more likely to say that a conspiracy had killed JFK (74 to 41 per cent), that the CIA had distributed crack (27 to 10 per cent), that the government "knowingly allowed" the 9/11 attacks (23 to 7 per cent), and that the government adds fluoride to our water for sinister reasons (23 to 2 per cent).
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24626-inside-the-minds-of-the-jfk-conspiracy-theorists.html?full=true#.UpcQRuJgWP8
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
solarhydrocan
(551 posts)see also: "The Gulf of Tonkin incident"
If a person is lied to 100 times, is story #101 automatically believed?
lame54
(35,287 posts)it becomes the standard no matter how sketchy it is
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)Unconnected events.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)It's fairly clear that there could well be benefit to some people in government from eliding or altering public perceptions of various politically sensitive events in modern US history.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I don't recall having a particular opinion on that in the first place.
And I don't have a particular opinion on the Kennedy assassinations either, I'm somewhat skeptical of the official story but have no real alternative theory myself.
The point of my post being that we have been lied to many times by very high officials, it would seem prudent to maintain some degree of skepticism.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)I was asking solarhydrocan.
Sid
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)It is prudent to reserve some degree of skepticism of government explanations, particularly when dealing with politically charged events.
Bucky
(54,003 posts)Just as "reserving some degree of skepticism of government explanations" doesn't mean everything the government says is part of a tapestry creating an orchestrated illusion of truth. The conspiracy theorists' consensus view of a supercompetent, indeed error-free, far-sighted elitist cabal planning out the Kennedy assassination, Oswald framing, and perfectly concealed multiple snipers in a crowded public square simply doesn't jibe with actual human experience.
But the most instructive argument in this thread is the uncaptioned photograph of Colin Powell making the case for WMDs in Iraq. To some people in this thread, this is confirmation that the government lies to us about important things in order to get its way and suck our tax dollars into the military-industrial complex.
Only, the context of that photograph more clearly shows that large scale conspiracies do not work. Within months of the invasion of Iraq, the whole web of lies, fabrications, manipulations, and distortions used in the conspiracy to drag America into a war with the wrong country came unraveled. A conspiracy on that high a level of government, where competing ideologies, career goals, personal ambitions, personality clashes, and emotion-laden revenge fantasies all clash in the jumble of cover-ups and marketing switcharoos, simply can not be kept in secret. Hundreds of actors would have had to be involved in the murder of Kennedy and framing of Oswald for most conspiracy theories to pan out (with the possible exception of the mafia-related conspiracies--but even then the target should've been Bobby, not Jack Kennedy). Someone would have talked; some ego would have been driven to a deathbed braggadocio. Secrets that big do not remain secret.
Now something wacky was going on in Dallas (and New Orleans) in the run up to Kennedy's murder. I don't swallow the Warren Commission report. But a concerted effort by a villainous clique, each member in turn commanding dozens of loyal, lip-locked minions, none of whom ever spilled the beans, just doesn't make a damn bit of sense.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Arguably the single worst foreign policy disaster in US history and it was based entirely on a lie, a lie that more than a few DUers even have admitted they believed at the time.
And bear in mind that Dubya got more votes in 2004 than he did in 2000.
I think the lesson of the Iraq war is that even blatantly obvious falsehoods on the part of high government officials are believed by enough voters to allow those government officials to get away with telling falsehoods about nearly anything.
Hillary Clinton famously believed Colin Powell and accordingly voted for war in Iraq, if anyone should have known better than to explicitly trust Republicans it would be Hillary.
Bucky
(54,003 posts)although the latter topic has a place in discussions about Americans' conspiracy-theorizing tendencies, too.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)And the UN inspectors were busy telling us that they had found no evidence of such WMDs ~before~ the invasion.
That didn't stop the government or at least a portion thereof from conspiring to lie about the existence of WMDs in order to justify invading a nation that had really done nothing to us.
And let's face it, there has been no remotely significant punishment for the conspirators, indeed the chief conspirator got more votes after the conspiracy was revealed than he did the first time.
Why shouldn't government conspire to lie to the American public if there is no downside to doing so?
RC
(25,592 posts)
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)"In 1999, a research team headed by Marina Abalakina-Paap, a psychologist at New Mexico State University, published a study of US college students. The students were asked whether they agreed with statements such as "Underground movements threaten the stability of American society" and "People who see conspiracies behind everything are simply imagining things". The strongest predictor of general belief in conspiracies, the authors found, was "lack of trust".
See: We could all be "Fixed" for Spider if we would just trust the government more! Nice to see what your actual agenda is.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)…or causal complexity.
That's it right there.
The Clockworks in Even Cowgirls Get the Blues (great book, so-so movie, even if it did have Uma Thurman) was just a pile of junk that would, on occasion, settle a bit. Random.
Life is mostly random. Sucks, but it's true.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The single most hurtful thing that ever happened to me was intentional and done to me by people I loved and trusted completely, it blew my family apart in a manner that will never allow any real healing of the relationships to take place.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)It's always the punks, after all. Punks with very strange connections prior to commiting their acts... So that's where the doubt comes in.. At least for some. I do not doubt that many of the people that share this view suffer from what Popper described, but that isn't saying much.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)I have even heard they had dinner together shortly before the shooting.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Or the CIA psychiatrists at Sirhan Sirhan's trial; of MkUltra fame.
Now, these could very well all be coincidences. But then, how likely is it that almost every assassin in US history is caught up in such coincidences? It boggles the mind - and yet, it isn't evidence. But surely grounds to look into the matter more deeply.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)But that probably was a coincidence, as far as I can see. But a great anecdote at parties 
Bucky
(54,003 posts)Maybe the weekend before, but it was a creepy coinkydink, to be sure.
What I find fascinating is that no one has ever asked where Jodi Foster was at the time of the shooting.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Why? Why should you care what others think about it? Are you an authoritarian who wants to control others? Or someone who gets mad when others don't see history as you do?
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)Would be closer.
Like the way I look at people still believing in a flat earth.
former9thward
(31,997 posts)They are people who don't look closely at anything. People that think if something has the word "government" stamped on it then it must be true. People who believed Bush about the WMD and Iraq. The WC is filled with inaccuracies, half-truths and many many paths not investigated even though they were crying out to be investigated. The WC had a job to do. Declare Oswald to be a lone nut and get the country to move on. It failed. The vast majority of the country from day one has rejected the WC. In 1979 Congress investigated the assassination and concluded there was a conspiracy. The WC as RFK said is "garbage."
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)Did their report not have "government" stamped on it?
librechik
(30,674 posts)that determined there was a conspiracy, beyond any doubt. Look it up.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)whose purpose was not to investigate the assassination but, rather, to release documents related to it?
What are the other two?
librechik
(30,674 posts)I'm not here to satisfy your curiosity or need to prove i don't know what I'm talking about.
There are facts. Find them.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)The last government investigation was the HSCA in 1979.
librechik
(30,674 posts)And Peter Dale Scott, whose "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK" would enlighten anyone capable of it.
A forum post can't respond to your need for it.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)It's whatever.
Response to nyquil_man (Reply #78)
librechik This message was self-deleted by its author.
librechik
(30,674 posts)to build your post count at the expense of other's patience.
Here's another one. Enjoy it. You may not be here too much longer.
Oh, Look! I didn't comply with your request! (I could have) This is an outrage!
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)Happy Thanksgiving!
former9thward
(31,997 posts)I did not say that every investigation or statement that government puts out is false or poorly done. I said that just because a unit of government says something does not automatically make it true. See the difference?
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)when the government agrees with your point of view.
That seems to be the primary difference.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)It is not unreasonable to believe that at one point congress tried to get to the bottom of our history of "executive actions" while the administration did the opposite.
"You either believe the government or you don't" is a false dichotomy that no one really adheres to.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)"They are people who don't look closely at anything. People that think if something has the word 'government' stamped on it then it must be true."
The HSCA also concluded that Oswald killed Kennedy, that the single bullet theory was correct, and that the head shot came from the rear. It further concluded that Oswald could not be connected to any specific person or group. I notice that these aspects of Congress's attempt to get to the bottom of our history of "executive actions" are generally ignored.
The HSCA's finding of conspiracy, which hinged on a single sound impulse and rejected the reams of "evidence" conspiracy researchers claimed to have found in the decade and a half prior to the investigation, has been repeatedly challenged for its sloppiness. Yet this is merrily skipped over in an effort to condemn the Warren Report. Never mind that, without that sound impulse, the HSCA would have drawn precisely the same conclusion as the Warren Commission.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)It is reasonable to be selective about which statements from our government we believe. As long as that selectiveness is based on arguments - which it may not be in the case of the JFK investigation, as you (IMHO rightly) point out.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)There is sloppiness and error to be found in any human endeavor.
I'm of the opinion that Oswald acted alone. However, I can never rule out with absolute certainty the possibility that the HSCA was correct in its finding of conspiracy. I leave that door cracked ever so slightly. I think critics of the Warren Commission should do likewise.
It's possible they were right.
former9thward
(31,997 posts)But making that assertion based on two studies? Not very logical.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)and then tout the findings of a committee whose conclusions were as follows:
There was a shooter on the Grassy Knoll, whose existence could not be verified by witness evidence, photographic evidence, or ballistics evidence, who fired a bullet which did not hit anything and apparently vanished into thin air immediately after it was fired. The proof of this lay in a sound impulse on a recording made from a microphone, which may or may not have been in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting, located on a motorcycle whose operator has since denied that it was his.
But let's talk about how sloppy the WC was.
former9thward
(31,997 posts)I could do the same about the WC but I really don't know what it would prove or add to the discussion.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)than a blanket condemnation of those who accept the lone gunman theory as incurious dupes of the government.
But hey, the government told you what you wanted to hear in 1979, so it's all good.
former9thward
(31,997 posts)I originally replied to a poster who said that anyone who questioned the WC were equivalent to those who believe in a flat earth. I simply reversed the logic.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)I don't find "I'm rubber and you're glue" to be a very good debating tactic, but I can't deny that I've resorted to it.
former9thward
(31,997 posts)Unfortunately as interesting as discussing the WC can be a discussion board is just about impossible to do it in. There are just too many inter-winding facts and theories to intelligently discuss them. The posts would be far too long for this board. After all there have been countless books written on the subject.
Mc Mike
(9,114 posts)In the same thread, by the same thing. It's tough to get a fix on where you're coming from, af.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)so sad.
Mc Mike
(9,114 posts)Would it be fair to say you have 'ambivalent feelings', alph? It appears to be so from your description of yourself altenately laughing, crying, and vomiting with rage about post-ers expressing opinions that differ from your own.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)And frankly I don't think about the subject a lot. However that is the tone of the OP.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... and the CIA was completely out of control at the time. As far as anyone knows, Squeaky Fromme or Sara Moore had no connections to our "intelligence" agencies. Hinckley, well that is subject to some conjecture.
Hey, I don't doubt for a second that Oswald fired shots from the SBD building and that one or more of them hit JFK. I just don't accept that it was totally his idea and totally his execution.
And I don't think "excited utterances" (look it up, it has special meaning in a court of law) of "I'm a patsy" is the best creative lie out of the mouth of someone being arrested.
And when I see pictures of Oswald after his arrest I don't see someone worried about the future I see someone thinking "wait til you guys hear THIS".
And when "coincidence" piles on to "coincidence" all in such a manner as to make the truth impossible to discern (Jack Ruby for example, autopsy reports for another, really, the list goes on and on) then they are probably NOT coincidences.
And finally, cui bono? JFK made lots of enemies in a hurry, from the Federal Reserve, to the MIC, to the CIA, to organized crime and others. But when he's killed its not one of his mortal enemies it is some random doofus. Nope.
I'm not accepting your version because my knowledge of the history of the time won't let me. Is it "possible" that Oswald truly acted alone? Of course. I give that about a 10% chance.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)A toxin in some of the many drugs he took would have been more their style.
sendero
(28,552 posts)...."sloppy" because they needed a patsy. And I believe they had one.
...and the earth is flat.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Last edited Fri Nov 29, 2013, 10:50 AM - Edit history (1)
If Hunt is to be believed at all, this was a rag tag operation. After all, you can't run around the halls of CIA HQ saying "We're going to assassinate our President. Can I get some help planning a nice clean operation here?" Even at the CIA that conducts assassinations all over the world, that would raise some eyebrows.
Moreover, there is a strong indication they might have been going for a two-fer. There were plenty of people in the CIA who wanted JFK (and especially RFK) gone. And one of the reasons was that they were completely at odds with the Kennedys on Cuba. The CIA was trying to overthrow Castro and/or whip up a war that could be ramped up. In a very literal sense, some elements in the CIA were trying to precipitate World War III.
With that backdrop, it makes perfect sense that they might try to use the assassination to further their goals toward stoking the conflict with Cuba/USSR. If they could kill Kennedy AND make it look like Castro did it, that is killing two birds with one stone. If they could make the public believe Castro killed our beloved President, Johnson would have little choice but to invade Cuba.
Sloppy? Yes it was. And when Oswald went and killed the cop and quickly got arrested, the CIA panicked. They gave up the Castro angle and just concentrated on doing the cover-up. They would go after Castro another day.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)while detractors from the right naively continue to believe otherwise because the media reported that he won it, no questions asked. Adding to the slate of shady circumstances regarding that campaign is the fact that, for such a mediocre talent, GWB curiously had the clout to successfully ward off any criticism or investigations. Remember the opening scene from Fahrenheit 911 -- not one senator would co-sponsor an investigation into the election.
After 8 years of witnessing the daily business of GWB & his babysitter/puppet master, are you still convinced that the government -- using a stacked deck to support a contrived perception that favors its own interest -- always tells you the truth?
Over sixty percent of the American people who were recently polled continue to believe there was a conspiracy involved in JFK's assassin. That's a huge percentage.
What I find revolting is that there are people posting on a Democratic discussion board who are trying to minimize & derail those DUers who question the "evidence" presented to us by the Warren Commission. JFK was adored by the public for so many reasons; it was the 1% who didn't adore him, & there's a lot more evidence pointing toward them -- the PTB -- than to the lone-mediocre-gunman, magic bullet theory stamped by the WC as "evidence".
Those of us who doubt the WC's findings do so based on logic, common sense, a healthy dose of skepticism, as well as consideration of a long list of suspicious circumstances & facts -- just as we did when GHWB's son was handed the presidency without a completed counting of the vote; just as we did when we were told that Iraq was responsible for 9/11; just as we did when we were told Hussein had WMDs; just as we did when GWB said he was not directing any barbaric, third-world behavior in the form of torture or by rendition.
Our stubbornness in believing there was more to the JFK assassination than what we were told to believe is based on stubborn facts like these that were published just yesterday by salon.com:
•Arlen Specter, the Warren Commission lawyer (and future U.S. senator), first presented his soon-to-be infamous single bullet theory to Chief Justice Warren while the two men were standing at the sixth-floor window of the Texas Book Depository where the mediocre marksman Oswald allegedly committed his historic crime. After listening silently to Specter explain the magical trajectory of Oswald’s bullet, Warren simply turned on his heel and walked away without saying a word. Warren – a distinguished chief justice with a monumental record on civil rights – had resisted serving on the presidential commission. He knew that his duty was not to find the truth, but to suppress dangerous evidence that – as LBJ had warned him – might lead to World War III. Still, it must have dismayed the 73-year-old jurist to see how his historic report (and his reputation) would be tied to a patently absurd ballistics theory.
•In the years following the Warren Report’s release, several of the commissioners and staff members distanced themselves from their own report and publicly criticized the manifold deceptions of the agencies on which they had relied, namely the FBI and CIA. Among those who suffered grave doubts was lawyer David Slawson, the man who had been the Warren Commission’s lead investigator into whether JFK was the victim of a conspiracy. In 1975 Slawson aired his criticisms to the New York Times, attacking the CIA for withholding vital information from the commission and calling for a new JFK investigation. Within days of the story breaking in the Times, Slawson received a strange and threatening phone call from James Angleton, the spectral CIA counterintelligence chief. Angleton – who had not only closely monitored Oswald for several years before Dallas, but later took charge of the agency’s investigation into the alleged assassin – adopted a decidedly sinister tone during his call with Slawson, making it clear to the lawyer that he would be wise to remain “a friend of the CIA.” Slawson and his wife were deeply unnerved by the call. He thought the message was clear: “Keep your mouth shut.”
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/06/the_jfk_assassination_we_still_dont_know_what_happened/
Imagine 50 years from now when, at various times, you might encounter a minority of people presenting themselves as Democrats but declaring that GWB, without a doubt, won the 2000 election without any extraordinary help behind the scenes because the media said he won. Add to that simplistic attitude the fact that this small group of detractors berate those who have a healthier dose of skepticism &, oddly, the detractors seem to be the most upset about the difference of opinion. What would you think of them?
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)It is accepted that Al Gore would have won. The mistake was that he didn't dispute all of FL instead of a few counties. That is why the case was thrown out. Procedural error.
librechik
(30,674 posts)Your positions are hilarious. I'm sure you crack everybody up at the PTA.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)Amuse yourself with assumptions.
Bless your heart.
(Do you know what THAT means.)
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)A history of renouncing US citizenship and living in the Soviet Union in the Cold War Era.
Someone killing them before they can go to trial. We don't know LHO was a psycho for sure. We had the chance to make that determination in the cases of Hinckley and Moore and especially Squeaky, an already known psycho.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)We have his wifes testimony. And his mother was clearly psycho.
librechik
(30,674 posts)(LOL)
treestar
(82,383 posts)because of his odd history and his being killed by Ruby. If it weren't for Ruby, he could have been tried and if convicted, most people would be happy with the conclusion he did it. But then we will never know what position he was going to take. Ruby deprived us of closure permanently.
lake loon
(99 posts)... because in this case, it ISN'T TRUE.
lake loon
(99 posts)JohnyCanuck
(9,922 posts)Excerpt below from The 50th Anniversary of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (Part One) By Joseph Palermo Professor of History, California State University.
To make matters worse, Hoover leaked his report to the press, (a common practice for Hoover), which angered Warren and other Commissioners, and set the template for the public's understanding of the crime even before the "investigation" got off the ground.
Moreover, the Commissioners were totally dependent on whatever evidence the FBI and CIA wanted them to see or not to see. According to one of the staff lawyers assigned to look into Jack Ruby's background, Burt Griffin, staff director Rankin, "was fearful that our own investigation of the assassination could be interpreted by the FBI or CIA as an attempt to investigate them." (Kantor The Ruby Cover-Up 1978, 174)
The famous internal memo from Katzenbach, along with the FBI's publicly leaked summary report that followed, established firm parameters for the inquiry and explains why Rankin and others were not interested in pursuing leads that would get in the way of the pre-ordained conclusion of a lone gunman.
Meanwhile, a transcription of a January 27, 1964 meeting reveals Allen Dulles rather nonchalantly informing the Commissioners that both Hoover of the FBI and CIA Director John McCone "should be expected to lie to the Commission to protect the identity of their operations and undercover agents." (Kantor 1978, 187) Hence, the evidence would be fixed to fit the outcome that both Katzenbach and Hoover articulated before the Commission even called its first witness. The Warren Commission operated on the same old "trust us" level we've heard for decades whenever our government lies to us. (My emphasis added /JC)
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)At Thu Nov 28, 2013, 09:16 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
I just don't get why people can't accept that a punk-ass loser killed JFK
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024104051
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
"Punk ass" is prison rape slang and inappropriate for DU.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Nov 28, 2013, 09:28 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: The alerter is wrong. I'm voting to hide because the alerted poster says other DUers are psychos.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Oh FFS.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I'm torn on this. I sympathize with the alerter but I dont think that is how people take the use of the word. Perhaps alerter can ask the OP to change phrasing? I think part of what I dont like about this alert is that there does not seem to be an effort by the alerter to inform/ask the OP.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
I was juror #2.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)I feel strangely honored.
Logical
(22,457 posts)alphafemale
(18,497 posts)The ones who announce dramatically.
"Welcome to my Ignore List!"
Ok so you are still emotionally about 12 years old. lmao
Logical
(22,457 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)I think that's what has always troubled some people.
TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)I've harbored a suspicion for years that if Oswald fired those rounds he was aiming at LBJ in the other car.
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)Ballistics experts disagree with you opinion of it and so does JFKs head.
TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)One I worked with the other was a friend, neither knew the other. Both had bought the same type rifle because of its notoriety. Both men said that their rifles were extremely inaccurate and that they would never use them to hunt and not even to shoot again on the range as that would be a waste of ammo. Both these men were expert marksmen and not prone to lying. I trust what they told me.
But here's a link that might shed a bit of light:
http://milpas.cc/rifles/ZFiles/Misc/6.5x52%20Mannlicher-Carcano/6.5mm%20Carcano.htm
The Italian government adopted the 6.5x52mm cartridge and the Mannlicher-Carcano M-91 bolt action rifle in 1891. This rifle and cartridge served the Italian military through two World Wars, victoriously in the First, and in a losing effort in the Second.
The M-91's used in WW II were, in the main, not very well made rifles; nor were they particularly accurate. Although the M-91 was always nominally a 6.5mm rifle, during the long years of production the bore and groove sizes of barrels varied considerably, which certainly did not help the rifle's reputation for accuracy. At least some (and perhaps all) M-91 TS Carbines were rifled with an unusual gain twist in their handy 21" barrel. By the end of the Second World War many of the M-91's had actions that were rather loose. In addition, the Mannlicher-Carcano action is not an easy one to adopt to a telescopic sight (although it can be done). For all of these reasons the M-91 is not the best military rifle to use as the basis of a sporter--in fact it is probably one of the worst.
The one real virtue of the M-91 is that it was a fast to operate. Perhaps this was partly because the action was not real tight, and partly due to the Mannlicher design. But for whatever reason, the bolt slid very easily and very fast in its recess. A buddy of mine owned an M-91 Carbine, and I remember it as being the fastest bolt action military rifle I ever cycled. Practically anyone, with a minimum of practice, could shoot a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle quickly.
A number of these rough rifles were brought home as "war trophies" by GI's after the conclusion of hostilities in 1945. Later on the Italian government declared the remaining M-91 service rifles surplus. A large number of them found their way to the United States, where they were sold to shooters seeking an inexpensive or knockabout rifle for deer hunting.
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)LHO, a trained marksmen, only had to shoot 300 feet to kill JFK.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Based on these tests the experts agreed that the assassination rifle was an accurate weapon. Simmons described it as "quite accurate," in fact, as accurate as current military rifles.814 Frazier testified that the rifle was accurate, that it had less recoil than the average military rifle and that one would not have to be an expert marksman to have accomplished the assassination with the weapon which was used.815
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#accuracy
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)Ballistics showed bullets came from his gun.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)In fresh tests of the Mannlicher-Carcano bolt-action weapon, supervised by the Italian army, it was found to be impossible for even an accomplished marksman to fire the shots quickly enough.
But when the Italian team test-fired the identical model of gun, they were unable to load and fire three shots in less than 19 seconds - suggesting that a second gunman must have been present in Dealey Plaza, central Dallas, that day.
Two of the bullets hit Kennedy, with the first - the so called "magic bullet", ridiculed by conspiracy theorists - also wounding the governor of Texas, John B Connally, after it had struck the president.
In a further challenge to the official conclusions, the Italian team conducted two other tests at the former Carcano factory in Terni, north of Rome, where the murder weapon was made in 1940.
They fired bullets through two large pieces of meat, in an attempt to simulate the assumed path of the magic bullet. In their test, the bullet was deformed, unlike the first bullet in the Kennedy assassination, which remained largely intact.
The second bullet is thought to have missed its target. According to the commission, the third disintegrated when it hit Kennedy's head. The new research suggests, however, that this is incompatible with the fact that Oswald was only 80 yards away, in a book depository, when he fired. The Italian tests suggest that a bullet fired from that distance would have emerged intact from Kennedy's head, implying that the third shot must instead have come from a more distant location.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1556184/Oswald-had-no-time-to-fire-all-Kennedy-bullets.html
“The reason I knew that Oswald could not have done it, was because I could not have done it,” said former US Marine sniper, Craig Roberts. Credited with numerous kills while serving in Vietnam , Roberts turned an objective eye on the shot heard ‘round the world. After he visited Dealey Plaza, after viewing the so-called “sniper’s lair,” on the sixth floor of the book depository, and after staring at the large oak tree overspreading much of Elm Street, Roberts said, “I walked away from the window in disgust. I had seen all I needed to know that Oswald could not have been the lone shooter.”
But Roberts, a retired police investigator, wanted to know what did happen. Not content to dismiss the improbable feat, he delved into the crime from every angle.
“First, I analyzed the scene as a sniper . . . I looked at the engagement angles. It was entirely wrong…Here, from what I could see, three problems arose that would influence my shots. First, the target was moving away at a drastic angle to the right from the window, meaning that I would have to position my body to compete with the wall and a set of vertical water pipes . . . This would be extremely difficult for a right-handed shooter. Second, I would have to be ready to fire exactly when the target emerged past some tree branches that obscured the kill zone. Finally, I would have to deal with two factors at the same time; the curve of the street, and the high-to-low angle formula—a law of physics Oswald would not have known.”
Not content with his own critical appraisal, Roberts turned to another, equally knowledgeable shooter. “According to my friend, Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock, the former senior instructor for the US Marine Corps Sniper Instructor School at Quantico, Virginia, it could not be done as described by the FBI investigators.”
“Let me tell you what we did at Quantico,” Hathcock recalls. “We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don’t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn’t duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. Now if I can’t do it, how in the world could a guy who was a non-qual on the rifle range and later only qualified 'marksman' do it?”
Of course, sergeant Carlos Hathcock was only the most famous American military sniper in history, credited with a confirmed 93 kills. But apologists for a lone assassin, who continue to enjoy mainstream media sponsorship 40 years later, continue to argue that an average shooter like Oswald, using a decrepit, war surplus weapon, could have killed Kennedy. Case closed."
http://oswald-not-guilty.blogspot.dk/2009/10/oswald-not-guilty-famed-sniper-says.html
Also from a Vietnam Army sniper:
http://www.riflewarrior.com/case_of_the_impossible_shots.htm
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)People can fire that style and brand of rife and hit a human sized target at 120 yards three times in less than three seconds.
exboyfil
(17,862 posts)3 shots in six seconds
Single bullet duplicated
GKirk
(1,224 posts)...is there any substantiating proof he said that or is it just Roberts saying he said that?
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)There have been tests of Oswald's rifle that show that 3 aimed shots are very possible in under 5 seconds (of which videos have been posted, so I won't bother).
There have been tests on human skulls filled with ballistic gelatin to simulate brain tissue that show that in fact, a 6.5mm Carcano bullet striking a human skull never emerges intact but invariably separates into the copper jacket and lead core, because of the thickness and density of the bone. See here: http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/skull_bullets_lattimer.pdf
MinM
(2,650 posts)If Lee Harvey Oswald was what he was purported to be .. he would have gladly accepted "credit" for taking out the leader of the free world.
Instead .. he seems very lucid (for a "psycho"
in proclaiming his innocence.Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)this thread is not worth your troubles
like the hole in the windshield and the brain being blown backwards on the rear of the car and not in the front seat.
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)For that big whole in the windshield?
JohnyCanuck
(9,922 posts)by Jim Fetzer
snip
On pages 1439-1450 of Volume V of Doug Horne’s book, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, he reviews what witnesses from Parkland Hospital and the Ford plant in Detroit have had to say about their own personal observations on 22 November 1963, the day of the assassination, and on 25 November 1963, three days later, at Ford. In the next several sections, I am taking passages from Horne’s recent article – with his permission – and presenting them together with photographs and other commentary that was not in his earlier study.
(1) Dallas motorcycle patrolmen Stavis Ellis and H. R. Freeman both observed a penetrating bullet hole in the limousine windshield at Parkland Hospital. Ellis told interviewer Gil Toff in 1971: “There was a hole in the left front windshield … You could put a pencil through it … you could take a regular standard writing pencil … and stick [it] through there.” Freeman corroborated this, saying: “(I was) right beside it. I could of (sic) touched it … it was a bullet hole. You could tell what it was.” (David Lifton published these quotations in his 1980 book, Best Evidence.)
(2) St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Richard Dudman wrote an article published in The New Republic on December 21, 1963, in which he stated: “A few of us noted the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enough to see which side was the cup-shaped spot which indicates a bullet had pierced the glass from the opposite side.”
(3) Second year medical student Evalea Glanges, enrolled at Southwestern Medical University in Dallas, right next door to Parkland Hospital, told attorney Doug Weldon in 1999: “It was a real clean hole.” In a videotaped interview aired in the suppressed Episode 7 of Nigel Turner’s series, The Men Who Killed Kennedy, titled “The Smoking Guns,” she said: “… it was very clear, it was a through-and-through bullet hole through the windshield of the car, from the front to the back … it seemed like a high-velocity bullet that had penetrated from front-to-back in that glass pane.” At the time of the interview, Glanges had risen to the position of Chairperson of the Department of Surgery, at John Peter Smith Hospital, in Fort Worth. She had been a firearms expert all her adult life (see video clip below).
For convenience snipped video clip link and placed it here. /JC
#t=16
(4) Mr. George Whitaker, Sr., a senior manager at the Ford Motor Company’s Rouge Plant in Detroit, Michigan, told attorney (and professor of criminal justice) Doug Weldon in August of 1993, in a tape recorded conversation, that after reporting to work on Monday, 25 November 1963, he discovered the JFK limousine – a unique, one-of-a-kind item that he unequivocally identified – in the Rouge Plant’s B building, with the interior stripped out and in the process of being replaced, and with the windshield removed. He was then contacted by one of the Vice Presidents of the division for which he worked, and directed to report to the glass plant lab, immediately. After knocking on the locked door (which he found most unusual), he was let in by two of his subordinates and discovered that they were in possession of the windshield that had been removed from the JFK limousine.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/28/jfk-conspiracy-the-bullet-hole-in-the-windshield/
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)Even when I blow them up.
Sorry for the crappy link but these are the best photos I can find.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19406&page=2
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)The bullet that struck Kennedy in the head fragmented. The copper jacket and lead core separated. That crack comes from a bullet FRAGMENT, not a bullet. The windshield was removed from the car; it fomed one of the exhibits of evidence before the Warren Commission, and later the HSCA. It is in the National Archives. It has been photographed, it has been examined. There is no bullet hole in it.
http://research.archives.gov/description/305143
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)Eww. Creepy.
Bobcat
(246 posts)If it is an open and shut case, why was evidence locked up for 75 years? That alone speaks of something to hide and arouses suspicion that the truth and the whole truth has yet to be told.
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)Many declassified records still contain "redactions," blackouts which hide the name of an informant or a method of operation. While each such document contains a schedule whereby each redaction will be lifted, with all of them scheduled to be removed as of 2017, in reality the National Archives has not devoted the resources needed to reprocess the records. The CIA did reprocess 8000 documents in 2003 and removed many redactions, but the fate of most of the rest is uncertain.
Still, it can safely be said that the vast majority of documents directly relevant to the JFK assassination which still exist in government files have been declassified. It is certainly quite possible that new records, such as the Joannides files, will shed significant light on the assassination and its aftermath. However, the bulk of the story told in the governments' files is now available. How much was known but never entered in government records, and how much was destroyed long ago, is uncertain. The meaning of what did make it into these files is still being debated.
Logical
(22,457 posts)of the free world with a $22 rifle.
But for some of them it is a hobby. The truth is boring. But a CT is exciting.
Like UFOs!
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)Or candidate. Or figure.
The creep that attempted to kill Larry Flynt was just executed this week.
He killed 20+ random people.
Bucky
(54,003 posts)It's just that the guys with the secondary targets all chickened out or fucked up.
But there were four targets and at least five co-conspirators.
On the flipside, the failed attempts on Ford and Andy Jackson were by lone nutjobs.
doc03
(35,330 posts)other people don't beleive it. If the WC was right why was everything sealed
for 75 years, long after any witnesses are dead to old to remember or
be beleived. How did a full metal jacket military bullet explode in his
head like a hollow point hunting bullet?
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
RC
(25,592 posts)Anyone notice that the same people that discredit one conspiracy, discredit them all, no matter how strong the evidence for one? JFK, no conspiracy. 9/11, no conspiracy. Iran/Contra, not a conspiracy. bu$h "winning" election in 2000/2004, no conspiracy. bu$h administration wanting to bomb Iraq, not a conspiracy. It is just like they believe our government is incapable of engaging in conspiracies.
I think these people are either very naive, gullible, or in the employ of someone. Our government has proven time and time again they are just not trust worthy, not even with other government agencies. Yet no conspiracies? Ya sure, ya betcha thar Charlie.
Springslips
(533 posts)The reason we see there is no reason to believe in most of the conspiracies mentioned above is because there is no evidence. None. I spent years of my life believing in JFK conspiracy and it was based upon making illogical leaps, incorrect facts, and confirmation biases. Once I grew, became educated in reasoning, logic, science, and common sense I saw the errors of my ways. It was hard. Cts are very seductive; you want to believe. You selectively perceive and keep yourself in a group think bubble. Look at the arguments above, no one in the skeptic side is saying "just believe the government" as a premise for conclusion. You only say they do because it is easier to dismiss than actual logic. It also gives you a bit of an ego bump, thinking your are not as nieve, gullible, or in the employ of someone. Your last sentence in a Non Sequiter logical fallacy: just because the government has proven to be untrust worthy doesn't support CT. Unless you believe that everything the government does is a lie. If so then how are you a democrat? You treatment of government seems to be as if it were a continual organism, and not a consortium of people and institution that changes over time-- which is down right conservative, with their 'govment' and what not.
Btw: most here do agree that their is good reason to believe in some CTs. Rational ones such as:
Lincoln asassination
Gulf of Tonkon
Watergate
Iran/Contra
Iraq and the WMD
So saying that skeptics are incapable of believing that the government engages in conspiracies is another straw man.
And there is some reason to believe that Florida illegally took democratic demographic voters off the rolls in 2000. How far this went? Certainly to the Floridean SOS office; though there is no proof it went beyond that.
There is weak, but strong enough to investigate, evidence that the 2004 election was flipped in Cleveland. This is based on exit polls and statistical analysis, but more evidence is needed.
My advice is to learn the tools of reason, and be skeptical of CTs as much as you are with the government. Gullibility goes both ways. Don't believe every sociopath with a book or film to sell.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Paladin
(28,254 posts)I realize that lots of people want a nice, neat, conclusive explanation for such a tragic historical event, kind of like an episode of "NCIS." I don't think it's going to happen. If you turn something up, something really and truly provable and convincing, let me know. Otherwise, I'm not pissing away any more time on "what if's."
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)And neither is "because people are drawn to conspiracy theories."
The reasonable one is because Jack Ruby killed Oswald, then claimed he was part of a conspiracy (or hinted at it) and died himself. We've never seen anything like it before or since. The whole circumstance is weird, and should be even to reasonable, non-conspiracy minded people.
My other, more questionable theory, goes like this: there have been many presidential assassins and would be assassins over the years, and history is an excellent predictor of the future. To the best of my knowledge, all were lone nuts had no intention of escaping and knew they were going to get caught. Being nuts, they didn't care. The only presidential assassin to actually get away with the crime (for a little while, at least) was part of a larger conspiracy -- John Wilkes Booth.
Personally, I think it is most likely that Oswald acted alone. However, there are enough questions left that the door can't be completely closed.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... some other people don't all agree 100% with their opinion.
D'oh!
JimboBillyBubbaBob
(1,389 posts)probability, the capriciousness of fate, whatever it's labeled. Read Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things."
Jetboy
(792 posts)that it is case closed has had the opposite affect of it's intention.
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)Watching conspiracy theories being refuted over and over and over and the subsequent ad hominem attacks on those who proved the conspiracy theorist were inevitably misinformed, right here on DU, is what prompted me to take another hard look at the actual evidence. I came away convinced LHO acted alone. If you have convincing evidence of a conspiracy, I'll hear it. But you don't. You have popularity on your side. CT woo is very popular. They even have conventions.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)But I also still have pity for LHO.
He was basically murdered on camera.
Jetboy
(792 posts)Read your own post. Are you not trying to ridicule/ bully me into believing your version? In my opinion that is exactly what you are doing.
Edit to add that those throwing around Big Foot, the Loch Ness monster and a flat earth have severely hurt their cause.
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)All the conspiracy evidence gets smacked down because its misinformation or speculation.
You should not feel bullied, CTers are in the majority on DU and its just an internet forum.
Just the other day someone here on DU siad CT deniers were the same as holocaust deniers. DU is a tough place. Either come with facts and evidence or be prepared get rightfully ridiculed.
Jetboy
(792 posts)killing President Kennedy.
Your tactics in this thread (You have popularity on your side. CT woo is very popular. They even have conventions. bro) illustrate my point.
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)...and it gets smacked down as woo?
You are convinced of JFK CT because of my tactics on an internet forum?
Pfft...whatever dude.
Jetboy
(792 posts)And I have offered no theories.
I have merely noted that bullying and ridicule have not helped your side. I was in the 'LHO LIKELY acted alone' camp and have shifted to the 'LHO probably had help' camp.
But don't flatter yourself, it was more those equating doubt on this subject with Bigfoot and UFOs or whatever. Same tactics, different posters. Keep digging!
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)Why?
So that you can keep playing victim?
Whatever.
Jetboy
(792 posts)mean that it worked. I am no victim. I am trying to stay on topic and answer the OP.
The OP: has referred to Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, Flat Earth (2 or 3 times), has referred to others as 'idiots', used the phrase 'Bless your heart' and is both heartbroken and amused about the same topic; all in one thread. She is trying to convince others that she is right and they are wrong. She is going about it all wrong and so are you.
If you want people to go from not really caring much or thinking maybe there was something fishy to thinking that LHO probably had help, then by all means keep digging.
otohara
(24,135 posts)I agree - he did it.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)But yes.
He did it.
BeyondGeography
(39,370 posts)That'll make a guy want to get even some day.
Shitbird killed JFK. Those guys who made fun of him, who were they again?
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)Who gives a shit?
Too bad he didn't die of sudden, self inflected lead poisoning BEFORE he plowed, gouges in children.
We still let freaks buy guns.
No questions asked.
Yea Yea USA
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)There's usually at least a couple of shitbirds in every unit.
meanit
(455 posts)is a common name for Marines who are not spit and polished. Certainly not peculiar to Oswald.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)Being president is an extremely dangerous job. The best armed guards in the world still can't neutralize the threat of someone willing to end your life at the expense of their own.
The government also has a poor track record when it comes to keeping secrets that big. There's way too many people that you have to keep quiet and eventually one of them talks.
solarhydrocan
(551 posts)Not entirely true.
The 1953 Iran coup d'etat was not mentioned even once by Ted Koppel or anyone else in 444 days and nights. Which was the direct cause of the hostage crisis to begin with. It was a "Conspiracy theory" until de-classified in the late '90s.
The Manhattan project was a pretty big secret and it was kept pretty well.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)The Manhattan project? Not really kept secret very well. Not from the Soviets, anyway, who had blueprints of the first successful bomb by 1945.
The CIA's role in the 1953 Iranian coup? That was known before the 1979-80 hostage crisis. See for instance here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gq0sy-ns2N0C&pg=PA406&dq=cia+iranian+coup&hl=en&sa=X&ei=u9eXUo6VEoXz0gWjqICQAw&ved=0CHgQ6AEwDQ#v=onepage&q=cia%20iranian%20coup&f=false
Also here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Fz4KAQAAIAAJ&q=cia+iranian+coup&dq=cia+iranian+coup&hl=en&sa=X&ei=u9eXUo6VEoXz0gWjqICQAw&ved=0CIUBEOgBMA8
And here (from 1962!): http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iZsfAAAAIAAJ&q=cia+iranian+coup&dq=cia+iranian+coup&hl=en&sa=X&ei=u9eXUo6VEoXz0gWjqICQAw&ved=0CLMBEOgBMBk
polichick
(37,152 posts)
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)duffyduff
(3,251 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 28, 2013, 10:36 PM - Edit history (1)
and shown in the CBS reairing this past weekend where he talked about all of the assassinations and attempted assassinations up to that point in American history, and batshit crazy people are the ones who murder or try to murder presidents.
Even the Lincoln so-called conspiracy wasn't really one at all. Booth was as nutty as the rest of them.
You can say it's the most extreme example of American individualism.
I've said over and over given all of the forensic, circumstantial, and eyewitness testimony in fifty years that it is a FACT that Lee Harvey Oswald alone killed JFK and Officer Tippit and wounded Governor Connally. He was an epic fail of a human being who, at 24, failed at everything he did. He failed in the military, he failed in school, he failed in his jobs, he failed in his marriage. The Soviets wouldn' t have him, the Cubans wouldn't have him, and his wife wouldn't have him, the last most probably the catalyst that sent LHO over the edge to actually do the deed and commit the murders. Marina turned down his last plea to move her and the children to live with him in Dallas the night before the assassination. To deny this after all these years is like being a creationist, or a flat-earther. Believing there is a conspiracy doesn't make it so. It is what it is, and we need to just face the truth and move on.
People like David Talbot who still peddled conspiracy bullshit are in it for the money. They are doing the country a disservice peddling speculation and outright lies.
The older I get, the less I put up with conspiracy nonsense. Those peddling this nonsense for money need to be shunned and ridiculed like the Onion did with several of its recent satires of the conspiracy theories.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)Gawd. He looked a decade older. At least.
Bucky
(54,003 posts)Of course some people just look older. But the stresses in his life, the heavy drinking, they add up.
Springslips
(533 posts)Psychopath with narcissistic tendencies. He fits the profile to a tee: went into the arm forces, impulsiveness, grandiose sense of self worth, need for stimulation, parasitic lifestyle. . .some of the characteristic and mysteries surrounding him that CTs see as evidence of being a spook is easily answered as being things psychopaths do. Even his patsy defense was obvious gas lighting which worked. If he had an high IQ he'd be a CEO, but he didn't.
He is so similar to Tim Mcveigh and Eric Harris.
Warpy
(111,255 posts)The motive was crazy but it was there.
Oswald had no motive. Someone had to have supplied him with one.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Springslips
(533 posts)Oswald left no indication of motive, therefor he had no motive.
Because of the above then, someone had to supply him with one.
Yet they don't seem to use the same form with this.
The conspirators ( government, military complex, CIA, Mofia) left no indication of motive.
Therefor they had no motive.
Because of the above then, someone had to supply them with one.
Namely, the conspiracy theorist.
.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)A lot of my family disagree with me, though, especially those who remember that day personally. I think a lot of it has to do with his popularity and how his presidency was cut short in such a tragic fashion. Sometimes it's natural to try to make sense out of a senseless act.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)when 3 of the top liberal icons of the decade are assassinated within 5 years of each other, all by "lone gunmen" who were "acting alone". Include the Richard "I Am Not A Crook" Nixon connection to the two Kennedys, as well as Oswald's contention that he was a patsy, and the Dallas PD's inept handling of Oswald while he was in their custody, and the ramping up of the Vietnam War with the phony Gulf of Tonkin "incident" after John Kennedy's demise, among other things, and it is only natural for those of us who lived in those times to doubt the official story.
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)Recommended: "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters," by James Douglass.
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)All the reasons people use to condemn Oswald are fraught with questions allowably plausible only by being accepted as a strange coincidence. At every point another coincidence is found. That doesn't make it something anyone can prove. But it makes is something everybody ought to realize by now.
John F. Kennedy was murdered by right wing extremists in the American military and intelligence. Once Thanksgiving was over in 1963, Kennedy wasn't mentioned much for a few years. It was too obvious. The original stories felt apart. We read that in our daily newspapers in Texas, but didn't hear it on the national evening news. You guys are still trying to argue with information that was deemed untrue by the end of '63.
If all you know is Posner, Bugliosi and Russo, you know nothing. If you read every book that comes down the pike with preposterous stories, you know nothing.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)I've never seen anything to say he didn't do it.
It's hard to believe that such a person can kill a president - I think that's one reason why people still doubt.
Wash. state Desk Jet
(3,426 posts)What was understood on the by and large back in 63 is that the secret service was very uncomfortable with president Kennedy riding in a open convertible limo.And what happened on that day is what they feared could or would happen. That little tid bit of information at that time helped keep us grounded in our thoughts to it. In those days when the president's motorcade was in town,the streets were lined with flag waving people from one end of it to the other'. Children sitting on the shoulders of parents in rows of lines -what you call massive droves.
It was a very different world back than. The last vice president to be sworn in as president before Johnson under similar circumstances was Teddy Roosevelt.The assassination of the president happened in Buffalo N.Y.
So, the secret service had a lot on their plates, very much to worry about. J.F.K. would not ride sheltered inside a hard top limo with bullet proff jet age glass. He was a man of the people.
As to who did it, I cannot say that I know but I do know our government lies to us,that I know.
Yep ,they sure do.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)Who just accept whatever the government commission made up of political opponents of the Kennedys, says.
I mean the nerve of people to actually think for themselves.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)
yurbud
(39,405 posts)They thought that Oswald was one of two gunmen, the other unknown, and that it was part of a larger conspiracy.
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html