|
08 Jan 09 - 09:42 AM (#2535060) Subject: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Little Hawk Here's some interesting news: By Carl Hartman, The Associated Press "Legacy of Secrecy/The Long Shadow of the JFK Assassination" (Counterpoint) By Lamar Waldron with Thom Hartmann A new, heavily researched book on John F. Kennedy's murder and its investigation sees links with a bagful of sensational stories, from President Johnson's fear of a nuclear attack by the Soviets to the killing of Martin Luther King Jr. The links all connect with the main contention in "Legacy of Secrecy" that the assassination was engineered by Carlos Marcello, longtime Mafia boss in New Orleans. That theory is far from new. There's evidence that Attorney General Robert Kennedy, the president's brother, believed it. Authors Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann broaden the theme. Marcello had a special grudge against the Kennedys because Robert, who fought organized crime, once had him deported to an uncomfortable exile in Central America. Born in Tunisia, Marcello carried false papers that gave Guatemala as his country of origin. He soon found his way back to the United States. Not long after President Kennedy's death, Johnson sought to make sure of a friendly voice on the investigating commission headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren. Johnson is quoted as warning a favourite senator that he'd better join it, to prevent Castro and Khrushchev "from kicking us into a war that can kill 40 million Americans in an hour." Sen. Richard Russell, D-Ga., was reluctant to serve. Johnson was apparently so vehement that Russell changed his mind and agreed to become a member. White supremacist Joseph A. Milteer had aroused suspicion when police recorded him predicting, less than two weeks before the assassination, that Kennedy would be killed by a high powered rifle with a telescopic sight, fired from an upper-floor window. That's the official version of what actually happened in Dallas. The new book says a proper investigation of the prediction could have led to Marcello through Milteer's contacts with Mafia figures, and might have frustrated the assassination. Four years later, the book says, Marcello brokered a deal in which Milteer paid James Earl Ray to kill Martin Luther King Jr. It also finds that Marcello's biographer, John H. Davis, and journalist David E. Scheim made "compelling cases" for Marcello's involvement in the killing of Robert Kennedy. "Legacy of Secrecy" is the second of two volumes - more than 1,700 pages including 170 of photos, facsimiles and footnotes. Waldron worked for seven years in the criminal justice system in Georgia. Hartmann is a psychotherapist and radio show host. They have worked on the Kennedy assassination since 1988. Their first volume, "Ultimate Sacrifice," was published in 2005. As the climax to earlier secret U.S. actions against Castro, it presented an elaborate "State-Defense Contingency Plan for a Coup in Cuba," approved by the Kennedys. Execution of the coup was halted by Kennedy's assassination, 10 days before the coup was due to start on Dec. 1, 1963. |
|
08 Jan 09 - 10:39 AM (#2535113) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Bill D Like all the other theories, it will sell some books. |
|
08 Jan 09 - 11:00 AM (#2535139) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: katlaughing Interesting. Thom Hartman has written quite a few BOOKS. I've scanned through The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight...very interesting. |
|
08 Jan 09 - 11:04 AM (#2535144) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Little Hawk That's a rather jaded and cynical response, Bill. I'm sure you're right that it will sell some books, but it's hardly a useful comment on what is, after all, a pretty significant subject. |
|
08 Jan 09 - 11:15 AM (#2535163) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Wesley S How significant is it really? At this late date - if "THE TRUTH" finally came out - what would it change? In what way would the world become a better place? |
|
08 Jan 09 - 11:20 AM (#2535170) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Little Hawk I don't know, Wesley. So...should we also stop being interested in Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Jesus, Buddha, Cleopatra, and the assassinations of Abe Lincoln and Jesse James........just because it's too late now to do anything about any of them? ;-) |
|
08 Jan 09 - 11:39 AM (#2535186) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: MMario The blurb for the book certainly implies that most of the material is just rehashing of things that have already been said. for 17000 pages. yeesh! |
|
08 Jan 09 - 11:48 AM (#2535195) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: GUEST,Russ Do any people except boomers read these things any more? Russ (Permanent GUEST) |
|
08 Jan 09 - 11:52 AM (#2535197) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Little Hawk No. But boomers are people too, Russ. So KGFY. Mario, I am not asking you to read the book, am I? Chongo Chimp will shortly be publishing the first volume in his memoires, "Gumshoe On The Vine - Volume 1". I suggest you pick that one up instead, because it makes for much more enjoyable reading. It's light, humorous, and fast moving. |
|
08 Jan 09 - 12:14 PM (#2535213) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Riginslinger People will be interested in the JFK assassination long after all the boomers are gone. Frankly, if we could ever really pin it down, it might go a long ways in plotting future actions for American governemt. If it had been proven, for instance, that Johnson had Kennedy killed so he could expand the war in SE Asia, it might have alerted more of us as to what Cheney was up to in Iraq. |
|
08 Jan 09 - 12:30 PM (#2535220) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Arkie I kind of like the idea of "truth coming out" even if it does take a few decades. Many may not recognize truth when it finally sees the light of day, but still a society that values truth is preferable to me. |
|
08 Jan 09 - 12:48 PM (#2535231) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Rapparee Where is Kennedy's brain? It was removed during the autopsy and now can't be found. Finding that would solve the problem of bullet direction. But to rehash old stuff -- it sells books. Until something REALLY new comes to light, well.... |
|
08 Jan 09 - 12:57 PM (#2535237) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Wesley S All I'm saying is that if "THE TRUTH" hasn't been revealed by now then it never will be. Also "THE TRUTH" is very subjective. No one will go along with "THE TRUTH" unless it agrees with the scenario they already believe. Anything other than my personal version of "THE TRUTH" is a lie. As in - don't bother me with facts I've already made up my mind..... |
|
08 Jan 09 - 01:05 PM (#2535245) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Riginslinger Wesley - It's very possible that new information can still be uncovered, and I don't think people are going to quit digging any time soon. Look at all the people who have been released from prison since DNA technology has been developed. It could be something like that which will solve the mystery. |
|
08 Jan 09 - 01:17 PM (#2535255) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: heric I've been investigating the folk etymology of the acronym KGFY but traditional and advanced sources are failing to explain the first two letters. Please explain? |
|
08 Jan 09 - 01:23 PM (#2535262) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: CarolC "kindly go"? |
|
08 Jan 09 - 01:26 PM (#2535265) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: heric oh of course. Thank you. I could only think of Kick in the Groin. |
|
08 Jan 09 - 01:33 PM (#2535270) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: GUEST,Russ Little Hawk, But I'm a boomer too. KGFY? I am touched. Russ (Permanent GUEST) |
|
08 Jan 09 - 01:35 PM (#2535272) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: heric That first book, Ultimate Sacrifice, get an average 4 start rating from 116 people on amazon, and has newly revised edition (2008). Only one person on librarything commented, thusly: A long, fascinating but badly written book, to the extent that I was constantly on the point of abandoning it, but was always drawn back in by the story that is played out oh so laboriously but ultimately convincingly. JFK was killed not by Oswald but by the Mafia's gunmen, argues Waldron, because Bobby was out to destroy them, and if they had just killed Bobby then JFK would have appointed someone to carry on his work. |
|
08 Jan 09 - 01:51 PM (#2535296) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Little Hawk Okay, then, Russ... (grin) |
|
08 Jan 09 - 02:06 PM (#2535310) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: number 6 I heard JFK was wearing a Pierre Cardin shirt at the time of his assassination ... I wonder were that shirt is now ... if we could find it, with new thetechnology available we could prove there was a French Connection involved. biLL |
|
08 Jan 09 - 02:23 PM (#2535320) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: PoppaGator Seems completely plausible to me. Moreso than the "official" version, anyway Also, I have long believed that "the truth ould come out," or MIGHT come out, after about 50 years or so, by which time none of the guilty parties would be alive. Seems like about time now! Of course, what do I know? ~ I'm just a stupid "boomer" (along with millions of other members of a pretty damn large demographic group)! |
|
08 Jan 09 - 02:33 PM (#2535324) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Little Hawk There seem to have been a number of assassination plots in the works to get John Kennedy in the months prior to his death. This suggests to me that it was a well-organized conspiracy, not the act of a lone gunman....but the way you shut up further inquiry on something like that is to pin it all on the "lone gunman" theory. Specially handy if he's also rendered dead ASAP. The forensic evidence presented by the Warren Commission to prove that one almost undamaged bullet fired from behind and above did all that damage to both Kennedy and Conally was simply pathetic in its unlikelihood. Yet they went with it. They tailored the story to suit the perceived need, in my opinion. They wanted to close the chapter on the whole matter, and avoid provoking a deep crisis in public confidence. |
|
08 Jan 09 - 02:37 PM (#2535329) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T I guess it was time for another "great revelation" about now. I'll be pleased when the conspiracy nuts manage to link all the assassinations since Julius Caesar together into one huge construct, revealing just who has been manipulating mankind since the stone age. Then we can all heave a sigh of relief, and get on with our lives. Don T. |
|
08 Jan 09 - 02:44 PM (#2535338) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Megan L Little Hawk whit are ye yabblin aboot lad abody wie ony sense kens it wis thon Jackie whit did it the gun shot only grazed him she lent ower the tap o him and belted him wie an icepick thats why they couldny find the brain. |
|
08 Jan 09 - 03:03 PM (#2535355) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: CarolC The Julius Caesar one is easy. Caesar was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. |
|
08 Jan 09 - 03:19 PM (#2535366) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: 3refs It took 30 years for us to know the true identity of "Deep Throat". I know how I "Felt"(arrh arrh)when his true identity was finally revealed. I was mildly interested, but mostly satisfied that I knew the truth. To be honest, most of the time I think that it's never to late to find out the truth. Paradoxically, the other side of that statement is sometimes I never want to know the real truth. How important is the truth? Was Ty Cobb really that horrible of a person? Was Elvis really that weird? Did Ted Lindsay really say all those horrible things to "The Rocket"? Did "The Babe" really call that homer? Some of it is "who cares", some of it is "what difference does it make". The truth is important because it prevents people from repeating untruths. Turning fiction into fact. All of these questions and statements pale in comparison to the assassination of JFK. "I want to know" is all I can say. \ |
|
08 Jan 09 - 03:26 PM (#2535371) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: katlaughing Same here, 3refs. Also, I agree with Arkie and Poppagator. I think knowing the truth of it is important. If not there would never be any rewrites of history books. Thank goodness there all, even if they are slow to come about. |
|
08 Jan 09 - 03:41 PM (#2535388) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: 3refs Three things really matter! Is it true? Is it just? Is it in the best interest of the public? Purhaps the third question could create some issues! |
|
08 Jan 09 - 04:10 PM (#2535407) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Amos The truth IS the best interest of the public. A |
|
08 Jan 09 - 04:19 PM (#2535418) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Riginslinger "The Julius Caesar one is easy. Caesar was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald." He never could have hit him from that distance! |
|
08 Jan 09 - 04:24 PM (#2535424) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: PoppaGator "The truth IS the best interest of the public." Amen, Amos! We have enough assholes in public office who believe that their duties include sheltering us lesser mortals from truths, inconvenient and otherwise. We certainly do NOT need fellow nobodies to agree with their warped and arrogant perspective! |
|
08 Jan 09 - 05:39 PM (#2535476) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: number 6 It's so far now into history we'll never know the truth. biLL |
|
08 Jan 09 - 05:47 PM (#2535483) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Riginslinger I have hope the truth will eventually come out. |
|
08 Jan 09 - 06:02 PM (#2535490) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Little Hawk It may. Or it may not. We'll see. I am waiting in the meantime to see when Don T dies from terminal smugness. When he does... "Then we can all heave a sigh of relief, and get on with our lives." |
|
08 Jan 09 - 07:06 PM (#2535535) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: John on the Sunset Coast We know the truth. We (most consiracy theorists) don't want to accept the truth because it is too mundane. A person of the stature of a president, and a beloved one at that, cannot have been killed by just any old schlub. We demand that the the death has to have a deeper meaning, an earth-shattering meaning. But folks, like it or not, the simple answer is the answer--Lee Harvey Oswald did it. |
|
08 Jan 09 - 07:27 PM (#2535548) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Little Hawk No, John. We don't know. None of us knows. None of us is in any position to know. We just have our opinions, and they are all worth a bit less than a pinch of salt. I don't find any deep, earth-shattering meaning in the notion that, for instance, the Mafia might have killed JFK. They had plenty of reason to kill him and Bobby, after all, so what would be earth-shattering about it? I wouldn't find anything earth-shattering in the notion that the Cuban exiles killed him either. Or Lee Harvey Oswald. Or some CIA people. Nothing earth-shattering about any of that to me. The only one that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense is Oswald, but he still might have done it, after all. It's possible....though the forensic evidence of the bullet and Zapruder's film, does not seem to make it very likely. However.....we don't know. Neither do we know whether or not the Warren Commission was deliberately instructed by the Johnson administration to cover up and smooth over things and falsify their findings....in order to avoid great social upset in the USA......or whether they were ordered to do a real and honest investigation. Again, we have no way of knowing. All we have is our opinions, and the opinions of others. Your opinion is no better than mine or anybody else's when it comes to that. You. Don't. Know. And neither do I. |
|
08 Jan 09 - 08:37 PM (#2535597) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: John on the Sunset Coast Actually I always thought Jackie was behind it...the main suspect is usually the spouse...and God knows he was a cheating bastard. She probably hired the hit man, and prayed he was a really good shot and would miss her. I have no proof of this LH, but nobody can disprove that she wasn't behind his death. Give me a freakin' break here!! |
|
08 Jan 09 - 09:40 PM (#2535636) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Art Thieme It's all conjecture and folklore, just as it has always been. Art |
|
08 Jan 09 - 09:45 PM (#2535639) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Bee-dubya-ell I think the whole thing was engineered by the bigwigs at General Motors to improve Cadillac's share of the limousine market. Would you want to buy a Lincoln limo after the President of the US got his head blown off in one of 'em? (Offered as a joke, but not really much further fetched than most of the other "theories", including the one that Oswald acted alone.) |
|
08 Jan 09 - 10:58 PM (#2535670) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Little Hawk I am going to give you that break, John. ;-) I promise not to pointlessly ridicule the next serious subject you decide to start a thread about by making up silly stories and dumb jokes about it. (Grnnnnhhh!!!) Man, it's gonna be tough to keep that promise....really tough...tougher than holding back a sneeze...but I will do my very best. The most farfetched theory by far is, as Bee-Dub suggests, that Oswald acted alone. That doesn't mean he didn't. It just makes it a lot less likely, that's all. So many people wanted John Kennedy dead by 1963 that you could've filled a stadium with them...and I mean serious people with the means at hand to kill someone, not lost little schmucks like Lee Harvey Oswald. I don't know who did it. I just thought people might be interested to hear about the new book, that's all. I didn't start this thread so everyone who has a hostility problem with this particular subject can come here and dump their emotional garbage one more time about it. I didn't start it to convince anyone of anything. I just started it so they would hear that there's a new book, period. |
|
09 Jan 09 - 12:40 AM (#2535708) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: GUEST,bluesmax Several years ago, The History Channel did a two part series on Joseph Bonnano, long-time head of one of the New York families. His account of what he believed, based on information he got from other mafioso, made more sense to me than any other scenario I have ever heard. At least by his theory, the gunmen were positioned where their shots would have matched the Zabruder film and most if not all the information collected by Jim Garrett. While the actual bullet that the Warren Commission relies on, is not quite as "pristeen" as the movie "JFK" would have us believe, it still could not have done ALL that damage and come out almost unscathed. As an ex-marine (rifle expert) and a hunter, I've never seen a bullet go cleanly through anything except ballistic test material, and come out with only rifling grooves showing that it had been fired. So, whether or not Bonnano's version is correct, is speculative, the Warren Commission's version, however, is pure BS. |
|
09 Jan 09 - 12:40 AM (#2535709) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: John on the Sunset Coast "I mean serious people with the means at hand to kill someone, not lost little schmucks like Lee Harvey Oswald." Hawk, You make my point for me. You and many others cannot accept that an important figure can be killed by a non-entity. John Lennon was. James Dean was killed by a quirk of fate, but many didn't believe that. A survey a few years ago found that about 15% of people still thought Elvis was alive. And you think I make fun! I apologize for using your post to humorously belittle conspiracy theories. It's not because you wrote it, it's because of the concept in general. Please know I haven't given credence to any of the conspiratorial theories since the days of Mark Lane and Mort Sahl, whom I really respected until that time (Sahl, I mean). I mean were not talking 'a' conspiracy theory...I think Stone had 4 or 5 in his JFK film. Everybody with an imagination has come up with one, and now those two guys as noted at the start of this thread. My theory reflects Occam's Razor...the simplest answer is probably the best answer. Or as I like to say, sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar. So until there is (pardon the pun) a real smoking gun, I stand by Oswald. |
|
09 Jan 09 - 03:06 AM (#2535735) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Folk Form # 1 There was no coverup, no conspiracy. If there was, it would have been uncovered by now. As Gore Vidal once said, Americans can't shut up. Someone would have piped up. |
|
09 Jan 09 - 03:43 AM (#2535750) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Lizzie Cornish 1 If the desire to seek the truth dies in us, as a race, then we may as well all give up now. "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." - Galileo |
|
09 Jan 09 - 04:30 AM (#2535766) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Will Fly Some months ago there was a documentary on UK TV - the name of which now escapes me. It included, among some very thorough investigation into Oswald's background, a computerised 3-D construction of the motorcade minutes, second by second, using very sophisticated software techniques. It analysed the bullet trajectories and the sounds in minute detail. The conclusion: that Lee Harvey Oswald was a mentally tormented, would-be defector to the USSR - a loner who was rejected by the USSR and, on his return to the US, was filled with a desire to prove himself to the Russians and make an impact by killing the President. His US Marine record proved that he was an excellent and trained marksman - more than capable of firing accurate shots in a short period of time. The detailed computer analysis of the Zapruder film is a model of clarity. But people do love conspiracies. We have our own conspiracy-theorists over here, with the death of Princess Diana - who died because her chauffeur was drunk. |
|
09 Jan 09 - 06:17 AM (#2535809) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Riginslinger It would be easier to believe the official line about Oswald, if it hadn't been for Jack Ruby. |
|
09 Jan 09 - 06:33 AM (#2535820) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: number 6 "I shouted out, Who killed the kennedys? When after all It was you and me" exerpt from Sympathy for the Devil. now ... back to the conspiracy Rigin said ... "It would be easier to believe the official line about Oswald, if it hadn't been for Jack Ruby. " I'll add an extension to that line ... and if it hadn't been for the crime boss Sam Giancana who was gunned down inside his Chicaco home one night while frying sausages in 1975 ... he was scheduled to appear before a Senate committee investigating the CIA and Mafia partnership in plots to assassinate John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. ... btw, Jack Ruby was from Chicaco who had strong connections to the mob there. biLL |
|
09 Jan 09 - 07:36 AM (#2535859) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Rog Peek Well John on the SC, isn't he?: Long Live The King! Rog |
|
09 Jan 09 - 10:43 AM (#2536036) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Little Hawk I agree, John, that "the simplest answer is probably the best answer". Here is the simplest answer: JFK's death was accomplished by more than one marksman, the fatal shot hit him from the front, as is plain in the Zapruder film, the numerous eyewitnesses who said they heard shots or saw shots coming from the Grassy Knoll that day were not lying....but....it was extremely important to the Johnson administration to quiet things down in America and get the country back to normal after such a traumatizing event. They felt that it was vital to simply "close the book" on the Kennedy assassination and move on. They did not want a revelatory conspiracy investigation to happen at all. So they instructed the Warren Commission (behind closed doors) to find the desired result: Oswald, a lone gunman with a disturbed mind, acted alone. Their purpose was not to uncover the truth, their purpose was to "save the nation" from opening up a can of worms that could, in their view, tear the country apart with the ever-widening fierce divide between liberals and conservatives at the time. They put it to the Warren Commission in the strongest terms: You MUST pin this on Oswald alone, the fate of our nation rests upon it. The Warren Commission did their patriotic duty, obeyed their president, and complied. End of story. That is really quite simple, John, as it required a single decision by Lyndon Johnson, and that would be my best guess as to what happened. But I am also willing to consider that I am wrong, and that Oswald did it. In either case, the answer would be dead simple. I'm not suggesting Johnson plotted to kill JFK (though he might have), I'm just suggesting that he felt it was absolutely vital to put the thing to rest with the "lone gunman" theory, and move on... There are a number of possible reasons why he might have felt that way, depending on...who was involved. Castro? The Cuban exiles? The CIA? The Mafia? Texas right-wingers? Johnson himself? A very sticky situation indeed if the wrong people were behind who pulled the trigger(s). A situation that could potentially either tear the USA apart or even cause the Third World War. It's worth covering up something like that. Think about it. |
|
09 Jan 09 - 11:18 AM (#2536075) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: John on the Sunset Coast Roger, he came to our place for dinner Saturday night...he didn't eat very much...didn't even sing for his supper. ;>/ |
|
09 Jan 09 - 11:29 AM (#2536093) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Will Fly This is the documentary film I was talking about which uses computer reconstruction of the event in its analysis: Kennedy assassination. It's very thorough - worth seeing in its entirety. |
|
09 Jan 09 - 12:06 PM (#2536126) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: pdq It is quite reasonable to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman who killed Kennedy. It is also reasonable to believe that Jack Ruby was sent to shut Oswald up, which he did. Ruby had Mob connections and, I believe, was expected to die from cancer anyway. That still does not answer the questions of who planned the assassination and who knew it was going to happen. I believe that Lyndon Johnson was fully aware of the plan even if he was not the instigator. Kennedy treated Johnson like he was a dumb hick and despised Kennedy in return. I think Marcella and the Mob planned and executed the assassination, but Johnson knew it was going to happen and used his influential friends in Dallas to help clear the way. |
|
09 Jan 09 - 03:37 PM (#2536384) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""I am waiting in the meantime to see when Don T dies from terminal smugness. When he does... "Then we can all heave a sigh of relief, and get on with our lives."" Not smugness LH, simply boredom induced by all the crank theories which inevitably surround the death of anyone with a degree of notoriety. ""We (most consiracy theorists) don't want to accept the truth because it is too mundane. A person of the stature of a president, and a beloved one at that, cannot have been killed by just any old schlub. We demand that the the death has to have a deeper meaning, an earth-shattering meaning. But folks, like it or not, the simple answer is the answer--Lee Harvey Oswald did it."" What John said, for me, is the most likely. Occam's Razor etc. Plus, if it quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, I'd be unlikely to go out and buy it a kennel. Just suppose for one minute that your TRUTH does come out in fifty years or so. How will you KNOW it is the truth. I'll tell you. If it coincides with your preferred theory, it'll be TRUE, as far as you are concerned. If it doesn't, you will go back to wondering "What REALLY happened"? I can't be arsed to spend my precious time on any such pointless activity, but I hope you find YOUR truth before you die of frustration. Don T. |
|
09 Jan 09 - 03:42 PM (#2536385) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Megan L The truth is he's deed. It wis probably the Brits whit did it since they had nae reason tae love the auld man so probably bumped of some mair o the clan. Jings fowk hiv we nae enough travails o oor ain these days withoot fantasisisn |
|
09 Jan 09 - 08:04 PM (#2536628) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Little Hawk Yes, Don, everyone enjoys hearing whatever version of "the truth" they already tend to believe anyway... ;-) It's a universal human failing. For me, pdq's theory is the likeliest one. His last post might have been written by me. If that theory is correct, then the Warren Commission would have been formed for one purpose only: to legitimize a false or partially false story for the purposes of a coverup, in order to satisfy and calm a very alarmed public, and in order to protect the guilty. Governments quite frequently form official investigatory commissions for exactly that purpose, to hide things and to cover various people's asses, because governments often do not want the public to know the whole story behind a traumatic event (if that story would compromise people in high places or create a domestic crisis). You also asked, Don: "Just suppose for one minute that your TRUTH does come out in fifty years or so. How will you KNOW it is the truth?" The answer to that is simple. I won't know if it is the TRUTH! ;-) It will just be the latest official word on the subject, that's all, and I will have to keep wondering if this time they are telling the truth. The only people who can ever know the TRUTH for sure are the ones who were there and who saw it with their own eyes...depending on how much they saw. The rest is official-babble, opinion, and hearsay. And that's the way it is with just about everything of that nature. I already KNOW that I will die one day, still not knowing one hell of a lot of stuff, including who killed JFK, and it frankly doesn't matter. It doesn't cause me to "die of frustration". I'm merely curious about the JFK asassination, but I can assure you that it's not a fulltime obsession for me. I think about it, oh, maybe 5 or 10 days out of any given year when and if something draws it to my attention, as the news item about this new book did, so it isn't weighing all that heavy on my mind. The only thing that causes us to disagree on this subject of the JFK assassination, Don, is that you are emotionally wedded to a different theory about it than I am. Your gut tells you one thing. My gut tells me another. We interpret the available evidence on that basis, we shape that evidence to fit our preconceptions, and we marshall our glorious armies of logic and rhetoric in a similar fashion, and the predictable battle commences. And that makes it inevitable that we will continue to disagree about it from now until one of us shuffles off this mortal coil...and we still won't know the TRUTH! ;-) And I know it. |
|
09 Jan 09 - 08:16 PM (#2536637) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: maple_leaf_boy I like the theory that was mentioned in the movie "Drillbit Taylor." Castro did it, because he was jealous that he couldn't "score" with Marylin Monroe, and JFK could. So he did it. And speaking of Bobby, they profiled it on Unsolved Mysteries once, and it was someone who claimed to have taken photos of the entire event, was arrested by detectives and they destroyed his photos of the shooting. The photographer was a high school student at the time. They only kept his first roll of film, and parts of the second and third rolls. They documented it as one roll of film. They don't know if this person actually saw the shooting, even though his story was very detailed, because some of these details sound like "coincidences" such as standing on a table on the opposite side of JFK where he was shot. They found photos of someone standing on a table as he described, and ruled it as one of those "coincidences". Given the fact that detectives stopped him, took him in for questioning and destroyed some of the photos makes it sound suspicious. |
|
09 Jan 09 - 09:02 PM (#2536667) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Little Hawk Your assumption about Fidel Castro is truly hilarious! Are you joking? ;-) Did you know that he was reputed to be damn near irresistible to most women, according to many people who knew him well? I really doubt he was one bit concerned about Marylin Monroe, because he sure never lacked for female admirers back when he was young and strong. He did, however, have very real and substantial reasons to think about retaliating against the USA for their continual efforts (through the CIA and the Mafia) to kill him. Numerous attempts were made by American agents or hired guns to assassinate Fidel Castro, and by a variety of methods. All those attempts failed. Eventually Castro let it be known through the intelligence grapevine that if he was considered fair game for assassination, then so was any American president who was trying to get him killed. Castro had real reasons to kill John Kennedy, not some silly BS about Marilyn Monroe. The woman always struck me as a bit of a ditz anyway, though John and Bobby certainly liked her, didn't they? Do you have any idea how many assassinations the CIA has done around the world for the USA? Many. Latin Americans have lost a number of populist leaders to that sort of thing, usually because they were standing in the way of USA corporate profits. Castro must have nine lives (and very good security around him), because they probably tried to get him harder than anyone else, but they never succeeded. |
|
09 Jan 09 - 10:47 PM (#2536737) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Riginslinger That's right, LH. Castro didn't do it for Marilyn, he did it because he was cut from the Washington Senators. |
|
09 Jan 09 - 11:16 PM (#2536763) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: number 6 It's a myth that Castro did 'tryout' for the Washington Senators ... there is no evidence that he did, plus his pitching skills were so inadequate that he would never even be considered for a tryout for any major league team. biLL |
|
10 Jan 09 - 03:10 AM (#2536851) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Lonesome EJ Let's see. Johnson authorized the Warren Commission to fabricate a 1200 page document that included forensic evidence, witness testimony, etc. All of those on the Commission therefore were a) So cowed by Johnson's threats and pressure that they went along with it or b)were involved in the plot themselves How about this one. The mafia had the assassination done and Johnson ignored this because a) he knew the mafia liked him and wouldn't subsequently do it to him b) the mafia helped Johnson in his election and therefore he couldn't implicate them c) his ambitions were so clearly opposite JFK's that he wanted him dead and he knew his mafia pals would be skilled at covering their tracks Or this. Castro had it done, but Johnson wanted to pin it on Oswald because a) He knew Castro liked him and wouldn't subsequently do it to him b) Blaming a communist leader for the assassination might inflame the American populace against communism Like the theories involving George W destroying the Trade Center in order to justify the invasion of Iraq, all of these scenarios are unlikely not just because the preponderance of evidence does not bear them out, but also because the depth of the involvement and dedication in carrying out and covering up these actions by a fairly large group of people would be nearly impossible to disguise. I say "nearly", because I am quite sure that there are those who would buy the argument that the CIA has in its possession a time machine which was used to send John Wilkes Booth back to 1865 to kill Lincoln in order to prevent Abe from assuming the title of King of America, with which the leaders of the Army of the Potomac were planning to present him three days after the play. How else do you explain that Lincoln's wound was caused by a 357 Magnum round, a caliber that was not invented until 1916! |
|
10 Jan 09 - 01:30 PM (#2537246) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Little Hawk No, no, L.E.J.! You're missing the point entirely. It was not done for any purpose but this: it was done to fool you. The Warren Commission, I mean. They were instructed to cover up so that you would be fooled into pontificating for the rest of your life as though you, and only the brilliant minds like you, have the common sense to be able to see through all those wacky "conspiracy theories. |
|
10 Jan 09 - 07:06 PM (#2537583) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Ebbie I agree with Lonesome. Can you imagine anyone keeping their mouth shut when by telling the truth they know they would go down in history? It's as bad as the current "conspiracy theory" about the 9/11 event. Is there a person who, if nothing else, wouldn't go to a reporter and strike a deal? Even IF a person feared for his/her safety if the truth could be traced to them, is there a person over the age of 9 in this country who is not aware that there would be a fortune to be made? I recognize that sometimes there is a conspiracy - for instance, there is no way that James Earl Ray of Martin Luther King, Jr. notoriety had the money to get out of the country on his own dime. FWIW, I wish that Ray's no contest plea had not been accepted (Even though he later unsuccessfully attempted to get a trial). When it comes to capital crimes I think that no one should be allowed to be incarcerated without trial. |
|
10 Jan 09 - 07:44 PM (#2537600) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Bill D so...days later, do you wonder why *I* am cynical? *grin* I, too, saw the program that Will Fly references...and a couple more. And I remember what a few have forgotten...that Oswald tried to shoot a general thru the window of his house awhile before he shot Kennedy, and that he DID shoot a Dallas policeman. ALL the evidence proves that Oswald was guilty....very little suggests that others were also involved. I'm sure there were others who WOULD have conspired if they could, but most of the connections are hearsay and speculation. No one can keep folks from 'suspecting', and like many other deaths, there are theories abounding.... y'all call me when someone gets some hard evidence. |
|
10 Jan 09 - 08:28 PM (#2537656) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Little Hawk There are always a few people willing to talk, Ebbie, but one of 2 things happens to such people. 1. If they're really dangerous they end up dead...as dead as Oswald. 2. If not, well, they talk, all right, but almost no one ever hears about it, because the powers that be don't give them mainstream media coverage...or they use it to ridicule them, and everyone laughs. 3. So yes, a few people talk, but no one ever listens to them or believes them except the "conspiracy nuts" (so-called). Anyone else who hears about it just says, "Oh, right. Another nutbar conspiracy. Who cares what that guy has to say? Probably just mentally unstable or looking for attention." Thus, any eyewitness from that day who says a shot was coming from ANYWHERE except the Texas Book Depository is shunted aside, ignored, or said to have been "mistaken". To maintain a high level coverup, you don't need to shut up everybody. You just need to spout an official line that gets reported on all mainstream media, highlight only the official side of the story, and ridicule or just plain ignore any individuals who contradict that line. It's the easiest thing in the world. I'll give you an example of how it works. One of the Apollo astronauts recently gave interviews and he openly stated that he and many other people in NASA and the military knew already in the 1960s without any doubt whatsoever that there are and have been alien vehicles (so-called UFOs) visiting this planet for decades. He has appeared in several interviews stating that, and he gave explicit details regarding various incidents. So he has talked. And who is listening? Well, the only people who are listening to him, it seems, are those who were already inclined to listen in the first place, and a few talk show hosts...everyone else is ignoring it...and that enormous coverup therefore continues with hardly a hiccup, regardless of the fact that an astronaut has talked openly. They command 99% of what you hear on the daily media. He commands 1 billionth of a percent of what you hear on the daily media. The result is obvious. The coverup is not much threatened if he talks, and they're not much threatened if various other well qualified individuals talk (as they have...again and again). The public does not hear the sound of a voice which is not broadcast relentlessly day after day on every mainstream media channel. The lone voice of that sort is like 2 hands clapping in front of a thundering waterfall. Almost no one hears it. Almost no one sees it. That's how a coverup is maintained. You just make sure that one official version of what happened is constantly reinforced on the MSM to the saturation point. You ignore, or ridicule any dissenting voices, report on them almost never, and when you do you characterize them as "conspiracy theorists". How do you think Hitler got millions of Germans to believe Poland was a threat to Germany in '39? Repetition on every news channel, that's how. Media saturation. People believe whatever it is they hear most often through MSM, and that is what they call "conventional wisdom". The normal condition of a public is to be in a state of what is called "conventional thinking". People believe whatever they hear most often from the powers that be. It is that overwhelmingly passive and lazy state of mind which makes a government-sponsored coverup an absolute cinch, because it doesn't depend on silencing everyone...it just depends on the average lowest common denominator of conventional thought to rule the day through repetition and conformity, that's all. Most people will believe whatever "daddy" tells them..."daddy" being their daily shot of media pablum, straight from the lips of the Magnificent Oz, by way of the MSM. This has been happening ever since ancient Rome, if not long before that. All that is required to cover up something is the will in high places to do it, the money to command air time, and the ruthlessness to do whatever else is required "in the better interests of the nation". The pubic lives on commonly repeated myths. They always have. Now, I don't know who killed Kennedy. I wouldn't pretend that I do know. But I am extremely skeptical as to what trust I can put into any presidential commission that is put together after some major incident, because they are not after the truth. They are after a politically pragmatic result which will steer the agenda as the government would wish it to be steered. For instance, why do you really think the original O.J. trial was such a monumental screw-up, and that he went free? I think it was basically because the powers that be were desperate not to have another Los Angeles race riot erupt...so they decided that O.J. had better damn well be acquitted, no matter what. They made a practical judgement call....better to avoid much destruction and death and harm to thousands of people at the cost of letting one murderer go free. So it was set up that way. I can understand why they would have felt that was the better way. I think the Johnson administration may have made a similar practical judgement call regarding investigating JFK's death. And if so, they may have had quite compelling reasons to do so. And in the case of 911? Maybe something like that again. What's more important, after all? The principle of "the whole truth" itself or the practical dangers of what can follow the divulging of a truth that creates a violent social or political crisis? A politician has to always ask himself that. Am I surprised that they would sometimes choose to suppress the truth? Not at all. They did the same thing in Rome, Egypt, China, the Holy Roman Empire, any great past power system. Their concern was never that Joe Public should know "the whole truth"...it doesn't frikkin' MATTER (from their point of view)... but it is absolutely vital that he should remain cooperative with the system. Their concern was that the system should remain strong, manageable, and in control of the agenda at all times "for the survival of the nation". And from their point of view, that makes perfect sense. Government is not about supporting or uncovering the TRUTH, government is about having and maintaining control at all times. |
|
10 Jan 09 - 08:42 PM (#2537668) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Riginslinger That's a good point, LH. Anyone who even thought about crossing the Warren Commission only had to think of Oswald and Ruby. I suspect there were a number of the members, if not all of them, there were skeptical of the conclusion, but really didn't have anything better to suggest at the time. Leaving the whole thing unanswered would have been the worst thing they could have done, or at least, that's what those kinds of folks tend to think. |
|
10 Jan 09 - 10:45 PM (#2537711) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Bill D Oh PIFFLE, Little Hawk! At least two of the jurors in OJs trial admitted that they, [not the 'powers'], decided at the beginning that they didn't want to see OJ convicted, so they made it clear to the other jurors there was no reason to vote FOR conviction! Your entire post is taking stuff that is obvious, like Hitler's propaganda...and stuff that would BE obvious if you had direct proof, like 'astronauts' "admitting" they know about aliens (who? when?)...and then suggesting that these sort of claims are equivalent to theories about 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination! It is 'connection by innuendo and fuzzy logic'. EACH claim must stand on its own. If someone finds proof about Kennedy (like a deathbed confession...with details), I'd be glad to re-evaluate my opinion. If some astronaut will tell me HOW they **KNOW** about alien visits...I'll listen. If they really had 'proof', instead of vague 'admissions', it would be too big to keep quiet. In all this there is the 'will to believe' in conspiracies....the general 'feeling' that because we WANT answers and we don't HAVE all the answers, someone must be hiding the truth! (Like the 100MPG carburetor ... we don't have it, so someone is hiding it to keep prices up). (I'll let you look up what the specific logical error that is). I type all this, knowing, just as you do, that all my typing is unlikely to change any minds....but I sure like seeing MY clever viewpoint appear near the 'other kind'. ☺ |
|
11 Jan 09 - 07:36 PM (#2537724) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Little Hawk I was simply expanding the general discussion into some other areas, Bill, that's all. But I know one thing for a fact. Nothing is too big to keep quiet. Things far bigger than the question of who killed JFK and why they did it are kept quiet. The JFK thing is a molehill in comparison. If you don't want to believe that...fine. It won't actually make any difference anyway, because you are in no position to affect the matter...nor am I nor is anyone else here. I started this thread not to prove anything to anyone, but merely to draw attention to a new book that's out there which some people might find interesting. I didn't realize it would provide a soapbox for a collection of people to once again go through a combative exercise over the matter, but I guess I should have... ;-) Anyway, go ahead and fight about it with whoever can be bothered. I'm getting bored with the whole premise at this point. I basically don't give a hoot what you believe about it, Bill, so believe whatever makes you happy. That works well enough for most people. |
|
11 Jan 09 - 08:05 PM (#2537743) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Lonesome EJ Oh no, LH. I'll leave the brilliant minds like David Crosby, Oliver Stone, and you, to do the pontificating about JFK's demise. I really just find it all rather amusing. |
|
11 Jan 09 - 08:44 PM (#2537762) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: robomatic I think the real evidence has come in, and from now on we're subject to manufactured stuff, not to mention the same kind of post 9/11 and London Underground bombing fantasies which push theories which have been cut and pasted to fit known facts, sort of how Nostradamus is consistently made an after-the-fact seer no matter what happens. Those who knew Oswald, like his brother, are pretty sure he did it. The killing of Oswald by Jack Ruby was an unplanned impulse on his (Ruby's) part. It's all the kind of incredible concatenation of circumstances that no one could make up. One of my spookiest memories is sitting in class a few years after the event while the teacher read off the list of perceived similarities between the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy. ("Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy, Kennedy had an assistant named Lincoln, Boothe ran from a theater to a warehouse, Oswald from a warehouse to a theater. As the list grew longer, the other kids began laughing. Freaked me out. Eventually the teacher remarked on it and stopped reading from the list, which was quite long. I can't recommend enough the musical "Assassins" which accomplishes the feat of being entertaining, thought provoking, and a damn good time. |
|
11 Jan 09 - 09:00 PM (#2537775) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Bill D "I basically don't give a hoot what you believe about it, Bill,... " *grin*... ok, fine...the point is, I DON'T believe... you do. And please don't tell me again that every viewpoint in only 'another belief', all equally valid. The word 'believe' exists for a reason....to differentiate opinions which are NOT well based on fact & evidence from those which are. NOT believing is not the same as just taking the opposite view.... all it needs to mean is that 'X' claim is not well substantiated. Kinda of a hard distinction to make, I discover. |
|
11 Jan 09 - 09:03 PM (#2537778) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: bobad Heckzactly! |
|
11 Jan 09 - 09:27 PM (#2537793) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Little Hawk No, Bill, I don't believe. I suspect. How could I believe when I don't know for sure? It amuses me too, L.E.J., because it's all as predictable as anything else that people have strong opinions about. They are no more easily moved from their favorite opinions than a barnacle is moved off the hull of a ship... ;-) This is equally true of people on both (or all?) sides of the argument (Oswald did it alone/ he didn't do it alone/ he didn't do it at all/ etc). They are all equally stubborn about the rightness of their opinion for the usual reasons that people are stubborn about everything they have an opinion on. Those reasons are pyschological, not logical. It ain't really worth sweating over, but it has amused the more cynical and wry observers of humanity from time immemorial, and it clearly amuses you and me as well, and Bill too, I would gather. |
|
11 Jan 09 - 10:44 PM (#2537809) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Guy Wolff Years ago I had a radio personality from NPR stop at my shop . I had just had a little national media coverage and this guy stopped by with a small emterage to have a look . After someone told me I had someone interesting from the news world in my pottey I said to the guy .. "So youve been in the news business a long time ??" He nodded so I said " Can I ask you one question? " Again a nod. So I asked "So did the mob hire the CIA or did the CIA hire the mob ".I said nothing more . I expected a small laugh but the guy got very still and just said "It was a little of both" no smile. Well in itself I thought it was kind of an interesting interaction .He really sounded like he knew something . Easily he could have been having fun with me but he seemed honest to me . Oddly enough a few days later I had a producer from the TV show 48 hours stop in and I told him this story and he said " Some guy from NPR ? Ha . Dont you know there all pinkos " . No point here just two interesting stories . All the best , Guy |
|
12 Jan 09 - 09:26 PM (#2538521) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Riginslinger Another way to look at it is this: if one considers the disasterous chain of events that the country has experienced since the assassination--Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush II--it's hard not to believe in some kind of a conspiracy theory. |
|
12 Jan 09 - 09:55 PM (#2538540) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Little Hawk Oh, well, I would hardly go linking it all together in a single conspiracy chain. Nope. I think there are a tremendous number of conspiracies afoot at all times, and many of them never come to fruition and are never heard of even if they do come to fruition. That is to say... The U.S. State Department is constantly conspiring to accomplish various things in various other countries, and so is the CIA, and so are the Russians, and so are the Israelis, and so are the Chinese, and the British, and the French, and the Saudis, and the Indians, and the Pakistanis....everybody! High level conspiracies, yessiree. And that's just on the governmental level. Then you have conspiracies by the American Mafia and the Japanese Jakuza and the Sicilian Mafia and Al Queda and the Tamil Tigers and whoever the hell else...on the non-governmental level. Then you have conspiracies by businessmen and bankers to eliminate competition, increase their profits, launder money, etc. These are all conspiracies. Why? Because they are plans made in secret by a group of people with an objective. The objective is usually financial or it has to do with acquiring power or damaging an enemy. It may have to do with some form of political objective. Whatever. At any rate, the world is absolutely full of conspiracies, most of which we will never even hear of, and many of which will fail, while others will succeed. That's why it's so hilarious that the term "conspiracy theory" has become a way for debunkers to make fun of people whose ideas they wish to put down. Conspiracies are the rule, not the exception. The "good guys" in this world (whoever they might be?) engage in conspiracies too...all the time...because a secretly agreed upon plan of action IS a conspiracy, and that's how you defeat an opposing force, by secrecy. If it wasn't a conspiracy...meaning "wasn't secret"...then they'd see it coming in adance, be able to counter it, and it wouldn't work so well at all. So...what I'm saying here is simply this: Major political, financial, military, and social events that achieve major change are very seldom triggered by one lone individual who acts entirely on his own. They are usually triggered by a well organized group of people with a plan who are not letting everyone know exactly what they're up to....and that's a conspiracy. The 911 attack, for instance, was obviously achieved through a conspiracy (only point of debate is....who exactly were the conspirators, and exactly how did they organize and accomplish all that happened?). The Pearl Harbor attack was achieved by a conspiracy (on the part of the Japanese military and government). The failed attempt in 1944 to assassinate Hitler was a conspiracy. Too bad it failed. All surprise military attacks are the result of conspiracies. All hostile takeovers in business are done by conspiracies. Anything that involves more than one person to set it up and is wholly or partially secret in its planning is a conspiracy. The world is full of conspiracies. It always has been. It's normal human behaviour to conspire, it's business as usual. And so is terrorism, by the way. It's usually committed by legal governments rather than just the ragtag illegal groups that governments choose to call "terrorists"....but governments have such a high and mighty opinion of their own glorious moral imperative to do whatever they want to do that they would never admit to being the number one terrorists in the world themselves. They're not honest enough to admit to that. |
|
12 Jan 09 - 09:59 PM (#2538542) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Little Hawk typo: should be "Yakuza" |
|
12 Jan 09 - 10:01 PM (#2538543) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: GUEST,heric Yeah, I was going to point that out. |
|
12 Jan 09 - 11:14 PM (#2538571) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Bill D The admitted 'fact' that there are lots of conspiracies going on at all times is a red herring. Would I 'admit' that someone, somewhere probably is considering an assassination right now...maybe of an American leader? Sure!...just as I would agree that there are almost certainly other civilizations somewhere in the Universe. But claiming or asserting a specific one happened...or even insinuating or suggesting such with slippery disclaimers ("No, Bill, I don't believe. I suspect. How could I believe when I don't know for sure?) is a very different thing. As I said before, each claim or theory must stand on its own. (the old line keep popping into my head..."All Indians walk in single file....anyway, *I* saw an Indian once, and HE was walking in single file!") naawww..it's not an exact metaphor, but it expresses the flavor... Here's the point... Since not ALL theories or speculations can be true/accurate/factual, it is possible that none of them are. So many ideas of what MIGHT have happened to JFK have been put forward that the mind boggles. If one uses ANY false premises in concocting a theory, then ANY conclusion is possible. It is fine to wonder why certain **known** facts seem confusing..(one frame of Zapruder's film 'seeming' to show a shot from another direction....[this has been explained by experts, but not to many folks satisaction]). It is NOT fine for NON-experts to say, "well it seems to ME that X could not have caused Y...so it must have been Z." And pretty soon we have Lyndon Johnson 'suspected' of aiding Mafia figures to hire CIA operatives to set up Oswald to........whatever. It goes on & on...and pretty soon the whole notion becomes a self-perpetuating game. Each theory causes someone else to modify it or reinterpret the details...even the totally hypothetical ones! So what? It's a free country, ain't it? Well...ummm...yeah, but getting everyone stirred up by asserting conspiracies, instead of simply looking for real evidence, over what may be totally fallacious hypotheses, can do more harm than good. What is legal and interesting is not always a good idea. (I read that some large # of people STILL believe that Iraq had a major role in 9/11...they have no evidence, they just 'heard' it or find it fits their prejudices.) If anyone finds real evidence about JFK that we have missed, I want to hear about it, but the downright STUPID idea that since we don't have it, it just shows how clever the conspirators are.....sheesh! (THAT is the fallacy of 'assuming the consequent') You're welcome.... |
|
13 Jan 09 - 12:31 AM (#2538619) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Ebbie "For instance, why do you really think the original O.J. trial was such a monumental screw-up, and that he went free? I think it was basically because the powers that be were desperate not to have another Los Angeles race riot erupt...so they decided that O.J. had better damn well be acquitted, no matter what. They made a practical judgement call....better to avoid much destruction and death and harm to thousands of people at the cost of letting one murderer go free. So it was set up that way. PPG I can understand why they would have felt that was the better way." LH I don't even begin to understand your reasoning on this, Little Hawk. If the case had been decided by a panel of three judges, perhaps. But not in the man-off-the-street jury system. You are absolutely ignoring certain salient factors thereby making a farce of the subject. I think you ought to take it back. |
|
22 Nov 10 - 12:41 PM (#3038062) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: pdq refresh |
|
22 Nov 10 - 12:55 PM (#3038074) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Little Hawk I never took it back, and the sun is still rising... ;-) |
|
22 Nov 10 - 01:01 PM (#3038078) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Bill D Why?? Hasn't it all been said? |
|
22 Nov 10 - 01:03 PM (#3038079) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Bill D Oh...I get it. Nov. 22... not much reason to review conspiracy theories to me. Better to have a thread celebrating the man. |
|
22 Nov 10 - 01:15 PM (#3038085) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Ebbie Ye gods. Re-reading this not-so-old-thread has me baffled. The 'reasoning' of several people that arrives at such a different destination than mine is a puzzlement. This paragraph, for instance, to my mind is a veritable mish mash of possibilities and improbabilities: "...the Warren Commission would have been formed for one purpose only: to legitimize a false or partially false story for the purposes of a coverup, in order to satisfy and calm a very alarmed public, and in order to protect the guilty. Governments quite frequently form official investigatory commissions for exactly that purpose, to hide things and to cover various people's asses, because governments often do not want the public to know the whole story behind a traumatic event (if that story would compromise people in high places or create a domestic crisis)." Surely, he jests. I would add: Whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy, he certainly thought he did. |
|
22 Nov 10 - 01:18 PM (#3038088) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Amos Happy anniversary, John. Wish you had ducked. A |
|
22 Nov 10 - 02:00 PM (#3038108) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Little Hawk The paragraph you quote, Ebbie, is simply a list of various hypothetical possibilities, and nothing more than that. It's a philosophical look at how governments often behave, that's all. I find it much more interesting to observe how people behave and to understand why they do it....the study of human motivations...than to spend hours trying to didactically prove to anyone whether or not Oswald was the sole killer of John Kennedy...cos I know none of us can prove that one way or another anyway. If we can understand how and why people behave the way they do, though, then we can better understand ourselves, and life in general. Governments often conceal much from their people, and they do it for a great variety of pragmatic reasons, some of which are probably quite justified, others of which are not. And I find that interesting. It's why I take everything they say with a grain of salt, because it might be partly true, it might be all true or it might be completely false, and the general public isn't in a very good position to know for sure about that. And that's how it's always been. I have no idea if Oswald killed Kennedy or not, if he acted alone or not, if there was a larger conspiracy or not, and if the Warren Commission covered stuff up or not. I don't BELIEVE anything specific about it except that Kennedy got shot in Dallas and died....I merely have some doubts and suspicions regarding the official version of what happened. And I will never know. ;-) And neither will any of the rest of you. And there it stands. And there isn't a damn thing any of us can do about it. Still we talk about it. Why? Because we like to talk and assert (and defend) our own identity by talking! It gives us something to do in those idle minutes, and we can't resist expressing ourselves. It engages us. ;-D And that's all there is to it. It's the same reason that other people spend an hour or two yakking on the phone and gossiping about their neighbours and relatives. They LIKE to talk. Examine your own motivations. I do that all the time, I examine my motivations and behaviour, and I am both amused and somewhat chagrined over the valuable time I waste here daily yakking to the rest of you about stuff that won't change anything or accomplish anything, because I simply can't resist doing so. And the same goes for the rest of you. If you react to this post of mine and type something in response to it, you will be doing the very same thing I have just alluded to. |
|
22 Nov 10 - 02:29 PM (#3038130) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Ebbie You say: "I merely have some doubts and suspicions regarding the official version of what happened. And I will never know. ;-) And neither will any of the rest of you. And there it stands." See, we differ there. Greatly. If just one member of the Warren Commission should say: "Look, I've got to get this off my mind/conscience: we made our findings in accord with our instructions, not as a result of our investigation." we then would know the truth, right? I do NOT - not for one moment - believe that the Warren Commission acted thus. Look at Earl Warren's life and career alone. Your hypothesis is not only speculative in the extreme, it is insulting and demeaning and remarkably non-insightful. "If you react to this post of mine and type something in response to it, you will be doing the very same thing I have just alluded to." Fine. I have no problem with that thought- or charge. We are human beings and that is how we function. It is how you yourself respond, right? |
|
22 Nov 10 - 02:52 PM (#3038147) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Little Hawk Yeah, that's right. That's how we behave, because we're human. I don't mind if you and I differ about the credibility of Earl Warren or the Warren Commission. If I were to mind, it wouldn't do me any good anyway. ;-) |
|
22 Nov 10 - 03:00 PM (#3038150) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Ebbie Right. lol |
|
22 Nov 10 - 06:00 PM (#3038255) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: frogprince I know, and have known, at least several people who know exactly who was involved in the assassination, and how it was carried out. The odd thing is, they all know a lot of mutually exclusive facts. |
|
22 Nov 10 - 06:04 PM (#3038261) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Little Hawk The world is chock full of people who KNOW things that they don't know. ;-) Just ask them. They KNOW. And they'll pester you about it until you either agree with them or fall down dead or go away where they can't find you. |
|
22 Nov 10 - 06:05 PM (#3038263) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Bill D What Amos said... (and a LOT of what Ebbie said..) ...further, deponent sayeth not... |
|
22 Nov 10 - 06:31 PM (#3038285) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Little Hawk My usual strategy is the third one, by the way. ;-) I just come here, because I like to talk. I ignore the place for awhile when it starts getting to me. |
|
22 Nov 10 - 07:45 PM (#3038328) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Amos Communication is a core attribute of life itself, LH. Even done via pixels or cream-colored letter head and fountain pens, it generates the space within which we find ourselves living. A |
|
22 Nov 10 - 08:40 PM (#3038361) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Charley Noble It's still a sad anniversary for me. And now I certainly know a whole lot more about the Kennedy Family then I did in that cold November day in 1963. Charley Noble |
|
23 Nov 10 - 02:42 AM (#3038471) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: GUEST,Patsy I suppose we will never really know the truth but what bothers me sometimes is that seeing as Lee Harvey Oswald was supposedly to be not a particularly good shot how Jackie managed to stay unscathed apart from being blood spattered. |
|
23 Nov 10 - 01:24 PM (#3038805) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Jim Dixon A former coworker of mine was heavily into conspiracy theories. He collected them. He didn't necessarily believe in all of them. (It would be impossible to believe in all of them because some of them contradicted each other.) If you presented him with a strong argument why one of his theories or bits of "evidence" was bogus, that didn't bother him in the slightest. He would just move on to the next one. His thinking seemed to be: there are so many theories, they can't all be wrong. "There has to be a pony in here somewhere!" |
|
23 Nov 10 - 03:22 PM (#3038897) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Bonzo3legs I always thought he was got at by Marilyn Monroe people!!! |
|
24 Nov 10 - 12:10 PM (#3039598) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity There was a good show on that, on 'Coast to Coast' with George Noory the other night. It was consistent with other info I had. One thing for Sure, The 'Warren Commission Report' Is full of shit! Arlen Specter's Finding the one 'Single Bullet' on the gurney, is full of shit. Interviewed the other night on that show, was Agent Hill, who was Jackie's security guard. He was the one who jumped up on the back of the limo, in that now famous photo. He claims to have heard 11 shots fired! I've got some GREAT info on this, but I don't think I'll put it up yet. I think I'll read the rest of the posts first..then maybe....besides, you probably wouldn't believe it anyway, and tomorrow you wouldn't care. GfS |
|
24 Nov 10 - 02:45 PM (#3039721) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: frogprince Does it strike any one else as incongruous that no one else, in all these years, has ever suggested that there were anywhere near that many shots fired? |
|
24 Nov 10 - 03:00 PM (#3039730) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Little Hawk I have no idea whether or not that is so, frogprince. (?) Have you spoken to every eyewitness from that day who had anything to say about how many shots were fired? (that was a rhetorical question) (I know you have not.) (And that is my point.) If one credible witness says that he heard 11 shots, then that is something definitely worth giving real consideration to, rather than simply brushing it off immediately because it doesn't happen to mesh with your favorite opinion on the subject. |
|
24 Nov 10 - 03:05 PM (#3039733) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Ed T Considering some of their their positions and wealth, I wonder if any of the extended Kennedy family know more than we know? If so, they have been keeping it very quiet for a very long time? |
|
24 Nov 10 - 03:18 PM (#3039745) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Little Hawk Well, if there was a high level plot, and a high level coverup, I would think they have very good reasons for keeping quiet. And if there wasn't, they wouldn't have any reason to speak out. So either way...they will likely remain silent. |
|
24 Nov 10 - 03:29 PM (#3039753) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Ebbie 11 shots? Eleven shots? Suddenly I have a lot less faith in that security man. Where are those 11 shots supposed to have gone? The very pavement would have been pattering with them. Unless 8 or 9 of those shots were fired into the air? Curiouser and curiouser. |
|
24 Nov 10 - 04:01 PM (#3039770) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Don Firth (Yawn) Don Firth |
|
24 Nov 10 - 07:32 PM (#3039940) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""If one credible witness says that he heard 11 shots, then that is something definitely worth giving real consideration to, rather than simply brushing it off immediately because it doesn't happen to mesh with your favorite opinion on the subject."" It was difficult enough to believe that Oswald could have got of three shots in the time, let alone eleven. "The greatest ignorance is the conceit that we know that which we do not know" - William Osler Don T. |
|
24 Nov 10 - 07:43 PM (#3039948) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Donuel At the time it was dangerous to even think you knew anything about the shooting outside the official version. The large list of healthy young people who died after the assasination and may have had some connection to the events that bloody day, is dubious. |
|
24 Nov 10 - 07:44 PM (#3039951) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: Little Hawk I'm not under the impression that I KNOW much of anything about it, Don. I wasn't there. All I have to go on is hearsay, and the Zapruder film. The official report is among the vast amounts of hearsay I have to go on, and it's just part of the hearsay. I was most certainly not suggesting that Oswald had time to get off 11 shots, and I can't fathom how you could think that I would even entertain such an idea. ;-) I think that if there were a relatively larger number of shots than the official version (3) that it would indicate 2 or more marksmen, perhaps 3 of them, perhaps more than 3. If it were an organized plot, they'd make sure. They wouldn't rely on one wingnut like Oswald to do the job from the book depository. They'd cover all the angles...get the job done...and then throw the one wingnut, the amateur, to the wolves. If it was just Oswald on the other hand, then he was just really lucky....and John Kennedy was really unlucky. Note that I say "if" throughout. I am not claiming any certain conclusions. I am not saying I know. I am simply raising questions, and I give as little a damn about your opinion of my doing that as you give about my opinion, period. So we're even, aren't we? |
|
24 Nov 10 - 10:23 PM (#3039987) Subject: RE: BS: New info on JFK assassination? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity There were at least 4(gunmen). You might want to re-visit the recording on the motorcycle patrolman's bike radio. Agent Hill's account should be reliable...being as they were zipping the air around him...and yes, one did hit the pavement near the car, as crews were dispatched the next day to repair it. GfS |