|
20 Nov 03 - 09:22 PM (#1058201) Subject: BS: Kennedy Assasination Anniversary Nearing From: Bobert Well, with the 40th anniversary of President Kennedy's assasination coming up, Sunday, what are folks thoughts? Now my friend, Doug, thinks I am a cynic and perhaps I am but... ahhhh, what was the motive of Lee Harvey Oswald and of... Jack Ruby? Plus, other than where you were at the time, any other thoughts... Bobert |
|
20 Nov 03 - 10:01 PM (#1058219) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assasination Anniversary Nearing From: Beer Back then religion was an issue. If memory servers me rightl, Kennedy was the first catholic President. I may be wrong. What was Oswald's religion? Was there a strong enough motivation in the name of religion? There seens to have been in manny other circumstances over thew globe. |
|
20 Nov 03 - 10:04 PM (#1058221) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assasination Anniversary Nearing From: Beer Damm. I just read what I submitted. Is there no spell check in Mudcat?? |
|
20 Nov 03 - 10:10 PM (#1058224) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assasination Anniversary Nearing From: Beer Then Jack Ruby get's pissed off and shoots Lee Harvey. Jack being catholic. All with God on our side. |
|
20 Nov 03 - 10:38 PM (#1058230) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assasination Anniversary Nearing From: Ebbie Kennedy, of course, was Catholic, our first Catholic president, although there had been Catholic candidates before. Oswald was not a religious man, I believe- he was sympathetic to the Soviet Union's brand of communism. It seems like I remember Ruby was Catholic- though I don't remember where I got that idea. Like most Americans, I think, I believe there is a good deal we don't know about the Oswald killing- how did Ruby carry a gun undetected, how did he get so close, what was his actual motivation, how much complicity was there in the sheriff's department. I'll never forget the look of surprise on Oswald's face as he was ahot. My thoughts about Kennedy, 40 years later, is wondering just how different our history would be if he had lived out his term in office. It could be that we would never have been mired in Vietnam- without Vietnam our country and a whole generation of people would be very different. |
|
20 Nov 03 - 10:44 PM (#1058233) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assasination Anniversary Nearing From: Bee-dubya-ell Modern day American cynicism was born in the aftermath of the Kennedy assasination. The Warren Report represents the first time that the government fed the public a bunch of hooey that we were supposed to believe and most of us recognized it as hooey and didn't believe it. Fat lot of good it did. The Warren Report is still the government's final word on the subject though almost nobody believes it's the entire truth. If they'll lie about the murder of The President, what won't they lie about? Bruce |
|
20 Nov 03 - 10:51 PM (#1058236) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assasination Anniversary Nearing From: DougR President Kennedy promoted Capitalism. He represented, at the time, far more a conservative philosophy than a liberal one though he was elected as a Democrat. I think, had he lived, he would have been a great President. DougR |
|
21 Nov 03 - 12:46 AM (#1058280) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assasination Anniversary Nearing From: Mickey191 Oswald was married to a Russian born girl whom he met while studying Russia. Jack Ruby was a fellow well known to Dallas Plice as a Crime "buff." His nightclub had many cops as patrons & he was so well knownto them, he was allowed entrance without being frisked. Beer, I think the one thing you can safely rule out is a religous motivation. Ruby was painted as a great admirer of JFK & Jackie. He was portrayed as being in great distress over the JFK's death & simply wanted revenge. I've always thought a possible motive, among others, was that JFK wanted to disallow the oil depletion allowance. That made many Texans see Red. If you get enough people together, each with their own reason to arrange a murder, it's possible to kill a president & cover it up. |
|
21 Nov 03 - 07:40 AM (#1058400) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assasination Anniversary Nearing From: artbrooks Personally, and considering that there have been so many investigtions over the past 40 years, I don't see any real reason to think that Oswald wasn't acting alone. For those of you who are adicted to conspiracy theories, perhaps you would like to consider this one: the Soviets sent Oswald because the war that Kennedy had started in Vietnam was in danger of toppling their client state in Hanoi. |
|
21 Nov 03 - 08:35 AM (#1058430) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assasination Anniversary Nearing From: Bobert I've heard that *big* oil in Texas might have been behind it for Kennedy's regulations of the gas and oil industry but don't have any details... May GUEST will come along with a link... There is also a book that has come out written by an attorney that was involved that states this very same theory but, again, I don't have the info. Yo, GUEST, dg, where are you? Bobert |
|
21 Nov 03 - 12:03 PM (#1058586) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assasination Anniversary Nearing From: WFDU - Ron Olesko In a sick way, it has become almost romantic to keep the notion of a conspiracy alive. It has also become a lucrative business for some. It makes it easier to deal with if we have a large organized "them" out there to point the finger at. IF there was going to be a conspiracy, there would have been a conspiracy to shift the blame on the communists, our biggest enemies at the time. Instead everyone from the Mafia to LBJ were suspected. Face facts, Oswald was a nutcase but a nutcase with a keen mind and skills to pull this off. |
|
21 Nov 03 - 03:04 PM (#1058682) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assasination Anniversary Nearing From: Peter K (Fionn) The problem, Ron, was the Warren report. It was a shameful piece of work to come out of a mature democracy, as bad as the UK's Widgery Report into Bloody Sunday, save only that (as far as we know) there was no deliberate intent to put the blame on entirely innocent parties. Add to that the sheer disgrace of the suspect being shot in police custody before he could stand trial, and the fact that his murderer in turn could not be kept alive long enough to go before a court, and it is hardly to be wondered that theories have abounded. I'm not often caught agreeing with DougR, but I'd say his take on JFK is about right. With hindsight it seems that any progressive, non-conservative impetus came from Robert, though I didn't realise it at the time. On Ebbie's point about Vietnam, it was JFK who put the US on course for that disaster. If Johnson had not had to inherit that legacy, which became his millstone, he might now be remembered as the best modern president (although I'd personally rank Ike quite high). Johnson certainly achieved much more on the domestic agenda than KEnnedy did, or looked like doing. |
|
21 Nov 03 - 03:09 PM (#1058684) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assasination Anniversary Nearing From: Peter K (Fionn) Just an afterthought Ron, but since you're asking us to face facts, there's little evidence that Oswald had a "keen mind," whatever that means, and none that he had the skill to fire off those shots with such accuracy within such a tight timeframe. The best weaponry experts and marksmen around have had great difficulty emulating Oswald's alleged achievement. |
|
21 Nov 03 - 03:46 PM (#1058708) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assasination Anniversary Nearing From: Alaska Mike Oswald had nothing to do with the assasination of Kennedy. He was set up as the patsy/fall guy. Enormous effort and skill has gone into creating the PBS series "The Men Who Shot Kennedy". The evidence is overwhelming. This was a coup 'd tat by government insiders. Don't say it can't happen here until you've seen the series. Our country has suffered irreparable harm from this incident. I hope someday the feds will tell us the real facts and let the true culprits be known and vilified. Then maybe our country can finally put it behind us. I watched the events happen on a black and white TV. Once again this anniversary comes around to stir up unpleasant memories in my mind. Mike |
|
21 Nov 03 - 04:14 PM (#1058724) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assasination Anniversary Nearing From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Oswald had the miltary training, the political training, and the opportunity. Oswald did it. |
|
21 Nov 03 - 04:31 PM (#1058730) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assasination Anniversary Nearing From: Jim Dixon I work on a college campus. Today one of my coworkers, chatting with two students who work in our office, asked them: What's the significance of tomorrow's date? Getting a blank look, he elaborated: It's the 40th anniversary of an important event in American history. November 22, 1963. Not a clue. We started asking other students who passed by. We've asked 14 students so far, and only 3 knew the answer. Granted, we're talking about something that happened 20 years or so before these kids were born. But if you had asked me, when I was a college student, what happened in October, 1929, (the nearest equivalent I can think of, based on my age) I think I would have known the answer. |
|
21 Nov 03 - 05:03 PM (#1058743) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Jim Dixon Kennedy was Catholic. That made some people uncomfortable, because we had never had a Catholic president before. Some people—a small minority of bigoted Protestants, in my estimation—argued that a Catholic president would have a stronger allegiance to the pope than to the constitution, etc. But I think that issue was pretty well put to rest during Kennedy's campaign. I can't remember it ever being an issue once the election was over. Oswald was an avowed Marxist, so I assume he believed as Marx did, that religion is the opiate of the masses. I don't know whether he was brought up in any religion. I think Marxism was something he discovered on his own; his mother didn't teach him to be a Marxist. (His father died before he was born.) I don't think an atheist would care to make much distinction between Catholic and Protestant. Jack Ruby's original name was Jacob Rubenstein. I assume that means he was Jewish by heritage. I don't know if he was religious. His parents were immigrants from Poland. I don't think religion had anything to do with the assassination, although Oswald's motives were never made clear. It's pretty clear that Ruby acted on impulse, and he was motivated by outrage and sympathy for the Kennedy family. He seemed surprised that he wasn't treated as a hero for killing Oswald. Conspiracy theorists might argue about this, as they argue about everything to do with the assassination. |
|
21 Nov 03 - 05:15 PM (#1058750) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: TheBigPinkLad John Kennedy shot himself aided and abetted by the crew of Red Dwarf. |
|
21 Nov 03 - 05:16 PM (#1058752) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Bill D the investigation of the assassination was so bungled that we will likely never know for sure...letting Oswald anywhere NEAR a crowd was stupid beyond belief... I have seen 3-4 programs purporting to 'prove' different theories...all compelling, from "how Oswald did it", to the "multiple gunman" to "government conspiracy" to "Mafia with Cuban help" to "international crime cartel with Russian agents"......add to this the destruction of x-rays and fight over JFKs body and censoring of information, and it's unlikely we'll ever *KNOW*.... |
|
21 Nov 03 - 05:26 PM (#1058757) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: GUEST,ro1sin "Don't let it be forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief shining moment that was known as Comelot." |
|
21 Nov 03 - 05:39 PM (#1058763) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Amergin my question...who cares? |
|
21 Nov 03 - 06:09 PM (#1058780) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Ebbie Add to that the sheer disgrace of the suspect being shot in police custody before he could stand trial, and the fact that his murderer in turn could not be kept alive long enough to go before a court, and it is hardly to be wondered that theories have abounded. Fionn, Jack Ruby didn't die until 1967. |
|
21 Nov 03 - 06:42 PM (#1058810) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Willie-O There is tons of data and evidence. You should certainly be able to do a Phd dissertation on propaganda and misinformation by studying the literature on the Kennedy assassination. There is much obscured; your mileage may vary; lacking certainty, we are going to go with the chain of evidence most believable to each of us. There is a lot of doubt to the assertion that Oswald was a real Marxist. Nothing in his background to it. He was in the Marines, at the height of the Cold War, got Russian language training there (highly irregular for an infantryman), talked openly about his alleged Commie beliefs, still was posted to highly classified bases--a U2 base in Japan. Then defected openly to the Soviet Union, but when he decided to come home, was never even debriefed by the U.S, let alone charged with treason. Au contraire, the U.S. lent him the fare. Talking about a Russian conspiracy is the biggest nonsense. Don't you think this was seriously investigated in the political climate of the time? They had the least opportunity and motive of any of the various sponsors who have been suggested. After he moved to Texas, he hung around, not with Commies, but with rightist White Russian emigres. When in New Orleans, summer 1963, he associated with anti-Castro types in person, but apparently started a one-man pro-Castro front group, managing to get himself in the papers and arrested for some pointless leafletting. Then he went to Mexico, or didn't go to Mexico, or he and his doppelganger both went to Mexico and there are a bunch of American surveillance photos of someone who obviously isn't him, but was identified as him, outside the Cuban Embassy there... The House Select Committee on Assassinations, in 1979, quietly concluded that there was a de facto conspiracy, because the evidence presented to them convinced them of at least four shots. The whole (very shaky) case of Oswald as lone gunman hangs on there being no more than three shots, and all from behind. The Zapruder film, the obvious bullshit of the Magic Bullet theory, the testimony of the doctors who treated Kennedy at Parkland, and the illegal (under Texas law) hijacking of the autopsy to a military-controlled setting, are strong indicators that the shooting was carried out from more than one location, and by persons strongly connected within the United States military/intelligence "community". Don't give me any bullshit about "conspiracy addicts" unless you're prepared to debate point by point. Bullets make a little hole going in and a big one going out. The big hole was in the back of his head. There is NO debate on that last point. Lone gunman from the School Book Depository--that's the fantasy. Like I said, if you look at the evidence, you're eventually so overwhelmed by the contradictions that you will go with what you find easiest to believe. I'm with Alaska Mike on this one. Regards Willie-O |
|
21 Nov 03 - 09:03 PM (#1058895) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Mickey191 Willie-O, Please, can you refresh my memory on the story which said that a bullet was found on his stretcher & purloined by some attendent? I've forgotten if it was a proven. The bullets which were recovered--were they proven to be from the same M.C. rifle? Thanks--this used to be a subject of great fascination--guess it still is. Amergin, you can't be serious!! |
|
21 Nov 03 - 09:58 PM (#1058920) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Rapparee At the time JFK was shot I was in the service, at Ft. Riley, Kansas, preparing to go home. I was deep in the theory of conspiracy for quite some time, assuming that it was a plot. But the more I read on the subject the more I was convinced that Oswald acted along. A trained marksman, shooting the president from a window high up and far distant, the Secret Service's worst nightmare. Then I went to Dallas and visited the spot. Folks, given the distances, etc. involved, *I* could have killed JFK. It would have taken no special training, no sniper school, just ordinary marksmanship of the type taught to everyone in the Armed Forces. Moreover, the rifle used was scoped. In short, the act of shooting was no big deal. I only wish that Oswald had survived to tell his tale. I also wish that the autopsy hadn't been so badly handled, but it seems that all of the presidential autopsies have been badly handled. And I wish that they could locate JFK's brain, which was removed during the autopsy -- it could speak volumes about the wounds. |
|
21 Nov 03 - 10:45 PM (#1058934) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Sorcha Still not sure just what I belive...lots of ambivilence here. But, shall we get into his 'private life' which was not allowed then, but is now? Marilyn Monre, had to have sex at least once a day or he had a 'headache'.....Secret Service agents led his babes into the White House swimming pool by the back door.... |
|
21 Nov 03 - 10:56 PM (#1058937) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Mickey191 Doesn't everybody get a "Horny Headache?" |
|
21 Nov 03 - 11:09 PM (#1058946) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Metchosin and I'm with you Willie-O, caught part of the interview on the CBC with the doctor who assisted in the OR on Kennedy. Bone fragments poking out from the back of his head, don't sound like an entry wounds to me. |
|
21 Nov 03 - 11:41 PM (#1058956) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Bobert Hmmmmm? I saw a pice on the tube this evening that pins the assasination on L.B.J.!?!?!?!?.... Motive: Yeah Opportunity (from contacts); Yeah Timing: Duhh.... Yeah, seams thet L.B.J. had some strong contacts with some pretty bad-ass guys down in Texas. An early acquaintence, Malcolm Wallece, was accused and *convicted* of killing one John Kinsa, who was supposedly sleeping with Lyndon's sister. L.B.J. spent the entitre 10 days of the trial in Austin workin' his contacts. Like I said, Wallace was convicted, but got a suspended sentence!!!! Hmmmmmm? Then, it would appear that Clint Merkison, who owned 500 oil comapanies in Texas, was real pissed at Kennedy fir cuttting the "oil depletion allowance" costing Merkinson Millions... And so he put out the contract. Co-conspirators: J. Edgar Hoover, who JFK was trying to retire.... John Conally, who, though accidently shot, who was in cohoots with Texax oilmen. Sems that May Newman, who worked over 20 years for the Merkison Family confirms that on the night of the assination their was major partying and hig fives at the Merkison home... Lots of folks eatin' cavier and downing champaigne.... Hmmmmm? Then there is Madelien Brown who had a 20 year affair with L.B.J. who says that L.B.J. told her the moning of the assasination that the "Kennedys would not embarass him again.. Hmmmmm? Well, this is just an overview of the story. Ive heard alot of stories but this one seems very believable since there are so many folks (who don't know one another) are tellin' 0he same story. Hmmmm? Bobert |
|
21 Nov 03 - 11:59 PM (#1058959) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Alaska Mike There is no possible way for even the best sniper in the world to shoot from high up and behind the President's limousine and hit the man's forehead from the front so that it blows out a grapefruit size exit wound on the back of his skull? A lone gunman could not have done the shooting that occurred that day. |
|
22 Nov 03 - 02:21 AM (#1058982) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: WFDU - Ron Olesko I might be wrong, but I don't think the autopsy pictures show any wound to his forehead, just the back of his head and his throat. His skull was blown apart by the shot and the supposed wound at the front of his throat cannot be conculsively be called an entrance wound. It is just as likely to have been made by a fragment of the bullet or bone. 5 stories is not exceptionally high for a rifle shot, especially from a a marksmen hitting target in an open limo. There were several hundred people outside of the Book Depository, yet no one can conclusively say they saw anyone with a gun. Lots of conjecture and hysteria and nothing proven. I guess we are a nation of paranoid skeptics. It is easier to believe that there was a huge conspiracy involved than to believe a schmuck like Oswald could do it. |
|
22 Nov 03 - 08:30 AM (#1059043) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Rapparee One thing I've never heard was what sort of bullets were used. THAT has an immense bearing on what sort of wounds are created. A fully jacketed would make "neater" entrance and exit wounds than a soft-point. The entry angle would also make a difference in the entrance wound. But there's a good discussion of all aspects of the case here. Be advised that there are pictures which some might find disturbing, and some ideas you hold will be challenged (some of mine were). |
|
22 Nov 03 - 09:42 AM (#1059061) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Sam L I hope one thing is clear. Oliver Stone sucks. I don't know about the assassination in particular, but I think it's believable and necesary to see that events in the U.S. are sometimes shaped in disasterous ways by random men with half-baked ideas and absurd ambitions. Many of the worst things that happen might be motivated mostly by a blinding need just to do something. For confused people, opportunity is a motive. The other factors aside, I think two men maybe like Oswald and Ruby could have acted alone this way, and the trail of stink follows to Jim Garrison, and Oliver Stone. It makes a kind of grotesque sense. Everyone acting in self-importance, at the expense of everything else. I tend to be skeptical of anyone could plot a conspiracy that could hold so tight so long, but I don't reject that some strokes of weird luck could help it. For example, I think it's possible another gunman could have stood right in plain sight and have been completely missed by a crowd--I only reject that it could be planned to happen that way. A good conspiracy theory would have to have flaws and co-incidence in it, things that seem unbelievable, to really make sense. Otherwise, a theory becomes itself a pristine bullet that never hit anything in this world. |
|
22 Nov 03 - 10:02 AM (#1059067) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Rapparee And I was wrong. The ammunition used was 6.5mm x 52 ball, or military-type ammo. It was manufactured by Western, a division of Winchester, and was actually quite reliable. Better than 700 rounds, from the same lot number Oswald used, was fired as part of the JFK investigation and all of it went off, some as long a 13 years after manufacture. Well, that answers that question I had. |
|
22 Nov 03 - 10:50 AM (#1059090) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: GUEST I'm not one for the Kennedy conspiracy theories, but I am firmly convinced that the interventions and "disappearance" of the forensic evidence from the hospital and the autopsy is more than a little suspicious. There is only one type of evidence that could prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a second shooter, who successfully shot Kennedy from the front, and that is the forensic evidence from the autopsy. Being more in agreement with Fred Miller, than anyone else here so far, I'd also say it is entirely possible, and quite likely, that Oswald was working with a second shooter who hit Kennedy from the front (the grassy knoll theory, I suppose), which blew off the back of his head. That the evidence that would have showed that somehow (conveniently)"disappeared" after the autopsy, has always been a legitimate cause for suspicion. Either those involved in the autopsy, or higher ups after the autopsy, had to have been involved in the disappearance of that evidence which made the Warren Report a joke. However, I think totally plausible that Oswald and the other shooter acted on their own, and that the disappearance of the forensic evidence from the autopsy was done in a pathetic attempt by the FBI and/or Secret Service, to cover up their agents spectacular failure to protect the president while riding in his motorcade that day. I mean, the assassination was a pretty colossal failure of security, and god knows J Edgar wasn't above fabricating and/or destroying evidence to suit his sick conspiracy theories. The saddest thing about all this is that the context of the times is lost in this idiotic celebrity worshipping "Camelot" coverage, and conspiracy theory debates. As someone pointed out, there was plenty of paranoia about Kennedy becoming president, not the least of which did have plenty to do with him coming from the "enemy camp" in American politics (ie being Irish Catholic, not just Catholic) that had, until 1960, owned the executive branch of government. The WASP establishment hated the Kennedys then, and continue to hate them now (as do lots of Irish Catholics who find the whole "Kennedy mystique" thing to be utter bullshit). And as to the conspiracy theorists, why no mention of J Edgar Hoover, the biggest conspiracy theorist of them all from that era? Those were paranoid, conspiratorial times, people. It was the time when the US, under JFK, slipped in the back door to Vietnam. The Cold War was at it's height, and the political left had been effectively silenced and jailed during the previous administration's watch as a result of the McCarthy and HUAC hearings. It was also an era of political assassination--now there is a conspiracy yet to be investigated, much less discussed in polite society. The Kennedys, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, the list of civil rights activists assassinated in this era is very, very long. And just what is the common thread that runs through them all, beginning with JFK? Well, it sure as hell don't have nothing to do with Cuba, I can tell you that. But it does have everything to do with the civil rights legislation JFK was getting ready to push. Oh yeah--and the goods that RFK had accumulated on J Edgar must have been pretty interesting too... |
|
22 Nov 03 - 03:24 PM (#1059182) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Little Robyn NZ TV has just shown the Kevin Costner movie 'JFK'. I don't know about the truth/lies that were spoken, but the interesting thing for me was the 'magic bullet' which went through several places on two people (having to swerve and turn back on itself) and then emerged almost undamaged, to prove it came from Oswald's gun????? Yeah, right! And the graphic footage of the last moments certainly show more than 3 shots. It was about this time, 40 years ago, that the news reached me. I could never understand why - until I saw last night's film. Robyn |
|
22 Nov 03 - 03:31 PM (#1059186) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: GUEST Actually, the worst thing about Oliver Stone's laughable film "JFK" isn't the silly conspiracy theory stuff...it's Kevin Costner's attempt at a New Orleans accent. Bad film, bad, bad film. |
|
22 Nov 03 - 05:24 PM (#1059240) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Bill D the TV piece Bobert refers to had LOTS of interviews that purport to show that autopsy photos were doctored to totally remove evidence of the exit wound in the back of the head that 20-30 people swore they saw, and OTHER witnesses who SAW the limosine being 'fixed' at Ford and the bullet hole in the front window conveniently disappearing...pretty compelling...yet, Oswald was running from the law and shot a policeman and had hidden a recently fired rifle in the depository. And tests have been done showing that a decent marksman 'could' have hit a head from that 6th floor.. I honestly suspect that there was stuff covered up, but barring some new 'confession', we will just all continue to speculate...Did LBJ 'allow' and help cover up all this?...maybe..*shrug* |
|
22 Nov 03 - 08:08 PM (#1059295) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: kendall As a lifelong hunter and rifleman, I state emphatically that NO ONE can fire 3 rounds from a BOLT action rifle in 4 seconds and hit the side of a barn. Furthermore, I have believed for years that Johnson was behind it. Him and his big oil buddies. I've seen the film many times, and seen his head jerked backwards. Being shot from behind does not cause that. You can see his brains splattering out behind him. What to look for in a case of murder, Motive opportunity and who benefits most? two of the three fall on Johnson. |
|
22 Nov 03 - 08:34 PM (#1059321) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Willie-O Especially with a bolt action rifle, isn't the first shot going to be the most accurate, when you're in a hurry like that? That's another piece of common sense that works against Oswald. His first shot completely missed--and he had time to aim that one. So whether it was a hard shot or not, it just doesn't add up that the shots Oswald made were the only ones. I've never looked much at the LBJ theory...but it was his state, and he obviously stood to benefit. Without knowing anything more than that, I wouldn't go any farther than saying he's one of a long list of people that may not have been extremely unhappy with what transpired--and obviously a lot of people didn't do as much as they could have, or should have, to prevent the possibility of Kennedy being targetted when visiting a hostile state. It's a pretty weird idea though, after all a U.S. vice president is someone who was selected by the president, eh? Then again what isn't weird in this story? Remember the three tramps from the railroad yard? Marched through the plaza, questioned and released. No records of who they really were. I've seen some pretty good photo comparisons (in A.J. Lieberman's book Coup d'Etat)--showing startling matches between two of the tramps and Watergate plumbers E. Howard Hunt and Frank whatsisname... there's some food for thought. |
|
22 Nov 03 - 10:32 PM (#1059361) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Bill D *shrug*...I'm not a shooter, but I watched a film of an expert firing 3 shots at a car from the same distance and angle...from an exact copy of Oswald's rifle.. in 6 seconds*, and hitting his target on the 3rd shot, too, saying "..you sort of 'settle in' after the first 2 shots..". *the claim was, that no precise time could be shown for the 1st shot, and that it was possible that it was a second or 2 earlier than the Warren Comission decided. (Kennedy was behind the tree/sign in the Zapruder film when he was hit first time)...I know, I know..if Oswald DID manage that, he was lucky beyond belief! (and the expert said that that type of rifle mis-fired regularly, and Oswald would ALSO be lucky he even got off the shots)..... (Just watched Nellie Connally saying she was sure the shots HAD come from the rear and that #2 had hit John Connally, disputing other claims that #2 had missed and hit a curb beyond the car) *shrug*... You get enough experts assembling 'selected' evidence and you can 'prove' 4 conflicting theories at once! |
|
22 Nov 03 - 11:54 PM (#1059375) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: WFDU - Ron Olesko You can get experts to prove that UFO's exist, ghosts walk among us, the Loch Ness Monster is real along with cousins Big Foot and Yeti, and that there was a consipiracy to kill JFK. The only real truth is that none of us know, and we are fooling ourselves to think that the goverment is holding information that will clear this up once and for all. There is no definitive evidence that proves that Oswald didn't do it. The only fact that we have to face is that a lot of people are making a living off of all these consipiracy theories. We will never know. |
|
23 Nov 03 - 01:16 PM (#1059443) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: GUEST No, I think there is something pretty shocking about the JFK assassination at this very point in time: 70% (according to current polls) of Americans don't believe the official government explanation (ie the Warren Report) of what happened. What if that same 70% didn't believe Dubya's explanations for going to war against Iraq? Things would be mighty different than they are now, I suspect. Our institutions of government have no incentive for keeping these conspiracy theories going, so it does beg the question, why do they keep them going with official secrecy and silence? |
|
23 Nov 03 - 02:06 PM (#1059456) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: WFDU - Ron Olesko I have to question what exactly we expect the government to be hiding. Short of a document that specifically states someone else did it, I don't think ANYTHING the government would release could possibly satisfy the conspiriacy crowd. In their minds, the evidence can only have one conclusion and there is nothing that will be accepted. More than 70% of the American people believe that O.J. Simpson committed murder, yet there is LESS evidence in that case than there is that points to Lee Harvey Oswald. Everyone has become an expert in the Kennedy assassination. People in this forum have stated emphatically how a head would explode when hit by bullet, how quickly the gun could be fired, how it would be nearly impossible to hit the target, yet no one hear has seen anything more than the media and the conspiracy cottage industry has doled out. For every theory and supposed proof that debunks Oswald as the shooter, there is also theory and proof that he could have fired the shots. |
|
23 Nov 03 - 02:22 PM (#1059470) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Peter K (Fionn) Sorry, that was a bad mistake on my part. Thanks for the correction, Ebbie. Rapaire, Bonar Menninger's book Mortal Error has just about the most exhaustive ballistics analysis yet published, and it has much detail about the missing/withheld forensic evidence and its significance. I must say I find the book's conclusion slightly loopy, but I know a couple of people who have followed the case closely over many years who think this the most plausible explanation. Ron, military training doesn't make you a worldclass marksman. The book cited above reports how some of the best shots in the US faired in trying to emulate Oswald's feat. It seems that none can do it consistently, and Oswald was not in that league. |
|
23 Nov 03 - 02:32 PM (#1059475) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: GUEST To suggest that American's opinions about the outcome of the OJ case can be reasonably equated to American's opinions about the official government explanations for the political assassination of the president...well, that says more about you Ron, than it does about those who remain interested in what is widely perceived by the American people as a government cover-up of a presidential assassination. The OJ case is a rotten comparison--it is a celebrity murder case. To dismiss American's suspicion of a cover-up of the circumstances of a presidential assassination by intimating that we are all conspiracy theory nutcases, is mighty disingenuous. |
|
23 Nov 03 - 02:34 PM (#1059476) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Fionn- I don't mean to say it was an easy shot that anyone could have made, but Oswald was above average and had a better chance of making the shot than you or I could have. While everyone notes how difficult it would have been for Oswald to make the shot, no one seems to notice how difficult it would have been to make the fatal shot from the grassy knoll or some other location. Oswald, who had training, was alone(probably) in a room and had the time to plan his shots. Preparing for a similar shot from one of the other locations would have been nearly impossible. Oswald was seen in the building and he left the building with the excuse that he thought work was finished for the day. Did any of the other employees use the same excuse? What would justify the rest of the actions that Oswald supposedly took immediately following the shooting? Again, I am not saying that I am 100% sure that Oswald did not have help. Logically I think it is highly doubtful that he did, but the point I am trying to make here is that none of us are experts and it is just as easy to make a case that Oswald did it as it is to make a case that he didn't. We've romanticised this tragedy and people have made careers debunking and selling their stories. That is probably the most tragic aspect of this whole case. Is it a search for the truth or a way to make a buck? |
|
23 Nov 03 - 02:41 PM (#1059482) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: GUEST Considering that key autopsy and forensic evidence to make reasonable judgements about the assassination went missing, and only the government had control of that evidence, I'd say more people are interested in finding out the truth, than they are in helping a handful of opportunists make a buck--also a disingenuous assertion about those of us interested in the truth about some very serious events in an important era of our nation's political history. You sure are one holier-than-thou SOB, Ron. |
|
23 Nov 03 - 02:45 PM (#1059485) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Sorry Guest, but you are missing my point. Attacking me from behind your shroud is not fair pool either. I am not trying to dismiss America's suspiscion of the JFK shooting. I am talking about public reaction to something people have little clues about. We believe what we want to believe and we believe what the media tells us. The consipiracy theories have been given plenty of airtime over the years. I can remember CBS reports on the Warren Commission back in the 60's. It sells commercials and books. |
|
23 Nov 03 - 02:46 PM (#1059487) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Thank you guest. |
|
23 Nov 03 - 02:55 PM (#1059491) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: GUEST Jaysus Ron, give it up. This isn't about your personal persecution complex or my identity. It is about the way you are making and framing your position in this particular argument. Try keeping to the higher road by staying on topic, rather than trying to drag the debate down to a personal level when someone disagrees with you, fer chrissakes. Try defending your ideas for a change. |
|
23 Nov 03 - 02:59 PM (#1059495) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: WFDU - Ron Olesko I understand now Guest. I offer an opinion that differs than yours, you call me an SOB and suddenly I am attacking you instead of debating. Is that how it works? Defending my ideas? I thought I was in my posts, until you attacked me. I'm glad if I made you feel uncomfortable with your position nameless one. That is the point I've tried to make - it is too easy to believe in just one side. There are different opinions and when a logical reason is given to support it, it is merely attacked as being part of the conspiracy. |
|
23 Nov 03 - 07:21 PM (#1059605) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Bobert Ahhhhh, excuse me but we were discussing the Kennedy assasination, weren't we? In spite of my "conspirital theory" type of thinking, I haven't given in to "grassy knolls" 'er Cuba, 'er__________ over the years. But, after seeing the LBJ piece the other night, I really do now have some doubts about the findings of the Warren Report. I just am having a problem on the "motive" side of either Oswald or Ruby. And I'm not at a point where I can accept the "Well, just a couple of nut-balls" case, either... Bobert |
|
23 Nov 03 - 07:31 PM (#1059612) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: kendall Ruby killed Oswald to shut him up. Oswald was a patsy. |
|
23 Nov 03 - 09:12 PM (#1059657) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: GUEST,Desdemona Quite frankly, I *really* can't believe anyone actually CARES! D. |
|
23 Nov 03 - 09:58 PM (#1059666) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Beer Yeh, Let's end it there. |
|
23 Nov 03 - 10:10 PM (#1059670) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Agreed. We won't solve it, nor will any discussion sway opinion. We end up with name calling. |
|
23 Nov 03 - 11:51 PM (#1059702) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Mickey191 I can't quite believe that two or three people have said "Who cares?" There are many reasons why this thread is important-chief among them: it may have educated a few. Beer, you thought the event may have been caused by religous hatred. Your take on that surprised me-I wondered what the heck they teach in our schools. Then of course I realize you may not be a US citizen. This thread made me want to see the History channels LBJ tie-in. Given me a few new thoughts-even though I was fairly well versed on subject. Who cares? It's history kids-it's important- he was a modern day President of this Republic. Damn right it's important who killed him. Ron, it's a shame people can't present their ideas without personality clashes. I must say I think you are wrong in saying discussion won't sway opinions. Kennedy wouldn't have gotten elected if he'd not confronted Nixon and debated. His demeanor played a part-but his presentation swayed alot of voters to his side. Mudcat discussions have changed my mind on a few things. |
|
24 Nov 03 - 03:39 AM (#1059739) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Amergin Mickey, I am serious....I just cannot understand why so many people practically worship the womaniser...ok....he was shot and killed...40 YEARS ago....should we be mulling over the assassination of every president on each anniversary of their death? Do we go on and on about conspiracies for Lincoln or Garfield? Who cares? it makes as much sense to me about discussing whose families were Tories and whose fought for revolutionaries during the American War of Independence...or going on and on about Benedict Arnold...who cares? |
|
24 Nov 03 - 07:35 AM (#1059806) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Dave Bryant The fact that the type of bullet could be accurately identified, still leaves me somewhat puzzled that there have never been any ballistics evidence produced to confirm or conflict with the idea that a bullet from Oswald's weapon killed Kenedy. Had Oswald lived to be tried, I'm sure they would have had to produce some. With modern advances in science, I'm sure that it must be possible to answer the question once and for all - the fact that it hasn't is what inclines me to the conspiracy theory. |
|
24 Nov 03 - 08:38 AM (#1059832) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: GUEST The reason why all this matters is that more than a few of the primary people involved in government at the time of the assassination are still active in our government today. It matters because while our government is still lying to the public, and doing it with frightening regularity, the media acts as if it doesn't, and so do the voters. If an independent investigation could be reopened, it would heal a lot of wounds. Ballistic and forensic evidence, properly handled, could reveal a lot about what happened that day. An independent investigation would tell us who had access to the missing evidence, and we would then know what the trail of evidence was, where it ended, and who it ended with--all information that would reveal a lot to us about who was involved in the cover-up. Don't confuse the celebrity worshipping factor with the very important political effects of the assassination. Confusing the two is what is keeping the government safe from our (the citizens) right to know what happened. |
|
24 Nov 03 - 10:01 AM (#1059879) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Sam L The Peter Jennings special, with a computer generated re-enactment, supported that Oswald was the gunman. But the figures and information seem to change everywhere one turns. On this special it was 8 seconds or so, not 4, Oswald had made the rank of sharpshooter and his scores were good enough at greater distance. It seemed possible enough, based on what was presented. The report also purported to have ballistics evidence of a match with Oswald's rifle, and dismissed the "pristine bullet" problem, showing it wasn't pristine. But rifle markings don't really seem to address the skepticism--wouldn't a bullet that hit two bodies be considerably more impacted? I don't know. I find the psychology of the individual actions convincing enough, I can believe it as a possibility. And as someone suggested, spin-off cover-ups to hide bungling are also possible. Unlike movies, where minor characters lead provisional lives in the margins, people have their own motives and take them more seriously than I think they should, since I don't care about them. I don't hold to an opinion--I don't have time to devote to it. I do care, but not enough to pursue it thoroughly, I can't sort out all the varied info. I'd also be interested if someone tried to determine exactly what happened on a particular city block of some particular town at a given hour. The exercise has a Joycean intellectual fascination apart from it's historic significance. |
|
24 Nov 03 - 01:07 PM (#1059981) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: JedMarum the more time goes by and the deeper the study gets, the more technology helps us review and re-examine the old original evidence - the more clear it is that the Warren Commission got it pretty damn close! |
|
24 Nov 03 - 01:15 PM (#1059986) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: JedMarum Ron Olesko - right on! Marksmenship was not a problem. It is not true that the shooting was particularly difficult, under the circumstances. And Oswald qualified twice as a marskman, the Marine's second highest level, In addition, we know he continued to practice. Having said that, he actually missed with his first two ... one hitting the Gov in front of Jack, the second, a possibly non-lethal wound to the neck. |
|
24 Nov 03 - 02:41 PM (#1060033) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Someone mentioned "missing evidence". From what I've read, this "evidence", physical tissue samples taken from JFK, was turned over to Robert Kennedy. The Kennedy family did not want this material to be on display in museums in the future and they had fought to keep items such as the autopsy photos from being made public. Again, from what I've read, the trail of what happened to this material after it was given to RFK is unknown. It is assumed that he had it destroyed. |
|
24 Nov 03 - 08:26 PM (#1060241) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Amergin no Guest, it is more that the older generation idolises him.... |
|
24 Nov 03 - 08:56 PM (#1060269) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: SINSULL The theory that Johnson was involved in the assassination was openly discussed and in fact spawned a successful musical called "MacByrd" loosely based on MacBeth. Amergin, Who among the older generation idolizes JFK? I know of no one who does. In 1963 we were a bit naive about our government and our elected officials. We believed what we read in the newspapers. We wanted our dead president to be a hero and his widow to mourn chastely for the rest of her life. But we grew up very quickly and learned our lessons the hard way surrounded by the mangled and dead bodies of our classmates. Then came Watergate. And the Achille Lauro. And Oliver North. And Ruby Ridge. And Oklahoma City. And September 11. We are now a cynical lot who know that politicians will say anything to get elected, generals will lie to get more weapons and money, presidents of either party will lie to pay to contributors and assure their own re-election or to push forward their own agendas. JFK screwed anything in skirts. He came very close to landing us in the middle of a nuclear war. You are confusing hero worship with celebrity worship. The Kennedy name is still magic. And there will always be some who will follow the family's trials and tribulations wih a hanky in one hand and a camera in the other, much like Britain's royal family. |
|
24 Nov 03 - 09:06 PM (#1060280) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: GUEST,pdc Amergin said, "no Guest, it is more that the older generation idolises him...." Christ, who will your generation have to idolize? I don't know your age, but assume you are younger than the Kennedy generation. That leaves you with Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush among other less...er...graphic presidents. Poor you. |
|
24 Nov 03 - 09:51 PM (#1060305) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: SINSULL No worries, pdc. He has Princess Diana and future president Arnold Schwarzenegger (obviously, that law will have to be changed). Sorry, Amergin. I see people fascinated by the conspiracy theories surrounding Kennedy's assassination. And I see people fascinated by the Kennedy family. But idolized? |
|
24 Nov 03 - 10:12 PM (#1060312) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: GUEST,pdc I'm not really being fair to Amergin, but then Amergin isn't being fair either. No one who wasn't there can possibly understand the Kennedy years. The exuberance, the hope, the wit -- sure it all would have ended, perhaps badly, perhaps with a dull thud. But we were all on such a high in those days, and when that high was shattered in Dallas, on a beautiful day, it had the same effect then that 9/11 did in 2001. I'm fairly sure that Amergin will remember 9/11 as being life-changing in some way; we from the Kennedy era remember his assassination in much the same way. Rather than sneering, Amergin, try to get some old newspapers or TV clips and watch what we saw -- not the actual shooting, but the aftermath...the people crying in the streets (in my country too, btw), the utter shock, the bewilderment and disbelief. Watch Walter Cronkite, the most unflappable newscaster in history, announce that the president was dead, and break down. But don't sneer at something you didn't share. |
|
24 Nov 03 - 10:33 PM (#1060330) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Mickey191 Amergin, You are wrong in tying the interest some of have in this particular murder with idealization or hero worship. It is (for me) mainly an interest in the truth. Just as I've always had an interest in the Lindbergh kidnapping. Guest PDC, I doubt the younger generation has any political heroes. More likely Britney Spears & Michael Jackson, as evidenced by all those who wanted to touch his hand on the way to the booking. I remember when I was young, being thrilled to see Hubert Horatio Humphrey. Lastly, Sinsull you are right on--we were as a country a bit innocent. The young Family in the White house represented us all. Young president with the kids in the oval office. It was nice & respectable, even though we knew about Pop & the Scotch & Gloria.We didn't know about "The Women."His death was a turning point, to be corny-the loss of innocents. Boy have we matured.I'm as cynical now as one can get. Bush & his cohorts seem every day to have another victory over us. The medicare privatization around the corner,Enron,AARP's tawdry actions, the overtime bill-it all stinks. And as flawed as JFK was-I do not think he would have forsaken the working stiffs who elected him. |
|
24 Nov 03 - 10:33 PM (#1060331) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Bobert Well, though being the originator of this thread, I can't really say that I can fully appreciate (for lack of a better word) the realities of the assasination. My mom was an active Democrat and I remember her having me accompany her in 1960 in her door knocking for Kennedy. Heck, I was like 14 and all I really cares about was baseball... but I did it... Then, in '63, I was into, ahhhhh, still baseball and didn't have a clue as to what was going on other than, you guessed it... baseball. But over the years it has struck me funny (for lack of a better word) that all the stories about JFK's assasination just don't add up. I;m looking at a couple of folks (Oswald and Ruby) who really don't seem to have a motive.... Now, that makes me think... Robert Kennnedy? Motive? Nah..... Martin Luther King? Motive? Nah... Like what the heck is going on here? Yeah, these are important questions that need answers. Not the company line but, ahhh, answers.... Without answers then we can expect that if anyone from the left rises to power then they will also be killed and folks will just go ahead with parroting the "company line". Bobert |
|
25 Nov 03 - 01:00 AM (#1060375) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Bobert, I don't think you can draw the conclusion that anyone from the left who rises to power will be killed. Especially in the Kennedy deaths, they became martyrs that some could argue were more powerful in death than they were in life. Assassination doesn't work for political motives in this country because there are always others ready to step up and keep up the fight. Instead of one magnetic leader, you have a generation that becomes galvanized to take up the fight. You mentioned three names from the 1960's. You could go back further and look at the attempted assassinations on Truman & FDR, the murders of Garfield and Lincoln, plus others like Huey Long. In more recent times we have the death of John Lennon and the attempts on Reagan and Gerald Ford. Most of these were individuals, some with political causes and others who were just nuts. It is interesting that most Americans today do not know of the Lincoln conspiracy and think that Booth acted alone. I wonder what that tells us about history. |
|
25 Nov 03 - 09:38 AM (#1060555) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Sam L Bobert, I think you might be taking the idea of motive too seriously, or not seriously enough. But I wanted to re-iterate my conviction that Oliver Stone sucks. |
|
25 Nov 03 - 02:12 PM (#1060717) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: GUEST I would like to reiterate that Kevin Costner's New Orleans accent sucks also. |
|
25 Nov 03 - 11:08 PM (#1061037) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: Ebbie One thing has always rung strange to me- we're told, over and over again, from JFK and Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, through Ronald Reagan, that each of these (actual or would-be) assassins worked alone. My question: Just how many people do you know who you think are capable of doing this kind of deed by themselves? People who would not enlist the help of others or take them in on it or brag? To my knowledge, I don't know anyone like that. |
|
26 Nov 03 - 12:14 AM (#1061082) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: WFDU - Ron Olesko I really don't know anyone who would shoot a president so I don't think I could say if they would work alone or not. I would like to think that if more than one person involved, at least one of them would come to their senses and realize how futile their plan is. Even if they do succeed, the end up creating a martyr whose cause will gain strength which would overshadow any message they are trying to make. |
|
26 Nov 03 - 12:24 AM (#1061085) Subject: RE: BS: Kennedy Assassination Anniversary Nearing From: JedMarum It seems to me exactly the kind of act that one would do alone. |