One for the conspiracy theorists...

[williethepimp]

^And the complications arise (and this has been stated before) by assuming the scores of people who have kept the secret. Now it becomes complicated beyond belief.

 

No scores of people needed....half a dozen  maybe.If those were foreign agents,even easier to keep quiet. They would have been extremely well paid,and knew the penalties for talking.

 

The waters have been professionally muddied from day 1,there are dozens of people (for instance) who seen shooting from the grassy knoll,they were dismissed,because it didnt fit the official story of the lone gunman...the acoustic evidence proved (over 90%) certainty that the shots were fired from 2 different directions.........the more you look at it,the more bizarre the official story seems....anyway......each to his own.

 

I remeber reading the story of Jim Garrison,the New Orleans attorney who brought the only conspiracy trial for the killing of JFK.He was hounded by the CIA and the FBI ,they tried to have him arrested for tax evasion (a la al capone) and also tried to set him up in a "gay" sting operation in an airport toilet.......What had they to hide ?

[wangsuda]

Foreign agents and everything . . . . 

 

We will have to agree to disagree and part friends :)

[Tomcat]

But my life doesn't revolve around this, 

 

You had better stop being driven around in the rear of that open top Black Limo then Paccers otherwise people will start whispering  .. anyway nice to see you put up a decent argument.. even though im in the other camp

[JaiDee]

 

Was the fact that Oswald had gone to Russia & had returned with a Russian wife the reason he had to be knocked off? Was LBJ worried that everyone would put two & two together & think LHO was working for them? Well they did that anyway, what was the new President so keen to hide? That JFK was murdered because of the Bay of Pigs affair or that Castro was fed up with all the assassination attempts on his life? These are powerful motivations for someone to call on Oswald to help. More powerful than the "lone wolf" theory. IMO.

 

 JaiDee is adamant he knows what really happened. I am not.

 

   See, now again, there is no reason to believe those three things once you accept the fact that Oswald acted alone. He didn't "have to be knocked off" because he came back from Russia with a wife; in fact, FBI Agent James Hasty checked in on him  regularly to see what his deal was and he was convinced he was no threat to anyone....he or any other FBI agent or any other government agency had ample chances to kill him if they had so chosen, at any time.  They didn't have to choose such a spectacular finish to his life, on national TV, with Ruby as the trigger man. To your 2nd point; LHO wasn't working with anyone, and in fact no one would even have him; he was just a loner and a born loser out to make a name for himself. Which he surely did.

 

   I guess I would be considered 'adamant' in knowing what happened, but only after I had studied this whole thing for 30+ years. As I said, we Yanks are raised with this thing from the time we are youngsters; we process all the information and come up with a conclusion, and since 75% of people still believe in conspiracy the majority are actually on YOUR side!  And that's fine, they have just come up with a different conclusion than I have; doesn't make either side necessarily WRONG, it just means we have different idea's on how it all happened. But again, only one side has actual evidence and not just more questions and mostly-flimsy conclusions.  I do enjoy debating this topic though, and it is much more civil here than it was on the TLF forums; I remember that 30-page thread being filled with CAPS and exclamation points and name-calling for anyone stupid enough to actually believe in the lone shooter theory.  This time it seems to be about 50/50 and that makes for a lively debate.

 

   OK if you want to move on, but since this is a conspiracy thread how about we pick another? 

 

I say 9/11 was planned and carried out by one very rich, bored, spoiled brat who used underlings to hijack 4  planes and attempt to fly them into buildings in NYC and Washington DC. Any talk of U.S. government involvement at any level is purely unproven speculation. Thoughts?

[deepthroat]

I say 9/11 was planned and carried out by one very rich, bored, spoiled brat who used underlings to hijack 4  planes and attempt to fly them into buildings in NYC and Washington DC. Any talk of U.S. government involvement at any level is purely unproven speculation. Thoughts?

 

As I understand it, Popular Mechanics did a complete issue about the physics/engineering behind 9/11 and it "proves" without a doubt that the purported cause of the Towers' collapse (airplane crash combined with the damage caused by burning jet fuel) was more than sufficient to cause the destruction.

 

One of the many weird claims - along with US or Jewish Government involvement in the disaster - is that the damage could not have been the result of the airliners and the burning jet fuel, and that the structure had to have been "pre-weakened" or other explosive charges detonated by outsiders that had access to the building beforehand and set the charges up. This thoroughly refutes all of that.

[pacman]

OK if you want to move on, but since this is a conspiracy thread how about we pick another? 

 

I say 9/11 was planned and carried out by one very rich, bored, spoiled brat who used underlings to hijack 4  planes and attempt to fly them into buildings in NYC and Washington DC. Any talk of U.S. government involvement at any level is purely unproven speculation. Thoughts?

 

Pick another or pick the one CT where I doom myself to spending the rest of my life defending the indefensible?         

 

I thought the JFK theory had run its course now that we are all fully conversant with each others POV. i.e. I propose my interpretation of events & you keep stating yours as "the truth".        

 

I still don't know how you can accept there is nothing to all the uncertainty. That all the conflicting evidence, all the strange stuff that has come out means absolutely nothing. The only way I can get my head around your stance is that you see LHO's past involvement with Russia & Cuba as an unfortunate coincidence. Was there nothing, nothing at all in the doco that gave you even a moment of pause? I need to watch it again but I thought there was some good stuff there.

 

I feel like I am the Muslim gent on the train trying to make a point to a "true believer". 

 

There ya go JD, something extra to answer. Here's to the JFK plot, it's the thread that keeps on giving...       

[JaiDee]

I still don't know how you can accept there is nothing to all the uncertainty. That all the conflicting evidence, all the strange stuff that has come out means absolutely nothing. The only way I can get my head around your stance is that you see LHO's past involvement with Russia & Cuba as an unfortunate coincidence. Was there nothing, nothing at all in the doco that gave you even a moment of pause?

 

  Sure, I can discuss the JFK thing all day if you prefer.

 

  OK, I did watch that film and saw a few guys in the darkness say that Oswald was a Cuban secret service agent.  So who was telling him to go hand out pamphlets for the "Hands off Cuba" defense fund a few weeks before the assassination?  Hands Off Cuba leaflets passed out on the streets of New Orleans; does that look like the work of a secret service agent?  I thought most of them were shadowy, super-private figures; I could never imagine one bringing attention to himself by handing out leaflets, even spending a few hours in jail and winding up on the TV.

 

      And why on earth would a secret service agent be denied entry into Cuba?  Oswald went to the Cuban embassy and was turned away; why, in fact, would he need to go there at all? Surely a Cuban secret service agent would have easy access to get in and out of the homeland.

 

  As for the Russians, they wanted,nothing to do with him. He was working in Minsk for a year or 2 in the early 60's, at some menial labor job. He met Marina and moved back to the states; for the Russians it was a case of "good riddance" and when he applied to go back there 2 months before the assassination he was denied;  again, why would someone in Russian intelligence even have to apply to be admitted back into Russia?  Fact is he was a misfit and no country would have him.

 

  Your documentary and questions about Russia [was he working for one or the other, or both?] only make this more complicated than it has to be.  Not so sure if the Oswald lone gunman theory is the absolute  "truth", but it's truth for me. Again, personally I feel you and anyone who buys into the various conspiracy theories is looking at it from the wrong angle, and I used to as well.  Start from the other side this time, read some books about Oswald or watch the 2 documentaries I posted; they are rare because lets say there were 100 documentaries made about this whole deal, and 90 of them were about conspiracy.  Watch a couple of the 10 which were lone gunman-based and you may be swayed a little.

 

But I doubt it.....once most people make up their minds on this whole thing, that's it.

[pacman]

  Sure, I can discuss the JFK thing all day if you prefer.

 

In the absence of new angles & new input, it might be best to let it go for now. And I don't have any other pet theories that I want to start putting the case for. Unless someone else wants to bring up something, i'm satisfied this has been a good debate.

 

OK, I did watch that film and saw a few guys in the darkness say that Oswald was a Cuban secret service agent.  So who was telling him to go hand out pamphlets for the "Hands off Cuba" defense fund a few weeks before the assassination?  Hands Off Cuba leaflets passed out on the streets of New Orleans; does that look like the work of a secret service agent?  I thought most of them were shadowy, super-private figures; I could never imagine one bringing attention to himself by handing out leaflets, even spending a few hours in jail and winding up on the TV.

 

      And why on earth would a secret service agent be denied entry into Cuba?  Oswald went to the Cuban embassy and was turned away; why, in fact, would he need to go there at all? Surely a Cuban secret service agent would have easy access to get in and out of the homeland.

 

It is beyond any of us to know the answers to your questions. They happened for reasons that were relevant at the time but I am not going to tie myself into knots trying to figure it out. And I don't place the same emphasis on them as you do. So what if he was handing out pamphlets or if he was denied access. To say "surely he would have easy access to get in & out of the homeland" makes no sense to me. It wasn't his homeland for a start. And does anyone know what his status was with the Cubans? They may have been worried about his erratic behaviour, it could have been anything. I don't know & I am not going to speculate.

 

As for the Russians, they wanted,nothing to do with him. He was working in Minsk for a year or 2 in the early 60's, at some menial labor job. He met Marina and moved back to the states; for the Russians it was a case of "good riddance" and when he applied to go back there 2 months before the assassination he was denied;  again, why would someone in Russian intelligence even have to apply to be admitted back into Russia?  Fact is he was a misfit and no country would have him.

 

You keep saying that but it's at odds with what I understand. As far as I know they were deeply suspicious of him but why would they run from a potential informant? This was at the height of the Cold War, every person who could be useful to them was cultivated & encouraged. That the Russians wouldn't invite LHO into the tent or involve him in espionage straight off does not mean they wanted nothing to do with him. They were going to be sure he wasn't some plant who could make them look foolish. And I seem to recall this was covered in the doco (sorry for being vague, it's been too long & I can't remember what I did yesterday half the time), weren't there references to Oswald & who was watching him?

 

This is a major difference between us, you insist he was an unwanted misfit, I understood he was extremely intelligent who was warehoused until he could be proven to be reliable. The shot at the General who you deny had anything to do with this was his test. If it wasn't LHO why would anyone unrelated to Russia want to see him dead? I know that's another of those questions we can't possibly know but the random chance theory seems a million miles from the very possible likelihood that Oswald was the guy. I read it somewhere, I just can't remember where. Is it not mentioned in the doco?

 

Your documentary and questions about Russia [was he working for one or the other, or both?] only make this more complicated than it has to be.  Not so sure if the Oswald lone gunman theory is the absolute  "truth", but it's truth for me. Again, personally I feel you and anyone who buys into the various conspiracy theories is looking at it from the wrong angle, and I used to as well.  Start from the other side this time, read some books about Oswald or watch the 2 documentaries I posted; they are rare because lets say there were 100 documentaries made about this whole deal, and 90 of them were about conspiracy.  Watch a couple of the 10 which were lone gunman-based and you may be swayed a little.

 

I will find time to watch the docos you posted but not now. I can't say when because right now I am a bit over it all. I agree that it has become very complicated but I always keep an open mind as to what's relevant & what isn't. At least my own thoughts as to whether a story makes sense or not. My own opinion about all this has been tested & I have taken much on board. As I wrote before, I am not so wedded to one side of the story that I am incapable of accepting I have been wrong all this time. I just maintain, STILL maintain, that on the balance of probability, there wouldn't be all this claim & counterclaim, all this secret shit, all the muddying of the waters, if this was so cut & dried. 

 

IMO Oswald was a strange dude, he was a traitor who held weird political views, &  he was a petty servant for his handlers (whoever they were) thinking he was helping their cause. But for this insipid person to actually get the nerve to go shoot the President, that doesn't fit my impression of the guy. For him to do that, he was put up to it. And that's an important difference.

 

But I doubt it.....once most people make up their minds on this whole thing, that's it.

 

Not just this "thing", that applies to most things people hold strong opinions about. They get swayed from their core belief with difficulty. I never expected you to change your mind JaiDee, that was clear from the last time we went at it. But we both have something else to consider. No one was going to win anything but no one lost anything either. Thanks, it's been fun.

[azza33]

"If we concentrate on the actual event of the assassination, it is clear from witness testimony " - testimony by someone NOT present as to the presence of another person at the said place at a particular point in time.

 

Wouldn't that just make it speculation rather than anything definitive? :huh:  Just throwing it out there

 

Anyways... good post

[azza33]

Sounds like he could have used the out of order liftwell.

Anyone know if that theory was checked?

Might add... Given witnesses external to the building saw a gunman on the sixth floor and people of the fifth floor heard shots from above and dropping shells, then if it was impossible for anyone to pass people in the stairwell without being noticed and there was only one set of stairs, doesn't it stand to reason another exit existed?

Or perhaps 90 second window is erroneous?

[JaiDee]

All good arguments Rte67, except that we DO know who shot JFK;  the man who ordered and received the Italian-made carbine, fired it from the school book building where he worked, and was caught.

 

  ''No jury in an ordinary murder trial would ever have convicted LHO of the crime simply due to lack of evidence.''

 

 The prosecutor Bugliosi actually did a mock trial in London in 1986 and the jury convicted Oswald of first-degree premeditated murder after only 6 hours. That was the impetus for him to start writing his lengthy manifesto on the case, which came out in 2007;

 

http://on-trial-lho.blogspot.com/

 

If you want to read a little from the lone gunman side, check this out;

 

http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com/

 

   The only question I have left is why did Oswald wait until the limo turned the corner; he had a direct and closer shot from straight ahead as it rolled down Houston street before it turned onto Elm.  The only conclusion I have on that is that he got cold feet at that time; then when he saw the limo pulling away he got his act together and took the shots.

[azza33]

Im sold JD.

Actually, more to the point, i believe LHO was the sole shooter on the day.

I suppose that does mean he wasnt a pawn in a greater conspiracy....

But there is nothing definitive to suggest he acted alone....

The body language of LBJ is certainly interesting to say the least....

Too hard waving the white flag!!

Does make for fun discussion ;)

[SiamSam]

JD,

There is a theory that Oswald did not wait until the limo turned the corner. The "lost" first bullet (shot) hit a street lamp that was obstructing the line of fire. This was explained in great detail in the documentary I mentioned above. 

 

I too believe LHO was the lone gunman on that day. I do not subscribe to any conspiracy theories. However the one think that has always bugged me was why someone like Jack Ruby come out of nowhere and felt the hell-bent need to shoot Oswald. Why? What was that REALLY about? Always seemed fishy to me. 

[KenW]

I've only just discovered this thread, and had time to read the final page or so. I've probably missed a lot, and will have to go back to start and read. But opening comment I can't resist, as what I've read so far seems to be a debate between advocates of the lone gunman idea versus all else, with the former seeming more popular.

 

So many years ago, so many blurs in my brain, so many docos - in fact for a while there in the 90s or so it seemed like somebody was producing a doco a year or thereabouts all to prove or prop up the lone gunman hypothesis - so much transcript. Most of it foggy to me now.

 

But one thing that I saw on the original footage that startled me, shocked me, and drew heavy debate at the Warren Commission too, and that I do remember, almost vividly is: the President slumps forward as he is hit by the first shot or shots (in the neck and/or shoulder?), Jackie reaches to him, secret agents panic, and then suddenly his head rocks backwards as the top of it is blown away by a shot from the front (the grassy knoll?).

 

When I saw that, over and over across the years, with these 90s doco narrators ignoring it totally, it convinced me no shot from book depot or wherever had killed him.

[pacman]

I am happy to hand you the baton Ken. Enjoy catching up with the reading.

[williethepimp]

   The only question I have left is why didwald wait until the limo turned the corner; he had a direct and closer shot from straight ahead as it rolled down Houston street before it turned onto Elm.  The only conclusion I have on that is that he got cold feet at that time; then when he saw the limo pulling away he got his act together and took the shots.

 

A good question indeed jaidee......never explained.Did mr bugliosi mention it.....i bet he didnt.

I've only just discovered this thread, and had time to read the final page or so. I've probably missed a lot, and will have to go back to start and read. But opening comment I can't resist, as what I've read so far seems to be a debate between advocates of the lone gunman idea versus all else, with the former seeming more popular.

 

So many years ago, so many blurs in my brain, so many docos - in fact for a while there in the 90s or so it seemed like somebody was producing a doco a year or thereabouts all to prove or prop up the lone gunman hypothesis - so much transcript. Most of it foggy to me now.

But one thing that I saw on the original footage that startled me, shocked me, and drew heavy debate at the Warren Commission too, and that I do remember, almost vividly is: the President slumps forward as he is hit by the first shot or shots (in the neck and/or shoulder?), Jackie reaches to him, secret agents panic, and then suddenly his head rocks backwards as the top of it is blown away by a shot from the front (the grassy knoll?).

 

When I saw that, over and over across the years, with these 90s doco narrators ignoring it totally, it convinced me no shot from book depot or wherever had killed him.

Same with me  Ken,its obviously a shot from the front....Jackie Kennedy then tries to climb out of the back of the limo, to the rear of JFK,shielding herself from the line of fire.....She of course is on the list of those who didnt believe in the lone gunman theory that I posted earlier.

[wangsuda]

Now what about the OP? Was Darth Vader really in cahoots with Luke Skywalker and Princess Leah? Now there's a debatable topic!

[azza33]

Ken, here is a good article as to bullet/body kinetics which helps explain visual deception of a frontal hit.

I think its interesting but by no means absolute.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/issues_and_evidence/zapruder_film/Oattes--Fatal_shot.html

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/issues_and_evidence/zapruder_film/images/Killing_sequence_310-325.html

I think its clear from the spray its a hit from the rear....

[JaiDee]

   First off, to address the head shot of JFK and his head snapping back instead going forward as it should have with a shot from the rear. It does look like that shot came from the front, but many military experts who believe the lone gunman theory and have been in battles have looked at the Zapruder film over and over [certainly the most-viewed piece of film ever?] and have come to a different conclusion. From what I have heard and read, the head can go in ANY direction when shot; the nerves in our body are hard to figure out, and things aren't always cut and dry.  When the bullet entered from the rear and exited out the right forehead, it exited with such force that it jerked his head backwards.  I haven't been in war but from many experts who have they say this is quite common in a battlefield scenario.

 

       I have seen "The Fog of War" and I admire McNamara greatly; he was just a good soldier who did as his bosses told him, oftentimes against his better judgement. He was a broken man by the time he left D.C, with a lot of blood on his hands.  He didn't even want to be secretary of defense; he turned JFK down a couple times before finally agreeing to leave a cushy job in Detroit to run the defense department; he should have left after his boss was killed. Yes, Gulf of Tonkin was a conspiracy at the highest levels, as in LBJ and company made up the fact that our naval ships were fired upon by Viet PT boats. He and his buddies wanted war with North Vietnam, unlike JFK who was trying to extricate us from there in '63 before he died and who was appalled at the way our CIA dispatched with Diem, a fellow catholic and an ally of the USA.

 

Being a history buff I really enjoy debating this kind of stuff, and it seems like we have about a half/half split for and against a conspiracy for the killing of JFK, which always makes for a lively debate.

[pacman]

The Fog of War must stand as the most powerful documentary ever. IMO. The revelation that the US entered the Vietnamese war under false pretenses was cinematic dynamite. It stands as one of the most profound moments I have ever seen on screen.

 

Imagine the world today had JFK lived. He would have saved all those needless deaths of young Americans in SE Asia plus he would have cleaned out the Pentagon of those war mongering 5 star generals who held that metaphorical gun to LBJ's head. He also would have reined in Hoover which would have saved the life of John Lennon. (That's another theory but I hold him responsible for his assassination) It would be a different place entirely.

 

All the young Australians who died or returned home traumatised by the experience, all the landmine deaths & amputations in Vietnam & Laos & Cambodia, the rise of Pol Pot (debatable but likely), the establishment of Pattaya as a destination for sex tourists.....  hey... wait a minute...      

 

 

 

 

[JaiDee]

If you want to see a good movie about how JFK was at odds with his generals -who considered him too much of a dove - watch 13 days  with Kevin Costner.  He plays Kenny O'Donnell, one of RFK's buddies from their Harvard days, who went on to become a top aide to JFK and was part of the so-called "Irish Mafia". Good movie, really gives a good look at just how close the 2 brothers were and how much JFK wanted to keep us out of war.

 

  Yes, the world may have been an entirely different place had JFK not been killed, damn shame.

[azza33]

JD... Go to links i supplied... Head goes forward from the initial gunshot wound; the second movement is when it recoils back very mildy. The second link is the film showing brain matter spraying forward not backwards.

Re: vietnam - was it a necessary evil perpetrated on a lie?

Personally i have spoken to south vietnamese families that are thankful for the us intervention. Guess it means that some people on the ground differ from armchair critics.

Why is it when Vietnam war is mentioned that only usa is culpable? South Korea and Australia should be held equally accountable, no?

On that note, why is South Korea never mentioned when we talk of that war? They lost 10x the lives of the Australians. The war memorial in Seoul has an interesting section devoted to it.

I can see the next topic here being the criminality in dropping the nuclear bomb. Yes, if you go to the Hiroshima nuclear memorial its moving, but....

[JaiDee]

Thanks Azza, I did check out those links and they are quite graphic but make absolute sense. Hard to digest something so grotesque happening to such a great man, someone who may have been a great president and possibly could have turned my country into the great place it was destined to become before the war hawks and neo-cons got hold of it.

 

The USA is culpable and responsible for Vietnam for the same reason we are responsible for Iraq, despite the nonsense of the "coalition of the willing." We were at the forefront of it, we didn't want communism to spread as was thought it might if the domino theory took root, so that was our war.  Anyone who regretfully lost soldiers there only did so at the behest of the US government, calling in their chits for being big brother for all those years after WW2.

 

   It's a disgusting legacy, being the "policemen of the world", and something most moderates like myself and all liberals do not want to be associated with.

[williethepimp]

Well its hard to debate with people who only see what they want to see......with all the best will in the world,how anyone can make a case of a shot from the rear is beyond me.....

 

And now the war in Vietnam was a necessary evil.........

 

I suppose the war in Iraq was about looking for weapons of mass destruction........For some,the official line is all they wanna hear.

[azza33]

WTP... couldnt help yourself could you.

There is a question mark ... talk about seeing what you want to....

JD ... I think with north america looking like they will have energy self sufficiency shortly, the role of "world policeman" will be drastically reduced. There is no argument that "energy security" has influenced foreign policy.

We kinda off topic and my bad but.... stopping spread of communism in asia... im all for it.

The old soviet union was intending to put nuclear weapons in Indonesia.... not too hard to figure out who was the intended target.