Who Killed Kennedy?
Moderator: Global Moderator
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
- Ad Orientem
- Executive Member
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
- Location: Florida USA
- Contact:
Re: Who Killed Kennedy?
Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-Histor ... f.+kennedy
http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-Histor ... f.+kennedy
Trumpism is not a philosophy or a movement. It's a cult.
- Ad Orientem
- Executive Member
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
- Location: Florida USA
- Contact:
Re: Who Killed Kennedy?
A Conspiracy of One (or the confessions of an ex-conspiracy nut)TennPaGa wrote:I seem to recall you writing that you were a Kennedy assassination (conspiracy) buff at one point (but not now). Is that right? If so, I'd be interested in your thoughts (both about the facts of the assassination and your own intellectual journey).Ad Orientem wrote: I figured someone just had to ask the question given the anniversary.
Trumpism is not a philosophy or a movement. It's a cult.
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14298
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: Who Killed Kennedy?
One thing is clear: a large number of people ripped off Serge Gainsbourg's Histoire de Melody Nelson, although they probably acted independently. Beck has one of the more egregious examples with Paper Tiger (although I do think it sounds fantastic).
As for Kennedy, he was shot by Oswald alone. I have seen the conspiracy theories systematically debunked but, like the case with the moon landing, there will always be those who cannot let go of their suspicions.
As for Kennedy, he was shot by Oswald alone. I have seen the conspiracy theories systematically debunked but, like the case with the moon landing, there will always be those who cannot let go of their suspicions.
Re: Who Killed Kennedy?
Did no one here watch Salt? it explains everything!
It was a secret Russia deep cover spy program called MK Ultra run by Oleg Orlov (who is actually based on Dmitry Orlov)
It was a secret Russia deep cover spy program called MK Ultra run by Oleg Orlov (who is actually based on Dmitry Orlov)
“Let every man divide his money into three parts, and invest a third in land, a third in business and a third let him keep by him in reserve.� ~Talmud
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: Who Killed Kennedy?
I'm sure there is a perfectly innocent reason why a lot of the files are still sealed:
http://www.ibtimes.com/jfk-assassinatio ... rs-1389437
Right?
http://www.ibtimes.com/jfk-assassinatio ... rs-1389437
Right?
Re: Who Killed Kennedy?
The CIA lies about having an Oswald file when in fact they did. They lie about knowing of his trip to Mexico City when, in fact, they monitored him the whole time (I think this is fairly well documented now but somebody can correct me if I'm wrong).Libertarian666 wrote: I'm sure there is a perfectly innocent reason why a lot of the files are still sealed:
http://www.ibtimes.com/jfk-assassinatio ... rs-1389437
Right?
Oswald kills Kennedy. Jack Ruby, a man with mafia connections kills Oswald before he can be brought to trial.
I think there are perfectly plausible explanations for things like this, such as the CIA always lies because that's just what they do, and Jack Ruby loved Kennedy and wanted to be a hero for killing Oswald.
But I don't see how, with so many mysteries surrounding it, anyone can be considered nuts for believing there might have been a conspiracy. Even a Congressional committee came to that very same conclusion.
Modification: Actually I think the congressional committee concluded that it was likely there was a conspiracy and that was the last government word on the matter, as far as I know.
Last edited by ns2 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: Who Killed Kennedy?
And of course Ruby died of cancerbefore he could spill the beans, which I'm sure was also a coincidence.ns2 wrote:The CIA lies about having an Oswald file when in fact they did. They lie about knowing of his trip to Mexico City when, in fact, they monitored him the whole time (I think this is fairly well documented now but somebody can correct me if I'm wrong).Libertarian666 wrote: I'm sure there is a perfectly innocent reason why a lot of the files are still sealed:
http://www.ibtimes.com/jfk-assassinatio ... rs-1389437
Right?
Oswald kills Kennedy. Jack Ruby, a man with mafia connections kills Oswald before he can be brought to trial.
I think there are perfectly plausible explanations for things like this, such as the CIA always lies because that's what they do, and Jack Ruby loved Kennedy and wanted to be a hero for killing Oswald.
But I don't see how, with so many mysteries surrounding it, anyone can be considered nuts for believing there might have been a conspiracy. Even a Congressional committee came to that very same conclusion.
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14298
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: Who Killed Kennedy?
Techno,
You're employing the old, "I'm not really making a point, but just appearing to make one by way of sarcasm" technique.
Just tell us what you think happened already.
You're employing the old, "I'm not really making a point, but just appearing to make one by way of sarcasm" technique.
Just tell us what you think happened already.
Re: Who Killed Kennedy?
I agree that Jack Ruby tips the scales in favor of a conspiracy. Someone wanted to make sure that Oswald would never talk. If it was Castro, the Soviets, or the Mafia behind the assassination, the government would never want the fact that there was a conspiracy to get out to the general public.
- Ad Orientem
- Executive Member
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
- Location: Florida USA
- Contact:
Re: Who Killed Kennedy?
Unfortunately none of this is evidence. It's conjecture. The actual evidence, and there is a mountain of it, all points to Oswald.
Trumpism is not a philosophy or a movement. It's a cult.
Re: Who Killed Kennedy?
There is also evidence (obviously) that Oswald was shot to death shortly thereafter. That certainly raises flags with me.
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14298
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: Who Killed Kennedy?
Why wasn't he killed immediately after he killed Kennedy?Reub wrote: There is also evidence (obviously) that Oswald was shot to death shortly thereafter. That certainly raises flags with me.
Re: Who Killed Kennedy?
Nobody saw Kennedy get killed live because it wasn't filmed except for the independent Zapruder film but maybe another interesting poll on the 50'th anniversary here on the forum would be how many of you witnessed the live execution of Oswald on National TV?
I did. Along with my family. As I recall it, it was on Sunday around the same time my Dad used to watch meet the press but we were all gathered around the TV that weekend. And then bang - what the hell just happened. I was 14. Same year as the Beatles on Ed Sullivan.
I did. Along with my family. As I recall it, it was on Sunday around the same time my Dad used to watch meet the press but we were all gathered around the TV that weekend. And then bang - what the hell just happened. I was 14. Same year as the Beatles on Ed Sullivan.
Last edited by ns2 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Who Killed Kennedy?
You'll have to ask the puppetmasters about that. Why was Oswald allowed to be such an amazingly easy target?dualstow wrote:Why wasn't he killed immediately after he killed Kennedy?Reub wrote: There is also evidence (obviously) that Oswald was shot to death shortly thereafter. That certainly raises flags with me.
- Ad Orientem
- Executive Member
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
- Location: Florida USA
- Contact:
Re: Who Killed Kennedy?
Because the Dallas PD was stunningly incompetent, a fact generally recognized even by conspiracy theorists.Reub wrote:You'll have to ask the puppetmasters about that. Why was Oswald allowed to be such an amazingly easy target?dualstow wrote:Why wasn't he killed immediately after he killed Kennedy?Reub wrote: There is also evidence (obviously) that Oswald was shot to death shortly thereafter. That certainly raises flags with me.
Trumpism is not a philosophy or a movement. It's a cult.
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14298
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: Who Killed Kennedy?
That's incorrect. There were other films, but the Zapruder film is the most famous and the most complete.ns2 wrote: Nobody saw Kennedy get killed live because it wasn't filmed except for the independent Zapruder film
Last edited by dualstow on Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: Who Killed Kennedy?
Then it's a good thing they weren't corrupt as well, or there might be some substance to the "conspiracy theories"!Ad Orientem wrote:Because the Dallas PD was stunningly incompetent, a fact generally recognized even by conspiracy theorists.Reub wrote:You'll have to ask the puppetmasters about that. Why was Oswald allowed to be such an amazingly easy target?dualstow wrote: Why wasn't he killed immediately after he killed Kennedy?
- Ad Orientem
- Executive Member
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
- Location: Florida USA
- Contact:
Re: Who Killed Kennedy?
Once again we are back to conjecture. Where is the actual evidence of a conspiracy? Show me something that could be admitted in a court of law. Show me forensic evidence of a second gunman. Show me hard proof of a cover up. Show me that all of the eye witnesses who saw Oswald shooting the cop and firing from the sixth floor window were liars. Show me that the ballistics don't match.Libertarian666 wrote:Then it's a good thing they weren't corrupt as well, or there might be some substance to the "conspiracy theories"!Ad Orientem wrote:Because the Dallas PD was stunningly incompetent, a fact generally recognized even by conspiracy theorists.Reub wrote: You'll have to ask the puppetmasters about that. Why was Oswald allowed to be such an amazingly easy target?
Show me SOMETHING that is real proof, not just hypothetical silliness. I am told Oswald's brother was a Free Mason. Maybe they ordered the hit!
Trumpism is not a philosophy or a movement. It's a cult.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: Who Killed Kennedy?
When I have read the book I linked to before, I'll let you know how good its arguments are.Ad Orientem wrote:Once again we are back to conjecture. Where is the actual evidence of a conspiracy? Show me something that could be admitted in a court of law. Show me forensic evidence of a second gunman. Show me hard proof of a cover up. Show me that all of the eye witnesses who saw Oswald shooting the cop and firing from the sixth floor window were liars. Show me that the ballistics don't match.Libertarian666 wrote:Then it's a good thing they weren't corrupt as well, or there might be some substance to the "conspiracy theories"!Ad Orientem wrote: Because the Dallas PD was stunningly incompetent, a fact generally recognized even by conspiracy theorists.
Show me SOMETHING that is real proof, not just hypothetical silliness. I am told Oswald's brother was a Free Mason. Maybe they ordered the hit!
- Ad Orientem
- Executive Member
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
- Location: Florida USA
- Contact:
Re: Who Killed Kennedy?
Try reading the one I linked to. It's by far the most exhaustive work on the subject. And it explores in detail all of the major, and many of the minor, conspiracy theories. It is available in most well stocked libraries.Libertarian666 wrote: When I have read the book I linked to before, I'll let you know how good its arguments are.
Trumpism is not a philosophy or a movement. It's a cult.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: Who Killed Kennedy?
It doesn't sound that impressive. Here's one of the Amazon reviews:Ad Orientem wrote:Try reading the one I linked to. It's by far the most exhaustive work on the subject. And it explores in detail all of the major, and many of the minor, conspiracy theories. It is available in most well stocked libraries.Libertarian666 wrote: When I have read the book I linked to before, I'll let you know how good its arguments are.
'Gosh, where to begin? Well, I guess I should start out by coming clean and admitting I haven't read the entire book. I tended to focus on sections that really interested me, especially the medical evidence and the autopsy, because its just so long. The sections that I did manage to get through were bad enough that I hope I can be excused for not plowing through all 1600 hardcover pages.
I've always admired Bugliosi. Helter Skelter is my favorite true crime book, and he's always seemed really sharp and insightful every time I've seen him on television, usually commenting on a court case. As someone who's pretty firmly on the conspiracy side of the fence, I was both looking forward to and dreading this book. If anyone could change my mind, it was Vince.
He did not succeed, though it wasn't for lack of trying. He starts out by applauding the Warren Commission and claiming that their only interest was in finding the truth. It's absurd to think that they would have pursued leads that pointed towards the mafia or CIA when that would have inevitably exposed a number of illegal CIA operations, including government plots to kill Fidel Castro that involved the mafia. This would have been disastrous to the agencies involved and to many of the nations' most powerful, influential people, including the Kennedys. And then there's all the dirt Hoover was holding over the Kennedy's. I wonder if Bugliosi has ever heard the audio tape of RFK calling LBJ and delicately trying to get some information on just how much he and Hoover had on them. It would be a good lesson on realpolitik for him. Yes, even the Kennedy's had reasons to want the Warren Commission to decide it was a lone nut.
Bugliosi succeeds in poking holes in some arguments that have been popular with the critics, pointing out the errors some researchers have made. Oliver Stone is a favorite whipping boy, but no one refers to his movie when they are looking for real research, I hope. This is a case where the primary suspect was held for two days and interrogated constantly by the FBI and the police and no record of what he said exists. Pretty astounding. Oh wait, there is that page of notes that Captain Fritz found later. There's really no excuse for this, though Bugliosi tries. Well, he wasn't saying much... They didn't know he would be dead soon... Yes, and they also didn't know when he might let something slip that might be important. This is the same FBI that ordered one of their agents to destroy evidence - a note that Oswald had left with the FBI. What exactly was on that note? We'll have to take the FBI's word for it that it was something that incriminated Oswald. They only destroyed it because it was kind of embarrassing that they overlooked it pre assassination. Bugliosi tends to take the government at its word even in situations where its been proven to be lying a lot.
The section on the autopsy was the one I was most interested in, and pretty well encapsulates how he approached this book. He's always had a feisty, no holds bar approach, but it's almost bizarre how frequently he descends into invective here. He can't get through a paragraph at times without insulting the critics. It's almost like he knows he's over promised by telling us that he's closing the case for good and is over compensating for that. Defending the choice of autopsy Doctors, he points out that in an interview Humes, the lead Dr. who wrote the report, actually said he had done autopsies on a few gunshot victims. It's pretty clear from the quote that these cases were pretty few. Humes can only specifically remember two of them. Bugliosi acts like this was some kind of deliberate omission by the critics, even though it doesn't make Humes any more qualified to be doing any kind of autopsy that involved a murder investigation, much less the President's. And none of them were in criminal cases. Humes wasn't trained for doing autopsies that involved a crime. He was not a forensic pathologist.. And there's also the fact that Humes only gave this interview 28 years after the autopsy, when the most well known assassination books had already been written.
Bugliosi is a strong believer in the House Select Committee on Assassinations, at least when they agree with him, like they do on the direction of the shots. He does admit that the HSCA's opinions of the autopsy doctors and their work were brutally negative. He then tries to salvage this by telling us that they "contradict themselves somewhat" when they say that there was enough there to show that Kennedy was shot from behind by two bullets. As if that disproves the notion that the autopsy was shockingly lacking. He even includes a quote in which one of the Doctors that worked for the HSCA panel mentions that the only thing they got wrong was the location of the head wounds. The HSCA put it near the top of Kennedy's head, while the autopsy had it at the bottom of the back of Kennedy's head, near what they call the external occipital protuberance. It's a difference of about three or four inches. That's huge when you're talking about the location of a head wound, and Bugliosi dismisses it as a "gaff". OK. Got the wound location wrong by several inches, didn't properly examine the brain or other evidence that would have given us more information about the trajectory of the bullets through Kennedy, but those crazy conspiracy theorists are being unfair when they say the problems with the autopsy are suspicious. How did the bullet go through Kennedy's neck without hitting the spine? We'd know if the autopsy was done correctly. Of course, Bugliosi blames this on the Kennedy's "limiting" the autopsy, but the only evidence he gives for this is that they didn't want Kennedy's Addison's disease mentioned, and that Jackie wasn't leaving until the autopsy was finished and the family could have the body with them.
There's more, of course. Eyewitness testimony is not reliable, unless it agrees with the Oswald as a lone nut version. Even if it comes from FBI, CIA, one of Lyndon Johnson's lawyers, high ranking mafia who were involved in a plot to kill Castro. They are just talking crazy, and should be ignored without a thought.
At this point I doubt we'll ever get to the "truth". The major players are dead. The time to look deeper into their stories and see where they could take us, to corroborate or disprove them, is passed. However, I don't think you can call everyone who's a doubter a kook. Not when even the man who put together the Warren commission was one. LBJ himself admitted several times that he wasn't sure about the Warren Commission's conclusions.
So I give this one star. Unless you're a student and want a good lesson in lawyerin' tricks.'
- Ad Orientem
- Executive Member
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
- Location: Florida USA
- Contact:
Re: Who Killed Kennedy?
I read a lot of the negative comments and I noticed some common threads.
Most read only parts of the book, which admittedly is massive, and in some cases I suspect little or none. Secondly most demonstrated that that their minds were made up going in and were reverting to conjecture as a counter to facts. (i.e. it came from the FBI so we know that was a lie.)
I've been there so I know the mentality that grips so many of these people. The bottom line though is that the Kennedy assassination conspiracy has entered into the realm of urban legend. Once you go there it becomes more or less impossible to dislodge it. There reaches a point where the true believers are simply impervious to facts and logic. It took me probably twenty years before I could admit I had been wrong on the subject, and I still don't want to believe that a lone nut with a mail order rifle could kill the President of the United States in broad daylight. And having spent a lot of years venting at the people who still believed the government's coverup story and lies, I have little enthusiasm for waging a battle that I know is lost against the true believers.
Still there are some signs of hope. Recent polls show that while most Americans continue to believe in conspiracy, the numbers who don't are at the highest level since they have been polling on the subject.
Most read only parts of the book, which admittedly is massive, and in some cases I suspect little or none. Secondly most demonstrated that that their minds were made up going in and were reverting to conjecture as a counter to facts. (i.e. it came from the FBI so we know that was a lie.)
I've been there so I know the mentality that grips so many of these people. The bottom line though is that the Kennedy assassination conspiracy has entered into the realm of urban legend. Once you go there it becomes more or less impossible to dislodge it. There reaches a point where the true believers are simply impervious to facts and logic. It took me probably twenty years before I could admit I had been wrong on the subject, and I still don't want to believe that a lone nut with a mail order rifle could kill the President of the United States in broad daylight. And having spent a lot of years venting at the people who still believed the government's coverup story and lies, I have little enthusiasm for waging a battle that I know is lost against the true believers.
Still there are some signs of hope. Recent polls show that while most Americans continue to believe in conspiracy, the numbers who don't are at the highest level since they have been polling on the subject.
Last edited by Ad Orientem on Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Trumpism is not a philosophy or a movement. It's a cult.
Re: Who Killed Kennedy?
Jan, thanks for posting this link. They do a great job analyzing the ballistics, supporting the single bullet theory as well as explaining the head wound. I was hoping that there would be more on Jack Ruby, as this part of the saga just does not pass my sniff test. I realize that with the retrospectoscope, the area where Oswald was shot was far from secure, but he was killed by someone clearly willing to trade his life for Oswald's. That is powerful motivation, and I am not sure how that could have been foreseen.jan van mourik wrote: Nova: Cold Case JFK
Can modern forensic science uncover fresh clues about the assassination of JFK?
Aired November 13, 2013 on PBS
Re: Who Killed Kennedy?
Conspiracy theories are much more fun. This thread makes that fairly clear.
When watching that Nova documentary I mentioned above, I was hoping it would lead to some cool new finds showing that indeed it probably wasn't just Oswald alone. But alas, didn't work out that way. So I guess it's the Occam's razor thingy...
When watching that Nova documentary I mentioned above, I was hoping it would lead to some cool new finds showing that indeed it probably wasn't just Oswald alone. But alas, didn't work out that way. So I guess it's the Occam's razor thingy...
"Well, if you're gonna sin you might as well be original" -- Mike "The Cool-Person"
"Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man" -- The Dude
"Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man" -- The Dude