(Close Window)
Topic: JFK
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 25, 2017 08:21PM)
For conspiracy theorists what's new?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 25, 2017 08:43PM)
NOTHING that is the point.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Oct 25, 2017 09:04PM)
It will be interesting to see what, if anything, is released.

To me, most "conspiracy theories" come down to your willingness/ability to believe that a government would lie to, and/or harm it's own citizens.

I have to admit to a bit of cognitive dissonance regarding all such claims. It's terrifying to believe it's possible, but when you look at certain situations objectively it's hard to deny certain things.

For instance, I don't believe ONE WORD of the official story about 9/11. Too many things don't add up.
I'm not trying to divert the thread. My point is that when I think about it, and the implications of it being a false flag, my mind just shuts off at a certain point - it's just too horrific.

In this case, JFK was supposedly going to expose the "invisible hand" he said was in control behind the scenes, and put us back on a silver standard - ending the federal reserves control over the money supply.
The fact the he was killed a week later has got to make you question the official narrative.
Message: Posted by: Cliffg37 (Oct 25, 2017 09:35PM)
Has there ever been, anytime in history, a conspiracy theory that was proven correct? Ever?
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Oct 25, 2017 09:48PM)
Kind of hard to do considering who controls the evidence and the narrative.

Look at the the 9/11 commission report, which was a fluff piece that supported the official narrative. Redacted, with virtually nothing from real experts.
Look what happened shortly after - the patriot act, increased debt to fund the military, the invasion of Iraq, etc.

All because we now had "proof" that we should all be afraid.

I'm not saying conclusively that it was a false flag, but you have to admit that the only people who've really benefited are the ones who have a ve$ted interest in the perpetuation of conflicts of all kinds.

Yes, there have been hundreds of threats that have been thwarted, and there are terrorists who DO hate us; but if you believe that it's so simply black and white, us vs. them, then you're even more naive than I am.

IMO.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 25, 2017 10:16PM)
The entire JFK conspiracy theory is strange to me on many levels. First of all it sort of hinges on the fact that the shooting couldn't be done. We used to reenact it for every firearms class with ballistics gel. It was not too tough to get done.

Second the shear number of people who would have to be involved in the cover up would be astounding. You can't keep a secret between two people unless one is dead so that alone makes it hard to swallow.

But back a thousand years ago when I did things like research papers I did a pretty serious one on conspiracy theories. They are attractive for a lot of reasons but chief among them is that psychologically they give you either someone to join, or someone to blame. It is very satisfying for either side.

In the case of JFK it is also something special. William Manchester puts the lie to many of the conspiracy theories that surround Dallas and Kennedy. The best point he makes is this. "If you put the President of the United States on one side of a scale, and that wretched waif Oswald on the other, it doesn't balance. You want to add weight to Oswald. It would invest the Presidents death with meaning, endowing him with martyrdom. He would have died for something."

"A conspiracy would do the job nicely", writes Manchester, "unfortunately there is no evidence whatsoever that there was one."

JFK was young and was the hope of a generation. Some just NEED there to be meaning to his death instead of the whim of a lunatic. All the theories have been disproven. But their persistence is interesting.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Oct 25, 2017 10:49PM)
[quote]On Oct 25, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
The entire JFK conspiracy theory is strange to me on many levels. First of all it sort of hinges on the fact that the shooting couldn't be done. We used to reenact it for every firearms class with ballistics gel. It was not too tough to get done.

Second the shear number of people who would have to be involved in the cover up would be astounding. You can't keep a secret between two people unless one is dead so that alone makes it hard to swallow.

But back a thousand years ago when I did things like research papers I did a pretty serious one on conspiracy theories. They are attractive for a lot of reasons but chief among them is that psychologically they give you either someone to join, or someone to blame. It is very satisfying for either side.

In the case of JFK it is also something special. William Manchester puts the lie to many of the conspiracy theories that surround Dallas and Kennedy. The best point he makes is this. "If you put the President of the United States on one side of a scale, and that wretched waif Oswald on the other, it doesn't balance. You want to add weight to Oswald. It would invest the Presidents death with meaning, endowing him with martyrdom. He would have died for something."

"A conspiracy would do the job nicely", writes Manchester, "unfortunately there is no evidence whatsoever that there was one."

JFK was young and was the hope of a generation. Some just NEED there to be meaning to his death instead of the whim of a lunatic. All the theories have been disproven. But their persistence is interesting. [/quote]

The how of it is pretty much cut and dried as far as I'm concerned, but what you've said pretty much hinges on the assumption that the president is a power equal to, and as respected as, any other.

To some though he could be seen as a pawn who refused to accept that he was a pawn, and so must be eliminated. Look at all those who've admitted the system is broken, and promised to fix it; only to fall in line once elected.
Obama promised hope and change, and he ended up more hawkish than Bush ever was.

Your point about people needing some things to have some deeper meaning is well taken, but that doesn't mean that there isn't, in fact, something else going on in some cases. Not all, or most, but some.

As I said, it all comes down to who controls the evidence, and the narrative. When the truth is mixed with half truths, lies and propaganda - on all sides - who can tell what the real story is? Certainly not the average citizen - who doesn't need to know certain "classified" things - and who only gets bits and pieces of information; and who then can't make a truly informed decision.

It's a s#it show for sure, on many levels.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 25, 2017 10:58PM)
The truth is readily available. The distortions are the problem.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Oct 25, 2017 11:06PM)
I'm not saying it wasn't just a lone lunatic, but, given his speech shortly before he was killed, I can see there being another reason. Had he lived, and done what he said he was going to do, a lot of very rich and powerful people stood to lose a lot.
It would have changed everything.

I'm very curious to see what is released, but I doubt it will result in any new info.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Oct 26, 2017 11:55AM)
Unless there is more about Jack Ruby's connections it's useless. It all stopped with Ruby. You can ascribe a rationale to Oswald, but not really to Ruby. He is the $64,000 question.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Oct 26, 2017 02:20PM)
[quote]On Oct 25, 2017, Cliffg37 wrote:
Has there ever been, anytime in history, a conspiracy theory that was proven correct? Ever? [/quote]

Watergate.

The assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

Both involved not only conspiracies, but cover-ups that solid investigation has proved official historical narratives to be factually untrue.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Oct 26, 2017 03:12PM)
Weren't those two just straight out acts of crime where there really isn't anymore conjecture?
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Oct 27, 2017 12:27AM)
That the conspiracies were uncovered doesn't mean they weren't conspiracies. They were. I suspect that we do not know with any accuracy the real circumstances regarding Lincoln's assassination. My point is that Watergate and the Lincoln assassination show us that political conspiracies--attempting to carry out nepharious, illegal, secret activities with the intent to cover up traces of those activities--are historical fact. How about the French and Russian revolutions? They involved conspiracies, to be sure.

I think the problem here is the use of the world "conspiracy"--a perfectly decent and useful word--to mean, "hair-brained cockamamie groundless conjecture that secret forces are invisibly at work behind otherwise rationally explainable events." Perhaps we need a word for that. How about, hair-brained cockamamie groundless conjecture?

"Hey, did you know that the World Trade Center was brought down by George W Bush's administration by means of controlled demolition in order to instigate a war on terrorism."

"Dude, that's just silly hair-brained cockamamie groundless conjecture. Let me buy you another beer."

As for the JFK assassination, well, let's give it another 100 years and maybe historians will have a clearer picture than they do today.

Then again, maybe they won't.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Oct 27, 2017 01:58AM)
"Trump set to release top-secret JFK assassination files"

http://www.euronews.com/2017/10/21/trump-set-to-release-top-secret-jfk-assassination-files

"JFK files: Russia denies any connection to president's assassination before release of documents"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/jfk-files-russia-release-denial-assassination-president-murder-latest-a8022301.html

"Trump backs out of promise to release all JFK docs"

http://nypost.com/2017/10/26/trump-backs-out-of-promise-to-release-all-jfk-docs/

"President Trump said he had 'no choice' but to withhold some of the more sensitive papers because of fears they could harm ... relationships with foreign powers."

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/jfk-files-explosive-new-claims-russia-had-information-that-vice-president-lyndon-johnson-was-behind-a3669201.html

:)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 27, 2017 09:47AM)
Stoney is right. A conspiracy is one thing. But when you make up a conspiracy theory when none exist it is another.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 27, 2017 10:52AM)
Https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/2017-release
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Oct 31, 2017 12:08AM)
Well it looks as if someone is quoted as saying the Surgeon Generals Autopsy Report claimed shots fired from the front and the back. The throat wound was an entry wound. As a hunter using a high powered rifle ... (I had a Jap 6 Five .. Basically the same calibre rifle) since the age of 11, I can say that I've never seen an exit wound like that in my entire 63 years....Exit wounds are explosive in nature. Here is a rebuttal to another video to show both sides of this issue .. My question is this .."Why would this information be so important that it was withheld for over 50 years?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj8vCBbkSn4

And of course ...There's Russia... https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/jfk-files-explosive-new-claims-russia-had-information-that-vice-president-lyndon-johnson-was-behind-a3669201.html
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 31, 2017 12:21AM)
So you're a ballistics expert?
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Oct 31, 2017 10:35PM)
No .. But I've been shooting deer and elk in the head for a few decades now ... I have real world experience. I've shot game coming straight at me ..going away from me and any manner of weird directions. The logical shot from the suggested location is when the limo is coming straight at you .. NOT going away at a strange angle through the trees.... As a hunter it makes little or no sense at all.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 31, 2017 10:54PM)
Who said Oswald was a hunter?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Nov 5, 2017 03:24PM)
[quote]On Oct 25, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
I'm not saying it wasn't just a lone lunatic, but, given his speech shortly before he was killed, I can see there being another reason. Had he lived, and done what he said he was going to do, a lot of very rich and powerful people stood to lose a lot.
It would have changed everything.

I'm very curious to see what is released, but I doubt it will result in any new info. [/quote]
It wouldnt matter what was released. Conspiracy theorists wouldnt believe it.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Nov 5, 2017 03:31PM)
[quote]On Nov 5, 2017, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On Oct 25, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
I'm not saying it wasn't just a lone lunatic, but, given his speech shortly before he was killed, I can see there being another reason. Had he lived, and done what he said he was going to do, a lot of very rich and powerful people stood to lose a lot.
It would have changed everything.

I'm very curious to see what is released, but I doubt it will result in any new info. [/quote]
It wouldnt matter what was released. Conspiracy theorists wouldnt believe it. [/quote]

Which is why they live on.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Nov 6, 2017 06:01AM)
Is that true or did the government tell you that?
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Nov 17, 2017 12:37AM)
Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations

I hate to pop your Warren Commission bubble but the official finding here in the USA is that the facts dictate it was a probable CONSPIRACY... So Conspiracy folks side with Congress and Congress sides with the Conspiracy folks... The main force in the Warren Report was Allen Dulles who was fired from the CIA by Kennedy himself. Dulles refused to leave DC after his dismissal and within 2 years Kennedy was dead. As head of the CIA Dulles had a license to kill, and didn't give up his credentials it seems... 18 witnesses for the Warren Report were shot, had their throats slit, or were found eviscerated floating in 55 gallon barrels off the coast of Miami... In a very strange recording LBJ admits that 'WE" hired the Mob/Thugs to kill a president Lawfully elected by his countrymen (Viet Nam). So it was no problem for LBJ to do such a thing. LBJ was under investigation for Corruption and would have been sent to prison had Kennedy survived... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqyklafeXpY
The murder of Dorothy Killgallen was the icing on the cake ... She was one of the top criminal reporters in her day although she'd taken to the Hollywood limelight. She interviewed Jack Ruby and said she was going to blow the lid off the case... THE REPORTER WHO KNEW TOO MUCH... DR. MARY'S MONKEY, and THE MAN WHO KILLED KENNEDY are all great books to get you started... :dancing:
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Nov 17, 2017 05:56AM)
Nonsense.