John F. Kennedy vs. the Empire
by Anton Chaitkin
This Nov. 22 is the 50th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's murder, a crime from which our country has never recovered.
Investigators normally consider who benefitted from a crime, and what changed as a result of that crime.
In this case, we must first understand who Kennedy was, and what he fought for; who we were as a nation, and where we were headed when he was shot. Knowing that will make plain who killed him and why. It will help guide us to what we must now change for our survival.
Much more ....
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2013/4035jfk_v_empire.html
I see the bookshelves groaning under the new books being issued for the 50th.
All the old chestnuts being warmed up as to whodoneit:
- Oswald alone
- Gras y Knoll
- LBJ in cahoots with the CIA/J Edgar
- The driver
- Fr. Ted
I personally believe it was Oswald acting along - so am I in a minority?
Where were you Hardy as you were walking the earth at this time?
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on November 11, 2013, 05:09:52 PM
I personally believe it was Oswald acting along - so am I in a minority?
Probably, but not of one
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on November 11, 2013, 05:09:52 PM
I see the bookshelves groaning under the new books being issued for the 50th.
All the old chestnuts being warmed up as to whodoneit:
- Oswald alone
- Gras y Knoll
- LBJ in cahoots with the CIA/J Edgar
- The driver
- Fr. Ted
I personally believe it was Oswald acting along - so am I in a minority?
Where were you Hardy as you were walking the earth at this time?
I researched quite a lot of it a few years back and I personally came to the same conclusion. There's a pretty convincing argument to rubbish the rest of the theories as far as I remember.
Is JFK still viewed as a God-like figure there? He is here... as popular as ever in film and television.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/movies/2013/11/09/lights-camera-jfk/8CIXRwM4JcSMlsf3UYmM1I/story.html
Quote from: fingerbob on November 11, 2013, 07:56:18 PM
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on November 11, 2013, 05:09:52 PM
I see the bookshelves groaning under the new books being issued for the 50th.
All the old chestnuts being warmed up as to whodoneit:
- Oswald alone
- Gras y Knoll
- LBJ in cahoots with the CIA/J Edgar
- The driver
- Fr. Ted
I personally believe it was Oswald acting along - so am I in a minority?
Where were you Hardy as you were walking the earth at this time?
I researched quite a lot of it a few years back and I personally came to the same conclusion. There's a pretty convincing argument to rubbish the rest of the theories as far as I remember.
It wasn't Oswald alone. I'd say the Military Industrial Complex and I have heard the Zionists mentioned as well.
When did Israel get the bomb? Was it after he was killed?
Quote from: wicked on November 11, 2013, 08:26:46 PM
Is JFK still viewed as a God-like figure there? He is here... as popular as ever in film and television.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/movies/2013/11/09/lights-camera-jfk/8CIXRwM4JcSMlsf3UYmM1I/story.html
My mother says growing up there was always a pic of him on the wall in my Granny's house. It disappeared as the stories of infidelity surfaced!
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on November 11, 2013, 05:09:52 PM
I see the bookshelves groaning under the new books being issued for the 50th.
All the old chestnuts being warmed up as to whodoneit:
- Oswald alone
- Gras y Knoll
- LBJ in cahoots with the CIA/J Edgar
- The driver
- Fr. Ted
I personally believe it was Oswald acting along - so am I in a minority?
Where were you Hardy as you were walking the earth at this time?
There's probably more evidence to suggest Fr Ted shot Kennedy, than Oswald.
Quote from: deiseach on November 11, 2013, 05:15:12 PM
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on November 11, 2013, 05:09:52 PM
I personally believe it was Oswald acting along - so am I in a minority?
Probably, but not of one
I'd agree with SS. he acted alone, he got lucky with the assassination. He had some vague plan to exit the building and act normal. Not much of a plan, because he was just an ordinary guy who got lucky with the first part of his plan. He wasn't a chess player who could see 10 moves ahead along with the experience and style of a Hollywood stereotype assassin. He managed to get past the witnesses in the building, including a cop without arousing any suspicion at all. He wasn't a professional assassin with ice for blood but somehow for a short period of time, he was able to control himself until he exited the building. His escape plan, if he had one, was to act normal, he got on a bus. How normal can you try to be, join a queue pay your fare and get on a bus. The bus gets stuck in traffic, he gets edgy, leaves the bus, walks a bit and jumps in a taxi, hardly the actions of a low paid worker who needs to go home and ... collect a pistol?
He goes home, does whatever, feeds the goldfish and leaves to go shopping with a pistol in his pocket. A cop is on patrol looking for some vague description of a killer, he notices some guy looking at him for the briefest of moments and decides to call him over. Oswald has lost all composure that he had at the building and blows him away, RIP the cop. Those are the facts, the rest is history.
The anomalies that are involved in the death of JFK are astounding. Anyway the sixties were a mad time in the States. Civil rights, Vietnam war and the Space race were just some of the big issues of the time. Deception became the name of the game. TV was now in full force and news was current with visuals. So it was important to feed the masses with what they needed to see and hear. That's how you run an empire.
Ah Jaysus lads, are you honestly serious that you think Oswald shot Kennedy?!
I believe it was a shot fired from the SS car in the rear. Too many factors point to the fact Oswald didn't act alone. Different bullets (the third bullet took a sizeable chuck of his skull off while the other ones were 'cleaner'). The accuracy and control required to get three shots off in 5.92 seconds or what ever the allotted time was with a rickshaw bolt action rifle from WW2. Conflicting statements made by the SS afterwards. I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means but it doesn't add up for me at all.
"Shit, murder ain't no thing, but this here is some assassination shit" - Slim Charles.
What was Oswalds motive and why did Ruby kill him
Quote from: Dougal Maguire on November 11, 2013, 10:43:17 PM
What was Oswalds motive and why did Ruby kill him
What motives did the infamous shooters of recent times have? Infamy?
Quote from: muppet on November 11, 2013, 10:58:27 PM
Quote from: Dougal Maguire on November 11, 2013, 10:43:17 PM
What was Oswalds motive and why did Ruby kill him
What motives did the infamous shooters of recent times have? Infamy?
The likes of Robert Kennedy and John Lennon's assassins were under mind control. That's well known.
Quote from: BennyCake on November 11, 2013, 11:04:56 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 11, 2013, 10:58:27 PM
Quote from: Dougal Maguire on November 11, 2013, 10:43:17 PM
What was Oswalds motive and why did Ruby kill him
What motives did the infamous shooters of recent times have? Infamy?
The likes of Robert Kennedy and John Lennon's assassins were under mind control. That's well known.
Any good sources?
Quote from: muppet on November 11, 2013, 10:58:27 PM
Quote from: Dougal Maguire on November 11, 2013, 10:43:17 PM
What was Oswalds motive and why did Ruby kill him
What motives did the infamous shooters of recent times have? Infamy?
That's not an answer Muppet.
If infamy was a motive then he could have sat there at the window and wait to be arrested.
Or, after he was arrested, he could have said 'yes i did it', 'it's a fair cop' and smile for the cameras. It is possible he was in a denial of his desire for infamy or wanted a silent infamy, but that would be unlikely.
And Ruby? Is there anything to indicate that he wasn't a d'ickhead cop groupie?
Quote from: muppet on November 11, 2013, 11:07:17 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 11, 2013, 11:04:56 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 11, 2013, 10:58:27 PM
Quote from: Dougal Maguire on November 11, 2013, 10:43:17 PM
What was Oswalds motive and why did Ruby kill him
What motives did the infamous shooters of recent times have? Infamy?
The likes of Robert Kennedy and John Lennon's assassins were under mind control. That's well known.
Any good sources?
I think this was part of the Sirhan Sirhan defence case.
Quote from: Main Street on November 11, 2013, 11:16:51 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 11, 2013, 10:58:27 PM
Quote from: Dougal Maguire on November 11, 2013, 10:43:17 PM
What was Oswalds motive and why did Ruby kill him
What motives did the infamous shooters of recent times have? Infamy?
That's not an answer Muppet.
If infamy was a motive then he could have sat there at the window and wait to be arrested.
Or, after he was arrested, he could have said 'yes i did it', 'it's a fair cop' and smile for the cameras. It is possible he was in a denial of his desire for infamy or wanted a silent infamy, but that would be unlikely.
And Ruby? Is there anything to indicate that he wasn't a d'ickhead cop groupie?
Is that what all shooters seeking fame do?
Quote from: Tony Baloney on November 11, 2013, 11:21:18 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 11, 2013, 11:07:17 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 11, 2013, 11:04:56 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 11, 2013, 10:58:27 PM
Quote from: Dougal Maguire on November 11, 2013, 10:43:17 PM
What was Oswalds motive and why did Ruby kill him
What motives did the infamous shooters of recent times have? Infamy?
The likes of Robert Kennedy and John Lennon's assassins were under mind control. That's well known.
Any good sources?
I think this was part of the Sirhan Sirhan defence case.
This stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra#Conspiracy_theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra#Conspiracy_theories)
Quote from: muppet on November 11, 2013, 11:21:56 PM
Quote from: Main Street on November 11, 2013, 11:16:51 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 11, 2013, 10:58:27 PM
Quote from: Dougal Maguire on November 11, 2013, 10:43:17 PM
What was Oswalds motive and why did Ruby kill him
What motives did the infamous shooters of recent times have? Infamy?
That's not an answer Muppet.
If infamy was a motive then he could have sat there at the window and wait to be arrested.
Or, after he was arrested, he could have said 'yes i did it', 'it's a fair cop' and smile for the cameras. It is possible he was in a denial of his desire for infamy or wanted a silent infamy, but that would be unlikely.
And Ruby? Is there anything to indicate that he wasn't a d'ickhead cop groupie?
Is that what all shooters seeking fame do?
Who knows? But you pretend to read his mind and not his actions. His actions can arise from anyone of a hundred motives, what matters is that he did it and the evidence is there to back it up, maybe not concrete proof but a pile of evidence nevertheless. We know from plenty of examples that a crackpot can have a crackpot motive for killing a celebrity. We don't need to present a motive for Oswald killing the president. He did not live that long to tell his story or have his story analysed and there are just hints of a load of different motives. There is no onus to provide a motive other than it is believable that he had a motive.
Quote from: Main Street on November 11, 2013, 11:45:38 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 11, 2013, 11:21:56 PM
Quote from: Main Street on November 11, 2013, 11:16:51 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 11, 2013, 10:58:27 PM
Quote from: Dougal Maguire on November 11, 2013, 10:43:17 PM
What was Oswalds motive and why did Ruby kill him
What motives did the infamous shooters of recent times have? Infamy?
That's not an answer Muppet.
If infamy was a motive then he could have sat there at the window and wait to be arrested.
Or, after he was arrested, he could have said 'yes i did it', 'it's a fair cop' and smile for the cameras. It is possible he was in a denial of his desire for infamy or wanted a silent infamy, but that would be unlikely.
And Ruby? Is there anything to indicate that he wasn't a d'ickhead cop groupie?
Is that what all shooters seeking fame do?
Who knows? But you pretend to read his mind and not his actions. His actions can arise from anyone of a hundred motives, what matters is that he did it and the evidence is there to back it up, maybe not concrete proof but a pile of evidence nevertheless. We know from plenty of examples that a crackpot can have a crackpot motive for killing a celebrity. We don't need to present a motive for Oswald killing the president. He did not live that long to tell his story or have his story analysed and there are just hints of a load of different motives. There is no onus to provide a motive other than it is believable that he had a motive.
Why don't you read the thread before posting?
I am not pretending to read anyones mind.
The question was posted and I posted two more questions.
Was it JFK that said that if he didn't have plenty of sex that he got a headache?
I often have a headache.
The talk is that Gerry Adams shot him but he denies it.
JFK was assassinated by the CIA because he knew about the plans to fake the moon landings in 1969. That and he knew about the inside job to take down the twin towers, once they'd been built.
Quote from: muppet on November 11, 2013, 11:51:02 PM
Quote from: Main Street on November 11, 2013, 11:45:38 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 11, 2013, 11:21:56 PM
Quote from: Main Street on November 11, 2013, 11:16:51 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 11, 2013, 10:58:27 PM
Quote from: Dougal Maguire on November 11, 2013, 10:43:17 PM
What was Oswalds motive and why did Ruby kill him
What motives did the infamous shooters of recent times have? Infamy?
That's not an answer Muppet.
If infamy was a motive then he could have sat there at the window and wait to be arrested.
Or, after he was arrested, he could have said 'yes i did it', 'it's a fair cop' and smile for the cameras. It is possible he was in a denial of his desire for infamy or wanted a silent infamy, but that would be unlikely.
And Ruby? Is there anything to indicate that he wasn't a d'ickhead cop groupie?
Is that what all shooters seeking fame do?
Who knows? But you pretend to read his mind and not his actions. His actions can arise from anyone of a hundred motives, what matters is that he did it and the evidence is there to back it up, maybe not concrete proof but a pile of evidence nevertheless. We know from plenty of examples that a crackpot can have a crackpot motive for killing a celebrity. We don't need to present a motive for Oswald killing the president. He did not live that long to tell his story or have his story analysed and there are just hints of a load of different motives. There is no onus to provide a motive other than it is believable that he had a motive.
Why don't you read the thread before posting?
I am not pretending to read anyones mind.
The question was posted and I posted two more questions.
True, I should read the thread more carefully, you do have a tendency to reply to a question by asking another question.
Quote from: Linkbox on November 11, 2013, 09:43:39 PM
I believe it was a shot fired from the SS car in the rear. Too many factors point to the fact Oswald didn't act alone. Different bullets (the third bullet took a sizeable chuck of his skull off while the other ones were 'cleaner'). The accuracy and control required to get three shots off in 5.92 seconds or what ever the allotted time was with a rickshaw bolt action rifle from WW2. Conflicting statements made by the SS afterwards. I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means but it doesn't add up for me at all.
Act alone in the actual firing of the shots?
It's possible there is some reasonable explanation for conflicting statements, as to why witnesses see, hear and remember different things in such an overtly traumatic event in USA modern history.
The magic bullet theory was presented by the Warren Commission, later it was ridiculed and later again it was proven to be actually within the realms of possibilities.The Kennedy head movement after being shot, was found to be within the realms of probability. It's also within the realms of possibilities to fire off 3 shots <6 seconds. Every conspiracy theory tends to lean heavily on one impossibility, the magic bullet, the head movement, the smoke on the grassy knoll, Oswald's perceived cool demeanour under pressure (by a gun wielding cop) when he left the building, but all fail to hold water.
I haven't finished watching the Australian detective's documentary on the accidental shot theory, but after 20 minutes I do note that he's trying to pad up his case with accounts of the security men carousing late into the night/early morning of the fateful day. That's a typical Aussie dastardly trick which use to be accepted in their courts as evidence, along with the infamous police verbal. Nevertheless I'll finish the rest of the documentary today, there are some interesting points.
If there was a huge conspiracy as is suggested in some quarters how come the likes of Woodward and Bernstein, who broke the relatively piddly Watergate scandal, or other brave journalist and editors not come to a conclusion that would have merited an expose?
No cover up can be that all encompassing.
Or can it? :-X
Bill Hicks did a very funny and accurate standup routine on JFK assassination. Back and to the left. Back and to the left...
Oswald, the man who was supposed to have killed the President of the most powerful country on the planet. He's taken out in cuffs, in front of the public, and conveniently shot. God, you couldn't make it up.
It is amazing the amount of people involved in the JFK thing, that was killed in car "accidents" or died suddenly. The magic bullet, that was a right laugh. Also, Kennedys body was diverted somewhere (can't recall the city) before being flown back to Washington. There was a pre-autopsy done to make sure his injuries matched what was supposed to have happened.
I could go on all day. As I said before, there's more chance that Fr Ted shot JFK than Oswald doing it.
Quote from: BennyCake on November 12, 2013, 11:34:18 AM
Bill Hicks did a very funny and accurate standup routine on JFK assassination. Back and to the left. Back and to the left...
Oswald, the man who was supposed to have killed the President of the most powerful country on the planet. He's taken out in cuffs, in front of the public, and conveniently shot. God, you couldn't make it up.
It is amazing the amount of people involved in the JFK thing, that was killed in car "accidents" or died suddenly. The magic bullet, that was a right laugh. Also, Kennedys body was diverted somewhere (can't recall the city) before being flown back to Washington. There was a pre-autopsy done to make sure his injuries matched what was supposed to have happened.
I could go on all day. As I said before, there's more chance that Fr Ted shot JFK than Oswald doing it.
The X-Files wasn't a documentary.
Ive lost it, I don't know which Benny is which ;D
Is there a bad Benny and another one less bad?
There's not one piece of conspiracy evidence which rules out that Oswald did it.
It's a United States thing. Most every president since Roosevelt has had an assassination attempt.
1 Successful assassinations
1.1 Abraham Lincoln
1.2 James A. Garfield
1.3 William McKinley
1.4 John F. Kennedy
2 Failed assassination attempts
2.1 Andrew Jackson
2.2 Abraham Lincoln
2.3 Theodore Roosevelt
2.4 Herbert Hoover
2.5 Franklin D. Roosevelt
2.6 Harry S Truman
2.7 John F. Kennedy
2.8 Richard Nixon
2.9 Gerald Ford
2.10 Jimmy Carter
2.11 Ronald Reagan
2.12 George H. W. Bush
2.13 Bill Clinton
2.14 George W. Bush
2.15 Barack Obama
3 Presidential deaths rumored to be assassinations
3.1 Zachary Taylor
3.2 Warren G. Harding
You can include President-elect, JFK Junior, in that assassination list. He wasn't shot, but he was as good as.
Quote from: BennyCake on November 12, 2013, 12:00:39 PM
You can include President-elect, JFK Junior, in that assassination list. He wasn't shot, but he was as good as.
Don't forget John Denver.
Buddy Holly.
I find it unlikely that Oswald acted alone. To get away that many shots as accurately in such a short space of time is some feat. Even elite marksmen would struggle to recover their aim after each shot when looking through a sight at a moving target.
He also seemingly waited until the cavalcade was moving away from him before shooting, turning down an earlier chance to shoot at Kennedy from the front as he was coming towards him. Assuming he was part of a hit squad, he was obviously under instructions to wait until Kennedy came into the range of a shooter from the front.
The conspiracy theories behind the motives are fairly wacky as this is a mini-industry. Goes to show there are 1001 reasons why a president will be disliked. Obama could potentially be bumped off by anti-Medicare loons.
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on November 12, 2013, 12:38:55 PM
I find it unlikely that Oswald acted alone. To get away that many shots as accurately in such a short space of time is some feat. Even elite marksmen would struggle to recover their aim after each shot when looking through a sight at a moving target.
He also seemingly waited until the cavalcade was moving away from him before shooting, turning down an earlier chance to shoot at Kennedy from the front as he was coming towards him. Assuming he was part of a hit squad, he was obviously under instructions to wait until Kennedy came into the range of a shooter from the front.
The conspiracy theories behind the motives are fairly wacky as this is a mini-industry. Goes to show there are 1001 reasons why a president will be disliked. Obama could potentially be bumped off by anti-Medicare loons.
Obviously??
Of course it was obvious once you swallow that assumption first, it's indisputable, you don't need to provide evidence ;D
Now about that assumption, is there anything to prove that? Not accepting the merits of the evidence that supports Oswald could have done it alone, is not proof in itself that your assumption holds any water.
Quote from: deiseach on November 12, 2013, 12:05:34 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 12, 2013, 12:00:39 PM
You can include President-elect, JFK Junior, in that assassination list. He wasn't shot, but he was as good as.
Don't forget John Denver.
Aye, I seen Elvis earlier down the chip shop too. He swore he was anyway.
The Zapruder film is all you need to see. Watch the video at 0:20, and still tell me it was Oswald...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU83R7rpXQY
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU83R7rpXQY)
Quote from: BennyCake on November 12, 2013, 02:54:20 PM
The Zapruder film is all you need to see. Watch the video at 0:20, and still tell me it was Oswald...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU83R7rpXQY
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU83R7rpXQY)
[sarky]Wow, I've never seen that before! How did I miss that? Now I'm convinced! [/sarky]
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on November 12, 2013, 09:58:59 AM
If there was a huge conspiracy as is suggested in some quarters how come the likes of Woodward and Bernstein, who broke the relatively piddly Watergate scandal, or other brave journalist and editors not come to a conclusion that would have merited an expose?
No cover up can be that all encompassing.
Or can it? :-X
Jimmy Saville kept everyone in fear until he died.
Great cover up. Why wouldn't a bigger secret be possible?
Quote from: seafoid on November 12, 2013, 04:24:16 PM
Jimmy Saville kept everyone in fear until he died.
Great cover up. Why wouldn't a bigger secret be possible?
Seeing as so many people seem to know all the details of the cover up, the conspirators are not doing a very good job. Then again, maybe that's the plan!
Quote from: BennyCake on November 12, 2013, 12:00:39 PM
You can include President-elect, JFK Junior, in that assassination list. He wasn't shot, but he was as good as.
Oh go on let's have this one.
Why was JFK's plane crash, not an actual plane crash?
Quote from: muppet on November 12, 2013, 05:26:28 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 12, 2013, 12:00:39 PM
You can include President-elect, JFK Junior, in that assassination list. He wasn't shot, but he was as good as.
Oh go on let's have this one.
Why was JFK's plane crash, not an actual plane crash?
The information about the crash is out there, if you care to look for it.
JFK Jr would have been a popular choice as President, and it's widely suggested he would have become President. He also said he would open a new enquiry into his fathers assassination, if elected. That would have been bad news for the Bush's, as GHW Bush was one of the main men involved in JFKs murder. And look who ended up as President, Bush junior.
Quote from: BennyCake on November 12, 2013, 06:08:32 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 12, 2013, 05:26:28 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 12, 2013, 12:00:39 PM
You can include President-elect, JFK Junior, in that assassination list. He wasn't shot, but he was as good as.
Oh go on let's have this one.
Why was JFK's plane crash, not an actual plane crash?
The information about the crash is out there, if you care to look for it.
JFK Jr would have been a popular choice as President, and it's widely suggested he would have become President. He also said he would open a new enquiry into his fathers assassination, if elected. That would have been bad news for the Bush's, as GHW Bush was one of the main men involved in JFKs murder. And look who ended up as President, Bush junior.
I know why he crashed.
But why DO YOU think he died?
Quote from: muppet on November 12, 2013, 06:53:57 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 12, 2013, 06:08:32 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 12, 2013, 05:26:28 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 12, 2013, 12:00:39 PM
You can include President-elect, JFK Junior, in that assassination list. He wasn't shot, but he was as good as.
Oh go on let's have this one.
Why was JFK's plane crash, not an actual plane crash?
The information about the crash is out there, if you care to look for it.
JFK Jr would have been a popular choice as President, and it's widely suggested he would have become President. He also said he would open a new enquiry into his fathers assassination, if elected. That would have been bad news for the Bush's, as GHW Bush was one of the main men involved in JFKs murder. And look who ended up as President, Bush junior.
I know why he crashed.
But why DO YOU think he died?
I just told you.
Quote from: BennyCake on November 12, 2013, 07:30:48 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 12, 2013, 06:53:57 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 12, 2013, 06:08:32 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 12, 2013, 05:26:28 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 12, 2013, 12:00:39 PM
You can include President-elect, JFK Junior, in that assassination list. He wasn't shot, but he was as good as.
Oh go on let's have this one.
Why was JFK's plane crash, not an actual plane crash?
The information about the crash is out there, if you care to look for it.
JFK Jr would have been a popular choice as President, and it's widely suggested he would have become President. He also said he would open a new enquiry into his fathers assassination, if elected. That would have been bad news for the Bush's, as GHW Bush was one of the main men involved in JFKs murder. And look who ended up as President, Bush junior.
I know why he crashed.
But why DO YOU think he died?
I just told you.
You didn't tell me anything.
Forget it so.
Is there an element to seeing all these conspiracies, the perception that the Kennedys were the good guys and there were bad guys out there to get them?
Quote from: Main Street on November 12, 2013, 09:09:49 PM
Is there an element to seeing all these conspiracies, the perception that the Kennedys were the good guys and there were bad guys out there to get them?
Oh the Kennedys were far from the good guys. They came from a lot of dirty money. Like all elected Presidents JFK had agendas and favours to sort out. These agendas probably rubbed a lot of influential people up the wrong way. Anyway, it does not matter who killed Kennedy. He was got rid of and his brother in turn was got rid of and his other brother in turn was framed. They were clearly the wrong side of the line for some people.
The driver of JFk's car in Dallas was William Greer from Stewartstown. Some tried to pin blame on him for not accelerating away after the first shot.
Quote from: BennyCake on November 12, 2013, 06:08:32 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 12, 2013, 05:26:28 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 12, 2013, 12:00:39 PM
You can include President-elect, JFK Junior, in that assassination list. He wasn't shot, but he was as good as.
Oh go on let's have this one.
Why was JFK's plane crash, not an actual plane crash?
The information about the crash is out there, if you care to look for it.
JFK Jr would have been a popular choice as President, and it's widely suggested he would have become President. He also said he would open a new enquiry into his fathers assassination, if elected. That would have been bad news for the Bush's, as GHW Bush was one of the main men involved in JFKs murder. And look who ended up as President, Bush junior.
I'm sure it can be 'suggested' that someone might look to run for the Presidency, but to suggest they would have been President is going a bit too far. Never heard that there was anything suspicious in his death either. But I'm sure that there are a few Jim Corr nutcases out there speculating some conspiracy on juniors death too.
Quote from: From the Bunker on November 12, 2013, 09:43:39 PM
Quote from: Main Street on November 12, 2013, 09:09:49 PM
Is there an element to seeing all these conspiracies, the perception that the Kennedys were the good guys and there were bad guys out there to get them?
Oh the Kennedys were far from the good guys. They came from a lot of dirty money. Like all elected Presidents JFK had agendas and favours to sort out. These agendas probably rubbed a lot of influential people up the wrong way. Anyway, it does not matter who killed Kennedy. He was got rid of and his brother in turn was got rid of and his other brother in turn was framed. They were clearly the wrong side of the line for some people.
Old Joe was well known as a scoundrel in the New Your stock markets where he made his money and later appointed to the SEC, a poacher turned gamekeeper type move.
We sometimes get misty eyed about these lads due to their Irish connections, but you've just got to look at the gobshites who've been in power in Ireland over the last 90 odd years to know there's a good chance there was a bit of skullduggery in these boys as well.
Quote from: nrico2006 on November 13, 2013, 08:18:30 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 12, 2013, 06:08:32 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 12, 2013, 05:26:28 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 12, 2013, 12:00:39 PM
You can include President-elect, JFK Junior, in that assassination list. He wasn't shot, but he was as good as.
Oh go on let's have this one.
Why was JFK's plane crash, not an actual plane crash?
The information about the crash is out there, if you care to look for it.
JFK Jr would have been a popular choice as President, and it's widely suggested he would have become President. He also said he would open a new enquiry into his fathers assassination, if elected. That would have been bad news for the Bush's, as GHW Bush was one of the main men involved in JFKs murder. And look who ended up as President, Bush junior.
I'm sure it can be 'suggested' that someone might look to run for the Presidency, but to suggest they would have been President is going a bit too far. Never heard that there was anything suspicious in his death either. But I'm sure that there are a few Jim Corr nutcases out there speculating some conspiracy on juniors death too.
It would hardly be reported on the mainstream media though, would it? All people heard was, ah those poor Kennedy's, they have had their fair share of tragedies, unlucky family etc etc.
Benny
What about the Kennedy who ran into a tree playing touch football or whatever and died.
Was the tree a plant? (boom tish)
Quote from: BennyCake on November 13, 2013, 01:00:59 PM
It would hardly be reported on the mainstream media though, would it? All people heard was, ah those poor Kennedy's, they have had their fair share of tragedies, unlucky family etc etc.
Is this the same mainstream media that never seems to have mentioned his widespread popularity or that he was planning to run for the Presidency?
Quote from: BennyCake on November 13, 2013, 01:00:59 PM
It would hardly be reported on the mainstream media though, would it? All people heard was, ah those poor Kennedy's, they have had their fair share of tragedies, unlucky family etc etc.
Cause of death: Murder
Evidence: Because the mainstream media said it was an accident.
Grade:
FMust try harder
Kennedy was killed basically so that others could A) move in, B) move forward and C) stay where they were Im not putting it out there as this information is correct. I have yet to hear the correct reason repeated mainstream why JFK was taken out.
Quote from: john mcgill on November 13, 2013, 06:35:26 AM
The driver of JFk's car in Dallas was William Greer from Stewartstown. Some tried to pin blame on him for not accelerating away after the first shot.
Tyronie's are well known for their dirty tricks. Not surprised.
There was a British Army camera on the grassy knoll but ran out of batteries before the first shot....
Quote from: deiseach on November 13, 2013, 01:11:18 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 13, 2013, 01:00:59 PM
It would hardly be reported on the mainstream media though, would it? All people heard was, ah those poor Kennedy's, they have had their fair share of tragedies, unlucky family etc etc.
Is this the same mainstream media that never seems to have mentioned his widespread popularity or that he was planning to run for the Presidency?
And the same mainstream media that are forever spouting about the potential conspiracy theories around his fathers death?
Some make the claim that the driver had a gun in his hand and when he turned around, he shot the president.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DguBcLpWBS0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DguBcLpWBS0)
Considering he's from Tyrone, that's enough to rule out this theory. Tyrone men can't shoot straight with the invisible gun.
Quote from: muppet on November 13, 2013, 01:13:25 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 13, 2013, 01:00:59 PM
It would hardly be reported on the mainstream media though, would it? All people heard was, ah those poor Kennedy's, they have had their fair share of tragedies, unlucky family etc etc.
Cause of death: Murder
Evidence: Because the mainstream media said it was an accident.
Grade: F
Must try harder
The mainstream media also stated that George W Bush won the US election in 2000, when in fact Al Gore won it. The same MM reported that WTC 7 collapsed BEFORE it actually did. The same MM reported Saudi hijackers killed themselves on 9/11, when most of them were found alive in Saudi Arabia.
I think you get the picture. Then again...
Quote from: BennyCake on November 13, 2013, 02:08:45 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 13, 2013, 01:13:25 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 13, 2013, 01:00:59 PM
It would hardly be reported on the mainstream media though, would it? All people heard was, ah those poor Kennedy's, they have had their fair share of tragedies, unlucky family etc etc.
Cause of death: Murder
Evidence: Because the mainstream media said it was an accident.
Grade: F
Must try harder
The mainstream media also stated that George W Bush won the US election in 2000, when in fact Al Gore won it. The same MM reported that WTC 7 collapsed BEFORE it actually did. The same MM reported Saudi hijackers killed themselves on 9/11, when most of them were found alive in Saudi Arabia.
I think you get the picture. Then again...
Any links?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=448509512760
Quote from: BennyCake on November 13, 2013, 02:08:45 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 13, 2013, 01:13:25 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 13, 2013, 01:00:59 PM
It would hardly be reported on the mainstream media though, would it? All people heard was, ah those poor Kennedy's, they have had their fair share of tragedies, unlucky family etc etc.
Cause of death: Murder
Evidence: Because the mainstream media said it was an accident.
Grade: F
Must try harder
The mainstream media also stated that George W Bush won the US election in 2000, when in fact Al Gore won it. The same MM reported that WTC 7 collapsed BEFORE it actually did. The same MM reported Saudi hijackers killed themselves on 9/11, when most of them were found alive in Saudi Arabia.
I think you get the picture. Then again...
Shhhhhh...... You are talking to the x-factor generation. Where anybody can be a star!
Quote from: BennyCake on November 13, 2013, 02:08:45 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 13, 2013, 01:13:25 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 13, 2013, 01:00:59 PM
It would hardly be reported on the mainstream media though, would it? All people heard was, ah those poor Kennedy's, they have had their fair share of tragedies, unlucky family etc etc.
Cause of death: Murder
Evidence: Because the mainstream media said it was an accident.
Grade: F
Must try harder
The mainstream media also stated that George W Bush won the US election in 2000, when in fact Al Gore won it. The same MM reported that WTC 7 collapsed BEFORE it actually did. The same MM reported Saudi hijackers killed themselves on 9/11, when most of them were found alive in Saudi Arabia.
I think you get the picture. Then again...
I do get the picture.
An
F was to generous.
Are you going to suggest what might have happened, or just stick to claim that what we were told didn't happen, because the media are big fat liars?
Do they not still have NG in schools these days?
When do the aliens come into it? We have to have aliens.
Quote from: deiseach on November 13, 2013, 04:30:22 PM
Do they not still have NG in schools these days?
I need to leave room for disimprovement.
Quote from: muppet on November 13, 2013, 04:26:52 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 13, 2013, 02:08:45 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 13, 2013, 01:13:25 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 13, 2013, 01:00:59 PM
It would hardly be reported on the mainstream media though, would it? All people heard was, ah those poor Kennedy's, they have had their fair share of tragedies, unlucky family etc etc.
Cause of death: Murder
Evidence: Because the mainstream media said it was an accident.
Grade: F
Must try harder
The mainstream media also stated that George W Bush won the US election in 2000, when in fact Al Gore won it. The same MM reported that WTC 7 collapsed BEFORE it actually did. The same MM reported Saudi hijackers killed themselves on 9/11, when most of them were found alive in Saudi Arabia.
I think you get the picture. Then again...
I do get the picture.
An F was to generous.
Are you going to suggest what might have happened, or just stick to claim that what we were told didn't happen, because the media are big fat liars?
Which bit are you referring to?
So that's it in a nutshell then as per Channel 5 tonight:
Oswald fired first shot, missed and hit road, ricochet hits Kennedy.
Oswald fires second shot, goes through JFK's back and into Gov. Connally.
Secret service agent, George Hickey, in backup car behind JFK car reaches for gun to return fire at Oswald, car jerks forward, he fires gun accidentally and delivers fatal shot to JFK's head.
Done deal and the cover up begins, a tragic accident. The angles add up to bullet entry to back of JFK's head. Hickey died in 2005, some story if true.
Here's how it happened ... http://youtu.be/bPEnSSnSoNc
Autopsies will show that all of the kennedys were killed by being slashed with a razor owned by a Mr. Occam, who for some reason is nowhere to be seen...
Quote from: balladmaker on November 14, 2013, 12:18:43 AM
So that's it in a nutshell then as per Channel 5 tonight:
Oswald fired first shot, missed and hit road, ricochet hits Kennedy.
Oswald fires second shot, goes through JFK's back and into Gov. Connally.
Secret service agent, George Hickey, in backup car behind JFK car reaches for gun to return fire at Oswald, car jerks forward, he fires gun accidentally and delivers fatal shot to JFK's head.
Done deal and the cover up begins, a tragic accident. The angles add up to bullet entry to back of JFK's head. Hickey died in 2005, some story if true.
Here's how it happened ... http://youtu.be/bPEnSSnSoNc
It just gets worse and worse, a trained agent shoots him from behind by accident and his head goes backwards? The autopsy would have shown bullets surely from this type of weapon?? I'd quicker believe the clown from the film IT did it from under the drains
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRTQMtOmGRlds-GBcscpo4tiBjOq8LYnpiaEss21ky-_VMozElmMA)
Quote from: balladmaker on November 14, 2013, 12:18:43 AM
So that's it in a nutshell then as per Channel 5 tonight:
Oswald fired first shot, missed and hit road, ricochet hits Kennedy.
Oswald fires second shot, goes through JFK's back and into Gov. Connally.
Secret service agent, George Hickey, in backup car behind JFK car reaches for gun to return fire at Oswald, car jerks forward, he fires gun accidentally and delivers fatal shot to JFK's head.
Done deal and the cover up begins, a tragic accident. The angles add up to bullet entry to back of JFK's head. Hickey died in 2005, some story if true.
Here's how it happened ... http://youtu.be/bPEnSSnSoNc
From over 200 witnesses, nobody saw or heard the phantom shot being fired from the smokeless gun.
Yet the theory is called "the smoking gun".
Quote from: Main Street on November 14, 2013, 09:10:25 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on November 14, 2013, 12:18:43 AM
So that's it in a nutshell then as per Channel 5 tonight:
Oswald fired first shot, missed and hit road, ricochet hits Kennedy.
Oswald fires second shot, goes through JFK's back and into Gov. Connally.
Secret service agent, George Hickey, in backup car behind JFK car reaches for gun to return fire at Oswald, car jerks forward, he fires gun accidentally and delivers fatal shot to JFK's head.
Done deal and the cover up begins, a tragic accident. The angles add up to bullet entry to back of JFK's head. Hickey died in 2005, some story if true.
Here's how it happened ... http://youtu.be/bPEnSSnSoNc
From over 200 witnesses, nobody saw or heard the phantom shot being fired from the smokeless gun.
Yet the theory is called "the smoking gun".
They had 7 or 8 witnesses that said they smelt gunpowder at street level after the shots. Which wouldn't have been from Oswald's gun. Plus a few saw a SS agent with a gun in hand. Including other SS agents.
*I used to think it was all pie in the sky stuff. But there's definitely a few things there that don't add up and conflict. Whether that's enough to jump to the conpiracy theory is another matter.
If shots were fired, surely it would be normal for a SS man to have a gun in his hand. The first thing they do after shots fired is to draw their own weapon.
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 14, 2013, 09:36:59 AM
If shots were fired, surely it would be normal for a SS man to have a gun in his hand. The first thing they do after shots fired is to draw their own weapon.
But it wouldn't explain the smell of gun powder. The SS claim that there was no shots fired at street level. Then the head SS boyo claimed that there was no automatic weapon in the vehicle. Which conflicted with statements from some of the SS agents in the vehicle.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 14, 2013, 09:29:25 AM
They had 7 or 8 witnesses that said they smelt gunpowder at street level after the shots. Which wouldn't have been from Oswald's gun. Plus a few saw a SS agent with a gun in hand. Including other SS agents.
*I used to think it was all pie in the sky stuff. But there's definitely a few things there that don't add up and conflict. Whether that's enough to jump to the conpiracy theory is another matter.
A witness told the Warren Commission that he got the whiff of gunpowder (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/smell.htm) - two minutes after the shooting, 100 yards away from the scene, with the wind blowing in a different direction. In short, eyewitness testimony should be treated with extreme caution.
There were witnesses in the car 3 back from JFK's vehicle that claimed they smelt it as well. Plus witnesses that were along the street.
I'd agree eye witness reports are dodgy. But when read in conjunction with other conflicting reports it makes interesting reading and raises questions.
The SS agent, (Hickey) that raised the gun, claimed that he raised the gun, cocked and loaded the chamber. Where as other SS agents refute this saying that the gun was already cocked and loaded and ready to go, but with the safety on as per protocol.
Then you have the head SS boyo (Can't remember his name) claiming first that there was no automatic weapon in the vehicle at the time, and then changing to say that the SS changed some protocol from that date, (Can't remember if it was to not have an automatic weapon in the vehicle or whether it was that the gun would not be ready to go). Just sounded very suss.
Quote from: BennyCake on November 13, 2013, 11:09:19 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 13, 2013, 04:26:52 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 13, 2013, 02:08:45 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 13, 2013, 01:13:25 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 13, 2013, 01:00:59 PM
It would hardly be reported on the mainstream media though, would it? All people heard was, ah those poor Kennedy's, they have had their fair share of tragedies, unlucky family etc etc.
Cause of death: Murder
Evidence: Because the mainstream media said it was an accident.
Grade: F
Must try harder
The mainstream media also stated that George W Bush won the US election in 2000, when in fact Al Gore won it. The same MM reported that WTC 7 collapsed BEFORE it actually did. The same MM reported Saudi hijackers killed themselves on 9/11, when most of them were found alive in Saudi Arabia.
I think you get the picture. Then again...
I do get the picture.
An F was to generous.
Are you going to suggest what might have happened, or just stick to claim that what we were told didn't happen, because the media are big fat liars?
Which bit are you referring to?
JFK Junior.
The media said he crashed and died and you say the media are liars.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 14, 2013, 09:29:25 AM
Quote from: Main Street on November 14, 2013, 09:10:25 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on November 14, 2013, 12:18:43 AM
So that's it in a nutshell then as per Channel 5 tonight:
Oswald fired first shot, missed and hit road, ricochet hits Kennedy.
Oswald fires second shot, goes through JFK's back and into Gov. Connally.
Secret service agent, George Hickey, in backup car behind JFK car reaches for gun to return fire at Oswald, car jerks forward, he fires gun accidentally and delivers fatal shot to JFK's head.
Done deal and the cover up begins, a tragic accident. The angles add up to bullet entry to back of JFK's head. Hickey died in 2005, some story if true.
Here's how it happened ... http://youtu.be/bPEnSSnSoNc
From over 200 witnesses, nobody saw or heard the phantom shot being fired from the smokeless gun.
Yet the theory is called "the smoking gun".
They had 7 or 8 witnesses that said they smelt gunpowder at street level after the shots. Which wouldn't have been from Oswald's gun. Plus a few saw a SS agent with a gun in hand. Including other SS agents.
*I used to think it was all pie in the sky stuff. But there's definitely a few things there that don't add up and conflict. Whether that's enough to jump to the conpiracy theory is another matter.
I'd say most people people come into this event thinking just how did they manage to stitch up Oswald and then gradually move over to accepting the evidence that he acted alone on the day, as being the most plausible, to the point where they become reformed JFK conspiracy theorists, pouring ice cold water on what they use think had some merit.
BTW, some smelt powder, some saw smoke, but there is little to connect that evidence to the agent's gun supposedly firing a shot, which nobody witnessed or even pointed in the general direction that it was a possibility that the gunshot noise was from the agent's car.
As theories go, it's interesting re the possibility and the ballistics but falls totally flat with corroboration after that.
Quote from: muppet on November 14, 2013, 11:03:13 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 13, 2013, 11:09:19 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 13, 2013, 04:26:52 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 13, 2013, 02:08:45 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 13, 2013, 01:13:25 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 13, 2013, 01:00:59 PM
It would hardly be reported on the mainstream media though, would it? All people heard was, ah those poor Kennedy's, they have had their fair share of tragedies, unlucky family etc etc.
Cause of death: Murder
Evidence: Because the mainstream media said it was an accident.
Grade: F
Must try harder
The mainstream media also stated that George W Bush won the US election in 2000, when in fact Al Gore won it. The same MM reported that WTC 7 collapsed BEFORE it actually did. The same MM reported Saudi hijackers killed themselves on 9/11, when most of them were found alive in Saudi Arabia.
I think you get the picture. Then again...
I do get the picture.
An F was to generous.
Are you going to suggest what might have happened, or just stick to claim that what we were told didn't happen, because the media are big fat liars?
Which bit are you referring to?
JFK Junior.
The media said he crashed and died and you say the media are liars.
They spun stories like JFK Jr was an inexperienced pilot, he was reckless etc. He was very experienced and confident pilot. The plane nose-dived suddenly, and the fuel was switched off. A brainwashed co-pilot was the cause. The search team were deliberately sent in the wrong direction, so that even if they did survive the crash, the freezing temperatures would certainly finish them off.
Of course the evidence of this co-pilot was got rid of to make it look like it was JFK Jr's recklessness/inexperience that caused the crash. The plane contacted air traffic control updating them a few times, but of course this was denied. George W Bush went missing the day of the crash for 3 days. He had no alibi, and has never been questioned as to where he was. Obviously he was overseeing the whole thing.
Regardless of all that, the main thing was that JFK Jr had to be taken out. He was outspoken about his fathers murder, and wanted to bring those responsible to justice, one of them being Bush senior. He would have run for president, and as he was a charismatic, good looking guy, and a Kennedy, he would have been a popular choice. But hes taken out, and any hope of an investigation into JFK's assassination dies with him. And who ends up as president a short time later? Bush junior.
Quote from: Main Street on November 14, 2013, 12:57:45 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 14, 2013, 09:29:25 AM
Quote from: Main Street on November 14, 2013, 09:10:25 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on November 14, 2013, 12:18:43 AM
So that's it in a nutshell then as per Channel 5 tonight:
Oswald fired first shot, missed and hit road, ricochet hits Kennedy.
Oswald fires second shot, goes through JFK's back and into Gov. Connally.
Secret service agent, George Hickey, in backup car behind JFK car reaches for gun to return fire at Oswald, car jerks forward, he fires gun accidentally and delivers fatal shot to JFK's head.
Done deal and the cover up begins, a tragic accident. The angles add up to bullet entry to back of JFK's head. Hickey died in 2005, some story if true.
Here's how it happened ... http://youtu.be/bPEnSSnSoNc
From over 200 witnesses, nobody saw or heard the phantom shot being fired from the smokeless gun.
Yet the theory is called "the smoking gun".
They had 7 or 8 witnesses that said they smelt gunpowder at street level after the shots. Which wouldn't have been from Oswald's gun. Plus a few saw a SS agent with a gun in hand. Including other SS agents.
*I used to think it was all pie in the sky stuff. But there's definitely a few things there that don't add up and conflict. Whether that's enough to jump to the conpiracy theory is another matter.
I'd say most people people come into this event thinking just how did they manage to stitch up Oswald and then gradually move over to accepting the evidence that he acted alone on the day, as being the most plausible, to the point where they become reformed JFK conspiracy theorists, pouring ice cold water on what they use think had some merit.
BTW, some smelt powder, some saw smoke, but there is little to connect that evidence to the agent's gun supposedly firing a shot, which nobody witnessed or even pointed in the general direction that it was a possibility that the gunshot noise was from the agent's car.
As theories go, it's interesting re the possibility and the ballistics but falls totally flat with corroboration after that.
I'm actually nearly the opposite :) I used to laugh at the conpiracy theorists, thinking that it was just nonsense, that it couldn't possibily have happened. Now, I'm not quite in the "Had to be a conspiracy" camp yet, but there's enough small questions there to make me wonder.
Quote from: BennyCake on November 14, 2013, 01:17:26 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 14, 2013, 11:03:13 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 13, 2013, 11:09:19 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 13, 2013, 04:26:52 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 13, 2013, 02:08:45 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 13, 2013, 01:13:25 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 13, 2013, 01:00:59 PM
It would hardly be reported on the mainstream media though, would it? All people heard was, ah those poor Kennedy's, they have had their fair share of tragedies, unlucky family etc etc.
Cause of death: Murder
Evidence: Because the mainstream media said it was an accident.
Grade: F
Must try harder
The mainstream media also stated that George W Bush won the US election in 2000, when in fact Al Gore won it. The same MM reported that WTC 7 collapsed BEFORE it actually did. The same MM reported Saudi hijackers killed themselves on 9/11, when most of them were found alive in Saudi Arabia.
I think you get the picture. Then again...
I do get the picture.
An F was to generous.
Are you going to suggest what might have happened, or just stick to claim that what we were told didn't happen, because the media are big fat liars?
Which bit are you referring to?
JFK Junior.
The media said he crashed and died and you say the media are liars.
They spun stories like JFK Jr was an inexperienced pilot, he was reckless etc. He was very experienced and confident pilot. The plane nose-dived suddenly, and the fuel was switched off. A brainwashed co-pilot was the cause. The search team were deliberately sent in the wrong direction, so that even if they did survive the crash, the freezing temperatures would certainly finish them off.
Of course the evidence of this co-pilot was got rid of to make it look like it was JFK Jr's recklessness/inexperience that caused the crash. The plane contacted air traffic control updating them a few times, but of course this was denied. George W Bush went missing the day of the crash for 3 days. He had no alibi, and has never been questioned as to where he was. Obviously he was overseeing the whole thing.
Regardless of all that, the main thing was that JFK Jr had to be taken out. He was outspoken about his fathers murder, and wanted to bring those responsible to justice, one of them being Bush senior. He would have run for president, and as he was a charismatic, good looking guy, and a Kennedy, he would have been a popular choice. But hes taken out, and any hope of an investigation into JFK's assassination dies with him. And who ends up as president a short time later? Bush junior.
Are you for real?
The idea that JFK Jr was interested in becoming President, capable of being President, or likely to be elected President, is utterly laughable.
Yeah, they don't do dynasties like that in Americ.... oh, wait.
Quote from: deiseach on November 14, 2013, 01:32:44 PM
The idea that JFK Jr was interested in becoming President, capable of being President, or likely to be elected President, is utterly laughable.
The fact that idiot Bush actually was President, is even more laughable. But yes, part of what you say is true, because they made sure that he wouldn't get to the point where he would run for president.
Nrico, nah I'm just having a laugh.
Quote from: BennyCake on November 14, 2013, 01:17:26 PM
They spun stories like JFK Jr was an inexperienced pilot, he was reckless etc. He was very experienced and confident pilot. The plane nose-dived suddenly, and the fuel was switched off. A brainwashed co-pilot was the cause. The search team were deliberately sent in the wrong direction, so that even if they did survive the crash, the freezing temperatures would certainly finish them off.
Of course the evidence of this co-pilot was got rid of to make it look like it was JFK Jr's recklessness/inexperience that caused the crash. The plane contacted air traffic control updating them a few times, but of course this was denied. George W Bush went missing the day of the crash for 3 days. He had no alibi, and has never been questioned as to where he was. Obviously he was overseeing the whole thing.
1. JFK Junior's log book stated that he had 220 hours as of the end of 1998. He died the following July. He was a complete novice as a pilot.
2. He didn't have an Instrument Rating which meant he could only legally fly when the weather was particularly good. This isn't usually a problem in the States, however many inexperienced pilots overestimate themselves and underestimate the weather.
3. There was no co-pilot, the aircraft only had JFK Jr, his wife and her sister on board. The Saratoga he owned was designed for single pilot operation.
4. Please stop now.
Quote from: muppet on November 14, 2013, 02:17:46 PM
4. Please stop now.
I'm going to follow this particular piece of advise (until I choose not to).
Quote from: muppet on November 14, 2013, 02:17:46 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 14, 2013, 01:17:26 PM
They spun stories like JFK Jr was an inexperienced pilot, he was reckless etc. He was very experienced and confident pilot. The plane nose-dived suddenly, and the fuel was switched off. A brainwashed co-pilot was the cause. The search team were deliberately sent in the wrong direction, so that even if they did survive the crash, the freezing temperatures would certainly finish them off.
Of course the evidence of this co-pilot was got rid of to make it look like it was JFK Jr's recklessness/inexperience that caused the crash. The plane contacted air traffic control updating them a few times, but of course this was denied. George W Bush went missing the day of the crash for 3 days. He had no alibi, and has never been questioned as to where he was. Obviously he was overseeing the whole thing.
1. JFK Junior's log book stated that he had 220 hours as of the end of 1998. He died the following July. He was a complete novice as a pilot.
2. He didn't have an Instrument Rating which meant he could only legally fly when the weather was particularly good. This isn't usually a problem in the States, however many inexperienced pilots overestimate themselves and underestimate the weather.
3. There was no co-pilot, the aircraft only had JFK Jr, his wife and her sister on board. The Saratoga he owned was designed for single pilot operation.
4. Please stop now.
Ah Muppet! I was enjoying the story. I'm still expecting the clincher argument: "How do you know all this?". "Uri Geller told me."
Quote from: muppet on November 14, 2013, 02:17:46 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 14, 2013, 01:17:26 PM
They spun stories like JFK Jr was an inexperienced pilot, he was reckless etc. He was very experienced and confident pilot. The plane nose-dived suddenly, and the fuel was switched off. A brainwashed co-pilot was the cause. The search team were deliberately sent in the wrong direction, so that even if they did survive the crash, the freezing temperatures would certainly finish them off.
Of course the evidence of this co-pilot was got rid of to make it look like it was JFK Jr's recklessness/inexperience that caused the crash. The plane contacted air traffic control updating them a few times, but of course this was denied. George W Bush went missing the day of the crash for 3 days. He had no alibi, and has never been questioned as to where he was. Obviously he was overseeing the whole thing.
1. JFK Junior's log book stated that he had 220 hours as of the end of 1998. He died the following July. He was a complete novice as a pilot.
2. He didn't have an Instrument Rating which meant he could only legally fly when the weather was particularly good. This isn't usually a problem in the States, however many inexperienced pilots overestimate themselves and underestimate the weather.
3. There was no co-pilot, the aircraft only had JFK Jr, his wife and her sister on board. The Saratoga he owned was designed for single pilot operation.
4. Please stop now.
Isn't Wikipedia great? ::)
He was very experienced, and almost good enough to be an instructor himself. And he never flew at night without an instructor. The way the plane plunged into the sea was similar to a suicide pilot.
The planes locator device was turned off, and logbook missing. Also, the battery for the black box was removed so conveniently, all cockpit conversations were unavailable. 13 or 14 hours before a search team was despatched. Yes, it was all just a terrible accident ::)
Quote from: BennyCake on November 14, 2013, 05:46:42 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 14, 2013, 02:17:46 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 14, 2013, 01:17:26 PM
They spun stories like JFK Jr was an inexperienced pilot, he was reckless etc. He was very experienced and confident pilot. The plane nose-dived suddenly, and the fuel was switched off. A brainwashed co-pilot was the cause. The search team were deliberately sent in the wrong direction, so that even if they did survive the crash, the freezing temperatures would certainly finish them off.
Of course the evidence of this co-pilot was got rid of to make it look like it was JFK Jr's recklessness/inexperience that caused the crash. The plane contacted air traffic control updating them a few times, but of course this was denied. George W Bush went missing the day of the crash for 3 days. He had no alibi, and has never been questioned as to where he was. Obviously he was overseeing the whole thing.
1. JFK Junior's log book stated that he had 220 hours as of the end of 1998. He died the following July. He was a complete novice as a pilot.
2. He didn't have an Instrument Rating which meant he could only legally fly when the weather was particularly good. This isn't usually a problem in the States, however many inexperienced pilots overestimate themselves and underestimate the weather.
3. There was no co-pilot, the aircraft only had JFK Jr, his wife and her sister on board. The Saratoga he owned was designed for single pilot operation.
4. Please stop now.
Isn't Wikipedia great? ::)
He was very experienced, and almost good enough to be an instructor himself. And he never flew at night without an instructor. The way the plane plunged into the sea was similar to a suicide pilot.
The planes locator device was turned off, and logbook missing. Also, the battery for the black box was removed so conveniently, all cockpit conversations were unavailable. 13 or 14 hours before a search team was despatched. Yes, it was all just a terrible accident ::)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Instructors of small aircraft are, in the main, building their hours and experience until they get a job on the next rung up the ladder. That is usually as a co-pilot on some small transport category aircraft in the States but can be a jet elsewhere. But they are all usually very inexperienced. Being an instructor at that level is not as grand as you seem to think it is.
"And he never flew at night without an instructor. " - Except of course the night he died.
http://www.airsafe.com/events/celebs/jfk_jr.htm (http://www.airsafe.com/events/celebs/jfk_jr.htm)
Just read the above.
Either it is all made up in which case how do you know he is actually dead?
Or it is a clear case of a novice flying at night, over water, with no clear horizon and becoming disorientated. In that scenario the sky and the water blur and it is difficult to fly level as you don't know where to point the aircraft. Pilots with an instrument rating don't need to look out, but as I said he wasn't sufficiently qualified for that.
The different radar returns showing him climbing and descending and not maintaining an altitude are consistent with that finding.
Quote from: BennyCake on November 14, 2013, 01:17:26 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 14, 2013, 11:03:13 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 13, 2013, 11:09:19 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 13, 2013, 04:26:52 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 13, 2013, 02:08:45 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 13, 2013, 01:13:25 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 13, 2013, 01:00:59 PM
It would hardly be reported on the mainstream media though, would it? All people heard was, ah those poor Kennedy's, they have had their fair share of tragedies, unlucky family etc etc.
Cause of death: Murder
Evidence: Because the mainstream media said it was an accident.
Grade: F
Must try harder
The mainstream media also stated that George W Bush won the US election in 2000, when in fact Al Gore won it. The same MM reported that WTC 7 collapsed BEFORE it actually did. The same MM reported Saudi hijackers killed themselves on 9/11, when most of them were found alive in Saudi Arabia.
I think you get the picture. Then again...
I do get the picture.
An F was to generous.
Are you going to suggest what might have happened, or just stick to claim that what we were told didn't happen, because the media are big fat liars?
Which bit are you referring to?
JFK Junior.
The media said he crashed and died and you say the media are liars.
They spun stories like JFK Jr was an inexperienced pilot, he was reckless etc. He was very experienced and confident pilot. The plane nose-dived suddenly, and the fuel was switched off. A brainwashed co-pilot was the cause. The search team were deliberately sent in the wrong direction, so that even if they did survive the crash, the freezing temperatures would certainly finish them off.
Of course the evidence of this co-pilot was got rid of to make it look like it was JFK Jr's recklessness/inexperience that caused the crash. The plane contacted air traffic control updating them a few times, but of course this was denied. George W Bush went missing the day of the crash for 3 days. He had no alibi, and has never been questioned as to where he was. Obviously he was overseeing the whole thing.
Regardless of all that, the main thing was that JFK Jr had to be taken out. He was outspoken about his fathers murder, and wanted to bring those responsible to justice, one of them being Bush senior. He would have run for president, and as he was a charismatic, good looking guy, and a Kennedy, he would have been a popular choice. But hes taken out, and any hope of an investigation into JFK's assassination dies with him. And who ends up as president a short time later? Bush junior.
Are there any conspiracy theories you do NOT subscribe too? ;D
Quote from: J70 on November 14, 2013, 06:44:28 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 14, 2013, 01:17:26 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 14, 2013, 11:03:13 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 13, 2013, 11:09:19 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 13, 2013, 04:26:52 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 13, 2013, 02:08:45 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 13, 2013, 01:13:25 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 13, 2013, 01:00:59 PM
It would hardly be reported on the mainstream media though, would it? All people heard was, ah those poor Kennedy's, they have had their fair share of tragedies, unlucky family etc etc.
Cause of death: Murder
Evidence: Because the mainstream media said it was an accident.
Grade: F
Must try harder
The mainstream media also stated that George W Bush won the US election in 2000, when in fact Al Gore won it. The same MM reported that WTC 7 collapsed BEFORE it actually did. The same MM reported Saudi hijackers killed themselves on 9/11, when most of them were found alive in Saudi Arabia.
I think you get the picture. Then again...
I do get the picture.
An F was to generous.
Are you going to suggest what might have happened, or just stick to claim that what we were told didn't happen, because the media are big fat liars?
Which bit are you referring to?
JFK Junior.
The media said he crashed and died and you say the media are liars.
They spun stories like JFK Jr was an inexperienced pilot, he was reckless etc. He was very experienced and confident pilot. The plane nose-dived suddenly, and the fuel was switched off. A brainwashed co-pilot was the cause. The search team were deliberately sent in the wrong direction, so that even if they did survive the crash, the freezing temperatures would certainly finish them off.
Of course the evidence of this co-pilot was got rid of to make it look like it was JFK Jr's recklessness/inexperience that caused the crash. The plane contacted air traffic control updating them a few times, but of course this was denied. George W Bush went missing the day of the crash for 3 days. He had no alibi, and has never been questioned as to where he was. Obviously he was overseeing the whole thing.
Regardless of all that, the main thing was that JFK Jr had to be taken out. He was outspoken about his fathers murder, and wanted to bring those responsible to justice, one of them being Bush senior. He would have run for president, and as he was a charismatic, good looking guy, and a Kennedy, he would have been a popular choice. But hes taken out, and any hope of an investigation into JFK's assassination dies with him. And who ends up as president a short time later? Bush junior.
Are there any conspiracy theories you do NOT subscribe too? ;D
(http://rlv.zcache.com/just_because_youre_paranoid_doesnt_mean_they_tshirt-r583e9c5004844d4cba9d252d8dd32411_va6lr_512.jpg)
Quote from: J70 on November 14, 2013, 06:44:28 PM
Are there any conspiracy theories you do NOT subscribe too? ;D
The reason there are so many "conspiracy theories", as you call them, is because there are many people who have used their brains, and know that certain things do not add up. But of course, anyone who goes against the grain, and doesn't believe everything that the media/government spoonfeed to them, is considered a nutcase.
The thing is, for those living in the North, they have seen many "conspiracies" throughout the troubles, and still continue to. Was the shooting of Aidan McAnespie not a "conspiracy theory", or did the rifle just happen to go off while the soldier was cleaning it, like official reports said? Do any of you believe it was an accident? I'd say there'd be very very few who do. What about Majella O'Hare? A young girl out for a walk. Do any of you believe the crap on that report? Finucane? Nelson? Was there not collusion going on with each of those, or are we all just nutcases for thinking there was more to it than we were told? Sure, the British government wouldn't lie, would they?
I would have thought people in this part of the world would be, moreso, open to the possibilities that things like JFK, 9/11 etc didn't happen like they say it did, as they've seen lies, propaganda all around them for decades. I still see lies and propaganda being spun all the time; the media constantly hyping up the threat from dissidents, digging up anything they can on Sinn Fein etc to serve the current political agenda. They might not be as big as 9/11, JFK etc, but they still continue before our very eyes, and some people still swallow every word of it, without even giving it a second thought.
So, to answer your question. I don't subscribe to all "conspiracy theories", but I'm open to the possibility of foul play where things don't add up. It's not too far-fetched to think that "conspiracy theories" might actually be more truthful than the official story, considering the lies been spun by the mainstream media/British/US governments in the past.
QuoteAre there any conspiracy theories you do NOT subscribe too?
The reason there are so many "conspiracy theories", as you call them, is because there are many people who have used their brains, and know that certain things do not add up. But of course, anyone who goes against the grain, and doesn't believe everything that the media/government spoonfeed to them, is considered a nutcase.
The thing is, for those living in the North, they have seen many "conspiracies" throughout the troubles, and still continue to. Was the shooting of Aidan McAnespie not a "conspiracy theory", or did the rifle just happen to go off while the soldier was cleaning it, like official reports said? Do any of you believe it was an accident? I'd say there'd be very very few who do. What about Majella O'Hare? A young girl out for a walk. Do any of you believe the crap on that report? Finucane? Nelson? Was there not collusion going on with each of those, or are we all just nutcases for thinking there was more to it than we were told? Sure, the British government wouldn't lie, would they?
I would have thought people in this part of the world would be, moreso, open to the possibilities that things like JFK, 9/11 etc didn't happen like they say it did, as they've seen lies, propaganda all around them for decades. I still see lies and propaganda being spun all the time; the media constantly hyping up the threat from dissidents, digging up anything they can on Sinn Fein etc to serve the current political agenda. They might not be as big as 9/11, JFK etc, but they still continue before our very eyes, and some people still swallow every word of it, without even giving it a second thought.
So, to answer your question. I don't subscribe to all "conspiracy theories", but I'm open to the possibility of foul play where things don't add up. It's not too far-fetched to think that "conspiracy theories" might actually be more truthful than the official story, considering the lies been spun by the mainstream media/British/US governments in the past.
+1
Quote from: BennyCake on November 15, 2013, 12:21:26 PM
Quote from: J70 on November 14, 2013, 06:44:28 PM
Are there any conspiracy theories you do NOT subscribe too? ;D
The reason there are so many "conspiracy theories", as you call them, is because there are many people who have used their brains, and know that certain things do not add up. But of course, anyone who goes against the grain, and doesn't believe everything that the media/government spoonfeed to them, is considered a nutcase.
The thing is, for those living in the North, they have seen many "conspiracies" throughout the troubles, and still continue to. Was the shooting of Aidan McAnespie not a "conspiracy theory", or did the rifle just happen to go off while the soldier was cleaning it, like official reports said? Do any of you believe it was an accident? I'd say there'd be very very few who do. What about Majella O'Hare? A young girl out for a walk. Do any of you believe the crap on that report? Finucane? Nelson? Was there not collusion going on with each of those, or are we all just nutcases for thinking there was more to it than we were told? Sure, the British government wouldn't lie, would they?
I would have thought people in this part of the world would be, moreso, open to the possibilities that things like JFK, 9/11 etc didn't happen like they say it did, as they've seen lies, propaganda all around them for decades. I still see lies and propaganda being spun all the time; the media constantly hyping up the threat from dissidents, digging up anything they can on Sinn Fein etc to serve the current political agenda. They might not be as big as 9/11, JFK etc, but they still continue before our very eyes, and some people still swallow every word of it, without even giving it a second thought.
So, to answer your question. I don't subscribe to all "conspiracy theories", but I'm open to the possibility of foul play where things don't add up. It's not too far-fetched to think that "conspiracy theories" might actually be more truthful than the official story, considering the lies been spun by the mainstream media/British/US governments in the past.
You've been an advocate of just about every conspiracy theory there is on this board at some point (am I mistaken in that you even mentioned the "fake" moon landing on this thread?). No one is saying that cover-ups/dirty tricks don't occur - to do so would obviously be absurd. But you have to posit some kind of real and serious reasons for siding with a conspiracy theory, as you continually do, otherwise you're just a crank (amusing and all as that might be to others, assuming you're serious). Throwing out some half-baked bollocks about volcanic eruptions being a much more significant cause of climate change than man-made causes, as you've done here in the past, is not very good for your credibility. Same with the 9/11 stuff and so on and on.
Quote from: J70 on November 15, 2013, 08:01:35 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 15, 2013, 12:21:26 PM
Quote from: J70 on November 14, 2013, 06:44:28 PM
Are there any conspiracy theories you do NOT subscribe too? ;D
The reason there are so many "conspiracy theories", as you call them, is because there are many people who have used their brains, and know that certain things do not add up. But of course, anyone who goes against the grain, and doesn't believe everything that the media/government spoonfeed to them, is considered a nutcase.
The thing is, for those living in the North, they have seen many "conspiracies" throughout the troubles, and still continue to. Was the shooting of Aidan McAnespie not a "conspiracy theory", or did the rifle just happen to go off while the soldier was cleaning it, like official reports said? Do any of you believe it was an accident? I'd say there'd be very very few who do. What about Majella O'Hare? A young girl out for a walk. Do any of you believe the crap on that report? Finucane? Nelson? Was there not collusion going on with each of those, or are we all just nutcases for thinking there was more to it than we were told? Sure, the British government wouldn't lie, would they?
I would have thought people in this part of the world would be, moreso, open to the possibilities that things like JFK, 9/11 etc didn't happen like they say it did, as they've seen lies, propaganda all around them for decades. I still see lies and propaganda being spun all the time; the media constantly hyping up the threat from dissidents, digging up anything they can on Sinn Fein etc to serve the current political agenda. They might not be as big as 9/11, JFK etc, but they still continue before our very eyes, and some people still swallow every word of it, without even giving it a second thought.
So, to answer your question. I don't subscribe to all "conspiracy theories", but I'm open to the possibility of foul play where things don't add up. It's not too far-fetched to think that "conspiracy theories" might actually be more truthful than the official story, considering the lies been spun by the mainstream media/British/US governments in the past.
You've been an advocate of just about every conspiracy theory there is on this board at some point (am I mistaken in that you even mentioned the "fake" moon landing on this thread?). No one is saying that cover-ups/dirty tricks don't occur - to do so would obviously be absurd. But you have to posit some kind of real and serious reasons for siding with a conspiracy theory, as you continually do, otherwise you're just a crank (amusing and all as that might be to others, assuming you're serious). Throwing out some half-baked bollocks about volcanic eruptions being a much more significant cause of climate change than man-made causes, as you've done here in the past, is not very good for your credibility. Same with the 9/11 stuff and so on and on.
That only a few conspiracies you've mentioned. It's hardly every conspiracy out there.
I'm not here for credibility. If I have an opinion I'll say it.
Speaking of credibility, it doesn't do much for some people's if they still believe in "half baked" ideas like Oswald shot Kennedy, or Bin Laden masterminded 9/11 etc. But that's just my opinion.
Quote from: BennyCake on November 15, 2013, 08:17:34 PM
Quote from: J70 on November 15, 2013, 08:01:35 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 15, 2013, 12:21:26 PM
Quote from: J70 on November 14, 2013, 06:44:28 PM
Are there any conspiracy theories you do NOT subscribe too? ;D
The reason there are so many "conspiracy theories", as you call them, is because there are many people who have used their brains, and know that certain things do not add up. But of course, anyone who goes against the grain, and doesn't believe everything that the media/government spoonfeed to them, is considered a nutcase.
The thing is, for those living in the North, they have seen many "conspiracies" throughout the troubles, and still continue to. Was the shooting of Aidan McAnespie not a "conspiracy theory", or did the rifle just happen to go off while the soldier was cleaning it, like official reports said? Do any of you believe it was an accident? I'd say there'd be very very few who do. What about Majella O'Hare? A young girl out for a walk. Do any of you believe the crap on that report? Finucane? Nelson? Was there not collusion going on with each of those, or are we all just nutcases for thinking there was more to it than we were told? Sure, the British government wouldn't lie, would they?
I would have thought people in this part of the world would be, moreso, open to the possibilities that things like JFK, 9/11 etc didn't happen like they say it did, as they've seen lies, propaganda all around them for decades. I still see lies and propaganda being spun all the time; the media constantly hyping up the threat from dissidents, digging up anything they can on Sinn Fein etc to serve the current political agenda. They might not be as big as 9/11, JFK etc, but they still continue before our very eyes, and some people still swallow every word of it, without even giving it a second thought.
So, to answer your question. I don't subscribe to all "conspiracy theories", but I'm open to the possibility of foul play where things don't add up. It's not too far-fetched to think that "conspiracy theories" might actually be more truthful than the official story, considering the lies been spun by the mainstream media/British/US governments in the past.
You've been an advocate of just about every conspiracy theory there is on this board at some point (am I mistaken in that you even mentioned the "fake" moon landing on this thread?). No one is saying that cover-ups/dirty tricks don't occur - to do so would obviously be absurd. But you have to posit some kind of real and serious reasons for siding with a conspiracy theory, as you continually do, otherwise you're just a crank (amusing and all as that might be to others, assuming you're serious). Throwing out some half-baked bollocks about volcanic eruptions being a much more significant cause of climate change than man-made causes, as you've done here in the past, is not very good for your credibility. Same with the 9/11 stuff and so on and on.
That only a few conspiracies you've mentioned. It's hardly every conspiracy out there.
I'm not here for credibility. If I have an opinion I'll say it.
Speaking of credibility, it doesn't do much for some people's if they still believe in "half baked" ideas like Oswald shot Kennedy, or Bin Laden masterminded 9/11 etc. But that's just my opinion.
I'm not going to go back and search for every conspiracy theory discussed here to see where you stand. But its a safe bet to predict which side you will come down on any given "controversy".
I'll give anyone a pass on JFK given that a cottage industry of speculation and bullshit has built up around his assassination. 9/11, not so much.
Quote from: J70 on November 16, 2013, 01:01:27 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 15, 2013, 08:17:34 PM
Quote from: J70 on November 15, 2013, 08:01:35 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 15, 2013, 12:21:26 PM
Quote from: J70 on November 14, 2013, 06:44:28 PM
Are there any conspiracy theories you do NOT subscribe too? ;D
The reason there are so many "conspiracy theories", as you call them, is because there are many people who have used their brains, and know that certain things do not add up. But of course, anyone who goes against the grain, and doesn't believe everything that the media/government spoonfeed to them, is considered a nutcase.
The thing is, for those living in the North, they have seen many "conspiracies" throughout the troubles, and still continue to. Was the shooting of Aidan McAnespie not a "conspiracy theory", or did the rifle just happen to go off while the soldier was cleaning it, like official reports said? Do any of you believe it was an accident? I'd say there'd be very very few who do. What about Majella O'Hare? A young girl out for a walk. Do any of you believe the crap on that report? Finucane? Nelson? Was there not collusion going on with each of those, or are we all just nutcases for thinking there was more to it than we were told? Sure, the British government wouldn't lie, would they?
I would have thought people in this part of the world would be, moreso, open to the possibilities that things like JFK, 9/11 etc didn't happen like they say it did, as they've seen lies, propaganda all around them for decades. I still see lies and propaganda being spun all the time; the media constantly hyping up the threat from dissidents, digging up anything they can on Sinn Fein etc to serve the current political agenda. They might not be as big as 9/11, JFK etc, but they still continue before our very eyes, and some people still swallow every word of it, without even giving it a second thought.
So, to answer your question. I don't subscribe to all "conspiracy theories", but I'm open to the possibility of foul play where things don't add up. It's not too far-fetched to think that "conspiracy theories" might actually be more truthful than the official story, considering the lies been spun by the mainstream media/British/US governments in the past.
You've been an advocate of just about every conspiracy theory there is on this board at some point (am I mistaken in that you even mentioned the "fake" moon landing on this thread?). No one is saying that cover-ups/dirty tricks don't occur - to do so would obviously be absurd. But you have to posit some kind of real and serious reasons for siding with a conspiracy theory, as you continually do, otherwise you're just a crank (amusing and all as that might be to others, assuming you're serious). Throwing out some half-baked bollocks about volcanic eruptions being a much more significant cause of climate change than man-made causes, as you've done here in the past, is not very good for your credibility. Same with the 9/11 stuff and so on and on.
That only a few conspiracies you've mentioned. It's hardly every conspiracy out there.
I'm not here for credibility. If I have an opinion I'll say it.
Speaking of credibility, it doesn't do much for some people's if they still believe in "half baked" ideas like Oswald shot Kennedy, or Bin Laden masterminded 9/11 etc. But that's just my opinion.
I'm not going to go back and search for every conspiracy theory discussed here to see where you stand. But its a safe bet to predict which side you will come down on any given "controversy".
I'll give anyone a pass on JFK given that a cottage industry of speculation and bullshit has built up around his assassination. 9/11, not so much.
Its good to know that you know the absolute truth of everything out there that you'll give a J70 pass on the kennedy shooting theories because people are susceptable to bull and speculation ::) There are theories and there are crackpot conspiracy theories. There is a difference between them.
There are some very rational people who found it hard to accept the 3 bullets fired inside 5 seconds from a ramshackle gun and 2 hitting the almost impossible target, then stomach the magic bullet theory and then just exactly where did the 3rd bullet come from, and have methodically examined the evidence and offered some plausible alternatives. The lone gunman theory is just the most plausible, not a scientific fact proven beyond doubt.
Possibly there are people who blindly accept something coming from a government source like the Widgery report because it has all the trapping of officialdom. Italians are chronically conspiratorial because, you guessed it, a history of rampant corruption and bribery of public officials. Most everything about the Kennedy assassination screams some cover up somewhere. And Oswald was killed before his psychosis could be fully revealed. Nearly every piece of evidence has taken a hammering and survived. The smoking gun theory discussed here was not a crackpot theory, it was a theory supported by some science and a methodical investigative approach but ultimately had little corroboration.
There is a tendency for reformed conspiracy advocates to rush to the other side of the fence and pour cold water over any utterance that questions the validity of any part of the evidence against Oswald, screaming 'down with such heretic whispers of deviation from the most plausible version'.
Quote from: Main Street on November 16, 2013, 02:49:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on November 16, 2013, 01:01:27 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 15, 2013, 08:17:34 PM
Quote from: J70 on November 15, 2013, 08:01:35 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 15, 2013, 12:21:26 PM
Quote from: J70 on November 14, 2013, 06:44:28 PM
Are there any conspiracy theories you do NOT subscribe too? ;D
The reason there are so many "conspiracy theories", as you call them, is because there are many people who have used their brains, and know that certain things do not add up. But of course, anyone who goes against the grain, and doesn't believe everything that the media/government spoonfeed to them, is considered a nutcase.
The thing is, for those living in the North, they have seen many "conspiracies" throughout the troubles, and still continue to. Was the shooting of Aidan McAnespie not a "conspiracy theory", or did the rifle just happen to go off while the soldier was cleaning it, like official reports said? Do any of you believe it was an accident? I'd say there'd be very very few who do. What about Majella O'Hare? A young girl out for a walk. Do any of you believe the crap on that report? Finucane? Nelson? Was there not collusion going on with each of those, or are we all just nutcases for thinking there was more to it than we were told? Sure, the British government wouldn't lie, would they?
I would have thought people in this part of the world would be, moreso, open to the possibilities that things like JFK, 9/11 etc didn't happen like they say it did, as they've seen lies, propaganda all around them for decades. I still see lies and propaganda being spun all the time; the media constantly hyping up the threat from dissidents, digging up anything they can on Sinn Fein etc to serve the current political agenda. They might not be as big as 9/11, JFK etc, but they still continue before our very eyes, and some people still swallow every word of it, without even giving it a second thought.
So, to answer your question. I don't subscribe to all "conspiracy theories", but I'm open to the possibility of foul play where things don't add up. It's not too far-fetched to think that "conspiracy theories" might actually be more truthful than the official story, considering the lies been spun by the mainstream media/British/US governments in the past.
You've been an advocate of just about every conspiracy theory there is on this board at some point (am I mistaken in that you even mentioned the "fake" moon landing on this thread?). No one is saying that cover-ups/dirty tricks don't occur - to do so would obviously be absurd. But you have to posit some kind of real and serious reasons for siding with a conspiracy theory, as you continually do, otherwise you're just a crank (amusing and all as that might be to others, assuming you're serious). Throwing out some half-baked bollocks about volcanic eruptions being a much more significant cause of climate change than man-made causes, as you've done here in the past, is not very good for your credibility. Same with the 9/11 stuff and so on and on.
That only a few conspiracies you've mentioned. It's hardly every conspiracy out there.
I'm not here for credibility. If I have an opinion I'll say it.
Speaking of credibility, it doesn't do much for some people's if they still believe in "half baked" ideas like Oswald shot Kennedy, or Bin Laden masterminded 9/11 etc. But that's just my opinion.
I'm not going to go back and search for every conspiracy theory discussed here to see where you stand. But its a safe bet to predict which side you will come down on any given "controversy".
I'll give anyone a pass on JFK given that a cottage industry of speculation and bullshit has built up around his assassination. 9/11, not so much.
Its good to know that you know the absolute truth of everything out there that you'll give a J70 pass on the kennedy shooting theories because people are susceptable to bull and speculation ::) There are theories and there are crackpot conspiracy theories. There is a difference between them.
There are some very rational people who found it hard to accept the 3 bullets fired inside 5 seconds from a ramshackle gun and 2 hitting the almost impossible target, then stomach the magic bullet theory and then just exactly where did the 3rd bullet come from, and have methodically examined the evidence and offered some plausible alternatives. The lone gunman theory is just the most plausible, not a scientific fact proven beyond doubt.
Possibly there are people who blindly accept something coming from a government source like the Widgery report because it has all the trapping of officialdom. Italians are chronically conspiratorial because, you guessed it, a history of rampant corruption and bribery of public officials. Most everything about the Kennedy assassination screams some cover up somewhere. And Oswald was killed before his psychosis could be fully revealed. Nearly every piece of evidence has taken a hammering and survived. The smoking gun theory discussed here was not a crackpot theory, it was a theory supported by some science and a methodical investigative approach but ultimately had little corroboration.
There is a tendency for reformed conspiracy advocates to rush to the other side of the fence and pour cold water over any utterance that questions the validity of any part of the evidence against Oswald, screaming 'down with such heretic whispers of deviation from the most plausible version'.
Snarkiness aside, you haven't said anything I disagree with. My point about the JFK industry us that there are so many claims and counterclaims, whether legit or not, that it is hard for the average person to come down on any side with any certainty. That's hardly the case with most of the other typical examples.
Quote from: J70 on November 16, 2013, 11:40:40 PM
Quote from: Main Street on November 16, 2013, 02:49:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on November 16, 2013, 01:01:27 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 15, 2013, 08:17:34 PM
Quote from: J70 on November 15, 2013, 08:01:35 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 15, 2013, 12:21:26 PM
Quote from: J70 on November 14, 2013, 06:44:28 PM
Are there any conspiracy theories you do NOT subscribe too? ;D
The reason there are so many "conspiracy theories", as you call them, is because there are many people who have used their brains, and know that certain things do not add up. But of course, anyone who goes against the grain, and doesn't believe everything that the media/government spoonfeed to them, is considered a nutcase.
The thing is, for those living in the North, they have seen many "conspiracies" throughout the troubles, and still continue to. Was the shooting of Aidan McAnespie not a "conspiracy theory", or did the rifle just happen to go off while the soldier was cleaning it, like official reports said? Do any of you believe it was an accident? I'd say there'd be very very few who do. What about Majella O'Hare? A young girl out for a walk. Do any of you believe the crap on that report? Finucane? Nelson? Was there not collusion going on with each of those, or are we all just nutcases for thinking there was more to it than we were told? Sure, the British government wouldn't lie, would they?
I would have thought people in this part of the world would be, moreso, open to the possibilities that things like JFK, 9/11 etc didn't happen like they say it did, as they've seen lies, propaganda all around them for decades. I still see lies and propaganda being spun all the time; the media constantly hyping up the threat from dissidents, digging up anything they can on Sinn Fein etc to serve the current political agenda. They might not be as big as 9/11, JFK etc, but they still continue before our very eyes, and some people still swallow every word of it, without even giving it a second thought.
So, to answer your question. I don't subscribe to all "conspiracy theories", but I'm open to the possibility of foul play where things don't add up. It's not too far-fetched to think that "conspiracy theories" might actually be more truthful than the official story, considering the lies been spun by the mainstream media/British/US governments in the past.
You've been an advocate of just about every conspiracy theory there is on this board at some point (am I mistaken in that you even mentioned the "fake" moon landing on this thread?). No one is saying that cover-ups/dirty tricks don't occur - to do so would obviously be absurd. But you have to posit some kind of real and serious reasons for siding with a conspiracy theory, as you continually do, otherwise you're just a crank (amusing and all as that might be to others, assuming you're serious). Throwing out some half-baked bollocks about volcanic eruptions being a much more significant cause of climate change than man-made causes, as you've done here in the past, is not very good for your credibility. Same with the 9/11 stuff and so on and on.
That only a few conspiracies you've mentioned. It's hardly every conspiracy out there.
I'm not here for credibility. If I have an opinion I'll say it.
Speaking of credibility, it doesn't do much for some people's if they still believe in "half baked" ideas like Oswald shot Kennedy, or Bin Laden masterminded 9/11 etc. But that's just my opinion.
I'm not going to go back and search for every conspiracy theory discussed here to see where you stand. But its a safe bet to predict which side you will come down on any given "controversy".
I'll give anyone a pass on JFK given that a cottage industry of speculation and bullshit has built up around his assassination. 9/11, not so much.
Its good to know that you know the absolute truth of everything out there that you'll give a J70 pass on the kennedy shooting theories because people are susceptable to bull and speculation ::) There are theories and there are crackpot conspiracy theories. There is a difference between them.
There are some very rational people who found it hard to accept the 3 bullets fired inside 5 seconds from a ramshackle gun and 2 hitting the almost impossible target, then stomach the magic bullet theory and then just exactly where did the 3rd bullet come from, and have methodically examined the evidence and offered some plausible alternatives. The lone gunman theory is just the most plausible, not a scientific fact proven beyond doubt.
Possibly there are people who blindly accept something coming from a government source like the Widgery report because it has all the trapping of officialdom. Italians are chronically conspiratorial because, you guessed it, a history of rampant corruption and bribery of public officials. Most everything about the Kennedy assassination screams some cover up somewhere. And Oswald was killed before his psychosis could be fully revealed. Nearly every piece of evidence has taken a hammering and survived. The smoking gun theory discussed here was not a crackpot theory, it was a theory supported by some science and a methodical investigative approach but ultimately had little corroboration.
There is a tendency for reformed conspiracy advocates to rush to the other side of the fence and pour cold water over any utterance that questions the validity of any part of the evidence against Oswald, screaming 'down with such heretic whispers of deviation from the most plausible version'.
Snarkiness aside, you haven't said anything I disagree with. My point about the JFK industry us that there are so many claims and counterclaims, whether legit or not, that it is hard for the average person to come down on any side with any certainty. That's hardly the case with most of the other typical examples.
The average person? I could read something into your usage of the term 'the average person' :) but I'll restrain myself to just say that both the average and the above average person can come down on either side of the fence re the Warren report findings and still be well within the realms of rational thought.
"I'll give anyone a pass on JFK given that a cottage industry of speculation and bullshit has built up around his assassination"I took that to be generally dismissive of all the investigations, down through the years, picking at holes and possible holes in the Warren Commission report, as all part of speculation and bull. Otherwise no need to give a pass just because you subscribe to one theory, which so far you regard as more plausible than others. But possibly I overreacted.
I'll give you a pass this time but I'll keep an eye on your future conduct :)
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on November 12, 2013, 12:38:55 PM
I find it unlikely that Oswald acted alone. To get away that many shots as accurately in such a short space of time is some feat. Even elite marksmen would struggle to recover their aim after each shot when looking through a sight at a moving target.
He also seemingly waited until the cavalcade was moving away from him before shooting, turning down an earlier chance to shoot at Kennedy from the front as he was coming towards him. Assuming he was part of a hit squad, he was obviously under instructions to wait until Kennedy came into the range of a shooter from the front.
The conspiracy theories behind the motives are fairly wacky as this is a mini-industry. Goes to show there are 1001 reasons why a president will be disliked. Obama could potentially be bumped off by anti-Medicare loons.
Oswald was about 90 yards away from Kennedy, he was classed as a "sharpshooter" by the Marines. So it's not that difficult a shot(s) for him.
Quote from: Saffrongael on November 17, 2013, 07:48:54 PM
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on November 12, 2013, 12:38:55 PM
I find it unlikely that Oswald acted alone. To get away that many shots as accurately in such a short space of time is some feat. Even elite marksmen would struggle to recover their aim after each shot when looking through a sight at a moving target.
He also seemingly waited until the cavalcade was moving away from him before shooting, turning down an earlier chance to shoot at Kennedy from the front as he was coming towards him. Assuming he was part of a hit squad, he was obviously under instructions to wait until Kennedy came into the range of a shooter from the front.
The conspiracy theories behind the motives are fairly wacky as this is a mini-industry. Goes to show there are 1001 reasons why a president will be disliked. Obama could potentially be bumped off by anti-Medicare loons.
Oswald was about 90 yards away from Kennedy, he was classed as a "sharpshooter" by the Marines. So it's not that difficult a shot(s) for him.
It would have taken one hell of a sharpshooter to shoot Kennedy in the front, while (supposedly) being behind him!
did they not get sharpshooters to re enact this and couldnt get the 3 shots accurately in the timespan, plus in the 50yrs of wars, battles, shooting practice no other bullet has served the way this magic bullet did that time, so it asks the questions are americans so stupid to take what the govt. told them at the time,
I have been reading this fellas twitter feed the last few days, he is professor of History at John Moores University Liverpool. I would take a look at it if you still think Oswald wasn't the shooter.
@FXMC1957
Quote from: Saffrongael on November 17, 2013, 08:37:32 PM
I have been reading this fellas twitter feed the last few days, he is professor of History at John Moores University Liverpool. I would take a look at it if you still think Oswald wasn't the shooter.
@FXMC1957
Would doubt he knows more than the gaaboard professors.
Pretty long but interesting read.
This interview with Bugliosi does a pretty good job of convincing you that 1) Oswald was the shooter and 2) He acted alone.
Robin Lindley: Where were you on November 22, 1963?
VincentBugliosi: I was at UCLA Law School. I was in the hallway, and someone told me the president had been shot. I was the president of the senior class, so I took it upon myself to go inside classrooms and announce that the president had been shot, and the professors excused the students for the day. That's all I remember about that moment.
Lindley: Were you a Kennedy supporter then?
Bugliosi: I voted for Kennedy, but I didn't know this was an extremely unusual human being. I knew he was charismatic, and I was supportive of him, but as I have gotten into this book I realize how special he was. People talk about his irresistible charm. Nellie Connally, the wife of the charismatic Texas Governor John Connally, said, "I thought I knew what charisma was until I met John F. Kennedy."
Author John Steinbeck was in Warsaw on a cultural mission for the State Department at the time of the shooting when he reported that he had never seen such mourning for anyone in his entire life. And he said the people in Poland had never seen anything like it. This was at the height of the Cold War, when Poland, a communist satellite country, could only hear what the Kremlin wanted them to hear. They were living in a censorship cocoon. How much could they have seen or heard to make them mourn his death like we did over here?
The charisma only takes you so far. It lassos your interest, but it's not going to make you weep like you lost a family member. I concluded that there must have been something, even in little snippets on TV, in his face or his tone, the timbre of his voice, that they picked up this was a special, decent, sincere person, and that enabled him to pierce the Iron Curtain and reach their hearts to the point that they mourned him like we did here. Only one country in the world did not mourn Kennedy and that was China. But Russia mourned him. It's been said that more people mourned him than any other human in world history.
John F. Kennedy's opponents respected him. He was a war hero. He used his father's influence to get into the war, and became a hero. Kennedy's lieutenant commander said, "John Kennedy is in my unit, and he's the only guy in the Navy who's faking good health." I talked to someone who had spent a couple weeks with Kennedy, in the Solomon Islands. Both [were] recuperating from wounds, both their PT boats had been sunk. He said everyone in that unit liked this man. It was very obvious [JFK] was ill; he was extremely thin, but he never complained. He may have been the son of a powerful, wealthy man, but everyone liked him.
So my feelings for Kennedy have increased immeasurably.
Also, everyone gives LBJ credit for passing the Civil Rights Bills. I'm not denigrating LBJ's contribution, but I found a Look magazine article quoting the leaders of the Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and the House saying these bills were going to pass anyway. They said that the assassination expedited the passage, but all of them—the leaders of the Senate and the House—said Kennedy's bills were going to pass. There's a denying that in history to a certain extent. People have said he couldn't pass them, but he would've passed them. And they seem to give most of the credit to LBJ.
Lindley: Did you agree with the Warren Commission findings in 1964?
Bugliosi: I was so immersed in trying one murder case after another that I had no opinion. I made the assumption that they were decent, honorable men, and they certainly were.
I had heard that the Warren Commission sealed its records for 75 years. That bothered me, but I have the answer now, and it's in the book. They didn't seal the records.
The records were sealed, but it had nothing to do with the Warren Commission. I found an old National Archives rule that when they got documents from a federal investigative body, as in this case of the Warren commission, they sealed the records for 75 years, which is believed to be the normal lifespan of a human. So that had nothing to do with the Warren Commission. That rule since was completely eviscerated by the 1966 Freedom of Information Act, and the JFK Act of 1992. So the records were originally sealed but it had nothing to do with the Warren Commission, even though an average person who has any view of the case would tell you the Warren Commission sealed the records. Archives representative said the Warren Commission got a bum rap on this.
By the way, the testimony from everyone who appeared before the Commission was published in the Warren Commission volumes, and is available. Hundreds upon hundreds of documents were published in Warren Commission volumes, and [others] were sent to the National Archives for safekeeping. In a cover letter [with] the documents and the records sent to the National Archives, [Chief Justice] Earl Warren said he wanted the fullest disclosure possible to the American public.
Lindley: You conclude that Oswald killed President Kennedy.
Bugliosi: Here, everything pointed toward Oswald's guilt. All the physical evidence, all the scientific evidence. Everything he said, everything he did. In Reclaiming History, at the end of book one, I set forth 53 separate pieces of evidence pointing toward Oswald's guilt. It would not be humanly possible for this man to be innocent and still have 53 pieces of evidence pointing toward his guilt. Only in a fantasy world can you have 53 pieces of evidence pointing toward guilt and still be innocent.
Quickly, five pieces: Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was the murder weapon. That's pretty heavy by itself. Oswald was the only employee at the Book Depository Building who fled the building after the assassination. Forty-five minutes later, he shoots and kills Officer J. D. Tippit, Dallas Police Department. That murder bore the signature of a man in desperate flight from some awful deed. Thirty minutes later at a Texas theatre he resists arrest, pulls a gun on the arresting officer. During his interrogation, [Oswald] told one provable lie after another, showing a consciousness of guilt.
Lindley: Why do you think Oswald killed President Kennedy?
Bugliosi: I have a whole chapter on motive, but no one is ever going to know for sure why Oswald killed Kennedy. Even if he were alive today, he might not be able to tell us the dynamics swirling around in his fevered mind that led him to this monstrous act of murder. But there are some pieces of circumstantial evidence from which we can draw inferences, and there are many. I just want to touch on a couple.
One, Oswald had delusions of grandeur. He viewed himself in an historical way. His diary was called The Historical Diary. A squad mate of his in the marines said that Oswald wanted to be something that ten thousand years from now people would be talking about. His wife, Marina, said her husband viewed himself in an historical light and compared himself to the great figures of history whom he read about in biographies.
Getting more specific, Oswald revered Fidel Castro, and he was an ardent supporter of the Cuban revolution. Certainly he was not in favor of Kennedy backing the Bay of Pigs invasion to overthrow Castro. We know that Oswald in late September of 1963, just a month and a half before the assassination, tried to get to Havana to help Castro, and he was rejected at the Cuban consulate in Mexico City. He got very, very angry, almost in tears. I am trying to show the connection that he had not with Castro, or any Castro agents, but with the whole notion of the Cuban Revolution. He was aware that, five days before that assassination, Kennedy, in Miami, gave a foreign policy speech in which he all but urged the Cuban people to rise up against Castro, promising prompt U.S. aid if they did. And I agree with the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations that Oswald's love for Castro played a part in the motivation to kill Kennedy, thinking that by killing an enemy of Castro's Cuba he somehow was furthering the Cuban cause.
My background in the Manson case very definitely played a part in the words that I read meaning more to me than perhaps the average person. Manson did not know the people whom he was having killed, precisely who they were. But he knew they were members of the establishment, and he hated the establishment. So these were representative murders. In the Historical Diary, Oswald said that he had lived under capitalism and communism and, "I despise the representatives of both systems." Oswald did not hate Kennedy. I don't think he loved Kennedy, but he didn't hate him either. But he hated the United States of America. He wouldn't even let his Russian wife, Marina, learn English over here. Oswald may have used Kennedy as the quintessential representative of a society for which he held a blinding contempt, and when he was shooting at Kennedy, he was shooting at the United States of America. I don't know this with any 100 percent certitude, but I have put people on death row without knowing precisely what their motive was. All I knew was that they committed a murder and they had no legal justification for it.
Lindley: You note that Oswald often failed, and he wanted to prove himself somehow.
Bugliosi: He had been a failure everywhere. He was a failure in the Marines, [and] he was court-martialed. He was a failure at work. He would get fired, or he couldn't get a good job. He was a failure with Marina, his wife. He had been a failure all of his life, and all of a sudden now he had done something successfully.
His relationship with Marina was not the reason he killed Kennedy, but was, I think, responsible for why he killed Kennedy. Marina was his pretty, Russian-born wife, and he and she had a very tempestuous relationship. I think they loved each other, but he would beat her, she would run away, he'd go after her, and he would literally get down on his knees and beg her to come back. She would come back and then the cycle would continue. That was the relationship between Oswald and Marina. And Marina needed assurances from Oswald that he would not send her back to the Soviet Union; he would never give her that sense of security.
The night before the assassination, Oswald [went to] Irving, Texas, where his wife was living with their two children in Ruth Paine's home. He had always gone out on Friday evening with Bill Fraser, a worker at the book depository, and then they would come back to work the following Monday morning. But here the president was coming to town on Friday, so Oswald for the first time goes out there on a Thursday evening, half asleep, to get the rifle stored in the Paine garage to kill Kennedy the next day.
Here is the important point: that intent to kill, I am almost sure, was conditional. He begged Marina to come back to him three times. When he went out there he didn't think she would come back, and it was his intent to kill Kennedy the next day. I think it was conditional because why would he be begging her to come back to him. He said: "We can do it now. I got a job, we can get an apartment big enough for the four of us. We can get that used washing machine that you need." They were very, very poor people. And she said, "I was smiling on the inside, happy that he was asking me to come back," but on the outside she was tough to him, not giving him what she knew he needed. After that third time, he changed his demeanor completely. That night in bed, her leg rubbed against his one time, and he pushed her away.
Marina herself has taken responsibility for this murder. In a letter to the Warren Commission in Russian, which was translated into English, she said how much she regretted turning him down. She said, "If I would have only known what he was planning to do the next day, obviously I would have come to him."
I am not suggesting that [Oswald] killed Kennedy because of Marina. He had that intent, for whatever reason, but I think that if she had gone back to him that night, he would not have done it.
And on the issue of conspiracy, if he was conspiring with the mob or CIA to kill Kennedy, is he going to be going out the night before the murder to his wife and begging her to come back? I don't think so.
Part 2
Lindley: And you find that Oswald was not part of a conspiracy to kill JFK.
Bugliosi: All of these theories and beliefs have turned out to be "moonshine." I am convinced beyond all doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy. I am convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that there was no conspiracy.
Number one, there's no credible evidence that the mob or CIA, KGB, military-industrial complex, [or others] were behind the assassination. All we have is naked speculation. I told the jury in London, I'll stipulate that three people can keep a secret, but only if two are dead. Now here, it's close to 44 years later, and not one word, not one syllable has leaked out that any of these groups were involved in the assassination.
Number two, there's no evidence whatsoever that Oswald ever had any connection whatsoever with any of these groups, and we know that the FBI checked this guy out. Even [assassination researcher Harold] Weisberg conceded that the FBI checked out every breath [Oswald] ever breathed, from the moment he arrived back to the States from the Soviet Union on June 13, 1962 to the day of the assassination. They accounted for everything this guy did. They found no evidence after 25,000 interviews, that he had any connection with any of these groups.
Number three, assuming one of these groups wanted to kill the president, and I reject that out of hand, Oswald would have been one of the last people on the face of this earth whom they would have gone to kill Kennedy. Why? He was not an expert shot. He was a good shot, but not an expert shot. He owned only a twelve-dollar, mail-order rifle. He was notoriously unreliable, extremely unstable. Here's a guy who defects to the Soviet Union pre-Gorbachev. I mean even today, who in the world defects to the Soviet Union? It's one of the bleakest places on the face of the earth. And then he gets over there, tries to become a Soviet citizen, and is turned down. What does he do? He tries to commit suicide. He slashes his wrists and they had to take him to the hospital. Just the type of guy—I'm being sarcastic—that the CIA or mob would rely on to commit the biggest murder in American history.
Taking it to its final step, assuming that one of these groups wanted to kill Kennedy, and assuming further that for whatever crazy, bizarre reason they wanted to use Oswald to do it, and he agreed to do it, after he shot Kennedy in Dealey Plaza and the left the book depository, one of two things would have happened. The least likely thing is that there would have been a car there waiting for him to help him escape down to Mexico or wherever. Certainly the conspirators would not want their hit man to be apprehended and interrogated. The most likely thing by far: there would have a car waiting for him to drive him to his death. And yet we know that Oswald was out on the street with 13 dollars in his pocket, trying to flag down buses and cabs, and that alone tells any sensible person that there was no conspiracy here because that would not have happened if the CIA or mob were behind the assassination.
Even the motorcade route that took the president beneath Oswald's sixth-floor window wasn't determined until November 18, 1963, four days before the assassination. Now what rational person could believe that the CIA or mob or whatever the group it was would conspire with Oswald to kill Kennedy within just four days of the assassination?
Lindley: And you also conclude that Ruby acted alone in killing Oswald.
Bugliosi: You hear the statement that Ruby silenced Oswald for the mob, and that presupposes that Oswald killed Kennedy for the mob. Why silence him if there is nothing to silence? And there is no evidence that the mob was behind the assassination, and no evidence that Oswald had any connection with organized crime.
The Warren Commission and the FBI conducted a thorough investigation, and found no evidence that Ruby was ever a member of organized crime, or had any association with them.
He did have two nightclubs. His favorite [was] The Carousel, a strip-tease club. Undoubtedly, he ran into some low-level mobsters, but no one he wouldn't be expected to run into in a position like his.
He also liked to intimate that he had mob connections, but they found no evidence that he was ever connected with organized crime. Incidentally, he offered to take a polygraph test. Polygraph tests are not conclusive, but the offer to take one on this issue is good evidence of innocence. He [had a] polygraph test on whether he was a member of organized crime and killed Oswald for the mob, and he passed the test.
Apart from that, he would have been, like Oswald, an extremely unlikely and bad hit man. Most people don't know that Ruby was extremely close to Dallas law enforcement. He loved law enforcement officers, and he would hang out at the police department. A great number of members of law enforcement in Dallas were friendly with Jack Ruby, and many of them came to his club. That is not the type of guy you go to commit the second biggest murder in American history.
He also was a blabbermouth, he was known as a snitch. If he detected anything that he thought was a crime or people at the club engaging in crime, he would snitch to the Dallas Police Department. He was not the type of guy you would go to if you wanted someone to commit a crime and be silent.
Also, Ruby was a very mentally and emotionally unbalanced individual. He had a violent temper, fighting all the time with customers at the club—throwing them down the stairs. They would be talking to him and all of a sudden he would knock them down, and they didn't know what they had said wrong.
He had organic brain damage. He had seven dogs, six of whom he called his children, the seventh, Sheba, his wife. Jack Revill was the detective in charge of the criminal investigation division at the Dallas Police Department and he testified before the House Select Committee in 1978, he said: "Jack Ruby was a buffoon, and I tell this committee that if Jack Ruby was a member of organized crime, the personnel director of organized crime should be replaced."
By the way, people say that he silenced Oswald for the mob. Well who was supposed to silence Ruby? They don't ask that question. He lived a normal life. He died in custody, but he died a normal death three years later.
Everyone who knew Ruby laughed at the suggestion that he was member of organized crime and silenced Oswald for the mob. Yet many of the people who read this [are] convinced that he was a big time mobster who silenced Oswald for the mob.
Lindley: Why did Ruby kill Oswald?
Bugliosi: Ruby literally idolized John F. Kennedy. His psychiatrist said Ruby loved this man. He thought he was the greatest man in history. He took Kennedy's death very, very hard. He cried throughout the assassination weekend. His sister Eva used to live in LA and, she said that her brother Jack, quote: "Cried harder when Kennedy died than when ma and pa died." He took the death very hard.
Ruby [also] thought that he was going to become a big hero because everyone hated Oswald. He was the typical avenger, [and] was fearful that somehow Oswald conceivably could get off.
He thought he was going to be a hero. He tried to get an agent from his jail cell. He thought there was going to be a big book and a movie about him because he viewed what he did as a heroic deed. He thought he would just get a slap on the wrist, and in a short time he would be back at the Carousel club greeting people from around the world wanting to shake the hand of the man who killed the man who killed president.
And he did get letters and congratulatory telegrams from around the world saying, "You're a hero," and "You did a wonderful thing."
I agree with the House Select Committee and the Warren Commission that Ruby's love for Kennedy and hatred for Oswald played a part in his killing of Oswald.
Part 3
Lindley: In The Plot to Kill the President, Bob Blakey, staff director of the House Select Committee, and Dick Billings, editor of the House report, argue that organized crime was behind the assassination.
Bugliosi: Oswald had an uncle in New Orleans, Dutz Murret, who at one time, he worked as a bookmaker for a guy named Sam Saia who had a relationship with Carlos Marcello, the mafia chief in New Orleans. That was years earlier. The US Attorney there said Marcello was a criminal, but he was mostly involved in gambling. There is no record that Marcello was involved in [mob] violence.
But anyway, Blakey and Billings draw the connection that Marcello may have gotten to Oswald through Murret who at one time worked for Sam Saia, who had this gambling operation—the horses, the what-have-you—where he received information of a fee paid to Marcello. Extremely tenuous. There is no evidence that Murret ever met Marcello, and certainly no evidence that Oswald had anything to do with Marcello. And Blakey and Billings come out in their book saying that the mob was behind it, but all they come up with again is motive. Motive is not enough.
Lindley: You argue that the conspiracy theories rest on motive only.
Bugliosi: You've got to pay the piper and show that the person that you say has a motive is the person who actually committed the crime, and you can only do that by evidence. Yet book after book on the assassination comes out and spends hundreds and hundreds of pages to establish motive, and they think if they have motive, that's enough.
You know if someone killed President Bush you could come up with all types of people who had a motive. Does that mean that they did it? Apparently, these conspiracy theorists believe, if the president of our country is doing something that a particular group like the military, or CIA, or Wall Street, or the unions don't like, then they simply kill him. We routinely do that in this country. If the president is doing something we don't like, we kill him. And that's nonsense on its face.
We've got to go beyond motive. Dallas was extremely conservative at the time. There were people there that did not like [Kennedy], so they had a motive, right? Means? All they had to do was purchase a rifle, right? Opportunity? All they had to do was be along the parade route. So they had motive, means and opportunity. Does that mean that they killed the president? It's silly. I can imagine a courtroom wag saying, Okay, the defendant had motive, means and opportunity, but did he do it? And these people write these preposterous books trying to establish motive, and once they think they have a motive, they think they found the killer.
Lindley: To put it mildly, you disliked Oliver Stone's movie JFK.
Bugliosi: This silly Oliver Stone came up with ten groups that had a motive and he's got all ten groups involved in the assassination. I go into great depth for the first time on the movie, and show what he said, and then show he committed cinematic murder. His movie is one continuous lie. I should amend that by saying he did have the correct date, location, and victims, but other than that, it was one continuous lie, and yet millions saw his movie and walked out thinking that there was a vast conspiracy.
To show you how unfair he was in the presentation of the evidence. I mentioned fifty-three separate pieces of evidence pointing irresistibly to the guilt of Oswald, and Oliver Stone in his three hour and eight minute movie could not put in one of those fifty-three pieces. I guess poor Oliver just didn't have enough time to do that.
Lindley: Did you talk to Stone in the course of your interviews?
Bugliosi: No. There is nothing to talk to him about. I saw his movie and I read everything he has written and it is just pure nonsense. People have asked him to debate me but he has not accepted any challenges to debate, and I would love to debate him.
Lindley: You've mentioned that the Kennedy family agreed with the Warren Commission findings.
Bugliosi: Bobby Kennedy is on record as saying that he accepted the findings of the Warren Commission. He said that several times. [Some people] say he had doubts. I don't know. The Kennedy family had no doubt. Ted Kennedy said we accept the findings. John Jr. had this magazine called George, and his assistants talked him into a meeting at a restaurant in Santa Monica with Oliver Stone, and Stone started talking conspiracy. John Jr. excused himself, went to the bathroom, came back and terminated it. The conversation was, he said, like talking to someone in Star Trek.
Lindley: Can you talk about the new findings on bullet fragments from the scene?
Bugliosi: That's not a new story. These former FBI agents came up with a statement, and people are asking around the country about this new story. Here's how new it is—it's in my book. They're talking about neutron activation analysis. It was simply corroborative.
Lindley: You explain how the "Magic Bullet" wounded both JFK and Governor Connally.
Bugliosi: These conspiracy theorists not only lie when they're controverting documentary evidence, but they also lie when there's actual photographic evidence disputing what they're doing. In their sketches, they place governor Connally [directly] in front of President Kennedy in the presidential limousine, and then they argue that a bullet coming from the right rear, passing through Kennedy, from right to left, would have had to make a right turn in midair and then a left turn to hit Connally.
If you start with an erroneous premise, everything that follows makes a heck of a lot of sense. The only problem is that it is wrong. There's no question that Connally was not seated directly in front of Kennedy in the presidential limousine. He was seated to his left front. I have a photograph in Reclaiming History showing exactly where they were seated, and right along side of it I show sketches that they put in conspiracy books, [with Connally] right in front and the bullet is making a right turn and a left turn. But he was seated to [JFK's] left front in a jump seat a half-foot in so the orientation of Connally's body vis a vis Kennedy's was such that a bullet passing on a straight line, through Kennedy, would have no where else to go, except to hit Governor Connally.
At the trial in London Jerry Spence asked [forensic pathologist Dr.] Cyril Wecht to characterize this bullet and he said, "It's a magic bullet." Bullets don't even do this in cartoons, make right and left turns. On cross examination, I said "Dr. Wecht would you concede this bullet passed in a straight line through Kennedy's body, soft tissue, if it did not go on to hit Governor Connally, as you claim it did not, how come it didn't tear up the interior of the limousine, or hit the driver?" He said, "I don't know. I didn't conduct the investigation in this case." I said, "Dr. Wecht, it sounds like you have your own magic bullet, because if it did not hit Governor Connally, did not tear up the interior of the limousine, did not hit the driver, it must have zigzagged to the left." He said, "No, it may not have zigzagged to the left." I said, "Well, did it hop, skip and jump over the car?" He said, "No, it did not have to perform any remarkable feat." Then I said, "Dr. Wecht, what happened to that bullet after it exited the president's throat," and he said, "I don't know."
If we are to believe the conspiracy theorists, after this bullet exited the president's throat, apparently, it vanished, without a trace, into thin air. They're the only ones that have the magic bullet, and they've taken this magic bullet and wrapped it around the neck of the Warren Commission for all these years.
Lindley: And you discuss the headshot and the snap of the president's head to the rear, as stressed in Stone's movie.
Bugliosi: Millions of Americans thought that the shot came from the right front [with] the head snap to the rear. People saw this [in the Zapruder film] for the first time in 1975 on national television on ABC's Good Night America with Geraldo Rivera. And millions said there must have been a conspiracy. The head snapped to the rear, the shot came from the front where the grassy knoll was, not from the rear where Oswald was, and that certainly is understandable.
At the trial in London, Jerry Spence showed that segment of the Zapruder film five times. I didn't object, and I let him do it. And he said to the jury, it looked like Babe Ruth struck the president from the front with a bat. He said, "Mr. Bugliosi is trying to convince you folks that what you saw with your very own eyes never happened."
If I never had an answer to that I think the verdict in London would have been not guilty. It would have created a reasonable doubt. But here's the answer. You can't see it by looking at the film; you have to look at the individual frames—which I showed the jury in London on a screen. At frame 312, the president's head is okay. At frame 313, which is 1/18 of a second later, you see the president struck in the head, the explosion to the head. (There are 18.3 frames per second in the Zapruder film.) In frame 313, the President's head [is] not pushed backwards, which would be consistent with the head snap theory, but it's pushed slightly forward, 2.3 inches forward, indicating a shot from the rear, where Oswald was. This all-important moment of impact is much more important than what you see on the film: [in frame 313] the president's head is pushed forward, indicating a shot from the rear. That is very clearly shown in the photo section of Reclaiming History. Also, a high-contrast photo of frame 313 [shows] this terrible spray of blood and tissue all to the front, indicating a shot from the rear.
The head snap to the rear [was from] nerve damage caused by the bullet entering the President's brain causing his back muscles to tighten, which in turn caused the head to snap to the rear.
It sounds like boasting, but all the answers are in my book. The LA Times said that finally someone put all the pieces together, that Reclaiming History is a "book for the ages." They said that nobody can possibly read this book without concluding that Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone. The Wall Street Journal said it is unlike any other book ever written on the assassination. I have to make this choice of speaking candidly about it and coming across as boastful, but if I don't speak candidly about it then they think it is just another book. It's not just another book on the assassination.
Lindley: Your book at more than 1600 pages is the longest yet on the JFK case.
Bugliosi: It is the only book to cover the entire case. It's the only book that settles all questions about the assassination once and for all, and the only book to take on all of these conspiracy theories.
This is the first book on the assassination ever to take on all of these conspiracy theorists and destroy their theories. My editor said that it took a book of this magnitude to finally drive a stake in the heart of the conspiracy movement in this country.
The Kennedy assassination is the most fascinating story that has ever happened, that has ever been told. More words have been written about the Kennedy case than any other single one-day event in world history.
On September 11, 2001, there have only been a handful of books. And here, 44 years later, they are still writing a book or two a month on the Kennedy case. You could take ten of the best novelists in the world, put them into room, give them all the time they needed to come up with a presidential assassination as unbelievable and as intriguing as this one, and they couldn't even come close to the Kennedy assassination in their wildest dreams.
It's an incredible story. Among other things, the cast of characters was so colorful and unbelievable that they would compete favorably with anything in Shakespeare. Jack and Jackie alone were probably the most charismatic, glamorous first couple ever. Almost bigger than life characters, each in their own right. LBJ, and J. Edgar Hoover, are larger than life characters. Oswald and Ruby were almost fictional characters.
The main reason for [the book's] length is the two realities in this case. One, at its core, this is a very simple case, and remains a simple case to this very day. Within hours of the shooting in Dealey Plaza, virtually all of Dallas law enforcement knew that Oswald had killed Kennedy, and when they found out what an incredible kook he was, that he had acted alone. That reality remains true to this very day.
But the second reality and the main reason for the length of this book is the unceasing and fanatical obsession of literally thousands upon thousands of Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists who have investigated every single conceivable aspect of this case for close to 44 years, and made hundreds upon hundreds of allegations, so this simple case has been transformed into the most complex murder case, by far, in world history. Nothing even remotely comes close.
So at its core it remains a simple case. But with these constant allegations on a weekly, on a monthly basis, I started responding to all of them. I was trying to write a book for the ages, as the LA Times says, and if you're writing a book for the ages and someone is making a charge, you have to respond [or] you'd be asked why you didn't. So I got sucked into the abyss. The only way I got out is when my editor said, Vince, we are going to press, and that was the end of it. If he hadn't said that, I wouldn't be talking to you right now because I would be responding to some of these other silly conspiracy theorists. But I finally put an end to it, and have gone on to other things.
Lindley: Were you assisted by researchers in writing the book?
Bugliosi: No. Everything I wrote was my research. Near the end I asked my secretary if there was anything on the Internet, but almost everything I got was from books, often through interlibrary loans. I spent hundreds of hours in front of microfilm and microfiche.
Lindley: What's your next project?
Bugliosi: A series of essays on all types of things. It's not going to be a 1600-page book.
With the Kennedy case, I learned that there is absolutely no bottom to the pile. It's a bottomless pit. While I am talking to right now, at least a hundred people are looking at some document from the National Archives, looking for some contradiction, inconsistency, discrepancy, some hint of a conspiracy, working full time on it, and probably another thousand working part-time. When you have intelligent people like this (I think that with respect to this case they're certifiably psychotic), they can create a lot of mischief, which they have. They have succeeded in convincing 75 percent of Americans of this conspiracy.
Great few posts there Bingo, thanks for that.
Quote from: muppet on November 19, 2013, 02:16:01 PM
Great few posts there Bingo, thanks for that.
Took me an age to type them ;)
Its a good read, his book sounds like a very interesting read but 1600 pages would be some reading.
I like his point that majority of conspiracy theorys are based on Motives only.
Quote from: Bingo on November 19, 2013, 02:27:48 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 19, 2013, 02:16:01 PM
Great few posts there Bingo, thanks for that.
Took me an age to type them ;)
Its a good read, his book sounds like a very interesting read but 1600 pages would be some reading.
I like his point that majority of conspiracy theorys are based on Motives only.
I particularly liked this:
QuoteI'll stipulate that three people can keep a secret, but only if two are dead.
50 years today. Maybe they'll make the arrests today of the real shooters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny3elI6yMMk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny3elI6yMMk)
Quote from: Under Lights on November 22, 2013, 10:08:28 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny3elI6yMMk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny3elI6yMMk)
The exit wound would be bigger and would give the impression that his head was shot from the front. Was a lucky shot
Just watched a really good documentary on Nat Geographic. Really top class video/cine coverage of EVERY move JFK made for 24 hrs before was plugged. All of a sudden he gets whacked and all we have left to look at is the grainey Zapruder footage.....hmmmmm.
Massive yaaaawn
Quote from: 5 Sams on November 23, 2013, 12:25:14 AM
Just watched a really good documentary on Nat Geographic. Really top class video/cine coverage of EVERY move JFK made for 24 hrs before was plugged. All of a sudden he gets whacked and all we have left to look at is the grainey Zapruder footage.....hmmmmm.
So the media knew what was going to happen and/or were in on a conspiracy?
Quote from: 5 Sams on November 23, 2013, 12:25:14 AM
Just watched a really good documentary on Nat Geographic. Really top class video/cine coverage of EVERY move JFK made for 24 hrs before was plugged. All of a sudden he gets whacked and all we have left to look at is the grainey Zapruder footage.....hmmmmm.
The plot thickens, huh! Media and everyone were in on it!
Or maybe they were basically done with the parade and were passing the last few stragglers on their way to his next event.