40 anniversary of JFK's assassination tomorrow

So, what do you think? Who really killed JFK? Oswald, the lone gunman theory, or at least two gunmen with plenty of power behind them to cover it up?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'll start the debate with what I think are the possible, if not probable, forces behind the assassination.

CIA, FBI, Hoover hated the Kennedy's, possible black ops, and maybe the Mafia-drug cartel in Chicago.

I was reading somewhere that Dorothy Killingan, hope I spelled it correctly, mentioned that Jack Ruby and J.D. Tippett knew each other; she even goes as far as saying they were 'friends.' Dorothy apparently had some 'evidence' that would solve the JFK assassination, but she didn't get a chance to make it public. She was found, upright, in her bed, fully dressed, dead. All of her notes and files were missing too.

To continue....the umbrella man. Source: http://www.jfk-assassination.de/articles/umbrella.html

This guy said it was to heckle JFK re: read the link The man beside him apparently had a hand-held radio, and he was talking into it after the assassination.

Mysterious deaths occured after the assassination. The man that claimed he was by the tracks, mentioned of a gunman behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll-he died in a car accident that was a mysterious accident. Marilyn Monroe killed before JFK. The affairs she had with JFK and Robert are known. She also had a loose mouth...did she committ suicide or was she killed for fear of her opening her mouth?

Jack Ruby died, or was he killed? He did do an interview in prison and said 'yes' when asked if people high up were behind this.

I have always been intrigued by this...does anyone else have any input? If so, please post...I'm interested in what you think.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I recommend "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" for anyone interested in spending 6-8 hours watching a documentary on the subject. It was on History Channel the other night. They may still be showing it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Who cares? There's more important things to worry about today. The damn American media is reviving this tabloid trash. There is absolutely nothing newsworthy (anymore) about the JFK assasination. If the American public would spend a fraction of the time getting informed on current events and historical events which led to today's state, the world would be a better place.

 

dsdsds:

Actually, Kennedy's assassination has a lot to do with what goes on today, especially in the media. I suggest that you do some background work. As for me, I don't live in America, but I still find it fascinating, none the less. Who cares you say? Well, I would think you should because if they, whoever they are, can get rid of a president without fear of being caught, then they can do anything.

Munchmausen:

I watched this on A&E about 6 years ago....it was very informative, and although I was interested in it before, this program definitely put it in the forefront for me.

 

"whoever they are" have gotten alot smarter in the past 40 years. They have learned that they don't have to kill a president to get what "they" want. "whoever they are" have learned how to sway public opinion and put a president in office to meet "their" agenda. -- And that, I would argue, is a greater feat than assasinating a president.

 

indefensible

your opinion, that the most significant event in American history in the last 100 years is not important, is indefensible.

What could be more important than a secret coup d'etat in America?

 

oh the irony : "The damn American media is reviving this tabloid trash. There is absolutely nothing newsworthy (anymore) about the JFK assasination. If the American public would spend a fraction of the time getting informed on current events and historical events which led to today's state, the world would be a better place."

The Kennedy Assasination was the birth of the Modern TV Media

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The Kennedy conspiracy is old hat. If the truth has never been told I doubt it ever will be. It's a trail that gets colder every year.
I find the conspiracy phenomenon interesting though. In 38 years will I be reading..
40 anniversary of Trade Centre attack tomorrow
I guess I might

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Dee Cee

 

Aaron Brown?!

I caught a few minutes of Aaron Brown interviewing Walter Cronkite. Now, admittedly we in Seattle are somewhat biased toward Mr. Brown (he was our local NBC affiliate anchor), but I was actually impressed by the odd candor he showed. Aaron Brown, talking to Walter Cronkite about the day Kennedy was shot, was almost like a child. Wide shots showed parallel postures: Cronkite leaning back, at ease; Brown edging forward, as if trying to suck up the vibe. You could see Brown replaying his 9/11 performance in his mind, examining it and comparing it against Cronkite's definitive performances of the past. Watching them talk about the moment when Cronkite took off his glasses and shook off a tear--Brown seemed to struggle to grasp the significance of Cronkite's perspective. Do it differently? Regret? How so? Cronkite became the most trusted man in America because he didn't worry about those issues. It is Aaron Brown's generation, seeking to catch a passing star, that puts such conscious effort into their presentation. While Mr. Brown is hardly as crass as, say, the Mayor on South Park ("No, Mayor, this is live,") it seemed apparent that Brown was struggling with the idea of that kind of presentation being wholly natural. It was a very ... revealing ... interview in that way. It's replaying a few times through the 40th anniversary, so if you happen to catch it ....

Anyway, just a random aside from this season of remembrance.

 

I'm on the floor here

Tiassa actually made a concise post that stayed on topic. What is up with that? I'm guessing you must be busy tonight....? Your mom gave you an ultimatum that if you didn't clean up the basement you wouldn't get your allowance. Is that it? Anyways, thanks for a post that doesn't require an intermission. I realize that as a frustrated journalist it is tough to keep your words in check, but this poster appreciates the self-denial you exhibited tonight.

As always, peace be with you....

Peri

 

HHmm, a mocking post = empty mind?

 

Celebrate

I'm glad it wasn't too many words for you.

 

Now, start calling me a conspiracy-lunatic

Just watched (3rd time) Oliver Stones JFK from telly, I think he is pretty close. I recommend to watch it if some reason had miss it.
It did bring to my mind what happened 09/11/01 - the WTC-case.
I think there is lot of similaritys in the way how the Government and its institutions fucked up the investigations.
This time Osama may be the quilty one to make the plans but he sure wasnt the guy who let the hole US air-defence to fail...
This time they didnt have to change the president, no, they did hijack the psyche of Western civilization.
NOTE: Turn off your telly and go make a walking trip to nature

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, I have a comment for those of you who believe in the whole Free Masonry New World Order theory.

Kennedy's father took his Free Masonry rites and, therefore, was under that mandate of conduct. For some reason (don't know why and don't know where it came from), I have this book on Scottish Freemasonry Rites. It gives all the ceremonies and all the grades. What struck me was that there is a grade that is called (and I do not remember exactly) "Master of the Arches" or "Master of the Royal Arch." In any event, in this book, there are also the prescribed methods of killing a fellow Free Mason that betrays his brothers. The method for this "Master of the Arches" is that the top and/or back of the head needs to be removed.

Now if we look into the strange occurrence of the umbrella man, we note that umbrellas have arches. If you look at the tarot card which represents Free Masonry (the Three of Pentacles), it depicts people standing under an arch. Isn't that what this man did with the umbrella? At the point Kennedy notices the umbrella, he stiffens. He then looks directly in front of him at the underpass for a bridge comes into view (considered perhaps another arch?). I believe, Kennedy reacts rather oddly to this. This may be because I am "reading" into the events, but he does seem extremely nervous.

I am fully aware that the umbrella has been usually interpreted as pertaining to the lack of cover in the Cuban invasion. But what if were not that at all? It certainly opens up another viewpoint on this issue. Especially since it is now coming out that Kennedy and Castro were about to sign some sort of peace treaty. Kennedy would then indeed have been betraying this Spartan brotherhood for they need war to create turmoil and line their pockets with gold. Peace is never what they are after hence the "terrorism" schools that pop up in history including the dastardly School of the Americas. And the Spartans ensured there would never be peace between Castro and the US by cutting off Che Guavera's hands and mailing them to Castro. Felix Rodriguez took a picture out of the severed hands on 60 Minute and showed it to the interviewer. It seems he keeps the snapshot as a trophy. Is it any wonder Castro hates America so vehemently?

There is another film on the assassination. It is the Nix film. It clearly shows that Kennedy's head is hit from the front and that the blood (etc.) gets pushed out the back. Now they can play games with physics all they want in guessing whether someone is pushed back or jerks forward when hit with a bullet. But you cannot deny blood splatter. It clearly sprays out the back. Further you can see a glint of something in the grassy knoll (Nix's film is taken from the opposite perspective of Zapruder and therefore shows this grassy knoll) almost instantaneously as Kennedy's forehead is hit.

Here is the link to view the film:


http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/

I suggest you slow the film down and view it frame-by-frame.

 

I hold perhaps the most controversial belief about the JFK assassination.

I think Oswald did it on his own.

The hysteria built up around the killing means no one can accpet that simple fact. It's about time everyone put this to bed.

 

Thank you for dropping in and pontificating. And you are who again? And I should listen to you why?

And you believe yourself to be "controversial?" Under what criteria do you use to categorize yourself thusly? This controversial theory of yours was the official one presented by the Warren Commission. Nothing like going way out on a limb!

And I love how you categorize anything that your little brain can't wrap itself around or comprehend as "hysteria." It's like watching a little kitten play with a ball of yarn. Of course, I haven't seen one person become hysterical here except for you. Everyone else seems to be discussing this assassination quite calmly and rationally.

As for your summation, when a conclusion is drawn (whether it be legally done or that done by an idiot who has his finger up his ass), that defies known physics (i.e., a bullet that travels at right angles, strikes flesh, bone, including removing the top half of a person's cranium and emerges in PRISTINE condition), one must press on for the truth.

Sorry if this is going against the grain of being a sheeple.

Now go back to sleep.

You are getting sleepy, sleepy, just look at the watch and the way it moves back and forth, back and forth, see how it sparkles, yes, and you will vote for George Bush, yes, and Oswald did it alone....

 

I'll pass on posting the resume.

In this the official view is the controversial one. From day one most Americans have believed the assissination to be part of a wider conspiracy. Few believe the Warren Commission and of course the House investigation into assisinations concluded in 79 (I think - around there anyway) that there was indeed a conspiracy (based on some spurious acoustic evidence of a fourth shot that was later discredited).

Why is it controversial to believe Oswald acted alone? Well an ABC poll has put those who believe the assisination was part of a conspiracy at:

46% in 1963
80% in 1983
70% in 2003

hys·ter·i·a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-str-, -stîr-) n.

Behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic.

Yup - that was the response in America in 1963. And that feeling of powerlessness and emotion transferred itself into the various conspiracy theories.

The magic bullet? Oh dear.

Now how many times will have to say this to Americans. Hollywood does not represent accepted fact. JFK by Oliver Stone was a work of fiction - you know, made up. If you need to check a dictionary definition of the difference between fact and fiction then please do, perhaps we can then move on.

Oliver Stone took some license (to say the least) with history. First off recent computer anlaysis which accurately simulates the Zapruder film and the exact position of everyone in Dealey plaza shows the magic bullet was nothing of the kind. It struck Kennedy in the upper back, exited at the base of his throat, entered Connally's right shoulder, exited below his right nipple, shattered his wrist and came to rest in his thigh.

Now, to begin with, if the two men were sitting in the same positions (back flat, head facing front) this would be an impossible shot. But Connally's body is turned to the right and leaned slightly forward. Why? He heard the first shot and was turning around to see what it was. Likewise, the bullet was coming down from a steep angle and Kennedy was taller than Connally - Connally was also sitting several inches lower than JFK and several inches to the left as he was on a temporary, fold-down seat.

And, the bullet was designed as a penetrating bullet with low deformity. In fact it was slightly damaged when it struck Connally's hand - the only bone (beyond glancing off the rib cage) that the bullet struck. Of course it was going much slower at this point in time as it had already passed through JFK and the governor. Ballistics showed the bullet was fired from the rifle found in the book despository.

Au contraire - you are quite the ovine! Let Oliver Stone dish you up some tasty falsehoods and swallow them whole without a moments consideration!

You really ought to try thinking for yourself - I can heartily reccomend it!

 

When a rich or powerfull person gets killed, basic policemen instinct tells you to always ask yourself:

WHO GETS THE MONEY OR IS THE NEW SHOP OWNER ???


In this case prime suspect : Lyndon B. Johnson.

This extremely powerhungry person lacked the personality to get chosen by the people in some democratic election, so, I wouldn't be surpised if he made a deal with the mobsters and some bad boys in the CIA...

 

Bull! 1.) Movies and fictional prose contain facts. Just because something is a film does not mean that it is all made up. JFK was a film about the Clay Shaw trial, a factual event. 2.) The magic bullet has NO connection or origin with the Oliver Stone film except that it's mentioned in the film.

All Bullcrap!! The epitome of sophistry. It's known by the single-assassin theorists that only one bullet must cause all those wounds else there's a second gunman, and a conspiracy. So, what they do is invent a way in which this can happen and just leave out the info that would not support their lie, i.e. the bullet fragments from Connally alone wiegh more than was missing from the pristine bullet, and the 2 to 3 second gap between the Kennedy strike and the Connally strike.

In the same vein of sophistry, they invent a way in which a bullet strike from the rear will cause a backward head snap and rearward blood and tissue spatter (including a greater than 7 cm skull fragment).

No murder court in the world would accept this spurious speculation, yet it is spoonfed to the public as proof of a single gunmen.

Instead of just letting people tell you what happened, why don't you use a modicum of critical thought and look at the evidence. It's out there.

Oliver Stone has nothing, and I literally mean nothing, to do with the valid conspiracy theories and Warren Commission criticisms expounded in his film.

You really ought to review the evidence and stop letting other people do your thinking for you.