Who Really Killed John F. Kennedy (1 Viewer)

[tdubel]

There is nothing cloudy about the historical record here. In fact there probably has been more research done on those few seconds in Dallas than any in history. It has been examined and picked apart from every angle for nearly 50 years. However, I don't doubt that some people will continue to belive in a conspiracy just as some believe in bigfoot and ghosts but that doesn't give it validity. Determining what happened is based on an examination of facts and evidence. And no reasonable person can look at the evidence in this case and come away with any conclusion other than Oswald is the lone shooter. That's a 100% certainty. You will find no one in prison today who has more evidence against them than we have on Oswald. We have 1000% more evidence against Oswald then we do on John Wilkes Booth. There are two related reasons that most believe in a conspiracy and they have nothing to do with the facts. First, a mistrust of government. Anything important that happens in the world must be the result of some puppet strings pulled at the highest level. Second, an inability to accept that one lonely guy with a cheap rifle could change the history of the world. Vietnam, Watergate, the Civil Rights amendments were all significantly impacted by Oswald's actions on that day. And some just can't accept that happened by chance. To accept that is to acknowledge that we don't have complete control over events in this world.

Doug, I and a "few" others are reasonable people and I don't agree with the 100% certainty of the interpretation fo facts. For every point that Bugliosi makes, there is a counterpoint made by another expert based on the same facts. Jeez, it is basically its own industry! I have no issue that you believe what you believe and are adamant about it. I just don't fully believe the same version. I would bet if you could possibly do a scientific, unbiased poll, you would find that there is absolutely with certainty no agreement among "experts" with what exactly happened that day.

It is the same story, different sides will interpret what they do and all sides will be deemed as unreasonable idiots by the other side. I don't have a strong conviction on either side, but I do have a strong conviction that the truth lies somewhere in between as it most always does.

TD

 

[damian]

The issue to me is that the world's population by and large no longer trust their leaders and institutions. People across the world and across religious and political divides simply accept implicitly that they are being lied to on a regular basis. The right wing believe the left control the media and the left believes the right does. Islamic fundamentalists believe all media is the spawn of satan and controlled by western corporations and the rest of us believe that Al Qaeda are infiltrating our tv stations. It is like the days of the Cold War where we believed every little event was master minded by SMERSH. The Kennedy conspiracy theories and beliefs must be seen in the light of this.

 

[Scott]

The issue to me is that the world's population by and large no longer trust their leaders and institutions. People across the world and across religious and political divides simply accept implicitly that they are being lied to on a regular basis. The right wing believe the left control the media and the left believes the right does. Islamic fundamentalists believe all media is the spawn of satan and controlled by western corporations and the rest of us believe that Al Qaeda are infiltrating our tv stations. It is like the days of the Cold War where we believed every little event was master minded by SMERSH. The Kennedy conspiracy theories and beliefs must be seen in the light of this.

"Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do! We do!
Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do! We do!
Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star?
We do! We do!
Who robs cave fish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
We do! We do!"

 

[damian]

"Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do! We do!
Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do! We do!
Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star?
We do! We do!
Who robs cave fish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
We do! We do!"

I knew it all along.

 

[Louis Badolato]

The issue to me is that the world's population by and large no longer trust their leaders and institutions. People across the world and across religious and political divides simply accept implicitly that they are being lied to on a regular basis. The right wing believe the left control the media and the left believes the right does. Islamic fundamentalists believe all media is the spawn of satan and controlled by western corporations and the rest of us believe that Al Qaeda are infiltrating our tv stations. It is like the days of the Cold War where we believed every little event was master minded by SMERSH. The Kennedy conspiracy theories and beliefs must be seen in the light of this.

You may have something there, Damian. I personally am of the age where my earliest memories of the evening news are of Walter Kronkite telling us about the last few years leading up to the collapse in Vietnam followed by Watergate. My age group may be the first Americans who were raised to have absolutely no faith in our government. Plus, to top it off, I'm agnostic. So I have no innate belief system which would lead me to trust anything any government official or religious leader has to say about anything.

I may be in the minority, but I neither claim to know nor particularly care whether Oswald acted alone or as part of a conspiracy. The end result is the same. A charismatic president ended up dead.

That being said, if someone told me that everything in the Warren report was fabricated, it wouldn't shock me, and I wouldn't be shocked if the Warren report turned out to be completely true and based on a thorough investigation. If the last 40 years of history has taught me anything, its take nothing coming from any politician or beaurocrat's mouth on faith. On the same vein, however, I take nothing a conspiracy theorist says on faith either.

 

[lancer]

"Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do! We do!
Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do! We do!
Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star?
We do! We do!
Who robs cave fish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
We do! We do!"

Doesn't surprise me. I suspected as much. :wink2: -- Al

 

[tdubel]

You may have something there, Damian. I personally am of the age where my earliest memories of the evening news are of Walter Kronkite telling us about the last few years leading up to the collapse in Vietnam followed by Watergate. My age group may be the first Americans who were raised to have absolutely no faith in our government. Plus, to top it off, I'm agnostic. So I have no innate belief system which would lead me to trust anything any government official or religious leader has to say about anything.

I may be in the minority, but I neither claim to know nor particularly care whether Oswald acted alone or as part of a conspiracy. The end result is the same. A charismatic president ended up dead.

That being said, if someone told me that everything in the Warren report was fabricated, it wouldn't shock me, and I wouldn't be shocked if the Warren report turned out to be completely true and based on a thorough investigation. If the last 40 years of history has taught me anything, its take nothing coming from any politician or beaurocrat's mouth on faith. On the same vein, however, I take nothing a conspiracy theorist says on faith either.

See, all it takes is an articulate appealate attorney!! Bravo, that is where I lie in this debate. I don't believe any of it with 100% certainty nor would I necessarily disbelieve it. It as I said is like a lot of things, life is full of gray areas and that is where the truth more likely than not lies.

And yes, even and unfortunately history is most always portrayed in a certain light dependent upon who is portraying it.

TD

 

[Combat]

Just out of curiosity what evidence would it take to convince you that Oswald was the shooter? Do you believe John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln? If so, what evidence is there in that case that is lacking against Oswald? I'm not sure why it's impossible to reach any reasoned conclusion in the Kennedy case.

BTW: Stephen King has a book coming out in Nov. which involves time travel to go back and change the events of 11/22/63!

 

[tdubel]

Just out of curiosity what evidence would it take to convince you that Oswald was the shooter? Do you believe John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln? If so, what evidence is there in that case that is lacking against Oswald? I'm not sure why it's impossible to reach any reasoned conclusion in the Kennedy case.

BTW: Stephen King has a book coming out in Nov. which involves time travel to go back and change the events of 11/22/63!

Doug,
I don't know that I have ever disputed Oswald being a shooter, just not sure he was the only one nor am I sure he acted alone. I really don't have a definitive belief like you do. My opinion, too much smoke around this one to be so cut and dry as the theory you believe. Not wrong or right, I just am not 100% convinced or satisfied and I have given up ever being there. The government's action/inaction, contradictory actions just cause doubt for me. Additionally, at that time, Kennedy family had a lot of problems with various factions in the goverment, foreign countries, the mob, etc. Regardless of his charisma, there was a lot of animosity toward him, his brother and especially his father from old grudges that went deep and long. Sure is an odd coincidence that his brother met a similar fate shortly thereafter. Heck, even girlfriend Monroe died. And let's not even discuss Lyndon Baines Johnson (Talk about a real story!) I just think the whole thing has issues and there is too much "smoke and fire". Like I said, I have given up on this one, to me, this is one of life's mysteries or gray areas.

Regarding Booth, I don't think there is too much controversy there at all. It was a conspiracy and he pulled the trigger.

TD

 

[tdubel]

Forgot to add one thing here about the Kennedy family in general which has fascinated me.

I find it amazing that a good portion of America was and still is enamored with the Kennedy family. I don't think there is any dispute to what has come out as fact regarding Joe Kennedy activities that formed the basis of the family wealth - bootlegging. He was in it so deep that when he double dealed a faction of the mob, it took Frank Costello (major mobster) to give him a pass and basically save his life. He was no better than the mobsters he dealt with (IMO). Additionally, it is no secret that he called in old favors from the same mob to make sure that Chicago delivered from Jack on election day. There are countless other deeds out there too.

Again, I find it fascinating that the facts above, not to mention the womanizing and various other financial misapproriations do not "taint the fond memories of Camelot" more so than they do.

Again, really not a judgement, I am just amazed and intrigued. The Kennedy phenomenon seems to trump all.

TD

 

[lancer]

Forgot to add one thing here about the Kennedy family in general which has fascinated me.

I find it amazing that a good portion of America was and still is enamored with the Kennedy family. I don't think there is any dispute to what has come out as fact regarding Joe Kennedy activities that formed the basis of the family wealth - bootlegging. He was in it so deep that when he double dealed a faction of the mob, it took Frank Costello (major mobster) to give him a pass and basically save his life. He was no better than the mobsters he dealt with (IMO). Additionally, it is no secret that he called in old favors from the same mob to make sure that Chicago delivered from Jack on election day. There are countless other deeds out there too.

Again, I find it fascinating that the facts above, not to mention the womanizing and various other financial misapproriations do not "taint the fond memories of Camelot" more so than they do.

Again, really not a judgement, I am just amazed and intrigued. The Kennedy phenomenon seems to trump all.

TD

I think the whole "Camelot" thing is a case of rose colored glasses. Everyone wants to fondly remember the Kennedy years and the "lost future" and not the fact that half the country voted for Nixon and that Kennedy was just not as popular as he is now remembered. -- Al

 

[damian]

In general there seem to be conspiracy theories from all spectrums of the political social religious divide about almost any event in the last sixty years. Princess Di, 911, any US presidential election result, world economic crisis.
We seem to have an insatiable desire for these theories. I have been lent videos where a whole hour is spent explaining the Free Masonary images on the US Dollar Bill and how these were started by the Illuminati etc. It is interesting at first but then became a bit repetitive to say the least.I think the reasons why society love the conspiracy theory are more interesting than the theories.

 

[Scott]

I think the whole "Camelot" thing is a case of rose colored glasses. Everyone wants to fondly remember the Kennedy years and the "lost future" and not the fact that half the country voted for Nixon and that Kennedy was just not as popular as he is now remembered. -- Al

It's all in the context of the times. People liked "Ike" but liked the idea of a young war hero with optimism over Nixon. I'm sure people were well aware of the Kennedy family's origins back then. (it came up in the campaigns) They considered how "old" and "new money" in the US got their money and then considered the public service that the Kennedy brothers (all US Vets) were doing.

By the time Nixon came along again, the Vietnam War, the anti-war protests, and reactions to Civil Rights legislation made candidate Nixon look "good" to conservative voters. 1968 was pretty much a "crack in time" with various disasters depressing the country.

There's a certain point where you have to dismiss skepticism from skepticism's sake when there's enough documentation that the reasonable person can check and verify on his own.

 

[lancer]

It's all in the context of the times. People liked "Ike" but liked the idea of a young war hero with optimism over Nixon. I'm sure people were well aware of the Kennedy family's origins back then. (it came up in the campaigns) They considered how "old" and "new money" in the US got their money and then considered the public service that the Kennedy brothers (all US Vets) were doing.

By the time Nixon came along again, the Vietnam War, the anti-war protests, and reactions to Civil Rights legislation made candidate Nixon look "good" to conservative voters. 1968 was pretty much a "crack in time" with various disasters depressing the country.

There's a certain point where you have to dismiss skepticism from skepticism's sake when there's enough documentation that the reasonable person can check and verify on his own.

I like the 'crack in time' reference. That year is still stuck in my head. To paraphrase; the hits just kept on coming. -- Al

 

[tdubel]

I think the whole "Camelot" thing is a case of rose colored glasses. Everyone wants to fondly remember the Kennedy years and the "lost future" and not the fact that half the country voted for Nixon and that Kennedy was just not as popular as he is now remembered. -- Al

Al, insert nail, hammer hit on head. Rose Colored glassess, that is what I was referring too. Thanks!

TD

 

[eborris]

Maybe Oswald acted alone and was the lone gunman with no help from anyone. It just seems strange that a complete moron like Oswald with a crappy rifle who seemed inept at every other aspect of his life, could plan and kill one of the most powerful men of his time alone.

Of course then again, the lone nut with a gun seems to always suceed.

 

[GICOP]

Here is a movie of the Kennedy assassination I saw when it was released in 1973

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070046/

I have a copy on DVD and still enjoy it

Cheers

Martyn

 

[lancer]

Al, insert nail, hammer hit on head. Rose Colored glassess, that is what I was referring too. Thanks!

TD

Tom, that sounds like an Excedrin headache waiting to happen. -- Al

 

[Peter Reuss]

So I have no innate belief system which would lead me to trust anything any government official or religious leader has to say about anything.

Unless that religious leader happens to be talking about toy soldiers...then they are completely trustworthy!

 

[Combat]

Doug,
I just think the whole thing has issues and there is too much "smoke and fire". Like I said, I have given up on this one, to me, this is one of life's mysteries or gray areas.

Regarding Booth, I don't think there is too much controversy there at all. It was a conspiracy and he pulled the trigger.

TD

The reference to "smoke and fire" reminds me of my favorite story regarding the Oliver Stone movie. There apparently was a witness who claimed to see a "puff" of smoke from the grassy knoll. Stone/Garrison leaped on this as evidence of a second shooter (maybe this is even the infamous "badge man"). So Stone tries to recreate it for the film. Only problem is that modern rifles don't produce smoke or least enough to be seen in the movie! So he has a guy stand behind the fence and release smoke to simulate the impossible scenario described by the witness. A metaphor for the entire conspiracy crowd if there ever was one. Or maybe Bobby Lee and some of his Rebs were firing muskets on the grassy knoll that day.

Kennedy's popularity is not hard to figure. He took a good picture which goes a long way. He looked like the Hollywood version of the actor most people would cast to be President. I've never seen a bad picture of Kennedy. Like Rommel in Africa he looked good on the camera. Kesselring was the better general but Rommel is the guy everyone remembers. And don't get me started on PT-109. You can only get run over in a PT boat by a destroyer and be deemed a hero if your father is a millionaire and former ambassador to England. Anyone else is court martialed. What a crock that story was.