Who Really Killed John F. Kennedy (2 Viewers)

[jazzeum]

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

You guys don't really understand that point in time (and were probably too young to do so), plus you're looking back at it from today and what we know. The 1960 campaign was the first campaign I was interested in as a 10 year old and JFK caught my attention.

JFK represented something new and fresh and brought forth idealism, youth and vitality, that things were going to get done. Here was a great young looking politician not at all in the mold of politicians of that age. Nixon was Tricky Dick (something people seem to have forgot about in 1969), whose reputation was unsavory, having been associated with McCarthy, Whittaker Chambers and scum of that type. Anyone remember the Checkers speech? He was part of the do nothing 1950s, part of the old leadership.

I see comments that JFK stole the election. Politics wasn't too clean then and you held back votes when you needed them. This was something both parties did. Not right, but reality. Read Robert Caro's back on LBJ if you want to get a good idea of this practice.

To the youth of America, JFK and the go getters he brought into the Presidency, he represented that can do spirit, what with the Peace Corps, getting the space program and so forth.

He inspired many (both Democrats and Republicans) to get involved with public service, that serving your country is a noble calling. For that alone, he should be remembered.

These were not rose colored glasses, this was the image he projected. When he was gone, and society and the War bogged doen, people had a wistfulness for that time.

The ironic part is that many of the programs he wanted to get done didn't get done and it was his death that helped them be enacted into law. Another irony is that Nixon, who represented a reaction to the whole 1960s, actually pushed for programs that conservatives now have a cow over such as EPA, OSHA, etc. It was just his personality, his Tricky Dickiness that got in the way.

There was a lot of rhetoric over reality but at the time we didn't know it then.

 

[tdubel]

You guys don't really understand that point in time (and were probably too young to do so), plus you're looking back at it from today and what we know. The 1960 campaign was the first campaign I was interested in as a 10 year old and JFK caught my attention.

JFK represented something new and fresh and brought forth idealism, youth and vitality, that things were going to get done. Here was a great young looking politician not at all in the mold of politicians of that age. Nixon was Tricky Dick (something people seem to have forgot about in 1969), whose reputation was unsavory, having been associated with McCarthy, Whittaker Chambers and scum of that type. Anyone remember the Checkers speech? He was part of the do nothing 1950s, part of the old leadership.

I see comments that JFK stole the election. Politics wasn't too clean then and you held back votes when you needed them. This was something both parties did. Not right, but reality. Read Robert Caro's back on LBJ if you want to get a good idea of this practice.

To the youth of America, JFK and the go getters he brought into the Presidency, he represented that can do spirit, what with the Peace Corps, getting the space program and so forth.

He inspired many (both Democrats and Republicans) to get involved with public service, that serving your country is a noble calling. For that alone, he should be remembered.

These were not rose colored glasses, this was the image he projected. When he was gone, and society and the War bogged doen, people had a wistfulness for that time.

The ironic part is that many of the programs he wanted to get done didn't get done and it was his death that helped them be enacted into law. Another irony is that Nixon, who represented a reaction to the whole 1960s, actually pushed for programs that conservatives now have a cow over such as EPA, OSHA, etc. It was just his personality, his Tricky Dickiness that got in the way.

There was a lot of rhetoric over reality but at the time we didn't know it then.

Brad, don't dispute what you write and I am too young to have lived it. I look back on it and developed my view and it has nothing to do with any polictical side, I just think the Kennedys were as "dirty" as any of them and the elder was as crooked as Frank Costello, Meyer Lanski, take your pick. There is no dispute that Costello saved him from being murdered. Vito Genovese ordered the hit b/c Joe Kennedy double dealed him.

Don't you find it ironic that the same mob ties that helped John win the election were the ones Robert went after? You are correct, it was a dirty game back then. I should also disclaim that I don't necessarily think everything the mob did was "bad" for America. I for one would still rather deal with the organized mob rather than the worldwide crime gangs we deal with today. You can also argue that the mob underground economy was beneificial in some manner too , ok, enough, I am digressing back to my college Eco classses!!!

Anyhow, my point is you are correct, I was too young to have experienced it, so I look back on it in the black/white/gray type of view.

TD

 

[lancer]

You guys don't really understand that point in time (and were probably too young to do so), plus you're looking back at it from today and what we know. The 1960 campaign was the first campaign I was interested in as a 10 year old and JFK caught my attention.

JFK represented something new and fresh and brought forth idealism, youth and vitality, that things were going to get done. Here was a great young looking politician not at all in the mold of politicians of that age. Nixon was Tricky Dick (something people seem to have forgot about in 1969), whose reputation was unsavory, having been associated with McCarthy, Whittaker Chambers and scum of that type. Anyone remember the Checkers speech? He was part of the do nothing 1950s, part of the old leadership.

I see comments that JFK stole the election. Politics wasn't too clean then and you held back votes when you needed them. This was something both parties did. Not right, but reality. Read Robert Caro's back on LBJ if you want to get a good idea of this practice.

To the youth of America, JFK and the go getters he brought into the Presidency, he represented that can do spirit, what with the Peace Corps, getting the space program and so forth.

He inspired many (both Democrats and Republicans) to get involved with public service, that serving your country is a noble calling. For that alone, he should be remembered.

These were not rose colored glasses, this was the image he projected. When he was gone, and society and the War bogged doen, people had a wistfulness for that time.

The ironic part is that many of the programs he wanted to get done didn't get done and it was his death that helped them be enacted into law. Another irony is that Nixon, who represented a reaction to the whole 1960s, actually pushed for programs that conservatives now have a cow over such as EPA, OSHA, etc. It was just his personality, his Tricky Dickiness that got in the way.

There was a lot of rhetoric over reality but at the time we didn't know it then.

I don't entirely agree with this, Brad. I'm only 3 years younger than you, and my memories and opinions are in large formed from what the people I grew up with expressed during these years. They were what one would call the establishment. My father, mother, aunts and uncles, none of them were buying what Kennedy was selling. In fact, the election was the closest in US history, so a lot of other people weren't buying it either. My comment wasn't aimed at the popularity of Kennedy or Nixon as it actually was, but rather at the memory (perception) of the popularity of Kennedy, today. He simply wasn't as widely supported as today's perceptions would have us believe. I realize this is a classic divide along the lines of the establishment vs youth movement, but that's the way it seems to play out. The image he projected to the people around me was quite different to the image you write about. His image was one of inexperience, recklessness, and privilege, that many thought was dangerous for the country. Just a view from the other side of the fence. -- Al

 

[jazzeum]

Tom,

I'm not disputing that there were mob ties between the old man and the crime families or that JFK wasn't a hard nosed politician (because he was). However, those were things we learned later on. At the time (1960) he represented change and appealed to young people, even young kids like me.

We later learned that the reality wasn't was it seemed but in that day and age we didn't know that.

Speaking of Robert, as the 1960s progressed, he came to be seen as the Kennedy, who had a conscience but was also a hard headed politician. JFK was the latter but a little too much and I (along with others) wasn't sure about his commitment to civil rights.

Bobby was different. We were in the throes of the Vietnam War and civil unrest (the Detroit and Newark riots happened around that time) and he was going to get the country out of Vietnam and somehow back on track. JFK's death was terrible but too many who supported Bobby, this was a crusher. I was never in the Eugene McCarthy camp (for those old enough to remember) as I just didn't like him, maybe a little too idealistic.

Had RFK become President, I think we'd be a different country today. Of course, we'll never know that. I was a junior in high school in June 68 and I went to bed pretty sure that he'd won California (he'd won Indiana that night) and would be the nominee over Humphrey, who was the establishment candidate, and preferred by the party. I was pretty happy to say the least. My mother woke me up at 5 in the morning to tell me he'd been shot, not expected to live. It's a moment I've never forgotten and still haunts me, even to this day.

 

[jazzeum]

I don't entirely agree with this, Brad. I'm only 3 years younger than you, and my memories and opinions are in large formed from what the people I grew up with expressed during these years. They were what one would call the establishment. My father, mother, aunts and uncles, none of them were buying what Kennedy was selling. In fact, the election was the closest in US history, so a lot of other people weren't buying it either. My comment wasn't aimed at the popularity of Kennedy or Nixon as it actually was, but rather at the memory (perception) of the popularity of Kennedy, today. He simply wasn't as widely supported as today's perceptions would have us believe. I realize this is a classic divide along the lines of the establishment vs youth movement, but that's the way it seems to play out. The image he projected to the people around me was quite different to the image you write about. His image was one of inexperience, recklessness, and privilege, that many thought was dangerous for the country. Just a view from the other side of the fence. -- Al

Yes, that is where we divide. Just as you were influenced by your family and I expect you're from the right side of the pendelum (where I'm on the decidedly left side of the pendulum), I was influenced by mine, who adored FDR and the New Deal, and JFK was the one who would get things going again. Nixon was not that guy, just another politician who used the Red scare to get himself elected, Tricky Dick, anathema.

Again, at that time JFK showed vitality. I expect those who opposed him wanted someone safe, a continuation of Ike, a continuation of the 1950s. But as the Byrds said, "the times, they are a-changing," and they were. JFK represented the beginning of that change, Nixon and the Republicans trying to hold it back. His election in 1969 was an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle but it was a little to late for that.

 

[lancer]

Yes, that is where we divide. Just as you were influenced by your family and I expect you're from the right side of the pendelum (where I'm on the decidedly left side of the pendulum), I was influenced by mine, who adored FDR and the New Deal, and JFK was the one who would get things going again. Nixon was not that guy, just another politician who used the Red scare to get himself elected, Tricky Dick, anathema.

Again, at that time JFK showed vitality. I expect those who opposed him wanted someone safe, a continuation of Ike, a continuation of the 1950s. But as the Byrds said, "the times, they are a-changing," and they were. JFK represented the beginning of that change, Nixon and the Republicans trying to hold it back. His election in 1969 was an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle but it was a little to late for that.

Brad, as Tom said earlier, the nail has been hit on the head. The families that I belonged to, father's side, mother's side, hated FDR and everything he stood for (WW2 being a different matter, of course). I come from a long line of right-wingers. I won't go into the many political discussions I listened to involving my uncles about Kennedy. Suffice it to say he was not popular. My mother's father (and that side of the family from down south) had a healthy dislike of FDR, and I remember some spirited discussions on him, as well. I was one of the few conservatives on the campus of UMd in the early 70's so I was not particularly popular. I guess I was doomed from the start.:wink2: -- Al

 

[jazzeum]

Brad, as Tom said earlier, the nail has been hit on the head. The families that I belonged to, father's side, mother's side, hated FDR and everything he stood for (WW2 being a different matter, of course). I come from a long line of right-wingers. I won't go into the many political discussions I listened to involving my uncles about Kennedy. Suffice it to say he was not popular. My mother's father (and that side of the family from down south) had a healthy dislike of FDR, and I remember some spirited discussions on him, as well. I was one of the few conservatives on the campus of UMd in the early 70's so I was not particularly popular. I guess I was doomed from the start.:wink2: -- Al

Not liking FDR. Heresy, and heresy in my family {eek3}. Guess we'll leave it at that.

 

[Scott]

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

"My Dear Wife's" favorite priest likes his "Father Corby at Gettysburg" figure I painted.

 

[tdubel]

Brad, as Tom said earlier, the nail has been hit on the head. The families that I belonged to, father's side, mother's side, hated FDR and everything he stood for (WW2 being a different matter, of course). I come from a long line of right-wingers. I won't go into the many political discussions I listened to involving my uncles about Kennedy. Suffice it to say he was not popular. My mother's father (and that side of the family from down south) had a healthy dislike of FDR, and I remember some spirited discussions on him, as well. I was one of the few conservatives on the campus of UMd in the early 70's so I was not particularly popular. I guess I was doomed from the start.:wink2: -- Al

Not liking FDR. Heresy, and heresy in my family {eek3}. Guess we'll leave it at that.

Al, Brad,
In all sincerity, thanks for both of your comments on this thread. It has always been a fascinating subject to me (Nixon/Kennedy) and it is unique to discuss it with 2 who were there so to speak and it is an interesting learning experience. I also applaud you both in the level headedness and frank and forthright discussion of your views. Too many times, these conversations should be had but can't due to hot headedness. I always have found that when one takes the time to explain their opinions or views, it is a much better discussion and usually stays fairly calm!

Bravo,
Tom

 

[jazzeum]

Apologies to all if this thread got sidetracked but I want to mention that what you know about a historical event when you are living it may be different than what you find out years later.

For example, to many people (most, judging by the election results :smile2, FDR was a god and could do no wrong; my mother who lived through the Depression is one such person. However, he had his faults. Of course, you can't tell her that. His style of governance was chaotic; he would avoid making decisions until he had to. Another example, in the latter part of WW II, when the USA had taken over a good part of fighting the War, and the British had been reduced to a somewhat lesser role, his conduct towards his ally and supposed friend Winston Churchill was somewhat shocking.

All this teaches us is that sometime things are not as they are, points Tom and Al that have also made in this discussion.

 

[Currahee Chris]

my 2 cents=

a.) President= political= forum rules??

b.) If God Himself told the world who did what around this entire tragedy would the world believe it? i doubt it so there's no way it ever gets solved.

c.) conspriacy theories- anyone who has worked for the fed will tell you, as I can now and do, that anyone who tries to lump anyone associated with the government as having the creativity to coordinate some kind of elaborate "hit" is giving us far more credit than we are due. Ask yourselves about all the times you have read about idiotic things the fed has done and seriously evaluate if that same government has the ability to orchestrate some kind complex trigger event which leads to decades of who dunnits.

 

[Combat]

my 2 cents=

a.) President= political= forum rules??

b.) If God Himself told the world who did what around this entire tragedy would the world believe it? i doubt it so there's no way it ever gets solved.

c.) conspriacy theories- anyone who has worked for the fed will tell you, as I can now and do, that anyone who tries to lump anyone associated with the government as having the creativity to coordinate some kind of elaborate "hit" is giving us far more credit than we are due. Ask yourselves about all the times you have read about idiotic things the fed has done and seriously evaluate if that same government has the ability to orchestrate some kind complex trigger event which leads to decades of who dunnits.

Chris - I agree with you on C. But I think the case has been officially solved whether people want to believe it or not. The Dallas Police arrested Oswald within one hour of the crime and no one else in 50 years has been implicated. btw: ABC did an excellent show on the Kennedy assassination a few years back. You can watch the whole thing on You Tube. It's well worth the time for anyone interested in the case (and likely beats reading the 1600 page Bugliosi tome):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um0f7NuM_3Y&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL6D1DC1433C5E36A3

 

[damian]

my 2 cents=

a.) President= political= forum rules??

b.) If God Himself told the world who did what around this entire tragedy would the world believe it? i doubt it so there's no way it ever gets solved.

c.) conspriacy theories- anyone who has worked for the fed will tell you, as I can now and do, that anyone who tries to lump anyone associated with the government as having the creativity to coordinate some kind of elaborate "hit" is giving us far more credit than we are due. Ask yourselves about all the times you have read about idiotic things the fed has done and seriously evaluate if that same government has the ability to orchestrate some kind complex trigger event which leads to decades of who dunnits.

I think I remember some CIA type academic saying point C to Noam Chomsky.
Do you really think a government department is so organized that it could organize a deliberate deception that lasts for years and spans continents.

 

[Currahee Chris]

Regarding Point C- I attended a book signing a decade or so ago by a noted FBI profiler. Someone in the audience asked him his thoughts on the JFK issue and he said something along those lines..which got me thinking...it really didn't make any sense to me back in 1998 but seems dead on the older I get. {sm4}

 

[Scott]

The following questions still have not been answered on a one for one basis ***


3) How can up to 100 people who knew or saw something about the assasination
all mysteriously die ? What are the odds of that ?

!

Let's see.....

"Really So Mysterious?"

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/deaths.htm

 

[tdubel]

Regarding Point C- I attended a book signing a decade or so ago by a noted FBI profiler. Someone in the audience asked him his thoughts on the JFK issue and he said something along those lines..which got me thinking...it really didn't make any sense to me back in 1998 but seems dead on the older I get. {sm4}

We make the joke that the government can't do anything along these lines, but I certainly hope that our CIA can cover up their activities most of the time as I would think that is a must for clandestine operations!

Anyhow, back to this subject, whatever you believe, there is a point / counter point about everything that the other side will take as gospel.

Again, contrary to Doug's opinion, I dont have a 100% view either way, I do think the official version is just not all there. The facts are still cloudy and just because a blowhard like Bugilosi wrote 1600 pages on the subject, that doesn't close the loop for me. No offense, but Bugiliosi has been a great self authority ever since he prosecuted Manson. Additionally, the man walked off of 2 interviews regarding Kennedy because he chose not to answer the questions. And they were with 2 vastly different interviewers, one was completely neutral, one was skeptical. I gathered from those actions "that if it ain't all about Vince, then he is not interested".

Again, my 2 cents, we all fall somewhere on this line.

TD

 

[MapleLeaf]

I seen and heard about many conspiracy theories
but one thing for sure Hoswald was not alone
he said that himself before he was killed
i am just a patsy
And all those misterious deaths
It makes u think don't it

 

[Scott]

I seen and heard about many conspiracy theories
but one thing for sure Hoswald was not alone
he said that himself before he was killed
i am just a patsy
And all those misterious deaths
It makes u think don't it

Jim Marrs' List
Really So Mysterious?
"Strange" and "Convenient" Deaths Surrounding the Assassination

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/deaths.htm

 

[PanzerAce1944]

Comments mentioned about the conspiracy. Yes there were many mistakes made during the assasination and they still sold the Lee Harvey Oswald tale to the American public. If the same event took place in Dallas in 2011 people would not fall for the lone gunman scenario. JFK was not effectively hit mortally until the grassy knoll gunmen fired. They were the last resort....The back stop and had to shoot because everyone else failed to get an effective kill shot. A lot of bullets fired that day.If you want to read Bugliosi books, view ABC documentary tales, and so on I have some lake front property in El Paso that I would love to sell to you. JFK had to be taken out of the presidency back in 1963 because he was anti Vietnam War, Anti Military Industrial Complex, and anti CIA. He vowed to disassemble the current CIA network into a thousand pieces and place its duties into the hands of the military. Allen Dulles was head of the CIA and fired prior to Nov. 1963. It is ironic that he became one of the members of the Warren commission. Go to Google and look up E. Howard Hunt JFK conspiracy and pick up your reading from there.Yes the same CIA operative E. Howard Hunt who was involved with "WaterGate" back in the 70's. People will believe what they choose to believe, but after November 22nd 1963 we as a country lost our innocence............

 

[Combat]

Comments mentioned about the conspiracy. Yes there were many mistakes made during the assasination and they still sold the Lee Harvey Oswald tale to the American public. If the same event took place in Dallas in 2011 people would not fall for the lone gunman scenario. JFK was not effectively hit mortally until the grassy knoll gunmen fired. They were the last resort....The back stop and had to shoot because everyone else failed to get an effective kill shot. A lot of bullets fired that day.If you want to read Bugliosi books, view ABC documentary tales, and so on I have some lake front property in El Paso that I would love to sell to you. JFK had to be taken out of the presidency back in 1963 because he was anti Vietnam War, Anti Military Industrial Complex, and anti CIA. He vowed to disassemble the current CIA network into a thousand pieces and place its duties into the hands of the military. Allen Dulles was head of the CIA and fired prior to Nov. 1963. It is ironic that he became one of the members of the Warren commission. Go to Google and look up E. Howard Hunt JFK conspiracy and pick up your reading from there.Yes the same CIA operative E. Howard Hunt who was involved with "WaterGate" back in the 70's. People will believe what they choose to believe, but after November 22nd 1963 we as a country lost our innocence............

Anyone who pulled that off likely monitor the Internet and eliminate those who know the truth. So be careful.