PDA

View Full Version : Conspricary #1: JFK who do you think did it?



revelarts
06-25-2010, 01:19 PM
I'm more and more open toward "conspiracy" info.
the original modern US conspiracy is JFK. I wonder what's the take of folks here.

Do you believe the gov'ts 1st story, lone gunman, or something else?

PostmodernProphet
06-25-2010, 03:14 PM
what about "Jackie hired a hit man because she was pissed about Marilyn"?.....

KarlMarx
06-25-2010, 03:46 PM
Castro had something to do with it, I think. Castro had plenty of motivation to kill JFK (and RFK, too, for that matter) and the means to do it.

The reason that the conspiracy theory that some right wing shadow organization killed off Kennedy seems popular in the media is that Oswald, a COMMUNIST, killed JFK a leftist icon. That seems to be too much for them to deal with.

Little-Acorn
06-25-2010, 04:31 PM
It was the phone company.

revelarts
06-25-2010, 04:58 PM
what about "Jackie hired a hit man because she was pissed about Marilyn"?.....

just Marilyn?

hjmick
06-25-2010, 05:27 PM
Elvis...

Kathianne
06-25-2010, 06:57 PM
Michael Jackson.

PostmodernProphet
06-26-2010, 02:45 PM
had Michael Jackson even been born when JFK was killed?.....

revelarts
06-07-2011, 12:14 AM
<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3sOX7AViZek&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3sOX7AViZek&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

SassyLady
06-07-2011, 12:56 AM
Johnson

Kathianne
06-07-2011, 02:08 AM
had Michael Jackson even been born when JFK was killed?.....

that is irrelevant.

red states rule
06-07-2011, 03:32 AM
Hell, Bush did it

Just ask Gabby and she will confirm :laugh2:

CSM
06-07-2011, 06:48 AM
I think it was the Illuminati.

Mike Frank
07-06-2011, 07:46 PM
It could not be done by 1 person.

PostmodernProphet
07-06-2011, 08:49 PM
suicide.....

gabosaurus
07-07-2011, 01:16 AM
Oswald did it. But it was a set up. Why else would he be killed the next day?

If you want to know about how it was pulled off, read "Family of Secrets."

red states rule
07-07-2011, 04:11 AM
Oswald did it. But it was a set up. Why else would he be killed the next day?

If you want to know about how it was pulled off, read "Family of Secrets."

What did I tell you folks? In Gabby's world Bush is to blame for everything

It is her way of escaping the effects of all that hope and change sweeping the nation

soupnazi630
07-19-2011, 04:14 PM
It could not be done by 1 person.

Sure it could.

soupnazi630
07-19-2011, 04:15 PM
Oswald did it. But it was a set up. Why else would he be killed the next day?

If you want to know about how it was pulled off, read "Family of Secrets."

He was not killed the next day.

He was killed two days later and this does not prove a set up it only makes people suspicious of a set up

gabosaurus
07-19-2011, 06:54 PM
It was a set up. From the highest levels. Read the book. You will learn some pretty scary things.

soupnazi630
07-19-2011, 09:32 PM
It was a set up. From the highest levels. Read the book. You will learn some pretty scary things.

I have read it along with about 40 or so other books on the subject all of which claim a conspiracy.

None of then however including the book you are touting offers any real credible evidence they offer only interpretation and supposition.

On the other hand most have not read other books such Reclaiming History, Case Closed or the Warren Commission report all of which do offer real credible evidence that Oswald acted alone

gabosaurus
07-20-2011, 02:05 AM
On the other hand most have not read other books such Reclaiming History, Case Closed or the Warren Commission report all of which do offer real credible evidence that Oswald acted alone

Depends on what you consider to be credible evidence. Go to the building in Dallas (I've been there a few times) and see if it makes sense to you. The logistics are all wrong.

revelarts
07-20-2011, 09:57 AM
A million stories..
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4Wktzy-8BV8?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4Wktzy-8BV8?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>


Oswald "I"M JUST A PATSY"
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zrd99o4AGhE?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zrd99o4AGhE?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

soupnazi630
07-23-2011, 05:50 AM
Depends on what you consider to be credible evidence. Go to the building in Dallas (I've been there a few times) and see if it makes sense to you. The logistics are all wrong.

I have been there as well and it makes perfectly good sense and the " logistics " are all right.

It makes more sense to shoot from there than from anywhere else for several reasons. One reason is the target was moving slowly and steadily away from him, which makes for an easy shot. Anywhere else and the target would still be moving but across ones line of sight which is more difficult. Another reason is a warehouse by definition makes it easier to hide in or hide something in. The typical warehouse has boxes which can be easily rearranged without attracting attention. Conspiracy fans and fanatics ignore that and also ignore that places like the grassy knoll were exposed to casual view of far too many people ( none of whom saw a shooter ) and had no cover or concealment.

Credible evidence is evidence which would be allowed in court or be accepted by professional peer reviewed science. Sure conspiracy theorists like to lend credibility to the worst witnesses and the weakest evidence because they really have no evidence.

soupnazi630
07-23-2011, 06:08 AM
A million stories..
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4Wktzy-8BV8?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="390" width="640"></object>


Oswald "I"M JUST A PATSY"
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zrd99o4AGhE?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="390" width="640"></object>

You're right about the million stories part but stories aren't evidence. Even FBI agents like attention and are willing to lie to get it.

The evidence Adams mentions concerning Milteer was in fact examined by the House Select Committee on Assassination and they found no evidence linking Milteer to Kennedy's death. The Tape recording between Milteer and the FBI informant does exist but people like FBI agent Adams ( ret.) selectively cherry picks from parts of the tape and uses those quotes out of context. If one listens to the entire recording one realizes Milteer told the informant that a plan was in the works for Kennedy to be killed in MIAMI not Dallas and in fact the FBI investigated this before and after Kennedy's death. The part about shooting him from an office building sounds suspicious but in fact Milteer made that statement after being asked leading questions by the informant and such an idea to shoot Kennedy was a common idea. Kennedy himself once remarked that if anyone wanted to kill him they could shoot him from an open office window. While planning the motorcade route the chief of Dallas police expressed to the Secret Service that he was concerned about all of the office buildings Kennedy would have to be driven past and the possibility of someone firing from one. In fact contrary to popular belief The Secret Service did not and could not cover or secure all such buildings in a city like Dallas ( or any other ).

The picture which Agent Adams uses to id Milteer looks pretty grainy and vague and not a means for positive ID and finally Adams makes several statement which are outright false or which he cannot back up. For example it has long been a staple of conspiracy theorists that No one least of all Oswald could not have fire that bolt action rifle in the time line established by the Zapruder film and this is simply false. Many people using other rifles or even identical copies of Oswald's rifle and in some cases the exact same rifle have easily proven that firing 3 aimed shots at the same distances or greater is quite simple and easy. I've done it myself using an identical rifle. The various experts who analyzed the film established 7.9 seconds to 8.8 second many people can fire 3 aimed shots in 6 seconds or less from such a rifle.

Like many people Adams also states that the Warren Commission report is all lies yet mentions no specifics. Such as what part was a lie and how does he know this or prove it.

As for Oswald's claim that he was just a patsy this is nothing unusual. Criminal who get arrested often protest their innocence to anyone who listens. They claim to be framed or set up or that the charges were set up or whatever.

revelarts
07-23-2011, 09:12 AM
You're right about the million stories part but stories aren't evidence. Even FBI agents like attention and are willing to lie to get it.

The evidence Adams mentions concerning Milteer was in fact examined by the House Select Committee on Assassination and they found no evidence linking Milteer to Kennedy's death. The Tape recording between Milteer and the FBI informant does exist but people like FBI agent Adams ( ret.) selectively cherry picks from parts of the tape and uses those quotes out of context. If one listens to the entire recording one realizes Milteer told the informant that a plan was in the works for Kennedy to be killed in MIAMI not Dallas and in fact the FBI investigated this before and after Kennedy's death. The part about shooting him from an office building sounds suspicious but in fact Milteer made that statement after being asked leading questions by the informant and such an idea to shoot Kennedy was a common idea. Kennedy himself once remarked that if anyone wanted to kill him they could shoot him from an open office window. While planning the motorcade route the chief of Dallas police expressed to the Secret Service that he was concerned about all of the office buildings Kennedy would have to be driven past and the possibility of someone firing from one. In fact contrary to popular belief The Secret Service did not and could not cover or secure all such buildings in a city like Dallas ( or any other ).

The picture which Agent Adams uses to id Milteer looks pretty grainy and vague and not a means for positive ID and finally Adams makes several statement which are outright false or which he cannot back up. For example it has long been a staple of conspiracy theorists that No one least of all Oswald could not have fire that bolt action rifle in the time line established by the Zapruder film and this is simply false. Many people using other rifles or even identical copies of Oswald's rifle and in some cases the exact same rifle have easily proven that firing 3 aimed shots at the same distances or greater is quite simple and easy. I've done it myself using an identical rifle. The various experts who analyzed the film established 7.9 seconds to 8.8 second many people can fire 3 aimed shots in 6 seconds or less from such a rifle.

Like many people Adams also states that the Warren Commission report is all lies yet mentions no specifics. Such as what part was a lie and how does he know this or prove it.

As for Oswald's claim that he was just a patsy this is nothing unusual. Criminal who get arrested often protest their innocence to anyone who listens. They claim to be framed or set up or that the charges were set up or whatever.

You said the (retired) FBI guy is a Liar but then explain that he's basically he's telling the truth. you just dont agree with his conclusion. is it possible that the warren commission are "liars" too?


The House Select committed also concluded that Oswald was not acting alone. A conspiracy.
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WHNQdL9eImM?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="390" width="640"></object>



<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sHUKPXR5TbQ?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="390" width="640"></object>

"that Bay of pig thing"

fj1200
07-23-2011, 11:18 PM
The House Select committed also concluded...

A House committee also thought Smedley Butler was credible. :rolleyes:

revelarts
07-23-2011, 11:30 PM
A House committee also thought Smedley Butler was credible. :rolleyes:
Why do you think we wasn't?

fj1200
07-23-2011, 11:49 PM
Why do you think we wasn't?

He was going to overthrow the President he supported? Institute a return to Capitalism that he rejected?


Those implicated in the plot by Butler all denied any involvement. MacGuire was the only figure identified by Butler who testified before the committee. Others Butler accused were not called to appear to testify because the "committee has had no evidence before it that would in the slightest degree warrant calling before it such men... The committee will not take cognizance of names brought into testimony which constitute mere hearsay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay)."[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot#cite_note-page1-19)

revelarts
07-24-2011, 12:03 AM
He was going to overthrow the President he supported? Institute a return to Capitalism that he rejected?


He wasn't going to. he was allowing others to think so based on the fact he was for the troops and the troops were Pissed. Yeah?

Heresay
Innocent peoples homes have been broken into and they've been shot by police with less info.

And Oswald --above-- just said he didn't do it either. A similar corporatism/fascism took over Italy and Germany not sure why its unthinkable that there were plans afoot here too. Many of the people named did support the NAZIs. Frankly I'd take Butlers word for it over the robber barons. Who easily could have put a layer of deniablity between themselves and Butler.

fj1200
07-24-2011, 12:08 AM
Heresay
Innocent peoples homes have been broken into and they've been shot by police with less info.

So hearsay is the basis for Fascist plots now?

gabosaurus
07-24-2011, 12:09 AM
If you read into the Kennedy story, how Johnson was a compromise choice as VP and how much opposition there was to Kennedy in Texas, you gain a greater understanding as to why it happened. Not to mention why so many people with links to the assassination ended up dying. And why the Warren Commission was a total fraud.

soupnazi630
07-24-2011, 08:38 PM
You said the (retired) FBI guy is a Liar but then explain that he's basically he's telling the truth. you just dont agree with his conclusion. is it possible that the warren commission are "liars" too?


The House Select committed also concluded that Oswald was not acting alone. A conspiracy.
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WHNQdL9eImM?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="390" width="640"></object>



<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sHUKPXR5TbQ?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="390" width="640"></object>

"that Bay of pig thing"

Wrong.

I never said he was telling the truth at all.

I clearly stated he was NOT telling the truth and I was not ambiguous. Try reading my post again.

The house Select committee on Assassinations reached no such conclusion as you claim they never determined Oswald was NOT acting alone.

The conclusion of the HSCA was that there was a PROBABLE conspiracy. That is a horse of a different color from what you claim.

On the other hand they exhaustively investigated every lead and eliminated any conspiracy involving the Mafia, The CIA, The FBI, The Secret Service, The military Industrial Complex and anyone else which the conspiracy nuts blame. In fact the OGIRINAL report of the HSCA which is still available states that Oswald acted alone. The Committee changed this conclusion after the introduction of an analysis of a dicta-phone belt recording which led some to believe a second shooter may have been on the knoll. Unfortunately it was AFTER the HSCA was disbanded that this analysis was thoroughly debunked and proven wrong and since the second conclusion was based strictly on this analysis they never addressed the problem.

In the end there is no evidence what so ever of a second shooter or a conspiracy.

You ask if is is possible the Warren Commission lied the fact is any one can lie but as I pointed out neither you nor anyone else can specifically identify such a lie or prove one. The Warren Commissions work stands unchallenged by any conspiracy nut unless THEY lie ( and yes their lies can be proven ) about the commissions report. Rather than ask if they COULD have lied try pointing out a lie they stated.

soupnazi630
07-24-2011, 08:43 PM
If you read into the Kennedy story, how Johnson was a compromise choice as VP and how much opposition there was to Kennedy in Texas, you gain a greater understanding as to why it happened. Not to mention why so many people with links to the assassination ended up dying. And why the Warren Commission was a total fraud.

There are many different versions of the Kennedy story written by many different people. Many VPs end up being compromise choices to secure votes in states or from various factions but none of that remotely proves or suggests a conspiracy in the death of Kennedy.

Most people in Texas were not so opposed to Kennedy that they advocated his murder nor did any officials or government officials in Texas work to assassinate him. Oswald could not have cared less but he did kill Kennedy.

The legend about people linked to the assassination dying off is in fact not just legend but pure myth. The assassination happened almost fifty years ago and in that span of time many people WILL die regardless of their link to each other or a specific event. There is no evidence what so ever of any unusual deaths in connection to Kennedy's assassination other than Oswald himself.

Finally there is no evidence of any fraud on the part of the Warren Commission, like many conspiracy nuts it is easy for you to make such accusations but not so easy to back up and so far no one has refuted their conclusion or proven any act of fraud on their part.

gabosaurus
07-24-2011, 09:08 PM
Sure. Because most everyone who could refute the allegations of conspiracy died not too long after the assassination. Others wisely chose to keep quiet. You really should read more about the whole affair.

soupnazi630
07-24-2011, 09:28 PM
Sure. Because most everyone who could refute the allegations of conspiracy died not too long after the assassination. Others wisely chose to keep quiet. You really should read more about the whole affair.

This is simply not true.

Over the past fifty years many people with knowledge of the conspiracy have died but that is to be expected over the course of decades.

As I stated the idea of mysterious deaths linked to the assassination is myth and nothing more.

Sorry but I dare say I have read as much or more than you but not as selectively.

Try reading both sides of the argument and do not limit yourself to conspiracy propaganda, a good starting point is the Warren Commission report.

J.T
07-25-2011, 11:28 AM
It was JFK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6naJ08Tskk

soupnazi630
07-25-2011, 02:05 PM
It was JFK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6naJ08Tskk


Nice entertaining fiction which is what all the other conspiracy theories are.

Equally as realistic also

J.T
07-26-2011, 10:30 AM
Nice entertaining fiction which is what all the other conspiracy theories are.


All conspiracy theories (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf) are 'entertaining fiction'?

fj1200
07-26-2011, 10:56 AM
All conspiracy theories (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf) are 'entertaining fiction'?

BNsrK6P9QvI

soupnazi630
07-26-2011, 11:43 AM
All conspiracy theories (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf) are 'entertaining fiction'?

Well I admit entertaining is subjective, you for example may find a story entertaining which I find boring or vice-versa.

But yes all fiction.

Meaning people make up such stories to sell books, movies etc.

ConHog
08-03-2011, 02:04 PM
I'm more and more open toward "conspiracy" info.
the original modern US conspiracy is JFK. I wonder what's the take of folks here.

Do you believe the gov'ts 1st story, lone gunman, or something else?

The CIA did it under the direction of LBJ. No theory needed.

Of course Oswald was just a dupe.

soupnazi630
08-03-2011, 10:04 PM
The CIA did it under the direction of LBJ. No theory needed.

Of course Oswald was just a dupe.

Yes a theory is needed here.

It is needed because your claims are completely imaginary.

You have no evidence for either of your claims that the CIA did it under LBJ's direction and that Oswald was a dupe.

ConHog
08-05-2011, 12:58 PM
Yes a theory is needed here.

It is needed because your claims are completely imaginary.

You have no evidence for either of your claims that the CIA did it under LBJ's direction and that Oswald was a dupe.

Actually, I do. I wrote my Master's Thesis on this very subject. There is VERY credible evidence to suggest that Kennedy wanted us out of Vietnam as early as 1967 and Johnson's wife's family made A LOT of money off the continuation of that war. AND you have to remember that our government routinely did shit like this back in the 50's and 60's. It's not that far fetched to imagine that they would have been involved in something like this.

soupnazi630
08-12-2011, 08:51 AM
Actually, I do. I wrote my Master's Thesis on this very subject. There is VERY credible evidence to suggest that Kennedy wanted us out of Vietnam as early as 1967 and Johnson's wife's family made A LOT of money off the continuation of that war. AND you have to remember that our government routinely did shit like this back in the 50's and 60's. It's not that far fetched to imagine that they would have been involved in something like this.


Actually you do not and you just proved you do not.

The claim that Kennedy would have withdrawn us from Vietnam has been argued by many historians since the Vietnam war began. It is a worthy argument but not a certainty that he MIGHT have withdrawn, historians disagree and in fact it is all speculation simply because it never happened. What MIGHT have happened is always speculation.

Speculation is not fact nor is it evidence.

Either way none of what you claim is evidence that Oswald was duped and the CIA killed Kennedy under LBJ's direction. As you point out in your post it is easy to IMAGINE that it happened that way but imagination by definition is not reality and does not constitute evidence.

Congratulations on a masters degree but you still have no evidence that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK involving LBJ the CIA etc.

ConHog
08-13-2011, 12:36 AM
Actually you do not and you just proved you do not.

The claim that Kennedy would have withdrawn us from Vietnam has been argued by many historians since the Vietnam war began. It is a worthy argument but not a certainty that he MIGHT have withdrawn, historians disagree and in fact it is all speculation simply because it never happened. What MIGHT have happened is always speculation.

Speculation is not fact nor is it evidence.

Either way none of what you claim is evidence that Oswald was duped and the CIA killed Kennedy under LBJ's direction. As you point out in your post it is easy to IMAGINE that it happened that way but imagination by definition is not reality and does not constitute evidence.

Congratulations on a masters degree but you still have no evidence that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK involving LBJ the CIA etc.

Of course , this is why it's called a conspiracy theory and not fact. I BELIEVE the evidence points to my conclusion. I certainly don't claim 100% it's true though.

soupnazi630
08-13-2011, 01:32 AM
Of course , this is why it's called a conspiracy theory and not fact. I BELIEVE the evidence points to my conclusion. I certainly don't claim 100% it's true though.

At first you stated it as fact and that no theory was needed.

It's not even a theory at all as you stated in your last post it is IMAGINARY.

There is no evidence to support such a conclusion.

LuvRPgrl
08-14-2011, 07:22 PM
You're right about the million stories part but stories aren't evidence. Even FBI agents like attention and are willing to lie to get it.

.

WHEN asked what is credible evidence,you mentioned ""credible" witnesses, then when someone is using an FBI agent, you say he is lieing.
So, it sounds like "credible" is defined by what you want to believ

Ruby killed Oswald. Ruby was not a JFK junkie, so there has to be another reason for it. When you come up with the various possibilities, or the one real reason, you will have your answer.
Ruby murdering Oswald is the single most important and compelling fact in the whole, "Who dunnit"

W

LuvRPgrl
08-14-2011, 07:39 PM
Actually you do not and you just proved you do not.

The claim that Kennedy would have withdrawn us from Vietnam has been argued by many historians since the Vietnam war began. It is a worthy argument but not a certainty that he MIGHT have withdrawn, historians disagree and in fact it is all speculation simply because it never happened. What MIGHT have happened is always speculation.

Speculation is not fact nor is it evidence.

Either way none of what you claim is evidence that Oswald was duped and the CIA killed Kennedy under LBJ's direction. As you point out in your post it is easy to IMAGINE that it happened that way but imagination by definition is not reality and does not constitute evidence.

Congratulations on a masters degree but you still have no evidence that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK involving LBJ the CIA etc.
The question "Is there any proof that JFK was planning on pulling out of S Vietnam" is the wrong question.
All that matter is If LBJ and/or his wife and/or his wifes family believed it.

But you didnt consider that because you start out with every bit of information from the POV that Oswald did it alone.

soupnazi630
08-14-2011, 09:35 PM
WHEN asked what is credible evidence,you mentioned ""credible" witnesses, then when someone is using an FBI agent, you say he is lieing.
So, it sounds like "credible" is defined by what you want to believ

Ruby killed Oswald. Ruby was not a JFK junkie, so there has to be another reason for it. When you come up with the various possibilities, or the one real reason, you will have your answer.
Ruby murdering Oswald is the single most important and compelling fact in the whole, "Who dunnit"

W

You need to pay more attention to detail.

I pointed out specific facts which PROVED he was lying I did not merely call him that or claim he is lacking in credibility. Nor is he a credible witness for the simple reason he was not a witness AT ALL. He was not there. Credible is defined by one not being contradicted by ones own documents as he was.

Ruby did not need to be a JFK junkie or fan to support his motivation. He explained why he shot Oswald and maintained that motive for years before dying himself. Any reasonable person can only conclude that when a convicted murderer admits to having committed murder and then explains their motives that the motive they give IS THE REAL ONE.

soupnazi630
08-14-2011, 09:37 PM
The question "Is there any proof that JFK was planning on pulling out of S Vietnam" is the wrong question.
All that matter is If LBJ and/or his wife and/or his wifes family believed it.

But you didnt consider that because you start out with every bit of information from the POV that Oswald did it alone.

I did not ask if there is any proof that JFK was going to pull out of Vietnam as i stated it is historic speculation.

What ever LBJ his wife or family believed about that is irrelevant.

From the POV of one who has no idea who shot Kennedy the question of Vietnam is irrelevant because it has no bearing on who shot JFK.

There is no evidence linking LBJ to his death.

LuvRPgrl
08-14-2011, 09:42 PM
You need to pay more attention to detail.

I pointed out specific facts which PROVED he was lying I did not merely call him that or claim he is lacking in credibility. Nor is he a credible witness for the simple reason he was not a witness AT ALL. He was not there. Credible is defined by one not being contradicted by ones own documents as he was.

Ruby did not need to be a JFK junkie or fan to support his motivation. He explained why he shot Oswald and maintained that motive for years before dying himself. Any reasonable person can only conclude that when a convicted murderer admits to having committed murder and then explains their motives that the motive they give IS THE REAL ONE.

so you consider a convicted murder as credible, but not an FBI agent??

What did Ruby say his motive was?

LuvRPgrl
08-14-2011, 09:45 PM
I did not ask if there is any proof that JFK was going to pull out of Vietnam as i stated it is historic speculation.

What ever LBJ his wife or family believed about that is irrelevant.

From the POV of one who has no idea who shot Kennedy the question of Vietnam is irrelevant because it has no bearing on who shot JFK.

There is no evidence linking LBJ to his death.
hot
IF one is looking to see if LBJ might have been behind it, then what he BELIEVED is very important, it is more important than what Kennedy was or was not planning, or if anyone could even speculate on it.

So what evidence do we have for ANYONE who may have shot Kennedy.?

soupnazi630
08-14-2011, 11:04 PM
so you consider a convicted murder as credible, but not an FBI agent??

What did Ruby say his motive was?

One more time when a murderer CONFESSES and then explains his motive yes he is credible at least as far as his motive is concerned.

Once one is convicted and confesses what more is to be gained by lying about motive?

Anyone FBI agent or not is not credible when it is proven as it was in this case that they lied.

Ruby stated he was distraught over the murder ( as most Americans were ) loved and admired JFK ( supported by any witness who knew him well ) and anguished over the fate of Jackie Kennedy.

All consistent with witnesses ( who knew him ) descriptions of the man

soupnazi630
08-14-2011, 11:06 PM
hot
IF one is looking to see if LBJ might have been behind it, then what he BELIEVED is very important, it is more important than what Kennedy was or was not planning, or if anyone could even speculate on it.

So what evidence do we have for ANYONE who may have shot Kennedy.?

There is not even a speck of evidence that LBJ was behind it ergo what he believed is irrelevant.

The evidence proving Oswald shot Kennedy is overwhelming.

It is forensic evidence, physical evidence, witness statements and descriptions. More so than most convicted murderers in fact.

So far however no conspiracy theorist has any evidence that anyone else was involved.

LuvRPgrl
08-15-2011, 03:24 PM
Actually you do not and you just proved you do not.

The claim that Kennedy would have withdrawn us from Vietnam has been argued by many historians since the Vietnam war began. It is a worthy argument but not a certainty that he MIGHT have withdrawn.Actually it is A CERTAINTY THAT HE MIGHT HAVE WITHDRAWN. what isnt a certainty is that he would. It already planned if everything continued as was going in Nam already
,
historians disagree and in fact it is all speculation simply because it never happened. What MIGHT have happened is always speculation..Of course it didnt happen, he was assasinated before it was due to occur, this doesnt disprove the PLANs to withdraw, which is a very credible reason to kill someone.


Speculation is not fact nor is it evidence..neither are your opinions couched as "evidence"


Either way none of what you claim is evidence that Oswald was duped and the CIA killed Kennedy under LBJ's direction. what proof do you have that Oswald acted alone?


. As you point out in your post it is easy to IMAGINE that it happened that way but imagination by definition is not reality and does not constitute evidence. . It doesnt constiture evidence, but that doesnt mean what you are imaging is not reality, havent you ever heard someone say "its exactly as I imagined it".

soupnazi630
08-15-2011, 03:48 PM
Actually it is A CERTAINTY THAT HE MIGHT HAVE WITHDRAWN. what isnt a certainty is that he would. It already planned if everything continued as was going in Nam already
,Of course it didnt happen, he was assasinated before it was due to occur, this doesnt disprove the PLANs to withdraw, which is a very credible reason to kill someone.

neither are your opinions couched as "evidence"

what proof do you have that Oswald acted alone?

It doesnt constiture evidence, but that doesnt mean what you are imaging is not reality, havent you ever heard someone say "its exactly as I imagined it".

Try a dictionary, look up the word MIGHT, when you claim something might have happened or might not have happened it is by definition NOT a certainty.

It was also never planned as you claim.

It may be in some people's mind a credible reason to kill someone but one needs a hell of a lot more than a motive to prove murder. Any given victim of murder has likely left many people with motive to commit such murder but one needs more than that one needs evidence that the person with motive committed the crime. For example , rich guy dies due to foul play. Do his heirs stand to gain ? Probably! Does this mean they are the ones guilty of killing him? In most cases no.

As for Oswald acting alone one can speculate all one likes or use one imaginations all one likes but once again that is not reality. The evidence is overwhelming that Oswald killed Kennedy but not a shred of evidence establishes an accomplice or accomplices which by definition is needed if one states there was a conspiracy. The investigations into the killing such as the Warren Commission were some of the most exhaustive intensive and comprehensive investigations ever conducted into into a specific crime. Included was exhaustive detailed examinations of any claim which may have led to identification of an accomplish or conspiracy and they found no evidence of either. Under such circumstances the question is not how can one prove he acted alone but instead what proof is there of a conspiracy. The answer is none.

Stating that others may or may not have had motive is meaningless because there is no evidence anyone else was involved. It is also meaningless because there were of course many people with motive. Any president makes enemies. That is simple fact established by the fact that a president is a successful politician who had to defeat others to get elected and who had many people voting AGAINST him even if he ultimately won. Any of those people can be described as having MOTIVE but that is not enough to imply they committed the crime of killing said president.

LuvRPgrl
09-11-2011, 03:54 PM
In particular, the various investigations performed by the U.S. government were faulted for insufficient consideration of the possibility of a conspiracy in each case. The Committee in its report also made recommendations for legislative and administrative improvements, including making some assassinations Federal crimes.
The Chief Counsel of the Committee later changed his views that the CIA was being cooperative and forthcoming with the investigation when he learned that the CIA's special liaison to the Committee researchers, George Joannides (http://www.debatepolicy.com/w/index.php?title=George_E._Joannides&action=edit&redlink=1), was actually involved with some of the organizations that Lee Harvey Oswald was involved with in the months leading up to the assassination, including an anti-Castro group, the DRE, which was linked to the CIA, where the liaison, Joannides, worked in 1963. Chief Counsel Blakey later stated that Joannides, instead, should have been interviewed by the Committee, rather than serving as a gatekeeper to the CIA's evidence and files regarding the assassination. He further disregarded and suspected all the CIA's statements and representations to the Committee, accusing it of obstruction of justice (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice). [2] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-1):laugh:Try a dictionary, look up the word MIGHT, when you claim something might have happened or might not have happened it is by definition NOT a certainty..[/QUOTE]DUH, why not state the obvious


It was also never planned as you claim..Thanks for your OPINION


It may be in some people's mind a credible reason to kill someone but one needs a hell of a lot more than a motive to prove murder. Any given victim of murder has likely left many people with motive to commit such murder but one needs more than that one needs evidence that the person with motive committed the crime. For example , rich guy dies due to foul play. Do his heirs stand to gain ? Probably! Does this mean they are the ones guilty of killing him? In most cases no..
You should apply your statement to Ruby , his motive for shooting oswald is weak at best.
foul play, actually in most cases yes.


As for Oswald acting alone one can speculate all one likes or use one imaginations all one likes but once again that is not reality. The evidence is overwhelming that Oswald killed Kennedy but not a shred of evidence establishes an accomplice or accomplices which by definition is needed if one states there was a conspiracy..Apparentlly the HSCA disagrees with you


The investigations into the killing such as the Warren Commission were some of the most exhaustive intensive and comprehensive investigations ever conducted into into a specific crime. Included was exhaustive detailed examinations of any claim which may have led to identification of an accomplish or conspiracy and they found no evidence of either..Again, they disagree
Under such circumstances the question is not how can one prove he acted alone but instead what proof is there of a conspiracy. The answer is none..[/QUOTE]Wrong


Stating that others may or may not have had motive is meaningless because there is no evidence anyone else was involved. It is also meaningless because there were of course many people with motive. Any president makes enemies. That is simple fact established by the fact that a president is a successful politician who had to defeat others to get elected and who had many people voting AGAINST him even if he ultimately won. Any of those people can be described as having MOTIVE but that is not enough to imply they committed the crime of killing said president. repeating yourself doesnt make it true.

Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that at least two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.

LuvRPgrl
09-11-2011, 04:51 PM
At first you stated it as fact and that no theory was needed.

It's not even a theory at all as you stated in your last post it is IMAGINARY.
a
There is no evidence to support such a conclusion.

An assasination is about ending someone life, often with the plan to escape after
Conspiracies are by definition intended to be stealth, therefore usually about the only evidence will NOT be physical evidence.

. Oswald did not want to get caught, yet was easily apprehended.
Ruby had NO CREDIBLE motive for murdering Oswald, other than coverup
. RUBY'S personallity doesnt lead one to think he would murder someone for the motive you assign to him. In fact quite the opposite.
He was heavily involved in issues that involve vices and catering to ones desire for immediate gratification, those kind of people never are willing to give up their life based on the reasons you ascribe to him. Thats a joke, hiding under a blanket doesnt make the information "not credible"

You simply dismiss anyone who states anything contrary to Oswald acted alone by claiming they are lieing or not credible.
. You say one needs more than motive to '" prove " something, yet you dismiss and FBI agent based only on the motive that he seeks attention, even though a research of the man indicates he is not an attention seeker, which is normal for FBI agents, as they rarely are recognized for their work, except anonymously

Regarding Kennedys plan to pull out of vietman, you said he MIGHT have such plans, and since Might doesnt prove he will, make it irrelevant.
But, it wasnt "he might have plans", he did IN FACT have such plans.

Your arrogance is exceeded only by your narrow mindedness.

The causes of death by possible witnesses or people who had connections to the assasination is bizarre.

J.T
09-11-2011, 04:54 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6naJ08Tskk

soupnazi630
09-26-2011, 03:15 PM
In particular, the various investigations performed by the U.S. government were faulted for insufficient consideration of the possibility of a conspiracy in each case. The Committee in its report also made recommendations for legislative and administrative improvements, including making some assassinations Federal crimes.
The Chief Counsel of the Committee later changed his views that the CIA was being cooperative and forthcoming with the investigation when he learned that the CIA's special liaison to the Committee researchers, George Joannides (http://www.debatepolicy.com/w/index.php?title=George_E._Joannides&action=edit&redlink=1), was actually involved with some of the organizations that Lee Harvey Oswald was involved with in the months leading up to the assassination, including an anti-Castro group, the DRE, which was linked to the CIA, where the liaison, Joannides, worked in 1963. Chief Counsel Blakey later stated that Joannides, instead, should have been interviewed by the Committee, rather than serving as a gatekeeper to the CIA's evidence and files regarding the assassination. He further disregarded and suspected all the CIA's statements and representations to the Committee, accusing it of obstruction of justice (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice). [2] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-1):laugh:Try a dictionary, look up the word MIGHT, when you claim something might have happened or might not have happened it is by definition NOT a certainty..DUH, why not state the obvious

Thanks for your OPINION



You should apply your statement to Ruby , his motive for shooting oswald is weak at best.
foul play, actually in most cases yes.

Apparentlly the HSCA disagrees with you

Again, they disagree
Under such circumstances the question is not how can one prove he acted alone but instead what proof is there of a conspiracy. The answer is none..[/QUOTE]Wrong

repeating yourself doesnt make it true.
Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that at least two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.
[/QUOTE]

You need to grasp the difference between facts and opinion it is you presenting opiniond I presnted facts.

No one is able to fault the various investigations as you claim with any evidence.

The fact is the ibvestigated the possibility of conspiracy to an exhaustive degree and the only people challenging that fact ( without proof ) is theorists who wish to sell books.

If you ignore facts I presented than it bears repeating and you have.

The final REVISED report of the HSCA has been debunked and proven wrong. The acoustic evidence used to reach that conclusion was ruined by the necessary conditions which were placed on the evidence by the very experts who found and presented the evidence.

This evidence was a recording of the sounds picked up by a motorcycle officer who'se shoulder mic was stuck in the transmit position. In order to determine where the shots came from the acoustics experts stated that the specific officer HAD to be located in a two meter circle near the intersection of Elm and Houston Streets. Unfortunately it was later determined he was no where near that two meter circle he was in fact at the coner of MAin and Houston Streets when the shooing ended. This is proven by photographs which showthe officer in that position as the limo was entering the underpassby which time of course all shooting had stopped.. In addtion many other experts dispute these findings for the simple reason that no gun shots are heard on the recording and such recordings easily and clearly pick up gun shots as distinct sounds.


The final report was revised based on the acoustic evidence and no other evidence. Since the evidence is proven false so is the final report. The original report BTW stated the fact that there is no evidence of a conspiracy. And that fact stioll stands.

I stated the obvious because you seem to ignore it. Motive is not enough to prove murder or conspiracy. Those with the most to gain in ANY murder are generally not the guilty party. Once again as you ignored a rich guy dies of foul play they may investigate his heirs but they usually are not guilty. Might haves mean nothing evidence means everything and no evidence supports any conspiracy theory.

soupnazi630
09-26-2011, 03:22 PM
An assasination is about ending someone life, often with the plan to escape after
Conspiracies are by definition intended to be stealth, therefore usually about the only evidence will NOT be physical evidence.

. Oswald did not want to get caught, yet was easily apprehended.
Ruby had NO CREDIBLE motive for murdering Oswald, other than coverup
. RUBY'S personallity doesnt lead one to think he would murder someone for the motive you assign to him. In fact quite the opposite.
He was heavily involved in issues that involve vices and catering to ones desire for immediate gratification, those kind of people never are willing to give up their life based on the reasons you ascribe to him. Thats a joke, hiding under a blanket doesnt make the information "not credible"

You simply dismiss anyone who states anything contrary to Oswald acted alone by claiming they are lieing or not credible.
. You say one needs more than motive to '" prove " something, yet you dismiss and FBI agent based only on the motive that he seeks attention, even though a research of the man indicates he is not an attention seeker, which is normal for FBI agents, as they rarely are recognized for their work, except anonymously

Regarding Kennedys plan to pull out of vietman, you said he MIGHT have such plans, and since Might doesnt prove he will, make it irrelevant.
But, it wasnt "he might have plans", he did IN FACT have such plans.

Your arrogance is exceeded only by your narrow mindedness.

The causes of death by possible witnesses or people who had connections to the assasination is bizarre.

Oswald was not EASILY caught as you say a police officer lost his life in the course of Oswald's apprehension this is a far cry from EASY. He also attempted to draw his weapon and resist en they arrested him in the theater again not EASY.

I have stated facts and evidence you have not and in many cases the facts and evidence prove lies from people so deal with it.

You seem to think yolu know a lot about what motivates people to commit murder claiming that Ruby's personality is not one which would lead a person to do such a thing but crims happen everyday proving you wrong such people often do commit murder for silly and ridiculous motives.

Kennedy did not have plans to withdraw from Vietnam in fact quite the opposite the plans signed by LBJ which increased Americas involvement in Vietnam were prpared FOR JFK's signature he simply died before he could sign them. LBJ was continueing the policy by signing them not changing the policy.

If you scroll back and stop ignoring facts you will see that the FBI agents compromisedhimself and proved to be misleading and dishonest which is proven by fact I did not " dissmis" him.

Come up with some evidence not might have beens and could haves.

TheShadowKNows
09-26-2011, 05:19 PM
Bush did it!......................................At least that's what Barry Sortero told me. What the Hell, I've never caught him manufacturing a falsification/fabrication/distortion/prevarication/misrepresentation/untruth/falsehood/deception/concoction/exaggeration before. :rolleyes:

logroller
10-04-2011, 02:33 AM
I think it was an elaborate suicide. Those Kennedys are such attention whores.

avatar4321
10-04-2011, 02:43 AM
Maybe LBJ

revelarts
03-06-2012, 12:20 PM
the Magic Bullet, exhibit 399

Which we've been told went through JFK and Gov. Connolly was obviously planted and should Never have been in the warren report. the fact that they used it and suppressed the details of it shows that there was intentional misdirection (cover up-lies) in the Warren commission report on the assassination.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mCxvz65SCaA?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mCxvz65SCaA?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

and then there's the entrance wound described by the Dr at a press conference and later by Dr's on hand indicates 2 shooters at least.


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1EQc1nlbRlw?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1EQc1nlbRlw?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>