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

[soupnazi630]

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]

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]

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The claim that Kennedy would have withdrawn us from Vietnam has been argued by many historians since the Vietnam war began. It is a worthy argument but not a certainty that he MIGHT have withdrawn, historians disagree and in fact it is all speculation simply because it never happened.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

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The claim that Kennedy would have withdrawn us from Vietnam has been argued by many historians since the Vietnam war began.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]

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]

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.

[soupnazi630]

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.

[LuvRPgrl]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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, 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. ^[2]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.

1. 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.
2. 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.

[soupnazi630]

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, 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. ^[2]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.

1. 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.
2. 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.