Who killed JFK?

[Tiggeroshii]

One more question before I sleep. Who do you think killed JFK, why did they do it, and how? Feel free to elaborate any way you'd like. Or just don't answer the question at all. I don't care. Geuten nacht.

[gumby]

1. Umm....

Poppy Bush?

Maybe not directly, but there for Some Reason.

EDIT: Did you like that answer Agent Mike?

[bigriver]

79. I for one blame the Jews,

Or the Jesuits, the Masons, the Illuminati, LBJ, Nixon, Texas Oilmen, Northeastern Democrats, Racist southerners, militant Blacks, George HW Bush, George W Bush, Reggie Bush, the KGB, the CIA, the Pinkerton Detective Agency, the Chinese, the Vietnamese, Castro, anti-Castro Cubans, the Beatles, the Stones, the Army, General Motors, Queen Elizabeth II, Jackie, Bobby, Joe Sr., League of Women Voters, CBS, the New York Times, Walter Cronkite,

and of course, environmentalists.

[Vexatious Ape]

2. Mick Jagger said it was "you and me"

[DemBones DemBones]

31. Not me. I was sitting in French class several hundred miles from Dallas.

[man4allcats]

3. Badge Man

was the trigger man firing from the grassy knoll. Who hired him is, for me, still an open question.

The Bush family
The Mafia
LBJ
Castro

All are front-runners, and I'm sure there are other contenders. I'm also reasonably sure some in our government know the whole story and that we the people probably never will. That is both sad and unfortunate because that cover-up may well have marked the beginning of the end of our democracy.

[rman]

19. Why would Castro want to get rid of

the man who caused the invasion of Cuba (Bay of Pigs) to fail?

Otoh there's the CIA and the mafia that wanted the Bay of Pigs invasion to succeed.
I mean, it's hardly a secret that the CIA was (is) organizing the anti-Castro Cuban movement.

And there's the MIC that wanted to stay in Vietnam while JFK wanted out.
http://www.whitehousetapes.org/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_am

[man4allcats]

40. Google:

Did Castro kill Kennedy?

[rman]

54. I'm not going to read 100's of pages

to dig up evidence in support for your claim.
You make the claim, you present the evidence.

I know there are people who claim Castro is behind the assassination.
Thom Hartmann is one.
The case that Hartmann presents covers only part of the evidence. He may have added some new info from recently released govt docs, but afaik it does not refute older evidence.
Hartmann has yet to explain how the mafia and Cubans managed to do what was done to enable the assassination and how they covered it up; ie how they managed to get the National Guard to stand down, and how they created the Warren Commission.
Another loose end is the fact that anti-Castro elements were involved in the (JFK) assassination and how that fits with involvement of the Cuban government. Castro had nothing to gain and a lot to lose from JFK's death - anti-Castro elements had everything to gain.

Hartmann's story is a sub-set of the scenario that has been out there for decades now (and for which there is ample evidence). Yes, certain Cubans (the Cuban branch of the mafia) and the mafia were involved (they to hate Castro), but also the CIA and various other govt agencies.

An argument can be made that the mob and certain Cuban elements had (have) infiltrated the US govt so deeply that they could do all that they did to enable and to cover up the assassination - but if that's the case then is it quite inaccurate to say that for instance the CIA was not involved.

Lastly, there is concrete evidence showing that others besides the mafia and certain Cubans stood to gain from JFK's death: White House tapes reveal that JFK did in fact want to pull out of Vietnam.
http://www.whitehousetapes.org/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_am

also see "JFK 2"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2928756561478705121

[man4allcats]

62. Guess you never did any graduate work.

When you pose a question, the instructor says, "Read this." The days of spoon-feeding end with your baccalaureate degree.

[rman]

66. i do my own research

I just don't like being send on a wild goose chase.

Google will come up with at least as many sources explaining Castro was not behind the assassination of JFK, as with sources saying the opposite. So your pointing me to google for evidence of your claim is kinda pointless - unless perhaps you want me to waste a lot of time.

If i present evidence for my claim (which i did) and you present evidence for yours (which you did not), then we can discuss it. But apparently that's not what you want.

[man4allcats]

68. Feeling contentious are we? n/t

[rman]

75. not at all

Just pointing out the obvious.

[man4allcats]

77. Why don't you just google Did Castro kill Kennedy?

Unless you are either afraid to read something counter to your beliefs or unless this isn't really about that and you really do want to be contentious. You're the one who posed the challenge. I gave you the references. I see no reason to have to type it all out for you. Read it and make of it what you will. Personally, I don't care what you believe regarding Castro's involvement or lack thereof in the assassination of JFK.

[sce56]

4. BFEE Killed him sure as hell!

George H.W. Bush is provably lying about his CIA career. He claims that his CIA directorship in 1976 was his first job for the CIA. Difficult to believe? Page 3 will show the proof for this lie. The truth is that he was actively involved in the preparation and financing of the ill faithed Bay of Pigs invasion, as a high ranking CIA official, at which time he made acquaintance with the now notorious CIA agent and Iran Contra operative Felix Rodriguez, a veteran of the Bay of Pigs and Operation 40.


The architects for the Bay of Pigs were Vice President Richard Nixon and CIA director Allen Dulles. JFK inherited the plan from the Eisenhower administration. Nixon lost the race for the presidency to JFK and Dulles was fired by JFK for the failure of the Bay of Pigs. Yet Dulles is appointed by president Johnson as a Warren Commission member to "investigate" JFK's murder. The proof for Bush's lie about his CIA past can be found in a document, declassified in 1988.
It's a memorandum of FBI director J Edgar Hoover to the State department, dated 29 November 1963. It describes a meeting, one day after JFK's murder, between FBI and CIA officials talking about the reaction of the Cuban exile community to the Kennedy Assassination. The last paragraph states that the "the substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished to us and George Bush of the Central Intelligence agency". Here we have the name of George Bush mentioned as a CIA official in direct connection to the Kennedy assassination. When asked by journalists, he initially stated "It's not me, must be another Bush!" This was checked and found to be NOT true. When asked again, a spokesperson for Bush declined to comment any further. The obvious question is: Why does Bush need to lie about it?


October 17, 2006,Will be remembered as the Enabling day of the 21st Century!
"The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures..."
~Adolf Hitler, March 23, 1933, before the German Parliament (Reichstag) as he urged them to pass his "Enabling Act"

Got Fascism Yet?


http://www.georgewalkerbush.net/bush-nazilinkconfirmed.htm



Fascism Accomplished!

[tomreedtoon]

5. It was FLYING SAUCERS, I tells ya!

They were hovering over the Grassy Knoll and the Texas Theatre and they triangulated JFK with their Photon Rays! They blasted his head apart JUST AS IF a human being had shot him?

Okay, reality time. Who the hell cares who killed JFK? Anyone who says they know have an agenda they're trying to push - and it may not even be a political agenda, quite often it's just be a "Look at Me!" agenda.

Read the freaking CORRECT book for once..."Case Closed" by Gerald Posner. It not only provides scientific proof why Oswald was the lone gunman, it shows why all these self-puffing IDIOTS keep inventing giant conspiracies and secret societies as the true assassins.

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Closed-Harvey-Oswald-Assassination/dp/0385474466/sr=8-1/qid=1164097430/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6745937-8196010?ie=UTF8&s=books

[Rageneau]

6. Spoken like a true kool-aid drinker.

First, you make fun of the murder of a beloved president.

Then, you ask: 'who cares who killed him?'

Then, you accuse anyone who DOES care who killed him to not be honestly concerned, but rather crassly "agenda-driven," either politically or egomaniacally.

Then, you contradict yourself by demonstrating that you yourself care enough about who really killed JFK to bother to read and accept and endorse what you apparently assume to be the only NON-agenda-driven book on the subject, Posner's pitifully flawed, incomplete and cretinously credulous "Case Closed" -- probably the MOST agenda-driven book ever written on the subject; that agenda, of course, being to preserve the lie. Why would you go to the trouble to read such a book, and zealously defend it, if you don't care what it says?

And if you care enough to read THAT book, why not also consult one of the several books that raise issues and ask questions that Posner dares not approach -- James Lifton's seminal "Best Evidence" being my personal favorite. Or let's make it even simpler -- let's forget books altogether and use the brains God gave us. When we do, we can arrive at no other conclusion but that there was a conspiracy and a cover-up in the JFK murder, and that LBJ himself was involved.

How, you scoff, can we use mere God-given brains to easily see through the professional lies of the Warren Report (and Posner's preposterous Potemkin polemic supporting it)?

Well, I'll tell ya. (And anyone else whose mind is still uncertain.) And it will only take a second.

I call to your mind two photographs, familiar as can be to everyone who has ever looked into this awful event.

I'm going to ask you a very simple question about each of these photographs -- questions that neither you, nor Posner, nor anyone else who supports the LHO-single-assassin fantasy can possibly answer.

The reason you won't be able to answer these simple questions is that there is no logical answer to either of them that does not expose the existence of a conspiracy and of LBJ's complicity in it.

The first photo is of Lee Oswald, standing in his backyard, holding the Manlicher-Carcano in one hand and two identifiably dated communist newspapers in the other. The obvious reason for this photo -- the ONLY possible reason for it -- is to establish that Oswald (shown to an unrepentant leftist, btw) was in possession of the murder weapon (and had murderous intent?) before JFK was killed. IOW, the photo puts the gun in the killer's hands. Case closed, right?

OK, here's the first question, preceded by just a bit of context: All the time he was in custody, Oswald persistently, insistently, consistently declared himself to be innocent. He said he was a patsy (for the real conspirators). Now, the brains God gave us require us to deduce from that, that Oswald did NOT want to be named as Kennedy's killer. There's no other logical conclusion.

So: Question One: Why in the world would Oswald pose for such an incriminating "photo?

If you were planning to murder the president and get away with it, would YOU pose for a picture like that, making it a cinch to convict you? No, you wouldn't. Neither would anyone else, including LHO.

The second photo -- one in a series of photos -- is of LBJ, Ladybird and a blood-stained, distraught, near-to-collapse Jackie, surrounded by LBJ's friends, all crowded into a cabin on Air Force One while LBJ takes the oath of office.

Again, a little context. The photo was taken aboard AF1, which had Kennedy's casket and Jackie and the grieving Kennedy entourage aboard. Johnson had arrived in Dallas on his own plane, Air Force Two, and it was right there, ready to go, fully equipped. But rather that do the decent and humane thing and allow the Kennedys to carry their shockingly slaughtered loved one home in solemnity and privacy, LBJ insisted on comandeering AF1, insisted on taking the oath of office there, insisted that Jackie be standing at his side when he did, and then busily made calls all the way back to Washington while AF2 flew back empty.

Question Two: (in two parts) Why in the world did LBJ insist on taking the Oath on AF1, and why in the world was Jackie standing next to him when he did so?

Or to put the same question another way: why did LBJ insist that Jackie be standing by his side, when the record clearly shows that she wanted to remain in the rear, in solitude, with the president's body? (In fact it took Lyndon and Ladybird's repeated pleas to coax her reluctantly forward.)

No fudging now -- no convulated cerebral conniptions in hopes of coming up with something, anything, that might sound like plausible answers to these questions. Use honesty and the brains God gave you.

I do. And for that reason (and a little reading), I can logically, completely and convincingly answer both of the above questions. But both answers require the existence of a conspiracy to kill JFK and LBJ's complicity in the cover-up.

Posner can't answer either of those questions with anything that sounds like the ring of truth. You can't answer them either -- because you believe the phoney-baloney Warren Report and the long-standing (and no doubt well-financed) media campaign to prop it up.

Are you interested in the answers that successfully satisfy those questions? Or would you rather just have some more kool-aid?

[ET Awful]

14. Of course there's also the fact that the HSCA determined there

most probably was a conspiracy.

[SpiralHawk]

18. "Posner's preposterous Potemkin polemic" !! Priceless !

Thanks, Rag, for passionately peeing on the preposterous posing.

I care about America, thus I care who assasinated JFK. Posner is worse than a hack.

Thanks for you beautifully expressed rebuttal of the bombasic butthead blowoff...

[tomreedtoon]

20. Okay, first of all, "beloved President..."

I was alive then, and although rather young, I knew that Kennedy was going to have a hell of a time with the 1964 election, since he was mediocre. He had almost brought us to war with Russia over the Cuban Missile Crisis, and he had infuriated the unions by interfering with the aluminum, copper and iron unions' negotiations. He was really attractive, but he wasn't "beloved" until he was assassinated.

Second, I see people like you wishing to put George Bush 41 and 43 on trial for crouching on the Grassy Knoll and firing all those shots that supposedly killed Kennedy, while leaving the poor deluded fall guy Oswald to get "used" and then murdered before he could spill the conspiracy of the Illuminati and the Nixons joining forces.

GOD, are you wasting time on the past! A quote from the movie "Laura" - "you're falling in love with a corpse."

Perhaps you should go see "Assassins," the Stephen Sondheim musical. The "real conspiracy," as the musical says, is that occasional psychotic nuts can become instantly famous by performing assassinations, and it works. It's still working. You're more obscessed with Kennedy's death than with his life. Which, admittedly, was better than Bush 43's, but whose life wasn't?

And perhaps you should read Gary Wills' book "The Kennedy Imprisonment" to read what the Kennedys were really like - and in comparison to Bobby Kennedy's career, Wills puts Jack a distinct second.

[baldguy]

46. I've always wondered.

If JFK was in Dallas to mend some political ties with Connelly, what did he need LBJ for?

[tomreedtoon]

55. JFK needed LBJ to translate into Texan.

Even then, the conservatives in the South, who really didn't like integration or unions or all that, were trying to split from the Democratic Party. LBJ was there to try to hold together the shaky alliance for one more election.

Don't tell me you're trying to pull out that nonsense from "MacBird," where LBJ assassinated JFK and covered that up, too. Please don't bring back that canard, among all the other canards of the conspiracy psychotics.

[sendero]

56. If Oswald..

... did it to become "famous", he would not have spend his last hours denying he did it.

[tomreedtoon]

58. You're making post-Oswald assumptions about Oswald.

Go see or read the play "Assassins" again. It makes the point that Oswald changed the game. And yes, assassination is a game.

And as secondary reading, read (if you can find) "Intimate Strangers: The Culture of Celebrity in America" by Richard Schickel:

http://www.amazon.com/Intimate-Strangers-Richard-Schickel/dp/1566633176/sr=8-4/qid=1164214438/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/102-8054301-7433706?ie=UTF8&s=books

It explains how show biz mixed with politics in our modern age, and how assassins and mass murderers became celebrities. (And yes, it mentions "Taxi Driver" as the film that incited the assassination of Ronald Reagan.) And it all DID change after Oswald.

[Morgana LaFey]

63. Speak for yourself

He was plenty beloved by plenty of people -- tho obviously not all, and especially the right wing and some entrenched monied interests -- well before his untimely death.

I don't think much of the accuracy of the rest of your post either.

[David Zephyr]

34. Thank you.

:thumbsup:

[H2O Man]

8. clown. n/t

[Cocoa]

11. summarize the proof in that book

if you wouldn't mind.

[Punkingal]

15. WHO CARES????

Obviously you weren't alive then, or you wouldn't ask that question. I was in the 8th grade, he was my hero, and he was brutally murdered. And I fully agree with what Donald Sutherland's character said in the movie JFK, "Nothing has ever been the same since." Nothing has. And Gerald Posner is an ASSWIPE.

[Tiggeroshii]

21. Even though the house select committee on assassinations

concluded that the bullets which killed JFK came from 3 different directions, including one shot being fired from the grassy knoll? there is more and more evidence to the contrary of what you are saying, due to more and more evidence coming out from the freedom of information act and other laws, forcing the declassifcation of key documents in this case...

[Doctor_J]

36. Posner's book might as well have been written by the Hunt Brothers

themselves. They and GHWB and Murchison and the rest of the Texas ultra-right, along with the CIA, had JFK killed.

[maine_raptor]

7. Not LHO! n/t

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

9. The Clenis. n/t

[dmosh42]

13. "Some things we'll never know in our lifetime"

Just by saying words to that effect, Earl Warren has caused most of us who lived through that whole fiasco to always wonder. The government, as far as I know, have never released all the details available on that event. So a few things that stayed in my head were as follows:
-From what I found out, Oswald was an ex-Marine, who did spend some time in the USSR, when hardly anyone did. So that does make him a suspect. But I read that he was a 'marksman' in the service, which is ok, but not a crack shot. Supposedly, he and some Cuban communist went to the home of then retired Gen. Edwin Walker, for an assassination attempt. From a shot across the street into Walker's home, they missed him and had to quickly leave. So when they showed all those shots from several stories in the Depository, and most were fatal, in less than half a minute, you have to wonder.
-Then I will always remember watching Cronkite, as they brought out Oswald in the garage, and there is the sound of someone blowing a car horn nearby for a couple seconds, like they saw someone, maybe. A couple seconds later, Jack Ruby comes forward out of the crowd, and shoots Oswald. I often wonder if someone knew or suspected Ruby would do this and tried to give a warning. I heard it on the replays after, but never heard anyone (commentators) mention it. Ruby dies some months later, of cancer. Fits in that he might have got a payoff to leave someone, knowing he had a fatal cancer.(??)
-Who would gain the most from this? The country was into the early days of Vietnam, and there were rumors that JF Kennedy was having second thoughts about our committment to that debacle. The military industry was cranking up big time for that war, so billions were to be made. And just like this Iraq thing, they had the media tuned up. We had to fight the communist world conspiracy, and if Vietnam fell, the rest would follow like dominoes. No doubt about it, Johnson was their man, so I always suspected him and those associates. Maybe someday.

[iamahaingttta]

10. Woody Harrelson's dad...

...and H. Howard Hunt!

[Cocoa]

12. a handful of assassins

a CIA-mafia operation, using techniques developed for overseas covert ops.

A range of motives, primarily payback for JFK's Bay of Pigs "betrayal," along with other refusals to play the game.

[Truthbeknown]

43. Bingo!!!

You hit the nail on the head. Oliver Stone was a lot closer than most people think. That is why the government attacked him so much. Also there is a good book by a Temple professor that is worth a read.

http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Justice-Garrison-Assassination-Changed/dp/1574889737/sr=8-1/qid=1164164433/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-1160255-1149409?ie=UTF8&s=books

[treestar]

16. Somebody on the grassy knoll

As to who they were conspiring with, it could be any of the groups mentioned, the Russians, etc.

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. Lee Harvey Oswald and a shitload of bad luck

Fucker should have never been able to hit him that way.

It's the way it would be if Squeaky Fromm succeeding in killing Ford. It's so improbable that the former Manson girl could have dreamed up and accomplished the act that there would be a million web sites on Who Really Killed Ford? Instead of the CIA and mafia, it would be the Satanists, and various cults as your dramatis personae of the theories. A million inconsistencies would come up in the "official" story. People who never studied history don't realize that a million inconsistencies come up in almost any historical narrative, for the very obvious reason that history is narrative - or the selection of facts from the continuum of the world - whereas people like to think that history is a simple presentation of facts, without any human filter. It is the filter, combined with the chaos of existence, that produces the "inconsistencies" - life is messy, improbable, chaotic, and inconsistent, but we expect history to be perfectly consistent, because that's how we like our orderly narratives. So we'd have a million theories. The Son of Sam and all the Satanic cults, connected with Manson et. al, a million theories, all as "convincing" as the next. Of course, it was really just ridiculous Squeaky Fromm after all, something most of us accept because the act didn't succeed, and therefore doesn't strike us as particularly worthy of investigation. But if we were to investigate it....O the stories we'd tell!

[SaveElmer]

22. Lee Harvey Oswald...

Acting alone!

[PurityOfEssence]

23. Who didn't?

So many people were gunning for him it's a wonder they didn't trip over each other in the process.

The mob hated him because he welched on a deal Daddy Joe made with them for delivering West Virginia. Traficante and Marcellus (mob bosses from Florida and New Orleans) had numerous gripes. The CIA didn't like him for the Bay of Pigs and impending Vietnam decisions. Texas oilmen hated him for getting rid of the depreciation subsidies. Hoffa hated him for "Booby's" investigations. Nixon just hated in general; he woke up every morning and proceeded to hate.

Whether Johnson was part of it or not is an open question. I'd like to think not; although he was a ruthless and thin-skinned maneuverer, I'd like to think that the man who cashed in all his political chips to force through civil rights wasn't a murderous thug.

Contrary to other contrarians, I think we WILL know most of the story some day. The photos of the bums hustled from the railway yard behind the grassy knoll seem to show E. Howard Hunt, and that's a red flag if there ever was one.

The idea that Oswald acted alone is silly. He had no motive. Maybe he was the shooter, and it's possible he was, but why?

Too many open questions flap in the breeze. Too many coincidences and convenient connections were glossed over in the rush to judgment.

[TheCentepedeShoes]

30. An ad hoc group

brought together for just one purpose. Like the bank robbers in the original Thomas Crown Affair. Didn't know each other, just what their own job was. Now, who was the Tommy (or rather Henry II) character?

[PurityOfEssence]

57. That's the truth behind "conspiracies"

People who need or like to dispel the existence of conspiracies tend to follow one tack: that it's impossible to plan something complex and secret from the ground up to deliver the end result.

Life isn't like that, and that's why many people dismiss the existence of conspiracies.

What REALLY tends to happen is that various groups of people are planning various things and the happenstance of the moment gives an opportunity to a fragment of one of the groups.

The cellular construction you describe is a proven method for the powerful to spread their influence without making themselves vulnerable.

Maybe Oswald did all the shooting. (We don't know because of the "botched" or "sanitized" autopsy, but maybe it's true. Maybe the head blowing back is from a rear shot that blew out the front of his head and propelled him back. Maybe. The other questions go unanswered. He got a mighty handy job at the right time for a pro-communist washout from the marines.)

Ad hoc is a very astute approach: if you have enough elements in place, figuring which one will actually do the deed is just a question of opportunity.

[rman]

67. How did they come together?

Who brought them together?

They didn't accidentally all show up in the same place at the same time to do the same job, did they?

I sure looks like some elements in this - the instigators - were not ad hoc.

[TheCentepedeShoes]

81. The instigator who originated

the plan? No clue. Just thinking that the people who carried it out didn't necessarily know who the intigator was either and didn't know each other, never to be involved with each other again.

[slackmaster]

24. Clowns

[AngryAmish]

25. Not me.

[CalebHayes]

26. Does anyone know ... you think?

[onecent]

38. Your question is what I was thinking about. Did Jackie or Robert

know? Did they ever know?

[BridgeTheGap]

27. As many "lone nuts" as it took

to get the job done!
1. Mafia
2. CIA
3. Oligarchy pissed at undercutting the federal reserve bank

[bobbie]

49. Great answer!

I enjoyed that

[Schema Thing]

28. Lee Harvey Oswald

Why? That is the real remaining mystery. The how is pretty well documented by now, for people who will allow evidence to overide their "gut".

[T Town Jake]

47. Yep. Spot-on.

:thumbsup:

But get ready for the howls of outrage - last time I got into one of these discussions at a website (not DU) and asserted the obvious, as the available legitimate evidence shows us, i.e., that Oswald was the assassin and most likely the sole assassin, I got flamed to cinders by the conspiracy theorists.

It got really bizarre; a poster even went so far as to question my "whereabouts" on the day in question (answer: probably in a high chair or walker somewhere), and when I refused to take the bait took to speculating that a man like me might be paid to "continue the conspiracy" by posting online (paid, of course, to do so), or, even (!), that such a man as myself might well have been in the vicinity of a certain grassy knoll himself....

Like I said, it got really, really, really bizarre...

[Awsi Dooger]

52. Not most likely the sole assassin

Absolutely the sole assassin.

[JMDEM]

70. Asserted the obvious...

What an arrogant bombastic statement. It's not obvious at all. In fact I would say the opposite is the obvious. And you seem oh so shocked that people would "have the nerve" to get upset at this. Who are you taking arrogance lessons from? Limbaugh? Same basic tactics.

[T Town Jake]

82. Oh, it's "obvious" alrighty....

...that the historical facts as they stand support my view of the matter almost entirely. The CT "theory" about what happened in Dallas in 1963 has been a dubious enterprise from Day One - and has been so repeatedly debunked in all of its manifestations and nuances that it becomes almost ridiculous to argue with a believer in such a thing; like quarreling with a hapless fanatic who thinks Copernicus got it all wrong, and the Earth truly is as flat as a pancake...

Sorry if that upsets the view from History Fantasy land-USA, but the bottom line is: Lee Harvey Oswald<----------------Guilty.

Now, about them there contrails....(*snicker*) :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[JMDEM]

69. You know its funny -- I would say just the opposite

The evidence is pretty friggin obvious that he didn't do it.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

29. Elvis.

[dchill]

32. LBJ.

Intriguing video here:

http://www.fugly.com/videos/5835/jfk-secret-service.html

"I want them to see what they've done." - Jacqueline Kennedy

[dflprincess]

37. "My God, they're going to kill us all." - John Connolly

n/t

[dchill]

60. "They got him."

"They got him." - Secret Service agent Emory Roberts

[Dick Diver]

33. Either Marge Simpson or

Keith Hernandez.

[rep the dems]

35. The Kennedy assasination was part of a large conspiracy by male

models. Lee Harvey Oswald may not have been a model, but the two lookers who capped Kennedy from the grassy knoll sure as shit were.

[Blue in Bama]

39. Not Oswald

Not Oswald, at least not acting alone. Teh Gov't along with the New Orleans based branch of LACosa Nostra probably conspired. How Oswald took the fall as sole assassin is one of histories great cover ups. So is the "James Earl Ray" did MLK himslef story....

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

41. Greed.

[smtpgirl]

42. Poppy had a hand in it for sure

[soothsayer]

53. Yes, but he failed at his Reagan attempt! Still managed to grab

some power in the process, tho.

[OzarkDem]

44. I don't want to think about it

Just finished watching the live feed of RFK's assasination from another thread. Way too many memories coming back, mostly of the brutal emotional trauma and the long, slow realization every year that passes since then of what we lost. And I still can't bear to remember the loss of that sweet son, JFK Jr. and later, his cousin, Anthony Radziwill.

I've been politically active since then to try and correct what went wrong.

As JFK himself said:

"As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them."

I've been to Arlington where I cried and prayed. I can't do any more right now.

[baldguy]

45. Bigfoot killed JFK

[bobbie]

48. The CIA, with LBJ on board doing cover-up, and secret service stand down,

With complicity of Dallas police, and a variety of hired shooters.

[Lone_Wolf]

50. If there was a conspriracy, then Allen Dulles had a hand in planning it...

He had a motive and the power to cover it up...

[Vidar]

65. Yes, & J. Edgar as well.

[ProudDad]

51. Cock Robbin

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

59. The Cigarette-Smoking Man, of course. Has nobody here watched The X-Files?

[Infinite Hope]

61. LBJ/Pentagon/CIA

The Pentagon and CIA wanted to go into Vietnam and JFK was reluctant.

JFK's Dallas parade route was changed last minute by the Secret Service so that he would be driving straight toward the two buildings from which shots were fired. That created an unmoving target from the standpoint of the shooter, easy to hit. There's also evidence the Secret Service were called off their original positions and CIA agents were on the overpass and behind the fence.

LBJ was in close with the Pentagon and CIA (and FBI) and their interests.

[Vidar]

64. CIA, Cuban gusamos, mafia, Hoffa's people or any combination thereof.

[JMDEM]

71. For all of those making fun of this topic

This country experience a coup in 1963, leading directly to the slaughter of the Vietnam war, the Nixon regime, and to the neo-nazi Bush regime from Reagan through the current Bush. Slaughter in Vietnam. Slaughter in Central America. Drug plagues in our own cities to pay for the slaughter. And now the slaughter in Iraq. Same men involved in all of it. Over and over.

How funny.

[Silent3]

72. As long as "BFFE" versions of the conspiracy were left out...

...this is probably a thread where some DU-ers and some freepers could get along famously. Be they left or right, conspiracy lovers send off a lot of the same vibes to me. :)

[JMDEM]

73. Well that's convenient...

Dismiss it all with a hand wave. "All those conspiracy nuts are the same". If you are a JFK conspiracy nut, well, you might as well be a freeper...

Isn't amazing how we study history, and we read about political murder after political murder going back 3,000 years, and accept it all, except those in our own country. "Oh no. It COULDN'T happen here."

[Silent3]

78. Convenience has nothing to do with it

Quality of evidence is what matters, and I have yet to hear good evidence for any of these grand conspiracies about JFK. Just because there's a long and colorful history of political assassinations, that doesn't mean the death of every politician must be part of a plot or a conspiracy, and that lone nut cases can't quite effectively kill great and powerful men without the backing of great and shadowy forces.

Sometimes shit just happens. And no, it's not my burden of proof to disprove every other explanation apart from the most obvious one.

I'll certainly admit it's possible that there's more to JFK's death than Oswald acting on his own, but believing that's possible doesn't mean I have to give up a healthy skepticism for fanciful alternative explanations.

Let's suppose someone stages a real political assassination to look like the work of a single crazy gunman acting on his own. Even if it were true, thousands, even millions of people might correctly guess that there had been a conspiracy behind the death, based on general suspiciousness about such things and nothing else, but never ever guess the correct details of the true story, instead spinning off hundreds of inventive tales, which if any came close to the mark, it would only be by chance.

And of course, if and when the next insane loner does succeed all by himself to kill off some bigwig, the conspiracy theories will still blossom forth and live on for years, if not generations. There will always be a wealth of political enemies to choose from for suspects, a wide array of possible motives much more interesting than individual hatred or psychosis, there will alwasys be suspiciously worded memos to be dug up, suspicious movements of people from one place to another just before and after the Terrible Event, etc. etc.

And of course, the people who won't buy into the grand conspiracies will be denounced either as naive dupes, or as part of the conspiracy themselves.

[BrotherBuzz]

74. Joe DiMaggio

He was really, really pissed about losing Marilyn Monroe. He had Bobby snuffed, too.

[dbt]

76. OmG! Mods please deleate this thread!! Im SERIES!!!1!

What will peopel _think_ of DU when they see stuff like this?@?@

:evilgrin:
dbt
Remember New Orleans

[happydreams]

80. A must read if you want to know

"The Man Who Knew To Much" by Dick Russell. "The Man" --a CIA agent--knew months before Kennedy was hit; there were two prior set-ups for a hit before Dallas. "The Man" got himself sent to prison to be there when Kennedy was hit. "The Man" bore an uncanny resemblance to Oswald.

[Oeditpus Rex]

83. Okay... one more time...