Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.
Just to play devil's advocate here, how do you KNOW LBJ was behind THE assassination? Is it not possible that there could have been assassination discussions going on as you suggest, but LHO beat them to the punch and wasn't part of LBJ'S plot (assuming there was one, of course.)? Could there not have been 2,3,4, or more different plots being planned that all left out LHO who did this of his own accord?
Evidence, means, motives, opportunity and follow the money. LBJ had all those things, but LHO had none of them.
Why don't you pseudoskeptics have common sense? Why is the official version of everything to you a religion? Why do you cling to it?
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Ugh, Scepcop - just following your common sense is the OPPOSITE of being a skeptic! Point to evidence, sure, but please leave out common sense! Common sense is often wrong, and is completely unreliable.
Evidence = None. You may have theories and thoughts but there isn't one shred of physical evidence. Sorry, doesn't fly.
Means = None. Just because he had money doesn't mean he would kill the President. Sorry, doesn't fly.
Motive = None. He would have been Pres in 5 years anyway. Why take a chance and kill the boss? Sorry, doesn't fly.
Opportunity = None. Way too risky to kill the President when you are the Vice President. What if he was found out? Sorry, doesn't fly.
Follow the money = All the money in the world isn't worth it to the Vice President of the United States to have the President of the United States killed. Lyndon Johnson was one of the richest Presidents ever to serve and he made his fortune before 1963. Just how much money does one need? Sorry, that doesn't fly either.
I don't know what you mean by a "cog." Also, to not admit that my statement asking if it was not possible that people could have conspired but Oswald acted alone tells me emphatically that you are open only to conspiracy theories. Sorry, but that is now clear to me. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but please don't state that you are open to other ideas.
No, it tells me you won't read the 1800 pages put out by Douglas P. Horne at the ARRB. Also, if you read Jim Douglass' book - "JFK And the Unspeakable" you will find some of your answers. No, I am open minded, ProfWag. I have just done my homework.
I will add this. After a lecture I walked with Ramsey Clark to a subway stop in Manhattan. I told him this, "You know Ramsey there wasn't one shred of evidence linking Oswald to the rifle that was allegedly used during the assassination. The chain of custody was compromised before a partial palm print was found on the weapon. The paraffin tests of Oswald were inconclusive. Simply put, prosecutors would have had a very difficult time prosecuting Oswald for the murder of JFK." Ramsey Clark replied, "Well Oswald was killed, wasn't he?"
Yep, just a conspiracy theorists, hey? What are you? A coincidence theorists? An unintended consequence theorist? A somnambulist theorist? Or, even maybe, an incompetence theorist?
Not to get into a pissing contest, but if your homework is only from the conspiracy side of the house, then you have some more homework to do. Many of the things you post may (or may not) be accurate, but none of it has shown that LHO was not on the 6th floor with a rifle. Forensics have shown that the bullets that killed JFK have come from the TSD and that if there was a gunman on the grassy knoll, JFK's head would have blown apart and actually hit Jackie. Shots from other locations could not have been pulled off. That is the evidence that I have seen and is extremely conclusive.
There were a lot of errors and chaos that day. A lot of things went wrong in the investigation from chains of custody, to cleaning out the limo, to a potentially botched autopsy. None of those things do anything to deny that LHO could easily of shot JFK that day. I'm sorry Misha, but the forensic evidence that we have available is pretty solid.
'There's two ways of looking at the idea of understanding:
"One, If you don't look you will never see. And two, If you look a little less you'll might see a helluva lot more.'"
--Tommy lee Jones in the film "Electric Mist."
Good ol' JFK. Apparently some 38 different people have been proposed as the direct assassins on the day.
A friend has read all the JFK books, according to his most recent read LBJ was heavily involved, however the Mafia may have supplied assassins, they had worked out a few years earlier to always use a patsy for hits after one of their people had a lot of trouble clearing the court system after a particular hit.
Apart from all the usual evidence presented about magic bullets etc, I think Jim Garrison's work and commentary all the way back in the 60s was good work. He points out the LHO only ever wanted to be a good Marine, and the previous couple of years were clearly setting LHO up for something -- he was 'managed' by a CIA office and asked to do pointless things like hand out flyers for the Cuban cause and so on, to set up a back story. They found a genuine miniature Minox 'spy camera' in his belongings, something only issued to operatives and not available for sale to the public, and the cops listed it as a 'light meter' as the presence of the camera implied he had some connections. Getting a Russian wife was more back story, he was just going to be a useful patsy to someone someday, or more likely used to infiltrate the Cuban socialists. More info on LHO's previous doings is available online.
Further, Dallas wasn't the only location an attempt was going to be made on JFK's life. Another person with similar circumstances to LHO reported that they had been told to attend at a certain location in another city JFK was visiting, I think it was Chicago, and a few days later when the Dallas news broke realised that if circumstances had been different and the hit had gone ahead in his town, he would have been the patsy. Hence LHO's protest that 'he was just a patsy' after he'd worked it all out and realised that he wasn't being groomed as a special US agent after all, or that he would have a distinguished intelligence career, and the extraordinary need to silence him using Jack Ruby, someone who seemed very far from being a patriot with his mob connections and mob-frequented lowlife bar.
There was a problem that LHO somehow had to get down 2-3 storeys to be standing beside a Coke machine after getting the shots off, etc. Let's face it, he'd just been told to be in the Depository on such and such a level. Further, there were photos of the 5th floor of the Depository taken at the moment of the shooting that were cropped on the left side when published in the mainstream media demonstrating that there was the face and body of someone wearing a black t-shirt at the OTHER end of the same floor that LHO was supposed to be standing on. The face is not in the cropped shots but can be seen in the full photo. The entire floor was continuous without walls, i.e. LHO would have clearly been able to see someone standing at the other end of the same floor if he had truly been on the 5th floor of the depository -- but the face is not at LHO's supposed vantage point where the rifle was found, and it's not LHO. This photo is available on the net.
Has everyone seen the video about the Secret Service stand-down just before the hit? It's on youtube. Ordinarily 2 secret service guys would stand on the special little landings that slid out of the rear bumper of the car. Just before the fateful bend in the road, they were ordered to climb off the landings for no good reason while the car was in motion. You can see the SS guy looking bewildered and throwing his hands in the air after stepping off, then loping uneasily and uncomfortably along behind the car for a few paces as he tried to keep up. Normally that kind of order would never be given, it was unthinkable to them to leave the President unprotected. Seconds later the shots rang out.
According to some accounts here - http://sadbastards.wordpress.com/2009/0 ... the-patsy/, Carlos Marcello from the Mob was directly responsible, and LBJ was not implicated, who thought it was the Cubans. They just picked LHO up as the patsy although he was a spook of some sort.
Oliver Stone’s 1991 film JFK closed with the following message:
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 09 Oct 2012, 21:07, edited 1 time in total.
There is no doubt that the mob's finger was involved in the assassination of JFK. However, they were nothing but an operational sub-group or at best a limited hangout to the real purveyors behind the murder. It is proven that the CIA and the mob were working together to eliminate Castro. No arguments there. However, there is more than enough information to suggest that there was an unseen hand directing the activities of the mob throughout the entire episode of JFK's administration. Jim Douglass has given what most researchers consider the best overall view on the dynamics behind the assassination. Get the book, please. Below is a pretty good review of Douglass' book.
Also, to understand Bobby Kennedy's mindset after the assassination, please read David Talbot's - "Brothers." And last but not least, read Douglas P. Horne's - "Inside The ARRB" (Assassination Record Review Board). Horne and the ARRB go to great lengths on how the "State" covered up the assassination of JFK. Something the "mob" could not do.
Interesting courtroom outcomes for Mac Wallace, LBJ's personal hitman: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwallaceM.htm
Is it true that on page 1654 of Horne's book, he states the following:?
"One reality that is undeniable is that Lee Harvey Oswald DID NOT KILL PRESIDENT KENNEDY, as proven by George O'Toole in
If that is true, is that quote above taken out of context or does that pretty much sum up Mr. Horne's conclusion?
I'll have to check on it. However, I would like all of us to be careful, me included, concerning data mining. Yes, it can be difficult not to do so. However, I will always source my information when possible and what I do quote I will put the book, pages and a context to what I write. I will also give anecdotes and also the people I have met and talked with. Frankly, guys. I am not an Internet researcher. Yes, it is a wonderful tool and can help us define the parameters of an argument. However, I am a book reader. I want to understand an author's mindset from front to cover so that I may glean what is pertinent and what is not. All authors have bias' as Jim Marrs has said. Jim also said, it is up to us take the information and weigh it against other research and formulate a reasonable argument based on the totality of one's research.
ProfWag, I am curious where you found Horne's statement? I take it that you have not read his 5 volume research "Inside The ARRB?"
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest