Nemesis 1
Lifer
- Dec 30, 2006
- 11,366
- 2
- 0
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
TwinsenTacquito
Senior member
- Apr 1, 2010
- 821
- 0
- 0
If I was going to go out killing a POTUS, I wouldn't buy the cheapest rifle available. It's your last act on Earth, go big.
Using a carcano sounds like the purest stupid government bureaucrat "just get this fool a rifle and get it done" setup ever. I can imagine a man wanting to kill a POTUS going out and buying a kickass rifle. I can imagine a spook with sunglasses buying a carcano with a twenty dollar bill and handing it to a patsy. Was Oswald afraid of breaking the bank?
Using a carcano sounds like the purest stupid government bureaucrat "just get this fool a rifle and get it done" setup ever. I can imagine a man wanting to kill a POTUS going out and buying a kickass rifle. I can imagine a spook with sunglasses buying a carcano with a twenty dollar bill and handing it to a patsy. Was Oswald afraid of breaking the bank?
Last edited:
Nemesis 1
Lifer
- Dec 30, 2006
- 11,366
- 2
- 0
Not bad but I believe this one he did better. JFK is mentioned
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGPHJLCJc-o&feature=channel
I've looked at the JFK assassination extensively.
I'm not going to make a large post that touches on many issues here now [Edit: ok, I wrote mre than I'd planned, but it's all relative], but my opinions on some big topics are:
- I think it's likely Oswald acted alone in the shooting itself. There are some loose ends about the railway area behind the grassy gnoll, but I lean towards only Oswald.
- The real question of conspiracy is more whether Oswald had people who were getting him to do this. He had a lot of 'false flag' activities, connections to government people (his close friend was an older CIA handler, his pro-Cuba office located with an extreme right-wing former FBI figure, etc.).
- One possibly important issue is Oswald working at the building overseeing the route. He'd been referred to the work by his landlord, Ruth Paine, which sounds very innocent - but it seems she knew intelligince people too, who were the source of the info. But it, like most things on this, is inconclusive.
- There are reports of other assassination efforts, including one prevented only weeks before this one.
- There isn't really a question whether there was a government coverup; there was. The question is, was it for things like uncovering the then-secret government activities such as dozens of attempts to assassinate Castro, working with the Mafia and other activities (many thousands of terrorist/sabotage acts in Cuba that would embarrass the US), or the assassination?
There are all kinds of remarkable specifics to mention, from Oswald's alleged trip to the Cuban embassy in Mexico, to Castro - who was knwledgable about the assassination attempts - saying weeks before the assassination that those leaders who try to kill others, are at risk of becoming the target, but I'll mention just one mystery:
Nixon faced the loss of his presidency if not criminal charges over his Watergate coverup. The plan he decided on was to get the CIA to tell the FBI not to investigate on national security grounds. He didn't control the FBI enough to give them the corrupt order, so how would he get the CIA to do it?
With such an important issue, he sent a messenger with a single message to CIA leadership the messenger did not understand, telling them to say this if the CIA was refusing to cooperate, to twist their arm: he said 'tell them to remember the bay of pigs. They'll know what it means.' (I paraphrase).
Now, this seems confusing - but Nixon's own extremely loyal chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman, explained in his diary he published: Nixon used code words for some sensitive topics, and "bay of pigs" - which would seem to have no relevance to the CIA during Watergate - Haldeman says was his code word for 'JFK assassination'.
So we had the president attemting to order the CIA to do something corrupt it probably did not want to, and to force them, his one blackmail was a vague reference to the JFK assassination, impying a threat to expose something that he and the CIA leadership knew about that the CIA would not want exposed.
This can be verified, as I verified it, in Haldeman's book.
If people have specific questions they can send them to me, some things have been resolved. For example, as JFK's car approached where he was shot, a man on the sidewalk opened a big black umbrella - on a sunny day. Beyon the question whether it happened, many suspected this was an activitiy somehow signalling the shooter or shooters. It was bizarre.
But the man was found many years later, and it turns out, it's innocent. He was making a 'political statement' - he was checked out.
As to the people who say 'who cares who shot him', I'm just disgusted. One way or the other, it's a very important question. Especially if there was any group backing the assassination, there is much to learn: the situation with the mafia, the situation with rogue intelligence operations, and more - and even if not, many activities uncovered by looking into Oswald. There were a lot of suspects who would want to assassinate JFK even if they weren't actually involved.
And it's also possible there were additional assassination efforts, even if Oswald acted alone.
Oswald may have been a 'lone nut' - even whatever his involvement with goverment figures, even if his 'defection' to the USSR was government-sponsored. Things like Ruby's jailhouse statement to, IIRC, Earl Warren and - yes - Gerald Ford that he 'couldn't tell the truth while in that jail. but there was a lot to tell he would if they moved him to a safer location', as suspicious as it is, may have been false.
But understanding the US infiltration of the USSR - from sending 'defectors' to the risky sending of planes into their airspace to trigger nuclear alert systems to better be able to launch a first nuclear strike; the covert activities of the CIA in Latin America, including the work with the mafia; some domestic intellegence operations, and more are all important issues exposed when the assassination is looked into, conspiracy or not.
If there *were* a rogue intelligence backing of the assasination - possibly involving assassination conspirators who worked for or with the government on the massive Cuban operations (terrorism/sabotage in Cuba was the largest US intelligence operation at the time, with thousands of people) - there are important things to learn about the dangers of a rogue intelligence operation, depending who was involved.
There were some in the CIA and military who make the 'Obama wants to destroy America' crowd look tame, at the height of the cold war, as there were great tensions between JFK and these organizations (recall his statement he wanted to 'cut the CIA into a thousand pieces and throw them in the wind' and planned a major redesign of the intelligence agencies in a second term, and his creation of the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) in part to get around the existing miitary leaders he had problems with.)
Were Oswald's claims he was a 'patsy' set up in an operation, were his movements to go to a movie theatre possibly as part of some 'plan' to meet an escape team that never showed up, anything other than desparate lies by a lone nut? Was his interrogation for many hours not being recorded innocent negligenece? There are all kinds of unanswered questions.
I'm not going to make a large post that touches on many issues here now [Edit: ok, I wrote mre than I'd planned, but it's all relative], but my opinions on some big topics are:
- I think it's likely Oswald acted alone in the shooting itself. There are some loose ends about the railway area behind the grassy gnoll, but I lean towards only Oswald.
- The real question of conspiracy is more whether Oswald had people who were getting him to do this. He had a lot of 'false flag' activities, connections to government people (his close friend was an older CIA handler, his pro-Cuba office located with an extreme right-wing former FBI figure, etc.).
- One possibly important issue is Oswald working at the building overseeing the route. He'd been referred to the work by his landlord, Ruth Paine, which sounds very innocent - but it seems she knew intelligince people too, who were the source of the info. But it, like most things on this, is inconclusive.
- There are reports of other assassination efforts, including one prevented only weeks before this one.
- There isn't really a question whether there was a government coverup; there was. The question is, was it for things like uncovering the then-secret government activities such as dozens of attempts to assassinate Castro, working with the Mafia and other activities (many thousands of terrorist/sabotage acts in Cuba that would embarrass the US), or the assassination?
There are all kinds of remarkable specifics to mention, from Oswald's alleged trip to the Cuban embassy in Mexico, to Castro - who was knwledgable about the assassination attempts - saying weeks before the assassination that those leaders who try to kill others, are at risk of becoming the target, but I'll mention just one mystery:
Nixon faced the loss of his presidency if not criminal charges over his Watergate coverup. The plan he decided on was to get the CIA to tell the FBI not to investigate on national security grounds. He didn't control the FBI enough to give them the corrupt order, so how would he get the CIA to do it?
With such an important issue, he sent a messenger with a single message to CIA leadership the messenger did not understand, telling them to say this if the CIA was refusing to cooperate, to twist their arm: he said 'tell them to remember the bay of pigs. They'll know what it means.' (I paraphrase).
Now, this seems confusing - but Nixon's own extremely loyal chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman, explained in his diary he published: Nixon used code words for some sensitive topics, and "bay of pigs" - which would seem to have no relevance to the CIA during Watergate - Haldeman says was his code word for 'JFK assassination'.
So we had the president attemting to order the CIA to do something corrupt it probably did not want to, and to force them, his one blackmail was a vague reference to the JFK assassination, impying a threat to expose something that he and the CIA leadership knew about that the CIA would not want exposed.
This can be verified, as I verified it, in Haldeman's book.
If people have specific questions they can send them to me, some things have been resolved. For example, as JFK's car approached where he was shot, a man on the sidewalk opened a big black umbrella - on a sunny day. Beyon the question whether it happened, many suspected this was an activitiy somehow signalling the shooter or shooters. It was bizarre.
But the man was found many years later, and it turns out, it's innocent. He was making a 'political statement' - he was checked out.
As to the people who say 'who cares who shot him', I'm just disgusted. One way or the other, it's a very important question. Especially if there was any group backing the assassination, there is much to learn: the situation with the mafia, the situation with rogue intelligence operations, and more - and even if not, many activities uncovered by looking into Oswald. There were a lot of suspects who would want to assassinate JFK even if they weren't actually involved.
And it's also possible there were additional assassination efforts, even if Oswald acted alone.
Oswald may have been a 'lone nut' - even whatever his involvement with goverment figures, even if his 'defection' to the USSR was government-sponsored. Things like Ruby's jailhouse statement to, IIRC, Earl Warren and - yes - Gerald Ford that he 'couldn't tell the truth while in that jail. but there was a lot to tell he would if they moved him to a safer location', as suspicious as it is, may have been false.
But understanding the US infiltration of the USSR - from sending 'defectors' to the risky sending of planes into their airspace to trigger nuclear alert systems to better be able to launch a first nuclear strike; the covert activities of the CIA in Latin America, including the work with the mafia; some domestic intellegence operations, and more are all important issues exposed when the assassination is looked into, conspiracy or not.
If there *were* a rogue intelligence backing of the assasination - possibly involving assassination conspirators who worked for or with the government on the massive Cuban operations (terrorism/sabotage in Cuba was the largest US intelligence operation at the time, with thousands of people) - there are important things to learn about the dangers of a rogue intelligence operation, depending who was involved.
There were some in the CIA and military who make the 'Obama wants to destroy America' crowd look tame, at the height of the cold war, as there were great tensions between JFK and these organizations (recall his statement he wanted to 'cut the CIA into a thousand pieces and throw them in the wind' and planned a major redesign of the intelligence agencies in a second term, and his creation of the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) in part to get around the existing miitary leaders he had problems with.)
Were Oswald's claims he was a 'patsy' set up in an operation, were his movements to go to a movie theatre possibly as part of some 'plan' to meet an escape team that never showed up, anything other than desparate lies by a lone nut? Was his interrogation for many hours not being recorded innocent negligenece? There are all kinds of unanswered questions.
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
Craig, how do you square your position with evidence such as the many doctors and such at Parkland hospital who reported seeing a small entrance wound in the front of JFK's head and a large exit wound in the back? Or do you simply dismiss such witness testimony because the official "investigations" did?
You are not going to get a warm response to a tone of insulting insinuation, and just make yourself look like a paranoid, with that sort of post.
There are hundreds of very difficult to resolve bits of evidence - most of which are mutually exclusive, proving one thing, that most are wrong in what they suggest.
I'm not going to say I have a complete answer to each bit of the autopsy evidence. I have, though, seen a lot of it mitigated - doctors who later recant their statements in some cases, and so on, as well as explanations for some of the reports. Part of the problem is the mess of the federal government siezing control over the local doctors (against the law - but without any evidence the reason was sinister, but rather just a muscling in by the feds to keep control), and the inexperienced federal doctor.
You can find all kinds of loose ends - I hesitate to point you to the video 'Best Evidence' because I suspect you will obsess about it - but for example, there was the 'JFK's brain is missing' issue - a coverup by men in black suits to hide the evidence? No, there's evidence indication Roberty Kennedy ordered it confiscated to prevent any chance of public display.
On your specific question, a couple more things are that the wounds were greatly changed by doctors, and that some of them are believed to have been hidden from view. One said it looked small but he lifted hair and it was very large.
But a nugget for you on the conspiratorial side: Johnny Roselli, central to the mob suspicions in the assassination, being called to testify before Congress on it in the late 70's - killed the day before in a mob execution, with bullets around his mouth in what was said to be a mob message not to expose things. That is very suspicious about mob involvement or secrets of some sort.
Last edited:
The "wide majority of the population" lacks significant critical thinking skills.
- wolf
Yeah hard to imagine a highly trained marine can utilize a weapon like he did. He had to have help right?
I blame two things on the rise of the online conspiracy nut community.
1. X-Files
2. Oliver Stone
These two works of fiction have somehow been made real in their brains.
Interestingly, it was the Oliver Stone film which convinced me that the official narrative was likely correct, while before that I was uncertain. I love that movie by the way. From the standpoint of cinematic technique, it's absolutely brilliant. However, I wondered at the time why, if there really is credible evidence of an alternative version, Stone had to lie and misrepresent practically everything.
- wolf
and the "majority" of voters in this thread believes oswald acted alone. lulz suckas.
Voters in this thread are not necessarily a representative sample of people. As a group, they could be more or less inclined to critical thinking than the general populace. In any event, my point was not that the majority is necessarily wrong; it's that a majroity opinion is not evidence of merit. It's an irrelevant appeal to popular opinion.
- wolf
those who voted "yes" are clearly idiots clinging to a fantasy image of their country, critical thinking be damned.
same doctors went on NOVA and stated jfk's head wounds were altered after he left dallas
and what about the damaged windshield of the limo. how did it get damaged?
and the hole damage above the rear view mirror? how did it get damaged?
lulz at the moron sheeple in this thread. hahaha.
Druidx
Platinum Member
- Jul 16, 2002
- 2,971
- 0
- 76
Which do you think works better for hats, tin foil or aluminum foil? I read tin foil makes a better faraday cage but I'm worried that's just a lie put out by the MAN, ( you know one of *THEM* ) to confuse people.
That's not really great logic either, though. The issue with Stone's creations is the accuracy, not that they were made, which is perfectly understandable as necessary to consolidate massive information on the issue to be suitable for a movie. In other words, your conclusion may be right, but for the wrong reason.
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 688
- 126
I don't know why you guys argue with the likes of al981 and kyle. They're good for laughs, but that's about it.
I'm hoping they move on to the Moon Landing Conspiracy next, as that will be good for epic laughs.
I'm hoping they move on to the Moon Landing Conspiracy next, as that will be good for epic laughs.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
says the moron who didn't know the u.s. overthrowing the iranian democracy was common knowledge
hey, weren't you also the moron spending a ton of time on at
n while being bored out of his mind with his wife on his so called hawaii vacation? you fail.Stone didn't just consolidate information to make it more presentable in cinematic form. It's clear that he distorted information to make his point. In basically every way that his movie differs from reality, the difference tends to support Stone's view. That isn't a coincidence.
- wolf
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
Surely you don't think I appreciated the cold shoulder you gave the topic of the evidence of the fatal wound come from the front which I mentioned specifically in the OP? Granted, I see you prefer to argue around that evidence just like official "investigations" did, and drop "nuggets" out your ass to slander those of us to who chose to do otherwise.
True, but much more so on this forum than most.
Exactly.same doctors went on NOVA and stated jfk's head wounds were altered after he left dallas
and what about the damaged windshield of the limo. how did it get damaged?
and the hole damage above the rear view mirror? how did it get damaged?
lulz at the moron sheeple in this thread. hahaha.
I'm hoping you can stop conflating the evidence which disproves the belief that JFK was murdered by a lone gunman with crackpot arguments from Moon landing deniers. Can you muster the mental capacity to acknowledging such distinctions?
Last edited:
Yes, I was distinguishing between the technique of inventing a character and dialogue to present information, and the issue of whether that information is accurate.
The invention of dialogue itself isn't proof the point is wrong, but the accuracy of the information is important.
It wasn't so much disagreeing as being clear what the issue is, in case you were implying that the invention of dialogue was itself evidence against him.
I agree that Stone made mistakes in information he presented. It's not really a reason for you to draw conclusion about the assassination though; just to dismiss Stone.
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 688
- 126
Obviously you can't, since the point went over your head. The bigger question is -- was I the only one who made a point go over your head, or did I have conspirators helping me in the shadows?
Seriously, if you and your tin-foiled hat pal move on to another conspiracy (esp. the moon landing), PM me. I could use the laughs.
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 688
- 126
says the moron who didn't know the u.s. overthrowing the iranian democracy was common knowledge
hey, weren't you also the moron spending a ton of time on at
Hey look, it is the village idiot that can't prove any of his accusations and fails reading comprehension!
1. We didn't discuss the Iranian democracy being overthrown as that was not in dispute. Your other ridiculous accusations were in dispute and you couldn't prove them and instead, deflected and made a fool of yourself.
2. Jealous I was in Hawaii while you weren't? Maybe when you grow up and get a job, you can travel like the rest of us adults. As I said in that thread, my wife was getting ready to go out and I had time to kill and laughing at little trolls like you humors me.
I don't need to talk with you and you don't need to respond unless you're prepared to share the "inside scoop" you have with links, and you know specifically which conspiracies I am referring to. If you don't, use the search feature. Links to wingnut threads from abovetopsecret.com don't count. If you can't provide reputable links, you have nothing so don't waste my time.
Last edited:
1. You started to mouth off because i posted proof the united states had been caught lying numerous times before and i started schooling your ignorant buddies on the subject
i challenged you to start a thread and petition the mods to not lock it like they usually do, but you deflected, pussied out, insert new excuse here, because you have no interest in really debating or examining contradicting evidence. your only interest is name calling and defending your proven to be bullshit/fantasy government.take this thread for example, i stated the dallas doctors who initially operated on JFK then went on NOVA to state his head wounds had been altered after he left dallas. i didn't post a link because it's widely available on the web, but according to you "i can't back up what i said". wtf are you smoking? go do your homework loser and enjoy your crow. be sure to report back how it tastes.
2. i've been to hawaii for vacation, and i sure as hell didn't waste numerous hours / days of my time there posting on an internet political forum
if your wife bores you, what else needs to be said. hahaha.TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter