Conspiracy To Assassinate JFK

[DemPGH]

The post was originally part of the worst presidents post WW2 thread, but I felt and do feel that that was / is a difficult determination to make, in large part because after JFK was assassinated we entered into an escalated, perpetual state of war and tax cuts that have benefitted the wealthy and the industry of defense. Based upon the evidence below (1979 congressional investigation, the Jim Marrs book - and Marrs has taught courses on the subject, and the 1994-98 ARRB investigation) I think there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. How large or how small it was I cannot say and is only conjecture, unfortunately.

----------

(That's kind of unanswerable, because after they took down Kennedy, we had a string of unrelentingly corrupt politicians and greedy war-mongers who became President. The first actually honorable one post JFK was Carter, and unfortunately, he was in far over his head. Clinton and Obama I think have done what they've done with the best of intentions, but IMO at this point the war machine and defense as an industry are just out of control. Way, way out of control.)

[DC Al Fine]

That's kind of unanswerable, because after they took down Kennedy, we had a string of unrelentingly corrupt politicians and greedy war-mongers who became President. The first actually honorable one post JFK was Carter, and unfortunately, he was in far over his head. Clinton and Obama I think have done what they've done with the best of intentions, but IMO at this point the war machine and defense as an industry are just out of control. Way, way out of control.

JFK wasn't a corrupt greedy warmonger? umm...

[DemPGH]

That's kind of unanswerable, because after they took down Kennedy, we had a string of unrelentingly corrupt politicians and greedy war-mongers who became President. The first actually honorable one post JFK was Carter, and unfortunately, he was in far over his head. Clinton and Obama I think have done what they've done with the best of intentions, but IMO at this point the war machine and defense as an industry are just out of control. Way, way out of control.

JFK wasn't a corrupt greedy warmonger? umm...

Umm. . . No he wasn't. He inherited a number of bad policies, which at the outset he decided to play status quo on. Then he decided to get out of Vietnam, was misled about the Bay of Pigs and then refused a full-scale invasion of Cuba when, by design, it failed, fought to control his Joint Chiefs and borderline nutcase generals like LeMay, handled beautifully the Missile Crisis (again, when the generals wanted to wipe out Cuba), and then was shot when he decided that the nonsense of perpetual war was untenable, and decided to try to end the Cold War. The defense industry (what Ike called the "military industrial complex") realized that conflict was money, and JFK clearly wanted to stop it.

Check out a wonderful book called JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass. Meticulously researched book about not only JFK's assassination, but his policies.

[Oak Hills]

Okay, but how does Gerald Ford qualify as a "corrupt, greedy warmonger"?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Isn't there some kind of standing rule against this sort of insane gibberish here?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

JFK hacks are the worst.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

What the hell is this I don't even.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have always said that the vast preponderance of conspiracy theorists regarding Kennedy's assassination (especially those that center around the MIC as the prime culprit), are from people who have a somewhat "glossed over" view of the man himself.

[minionofmidas]

Well, obviously even Kennedy shines when compared with the likes of LeMay or Dulles, but then so does a supernova.

[Peter the Lefty]

You can't deny that there's more than we were told either.  He wasn't a saint in his personal life for sure, but he was someone who wanted to rid the military-industrial complex of its control over the American political system.  That's why they killed him.

[DemPGH]

Isn't there some kind of standing rule against this sort of insane gibberish here?

No, because it's not insane gibberish. How much research have you done on this subject? None? You should try sometime.

[DemPGH]

Okay, but how does Gerald Ford qualify as a "corrupt, greedy warmonger"?

He was just a politician in the right place at the right time with the right friends, nothing more and nothing less. LBJ and Nixon resemble that remark most closely.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I think abandoning your computer for a while and trying to go out and get a girl instead would be far more productive than posting this utter garbage.

[DemPGH]

I think abandoning your computer for a while and trying to go out and get a girl instead would be far more productive than posting this utter garbage.

lol - says the person who is probably here quadruple the time I am, has over 27 posts per day, and is closing in on 34,000. If you were on here any more, Chief, you'd need to start paying rent. Man, you can't even level good personal attacks. I'd say you need substantially more help than me with female companionship.

You guys can do better than this. Do defend the WC Report.

Let's start here.
1) since there's so much poll love, try this one: one in ten thinks Oswald did it alone as per the WC Report. One in ten. Don't like that one? Try more. They show the same result, essentially. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-23166.html

2) Now. Do you know where Washington, D.C. is? I recommend the National Archives if you go there. You'll find the U.S. House's 1979 report from the Select Committee On Assassinations. They concluded that there were a minimum of two shooters (because a bolt action rifle cannot fire on top of itself), that a conspiracy existed, that Oswald did not act alone, and that there are serious flaws with the WC Report. That's all they could conclude because there was and is still too much information they did not have. http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1c.html

3) From 1994 to 1998 the Assassination Records Review Board declared even more problems (like the autopsy, etc.) with the WC Report, and that the greatest barrier to ascertaining answers to the Kennedy assassination was government secrecy and nearly 50,000 pages that are locked up. http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/arrb98/index.html

Now, I'm done if all you have is "Quit taking drugs," "This is stupid," or "Get a girlfriend."

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm as big a JFK hack as anyone here... and have been since I was about 8... considering I'm 30 in 5 months... that tells you how long I've been reading and examining this stuff.

My favourite film is JFK, not because I believe the ridiculous conspiracy they've set up (and occasionally lose track of) in it... because I don't... but because it's such a lush and technically brilliant film.

Over time, I've found myself move further and further away from the wide-ranging conspiracy. I think there is probably enough odd things surrounding this to suggest more than one person knew what was going on. But to think military intelligence, Cuban exiles, the CIA and mob bosses knew what was going to happen is just IN-SANE.

So much of the conspiracy evidence is based on a willful ignorance of facts.

1. The alleged last-minute route-change... this is garbage and I'll tell you why. In order to get from Main St onto the Stemmon's Freeway, you have to turn onto Houston and make the turn onto Elm, as the Limo would have had to mount road dividers to get onto the freeway...

2. The 'back and the to the left', the long-held view that Kennedy's violent backward's reaction to the head shot suggests a shot from the right-front... of course forgetting basic wound ballistics. A gun shot to the head, as a shot into any pressurised container, creates a large exit with considerable amounts material being projected. If you look at the Zapruder film it tells you several things, at frame 313, Kennedy's head bobs down, then by the next frame it is starting it's backward momentum as the material from the exit wound is projected out forcing the head backwards in what is called the 'jet effect'. Note the debris spray would have gone up and to the rear in the initial explosion... if the shot was from the front, but it didn't, the spray went up and to the front...

My view of the head wound is that more than likely he was shot from the rear but the projectile had a very shallow path along the top right of the skull. What that ended up doing was to essentially create number significant fractures and a tearing motion, which would explain the clear evidence of a fist-palm sized hole over Kennedy's right ear toward the forehead, as well as the eyewitness evidence of a wound in the right rear. So instead of causing a clean entry and clean exit... the tearing motion meant there was a lot bone attached to scalp creating a situation were it was impossible to determine the nature of the wound at the hospital. Personally, I think a big reason for this was White House trying to cover up just how large and disfiguring the head wound was.

Now... I still have questions about the throat wound, how the Parkland doctor's saw a small clean entry wound, but even with the tracheotomy that was performed... the Parkland doctors have no idea how that throat wound became so large.

A conspiracy could well exist, but I think if there was one, it was a small, tightly organised group, not some traitorous attack by the military and intelligence community. I think if they want to destroy Kennedy, all they needed to do was leak the intelligence on Kennedy's affairs before the 1964 election... that would have destroyed his career and his legacy.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

lololololololol

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Man, you can't even level good personal attacks.

And yet you probably devoted your entire morning to come up with a lengty response. Looks like I touched some sensitive spot after all.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

My favourite film is JFK, not because I believe the ridiculous conspiracy they've set up (and occasionally lose track of) in it... because I don't... but because it's such a lush and technically brilliant film.

A well crafted work of fiction, which I'll watch every so often (most recently was just after Thanksgiving because of the anniversary of the event and all).

Personally, I think a big reason for this was White House trying to cover up just how large and disfiguring the head wound was.

A likely motivating factor for secrecy and such would be fear of an "1898 Sinking of the Maine" situation where a tragic event gets misrepresented and leads to a war. In 1963, the chance of such being a nuclear war with the Soviets was great. Certain details regarding the nature of the exact wound would certainly fall within that realm of concern.

A conspiracy could well exist, but I think if there was one, it was a small, tightly organised group, not some traitorous attack by the military and intelligence community. I think if they want to destroy Kennedy, all they needed to do was leak the intelligence on Kennedy's affairs before the 1964 election... that would have destroyed his career and his legacy.

Would that really have been enough to elect Goldwater?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Would that really have been enough to elect Goldwater?

Interesting question. While Kennedy's affairs, if public, would have a damaging effect (society was far less tolerant back then), JFK would certainly paint Goldwater as a mad, nuke-loving nutcase. After Cuban Missile Crisis that could actually outweight Kennedy's skeletons.

[Donerail]

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If LBJ succesfully painted Goldwater as nuke-throwing nutjob I'm pretty sure the Kennedys would be able to do the same.

[Donerail]

If LBJ succesfully painted Goldwater as nuke-throwing nutjob I'm pretty sure the Kennedys would be able to do the same.

Not aimed at your post, but at the thread in general.

[DemPGH]

I'm as big a JFK hack as anyone here... and have been since I was about 8... considering I'm 30 in 5 months... that tells you how long I've been reading and examining this stuff.

My favourite film is JFK, not because I believe the ridiculous conspiracy they've set up (and occasionally lose track of) in it... because I don't... but because it's such a lush and technically brilliant film.

Over time, I've found myself move further and further away from the wide-ranging conspiracy. I think there is probably enough odd things surrounding this to suggest more than one person knew what was going on. But to think military intelligence, Cuban exiles, the CIA and mob bosses knew what was going to happen is just IN-SANE.

So much of the conspiracy evidence is based on a willful ignorance of facts.

1. The alleged last-minute route-change... this is garbage and I'll tell you why. In order to get from Main St onto the Stemmon's Freeway, you have to turn onto Houston and make the turn onto Elm, as the Limo would have had to mount road dividers to get onto the freeway...

2. The 'back and the to the left', the long-held view that Kennedy's violent backward's reaction to the head shot suggests a shot from the right-front... of course forgetting basic wound ballistics. A gun shot to the head, as a shot into any pressurised container, creates a large exit with considerable amounts material being projected. If you look at the Zapruder film it tells you several things, at frame 313, Kennedy's head bobs down, then by the next frame it is starting it's backward momentum as the material from the exit wound is projected out forcing the head backwards in what is called the 'jet effect'. Note the debris spray would have gone up and to the rear in the initial explosion... if the shot was from the front, but it didn't, the spray went up and to the front...

My view of the head wound is that more than likely he was shot from the rear but the projectile had a very shallow path along the top right of the skull. What that ended up doing was to essentially create number significant fractures and a tearing motion, which would explain the clear evidence of a fist-palm sized hole over Kennedy's right ear toward the forehead, as well as the eyewitness evidence of a wound in the right rear. So instead of causing a clean entry and clean exit... the tearing motion meant there was a lot bone attached to scalp creating a situation were it was impossible to determine the nature of the wound at the hospital. Personally, I think a big reason for this was White House trying to cover up just how large and disfiguring the head wound was.

Now... I still have questions about the throat wound, how the Parkland doctor's saw a small clean entry wound, but even with the tracheotomy that was performed... the Parkland doctors have no idea how that throat wound became so large.

A conspiracy could well exist, but I think if there was one, it was a small, tightly organised group, not some traitorous attack by the military and intelligence community. I think if they want to destroy Kennedy, all they needed to do was leak the intelligence on Kennedy's affairs before the 1964 election... that would have destroyed his career and his legacy.

Great post, Polnut! That's very plausible and again, I have no trouble with anyone trying to defend the WC Report, although as time goes by it looks increasingly outlandish. The movie JFK actually did a lot of good. Jim Marrs (who is sadly not always as credible) has taught courses on the assassination, and his book about Garrison coupled with the 1979 congressional report I cite above were the bases for the movie. The movie in turn brought about the 1994-98 Assassination Records Review Board's conclusion that 50,000 pages of information locked up plus a botched WC Report is simply not good enough. I concur. However, as long as that much information is hidden it's all sadly conjecture. I just think it's strange that we went wholesale into a perpetual state of war after JFK was killed, and most everyone on the Warren Panel profited in some way. The conspiracy could have been small, it could have been large, but thinking that Oswald did it himself from a warehouse through a tree with a rickety bolt action rifle capable of firing on top of itself? Nah. I've fired enough rifles and guns to know that that whole scenario isn't even serious.

But I'm a huge fan of that movie, and have been since it came out when I was a kid. That movie was great for being provocative, for being based on reality, and for being good entertainment (e.g., Joe Pesci rules!).

[The Mikado]

Great post, Polnut! That's very plausible and again, I have no trouble with anyone trying to defend the WC Report, although as time goes by it looks increasingly outlandish. The movie JFK actually did a lot of good. Jim Marrs (who is sadly not always as credible) has taught courses on the assassination, and his book about Garrison coupled with the 1979 congressional report I cite above were the bases for the movie. The movie in turn brought about the 1994-98 Assassination Records Review Board's conclusion that 50,000 pages of information locked up plus a botched WC Report is simply not good enough. I concur. However, as long as that much information is hidden it's all sadly conjecture. I just think it's strange that we went wholesale into a perpetual state of war after JFK was killed, and most everyone on the Warren Panel profited in some way. The conspiracy could have been small, it could have been large, but thinking that Oswald did it himself from a warehouse through a tree with a rickety bolt action rifle capable of firing on top of itself? Nah. I've fired enough rifles and guns to know that that whole scenario isn't even serious.

But I'm a huge fan of that movie, and have been since it came out when I was a kid. That movie was great for being provocative, for being based on reality, and for being good entertainment (e.g., Joe Pesci rules!).

So let me get this straight.  Belief in God is unrealistic fantasy thought, but a movie claiming that a group of gay mobbed-up Republicans in conjunction with the military and top officials in the US government killed Kennedy and had Oswald shot as a coverup is based on reality and fact?  Because I think that God is a lot less implausible than the events of JFK.

Also, what unreleased documents?  The remaining files are all going to be out by 2017, and have you ever read government archives?  50,000 pages would be a neverending list of triplicate copies of memos and requests for funds.  The idea that that small amount of paper is concealing anything more than eyebrow-raising is absurd: the documents were reviewed and if there's one thing politicians do when they're handed interesting information is leak. 

Honestly, it's hard to imagine a thought process less-reality-based than thinking that Oswald did not kill Kennedy.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The fact that people profited from a change in regime is not evidence of a conspiracy... my biggest pet peeve.