|
I gotta wonder if people had a problem with Garfield's or Mckinley's assassinations. Lone nut!
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:09 |
|
|
It's possible back in the days of limited print media people could have entertained any number of crazy ideas; either kept to themselves or their families. It would explain why people don't vote (just assuming the whole thing is an elaborate machination), and why even ideas like blood libel somehow still survive. As print media developed people living in cities encountered all sorts of pamphlets; and information can get passed along unquestioned in families.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Hinckley shooting Reagan was more improbable in many ways. Reagan got hit by a ricochet from a cheap .22 pistol despite being surrounded by Secret Service agents? Yeah right 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hinckley shooting Reagan was more improbable in many ways. Reagan got hit by a ricochet from a cheap .22 pistol despite being surrounded by Secret Service agents? Yeah right What did Jodi Foster know!? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:That doesn't really explain much. Option A: A nutbag two-bit nightclub owner with tenuous (at best) ties to organized crime is given the monumentally important task of silencing the man who could spill his guts and take down the entire conspiracy. So the mafia smart enough to put a bazillion pieces into place to get the president left one of the most important pieces to an unstable jag-off. Option B: A nutbag two-bit nightclub owner loses his poo poo (which he did often) and kills the accused assassin. Another thing to keep in mind, Ruby had the access he did because he was a police groupie. He befriended many cops and gave them free drinks when they came to his club. Oswald's transfer marked a cutoff point for Ruby: he'd never get access to Oswald again. It's well established that Ruby was apoplectic over the assassination, and repeatedly said how horrible he felt for Jackie. He was also shocked that he was being arrested and tried, he thought he'd be hailed as a hero because he was loving nuts. Also, if Ruby's job was to silence Oswald for knowing too much, wouldn't the mob have had to silence Ruby? And silence the guy who silenced Ruby? And silenced the guy who..... Also, if you are going to propose a mob theory, you then have a much harder time explaining the conspiracy's near omniscient ability to set up all the myriad details necessary to make it work. At least a CIA conspiracy gives you an excuse as to how the conspirators managed to silence the hundreds of people necessary to do it. quote:As for the time, yes you would think someone given the task of killing the president's assassins would be more attentive towards something like that, but if what people say about Jack Ruby is true, he's the type who'd believe he could get away with overlooking that detail (and was right only by pure luck). Please explain. quote:Unless your willing to find out every piece of information surrounding whatever you research, especially anything that contradicts what you believe, it's basically just entertainment. For the record, I used to be an ardent believer in a JFK conspiracy. SedanChair posted:Hinckley shooting Reagan was more improbable in many ways. Reagan got hit by a ricochet from a cheap .22 pistol despite being surrounded by Secret Service agents? Yeah right Seriously, people still keep up the magic bullet poo poo despite the mountain of evidence that it had an almost straight trajectory, yet no one brings this up. That loving bullet did Tony Hawk poo poo to get to Reagan. Not only did it slide down the length of the limo, but it got in through the tiny gap between the open door and body of the car. Reagan was less than half a second from being safely inside but was hit mid-dive. Mr. Funny Pants fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Option A: A nutbag two-bit nightclub owner with tenuous (at best) ties to organized crime is given the monumentally important task of silencing the man who could spill his guts and take down the entire conspiracy. So the mafia smart enough to put a bazillion pieces into place to get the president left one of the most important pieces to an unstable jag-off. Ah but they did silence Ruby! By giving him cancer, the most abrupt of takeouts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Ah but they did silence Ruby! By giving him cancer, the most abrupt of takeouts. Yep, cancer that, according to Ruby, was being injected into him by the government. And Jews were being slaughtered in another part of the jail. Yes, he really said that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
If Ruby had been given some kind of pass like "mysteriously" found not guilty and got to disappear to Bermuda I might be a little more suspicious. But he spent 2 years in jail before he finally got a retrial (and the Cancer killed him before they could). He had 2 years to spill his guts, what could they possibly have been promising him to keep his mouth shut? Or threatening him with? If he blew the lid off the entire conspiracy of who killed JFK he would probably get a medal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:How so? There's a long history of lone nuts with guns assassinating political leaders. It happens pretty frequently. What's unbelievable about it? I was focused on the Jack Ruby side, should have clarified that. The only problem I had with Oswald's story is the motivation, and it's more from me being curious about why someone would do something like that than anything else. As far as I remember, the explanation was pretty much "dude was straightup cray-cray" with some of the standard tropes for the deperessed, mentally abnormal person thrown in. By no means does this call into question the entire story behind the event, but it does make it seem like there wasn't much effort put in to investigating it. Jack Ruby's side is what's throwing a wrench in the explanation. I just haven't gotten anything that's even close to an understandable explanation behind what happened with him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:I was focused on the Jack Ruby side, should have clarified that. The only problem I had with Oswald's story is the motivation, and it's more from me being curious about why someone would do something like that than anything else. As far as I remember, the explanation was pretty much "dude was straightup cray-cray" with some of the standard tropes for the deperessed, mentally abnormal person thrown in. By no means does this call into question the entire story behind the event, but it does make it seem like there wasn't much effort put in to investigating it. So a crazy, angry guy who shot the president makes sense, but a crazy, angry guy who shot the guy who shot the president doesn't?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
I still don't get why everyone thinks the only possible options are Mafia or Lone Killer. The CIA, FBI, the generals, everyone else in power. They had a lot at stake with a pull out from Vietnam, in their mind what Kennedy was doing was treason. Do people forget that climate? That there was legitimate people in power calling Kennedy a traitor. http://journal.historyitm.org/2013/...atally-wounded/ http://www.utexas.edu/know/2013/11/18/jfk-assassination-dallas-1963/ quote:“Dallas had just simply become, in an almost initially unlikely way, the headquarters of the anti-Kennedy, ‘Let’s overthrow Kennedy’ movement,” Minutaglio said in an interview with NPR. “He was perceived to be a traitor. He was a socialist, he was on bended knee to so many different entities — communism, socialism and even the pope.” It's not like there isn't a precedent of generals trying to kill the president. The Mafia poo poo was just a distraction. The Mafia wouldn't go after a President, there is no reason too when you can just go after judges with bribes. Now the CIA/FBI well ya, they did have something to gain from it. Did anyone ever explain why the security detail was so small on that day? And why was the route changed at the last minute to ensure he basically was a sitting duck around that corner? Morphix fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Jack Ruby's side is what's throwing a wrench in the explanation. I just haven't gotten anything that's even close to an understandable explanation behind what happened with him. Ruby's attitude was (paraphrasing) 'That goddamned son-of-a-bitch messed with the President, messed with America, and messed with Dallas. So you're sure as poo poo right I put a bullet in 'im." He had an eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth mentality that was really quite normal at the time. It's like blood feud/vendetta culture. It still exists to this day, to a lesser degree, hence the need to keep George Zimmerman in a bullet-proof vest and away from the public during his trial. And Oswald was the most high-profile murder defendant of all time. We overthink these things. For example, like another poster said, the 9/11 attacks were a very simple operation. It just took will and death drive. Killing is easy once people overcome their natural inhibition against it. Like when their emotions run hot -- Like after Kennedy was shot. Ruby just took it another step further. If you live in the South, or live in Texas, get to know old-timers. Ruby took the law into his own hands. It's very American but also very, very Texan. (I'm Texan.) It's not incomprehensible at all to me. It's seriously, well, here was that little rat bastard, Oswald, smirking and laughing at us. Making fools of us. Somebody outta shoot that son of a bitch. Edit: A glimpse at post-war Dallas.  Herbert "the Cat" Noble. Dallas businessman and professional gambler. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Morphix posted:The CIA, FBI, the generals, everyone else in power. They had a lot at stake with a pull out from Vietnam, in their mind what Kennedy was doing was treason. From an oral history taken by John Bartlow Martin from Robert F. Kennedy: quote:Kennedy: quote:Did anyone ever explain why the security detail was so small on that day? And why was the route changed at the last minute to ensure he basically was a sitting duck around that corner? The route was not only not changed at the last minute, it wasn't changed at all. Garrison is the one that came up with that bullshit. They had to go down Elm because they couldn't get to the Stemmons Freeway from Main without jumping a concrete divider. I'm not aware that his security detail was small, could you point me to a source on that? It was small compared to today, that's for sure, but that was normal for the time. Mr. Funny Pants fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:I gotta wonder if people had a problem with Garfield's or Mckinley's assassinations. Czolgosz was more of a Hinckley than an Oswald in his method - it was a point-blank assassination. There was absolutely no doubt about him being the shooter or anything like that. So other than Emma Goldman being arrested (because obviously a prominent anarchist must have been in on it!) for a bit the McKinley assassination was a pretty self-contained event with no real loose ends to riff off of for conspiracies other than the anarchism connection. Guiteau, on the other hand, had extremely extensive contact with the federal and DC municipal governments in his mad quest to be rewarded for nebulous and nonexistent contributions to Garfield's election (basically imagine a guy who published a Tea Party newsletter once deciding that his newsletter was what tipped things over for the election, so he should get to be an ambassador) and so his motivations and abject batshit insanity were immediately understood.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Morphix posted:I still don't get why *farts into room, runs away*
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Option A: A nutbag two-bit nightclub owner with tenuous (at best) ties to organized crime is given the monumentally important task of silencing the man who could spill his guts and take down the entire conspiracy. So the mafia smart enough to put a bazillion pieces into place to get the president left one of the most important pieces to an unstable jag-off. Still got enough sizeable holes a conspiracy theory can live, but I'm coming around. For the record, nobody needs to know about a conspiracy to be involved in it, just the right motivation; that said, I won't go there since the only thing we could have to go on is speculation. The only thing I need is to know whether or not Oswald had any connextions to organized crime, than it should be closed for me (but even I can't guarentee that  ). However, my fallback theory is still Templars killed JFK because he was a threat to their New World Order and they wanted his Piece of Eden.To explain that thing, my experience with people with that level of arrogence and delusions of grandier is that they'll do anything they feel they can get away with. Basically, as long as it's insignificant enough or they feel like they can justify the action, it's free game for them. Could very well be misinterpreting what Ruby's like, but it does seem like he fits that billing. Also, I was agreeing with what the person said about giving credibility to a controversial claim simply because it's controversial, wasn't meant for you. Popular Thug Drink posted:So a crazy, angry guy who shot the president makes sense, but a crazy, angry guy who shot the guy who shot the president doesn't? MizPiz fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Still got enough sizeable holes a conspiracy theory can live, but I'm coming around. For the record, nobody needs to know about a conspiracy to be involved in it Then it's not a conspiracy, period. You are wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:From an oral history taken by John Bartlow Martin from Robert F. Kennedy: That's weird, this seems to indicate otherwise http://www.thenation.com/article/177332/jfks-vietnam-withdrawal-plan-fact-not-speculation quote:Professor Galbraith is correct [Letters, NYR, December 6, 2007] that “there was a plan to withdraw US forces from Vietnam, beginning with the first thousand by December 1963, and almost all of the rest by the end of 1965…. President Kennedy had approved that plan. It was the actual policy of the United States on the day Kennedy died.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Then it's not a conspiracy, period. You are wrong. Because people only get involved with or do things when they know every minute detail about it. No one ever does anything simply for the sake of themselves, someone close to them, or even a personal belief they hold.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Because people only get involved with or do things when they know every minute detail about it. No one ever does anything simply for the sake of themselves, someone close to them, or even a personal belief they hold. If what you meant to say was that people can unwittingly participate in conspiracy theories, you are correct. What you said was that conspiracies can take place without anyone knowing they are participating in a conspiracy, which doesn't make any sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Morphix posted:That's weird, this seems to indicate otherwise It's still an ambiguous and unanswerable question. http://www.bostonreview.net/blog/boston-review-would-jfk-have-ended-war Given that Kennedy remained in the war even in a non-escalatory fashion I don't see any document as being indicative of a policy stance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#The_Kennedy_years.2C_1961.E2.80.9363 Kennedy didn't want to get involved in a shooting war but he was also committed to an anti-communist South Vietnam. There's no way of knowing what steps he would have taken had he survived and been president past 1964. Also note that Gailbraith Jr.'s father, Gailbraith Sr., was an anti-war advisor to Kennedy. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:If what you meant to say was that people can unwittingly participate in conspiracy theories, you are correct. What you said was that conspiracies can take place without anyone knowing they are participating in a conspiracy, which doesn't make any sense. So I did, got me there. My bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Morphix posted:That's weird, this seems to indicate otherwise Note: I have not had time to review all of the documentation that your link refers to, so I will be happy to admit that I'm wrong once I read it. Anyway... NSAM 263 seems to be the "plan" referred to. But the plan to withdraw 1000 troops by the end of 1963 was contingent on the progress of training the South Vietnamese to handle the war themselves. That was a pretty big "if" the administration gave themselves. And JFK more or less says that in a press conference dealing with the 1000 troop pullout: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy0gCvdF2_Q More straight from the horse's mouth, only a couple of months before he was killed: JFK posted:Mr. HUNTLEY. Are we likely to reduce our aid to South Viet-Nam now? And from the speech he was going to deliver the day he died: quote:Reducing our efforts to train, equip and assist their armies can only encourage Communist penetration and require in time the increased overseas deployment of American combat forces. And reducing the help needed to bolster these nations that undertake to help defend freedom can have the same disastrous result.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:It's still an ambiguous and unanswerable question. From what I remember, they were talking with North Vietnamese forces about reaching a peace agreement, which LBJ tried building off of before it collapsed. I don't think they really got anywhere beyond getting on good terms with the NVC by Kennedy's death, but I do remember Kennedy's administration played a big part in getting the peace talks going. From there, we can get into how Henry Kissinger may or may not have had the war extended so Nixon can win the 1968 elections.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:I gotta wonder if people had a problem with Garfield's or Mckinley's assassinations. Killed Garfield.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Morphix posted:I still don't get why everyone thinks the only possible options are Mafia or Lone Killer. There were a frighteningly large number of well armed and well backed men that genuinely hated JFK and were probably willing to go to whatever lengths necessary to get rid of him, and it would have takena combination of disparate government and non-government machinations to allow an assassination to proceed. What is interesting about considering Oswaled the lone gunner is that you can dip your hand into the CIA barrel and pull a dozen people easily that hated Kennedy with the heat of a thousand flaming suns. Here's one of them, David Morales, expert in insurgent and counterinsurgenct warfare, and Cuban Commie hater: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_S%C3%A1nchez_Morales#John_F._Kennedy Wikipedia.org posted:
David Sanchez Morales had to endure hundreds of his paramilitary brothers in arms, potential liberators of Cuba, getting mowed down in the Bay of Pigs by a single Soviet trainer jet because Kennedy refused to officially support the Cubern rebels (to quote kennedy boston-speak). Ever since that day he would go into a dwarf fortress-esque tantrum whenever his name was brought up. Wikipedia.org posted:In November 2006, the BBC's Newsnight program presented a report by filmmaker Shane O'Sullivan alleging that three senior CIA operatives - purported to be Morales, Gordon Campbell, and George Joannides - were present at the Ambassador Hotel on the night of Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated.[8] The program featured an interview with Morales's former attorney Robert Walton, who quoted Morales as having said, "I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when we got the little bastard".[9] O'Sullivan reported that the CIA declined to comment on the officers in question.[citation needed] It was also alleged that Morales was known for his deep anger toward the Kennedys for what he saw as their betrayal during the Bay of Pigs Invasion.[10] ohgodwhat posted:So, uh, what's your pet theory that explains all of the holes in their bodies and involves more than one bullet? There were more than three bullets fired at President John F. Kennedy and several of them came from the direction of the Grassy Knoll, and there were a group of people conspiring to assassinate. Note that my 'pet theory' is agreed upon by 61% of America according to gallup. http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx Only 30% of Americans think that Oswald did it alone. Perhaps you should explain your pet theory to me, and while you are at it explain to the class how one bullet can make half a dozen wounds and change direction 3-4 times. http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_NARA_Evidence_-_Magic_Bullet maryferell.org posted:This bullet made half a dozen wounds and changed direction several times, according to the Warren Report. Perhaps someone should have told them that bullets tend to change shape after impact!
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
This has been explained time and time again, goddamn. Kennedy and Connally were sitting at different height levels and that is where the "magic bullet" dipshittery comes from, idiots (you) assuming they were at equal height. Also, quote:Only 30% of Americans think that Oswald did it alone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
King of Hamas posted:There were more than three bullets fired at President John F. Kennedy and several of them came from the direction of the Grassy Knoll, and there were a group of people conspiring to assassinate. Note that my 'pet theory' is agreed upon by 61% of America according to gallup. http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx Only 39% of Americans believe in evolution. According to your logic, evolution by natural selection isn't true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:This has been explained time and time again, goddamn. Kennedy and Connally were sitting at different height levels and that is where the "magic bullet" dipshittery comes from, idiots (you) assuming they were at equal height. Can you explain why the bullet looks completely intact? Or is that not the bullet used and there was some mishap in the terrible investigation? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0bIRkv29xk Bill Hicks on JFK
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
Why bother? Say that bullet is 100% fake. Then what?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
"Liberators of Cuba" 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Heavy Zed posted:Why bother? Say that bullet is 100% fake. Then what? An assassinated President's death is so poorly investigated that proper ballistic tests can be thrown out the window because gently caress it. And that's the conspiracy ender?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Well I mean if there's no further evidence of a conspiracy then yeah, I guess. I was mainly just wondering if it had anything to do with the whole "magic bullet" thing since you're bringing them both up together. Like would the real bullet look like it had made 3 turns in mid-flight or whatever somehow?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
King of Hamas posted:This bullet made half a dozen wounds and changed direction several times, according to the Warren Report. Perhaps someone should have told them that bullets tend to change shape after impact! It did change shape, too, at the end. But you left the photo which shows that out of your post. Selective evidence: the crux of the conspiracist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
NOVA had an episode about this that cleared a lot of the "magic bullet" stuff up. http://video.pbs.org/video/2365118537/
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Morphix posted:An assassinated President's death is so poorly investigated that proper ballistic tests can be thrown out the window because gently caress it. Do you even know anything about ballistics? Bullets do all sorts of weird poo poo after impacting a body. I've seen a bullet lodge into a deer's heart and look absolutely pristine (besides missing the casing); I've seen a bullet flatten out after getting stuck in muscle; I've seen a bullet ricochet around the body cavity turning the deer's organs into a puree and still look pristine except for the lack of casing; I've seen a (non-hollow point) bullet split into half a dozen pieces upon impact. I've had bullets pass cleanly through the deer's body, with an exit wound only a tiny bit larger than the entry wound. Those were all the exact same kind of bullet, all fired from the same rifle, impacting approximately the same spot on the side of a whitetail deer. The bullet not looking like you expect it to look like is hardly the damning evidence you make it out to be. Do you have testimony from a ballistics expert that you're not sharing with us or something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
No, you see he posted a video by a comedian, so he doesn't need actual experts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
So this just came up from a friend on Facebook http://disinfo.com/2014/01/chemtrails-finally-proven-whistleblower/ apparently some Airforce "Whistleblower," reveals the truth about CHEMTRAILS! I have no words to describe how sad I'm seeing my friend post this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Preem Palver posted:Do you even know anything about ballistics? I don't at all, I've shot a gun once in my life. My point is though, could a bullet look like that after impacting several bones? Because what you describe seems to be soft tissue stuff. I'd rather not get into Forensic Experts because as has been shown in couple threads on here, they're mostly bullshit artists that work for DAs getting people locked up. Their testimony largely means nothing in my opinion. Unless we're talking modern DNA forensics. A Fancy 400 lbs posted:No, you see he posted a video by a comedian, so he doesn't need actual experts. Sick burn bro, I bet you feel like a big dick swinga huh? Morphix fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:09 |
|
|
Listen I'll sit back and laugh at all the idiots who believe in obvious stupid conspiracy theories but lol at you sheeple who seriously believe planes just make clouds behind them. When my car goes really fast it doesn't leave a cloud unless my exhaust is putting something nasty into the air. makes you think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 02:00
|
|
