|
It's been pointed out that the government wouldn't have hid from shooting down United 93 because it would have made them look competent. I come at it from an additional angle: is there any sane person who would have objected to shooting it down? Was there any person in the government stupid enough to think that the American people would have flipped out if it had been shot down? Of course not. The other thing about 9/11 and the "need" for conspiracy -- it was a loving conspiracy! A massive, batshit, too strange for fiction, Tom Clancy-level conspiracy. Jesus, you've even got a wealthy, shadowy, and charismatic leader hiding in a secret location and directing his minions, who were hand-selected and trained for years. Bin Laden would be right at home in a James Bond movie.
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Then he asked me if well maybe it could have been a cruise missile that my dad mistook for a plane. Jesus, does he have any idea how small a cruise missile is compared to an airliner? I mean aside from them not looking remotely alike. And lots of people outside the building saw the plane. And the loving remains of passengers in the building. And the knocked down light poles. And and and BLARRRGHHH.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
Nation posted:but lets not forget that the eventual boogeymen in all of this (bin laden, saddam) worked directly for the USA. This is far from undisputed. Wiki has a good summary of both sides of the allegation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA-Osama_bin_Laden_controversy quote:The story about bin Laden and the CIA — that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden — is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
Nation posted:Like I said in my post, we live in such a tangled web of information, just what the gently caress is the truth nobody knows. If you'd said something like, "Many people think we helped Bin Laden," I wouldn't have bothered. However, you posted it as though we should take it for granted that it happened.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2013 13:42
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:BTW, I wanted to ask, what is with the comment about skeptical thinking suddently be seeing as sexist and racist? I remember there was some weird thing With Dr Rebecca Watson and Dawkins Watson made the "mistake" of humbly asking that men attending skeptic conferences not be creepy, stalky assholes. Later that night, a man in an elevator hit on her in a creepy way, and he would have heard her earlier request. And from that story came a thousand poo poo storms, including Dawkins saying (and I'm greatly simplifying here) essentially that boys will be boys. That might be an unfair characterization, so I welcome anyone adding to my understanding of the incident. After that, it was full steam ahead with Rebecca and the other Skepchick contributors getting buried in death/rape threats. Jen McCreight flat out stopped blogging due to the poo poo she was getting being genuinely frightening.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:You and CommieGIR got a few of the details wrong, which isn't really a big deal but the whole situation became such a poo poo-storm already that I'd rather it be accurately recounted. Thank you, much much better than my straight-from-the-memory account.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2013 14:02
|
|
|
duck monster posted:Alan Moore quote. I'm not a comic reader, but from this I take it that From Hell was a statement about conspiracy theories, or at least simply used one as a fun narrative tool rather than take it seriously?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 13:57
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:Ya it's the case that because it's the center of the US Defense Dept. everything is classified. It's not to coverup things, it's just how it's done. I've seen a lot of historical scholars and researchers of different types talk about documents that were top secret for 50 years and when de-classified end up being the most mundane poo poo imaginable.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:And the House of Representatives found that while James Earl Ray fired the fatal shot, there was probably a conspiracy involved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations#Conclusions_regarding_the_King_assassination Be cautious about using the House Select Committee on Assassinations, or at least their final conclusions. They were right on the verge of confirming the essential findings of the Warren Commission and then got swayed by bullshit audio evidence that was presented at the last minute.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2013 06:24
|
|
|
AndreTheGiantBoned posted:Non-American guy here. I thought that it was well established that there was something weird about the JFK assassination, with the suspiciously fast conclusions that the investigative committee arrived to, It took almost ten months. Had the guy in that car been Joe Blow and all the other circumstances been the same, it would have been a slam dunk investigation, wouldn't have taken a week. quote:the magic bullet and all that. It's been very well established that the bullet did nothing magical. Kennedy and Connally were sitting at different heights and Connally was turned far to the right. The bullet went in an incredibly straight trajectory given that it exited Kennedy tumbling, causing a keyhole entry on Connally, blew up a rib, and on and on. Numerous experiments have confirmed that the bullet's behavior was nothing special. Also, the "pristine" line is horseshit. The bullet was flattened lengthwise and it's core extruded out the back. If anything, it was damaged more than expected. quote:But probably I'm influenced by that movie with Kevin Costner and such. Unfortunately yes, you are. You are hardly unique though, that movie was a brilliant piece of craft. But even many conspiracy buffs thought that movie was bullshit. Stone had numerous theories to choose from and decided he'd take bits and pieces from the most batshit insane of them. quote:Is the JFK assassination a settled matter? For those who believe in "evidence" and "logic" and "are sane", yes, it's settled. The conspiracy-minded will never find it settled. That's not what they do. quote:Are there any useful links for further reading about this matter? http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm quote:Why is it so preposterous to claim that parts of the secret service or military may conspire to assassinate a leader or president, if this has been seen in so many places in the world? I don't care what the claim is, I care if the evidence supports the claim. In this case, it doesn't. I don't have any trouble believing the U.S. government would do something lovely because it's done horrifying poo poo many times.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Thought I'd add a few bullet point answers to some common JFK issues. *Oswald didn't have enough time to fire the shots. Answer: If you go by the original timing arrived at by the early buffs, no, he probably didn't. Though it is physically possible to fire three times and reacquire and cycle twice in six seconds, it's pretty loving hard. But that timing was based on flawed interpretations of the Zapruder film. Newer timings give Oswald a minimum of eight seconds and probably more. The extra two+ seconds makes a huge difference. *Oswald wasn't a good enough shot to pull it off. Answer: Two issues here. First Oswald was good enough to pull it off. He scored very well in numerous Marine Corps shooting sessions. Buffs usually ignore those and point to some not so hot sessions he had not long before he defected to Russia. More to the point, the marksmanship required was rudimentary. Those shots were all extremely close and the head shot hit when he was only 265 feet away, not even 90 yards, and the car was moving at its slowest. At those distances, Oswald probably could have got hits on body-sized targets with just the iron sights, but he had a scope to help out as well. Just for a little fun, here's video of Jerry Miculek shooting a man-sized target with no scope from 200 yards. And it's a hand-gun. A snub-nosed hand gun. Which he holds upside down and fires with his pinky finger. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIwVK_FxGZk In fairness, Miculek is probably an alien, but the point is, shooting that motorcade from the sixth floor window was not some all time feat of marksmanship. *The gun was a piece of poo poo that wasn't up to the task. Answer: Yep, the gun is/was a piece of poo poo, no question. But Oswald didn't need a great or even good gun. He just needed a gun that would go off three (or five, that's how many rounds he had loaded) consecutive times and score hits well within its mechanical limits. Think of it this way. If I gave you the task of driving across town, you'd prefer to do it in a Mercedes. But the task isn't demanding, even a Yugo will do the job. That Mannlicher Carcano was the Yugo in this case. *Kennedy's head moves backwards, against the direction of the bullet, how could that happen? Answer: JFK's head actually does move forward at first having been hit from behind. But when the bullet exits, it blows out a huge amount of brain, skull, and fluid that then pushed the head backwards. The funny thing about this issue is that any experienced hunter will tell you that when you shoot living things, they'll loving move or fall in every direction imaginable.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
Internet Webguy posted:He makes a salient point about there being plenty of evidence to not just discredit every conspiracy theorist as a reflex. The problem with his point is that the initial doubting came during a time when the population did trust its government. His argument works in hindsight, knowing now all the poo poo our government has done (and continues to do). But that wasn't the case when the questioning of the Warren Report kicked in. I don't discount conspiracy theories because I have faith that no such horrible thing could happen, I discount them because they don't have any evidence backing them. By the way, on a special I saw today that was mostly actual news footage presented without comment, we saw the earliest inkling of conspiracy thought, thought that was as bad as the full theories we would end up seeing. A man on a newscast immediately said that this had to be a conspiracy because hitting someone from that building, which had to be "hundreds of yards" required a shooter of high skill. Of course, he was wrong on both counts. It wasn't hundreds of yards, it wasn't even 100 or 90 yards. Given Oswald's known skill level, they were easy shots, even with the garbage rifle he used.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
predicto posted:And because they start out with the theories before they have any evidence, and just morph the theories when the first theory is discredited, and the second, and the third. And each time they ignore the fact that their other arguments have been shown to be bullshit. It's never ending. Yep. It pisses me off when they demand that documents be released. Inevitably, thousands of pages will be dumped, none of which show anything suspicious and the idiots will proclaim that the real or truly incriminating documents are obviously still being held back. It's a faith-based system. It is self-sustaining and impervious to logic. And make no mistake, they aren't just deluded people who interpret information in a way that comforts them, they flat out lie too. One of my favorites was quoting a man who claimed to hear four or five shots, I forget which. Anyway, the quote looked something like this: "I heard three shots....then I heard two more." Hmm, what insignificant words were removed in favor of the ellipses? "I heard three shots, then a minute later, two more." In other words, the witness was full of poo poo as the entire assassination from first shot to speeding away takes place in well under a minute. So the conspiracy author eliminated the pesky words that blew up his witness' credibility.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
Morphix posted:And I just wanna be clear, ya'll don't think Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone-shooter right? The JFK conspiracy is the conspiracy between people (cubans, FBI, Generals) conspiring to kill a president, and having a dumb patsy as the fall guy. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:If the CIA wanted to kill JFK they would have been able to come up with a better story for their shooter, including waiting for him to die suddenly years after imprisonment, rather than at a prison transfer. Just saying. And not used a hitman who was calmly waiting in line to wire one of his strippers some money minutes before transfer.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Honestly, considering the "kill yourself" letter MLK received from the FBI and MLK's socialist leanings, I consider the idea that James Earl Ray was not backed by somebody to be more outlandish than the idea that he was. I'd bet on Hoover. I know this is a conspiracy theory and all but harsh treatment of dissent was kind of a thing in the 1960s! Hmm, a racist in the 1960s American south taking a shot at a powerful and outspoken black guy? That does sound unlikely....
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2014 08:37
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:What about all that other stuff? Was he saving pennies working at the prison cafeteria for the mustang he always wanted when he broke out? I know little about the MLK assassination, but a quick search gave this: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/31/mlk.ray.money/index.html?_s=PM%3AUS quote:While Ray was on the run as a prison escapee from Missouri that summer, two men walked into the Bank of Alton with a pistol and a sawed-off shotgun. Both wore stocking masks. The leaner man went behind the counter, scooped up the cash and fled with close to $30,000. I don't know the evidence well, I'm just saying that it seems funny to require an FBI conspiracy to get a southern racist to shoot MLK. You do know that black civil rights leaders and activists were getting the ever loving poo poo kicked, shot, and beaten out of them, right? Mr. Funny Pants fucked around with this message at 09:07 on Jan 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
Morphix posted:Granted I'll be honest, my main source on this is JFK, the Stone film, which seems to have been 'debunked' but the Tommy Lee Jones character did later reveal he worked for the CIA. Unless Stone is an absolute liar, which from the interviews he's done, he at least seems to stand by it. Stone has flat admitted that his movie is a "counter myth". Characters are constructed out of whole cloth, represent multiple real figures, etc. For the love of god, don't let JFK be your go to source for the assassination. The fact that he lionized that evil prick Garrison is enough to boycott Stone for life. quote:Other question is, did Stone fabricate the fact that many of the witness statements in the Warren commission were fabricated? Why was there no autopsy done? Witness statements are tricky. You typically want to go with testimony given as soon after the event as possible, and many of the witnesses who end up telling conspiracy tales gave completely mundane statements immediately after the shooting. And there was an autopsy, one that has added fuel to the conspiracy fire (as everything does). It was done at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland. By law it should have been done in Texas, but the White House people more or less bullied the local officials to give up the body. Here's the wiki on the autopsy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy You can also GIS JFK autopsy and see lots of awful, graphic pictures taken of Kennedy during the autopsy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Byde posted:How plausible is the theory hanging around that Osama bin Laden died years before 2011 and that the one we killed and thought was Osama actually was some random dude? How many years? If it was pre-2009, how likely is it that Bush wouldn't have done anything to take credit for Bin Laden being dead, no matter the actual cause? Also, it goes back to the "too many people" problem that many conspiracy theories run into. A bunch of members of Congress saw the photos and said it was him, not to mention who knows how many people in various support roles and every person in the military that was involved. So all of them are lying or managing to stay silent?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Byde posted:I've also heard that Pakistanis were crying about Osama's location all this time and that we didn't listen because reasons, how true is this? My recollection is that the Pakistani government was infuriated (and no doubt embarrassed) about the whole thing. Particularly that we didn't involve them because we didn't trust their intelligence agency.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
duck monster posted:Barry "loving" Goldwater. In fairness to Goldwater, he was an outspoken opponent of one of, if not the, most important Reagan constituents -- the religious right. Also like Reagan, he might have been too "liberal" for today's Republican party. You don't see too many Republicans today that are pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro-medical marijuana. Not white-knighting him in the least, he was against just about every social safety net imaginable and there's no telling how many foreign entanglements we would have gotten in to if he'd had his way. But whatever his role in the growth of the Birchers, his overall views evolved such that the Birchers wouldn't have put up with him.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
white privilege posted:but to actually view the Warren Commission as a credible investigation is absurd. There are quite a few strange things that occurred with regards to the JFK assassination, with many strange connections as well. Oswald as a lone, disenfranchised gunman just doesn't hold up. The Man Who Killed Kennedy by Roger Stone (former White House chief of staff) is an excellent write up. The thing about all those "connections" is how often they fall apart with any scrutiny. They end up having innocent explanations, are coincidences, or didn't happen at all. See Jim Garrison prosecuting an innocent man almost entirely on the word of one witness who a ten year old (and more importantly, a jury and just about everyone who worked for Garrison) could tell was completely full of poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
The House Select Committee on Assassinations was all but done with its work and was ready to release their report. It would have said that although the Warren Commission wasn't perfect (surprise, surprise), it nonetheless got the broad strokes correct: Oswald was the only shooter and was not aided by any entity. Then came the acoustic "evidence". A dictabelt recording supposedly capturing the gunshots in Dealey by a motorcycle cop turned up. Scientists that analyzed it said that with a nearly 100% level of certainty, the recording captured four shots. Four shots means one more round than can be accounted for by Oswald, therefore, conspiracy. The HSC had a problem. Since they fell for *cough* excuse me, accepted the scientists report, they now had to backtrack and apply a conspiracy despite not thinking there was one prior to the acoustic evidence. So they went with what they thought was the "best" of the theories, that it was mob run. So what's the problem? The acoustic evidence was horseshit. Completely wrong, no ambiguity, totally false. The HSC's Chief Counsel and Staff Director, G. Robert Blakey, said point blank that if the acoustic evidence was found to be false, then it would more or less destroy the conspiracy theory that the committee, in no small part based on his beliefs as he was involved in organized crime prosecution, had come to. The acoustic evidence has been proven false, yet to my knowledge, Blakey has not backed down on his conspiracy theory, which admittedly would be inconvenient given that he published his own book on the assassination. TL,DR: The House Select Committee came to its final conclusion based on garbage evidence.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Big Beef City posted:People seriously believe a 2-bit bayou gangster would have the clout to off a sitting POTUS? Dismissing the lone gunman also ignores a few other things. 1) Security was much more lax then than now. More than 15 years later, with tighter security, a lone nut got to President Reagan. But for his poor choice of firearm and bad aim, he might have killed him. As it was he still almost succeeded. 2) Not only is it possible for a lone nut to pull it off, in many ways the lone nut is the ideal assassin. Conspiracies get broken up or discovered because more than one person knows about them and they shoot off their mouth to someone they shouldn't have. Or they turn on the others to protect themselves. If one person is involved, there's no one that can foul it up but them. There's no "chatter" for law enforcement to pick up on prior to the event. 3) The, "sorry old Oswald couldn't do it alone" idea assumes that what he did was extraordinarily hard. It wasn't. Anyone in personal security will tell you that if a person truly wants to get to someone, they usually can. And if they don't care about getting caught or killed, it's almost luck and luck alone that stops them. Though Oswald ran, he obviously had no detailed escape plan. In fact, almost everything he did after the shooting contributed to his getting caught. The marksmanship has already been discussed, the shots were nothing special at all. What it comes down to is a disturbing notion. Murder is about the desire to do it. That's basically all that stops us from killing each other in far greater numbers, we don't want to. It reminds me of 9/11, my then fiance' was in Virginia and I was in California visiting family. We were on the phone talking about it that evening, and she said, "How did they pull this off?" And I explained that the act itself was easy. They didn't need to be ninjas to get control of the planes in the first place, and once in control, they only had to be able to steer the planes, not fly them in any complex manner. They pulled it off because they were driven, willing to kill, and willing to die.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
King of Hamas posted:haha yes, the de facto ruler of Louisiana didn't have the clout or the connections but a two-bit marine dropout with a record of lousy marksmanship shot JFK, that's obviously what happened. Read the goddamned thread. That drawing is no better a depiction of reality than dogs playing poker. His marksmanship record was mostly excellent with a drop off right before he defected. Aside from that, the shots weren't hard, they were gimmes for anyone with a bit of experience.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Not to mention the image assumes that Kennedy and Connally were sitting at the same height, when in reality Kennedy was sitting much higher than Connally. But don't let that stop the conspiracy train, because any evidence against is still evidence for. Kennedy was not only higher, Connally was also several inches in-board. And maybe most important of all, he was turned to his right such that his torso was almost perpendicular to Kennedy's.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:I've never been nor do I consider myself a conspiracy theorist, it is entirely plausible that Oswald acted alone and killed JFK. It is entirely plausible we don't know everything there is to know about it. If you start following the Jack Ruby string it really does make you scratch your head because the simplest explanation that he "felt bad for Jacky" almost seems too convenient The "string" unravels when you examine it closely. And the same argument that people make against Oswald being the shooter (he was incompetent, the mob or CIA wouldn't have given him such a big job) is actually accurate regarding Ruby. Ruby was, putting it charitably, a hothead. Putting it less charitably, he was a loving nut known for extreme mood swings. And I go back to the problem with saying that Ruby shooting Oswald was a setup. Only minutes before the shooting, Ruby was at a Western Union calmly waiting in line and then, also calmly, wiring one of his strippers some money. He gets to the police station with drat near no time to spare. And, Oswald was late for the transfer. The time stamp for Ruby's wire transfer was 11:17. He shot Oswald at 11:21. If Oswald doesn't ask for his sweater or whatever it was (I'm having an old man moment and forgetting the exact reason for the delay, I know it had something to do with retrieving some sort of clothing), he might have been in the car and safely away by the time Ruby got there. Would a mobster given the task of killing the accused assassin of the president cut things that freaking close? One other thing, and it's hardly proof of anything but it's one of those little things to consider. Ruby had a dog that he treated like his child, he was insanely doting on it. He had the dog with him on the trip to the Western Union office and left it in the car when he went to make the wire transfer. Why would a guy who was obsessed with his dog leave it in his car if he knew he was about to either be shot or arrested? Maybe because he thought he was only going to be there a short time and the dog would be fine.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
Red Warrior posted:You can't read a particular book or watch a documentary on a subject and believe that it presents the only reasonable explanation. Single books or documentaries pushing a 'controversial' explanation are going to selectively present the evidence to support their viewpoints. This is a great point. Another example is the Zodiac killer. If you've seen David Fincher's movie, you'll likely think his top suspect is the killer. And if you look at the list of reasons that he was a suspect, you'd think, "Holy poo poo, this has to be the guy." And yet the detectives who worked the case said they had a long list of people who had as many things that tied them to the crimes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
King of Hamas posted:There were a frighteningly large number of well armed and well backed men that genuinely hated every president ever. Fixed that. quote: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 Well, if such an astute group of historians and scientists as the American public agree, it's settled. Anyway, evidence of all these bullets? quote: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.  There is nothing, absofuckinglutely nothing, odd about a very powerful rifle round going through two people. poo poo, there are handgun rounds that can go through two people. 1) entry wound on JFK's back that travels through soft tissue and 2) exits his throat (it would have lost little energy by this point having gone only through a relatively thin section of flesh). The bullet tumbles and 3) hits Connolly in the back, creating a keyhole entrance wound (there is some dispute about this) and after hitting a rib (which takes a good chunk of energy out of the round), it 4) exits and 5) nails his wrist, breaking another bone (which really slows it down), 6) exits, and, having been slowed to a crawl in bullet velocity terms, 7) barely enters Connolly's thigh. This set of wounds has been replicated with astounding fidelity using ballistic gel and simulated bone. It's always cute how "magic bullet" people only show the same photograph from the same angle. Yeah, it doesn't look real damaged. Which is why you have to look at this:  Notice how one side is flat? It takes an enormous amount of energy to make a slug flatten lengthwise. In fact, it flattened it so much that it caused the core to bulge out the back of the bullet. And how would that bullet be flattened lengthwise? Can any of the wounds account for that? Two can. The entrance wound on Conolly's back was, as I mentioned, a keyhole wound, meaning the bullet was tumbling and entered on its side rather than nose first. That's one, the second was Connolly's shattered rib, which was struck immediately after entrance, when the bullet likely would not have tumbled out of the position it was in when it entered. So no, there's no dramatic mushroomed round, but if you know anything about what bullets do, you'd know that a rifle round doing that much damage isn't odd and the amount of damage to the bullet was substantial and indicative of striking something with great force. quote: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! They do! And if you'd look at more than that one photo, you'd know that! But here's my favorite argument against the magic bullet, and it's one I've never heard the conspiracy folks address. Going by conspiracy lore, the bullet, which was found on the stretcher that carried Connolly, was planted by someone before the assassins could possibly know how many times and where they'd hit Kennedy or anyone else in the limo. The only thing an observer could be sure of was that Kennedy took one in the head, and maybe Connolly took one. There is no way they could know where all of the bullet fragments went, and they'd fired at least five and up to 250 depending on which conspiracy you believe. Which means that planting the bullet on the stretcher would have been the dumbest loving thing in the world and no group of killers, even stupid ones, would have risked exposure by doing it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Morphix posted:Welp that solved it, One dude fired a gun more than once therefore he's an expert qualified to speak on the manner, another posts evidence from a completely botched investigation that was later overturned. Overturned? What does that even mean? One government investigation found some things, a second one confirmed most of the first one before going conspiracy-stupid. And the best part? That second investigation you love so much declared that Oswald was the only shooter who hit anything. That's right, the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll, but he didn't loving hit anything. quote:This is a magical quote. I love you. It's so simple, ones metal, the other is bone. Open and shut case Johnson. A car is made of metal. Get one up to 100 miles per hour and run into a cow, which is made of nice soft flesh and bone. By your laws of physics, the car will be in pristine condition. Morphix posted:Why would they have needed to produce a report that wasn't riddled with errors? When you have people on here still using the same riddled report to base their case on. The same error riddled report that was largely confirmed by the HSCA. quote:This seems more like a case of let's believe what's spoon fed to us without questioning any of it, because once you start questioning it, you might not be too happy with the power structure of these United States. Gotta keep the myth alive, people aren't ready for the truth, etc etc. Ahahaha. Look at Morphix bloom and show off his true beauty.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
fermun posted:You are missing a third possibility, the wrist injury also was caused by a tumbling bullet and left lead in the wrist. Lead in the wrist makes sense for two possibilities. It could have either hit sideways flattening the bullet and squeezed out some lead in the passage, or it could have been caused by the bullet already having hit sideways and had lead pushed out of the back in a bubble at the end then the hitting the wrist bones, rubbing some of the lead off the back. Yep, thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
Big Beef City posted:That album came out in 1978. Seems logical to me. Supertramp ought to do a song about it, a logical song.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:So what's the point of TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories? I was watching a documentary about it since I remember when that happened. But I can't figure out why the FBI I would cover up a terrorist attack? (Note I do not believe it was a terrorist attack that brought down Flight 800) Almost all of the conspiracy thought I've seen about TWA 800 claimed that it was an accidental (or not, dun dun dun!) shoot down by an American naval vessel. Though I've also seen one that said, not kidding, that it was hit by a meteorite.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Nckdictator posted:"I had read repeatedly that I was the most conservative President since Herbert Hoover. My feeling was, if that’s true, drat it, the extreme right wing ought to be satisfied. But the truth is they never are unless they lock you in to a little ideological circle that is a miniscule number of voters in the American public. Regardless of the political consequences, I knew that I had to call them as I saw them from the nation’s point of view and at the same time from my own political experience. The facts of life are that satisfying the extreme right dooms any Republican in a Presidential election."- Gerald Ford Goldwater said much the same. He was particularly horrified by the influence of the religious right.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Once they started to fail due to being heated, not melted, the central support gave way and everything fell down upon itself thats why it looks like "no building collapse ever" because no building built like that collapsed. The funny thing is that the original truther narrative was that the collapses looked just like controlled demolitions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:* The buildings didn't topple over, they fell into their footprints as though it was a controlled demolition Given the damage they sustained, it would be impossible for them to fall in any way other than (relatively) straight down. They weren't made of building blocks, it doesn't work that way. quote:* WTC 7 was the only building in the world that ever fell down just due to a fire burning, when some other building that burned for 9 hours straight didn't. It to be brought down because it was the command center of the demolitions team. 7 had a huge gouge taken out of it from the debris of the towers. They always leave that out. quote:* Those weren't airliners that hit the buildings, they were drones - they studied the profiles of whatever it was that hit the towers and it matches the drones perfectly. I don't understand this. There was no drone then and there is no drone now that is even close to as big as nor has the silhouette of a 737. There's also the problem that a bajillion people watched a 737 hit the second tower. quote:This also explains how there were no bodies recovered from the Pentagon site Huh.    There's plenty more, but I'm depressed enough. quote:and how whatever it was that flew into the Pentagon did it from very low altitude and level flight rather than coming down from above But that is how it happened. We know it was very low and more or less level, it took down light poles not far from the impact site.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2014 21:23
|
|