|
Post by plutronus on Aug 3, 2013 12:02:10 GMT -6
I researched the Kennedy assassination rather extensively during the past few years, and I find one unifying characteristic present in virtually every conspiracy theory and scenario I have encountered: a lack of evidence supporting the claims they make. >I used to believe that Oswald killed JFK and that he acted alone in doing so. Conspiracists got it all wrong, its true there was a lone gunman, and it was very easy to realize, it was suicide!! That's why they covered it up, Kennedy just could not stand to go to work again with all those Mafioso Congresssmen stealing America blind, so he shot himself!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2013 12:49:19 GMT -6
The Kennedy murder..is one that people cannot just let lie. Which means (psychically) that a LOT of people sense all of the lies around it. He was a good man with his faults like any other and a big enough threat to not be allowed to live. When humanity 'senses' the wrongness of something..it just won't die. Roswell is another such..that feels wrong.
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Aug 4, 2013 4:05:36 GMT -6
I used to believe that Oswald killed JFK and that he acted alone in doing so. I still believe that Oswald was the shooter in the Book Depository Building. After looking at the evidence however I do not believe that he acted alone. There is other evidence to suggest otherwise, for instance the number of bullets fired at the scene. The official explanation says that Oswald fired three shots...the first was supposedly deflected by a tree branch and ended up striking the ground, the second that supposedly went through Kennedy's neck and then wounded Johnson before lodging in his leg, and the third which struck Kennedy in the head and killed him. There were supposedly three bullet shells found on the sixth floor of the Depository building which would back up the claim that Oswald fired three shots. (I said supposedly because at first it was reported that only two were found but that could have been a simple error.) The problem is that there were more than three bullets accounted for during the shooting. One bullet struck the ground near the railroad overpass and wounded a bystander, one bullet was seen by witnesses in the crowd to strike the ground directly in front of the car, one bullet (the so-called "magic bullet") wounded both Kennedy and Johnson before lodging in Johnson's leg, One bullet struck Kennedy in the head and blew the back of his skull out. That's at least four right there. There was also a bullet found on the ground in Dealey Plaza by a police officer. That could theoretically have been the bullet that hit either the ground or Kennedy's head, but that would still make at least three bullets that have been positively accounted for. There was another bullet found intact on a stretcher at the hospital. That makes either four, or five if you consider the eye-witness testimony of a bullet striking the ground in front of the car. In addition to all of those there was also a dent in the upper windshield frame of the car Kennedy was riding in with a corresponding crack in the windshield. This damage looks very much like it was caused by a bullet and if it was that would make six. So how is it that Oswald fired three shots yet six bullets turn up at the crime scene? That evidence by itself points to there being more than one shooter. Oswald was the man who shot Kennedy but he was not the lone gunman that everybody claims he was. What evidence are you referring to? The additional bullets you mention were never found. The "official" explanation happens to be the one supported by the evidence. Oswald fired three rounds from the 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano bolt-action rifle, and the position of Kennedy and Governor Connally (not Johnson) in the presidential limousine matches the trajectory of those bullets fired from the sixth floor of the Book Depository building. The entrance (and exit) wounds on both Kennedy and Connally are consistent with Oswald's position in his sniper's nest. I read through the 888-page Warren Report and also read most of the House Select Committee's report made over a decade after the assassination, and even the House report - despite dabbling in worthless conjecture with no evidence to support it - doesn't contradict the findings of the Warren Commission. I'm always open to evidence, but that's the problem: there is no evidence to support that a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy existed. I'm very curious, though...I keep encountering statements along the lines of "Kennedy was a great man." What made him great? What made him such an important president? I honestly can't think of anything that made him great beyond one very awesome speech he delivered to the press club.
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Aug 4, 2013 4:31:50 GMT -6
No sorry jc. It was a TV doc. many years ago. I could of taped it. I will see if I have it among my vhs. I would have to play the whole six hours on each one. Many of the Documentary tapes have tons of topics on each one. Some covers I did write out what was on the tape. I will look for anything Kennedy. I know it's a simple mistake, someone putting "jc" in their answer to someone else . I've seen it on TEOR before, and it wasn't worth commenting on. Though I saw also that this documentary was coming out, and that someone posted it coming out by this thread, and I come here to read, I have refrained from making any comments about JFK, and his untimely death. Skywalker will recall that I asked for more information on JFK on that other thread, and then did not contribute to the topics discussed . I am still very interested in this subject, but just from books I have read, I have felt "totally out of my league" . This is a case that I would like to see reasonably solved, in my lifetime. As unpopular a response as this might be, jcurio, the "mystery" surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy was solved in the latter part of 1964 when the President's Select Committee on the Assassination of President Kennedy, known popularly as The Warren Commission, released its 888-page report. The committee was carefully selected to represent the interests of Americans: four Congressmen (one Senate Democrat, one House Democrat, one Senate Republican, and one House Republican), the Chief Justice of the United States Earl Warren, John Cooper (a former judge), Allan Dulles (former head of the CIA and a banker), and John McCloy (former president of the World Bank). They were supported by a General Counsel, fourteen assistant counsels, and a general staff of twelve. It's important to note that none of the Warren Commission's proceedings were conducted secretly, and after witnesses gave their testimony, they were free to discuss it with whomever they liked. This level of transparency and accountability is unheard of in the present day. The Warren Commission conducted an immense amount of hard work that included scientific forensic and ballistic analysis, expert testimony, as well as testimony from witnesses to the assassination. They reviewed, among many things, Oswald's Marine Corps service record, police reports, autopsy results, films and photographs. As far as a comprehensive investigation is concerned, it doesn't get any better than that. The commission started working a week after the assassination and because of that, their analysis is more relevant than anything that followed it.
|
|
|
Post by paulette on Aug 4, 2013 9:29:23 GMT -6
There are a lot of people here who obviously have researched this topic. I would not have used the term "conspiracy theorist" in regard to myself, but slowly I have learned that official reports are NOT the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Humans like to believe in objectivity, but most of our research allows the data crunchers to select what facts to include and to exclude or not even collect in the first place. Then we circle "the truth" and feel more comfortable with it. All that don't-know and maybe its something else that we have no control over is the dark matter of the universe.
I'll just say this about the Kennedys in general: JFK was set up with and "dated" Marilyn Monroe, a mobbed up woman. When that didn't work...? Robert Kennedy was shot by a supposed crazed mid-eastern busboy Ted Kennedy left a party drunk out of his mind with a young woman he shouldn't have been giving a ride to. Something happened. They ended up in deep water. He had a severe back problem and also a formidable tolerance for alcohol and maybe other drugs. In hindsight perhaps it was expected that he would not survive the trip off the bridge. Robert Kennedy junior died in a plane crash. He was an outspoken environmentalist. Jackie ended up with Onassus - a very rich probably mobbed up Greek tycoon. She perhaps had proven her ability to keep her mouth shut and so lived out the rest of her life. There was international money and power moves at risk with idealistic Kennedys (with their own power base) at the wheel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2013 19:54:34 GMT -6
Oh I'm sure there were many people either troubled or offended by Kennedy's. They had enough personal money, power and connections to be a true threat to those with 'controlling' interests. We will most likely never get the 'real story' but at least most people now know the one handed out was BS which make people just a tad less trusting..that's not a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Aug 4, 2013 22:27:21 GMT -6
Oswald fired three rounds from the 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano bolt-action rifle, and the position of Kennedy and Governor Connally (not Johnson) in the presidential limousine matches the trajectory of those bullets fired from the sixth floor of the Book Depository building. Sorry...I meant to say Connally instead of Johnson. I was preoccupied with trying to fix my stupid computer for the fifteen-zillionth time.
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Aug 5, 2013 5:09:34 GMT -6
There are a lot of people here who obviously have researched this topic. I would not have used the term "conspiracy theorist" in regard to myself, but slowly I have learned that official reports are NOT the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Humans like to believe in objectivity, but most of our research allows the data crunchers to select what facts to include and to exclude or not even collect in the first place. Then we circle "the truth" and feel more comfortable with it. All that don't-know and maybe its something else that we have no control over is the dark matter of the universe. I'll just say this about the Kennedys in general: JFK was set up with and "dated" Marilyn Monroe, a mobbed up woman. When that didn't work...? Robert Kennedy was shot by a supposed crazed mid-eastern busboy Ted Kennedy left a party drunk out of his mind with a young woman he shouldn't have been giving a ride to. Something happened. They ended up in deep water. He had a severe back problem and also a formidable tolerance for alcohol and maybe other drugs. In hindsight perhaps it was expected that he would not survive the trip off the bridge. Robert Kennedy junior died in a plane crash. He was an outspoken environmentalist. Jackie ended up with Onassus - a very rich probably mobbed up Greek tycoon. She perhaps had proven her ability to keep her mouth shut and so lived out the rest of her life. There was international money and power moves at risk with idealistic Kennedys (with their own power base) at the wheel. "Idealistic" is too far a stretch for the Kennedy clan, Paulette. It's also not historically accurate to separate the Kennedys from the "powers that be," especially considering that they were part of the powers that be. Kennedy Sr. made his fortune partially on Wall Street, through buying out movie studios and consolidating them (a forerunner of today's vulture capitalism), real estate, and also through investing in liquor sales and transportation (he was involved in the illegal transportation of booze during Prohibition). Joseph Sr. was close friends with Senator Eugene McCarthy, and in return for supplying a large portion of FDR's campaign funding, he was rewarded with the top spot in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission during the Roosevelt administration. Unfortunately, the Kennedys were "mobbed up" long before John entered the White House. It's amazing how folks seem to gloss over historical details in favor of myths, especially where the Kennedys are concerned. They were rich, powerful, privileged, and had very dirty and even bloody hands. I'd like to see one thing about Kennedy's time in office that made him "great."
|
|
niki
New Member
Posts: 65
|
Post by niki on Aug 5, 2013 6:04:02 GMT -6
"Idealistic" is too far a stretch for the Kennedy clan, Paulette. It's also not historically accurate to separate the Kennedys from the "powers that be," especially considering that they were part of the powers that be. Kennedy Sr. made his fortune partially on Wall Street, through buying out movie studios and consolidating them (a forerunner of today's vulture capitalism), real estate, and also through investing in liquor sales and transportation (he was involved in the illegal transportation of booze during Prohibition). Joseph Sr. was close friends with Senator Eugene McCarthy, and in return for supplying a large portion of FDR's campaign funding, he was rewarded with the top spot in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission during the Roosevelt administration. Unfortunately, the Kennedys were "mobbed up" long before John entered the White House. It's amazing how folks seem to gloss over historical details in favor of myths, especially where the Kennedys are concerned. They were rich, powerful, privileged, and had very dirty and even bloody hands. I'd like to see one thing about Kennedy's time in office that made him "great." Bewildered, I am curious. Do you think Kennedy's murder had nothing to do with his political views or his platform? I have always thought that he was murdered because, once in office, he didn't follow the agenda he was supposed to follow. In general I think most, if not all, politicians are 'dirty.' But I've always thought Kennedy broke the rules once he got into office. Would you elaborate? I'm interested in your views on this
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2013 12:32:40 GMT -6
I'm interested too Bewildered. I've always figured that both of the brothers died because they wouldn't play by the 'rules'. My ongoing theory of some power structure behind the powers we're aware of..who actually pull the strings and set the agendas world over. I have always figured the Kennedy's couldn't be controlled...and possibly the bay of pigs (to name only one) showed that he was not what they wanted in office and his brother shared his views so..lets just get him out of the way before he becomes a bigger problem.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Aug 5, 2013 15:38:12 GMT -6
The Kennedy brothers were both cracking down hard on organized crime and JFK was really antagonizing the CIA. He was totally opposed to their use of political assassinations to cause regime changes in foreign countries and he had recently fired Allen Dulles largely in part because of the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Kennedy was also opposed to escalating the war in Vietnam which the CIA was very much in favor of. Those were just a few of the reasons why JFK and Robert both had big bulls-eyes painted on them. It was just a matter of time before somebody took them out.
It's interesting that Dulles, the man who JFK had recently fired and who probably was partly responsible for plotting the assassination was also one of the people investigating it. Does anybody really think he would find himself guilty? I seriously doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Aug 6, 2013 11:19:46 GMT -6
Bewildered, I am curious. Do you think Kennedy's murder had nothing to do with his political views or his platform? I have always thought that he was murdered because, once in office, he didn't follow the agenda he was supposed to follow. In general I think most, if not all, politicians are 'dirty.' But I've always thought Kennedy broke the rules once he got into office. Would you elaborate? I'm interested in your views on this We'll never know, Niki, since his murderer never had the opportunity to reveal his motives. How exactly did John F. Kennedy "break the rules?" This is a question I ask over and over again, and to be honest he doesn't stand out as a president save for two factors: he was young and along with George Washington, one of the richest men to inhabit the Oval Office. He escalated the American military presence in Southeast Asia, rattled a saber at the U.S.S.R. and almost started World War III, and opposed Fidel Castro and the regime change in Cuba (all things that fell in line with the agenda of the military/industrial complex). He dragged his feet in reacting to the Civil Rights movement while he was in office (he was denounced by many as delivering false promises), and once again, what actions he did take weren't a great departure: slowly but surely, the Executive Branch (starting with FDR) was adopting progressively more comprehensive anti-discriminatory stances. It might interest you to know that Johnson and Nixon (yep, Tricky Dick) signed more executive orders in regard to combating discrimination in the workforce and at the polls than Kennedy did. He lived a life that the wealthy and privileged often lead: indiscriminate affairs and a lack of consequences for his mistakes. I'm not saying that JFK was a "terrible" man...but I am saying that he was like anyone else. The myths surrounding him are what makes him "great," not historical fact.
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Aug 6, 2013 11:41:06 GMT -6
People often look to Elvis Presley as the first true American "superstar," but I counter that with the example of John F. Kennedy. A number of factors conspired to make Kennedy and his young wife darlings of the media: he was young, handsome, rich, and an aristocratic liberal from the Northeast much like FDR was (his family was close with the Roosevelts). The media wields a tremendous amount of power to influence the thoughts and opinions of the public - Goebbels of Nazi Germany proved that when he cast Hitler as a hero of the German people during his rise to power. In psychology, this is often referred to as non-message factors: the attractiveness of the messenger typically carries much more weight than their actual message. How they say something is more important than what they say, and how they are perceived is more important than their actions and behaviors. This is demonstrated time and again in American public life: the Congress has never had a public approval rating higher than 15%, yet 90%+ of all congresspeople are re-elected to office every election cycle. How can this abnormally high incumbency ratio be explained, especially when the majority of Americans disapprove of the job that Congress does? Non-message factors and the persuasion of advertising and emotional manipulation. We see presidents with abysmally low approval ratings, some of whom were revealed to have lied to the American public and the world at large (ala George W. Bush), re-elected for a second term in the Oval Office. It might seem mysterious on a superficial level, but research over the years has identified the importance of non-message factors, especially when promulgated by the media, as being a deciding factor in influencing the American public.
John F. Kennedy was no different. He was young, rich, handsome, and Catholic...these things made him different than the presidential norm in his day. The media love-affair with him and Jackie created what is known in political science circles as "Camelot:" the myth of John F. Kennedy as a savior of both America and the world.
|
|
niki
New Member
Posts: 65
|
Post by niki on Aug 6, 2013 11:48:04 GMT -6
hmmm.....interesting. I had always associated Kennedy with civil rights and liberties, and, as Skywalker mentioned, the crack down on organized crime. To be fair, Kennedy died before I was born and I have no real, first hand knowledge of his Presidency. Our history books don't always teach us the 'true' version of history. I was not aware of the things you mentioned. Thank you for explaining
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Aug 6, 2013 11:57:59 GMT -6
hmmm.....interesting. I had always associated Kennedy with civil rights and liberties, and, as Skywalker mentioned, the crack down on organized crime. To be fair, Kennedy died before I was born and I have no real, first hand knowledge of his Presidency. Our history books don't always teach us the 'true' version of history. I was not aware of the things you mentioned. Thank you for explaining John F. Kennedy was perhaps one of the greatest orators of the 20th century. His speeches are among my favorites delivered by any American president. His image far exceeded his accomplishments - but then, the same can said of any politician or salesperson, so Kennedy wasn't unique in that regard. He wasn't an evil or terrible man...he was a human being. Like any human being, he had his faults. Unfortunately, the myth of Camelot inflates Kennedy larger-than-life, and I feel that is a grave disservice to the American public. It wasn't his doing, really...it was the force of popular culture, fueled by the media, that created Camelot. It was Robert in his capacity as Attorney General, and not John, that came down hard on the American Mafia. If anyone could possibly be the target of a conspiracy, then I would say that Robert Kennedy was a likely candidate. He ran for Congress in the wake of his brother's tragic murder, and in 1968 decided to run for President. If anyone was anti-war and pro-Civil Rights, Robert was that person. Robert would have ended American involvement in Vietnam, something that the military/industrial complex and the warhawks in the American military machine didn't want (they were making too much profit to give it up easily). He was far more progressive in his platform than his brother ever was, and he already had earned numerous enemies in American organized crime. There are aspects of his assassination that leaves too many questions unanswered...could there have been a conspiracy to get rid of Robert? Possibly. P.S. - Unfortunately, the "truth" can be difficult to acquire since a great deal of personal investment is required in order to piece it together. Most people catch what they know and think from the popular media...you'd be shocked to learn just how much of our "free will" is actually determined by others. Learning about the Kennedy administration and his tragic death meant a great deal of browsing government archives, news reports, and reading the mammoth Warren Report and yes, that horridly long report from the House Select Committee of 1978. I researched the Kennedy Assassination for a college project, but it wasn't school work for me...I do this sort of thing in my free time for fun.
|
|
niki
New Member
Posts: 65
|
Post by niki on Aug 6, 2013 12:05:48 GMT -6
John F. Kennedy was perhaps one of the greatest orators of the 20th century. His speeches are among my favorites delivered by any American president. His image far exceeded his accomplishments - but then, the same can said of any politician or salesperson, so Kennedy wasn't unique in that regard. He wasn't an evil or terrible man...he was a human being. Like any human being, he had his faults. Unfortunately, the myth of Camelot inflates Kennedy larger-than-life, and I feel that is a grave disservice to the American public. It wasn't his doing, really...it was the force of popular culture, fueled by the media, that created Camelot. I tend to agree with you on both points. I agree, his speeches were historical. It is not a far stretch of the imagination to consider that his speeches may have outweighed his actions. Reminds me of a few other politicians, actually.
|
|
|
Post by auntym on Aug 6, 2013 12:10:30 GMT -6
www.netplaces.com/john-f-kennedy/john-f-kennedys-legacy/john-f-kennedys-top-ten-accomplishments.htm John F. Kennedy’s Top 10 Accomplishments by Jessica McElrath 1. John F. Kennedy accomplished what no other American had done — he became the first Catholic president of the United States. 2. To this day, John F. Kennedy's call for Americans to serve their country has remained an inspiring and memorable appeal. 3. Among John F. Kennedy's most notable and long-standing accomplishments was the establishment of the Peace Corps, an organization that is now responsible for sending thousands of American volunteers around the world to help the needy. 4. It was John F. Kennedy's cautious and sensible approach to the standoff during the Cuban missile crisis that ultimately diverted a nuclear war with the Soviet Union and secured the removal of missiles from Cuba. 5. John F. Kennedy was committed to landing a man on the moon, and although it occurred after his death, it was his support of space exploration that helped make it happen. 6. John F. Kennedy's perseverance was instrumental in securing a limited nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviet Union. 7. It was John F. Kennedy's dedication that helped secure the passage of the Area Redevelopment Act, which assisted states that were suffering from high rates of unemployment. 8. Under John F. Kennedy's administration, laws were put in place to end segregation in interstate travel facilities. 9. John F. Kennedy helped promote the arts by holding concerts, plays, and musicals at the White House. 10. John F. Kennedy issued an executive order prohibiting discrimination in the sale or lease of housing that was financed by federally guaranteed loans or owned by the federal government. www.netplaces.com/john-f-kennedy/john-f-kennedys-legacy/john-f-kennedys-top-ten-accomplishments.htmMORE:www.ask.com/question/accomplishments-of-jfk
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Aug 6, 2013 12:42:21 GMT -6
How is this an accomplishment? He was Catholic...so what? The Dalai Lama is Buddhist. He isn't alone in that regard. A number of American presidents used their bully pulpit to influence the public during times of national need and crisis. Thomas Jefferson...Abraham Lincoln...Theodore Roosevelt (who established the National Parks system)...Franklin D. Roosevelt, to name the most famous. The Peace Corps was a great idea. This is an opinion...one of many opinions, in fact, about the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy might be seen as provoking the USSR and recklessly bringing the world a hair's breadth from a nuclear holocaust. Kennedy receives undue credit as the one responsible for the American space program. This is patently false: the American race to space effectively started when the USSR launched Sputnik. Project Mercury, the extension of the U.S. Air Force's "Man in Space Soonest" program, was officially started in 1958. The space race was in actuality a competition between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. "Perseverance"...rhetoric used by a blogger. Many presidents could be characterized as "persevering" a number of things...like FDR and the Great Depression, Nixon and his efforts with China, or Carter and the Camp David Accords. He deserves credit for what he did, of course, but in comparison to other presidents, he doesn't stand out, especially in light of SALT and SALT II. This is incorrect. Congress, not the president, passed that act. A number of presidents sponsored Congressional bills and resolutions that accomplished a great deal, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, to name a few. FDR was the first to issue an executive order barring racial discrimination in federal employment...Nixon expanded that to cover federal licensees and contractors. A nice accomplishment. Sadly for America, it took the Supreme Court in Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) to strike the first blow against American apartheid. Every president that followed used executive orders to change how the Executive Branch dealt with discrimination: Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, etc. Every one of them also sponsored bills aimed at barring discriminatory practices in America. Kennedy wasn't the first president to do that. Abraham Lincoln, anyone? Every president hosts similar events in the White House...it's a presidential tradition. How does that make Kennedy special? By contrast, Congress created the National Endowment for the Arts in 1965, a program that sponsors the arts and the humanities. A logical step in the direction initiated by Franklin D. Roosevelt. FDR created what was to be known as "Affirmative Action," and every president with notable exceptions (Reagan, for example) since that time has expanded anti-discriminatory interpretation of the law by the Executive Branch. It should be noted here that Executive Orders are NOT laws...they are guidance for all components of the Executive Branch to follow in how they enforce already existing laws. American Government 101, something that this blogger obviously needs to study.
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Aug 6, 2013 12:56:21 GMT -6
The Cuban Missile Crisis in an object lesson in America's role in destabilizing the world through the proliferation of nuclear weapons. While the media conveniently neglects to inform you that the United States already had nuclear missiles literally "next door" to the Soviet Union pointing directly at them long before the Cuban Missile crisis ever took place, it does go into great detail how the evil Soviet Union sought to smuggle nuclear missiles into Cuba. History usually tells a much different tale than what you read in the popular media. The U.S. had already done the same thing to the U.S.S.R. after World War II.
Other errata: the United States is the only nation to use a nuclear weapon against another nation. The United States was the first to develop the following: Thermonuclear warheads (Hydrogen bombs), Tactical nuclear weapons, "dirty bombs" (Neutron bombs), intercontinental ballistic missiles, and the first to create and mobilize a nuclear bomber fleet. Everything that followed was a frantic effort by nations to counter the nuclear menace posed by the U.S. Lest we forget.
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Aug 6, 2013 13:26:35 GMT -6
Oh gawd. Not again. The ballistics in this future documentary proposes in you post alone is totally absurd if your description is accurate about the program. How could Hickey fire at Oswald who was proven to be located behind the entire motorcade positioned in the Dallas School book depository building several floors up? Hickey according to your description would have been between Oswald and Kennedy. Kennedy in a car in front and Oswald far behind the whole motorcade! Kennedy and Oswald in relation to Hickey were approximately 180 degrees out!!!!!! Was the secret Service man holding his gun backwards too? LOL. I hope if there is any justice....Hickey's surviving family sues the hell out of the producers as a good public service! Based on your description, this documentary is already *bleep* and has no basis in reality. Why doesn't this *bleep* 'retired Australian detective' (why is he retired?) just say I killed Kennedy (sic), that claim would just as plausible. The fact that I was in California in Mrs Brinks third grade class at the time when it was announced over the school PA system sure would be of no consequence to the conspiracy makers. How sick. I will never forget that day and the days that followed. The only other time I felt the same was when Challenger blew up. The discussions about the Kennedy admin. is interesting, but this new documentary? I thought you all were smarter than this please. That's all I want to say about that. Steve
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Aug 6, 2013 13:58:14 GMT -6
John F. Kennedy was perhaps one of the greatest orators of the 20th century. His speeches are among my favorites delivered by any American president. His image far exceeded his accomplishments - but then, the same can said of any politician or salesperson, so Kennedy wasn't unique in that regard. He wasn't an evil or terrible man...he was a human being. Like any human being, he had his faults. Unfortunately, the myth of Camelot inflates Kennedy larger-than-life, and I feel that is a grave disservice to the American public. It wasn't his doing, really...it was the force of popular culture, fueled by the media, that created Camelot. I tend to agree with you on both points. I agree, his speeches were historical. It is not a far stretch of the imagination to consider that his speeches may have outweighed his actions. Reminds me of a few other politicians, actually. You said it. I wonder why we Americans tolerate the level of dishonesty and deceit that we do from our political figures. It's one thing to make hard decisions, but another to utilize falsehoods to justify murdering millions of innocent people while making an obscene amount of money in the process. Studying American government is helpful, but it isn't enough. You have to study the times as well in order to understand the complicated tapestry of cause and effect behind world events. Sadly, most Americans can't be bothered to engage in such an intellectual pursuit...it isn't worth their time. They would rather pick up the newspaper, watch the nightly news, or read Google news for their information, and leave the rest of it to someone else. That's how people like Bush and Obama get elected, and how the usual suspects keep getting re-elected to Congress.
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Aug 6, 2013 14:04:38 GMT -6
Oh gawd. Not again. The ballistics in this future documentary proposes in you post alone is totally absurd if your description is accurate about the program. How could Hickey fire at Oswald who was proven to be located behind the entire motorcade positioned in the Dallas School book depository building several floors up? Hickey according to your description would have been between Oswald and Kennedy. Kennedy in a car in front and Oswald far behind the whole motorcade! Kennedy and Oswald in relation to Hickey were approximately 180 degrees out!!!!!! Was the secret Service man holding his gun backwards too? LOL. I hope if there is any justice....Hickey's surviving family sues the hell out of the producers as a good public service! Based on your description, this documentary is already *bleep* and has no basis in reality. Why doesn't this *bleep* 'retired Australian detective' (why is he retired?) just say I killed Kennedy (sic), that claim would just as plausible. The fact that I was in California in Mrs Brinks third grade class at the time when it was announced over the school PA system sure would be of no consequence to the conspiracy makers. How sick. I will never forget that day and the days that followed. The only other time I felt the same was when Challenger blew up. The discussions about the Kennedy admin. is interesting, but this new documentary? I thought you all were smarter than this please. That's all I want to say about that. Steve Bravo, Senor Steve. I couldn't agree with you more.
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Aug 6, 2013 14:04:52 GMT -6
Other errata: the United States is the only nation to use a nuclear weapon against another nation. The United States was the first to develop the following: Thermonuclear warheads (Hydrogen bombs), Tactical nuclear weapons, "dirty bombs" (Neutron bombs), intercontinental ballistic missiles, and the first to create and mobilize a nuclear bomber fleet. Everything that followed was a frantic effort by nations to counter the nuclear menace posed by the U.S. Lest we forget. Yes to all the above, and thank God for it. Steve
|
|
niki
New Member
Posts: 65
|
Post by niki on Aug 6, 2013 14:23:52 GMT -6
You said it. I wonder why we Americans tolerate the level of dishonesty and deceit that we do from our political figures. well, that one is easy....we're too busy eating our Twinkies and watching Honey Boo-Boo to give a damn
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Aug 6, 2013 14:29:51 GMT -6
Other errata: the United States is the only nation to use a nuclear weapon against another nation. The United States was the first to develop the following: Thermonuclear warheads (Hydrogen bombs), Tactical nuclear weapons, "dirty bombs" (Neutron bombs), intercontinental ballistic missiles, and the first to create and mobilize a nuclear bomber fleet. Everything that followed was a frantic effort by nations to counter the nuclear menace posed by the U.S. Lest we forget. Yes to all the above, and thank God for it. Steve It is better to review the facts before forming an opinion than forming an opinion and subsequently hunting for "facts" to support it. While everything I wrote in that portion of my post is factually correct, the fact of the matter is, the development and emergence of nuclear weapons was inevitable. MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction, is actually the only way to prevent nuclear annihilation. If everyone has what you have, and you know that lobbing one missile will lead to global destruction, then that is far better than one country possessing the means to destroy everyone else. The Cold War is very complicated to understand correctly. In some ways, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. cooperated with each other to insure that nuclear war could never happen. Odd, but true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2013 14:31:02 GMT -6
Well God in heaven Steve forgive me for bringing to the attention of TEOR a documentary that I spotted on Google..far be it from me to offend your um flawless judgment or anyone else who finds the post a nuisance. I know..ask Hans what he thinks of it, I'm sure he knows who pulled the trigger.
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Aug 6, 2013 14:37:44 GMT -6
You said it. I wonder why we Americans tolerate the level of dishonesty and deceit that we do from our political figures. well, that one is easy....we're too busy eating our Twinkies and watching Honey Boo-Boo to give a damn Unfortunately for the clueless consumer, Twinkies are extinct (unless someone resurrects them). They are left with Honey Boo-Boo (ugh!) and digital media devices, the latter of which is doing a fine job in helping Americans to disconnect from the world around them. Example? The mother at the Zoo who is too busy fiddling with her tablet to watch her three-year old son as he tries to climb into a Sumatran Tiger exhibit...fortunately for her, someone else was paying attention.
|
|
niki
New Member
Posts: 65
|
Post by niki on Aug 6, 2013 14:44:45 GMT -6
well, that one is easy....we're too busy eating our Twinkies and watching Honey Boo-Boo to give a damn Unfortunately for the clueless consumer, Twinkies are extinct (unless someone resurrects them). They are left with Honey Boo-Boo (ugh!) and digital media devices, the latter of which is doing a fine job in helping Americans to disconnect from the world around them. Example? The mother at the Zoo who is too busy fiddling with her tablet to watch her three-year old son as he tries to climb into a Sumatran Tiger exhibit...fortunately for her, someone else was paying attention. Twinkies are back
|
|
niki
New Member
Posts: 65
|
Post by niki on Aug 6, 2013 14:45:06 GMT -6
Well God in heaven Steve forgive me for bringing to the attention of TEOR a documentary that I spotted on Google..far be it from me to offend your um flawless judgment or anyone else who finds the post a nuisance. I know..ask Hans what he thinks of it, I'm sure he knows who pulled the trigger. Personally, I found it interesting
|
|
|
Post by bewildered on Aug 6, 2013 14:50:49 GMT -6
Unfortunately for the clueless consumer, Twinkies are extinct (unless someone resurrects them). They are left with Honey Boo-Boo (ugh!) and digital media devices, the latter of which is doing a fine job in helping Americans to disconnect from the world around them. Example? The mother at the Zoo who is too busy fiddling with her tablet to watch her three-year old son as he tries to climb into a Sumatran Tiger exhibit...fortunately for her, someone else was paying attention. Twinkies are back Truly a sign of the apocalypse if there ever was one, and I'm not the least bit superstitious or religious...I'm quite the opposite, in fact.
|
|