Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
I believe that even if the truth were told, no one would believe it, we made up our minds a long time ago. It wouldnt matter if it was LHO alone or an orchestrated assassination.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
I believe that even if the truth were told, no one would believe it, we made up our minds a long time ago. It wouldnt matter if it was LHO alone or an orchestrated assassination.
Look at the 911 truthers. Not even God descending from the heavens could change their opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
They're sticking with it come hell of high water.
An explanation I heard once (being no expert it makes sense to me) was that LHO took his shot and missed. But the kill shot was an accidental discharge when some one tasked with protecting the President brought his weapon up to where he thought the shot came from. The conspiracy comes in when the question is asked why would such an unfortunate accident be covered up.
I love a good conspiracy theory.
I know nothing about guns so this may be a looney questions, but surely, people tasked with protecting the president carry pistols, not rifles. And I don't think a secret service pistol would make the head explode?Quote:
Originally Posted by ndw76
Sure, snipers on the roof could have such a discharge, but then they would have to be pointing AT the president during the motorcade, and it is highly unlikely that that would be the case.
Sometimes the truth appears highly unlikely, and it seems like that has to be the case with the Kennedy assassinationQuote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Anyone who is familiar with the differences in the resulting damage between high velocity varmint rounds and full metal jacket military rounds sees a difference between the wounds. The one shot in the back didn't even penetrate that far into his body. The throat shot ..... where the tracheotomy was preformed .... obliterating the wound..... was also relatively innocuous , causing little visible trauma. The head shot was just so obviously a high velocity varmint , frangible, projectile.
As for 9-11 theorists. People who believe the moon landings were bogus and filmed in Arizona ...... the media lumps "conspiracy theorists" together as if that were a valid argument against a conspiracy in the JFK coup de tat. Of the many assassinations and attempted assassinations that have occurred in my lifetime I only consider two as conspiracies. JFK and The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King. If we get into those committed in other countries in which US intelligence were either the culprits or aided and abetted there is no controversy as to whether they were conspiracies.
This is a very good point. Just like the "Do you believe in UFOs?" question. The assumption is that by saying "yes" you therefore believe that the earth is visited by alien beings from distant planets. I believe that there are objects which appear to be flying but are unidentified, but I also believe that there are mundane explanations for those sights that don't involve spacecraft of extra-terrestrial origin. Same with the word "conspiracy". Was there a conspiracy around the events of 9-11? Well, the answer would be 'yes' no matter which explanation you accept. A conspiracy involves a group (two or more), therefore, the group of hijackers would make it a conspiracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyHAD
Did LHO act alone? I tend to think he did, but it's completely plausible that he had an accomplice, either in the planning or the execution of the act. Was this accomplice a member of the CIA, mafia, Teamsters, Cuban government (either the one in exile or Castro's), Marilyn Monroe, KKK, KGB, or LBJ? I've heard all of those theories put forth (well, maybe not the one about Marilyn Monroe) and I frankly don't see the compelling evidence to support any of them. But, as I said earlier, I still keep an open mind about it.
The reason for my skepticism has been this; To support a conspiracy (and I don't mean in the strict definition, but in the sense that the CIA, for example, was behind it), one must demonstrate that the conspirators received a benefit from the assassination. But more than that, you must also demonstrate that they had no other means of gaining that benefit, because the assassination of a sitting president is probably the most dangerous conspiracy to put into play. There are other, far safer ways of achieving the same results. I haven't seen that put forth yet, so I'm still on the "lone gunman" theory.
Well the last house committee that held investigative hearings concluded that it 'probably' was a conspiracy. As far as benefit, the military industrial complex, that Eisenhower warned 'us' to beware of, benefited greatly. Instead of pulling troops out of Viet Nam we had a change of government that escalated the war greatly. LBJ hated the Kennedys, so did J Edgar Hoover, Allan Dulles, the former head of the CIA, whom Kennedy fired. The list of people who were in high places in and out of government who hated the Kennedys was long.
LHO spoke the truth when he said,"I'm just a patsy." He was used by the intel of our government and it is plain to see if you really study the case. Anyway, the thing is if a person looks at Nov 22, 1963 and what happened within the next 48 hours it is harder to see connections. A long before and after view needs to be considered to piece some of the puzzle together. To me, not knowing for sure who was involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK , I am firmly convinced there was a conspiracy. It is plain to see that there was and still is a coverup by the government of the United States and large portions of the established media.
Those who think that the USA, the guys with the 'white hats,' wouldn't do such a thing are being naive. There is no question that Patrice Lumumba, Ngo Dinh Diem, and Allende were , if not directly killed by US intelligence, 'we' aided and abetted. In 1963 if someone had accused the CIA of plotting to kill Fidel Castro at the behest of the US government they would have been considered crazy, if not traitorous. We learned through the Church committee hearings that this was exactly what happened. Why is it so far fetched to believe that those people who contributed to that wouldn't have killed our president ?
Oh, I do not find that hard to believe at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyHAD
The US, and some of the citizens in it, have proven, in too many cases throughout history, what it is willing to do of mischief both home and abroad.
That said, untill there is conclusive evidence to prove the official version wrong, I will watch the various theories with an open eye, and a fair bit of sceptisism :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Birnando
Same here. I will openly admit that it is possible that there was a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy. I am more skeptical that the shots that killed Kennedy came from anywhere other than from behind and above the President (i.e. from the 6th Floor of the Texas Book Depository). Until I can see irrefutable proof that that shots came from the grassy knoll, I'm an open minded skeptic as well. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct explanation.