HawkShack.com

Hawktalk and I broached a subject over in the football forum that I thought might be worth a discussion. Lately we've been inundated with conspiracy theories, most of them whacky and with very little evidence, and the mother of all conspiracy theories, perhaps the modern-day original conspiracy theory, is the JFK assassination.

I was 9 years old and in the 3rd grade on 11/22/1963 and remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when I first heard that the President had been shot. It is the first major news event that I have a very clear recollection of. Things were obviously much different back then. For example, from about 30 minutes after JFK was shot, at 12:30pm CST on a Friday, until a few hours after he was buried on the following Monday, all 3 network TV stations canceled all programming, including commercials, and covered nothing but the aftermath of the assassination. I can't imagine that happening nowadays. I've become obsessed with learning everything I can about that event. It was as violent and tragic of a death as one can imagine, a man getting his head blown off as he's being cradled in his wife's arms. Had he been assassinated by food poisoning, I probably wouldn't have been nearly as interested as I am. Does that mean that I'm a goolish pig? Maybe, I don't know. Anyway, I enjoy debating the subject so long as it doesn't degenerate into name calling, as it often times does when a person runs out of intelligent responses.

I am a firm believer that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, and to a slightly lesser degree, that Jack Ruby acted alone. Besides all the physical evidence, which comes down squarely on the lone nut side, one has to consider the plausibility of an organized plot that would have been required to pull it off and keep it a secret for some 58 years. It would have required thousands of people from various walks of life and stretched from Washington, DC to Dallas, TX.

For example, the autopsy, of which many believe was staged. In 1963, there was no federal law against the killing of the President, or any other government official, unless the crime occurred on federal property, which was clearly not the case. Jurisdiction was with the state, specifically Dallas County where the crime occurred. Legally, the autopsy was supposed to be performed in Dallas, and indeed, an attempt was made by county officials to stop the transfer of the body to Air Force One, but the men on the Secret Service detail, already supremely upset over losing their man, bullied their way out of the hospital, casket in tow. What had happened was that the VP, Lynden Johnson, who was traveling in the same motorcade and was at the hospital when JFK was pronounced dead, had been moved to AF-1 as they desperately wanted to get him back to the White House ASAP so he could be protected. It was the height of the Cold War, barely one year displaced from the Cuban Missile Crisis, and there was a genuine concern that the assassination could be the first move in World War 3. It is a war scenario that is practiced to this day.

But there was a problem: Johnson wasn't going to leave Dallas without Jackie Kennedy as he knew it would be a public relations nightmare if he left w/o the Kennedys, and Jackie, still at Parkland Hospital, wasn't about to leave her dead husband behind. Johnson dug his heels in and refused to move, so the call went out to Parkland to get JFK's body back to AF-1 pronto. As the plane was in route to Washington, for security reasons, Jackie was given a choice of two military hospitals in which to conduct the autopsy: Bethesda Naval Hospital or Walter Reed Army Hospital. She hesitated until one of the aides whispered to her "Jack was a Navy man", to which she replied "Of course. Jack loved the Navy." So Bethesda it was.

Now, imagine if you're concocting a conspiracy and need to stage an autopsy. You must plan for it to be done in at least 2 possible locations: One in Dallas, the most likely as that's where it legally should have been done, and at least one in Washington, providing that you successfully guessed that Bethesda would be chosen. There was a reasonable chance that Jackie might have said "I have a friend that works at Walter Reed" or something, so if you're going to cover all the bases, you'd have to plan for 3 locations.

There's an old saying that two people can keep a secret so long as one of them is dead. The idea that any group can assemble a conspiracy of the magnitude needed to bump off the POTUS and keep it secret for over 5 decades is truly mind boggling. There are three elements to every crime: Means, motive, and opportunity. Nearly all of the conspiracy theorists concentrate on the means and motive part, but very few address the opportunity aspect. How could have someone besides Oswald have been on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30pm CST on 11/22/63? How could they organize hundreds of people, all in the right positions, like the county coroner, x-ray techs, Army/Navy officers, etc, to stage an autopsy at three different possible locations 2,000 miles apart and keep it secret? How many people would it take to plant the evidence on the 6th floor of the TSBD, or get a gunman, unobserved and behind the fence on the grassy knoll and in an open area, then evacuate him without a trace? It doesn't pass the smell test.

Anyhow, thanks for taking the time to read my musings on the subject. Comments?

I’ve used a bolt action rifle with open sights many times . I don’t buy the guy from that far up got all those bullets in the car including 1 into the neck and then the the kill shot in the head , literally within a few inches of one another . I’ve seen the simulations . All controlled environments already aware of all the angles and physics . Repeated practice of the scenarios with a perfectly maintained firearm .

That doesn’t replicate real life ok there’s the car bang bang bang . 100 yards with open sights on a moving away from you 100 feet below and 100 yards away and accelerating on the kill shot is the golden BB.

And if you accept he was that amazing he didn’t bother to buy a scope then what about the one that hit the curb ? Deadeye then miss by 10 feet ? President emerges from behind the sign grasping his throat , clearly not an exit wound from the same gun that blew his head apart a second later . Just my knowledge and lifelong use of firearms coupled with the zapruder film tells me someone else was shooting as well .

To the degree it’s a further conspiracy ? Don’t buy the Ruby thing at all . I know there was loathing for Kennedy from Cubans , CIA and the entire military industrial complex over bay of pigs . There’s a big difference between what may have happened and what’s provable in these instances . I can’t surmise beyond a second gunman or maybe more but Oswald didn’t act alone . I don’t buy it . And I also think a secret like that can be kept by our government . Now the principals are all dead so the real story may never emerge if in fact there is an alternate story .

Thanks for responding!

Hawktawk wrote:I’ve used a bolt action rifle with open sights many times . I don’t buy the guy from that far up got all those bullets in the car including 1 into the neck and then the the kill shot in the head , literally within a few inches of one another . I’ve seen the simulations . All controlled environments already aware of all the angles and physics . Repeated practice of the scenarios with a perfectly maintained firearm .

That doesn’t replicate real life ok there’s the car bang bang bang . 100 yards with open sights on a moving away from you 100 feet below and 100 yards away and accelerating on the kill shot is the golden BB.

The mechanical ability of the 6.5mm Manlicher-Carcaino rifle and Oswald's marksmanship ability have been proven numerous times by multiple individuals, and while you do have a point about him being under the pressure of shooting at a live target, Walter Cronkite said it best when he answered, "He was shooting at the President of the United States and he did it". I'll also note that Oswald had nerves of steel, was approached by a policeman just minutes after the shooting and didn't look to be a bit alarmed, calm enough that they let him continue as they searched the rest of the building. A few months earlier, Oswald had attempted to assassinate retired General Edwin Walker, a crime that wasn't solved until a few days after the JFK assassination and would have if the bullet hadn't been deflected by the window grid Walker was standing behind.

Hawktawk wrote:And if you accept he was that amazing he didn’t bother to buy a scope then what about the one that hit the curb ? Deadeye then miss by 10 feet ? President emerges from behind the sign grasping his throat , clearly not an exit wound from the same gun that blew his head apart a second later . Just my knowledge and lifelong use of firearms coupled with the zapruder film tells me someone else was shooting as well

Oswald did have a scope. It cost about $6.00 to have it mounted at Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago where Oswald purchased the rifle via mail order. The total cost of the rifle/scope combo was roughly $20.

The shot that struck the curb was likely the first shot and was fired as the limo was rounding the corner and passing under a tree and in front of a streetlight. It was likely deflected by either the tree or the mast of the streetlight, striking the curb a hundred feet or so down the street, injuring a bystander. Here's a link to a Nova episode that talks about it if you're interested:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/the ... at-missed/

The autopsy was unable to confirm that the wound on the neck as it was obliterated by a tracheostomy made by ER doctors trying to save his life so the pathologists at Bethesda never examined it. As a matter of fact, they didn't even speak with the ER doctors until the morning after the autopsy, and by then, the body had been removed and re-examination was impossible. There was a corresponding wound at the base of JFK's neck that was identified as an entrance wound and the pathologist tried to trace it with a probe, but the wound had closed and the pathologist was afraid of creating a false passage. The bullet did not strike any bones so there were no fragments to recover.

The trajectory of the known bullet wounds on both JFK and Gov. Connelly lead back directly to the 6th floor of the TSBD. Based on the known positions of JFK and Connelly, potential trajectories from the grassy knoll would not have done the trick, nor would a shot from ground level in front as the windshield of the limo would have been in the way. The only possible location for a shot from the front that could have caused any of rthe wounds on JFK and/or Connelly would have been from the triple underpass, a location occupied by a Dallas policeman during the shooting.

Hawktawk wrote:To the degree it’s a further conspiracy ? Don’t buy the Ruby thing at all . I know there was loathing for Kennedy from Cubans , CIA and the entire military industrial complex over bay of pigs . There’s a big difference between what may have happened and what’s provable in these instances . I can’t surmise beyond a second gunman or maybe more but Oswald didn’t act alone . I don’t buy it . And I also think a secret like that can be kept by our government . Now the principals are all dead so the real story may never emerge if in fact there is an alternate story .

As I said, like all powerful men, there were plenty of people and organizations that had a motivation to take Kennedy out. But motive is the very easiest aspect of a crime to satisfy. The fact that a lot of them wanted him dead or that had the capability to pull something like it off does not prove that they did. You have to complete the circle, put them in the right spot at the right time and with the right equipment.

In addition to being a true nutcase and IMO mentally ill, Jack Ruby was a publicity hound. He always wanted to be where the action was. He made a number of close friends with policeman on the Dallas PD, bought them free drinks at his strip club, made sandwiches for them, etc and was seldom challenged when he frequently appeared at police HQ. He is seen on TV in the hallway of police headquarters when they were moving Oswald and was in the interrogation room Oswald was presented to the press for a very brief press conference.

Ruby shot Oswald at 11:21 am on the Sunday after the assassination. Just 4 minutes earlier, Ruby was in the Western Union office across the street from the PD and confirmed by multiple witnesses. He was there to wire some money to one of his strippers. When he was arrested and searched moments after shooting Oswald, he had a receipt from Western Union in his pocket with a time stamp on it that read 11:17am. Oswald's transfer had been scheduled for at least an hour earlier, but kept getting delayed, once so Oswald, at his request, could change clothes. If Ruby was a hired hit man, why wouldn't he have been in place hours earlier?

None of it passes the smell test. Bullet wounds only having originated from one location. Ruby not in place 5 minutes before he shot Oswald. Autopsy location impossible to anticipate. Bullets and bullet fragments being identified as coming from one weapon to the exclusion of all others. Bullet trajectories all leading to the 6th floor of the TSBD. Stockade fence on the grassy knoll being in a horrible position for concealing a shooter. Oswald's proven ownership of the murder weapon. Testimony putting Oswald on the upper floors of the TSBD. Testimony of Oswald's own family members. The list goes on and on.

If you’re talking about the warren report I don’t buy a word of that such as wounds and trajectories and such . I wonder how advanced those investigative tools were back then . I’ve heard the supposed exit wound on his throat is higher than the entry meaning he had to be leaning forward quite a bit when shot. We don’t know because of the sign .it’s what it is . I don’t buy it . Way too many coincidences .

Hawktawk wrote:If you’re talking about the warren report I don’t buy a word of that such as wounds and trajectories and such . I wonder how advanced those investigative tools were back then . I’ve heard the supposed exit wound on his throat is higher than the entry meaning he had to be leaning forward quite a bit when shot. We don’t know because of the sign .it’s what it is . I don’t buy it . Way too many coincidences .

The Warren Report was just one of the official investigations into the assassination. There was also an investigation called the House Select Committee on Assassinations (1976-77) that did an in depth investigation and came to the exact same conclusion: That LHO fired all the shots that wounded Kennedy and Connelly. The only place they differed was on the conspiracy aspect, which we can discuss if you like. There's been several other semi related or partial government investigations, including the Ramsey Clark Panel (1968) Rockefeller Commission(1975), the Church Committee(1975), and the Assassination Records Review Board (1992). None of them produced any evidence that would alter the conclusions arrived at by the two official investigations.

Here's some images of the throat wound along with other autopsy photos. It's from Wikipedia so it's not real credible source but it will give you a good idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy

Here's what the Ramsey Clark Panel said about the bullet wounds:

U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark appointed a panel of four medical experts in 1968 to examine photographs and X-rays from the autopsy.[12] The panel confirmed findings that the Warren Commission had published: the President was shot from behind and was hit by only two bullets. The summary by the panel stated: "Examination of the clothing and of the photographs and X-rays taken at [the] autopsy reveal that President Kennedy was struck by two bullets fired from above and behind him (in the direction of the TSBD, Oswald's sniper nest), one of which traversed the base of the neck on the right side without striking bone and the other of which entered the skull from behind and exploded its right side.

So it's not just the Warren Commission that you have to discount or dismiss. There's multiple other investigations that you'd have to reconcile.

Someone wanted the Kennedy's who held power dead. Someone powerful. To me it's like Jeffrey Epstein, someone wanted him dead and you ain't never gonna know who. Some people have strange ideas that there aren't people powerful enough to pull this stuff off, but there are. And you don't mess with them or they will end you, not lose a wink of sleep about it, and you won't catch them. They plan meticulously, have people who are absolutely loyal, and can make things happen as needed. The Bush's are one family capable of this, at least George H.W. Bush. Cheney is another. I'm not sure who wanted to take out the Kennedy's, but they had a lot of enemies. Someone powerful took John and Robert out of the game and sent a message to the Kennedy's to stay out of their way. Someone in the Kennedy's probably knows who or did know who, but that person probably passed away and kept things quiet to preserve the family.

I don't know how you can watch events in the modern day like Jeffrey Epstein dying or see Jamal Khashoggi murdered by a hit team at the request of a Saudi Prince (he was sloppy) with nothing happening to anyone and not realize that there are powerful people in the world who can have you murdered, chopped up, and nothing will happen to them because they are too powerful to touch. If you think it doesn't happen in America, you just have your head in the sand.

Jacky Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald may have pulled the trigger, but someone wanted that trigger pulled. And it got done. And you'll never know who ordered it just as you'll never know who jacked Epstein and no one powerful will likely be done due to Epstein's case save perhaps a few old people as sacrificial lambs because their lives are over.

As far as proof, why do you think you're ever going to get proof when powerful people are involved who are extremely careful about insulating themselves? They didn't get caught for a reason and they won't get caught ever.

That's why I don't think Trump will do any time or have anything done to him. He has protection. And there are people in America far more powerful than Trump that can snuff your life and they won't have anything done to them for doing so.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Jacky Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald may have pulled the trigger, but someone wanted that trigger pulled. And it got done. And you'll never know who ordered it just as you'll never know who jacked Epstein and no one powerful will likely be done due to Epstein's case save perhaps a few old people as sacrificial lambs because their lives are over.

Like I said, there is no shortage of people and organizations that had both the motive and the means to knock off JFK. The problem is that none had the opportunity.

Ask yourself some questions: Let's say the mafia was the ones that hired Oswald to gun down JFK. Do you honestly believe that they would equip him with an inferior, WWI surplus bolt action rifle that cost $20? Or why did they let Oswald go back to his apartment, change clothes, walk around the neighborhood, shoot a cop, then get captured in a movie theatre? If they were so powerful and professional as you say they were, why didn't they eliminate him within minutes after pulling the trigger? All they had to do was to set up an ambush at his apartment, knowing that he'd return. Don't professionals plan an escape or elimination of their trigger man? But instead, they waited until he was in police custody then waited until they had interrogated him for 36 hours before they silenced him.

And what about Jack Ruby? How do you explain the fact that 4 minutes before he shot Oswald that he was at the Western Union office, patiently waiting his turn in line so he could wire some money to one of his strippers? Wouldn't a hit man be in place well before his victim was scheduled to appear?

Aseahawkfan wrote:As far as proof, why do you think you're ever going to get proof when powerful people are involved who are extremely careful about insulating themselves? They didn't get caught for a reason and they won't get caught ever.

Yeah, it's just not sexy enough. We're a country raised on spy thrillers: James Bond, I Spy, Mission Impossible, and so on. We've been conditioned to believe in grand conspiracies: "My husband was the victim of a vast right wing conspiracy!" Americans can't come to grips with the fact that a loser like Oswald could kill their beloved President, the most powerful man in the world. In order to kill a powerful man, you need a sophisticated network of criminals like the mafia, a government agency like the CIA, or a foreign country like the Russians or Cubans. It's just not possible for a lone nut to pull off the crime of the century. There has to be more. It was impossible for Oswald to have acted alone because it just doesn't fit the narrative, that it had to be the result of "powerful people that are extremely careful about insulating themselves", right?

RiverDog wrote:Like I said, there is no shortage of people and organizations that had both the motive and the means to knock off JFK. The problem is that none had the opportunity.

Ask yourself some questions: Let's say the mafia was the ones that hired Oswald to gun down JFK. Do you honestly believe that they would equip him with an inferior, WWI surplus bolt action rifle that cost $20?

Yes. Equipping the killer with higher grade weapons he could not obtain would raise suspicion.

Or why did they let Oswald go back to his apartment, change clothes, walk around the neighborhood, shoot a cop, then get captured in a movie theatre?

I doubt Oswald would even know he was working for. Look up the man who shot Reagan, he was known to the Bush's and known to have mental disorders. A group that wants to kill someone need not even get their hands dirty, only to find a crazy willing and able to do the job and then make sure there are holes in the coverage to ensure the kill.

If they were so powerful and professional as you say they were, why didn't they eliminate him within minutes after pulling the trigger?

Why eliminate someone who is no threat to you at all. Some crazy you set in motion in the right direction?

All they had to do was to set up an ambush at his apartment, knowing that he'd return. Don't professionals plan an escape or elimination of their trigger man? But instead, they waited until he was in police custody then waited until they had interrogated him for 36 hours before they silenced him.

No, not really. People who want someone dead usually make sure they are many layers removed they don't have to worry about the killer being caught. They execute the plan without direct involvement. A professional hit on the president is far too direct. It's much better to use crazies to kill people who are not easy to make disappear. They are literally known programs for manipulating crazies to kill people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra

And what about Jack Ruby? How do you explain the fact that 4 minutes before he shot Oswald that he was at the Western Union office, patiently waiting his turn in line so he could wire some money to one of his strippers? Wouldn't a hit man be in place well before his victim was scheduled to appear?

Why? You ever watch The Godfather? They sent a guy to hit someone they knew wasn't getting out. It was a suicide hit job and the hitman knew this going in. This is not something completely implausible. You send someone to do the hit who knows they ain't coming back and they're either going to prison or dying. Make things as crazy as possible, you'll have a better chance of never getting caught.

Yeah, it's just not sexy enough. We're a country raised on spy thrillers: James Bond, I Spy, Mission Impossible, and so on. We've been conditioned to believe in grand conspiracies: "My husband was the victim of a vast right wing conspiracy!" Americans can't come to grips with the fact that a loser like Oswald could kill their beloved President, the most powerful man in the world. In order to kill a powerful man, you need a sophisticated network of criminals like the mafia, a government agency like the CIA, or a foreign country like the Russians or Cubans. It's just not possible for a lone nut to pull off the crime of the century. There has to be more. It was impossible for Oswald to have acted alone because it just doesn't fit the narrative, that it had to be the result of "powerful people that are extremely careful about insulating themselves", right?

You watch conspiracies committed often and don't believe they can occur?

Trump's lie is a conspiracy to overthrow an election. He gets enough people to believe and it would have happened.

Hilary Clinton's painting Trump as a Russian Traitor was a conspiracy. Get enough people to believe and it becomes very real with the barest of evidence.

You have a United States government that built up Osama Bin Laden into a revolutionary figure that eventually attacked us and they did so behind our backs as a conspiracy. He came back to bite us in the ass. I'd bet money that only a handful of Americans even knew Osama and his family had strong connections to the American government and our intelligence agencies until much, much later.

There are a group of people that meet called the Council of Foreign Relations that are for globalism and advise American leadership on globalization including subjecting American citizens to international law decided by officials not elected by America at the United Nations. They do so openly and you can follow what they do and this is a conspiracy.

There was an open conspiracy of people who met to design our banking system which the structure of primarily benefits the wealthy and allows a level of economic control over the nation far in excess of what any free society should want, yet The Federal Banking system was taken up by the government at the request of private industry.

You watched an American citizen Jamal Khashoggi murdered by a powerful leader in a Turkish Embassy. You watched the media tell you this was done. You watched the Democrats try to pin this on Trump. Then you watched both political parties do nothing about it at all because of how much power Saudi Arabia has in America by virtue of accepting only U.S. Dollars for oil which makes the United States the world reserve currency. Did you choose for this to happen? Can you do anything to stop it?

There are conspiracies both open and hidden all over America and the world where powerful people decide how the world will be run. You have no decision making in these processes and often don't find out about them until many years later if at all. Both World War 1 and 2 were conspiracies by allied nations that you only know about because the history books now tell you what happened, but at the time it was all a big hidden conspiracy that led to a World War.

You need to wake up to the reality that conspiracies are occurring around you all the time. You won't know what they are until long after the fact. You can choose to pretend you have control over the conspiracies of powerful people, but you don't and never will. They will do what they will do. You can choose to believe the evidence presented. They don't care one way or the other because you're not important to them. If they decide to erase you the little guy from the world because you're in their way, you will get erased.

It has always been this way and always will be this way. The powerful, the ambitious, the intelligent are engaged in conspiracies on a daily basis. Some will work, some will not, but they won't stop working to increase their power, wealth, and to control society and the world.

Myself, I'm not a powerful guy playing the world control game. My only goal is avoid being drawn into these manipulations as much as possible and definitely not to do evil on behalf of these manipulators. But I don't pretend they don't exist. Their hand is all over the history books and whether you can prove something or not does mean it is or isn't true.

The only fact I know for certain is the two most politically powerful Kennedy's were killed, both murdered. After they died, the Kennedy's lost immense political power and Nixon rose to power after them. One murder you might be able to explain away as a lone crazy, both brothers murdered seems agenda driven to me.

It is well known that RFK was going after the mob. And JFK had pissed off the intelligence community and the people who pull the strings for U.S. control of the world. Put those things together and it's hard for me to believe their murders were not orchestrated given it removed obstacles in the way of a lot of powerful people.

You can choose to believe as you do that conspiracies are just for nutty people. Or you can choose to believe as I do that you won't stop or know about the conspiracies until after they happen or maybe never, so why worry about it. Even if you had known, you weren't going to be able to stop the people who wanted Kennedy dead. They would have just killed you for getting in their way and you would have been found in some alley or in your car having committed suicide or just straight up disappeared like Jimmy Hoffa.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Yes. Equipping the killer with higher grade weapons he could not obtain would raise suspicion.

But a cheap, inferior WW1 rifle? In the very same catalog that Oswald bought his rifle from, there was an M1 Garand for sale for around $50. It was a WW2-Korean War standard issue, semi automatic rifle that would have been a much better choice and wouldn't have raised anymore suspicion than the Mannlicher-Carcano . Even the 30.06, a very commonly used deer hunting rifle, would have been a better choice. There's no way that any credible group is going to send their hitman out with such a cheap and inefficient weapon.

If they were so powerful and professional as you say they were, why didn't they eliminate him within minutes after pulling the trigger?

Aseahawkfan wrote:Why eliminate someone who is no threat to you at all. Some crazy you set in motion in the right direction?

But that's not what you said. You had indicated that Ruby was part of the plot. And being that you mentioned "set in motion in the right direction", the night before the assassination, Oswald was with his estranged wife at a friend's home and bummed a ride to work the next morning with a neighbor. So how does this fit into your conspiracy? Wouldn't whoever it was that was behind it at least made sure that the trigger man arrived at the assassination location on time? Why leave it to such an unpredictable "crazy" that you just set in motion?

You watch conspiracies committed often and don't believe they can occur?

I didn't say that conspiracies couldn't occur. I am talking about this one particular conspiracy.

Aseahawkfan wrote:You can choose to believe as you do that conspiracies are just for nutty people. Or you can choose to believe as I do that you won't stop or know about the conspiracies until after they happen or maybe never, so why worry about it. Even if you had known, you weren't going to be able to stop the people who wanted Kennedy dead. They would have just killed you for getting in their way and you would have been found in some alley or in your car having committed suicide or just straight up disappeared like Jimmy Hoffa.

All of these people you've mentioned as victims or potential victims of conspiracies, Khashoggi, Hoffa, Epstein, et al, are very poor examples as they're not heads of state of a superpower and not even remotely as difficult to kill as a sitting POTUS. You can't just call up the President and tell him to meet you at a restaurant like they did with Hoffa. The JFK murder was done in broad daylight, in an open environment with hundreds of potential witnesses, many with still and movie cameras, crawling with cops and secret service. I heard one person claim that it was the most photographed murder in history, certainly at that time. It would have been impossible to set up an ambush in that location on just a few weeks' notice and keep it secret. It would have been much easier to shoot him on a golf course, blow up his yacht, or poison his food. No way would they have chosen the downtown area of a major city in front of that many witnesses to carry out such a complicated crime.

One of the problems I have in debating this issue is that as a rule, people are unaware of the facts and evidence. They argue in generalities, avoiding the specifics of the crime and ignoring the obvious contradictions that undeniable, well-established facts of the case pose. They'll claim that the autopsy was staged without understanding the complexities. They'll call the Warren Report a croc without having read a paragraph of it or not realizing that there were subsequent investigations that validated it. All they look at is motive, that this or that person or group wanted JFK dead. They're heavily influenced by the tons of conspiracy material available on the web. It runs about 80% pro conspiracy because it's a big business, an industry in its own right that people like Oliver Stone have made millions of dollars off of. As I said, Americans have been conditioned to believe in conspiracies and are easy prey for a sexy novel that conforms to their pre-disposed beliefs.

I'm not sure how interested you and Hawktalk are in this issue, but the best book I've read on the subject...and I've read a bunch of them, both pro and anti conspiracy, is this one:

https://books.google.com/books/about/Re ... rKTKDhvfkC

It's a big book, written by Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor that convicted Charles Manson. It's actually two books in one, the other being "Four Days in November", which can be bought separately, that is a re-creation of the events and gives background information, not necessarily anti or pro conspiracy. In 1986, Bugliosi prosecuted Oswald in a mock trial with a real, sworn in jury, actual eye witnesses from 1963, expert witnesses that testified before the Warren Commission, HSCA, etc, a real judge and with Gerry Spence, a well known criminal defense lawyer that has never lost a case before a jury, acting as Oswald's defender. Bugliosi, who had a 105-1 record as a prosecutor, got a conviction.

Bugliosi goes into great detail about the autopsy, Oswald and Ruby's biographies, the various investigations like the Warren Commission and HSCA, and examines all of the major conspiracy theories known at the time. It is well footnoted.

RiverDog wrote:All of these people you've mentioned as victims or potential victims of conspiracies, Khashoggi, Hoffa, Epstein, et al, are very poor examples as they're not heads of state of a superpower and not even remotely as difficult to kill as a sitting POTUS. You can't just call up the President and tell him to meet you at a restaurant like they did with Hoffa. The JFK murder was done in broad daylight, in an open environment with hundreds of potential witnesses, many with still and movie cameras, crawling with cops and secret service. I heard one person claim that it was the most photographed murder in history, certainly at that time. It would have been impossible to set up an ambush in that location on just a few weeks' notice and keep it secret. It would have been much easier to shoot him on a golf course, blow up his yacht, or poison his food. No way would they have chosen the downtown area of a major city in front of that many witnesses to carry out such a complicated crime.

One of the problems I have in debating this issue is that as a rule, people are unaware of the facts and evidence. They argue in generalities, avoiding the specifics of the crime and ignoring the obvious contradictions that undeniable, well-established facts of the case pose. They'll claim that the autopsy was staged without understanding the complexities. They'll call the Warren Report a croc without having read a paragraph of it or not realizing that there were subsequent investigations that validated it. All they look at is motive, that this or that person or group wanted JFK dead. They're heavily influenced by the tons of conspiracy material available on the web. It runs about 80% pro conspiracy because it's a big business, an industry in its own right that people like Oliver Stone have made millions of dollars off of. As I said, Americans have been conditioned to believe in conspiracies and are easy prey for a sexy novel that conforms to their pre-disposed beliefs.

I'm not sure how interested you and Hawktalk are in this issue, but the best book I've read on the subject...and I've read a bunch of them, both pro and anti conspiracy, is this one:

https://books.google.com/books/about/Re ... rKTKDhvfkC

It's a big book, written by Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor that convicted Charles Manson. It's actually two books in one, the other being "Four Days in November", which can be bought separately, that is a re-creation of the events and gives background information, not necessarily anti or pro conspiracy. In 1986, Bugliosi prosecuted Oswald in a mock trial with a real, sworn in jury, actual eye witnesses from 1963, expert witnesses that testified before the Warren Commission, HSCA, etc, a real judge and with Gerry Spence, a well known criminal defense lawyer that has never lost a case before a jury, acting as Oswald's defender. Bugliosi, who had a 105-1 record as a prosecutor, got a conviction.

Bugliosi goes into great detail about the autopsy, Oswald and Ruby's biographies, the various investigations like the Warren Commission and HSCA, and examines all of the major conspiracy theories known at the time. It is well footnoted.

I'll leave that to someone else then. I was hopping on for fun. Hopefully you can find someone who is interested in the Kennedy conspiracies.

I honestly don't know much about the Kennedy murders. My gut feeling is it is extraordinarily convenient for far too many people that the two most politically powerful Kennedys were murdered greatly reducing the Kennedy's political power. Both Kennedys were known to be pissing off some very powerful people in organized crime and the intelligence community. Both were killed by lone wolf crazies who happened to circumvent their security staffing. It's all very suspicious.

In the grand scheme of things, it's water under the bridge. The investigative record is on the books now. People will pick their sides and stick with it. You can either believe the investigative record or you don't. Lots of people have made lots of money exploring the deaths of JFK and RFK further. It's a niche cottage industry at this point along with UFOs, though it seems to have died down a lot since 80s and 90s.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I'll leave that to someone else then. I was hopping on for fun. Hopefully you can find someone who is interested in the Kennedy conspiracies.

I honestly don't know much about the Kennedy murders. My gut feeling is it is extraordinarily convenient for far too many people that the two most politically powerful Kennedys were murdered greatly reducing the Kennedy's political power. Both Kennedys were known to be pissing off some very powerful people in organized crime and the intelligence community. Both were killed by lone wolf crazies who happened to circumvent their security staffing. It's all very suspicious.

In the grand scheme of things, it's water under the bridge. The investigative record is on the books now. People will pick their sides and stick with it. You can either believe the investigative record or you don't. Lots of people have made lots of money exploring the deaths of JFK and RFK further. It's a niche cottage industry at this point along with UFOs, though it seems to have died down a lot since 80s and 90s.

Actually, I'm not that interested in the RFK murder. It doesn't appear to be the slam dunk that JFK is, not as much photographic evidence or eyewitnesses. I'm for releasing Sirhan Sirhan, not because I don't think he did it but because he's spent over 50 years in prison, arguably a lifetime for most murderers, and isn't much of a threat to society anymore.

Believe it or not, there was a time when I believed that there was a conspiracy. In the late 70's, the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that there was a 2nd shooter firing from behind the fence on the grassy knoll and missed. There was this scientist that looked straight into the camera and said "With a probability of 95% or better, there was, indeed, a shot fired from the grassy knoll." He sounded so credible that I believed him. A few years later, on the 25th anniversary of the assassination, which would have made it 1988 or 89, I saw a documentary on PBS's Nova hosted by none other than Walter Cronkite that flipped my opinion back to lone nut. My point is that I didn't just make up my mind and leave it at that. I did my homework.

Public opinions on JFK have bounced aroudn a lot. Immediately after he was shot, only 29% thought LHO acted alone. My parents were convinced it was a mafia hit. Jack Ruby just looked like a hitman. After the release of the Warren Commission report in 1964, the lone nut percentage jumped to 87%. People trusted what the government said was the truth. But in the years to come, with events like the Vietnam War and Watergate, people began to lose faith in their government. The big opinion changer occurred in 1975 when Geraldo Rivera's late nite TV show played the section of the Zapruder film that showed the fatal head shot that had never before been seen by the public, a gruesome scene, and showing a violent head snap to the rear, which to a layman would be an indication of the direction of the shot, completely opposite from where LHO was located. In 1978, the HSCA concluded that there was a conspiracy, and by the mid 80's, only 11% believed lone nut, which included me.

Opinions have gradually begun to shift. The primary HSCA acoustical evidence, the sole reason the HSCA came to their conclusion and the only major difference between their findings and that of the Warren Commission was invalidated, and with improvements in technology like 3D computer animations, laser sighting, neutron activation analysis, etc, they've been able to more closely examine the evidence and have been able to rule out most of the conspiracy theories involving multiple shooters. The last poll I saw was that lone nut had climbed to 29% with about 60% still believing in a conspiracy.

Thanks for participating in the discussion. Like I said, it's been a fascination of mine to the point where I've become obsessed with it, maybe because I'm in that minority that believes in lone nut and that I enjoy a debate where I have such a good command of the facts.

So this is a personal interest. It was a powerful point of change in America. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people losing faith in government occurred because of the JFK assassination. Presidents had been assassinated before, but none that had been broadcast on TV and were so well known and well-loved. JFK coincided with the rising power of television and the media. He had the celebrity looks, name, and charisma. He was publicly assassinated as the TV news was getting going and during the tumultuous 60s.

You got to live through some pretty crazy times in America. I grew up mostly in the 80s during my formative years. I was too young in the 70s to notice much. The 80s was a very fun period in America. Economy was fairly good. Reagan was president and made us look good and was well-liked. We didn't have any major wars other than the Cold War. It seemed like the races were coming together. The movies and music were great IMO with the highest level of diversity I think I've ever seen as corporate categorization hadn't quite occurred yet, so everything was kind of mixed together. MTV still played music videos. Food was still real and so were the girls. I probably grew up in the most positive, relaxed era in recent American history. Then the 90s hit and it's been sort of bumpy ride from there in so many areas from school shootings to race issues to not trusting the government and the general chaos and lethargy that has gripped America. Though the Internet has been great.

I do miss the good feels of the 80s and having a president that seemed to be relatively well-liked at home and abroad.

Aseahawkfan wrote:So this is a personal interest. It was a powerful point of change in America. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people losing faith in government occurred because of the JFK assassination. Presidents had been assassinated before, but none that had been broadcast on TV and were so well known and well-loved. JFK coincided with the rising power of television and the media. He had the celebrity looks, name, and charisma. He was publicly assassinated as the TV news was getting going and during the tumultuous 60s.

Yep. Kennedy was our first TV president. He knew how to take advantage of it, too, first in the debates with Nixon and later in the White House when they filmed his Cover Girl wife and two rug rats, creating a polar opposite image of the man that in real life was a sexual philanderer.

I saw a survey once that noted how JFK got less than 50% of the popular vote in 1960 but after he was shot a much higher percentage claimed that they have voted for him. Everything about the assassination was traumatic. Little John-John's 3rd birthday was Monday Nov. 25th, the same day that JFK was buried. Before the funeral, Jackie Kennedy had to give a birthday party for her son in the morning then get into her black dress for the funeral. And of course, John-John's salute of his father's casket didn't leave a dry eye in the country.

As far as the mistrust in government goes, IMO the JFK assassination was more of a victim of the mistrust, not the start of it. The mistrust didn't start until the late 60's, when Vietnam, the race riots, and the assassinations of MLK and RFK happened.

Aseahawkfan wrote:You got to live through some pretty crazy times in America. I grew up mostly in the 80s during my formative years. I was too young in the 70s to notice much. The 80s was a very fun period in America. Economy was fairly good. Reagan was president and made us look good and was well-liked. We didn't have any major wars other than the Cold War. It seemed like the races were coming together. The movies and music were great IMO with the highest level of diversity I think I've ever seen as corporate categorization hadn't quite occurred yet, so everything was kind of mixed together. MTV still played music videos. Food was still real and so were the girls. I probably grew up in the most positive, relaxed era in recent American history. Then the 90s hit and it's been sort of bumpy ride from there in so many areas from school shootings to race issues to not trusting the government and the general chaos and lethargy that has gripped America. Though the Internet has been great.

I wouldn't say that I 'got' to live through some crazy times. 1968 was a horrible year. I was in junior high at the time. The only thing good about it was at the very end with the Apollo 8 mission that went around the moon. I've seen interviews of the astronauts where they talked about how disrespectful the college campuses were of them after they came home, how they felt like they were in a foreign country, needed police escorts, and it was because they represented the establishment. The polar opposite occurred when they toured foreign countries, including the USSR. They said that they were treated like kings everywhere they went. Our country was a toxic environment, separated mainly by age and race, not too dissimilar than it is today, except it's more about politics than age or race.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I do miss the good feels of the 80s and having a president that seemed to be relatively well-liked at home and abroad.

Yea, I do, too. Mainly because I was in my 20's and early 30's. Young, dumb, and full of cum.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Someone wanted the Kennedy's who held power dead. Someone powerful. To me it's like Jeffrey Epstein, someone wanted him dead and you ain't never gonna know who. Some people have strange ideas that there aren't people powerful enough to pull this stuff off, but there are. And you don't mess with them or they will end you, not lose a wink of sleep about it, and you won't catch them. They plan meticulously, have people who are absolutely loyal, and can make things happen as needed. The Bush's are one family capable of this, at least George H.W. Bush. Cheney is another. I'm not sure who wanted to take out the Kennedy's, but they had a lot of enemies. Someone powerful took John and Robert out of the game and sent a message to the Kennedy's to stay out of their way. Someone in the Kennedy's probably knows who or did know who, but that person probably passed away and kept things quiet to preserve the family.

I don't know how you can watch events in the modern day like Jeffrey Epstein dying or see Jamal Khashoggi murdered by a hit team at the request of a Saudi Prince (he was sloppy) with nothing happening to anyone and not realize that there are powerful people in the world who can have you murdered, chopped up, and nothing will happen to them because they are too powerful to touch. If you think it doesn't happen in America, you just have your head in the sand.

Jacky Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald may have pulled the trigger, but someone wanted that trigger pulled. And it got done. And you'll never know who ordered it just as you'll never know who jacked Epstein and no one powerful will likely be done due to Epstein's case save perhaps a few old people as sacrificial lambs because their lives are over.

As far as proof, why do you think you're ever going to get proof when powerful people are involved who are extremely careful about insulating themselves? They didn't get caught for a reason and they won't get caught ever.

That's why I don't think Trump will do any time or have anything done to him. He has protection. And there are people in America far more powerful than Trump that can snuff your life and they won't have anything done to them for doing so.

Completely agree

Aseahawkfan wrote:Someone wanted the Kennedy's who held power dead. Someone powerful. To me it's like Jeffrey Epstein, someone wanted him dead and you ain't never gonna know who. Some people have strange ideas that there aren't people powerful enough to pull this stuff off, but there are. And you don't mess with them or they will end you, not lose a wink of sleep about it, and you won't catch them. They plan meticulously, have people who are absolutely loyal, and can make things happen as needed. The Bush's are one family capable of this, at least George H.W. Bush. Cheney is another. I'm not sure who wanted to take out the Kennedy's, but they had a lot of enemies. Someone powerful took John and Robert out of the game and sent a message to the Kennedy's to stay out of their way. Someone in the Kennedy's probably knows who or did know who, but that person probably passed away and kept things quiet to preserve the family.

I don't know how you can watch events in the modern day like Jeffrey Epstein dying or see Jamal Khashoggi murdered by a hit team at the request of a Saudi Prince (he was sloppy) with nothing happening to anyone and not realize that there are powerful people in the world who can have you murdered, chopped up, and nothing will happen to them because they are too powerful to touch. If you think it doesn't happen in America, you just have your head in the sand.

Jacky Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald may have pulled the trigger, but someone wanted that trigger pulled. And it got done. And you'll never know who ordered it just as you'll never know who jacked Epstein and no one powerful will likely be done due to Epstein's case save perhaps a few old people as sacrificial lambs because their lives are over.

As far as proof, why do you think you're ever going to get proof when powerful people are involved who are extremely careful about insulating themselves? They didn't get caught for a reason and they won't get caught ever.

That's why I don't think Trump will do any time or have anything done to him. He has protection. And there are people in America far more powerful than Trump that can snuff your life and they won't have anything done to them for doing so.

Hawktawk wrote:Completely agree

Heck, I agree, too. There were a lot of very powerful people and organizations that wanted that trigger pulled. But motive is the easiest element in this case to determine and is only one piece of the puzzle. There's also means and opportunity.

Did you guys catch the news that a plane that Trump was on had to make an emergency landing due to an engine failure?

Trump's plane was forced to make an emergency landing in New Orleans on Saturday after one of its engines failed

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... uxbndlbing

With conspiracy theories being so common nowadays that parents tell them as bedtime stories, can you imagine how many and the types of conspiracy theories that would have exploded had that plane gone down in the Gulf of Mexico?