JFK Assassination

[Merlin1958]

Is it maybe because I am a King collector and SK's new book is "11/22/63" or, has anyone else noticed the recent proliferation of "JFK" shows, doc's and press on and off TV? Is S&S that powerful? Is it just coincidence? Or did I grossly miss something? It's been 48 years (recently to the day), so why the "uptick" in coverage? Is it the coming 50 year Anniversary?


Just throwing it out there. Thoughts are welcome

[jhanic]

I've noticed that too. I think that because the anniversary of the assassination was so close, that may have had something to do with it.

John

[Merlin1958]

Just seemed a little "off" to me since it's 2 years early, but thanks nice to know I'm not the only one!! LOL

[jemaher]

same mindset that has xmas stuff in the stores the day after halloween

[willie3]

Is it maybe because I am a King collector and SK's new book is "11/22/63" or, has anyone else noticed the recent proliferation of "JFK" shows, doc's and press on and off TV? Is S&S that powerful? Is it just coincidence? Or did I grossly miss something? It's been 48 years (recently to the day), so why the "uptick" in coverage? Is it the coming 50 year Anniversary?


Just throwing it out there. Thoughts are welcome

The History and Documentary channels always rerun the JFK shows this time of year.
Even though some of them are... questionable, I appreciate the networks re-awakening interest every year, and we watch them again every year.
One day the sealed portions of the government's files on the assassination will be made public. Re-playing the documentaries every year gives me hope someone will be around that gives a damn what's in them.

Karl

[Brice]

Is it maybe because I am a King collector and SK's new book is "11/22/63" or, has anyone else noticed the recent proliferation of "JFK" shows, doc's and press on and off TV? Is S&S that powerful? Is it just coincidence? Or did I grossly miss something? It's been 48 years (recently to the day), so why the "uptick" in coverage? Is it the coming 50 year Anniversary?


Just throwing it out there. Thoughts are welcome

The History and Documentary channels always rerun the JFK shows this time of year.
Even though some of them are... questionable, I appreciate the networks re-awakening interest every year, and we watch them again every year.
One day the sealed portions of the government's files on the assassination will be made public. Re-playing the documentaries every year gives me hope someone will be around that gives a damn what's in them.

Karl

Unfortunately when they do get released they're just gonna release every document that mentions jfk unsorted. :scared:

[mystima]

The top secret stuff will all be blacked out like most things are with documents of that nature...look at some of the documents that were released from the freedom of Info act and a lot of it is blacked out so no one will see what it contains...

[Brice]

Which kind of defeats the purpose of releasing them at all, imo. People are just gonna' believe what they want anyway at this point. If there were a conspiracy of sorts the government could straight up say yes, we killed that fucker and it'd still be debated forever.

[Mr. Rabbit Trick]

Mod. How about correcting the spelling of the thread title?

[Randall Flagg]

I am not sure this thread even belongs here. Look for it to be moved soon.

[different_seasons]

Fynny you should mention it, I watched the Ruby video on youtube and some other videos this morning. I'm at page 400 in the book.

[Merlin1958]

Just passed 600!!!!

[Leah]

I'll always believe that JFK was set up! I love a good conspiracy!

[DoctorDodge]

I still prefer to believe he was assassinated by himself from an alternate timeline in which his leadership went wrong. That's the only theory that makes any sense!

[ICry4Oy]

Every November you'll see a flood of JFK documentaries and other assorted conspiracy nut shows. Same as every January you see a crapload of Elvis shows (his b'day Jan 8th).

[Brice]

I still prefer to believe he was assassinated by himself from an alternate timeline in which his leadership went wrong. That's the only theory that makes any sense!

*sigh* Okay, that's closer to the truth. Here's what actually happened...everybody in Dealey Plaza including Jackie, the kids, and JFK himself simultaneously pulled mannlicher carcanos (very difficult for jfk to aim at his own head, but then as they say he was a great man) thus creating the whole triangulation of crossfire conspiracies everyone speaks of. One lonely guy was innocently sitting reading a book and drinking a coke at the time...his name was Lee. The book he was reading was titled 11/22/63 by some unknown writer named Stephen King

[pathoftheturtle]

I still prefer to believe he was assassinated by himself from an alternate timeline in which his leadership went wrong. That's the only theory that makes any sense!http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-123B24conjo/TcY3Fmj_ltI/AAAAAAAAAVE/Zfv15i5pNYM/s1600/facepalm111.jpg

[Jon]

OK OK FINE

I did it!

There. Ya' happy now?

[DoctorDodge]

I still prefer to believe he was assassinated by himself from an alternate timeline in which his leadership went wrong. That's the only theory that makes any sense!http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-123B24conjo/TcY3Fmj_ltI/AAAAAAAAAVE/Zfv15i5pNYM/s1600/facepalm111.jpg

Ok, so series VII of Red Dwarf wasn't exactly the best, but it wasn't totally shite, especially the first ep.

"How was I supposed to know a chicken vindaloo was gonna cause all this?"
"If we could arrange, somehow, for a second gunman to fire from just behind that little hill over there covered in lawn..." "You mean the, er, the grassy knoll, sir?" :rofl:

[John_and_Yoko]

To believe that EVERYTHING is conspiratorial is to be out of touch with reality--there is no reason to believe in underground shapeshifting reptilian aliens controlling everything from ancient times to the present day, for example. But to believe there's no such thing as a conspiracy at all is to be similarly out of touch with reality--Watergate, for example, is an accepted conspiracy, and you can be charged for "conspiracy to murder". Therefore in asking whether there was a conspiracy or not, the first question to ask is whether there was a crime to cover up at all. If there wasn't, what reason is there for a conspiracy to cover up something that wasn't a crime, like aliens at Area 51 or the Moon landings being a hoax? Since murder is by definition a crime, though, that's easy enough.

The second question is whether or not a conspiracy is necessary to explain the crime. The 9/11 attacks, for example, were NOT necessarily the result of a conspiracy on the part of the United States government to stage a foreign attack so that we could go to war. We're talking about planes crashing into two large, stationary buildings. It could have just been foreign terrorists hijacking the planes--they could have accomplished the same just as easily.

With a presidential assassination, however, you have a small and mobile target (especially considering that JFK was in a moving vehicle without the protective bubble), and the Secret Service is supposed to be protecting him--that's their job. That being the case, then, an assassin would have to be exceedingly lucky to get in just one shot (especially a fatal shot) if the Secret Service is doing their job. Remember, Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley were shot by assassins who were SEEN doing what they did, or shortly thereafter, and taking credit for it (Oswald denied having done the deed). JFK was shot more times than that, and Governor John Connally was shot five times. The only way the JFK assassination could have succeeded is if the Secret Service were neutralized or compromised somehow--if circumstances were arranged such that they were deliberately NOT protecting the President as they should have.

Not only, then, would an assassin have to know that in advance to even bother trying, but how do you even compromise the Secret Service? You'd have to be rich, powerful, and have connections, otherwise the government would see you as a threat to national security and come down on you for that reason, the Secret Service would have no reason to listen to you. Was Lee Harvey Oswald such an individual? As far as I know, most people didn't even know who he was until AFTER the JFK assassination took place. I don't see how he could have done that. Not to mention no one saw him do it and he was never found guilty by a trial--he was killed himself two days later.

And that's not even getting into the evidence, the most obvious of which is the more than three bullet wounds, hence more than three shots fired, some of which appear to have come from the front, not the back. So the next question is, who had the means, motive, and opportunity? Who had the ability to neutralize the Secret Service--who had the money, power, and connections, who would have wanted JFK out of the White House and LBJ in it and why, and who would have had the opportunity to make the attempt?

[Brice]

My opinion is that there was some sort of conspiracy involved in both the killing and as coverup whether because of direct involvement or just to cover neglicence. I am not attracted to conspiracy theories usually. In fact I look for a simpler logical solution, but here there are too many things that don't fit.

[John_and_Yoko]

I agree--in fact, the official position, when you know the facts of the case, not only looks wrong, but so obviously wrong as to be insulting to the intelligence. You can believe Lee Harvey Oswald did it alone and unaided if you don't know anything of substance about the case--once you learn the facts, though, it gets harder and harder to buy. My guess is that the reason for such a cover story is because the assassination and the cover-up were done by two groups of people with conflicting agendas.

It's easier to accept that Robert Kennedy's death might have been Sirhan Sirhan's doing alone, but when I looked into the facts of that case I found that even THAT has too many problems with it--but at least there the cover story isn't insulting to the intelligence: Sirhan Sirhan was in the same room as RFK, and was shooting a gun in his general direction, and RFK did die of gunshot wounds after that time.

Lee Harvey Oswald was not seen shooting at JFK by any witnesses (and he was killed two days later and so was never convicted by a trial), and when he was seen immediately after the shooting it was on the SECOND floor of the Texas School Book Depository (and without a gun), not the sixth floor from which the shooting allegedly took place. Nitrate tests suggest he didn't fire a rifle that day. And some of JFK's wounds clearly came from the front, notably the fatal head shot, and so couldn't have come from Oswald at all.

That being the case, the only way I can think of for a cover story to be as ridiculous as the Lee Harvey Oswald idea is if one group killed JFK with one agenda in mind, while a separate group (probably larger and higher up in the government) covered it up with a separate agenda in mind. That's my thinking, anyway, based on what little I know.

And I used to be attracted to conspiracy theories until I realized what they often become, both to those who believe in them and those who don't. Now I'm more attracted to finding out the truth, conspiratorial or not. Like I said, I see no reason to believe in a conspiracy to cover up aliens at Area 51, nor the Moon landings being a hoax, nor even 9/11 being an inside job. But I see no reason to believe in a lone-assassin scenario (and every reason to believe otherwise) when it comes to the JFK assassination.

[pathoftheturtle]

... one group killed JFK with one agenda in mind, while a separate group (probably larger and higher up in the government) covered it up with a separate agenda in mind. That's my thinking, anyway, based on what little I know. ...I think that's true.

And, as for conspiracy theories in general, I think I feel you. True or false, that's the point. BUT, while I don't necessarily believe in a conspiracy to cover up aliens at Area 51, I don't see why it's so hard to believe that anyone would have had any reason to do that.

[John_and_Yoko]

Even if they did have a reason, though, would they have been so successful in covering it up? That's something else to consider--because if it's unlikely that a cover-up would have succeeded, that makes the probability of a conspiracy go down.

[ICry4Oy]

On one hand I think all the JFK conspiracy theories are just crazy.

On the other hand I also believe that religion is the biggest conspiracy theory of them all. The "god" that people worship was actually an alien that came to this planet eons ago and spliced their DNA with the apes that had evolved here. Religion was established as a means of keeping the masses under control.

So there!

[Brice]

Please say your joking. :lol:

I don't believe ANY of the conspiracy theories. I do however believe there was a sort of conspiracy theory. I think at this point the government could pop open all there files and say fuck yeah, we killed that bastard and almost nobody would believe them. In other words I think the truth of what actually happened is so mired in bullshit that there is no hope of finding it even if it's handed to us.

[pathoftheturtle]

There's a whole series on cable TV seriously about that alien/religion idea. But this is off-topic: we need another thread to be about conspiracies in general.

[Brice]

I actually favor a conspiracy thread...as long as everyone acts as adults. Let's put it in Blue Heaven.

[ICry4Oy]

Please say your joking. :lol:


I'm joking.


...but I'm not...