The Lincoln Kennedy Conspiracy - A Closer Analytical Look (Fact & Fiction)

"The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was established in 1976 to investigate the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. and the shooting of Alabama Governor George Wallace. The Committee investigated until 1978 and issued its final report, and concluded that Kennedy was very likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy".
en.wikipedia.org...

Though that conclusion does not exonerate Oswald having a role in the assassination, their are many investigators who do come to the conclusion that Oswald was indeed a "patsy".
Also, since the ARRB(Assassinations Records Review Board) released many many records in the 1990s, there has been a deluge of new material for review by these investigators which have very recently given the investigators reason to believe that Oswald was innocent.

Great input this time!!! I like to see 'links with referencing' for backing up theories! Thanks for this thought provoking contribution, although I can no longer edit my original thread to suspect I hope people take the time to read this far for my acknowledgement of this.

reply to post by catgtr33


Sorry, I'm not really a "links please" person, unless it's a specific opinion piece that I want people to see. If I am interested in a subject, I look it up myself on the Internet. I know that that is probably not the commonly accepted practice, but when I was little I daydreamed about having a library in my town which was within walking distance. So now it just seems too easy to copy/paste a claim, then look it up myself in about five clicks of the finger. Nothing against you wanting links, catgtr33, it's just my awkward explanation of why I may not initially provide them

But, since you do seem interested in the JFK case, let me provide for you a link to the audio of Jim D'Eugenio, who is a very impressive researcher. He appears on a Canadian radio broadcast called "Black Ops Radio", which broadcasts every Thursday, with D'Eugenio appearing regularly. You can go through the archives to review past programs, and since this year is the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination, then I'm sure this is a really good year to listen in on that program. His website is superb as well, so here are the links to the radio show and the website:

www.blackopradio.com...

www.ctka.net...
Enjoy!

There is something REALLY wrong with you, OP...

After CONFIRMING so many FACTS, you end with a conclusion of "attempt to trick the reader into initially believing there is more than just mere coincidence at play here"??

REALLY????

Maybe you forgot the fact that BOTH PRESIDENTS WERE ASSASSINATED!

Only four US presidents were assassinated: Lincoln, Kennedy, Garfield and McKinley.



Now, check all the "coincidences" here:


- Kennedy elected to Congress 100 years after Lincoln was elected to Congress

- Kennedy elected President of the United States EXACTLY 100 years after Lincoln was elected President

- Both Presidents shot in the head by a Southerner man with three names totaling 15 letters, on a Friday.

- Both were succeeded by Southerners called Johnson, and Lyndon Johnson was born 100 years after Andrew Johnson.




How can you come to a conclusion of "coincidence"?

This is an IRRATIONAL conclusion.

The rational conclusion is: it's NOT coincidence. It's something else, something other than coincidence, no matter what it is (conspiracy, reincarnation, supernatural phenomenon, whatever...)

reply to post by GLontra

- Kennedy elected to Congress 100 years after Lincoln was elected to Congress

- Kennedy elected President of the United States EXACTLY 100 years after Lincoln was elected President

You empathize the word exactly. Well, why does that need empathizing? It has to be the same day and It's only ever going to happen 4 years apart as well, that's the minimum. This is the Presidential inauguration remember. It's the same day every time.

The 100 year gap is the only coincidence also. I mean what about the fact that Lincoln was born in 1809, Kennedy in 1917 for example? Or that Lincoln was killed in 1865, Kennedy in 1863. Maybe even the fact that Lincoln was 56 when he died, Kennedy was 46, and there's much more too. Why ignore all of this? I already know why - It's because it fit's a wild agenda.

- Both Presidents shot in the head by a Southerner man with three names totaling 15 letters, on a Friday.

Ok. So, what's your point? Being shot on a Friday is hardly odd, It's a 1 in 7 chance. A Friday, Saturday or a Sunday is their busiest public time too. So, not really out of this world odds here.

And Booth was a southern Sympathizer, but he was actually born in Maryland which remained as part of the union throughout the civil war and he also spent the vast majority of his life in the North too. He was not a southerner at all. That's plain wrong.

And finally in regards to both of them having 15 letters in there name.. Really, we're supposed to believe that's a sign of a conspiracy? Both first names have a different number, as do the last names. Both just happen to add up to 15 over all. So, I ask, why on earth is that weird or proof of anything?

- Both were succeeded by Southerners called Johnson, and Lyndon Johnson was born 100 years after Andrew Johnson.

Yes, because Johnson is an awfully unusual name it's certainly a coincidence. No, wrong, it's one of the most common names imaginable.

Also, here's the stats of both men:

A. Johnson: December 29, 1808 – July 31, 1875

L. Johnson: August 27, 1908 – January 22, 1973

Where's the weird conspiracy here? If they were born exactly, a word you placed so much empathize on before ( ), 100 years apart then fair enough, that is a little bit odd if I was stretching for it, but their birthdays were nowhere near close. To claim the fact they were born 100 years apart as proof of some sort of conspiracy is a stretch to say the least. How you can come to the conclusion of conspiracy is beyond me.

Originally posted by GLontra
There is something REALLY wrong with you, OP...

After CONFIRMING so many FACTS, you end with a conclusion of "attempt to trick the reader into initially believing there is more than just mere coincidence at play here"??

REALLY????

Maybe you forgot the fact that BOTH PRESIDENTS WERE ASSASSINATED!

Only four US presidents were assassinated: Lincoln, Kennedy, Garfield and McKinley.



Now, check all the "coincidences" here:


- Kennedy elected to Congress 100 years after Lincoln was elected to Congress

- Kennedy elected President of the United States EXACTLY 100 years after Lincoln was elected President

- Both Presidents shot in the head by a Southerner man with three names totaling 15 letters, on a Friday.

- Both were succeeded by Southerners called Johnson, and Lyndon Johnson was born 100 years after Andrew Johnson.




How can you come to a conclusion of "coincidence"?

This is an IRRATIONAL conclusion.

The rational conclusion is: it's NOT coincidence. It's something else, something other than coincidence, no matter what it is (conspiracy, reincarnation, supernatural phenomenon, whatever...)

I stated that after reading further into both Lincoln & Kennedy, it was very hard to ignore the vast amount of differences between them which happens to outweigh by far the similarities, concluding that in my opinion the original text with the odd fictional statements concludes that the original text was written in such away as to trick the reader into believing fiction as well as fact to assume their was more at play here than mere coincidence. It is not irrational to come to that conclusion based on the evidence at hand, to believe it was set out or degreed is pure fantasy and completely irrational. I am not denying that both presidents assassinations were possibly conspired, but that is all the conspiracy here.

Also please back up your rational to why exactly you verbally abuse me by saying There is REALLY something wrong with you using capped bold enhancement to state your lovely choice in language. I am actually sound of mind thank you and schooled to an academic level, please choose your words wisely, blatantly slating me and my soundness of mind is unacceptable and rude, especially when you have nothing to give to the argument except your own delusions.

Great post, I remember hearing about these coincidences as a kid. I can see only one small problem that can be easily be fixed...

Both were particularly concerned with civil rights. (Fact) Although Lincoln was a democrat and Kennedy was a republican which has been conveniently left out. However, this was a hot topic for any politician of the times. Wikipedia, Abraham Lincoln en.wikipedia.org... Wikipedia, John F. Kennedy en.wikipedia.org...

Lincoln was a moderate republican and Kennedy was a democrat.

Peace!

reply to post by hashslinger


Thank you for that info hashslinger!

reply to post by trysts

Great info trysts, many thanks for taking the time and effort to provide the additional links for me. That was very kind of you!

reply to post by catgtr33


Haha! My pleasure