Which JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theory Do You Prefer?

page: 18
20
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
You could just leave the CIA bit out as it was the least rational.
Nuclear war with Russia is not to be desired though. Even the joint Chiefs could see the logic there.
Kennedy just seemed like a loose cannon to me, the proof is someone needed him gone due to the threat he did represent... One thing seems certain, the Warren Commission was afraid to draw the logical conclusion.
a reply to: wtbengineer




posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: starswift

I don't think I mentioned the CIA but they were involved in a big way. I agree with you about nuclear war being undesirable, but it's documented that the joints chiefs were foaming at the mouths for war with Russia, Cuba and Vietnam at that time. Read JFK's war with the National Security Establishment by Douglas Horne. They all thought war was inevitable and any full scale war was going nuclear, they had no illusions about that. They actually wanted nuclear war. They advocated for dropping nukes on Cuba during the missile crisis and it was only because of Kennedy's strong resolve that we didn't. Any president that we've had since would have done it. He was the only 'peace' president we've had in present times and maybe ever.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I love the "bankers took him out due to trying to reintroduce the Greenback" idea.

It's the same conspiracy theory that works for Abe Lincoln assassination too, and almost 100 years to the day later.

I firmly believe Abraham Lincoln was assassinated for trying to change the currency, and JFK was taken out for the same reason, by the same people.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   
I like Jimmy Carter ; )
a reply to: wtbengineer



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: starswift

You know what? I liked Carter too! I think he had a lot of good intentions but once in office he found out how little he could really change unless he wanted to end up like JFK.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: babybunnies

I've often thought about that. I think it is possible that the same forces are behind both.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I want to take a sec to thank the mods for allowing this thread to continue. The OP actually provided a starting point for users with a variety of opinions to rub elbows and share information about a topic that should NEVER be allowed to drop out of the American consciousness.

I will be posting again later today, but for now I implore anyone looking in for the first time to make the effort to go through the thread and read what's already been posted. When possible I have made it a priority to provide the source(s) of anything I've posted.

Starting on page 1764 of Douglass Horne's "Inside the ARRB" Volume V, Horne has a chapter titled The Obligation to Act. He quotes extensively from "The Final Investigation" by Gaeton Fonzi, investigator for the HSCA.

An except from Fonzi's prologue:
"At some point in each of our lives, we encounter the reality of death and are struck by its absolute finality. For some it comes traumatically, on the field of battle, in an automobile accident or just being at the bedside of a dying loved one, watching in anguish that terrible, hollow last breath of life drift slowly from a body. For others it could arrive slowly with a friend's unexpected demise. I'm speaking now of the feeling that comes immediately after that shock, when our very soul instantly follows into a dark, bottomless hole. The experience involves a sudden realization that someone who was a part of our moving, talking, touching, living world will simply not be anymore. He or she will not be here tomorrow. Or all the days after tomorrow. It is a realization that leaves in its wake a dreadful emptiness, a sense of loss so deep and sad there remains forever an abyss in our own lives."

Horne adds, "Such are my emotions each time I read the text of President Kennedy's June 10, 1963 'Peace Speech' at American University, and his subsequent nationwide address on July 26, 1963, announcing agreement on a Limited Test Ban Treaty and encouraging its ratification. Reading or listening to these words brings home to me the horror and tragedy of his death far more than examining autopsy photographs or reading the admittedly remarkable testimony of some autopsy witnesses."

From page 1766:
Fonzi ends his book by quoting a letter to activist Vincent Salandria from psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz, who later authored the 1996 book, "History Will Not Absolve Us".

Scholz wrote:
"It is so important to understand that one of the primary means of immobilizing the American people politically today is to hold them in a state of confusion in which anything can be believed but nothing can be known, nothing of significance, that is.

And the American people are more than willing to be held in this state because to KNOW the truth---as opposed to only BELIEVE the truth---is to face an awful terror and to be no longer able to evade responsibility. It is precisely in moving from belief to knowledge that the citizen moves from irresponsibility to responsibility, from helplessness and hopelessness to action, with the ultimate aim of being empowered and confident in one's rational powers."

Gaeto Fonzi concludes his book with these thoughts:
"Dr. Schotz is absolutely right. Today most Americans BELIEVE there was a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy, but they don't KNOW it. They don't want to KNOW it---and our Government doesn't want to KNOW it and our elected representatives don't want to KNOW it because KNOWING it would mean having to do something about it, and to face that awesome thought, if we constantly reminded ourselves that on November 22nd, 1963 a man's life ended in Dallas. A man's life ended..."
edit on 7 16 2015 by CornShucker because: spelling and punctuation



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: CornShucker


Yeah, Nixon's past is pretty murky...


As a Nixon fan I can tell you that his past is not murky at all - it is straight up gangsterism from 1946 onward - and it is all well documented.
-- snip --


In my attempt to be "diplomatic" I, apparently, only succeeded in being obtuse.


What I meant was that, in the process of becoming a self-made man, Nixon rubbed elbows with a multitude on unsavory characters.

Like you, I try to give Nixon credit when possible. He made no secret of the fact that domestic policy held little appeal to him, but he was capable keen insight when it came to foreign policy.

The guy had a terrible childhood so I guess it's no surprise that he had problems.

Do you know the specifics of when he hit the little boy in the head (as a child) with the toy hatchet over a jar of tadpoles. Even though it was a toy, it left a lifelong scar.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: starswift
You could just leave the CIA bit out as it was the least rational.


I'll address the CIA in a moment, but first I'd like to ask about something you posted earlier... You listed several points, one of which was that Oswald had been to Cuba. I all of my reading I've never once seen anyone claim that Oswald had been to Cuba. If you can point me to where you found that info it would be much appreciated.

Before I get into the new stuff, please take the time to check what I've already posted Here and Here.

Now, as far as the CIA...

From: "JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W. Douglass
On January 17, 1961 that President Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered his Farewell Address and warned the American populace of the dangers of an increasingly powerful "military-industrial complex."

From: "Brothers" by David Talbot pg. 65
President Kennedy's tensions with the Joint Chiefs during his first year in office were aggravated by the strenuous efforts of his defense secretary, Robert McNamara, to gain control of the "military-industrial complex"---the increasingly powerful "conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry" that Eisenhower warned about as he bade farewell to the nation in what would become his most famous speech. The old general could have added bellicose member of Congress to this militaristic nexus--and in fact his original draft called it a "military-industrial-congressional complex"---as well as the octopus of far-right organizations, retired military officers' associations, and defense industry trade groups that had sprung up during the Cold War to lobby for higher arms spending and belligerent policies. During his eight years in office, Eisenhower battled heroically to restrain the defense budget against relentless pressure from this complex. But he did little to change the Cold War policies that fueled this militaristic fervor.

From: "The Man Who Killed Kennedy:The Case Against LBJ" by Roger Stone w/ Mike Colapietro pg. 113 Original source: "Mary's Mosaic by Peter Janney pg. 232
Shortly before leaving office, Eisenhower had choice words for the Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles. "The structure of our intelligence organization is faulty," he said to Dulles. "I have suffered an eight-year defeat on this. Nothing has changed since Pearl Harbor. I leave a 'legacy of ashes' to my successor."

The reason I bring this up is because of something else that also happened on January 17, 1961. To fully appreciate my point I need you know the context of the act...

From: "JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W. Douglass pg. 8 Original source: "A Thousand Days by Schlesinger pg. 553
John Kennedy was a Senator in 1959. When he became chair of the African Subcommittee, he spoke passionately of the struggles taking place on the African continent, "Call it nationalism, call it anti-colonialism, call it what you will, Africa is going through a revolution ... The word is out---and spreading like wildfire in nearly a thousand languages and dialects---that it is no longer necessary to remain forever poor or in bondage." He therefore advocated "sympathy with the independence movement, programs of economic and educational assistance and, as the goal of American policy, 'a strong Africa.' "

The CIA was aware of Kennedy's support of Patrice Lumumba, a popular leader in the secessionist movement in the Katanga province of the Congo. The Belgian government with CIA assistance assassinated Lumumba on January 17, 1961. No effort was made to inform the new Commander in Chief as he took the oath of office and began his term...

From: "Kennedy: A Time Remembered" by Jacques Lowe
On February 13 1961, United Nations Ambassador Adlai Stevenson came on the phone. I was alone with the President; his hand went to his head in utter despair, "On, no," I heard him groan. The Ambassador was informing the
President of the assassination of Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, an African leader considered a trouble-maker and a leftist by many Americans. But Kennedy's attitude towards black Africa was that many who were considered leftists were in fact nationalists and patriots, anti-West because of years of colonialization, and lured to the siren call of Communism against their will. He felt that Africa presented an opportunity for the West, and, speaking as an American, unhindered by a colonial heritage, he had made friends in Africa and would succeed in gaining the trust of a great many African leaders. The call therefore left him heartbroken, for he knew that the murder would be a prelude to chaos in the mineral-rich and important African country, it was a poignant moment.

As I've said before, if the term "conspiracy theorist" (even though even THAT is a CIA created term) is fair to throw around then "coincidence believer" shouldn't be considered offensive, either.

October 9, 1963, just a week before the "lone nut", Oswald, started his new job at the TSBD, FBI Agent Marvin Gheesling cancelled the FBI issued FLASH watch that had been issued four years earlier after Oswald's remarks at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow that he intended to give the Soviet Union military secrets.

This "coincidence" not only meant that his employment in a building that would overlook the motorcade would go unnoticed, but so would the "Oswald" trip to Mexico. I put that in quotes because the cutout using Oswald's name was NOT Oswald. Another coincidence that I think you'll appreciate... We now know that "Oswald's" Mexican tourist card was No. 824085. The FBI would initially claim there was no record of who was in line with "Oswald". In 1975 tourist card No. 824084 was accidentally declassified. The man in line in front of the Oswald stand-in was CIA Agent William Gaudet!


Nuclear war with Russia is not to be desired though. Even the joint Chiefs could see the logic there.
-- snip --
a reply to: wtbengineer


Please read my post regarding the missile crisis Here.

I'm running out of room, so I'll address the Joint Chiefs briefly and then call it a night...



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: starswift

Source "Brothers" by David Talbot pgs. 66 - 69

General Curtis LeMay---the cigar-chomping, notoriously gung-ho Air Force chief upon whom actor Sterling Hayden would model the demented General Jack D. Ripper in "Dr. Strangelove"---made no secret of his loathing for the administration. "Everyone that came in with the Kennedy administration ... were the most egotistical people that I ever saw in my life," snarled LeMay. "They had no faith in the military;they had no respect for the military at all. They felt that the Harvard Business School method of solving problems would solve any problem in the world....As a matter of fact, I had a man tell me, 'No, General, this is not the kind of weapon system that you want to use, this is what you need.' This man was in knee pants when I was commanding the division in combat. He had no experience in the use of weapons at all."

Years after he left the Air Force, in an oral history for the Lyndon Johnson Library, LeMay was still venting in remarkably savage terms, calling the Kennedy crowd "ruthless," "vindictive," morally debased vermin whom LBJ should have "stepped on" when he took over the White House, "like the cockroaches they were."

Despite the Kennedy team's "ruthless" reputation, LeMay showed no reluctance to publicly challenge the administration's defense policies during its first year in office. The Air Force chief stunned the capital in July when Washington Post columnist Marquis Childs reported that he casually predicted that nuclear war would break out in the final weeks of the year. LeMay made the hair-raising announcement to a senator's wife at a Georgetown dinner party, telling the shocked woman that war was "inevitable" and that it would likely incinerate such major U.S. cities as Washington, New York, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Detroit as well as level most Soviet cities. Asked by the senator's wife if there was anywhere she could flee to safety with her children and grandchildren, LeMay advised her she might try deserted sage brush country in the far West. After the ensuing uproar in Washington, LeMay felt compelled to deny the story. But Kennedy officials knew it reflected the Air Force general's true beliefs.

In later years McNamara was asked his thoughts on the man who'd served as Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force. In the low-key, matter-of-fact style that he was known for McNamara never-the-less describes someone with a mindset that, as child of the 1950s, chills me to the core. Children of my age were taught to fear the "Commies", not the men charged with our protection. McNamara made it plain that we had a top military leader who, quite frankly, was determined that the U.S. launch a first-strike, preemptive nuclear war in order to save the world having to deal with the "Soviet" problem.

"LeMay clearly had a different view of the Soviet problem than most of the rest of us did," McNamara said. "LeMay's view was very simple. He thought the West, and the U.S. in particular, was going to have to fight a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, and he was absolutely certain of that. Therefore, he believed that we should fight it sooner rather than later, when casualties in the United States would be lower."

JFK and McNamara eventually came to the mutual agreement that a "winnable, managed" nuclear war was an impossibility.

But LeMay was of a different opinion. "It depends on how you define 'win,' " said McNamara. "LeMay defined it as ending up with more nuclear warheads than your opponent had. I would define 'win' as no more than acceptable casualties."

Kennedy loathed LeMay. He'd stormed out of one briefing with the exclamation, "I don't want that man near me again!"

In spite of personal feelings, JFK felt politically compelled to bump LeMay up to the Joint Chiefs as commander of the Air Force in 1961. The tug-of-war that (technically) began in the months after his election had to be one of the factors in that decision. LeMay's new position had much more to do with avoiding having yet another retired general out there on the political circuit complaining about the "no-win" policies of the current administration than it did any credentials he might have brought to the job.

As a candidate for the office, the briefings Kennedy had gotten were the same ersatz information that the general public had been fed. In the summer of 1961 he was given the truth of where we stood vs. the Soviets and was profoundly pressured to act while the "window" of an acceptable victory was still open. When running for president Kennedy had truthfully warned of the "missile gap". The truth was that the U.S. was ahead and growing its lead. In 1961, the National Intelligence Estimate had the Soviets only having four ICBMs (all on low alert at a test site) and the U.S. having 185 ICBMs and more than 3,400 active & deliverable nuclear bombs. While Kennedy constantly felt the weight of all the children at risk of death because of an ill-considered political action, LeMay saw nothing but numbers on a page, nothing more than collateral damage.

There is much, much more. I'll post more when I can. For now, I'm exhausted. This particular topic always leaves me physically, emotionally and spiritually drained...

Of all the things I've learned in the last couple of years I am more angered about knowing LeMay ignored orders and landed at an airport closer to Bethesda to make certain he didn't miss out on one moment of "the Show"...




edit on 7 16 2015 by CornShucker because: spelling and punctuation



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: starswift
I like Jimmy Carter ; )
a reply to: wtbengineer



I second that! Let them say what they want, I've heard just about every policy gripe imaginable but while Carter was in the White House I never for one minute wondered whether or not we had a Good man in office.

If I live to be 100, I'll never forget the press conference where the dinner conversation with Amy was mentioned. (Just realized I NEED to check YT... Grin) As a parent, the point he was trying to make was obvious to me but I guess the press corp had already lost respect and didn't care enough to think before they laughed!

The only comparison that comes to mind is "I can see Alaska from my back yard." Imo, the only difference is that Palin never actually said that but the satire was done in the "REAL" world. In Carter's case the satire was implied during a flash of something close to GroupThink.

Amy was in her early 'teens if I remember correctly. President Carter asked her, as they were eating dinner, what her friends at school worried about when they thought about the future. The predominant concern was nuclear war.

Immediately, upon telling the story, a very jaded and disrespectful snicker filled the room. There was no way you could have missed it unless you had your TV turned all the way down...

What I'd heard CERTAINLY wasn't a president admitting publicly that he'd sought advice on matters strategic or policy related. I WANT a man in the White House has an actual family life and not the tunnel-vision, cookie cutter politicians that somehow keep getting elected.

Jimmy Carter is a compassionate man, but if looks could kill...



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I guess it was a memory error.
He clearly had business in Havana shortly before he got the job in the book repository and was turned back in Mexico city.
Makes you wonder if he received a brief there and why was he being tailed by the C.I.A.
A good operation would disavow a Havana visit to provide deniability. Or use Mexico City as a proxy for whatever protocol was involved.
a reply to: CornShucker



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: starswift
I guess it was a memory error.
He clearly had business in Havana shortly before he got the job in the book repository and was turned back in Mexico city.
Makes you wonder if he received a brief there and why was he being tailed by the C.I.A.
A good operation would disavow a Havana visit to provide deniability. Or use Mexico City as a proxy for whatever protocol was involved.
a reply to: CornShucker


I have to respectfully disagree... I believe you have the situation flipped backwards.

Although he had talked of going to Cuba while still stationed at the Atsuga base, Oswald has absolutely no evidence placing him in Mexico during the period you are thinking of. I'll dig up the info to back that up later and post it, if I have to.

"Oswald" was NOT being "tailed" into Mexico by the CIA, "he" was with a CIA handler!

After the assassination, the CIA tried to pull a "Louis Lerner" and tell Washington that they had no way of verifying who was on the recorded phone calls or any surveillance pictures because they'd been erased. What the CIA didn't know was that tapes had been hand delivered at the Mexican border the night of the assassination and the FBI was listening to them almost at the same time as the CIA was feeding them a line of crap.

The "Oswald in Mexico" thing is part of the myth built up around the assassination. Not one person that supposedly came into contact with "Oswald" identified him as the man they were shown a photo of (the real LHO).



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I got it from Wikipedia...



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: starswift
I got it from Wikipedia...


Thanks for the reply.

Hoover was notified by the CIA shortly before the Mexican trip that they were planning a possible trip to discredit the Fair Play For Cuba movement. The strange behavior of the Oswald "cutout" was along the lines of the obnoxious behavior the look-alike(s?) exhibited around Dallas. A good example is the guy that shot other people's targets at the shooting range. Another that comes to mind is the night that "Oswald" showed up at Jack Ruby's nightclub and walked across the dance floor right up to the stage and loudly interrupted the comedian's act by saying, "I think you're a communist!!" Ruby physically threw him out the door saying, "I told you NEVER to come in here!!" Not only is that not in Oswald's character, but there were several people that wanted (& didn't get to) to tell the Warren Commission of the times they'd seen Oswald at the club as Ruby's guest.

Do a search on "Guy Bannister" and "Lee Harvey Oswald" and I think you'll find it pretty interesting. Oswald took on jobs for both the FBI and the CIA. In the vernacular of the intelligence agencies, what they did to Oswald's reputation in Mexico is called "sheep dipping." The Russian that "Oswald" tried to contact in Mexico and name-dropped in front of other people was the Soviet Union's number one assassin in the Western Hemisphere... It was all meant to make Oswald look like a communist nut misfit.

Two things that I'd bet the majority of Americans think they "Know" are:
#1. Oswald defected to the Soviet Union.

#2. Oswald couldn't drive a car.

Both of the guys at our embassy found Oswald "odd" when he stopped in and said he wanted to defect and intended to give away military secrets he'd learned at Atsuga. The guy that personally took care of Oswald said that he seemed like someone who had been over-coached on what to say and how to act ahead of time. Closing time came and Oswald never signed the paperwork & refused to come back and sign them. He never officially renounced his citizenship the entire time he was living in Russia. (There was a highly classified program that only three men in the CIA knew of that began at nearly the same time Oswald completed his time in the marines. It involved planting defectors in the Soviet Union.)

The second one is a real hoot... As someone who had completed his enlistment in the marines, he was expected to be part of the reserves. They went by the last known location of residence 3124 West 5th Street, Fort Worth, Texas. Since he was in Russia and they didn't know that, he was given an undesirable discharge as a no-show. (When he returned to the U.S. he repeatedly wrote complaining about his military status.)

It wasn't that Oswald couldn't drive a car, he didn't drive a car because his discharge meant he couldn't get a driver's license. That strikes me as extraordinarily conscientious behavior for someone who supposedly betrayed his country and single-handedly killed our president...
edit on 7 19 2015 by CornShucker because: spelling and punctuation



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Most Americans don't understand the tention from the Cold War surrounding Cuba at that time. Elements within the USG wanted to nuke Russia. Wanted to take out their capabilities. Kennedy stood in the way.

I think a few military generals, the CIA and perhaps a politician or two saw Kennedy as a threat to the USA's existence. To the ongoing existence of capitalism. Because he wanted more normalized relations with Russia to avoid a nuclear war. This "weakness" had to go.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: CornShucker

What I meant was that, in the process of becoming a self-made man, Nixon rubbed elbows with a multitude on unsavory characters.

Do you know the specifics of when he hit the little boy in the head (as a child) with the toy hatchet over a jar of tadpoles. Even though it was a toy, it left a lifelong scar.


Nixon wasn't a self made man, he was being groomed to be the President all the way. By Howard Hughes. Richard Nixon has a revenge motive in the JFK assassination that most of the conspiracy researches have barely considered.... Y'all need to listen to some Mae Brussell broadcasts... www.abovetopsecret.com...





new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join