- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 54 years ago today, JFK was murdered. RIP Mr. President.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:05 am to The Cool No 9
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:05 am to The Cool No 9
Maybe so, but after JFK's death a lot of other people conveniently died as well.
1
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:06 am to therick711
quote:
to think there was a conspiracy to kill the president.
You can think that, but without any hard evidence to back it up, it's still all just speculation on the CTers' part.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:07 am to Akit1
quote:
a lot of other people conveniently died as well.
Also part of the conspiracy myth. A lot of those people you refer to died of natural causes.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:07 am to Parmen
Got us in deeper in Vietnam
This post was edited on 11/22/17 at 11:08 am
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:08 am to therick711
quote:no he did. the shots came from the building where he worked, from his rifle and witnesses putting him there
Most likely fired the bullets that would kill the president
then there's the issue of capability, and firing 3 shots in that period of time with that much pressure from that distance at a moving target...it's not easy. he was the shooter. matter of fact
quote:
Was part of a conspiracy to kill the president
that's speculation, but so is the lone wolf theory. I think people hate not knowing and have trouble accepting that we do not know...we also believe that cause and effect are of equal scale. a big event must have an equally big reason behind it which is simply not always and actually not often true.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:10 am to TigersFan64
quote:
Proof?
House Select Committee on Assassinations.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:11 am to DelU249
quote:Not . a . chance.
He was absolutely the lone shooter.
quote:Have you ever been there?
the Texas school book depository
If not, you should make the trip.
Not . a . chance.
This post was edited on 11/22/17 at 11:13 am
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:12 am to DelU249
quote:
no he did. the shots came from the building where he worked, from his rifle and witnesses putting him there
then there's the issue of capability, and firing 3 shots in that period of time with that much pressure from that distance at a moving target...it's not easy. he was the shooter. matter of fact
I say most likely because the shots came from there, but he did claim consistently to be a "patsy," which I find strange for a fame whore. So I leave a little doubt for that.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:12 am to HaveMercy
quote:
Ask yourself how different this country would be today had Kennedy not been assasinated. For starters, our involvement in Vietnam would have been radically less than what Johnson escalated it into. Kennedy would have never been able to pass social program and civil rights legislation on Johnson's scale. Kennedy alive was not nearly as popular as Kennedy dead. In fact his trip to Dallas was an early campaign trip to try and shore up southern support for 64. Johnson used Kennedy as a martyr in order to get his Great Society programs enacted. I'm not saying that the massive nanny state we live in wouldn't exist, but it would not be as massive as it is.
Regardless of who was responsible, Kennedy's assination drastically altered the course of American history.
Absolutely this /\
I will go to my grave believing that LBJ was behind all this - I have no doubt that Oswald was the lone shooter, but I also know (from my grandfather's mouth ever since I was old enough to hear him) that LBJ had had people killed in Texas. My grandfather claimed he knew this for certain. I was raised hating LBJ. I am glad my grandfather didn't live to see him become POTUS.
The only person who had a motive for killing JFK was LBJ.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:14 am to 14&Counting
quote:
Got is in deeper in Vietnam
Agreed. I use to not believe this so much, as the hardliners on communism held a lot of sway back then and played a big roll in pushing our involvement in Vietnam, but I am now convinced that Kennedy was a LOT more skeptical of deeper involvement. After the military lied to him about the chances of the Bay of Pigs operation succeeding (they assured him it would work when it actually had little chance, not least of which was due to the poor landing choice in the middle of a swamp), JFK was much more leery of accepting what the Joint Chiefs told him and relied more on trusted advisers, particularly his brother Robert. In the last year before JFK was assassinated, I believe he also actually reduced the number of military advisors in Vietnam, so I think he was planning on pulling out completely once he got re-elected in '64. It's such a tragedy all the way around that he was murdered. It did change the course of history in a bad way for a whole lot of people.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:26 am to TigersFan64
quote:
Also part of the conspiracy myth. A lot of those people you refer to died of natural causes.
100% agree, but I don't think you need a tin foil hat to find it suspicious that mary Sherman who worked at the same coffee house as Oswald being murdered in that manner (a crime of untraceable motive) 1/2 a year later while people investigating the assassination are in new Orleans.
doesn't mean it's related, but again...that's not something I would immediately dismiss and it's yet another strange connection to Oswald...now I don't believe any of the tall tales written about it, but the it's another strange thing...Oswald had such close proximity to too many things to just easily dismiss all of it as being unrelated...I'm not saying all or most...maybe just one, maybe none
I don't buy the conspiracies people come up with. they're often too far fetched and break under a cursory examination of the claims, but the reason this has had such longevity is there is a lot of factual material from which to string out wild claims.
This post was edited on 11/22/17 at 11:42 am
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:31 am to DelU249
quote:
that's not the only place from which he could kill kennedy...and he wouldn't necessarily need to kill him in dallas
But the fact is that Oswald DID kill Kennedy in Dallas.
quote:
but rather that's the conspiracy you're trying to debunk
The burden of proof is on the people who believe in a conspiracy. I don't need to "try" to debunk a conspiracy as the CT'ers haven't produced any credible evidence of one. Just a bunch of speculation on their part, mostly in the name of selling a bunch of books. The burden is really on the conspiracy theorists to debunk the Warren Commission's conclusion.
quote:
we do not know nor will we ever know why Oswald killed kennedy
It's really not a great mystery if one does a good bit of reading about Oswald. There's quite a bit of evidence from his attitudes and history to draw a conclusion. And the guy had serious mental issues.
quote:
funny enough, he in many ways fits the current model of a mass shooter.
I think you hit the nail on the head, here. I have come to the conclusion that had Oswald not murdered Kennedy, he would have eventually killed someone else or many other people in some sort of mass shooting. He was a very angry and disturbed individual for whom life was a struggle. He was also a wife-abuser, both mental and physical (a big reason why Marina finally left him).
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:33 am to Parmen
quote:
Get a job you lazy bums!
Uh, that was not the intent of Kennedy's message. It was about serving your country, in various ways.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:34 am to TigersFan64
I know all of that...I mean the lone wolf makes the most sense; however, it's not a matter of fact as people (and people in this thread) treat it...and it's actually not even close to being that.
there are scenarios I find very plausible in which Oswald killed kennedy unwittingly or wittingly on behalf of someone else, was manipulated into doing it, encouraged to do it or was a lone wolf who killed kennedy because he believed it would be a currency of sorts with someone else.
there are scenarios I find very plausible in which Oswald killed kennedy unwittingly or wittingly on behalf of someone else, was manipulated into doing it, encouraged to do it or was a lone wolf who killed kennedy because he believed it would be a currency of sorts with someone else.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:36 am to TigersFan64
quote:
After the military lied to him about the chances of the Bay of Pigs operation succeeding (they assured him it would work when it actually had little chance, not least of which was due to the poor landing choice in the middle of a swamp), JFK was much more leery of accepting what the Joint Chiefs told him and relied more on trusted advisers, particularly his brother Robert.
Not completely accurate - JFK refused to provide the air cover that was critical mission success. If he was not going to do that, he should have cancelled the invasion.
How it would have worked out had the real plan been actuated, we can never know. But for sure it would not have gone down as it did.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:36 am to TigersFan64
quote:no it's not, but it's also not even close to being as resolved as some think.
It's really not a great mystery
and again, I lean lone wolf, but there are other simple and plausible explanations that would not be "lone wolf" and his personality and personal problems would still be just as relevant.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:40 am to TigersFan64
quote:but I don't. I simply do not dismiss the plausibility and even probability of it. it's not exactly tin foil hat to think he may have clipped kennedy for a reason other than what you think (which also happens to be what I think just with a far lesser degree of certainty)
The burden of proof is on the people who believe in a conspiracy
The CIA/FBI/Johnson stuff I do dismiss very easily and think it is as far fetched as it sounds.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:48 am to ChineseBandit58
My only objections to JFK’s legacy was how his administration butchered the Bay of Pigs Invasion and his “silence is consent” approval of Ngo Dinh Diem’s overthrow in South Vietnam the month he was assassinated which basically translated to mass instability for that nation-state and essentially provided cause for LBJ to drastically escalate our involvement to full-scale ground war. Other than that, he was a baller POTUS but we have to remember the warts with the successes and that’s what I do. Would’ve been cool to assess had he served a fully-completed presidency.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:54 am to TigersFan64
quote:
You can think that, but without any hard evidence to back it up, it's still all just speculation on the CTers' part.
There is evidence of a conspiracy. The evidence is not conclusive but to act like there isn't any makes a mistake.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:55 am to DelU249
Kennedy's Vietnam Exit Strategy
This is an excellent (and long) article by James Kenneth Galbraith from 2003 about Kennedy's plans to remove US troops from Vietnam after the 1964 election.
Anyone interested in this topic should read this article.
quote:
A more thorough treatment appeared in 1992, with the publication of John M. Newman’s JFK and Vietnam.1 Until his retirement in 1994 Newman was a major in the U.S. Army, an intelligence officer last stationed at Fort Meade, headquarters of the National Security Agency. As an historian, his specialty is deciphering declassified records—a talent he later applied to the CIA’s long-hidden archives on Lee Harvey Oswald. Newman’s argument was not a case of “counterfactual historical reasoning,” as Larry Berman described it in an early response.2 It was not about what might have happened had Kennedy lived. Newman’s argument was stronger: Kennedy, he claims, had decided to begin a phased withdrawal from Vietnam, that he had ordered this withdrawal to begin. Here is the chronology, according to Newman: (1) On October 2, 1963, Kennedy received the report of a mission to Saigon by McNamara and Maxwell Taylor, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). The main recommendations, which appear in Section I(B) of the McNamara-Taylor report, were that a phased withdrawal be completed by the end of 1965 and that the “Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1,000 out of 17,000 U.S. military personnel stationed in Vietnam by the end of 1963.” At Kennedy’s instruction, Press Secretary Pierre Salinger made a public announcement that evening of McNamara’s recommended timetable for withdrawal. (2) On October 5, Kennedy made his formal decision. Newman quotes the minutes of the meeting that day: The President also said that our decision to remove 1,000 U.S. advisors by December of this year should not be raised formally with Diem. Instead the action should be carried out routinely as part of our general posture of withdrawing people when they are no longer needed. (Emphasis added.) The passage illustrates two points: (a) that a decision was in fact made on that day, and (b) that despite the earlier announcement of McNamara’s recommendation, the October 5 decision was not a ruse or pressure tactic to win reforms from Diem (as Richard Reeves, among others, has contended3) but a decision to begin withdrawal irrespective of Diem or his reactions. (3) On October 11, the White House issued NSAM 263, which states: The President approved the military recommendations contained in section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. In other words, the withdrawal recommended by McNamara on October 2 was embraced in secret by Kennedy on October 5 and implemented by his order on October 11, also in secret. Newman argues that the secrecy after October 2 can be explained by a diplomatic reason. Kennedy did not want Diem or anyone else to interpret the withdrawal as part of any pressure tactic (other steps that were pressure tactics had also been approved). There was also a political reason: JFK had not decided whether he could get away with claiming that the withdrawal was a result of progress toward the goal of a self-sufficient South Vietnam.
This post was edited on 11/22/17 at 12:02 pm
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News