Society JFK Assassination - Please don´t let me be a flat earther
- Thread starter regular john
- Start date
So was or wasn't JFK shot twice? The Zapruder film (stabilized) shows him kinda lurching forward reaching for his neck just before his grey matter disembarks on its maiden voyage.
View: https://youtu.be/Sqk3sdfXFkc
View: https://youtu.be/Sqk3sdfXFkc
@regular john one thing to note in CIA hypotheses is that they largely rely on modern understandings of the CIA's reach and power. In 1963, the CIA mostly had a reputation as a clumsy organisation that bungled as many things as it achieved. There had been a few successful ops that overthrew governments, but the agency was full of miscalculations and leaks, as well as several double agents. Later in the 60s into the 70s we see the CIA become a bit more effective as it shifts a lot of its energy to Central and South America (following various failures in Asia), a project that really takes off in the 70s and 80s. Most of our modern understanding of the CIA as the puppet masters of the world come from the things they did in the 80s. By then, several countries had felt their touch.I only say all that to say that the CIA in 1963 would likely have not been able to contain news of their participation in an event like the assassination of Kennedy. It's not impossible that a small group of agents could have participated in it as a side project, but the agency was so incredibly incompetent and bush league in '63 that those agents would have had to have very specific motives, which are generally hard to find. A lot of lore, much of it issuing from the Oliver Stone film, makes it seem like JFK and the CIA had an antagonistic relationship, but in reality Kennedy was very generous to them and supported their mission quite a bit. Certainly more than his predecessor Eisenhower. Arguably much too much as they set about toppling regimes for him much more successfully than they managed in Laos or Cuba.
There are other institutional actors that more plausibly could have been involved from the mob to the Soviets to the Cubans to the FBI. Or it could've just been Oswald, influenced by several actors, though maybe not acting on their behalf per se. His own murder so soon after being taken into custody means we're left mostly to speculate. When you situate the assassination in the context of many other political assassinations and attempted assassinstions that occurred, it begins to look a bit less unique. After McKinley was shot at the start of the 20th century, most of his successors also fended off assassination attempts. William Howard Taft nearly got shot. Teddy Roosevelt was famously shot during a campaign speech. Attempts were made on Hoover, FDR, and Truman. Malcolm X was killed a couple years after Kennedy. MLK and Bobby Kennedy were murdered in '68. Thereafter, there were plots or attempts on Nixon, Ford, Carter and of course Reagan who was shot. The 20th century was still a very violent time with a lot of conflicting politics and loyalties. The growth of the modern surveillance state, more expansive mental health services, and a more effective and better funded Secret Service have probably been most of the reason for it being less common today. Because of that it's hard to project ourselves back to that time, but realistically a small group of committed people or even a lone actor could feasibly have carried out an assassinstion of a President. In many ways, the conspiracies help to preserve the myth of an all powerful state (or shadow state) that sees all, knows all and can get away with anything, which encourages people both at home and abroad to believe that resistance is futile. At this point, who killed Kennedy and why is irrelevant except as a thought experiment. What's more interesting is what purposes the stories of his death serve when you look into the worldview they incentivize belief in. I would not at all be surprised if the rumors of CIA involvement were started by the CIA.
at least twice. Official story says three shots were fired, two hit JFK. But several witnesses said they heard four or more shots. Dallas Police Department didn’t bother to do thorough investigation. The head of the department was hanging with Lyndon Johnson the whole day instead of leading the biggest investigation of the century.
There’s a video where an old friendly guy who worked with film editing tells he was approached by CIA guys the next night and was told to remove certain frames from the film and that’s why we see such a sharp move by JFK’s body - certain frames would’ve been removed which would’ve shown different, smoother body motion. I can’t remember now what his point was or if he even made it clear.
Also I’m not old enough to understand exactly how you’d mess with film like that. I believe you would’ve been able to literally remove a piece from a roll and alter the image. Kneeblock just provided a different pov questioning the very idea of all controlling cia guys walking around in suits telling people what to do but I’ll have to sleep on that one and get back to it tomorrow.
interesting. I’ll have to let that sink in but are you familiar with James Douglass’ book? Obviously Oliver Stone’s movie is not that great of a source but the book (which inspired it) sounds very compelling and much more sofisticated. I wouldn’t think of a cia conspiracy as a real organized agency wide plot but more like you say - a small group of people manipulating others into doing it.
I only say all that to say that the CIA in 1963 would likely have not been able to contain news of their participation in an event like the assassination of Kennedy. It's not impossible that a small group of agents could have participated in it as a side project, but the agency was so incredibly incompetent and bush league in '63 that those agents would have had to have very specific motives, which are generally hard to find. A lot of lore, much of it issuing from the Oliver Stone film, makes it seem like JFK and the CIA had an antagonistic relationship, but in reality Kennedy was very generous to them and supported their mission quite a bit. Certainly more than his predecessor Eisenhower. Arguably much too much as they set about toppling regimes for him much more successfully than they managed in Laos or Cuba.
There are other institutional actors that more plausibly could have been involved from the mob to the Soviets to the Cubans to the FBI. Or it could've just been Oswald, influenced by several actors, though maybe not acting on their behalf per se. His own murder so soon after being taken into custody means we're left mostly to speculate. When you situate the assassination in the context of many other political assassinations and attempted assassinstions that occurred, it begins to look a bit less unique. After McKinley was shot at the start of the 20th century, most of his successors also fended off assassination attempts. William Howard Taft nearly got shot. Teddy Roosevelt was famously shot during a campaign speech. Attempts were made on Hoover, FDR, and Truman. Malcolm X was killed a couple years after Kennedy. MLK and Bobby Kennedy were murdered in '68. Thereafter, there were plots or attempts on Nixon, Ford, Carter and of course Reagan who was shot. The 20th century was still a very violent time with a lot of conflicting politics and loyalties. The growth of the modern surveillance state, more expansive mental health services, and a more effective and better funded Secret Service have probably been most of the reason for it being less common today. Because of that it's hard to project ourselves back to that time, but realistically a small group of committed people or even a lone actor could feasibly have carried out an assassinstion of a President. In many ways, the conspiracies help to preserve the myth of an all powerful state (or shadow state) that sees all, knows all and can get away with anything, which encourages people both at home and abroad to believe that resistance is futile. At this point, who killed Kennedy and why is irrelevant except as a thought experiment. What's more interesting is what purposes the stories of his death serve when you look into the worldview they incentivize belief in. I would not at all be surprised if the rumors of CIA involvement were started by the CIA.
is it a false narrative that JFK was bumping heads with powerful army people and with a big power structure that was very interesting in maintaining the Cold War while he was trying to make a deal with Krushchev?
Yes for the most part. Kennedy had fairly friendly relationships with some in the military and intelligence community. He was ex-military himself and became quickly enamored with covert operations while in office. He also was a virulent anti-Communist, even for quite some time defending and being an apologist for the notorious Senator Joe McCarthy. Most of his contacts with Krushchev were pushed by the Soviet moderates who were more eager for normalization, but hawks in both the USSR and USA were constantly attempting to quash any such process. The Cuban Missile Crisis put this on full display as it was the US military apparatus that escalated that situation and Kennedy basically let them run the show. It was actually only the disobedience of a few Russians who refused to follow orders that saved the humanity from possible nuclear annihilation during that tense couple weeks. Kennedy hagiographers have tried to paint a portrait of him as this peace loving dove who supported the rights of man and international benevolence, but this is mostly mythology created after his death. The Kennedys were starting a secret war in Laos and Vietnam as well as engaging in regime toppling projects in Africa and Central America.
Kennedy's main conflicts were with the top brass who didn't really respect him because of his relatively young age and his not being part of their weird death cult that was obsessed with destroying the Soviet Union no matter the cost. He disagreed with the Joint Chiefs on a whole host of things, but he gave in as much as he stood up to them. His clear red line seemed to be using nuclear weapons, which plenty of the brass supported enthusiastically while he tried to prevent it. While it's possible someone in government could have thought that was an existential threat to the US, making it seem weak, it's hard to imagine an event that could make America look weaker than having its President gunned down in broad daylight. There were plenty of much more motivated people with axes to grind against Kennedy and less to lose. Kennedy was more of a Cold War skeptic than anti-Cold War. It was a needed corrective, but worked out better under Nixon ironically. Kennedy wasn't a lot of people's favorite on several things, but he played ball when he needed to.
The only reason I joined this forum is because I knew it would solve the jfk assassination. It took a few yearw, but I've gotta say, this forum pulled through. You guys are awesome. Now if someone could just contact authorities with this evidence.
First, you are ruining the JFK and the Unspeakable book; Second, I thought I would have something insightful to say, perhaps a counter argument, but nope. All I got is questions:
wasn't Kennedy trying to enable a neutral government in Vietnam and ordering withdrawal of American troops? not because he was a saint, but because he was convinced it was a hopeless cause?
do you believe LBJ was as shady as some portraits of him? The Texas Connection book and a more recent book by that guy Roger Stone make their cases against him. That guy looks like an asshole but an asshole who knows everything about the American presidency. Basically the most incriminating part iirc is that some witnesses saw a known henchman of him leaving the School Book Depository after the shooting. Also are you familiar with the scandal involving LBJ's friend Bobby Baker? the man was investigated by the Agriculture Department for fraud in federal contracts that earned him millions of dollars, LBJ got involved, things were going really bad for them then the lead investigator committed suicide with five shots to the head. on the other LBJ seems to be an easy target because he died not that long after JFK and can't defend himself anymore.
The Texas Connection book also makes a very good argument against the mob theory IMO. Basically, the mob had dirt on JFK and he would've been much more useful live and up for blackmail than dead.
Also forgot to say, perhaps the weirdest thing to me about the cia is that Oswald was in the army with access to classified information about US spy planes, later he pretty much announced big time treason in favor of the soviets at the heights of the Cold War and later he was allowed back in the US no problem?
Kennedy greenlit the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem in favor of a military junta in South Vietnam. Greenlit is generous maybe, but the knee it would happen and encouraged it politically and financially. When Diem and his brother were assassinated, South Vietnam fell into turmoil, not because anyone cares about them, but because the military junta was equally abominable. This action, along with the US meddling that had preceded it during the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations directly led to the US increase in "military advisors" to South Vietnam by Kennedy and ultimately the commitment of troops to military action following the Gulf of Tonkin incident under LBJ. Whether Kennedy thought it was hopeless or not personally, he was still directly responsible for the escalation, largely because of his deference to the military and intelligence services in the moments where it counted most.
I don't know much about the LBJ rumors, even though they're plentiful. I've always ignored them because Johnson they seem to come from a fairly crude narrative of envy and hunger for power as the explanation for JFK's death which seems like an incredibly clumsy and obvious motivation from someone who was such a shrewd and careful operator as Johnson. It was no secret that Kennedy and Johnson didn't get along all that well, but Johnson was useful for legislative maneuverings in that he knew how to finagle Congress better than almost anyone in history. His success with Civil Rights legislation Kennedy had failed at was no accident, but of course his escalation in Vietnam and lies about it make it pretty impossible to remember his presidency in much of a positive light. So if he did have a hand in Kennedy getting popped, we can objectively say his plan backfired because he wasn't able to consolidate power for very long and left politics in disgrace, dying before he could do anything to rehabilitate his legacy. In my view most of the LBJ conspiracies come out of obvious places: 1) It happened in Texas where LBJ was from 2) LBJ was VP and of course wanted to be POTUS 3) Kennedy and LBJ argue sometimes. So leaping to the most "feels right" answer, common among conspiracies, of course LBJ plausibly can be seen to have connections to it. Unfortunately, most of the actual evidence to support these claims is deeply circumstantial.
What is somewhat plausible is that multiple actors had some idea that there was going to be an attempt to assassinate Kennedy: the mob, the Cuban government, the Soviets, the CIA, the FBI, LBJ, Nixon and even Kennedy himself. None of them seemed to take many actions to prevent it and many of them even seemed not to mind it. Most attempts to explain it concede that much, but then take leaps thereafter based on shoddily supported inferences and dubious evidence. Personally I believe one set of actors ordered the hit and a separate set took over the cover up, but honestly I don't care all that much.
The book makes it seem that Kennedy tried to give Diem a way out several times and that it was the Nhu brother that was the big troublemaker who was pushing Diem into a fight with the US, with the northern communists and with the buddhists. makes it seem that Kennedy was convinced during a trip to Vietnam in the 1950's that it was a hopeless cause and wanted to get the hell out of there but the Joint Chiefs kept pressuring him into escalating conflict. Of course all fitting into a JFK-convenient narrative - when he did something in favor of disarmament/de-escalation, he was a peace making, child loving world leader; when he did something in favor of escalating conflict, he was forced by the Joint Chiefs.
as for LBJ, the things that I've read make it seem much more convincing than the way you put it - he might've conspired for murder before; he was desperate to become president; he was about to get buried politically, maybe jailed; he planned the Texas trip and the specific route; he fought to get his friend John Connaly out of the car and replaced by a Democrat senator (can't remember who it was); his henchmen were seen around the crime scene; he calmly stayed in Dallas when nobody knew wtf was going on, if there were hitmen on the loose in the city, if it was a communist attack or whatever, while all security people were urging him to fly back to Washington, and more.
I'm definitely not buying any of this at face value though. actually am looking for counter arguments. I do tend to believe LBJ wanted to cover whatever happened. the Warren Comission "investigation" was a farce, do you agree?
just to clarify, I mixed LBJ scandals here.
the one involving the Agriculture Department was the Billy Sol Estes scandal. The guy was a Texas businessman connected to LBJ that earned millions through federal contracts for storage purposes in his cotton fields and he was accused, among other frauds, of selling the cotton he was paid to store;
the Bobby Baker scandal involves an accusation of bribery in contracts for the purhcase of vending machines in federal buildings. he was a real close friend of LBJ and was accused of taking the bribe, not following through with the promise, then setting up his own vending machine business which earned him millions of dollars as well;
on top of this LBJ was involved in the TFX scandal which revolved around the construction of a billionaire military plane called the "TFX". LBJ was in charge of the nomination of the Navy Secretary and was accused of interfering with the proceedings securing the contract to a Texas company he would've been involved with. The plane became known as the "LBJ". Because of all these shenanigans LBJ was called "The Vice President of Scandals" and supposedly was about to get buried politically, maybe jailed (all according to "The Texas Connection" book by Craig Zirbel).
How should I know?
LHO
I got a book from work just before Christmas. I had nothing to read.
it was hilarious.
this guy
Gianni Russo - IMDb
said it was the mob
tannerite is going to be related to joe exotic for many years.right on Tannerite
