I don't understand why regular people care about this. If it was a conspiracy then some elite was killed by other elites. Conspiracies to kill relatively powerless people seems more interesting to me because it's The Man vs. the everyman.
He was loved by the people. And he had ambition to deeply change the country. And let us not forget that one famous speech about a certain "conspiracy".
This was during the Civil rights movement. The March on Washington—involving over 200K people—happened under him.
Maybe I'm cherry-picking? But this narrative that he was just swoons loved by the people and everyone got along seems like some rose-tinted glasses.
> This can be mostly explained by a mental disorder Kinda like the Reichstag fire huh
I look at it like the crazy general in Dr Strangelove that is trying to start a world war I highly doubt that a secret in the caliber of “let’s kill the President” can be kept by so many people for such a long time. In my experience large organizations of people just don’t work that way
Your understanding of geopolitics is (even partially) rooted in fiction.
I agree. Having gone through stuff I know how my mind can distort / hallucinate stuff in confusing / high stress situations. Even without questioning the person's honesty.. your brain is not a high quality source of information.
Totally, that's why I don't trust anything anyone says, ever. I can't trust that my fallible brain is hearing what people are saying correctly, so even if they're right my understanding of what they're saying may still be wrong.
There is no such thing as knowledge, just justified beliefs ;)
To those who haven't seen it, I'd really recommend Lemmino's video on the assassination https://youtu.be/5u7euN1HTuU?feature=shared He dives pretty deep into the details, and it helped me form my own opinion of what probably happened
What is your own opinion of what probably happened?
I didn't read all the source material researched for the video myself, so I'd take all this with a grain of salt, but I personally consider Lemmino reliable. Based on his presentation of the evidence I think it was just Lee Harvey Oswald taking an attack of opportunity.
It seems likely he was working at the building by happenstance, heard/read that the motercade would pass by, and hasily planned the assassination in secret.
He had a motive that doesn't require any conspiracy as he was self admittedly a marxist and was described as "unstable".
To me, his murder of a police officer immediately following the assassination is indicative of mental instability rather than a carefully planned conspiracy.
I also consider the reports of multiple gunshots unreliable; I remember being nearby Parliment in Ottawa during the 2014 shootings at Parliment Hill. There was incredible confusion when it started, and rumours and miscommunications travelled at lightning speed since everyone feared for their lives. At first there were reports of multiple gunman in several different locations near the actual shooting because of echoes off of nearby buildings and return fire from police. Really it was a lone gunman, and despite those inital reports I'm not aware of any conspiracies about the whole event.
I think the true conspiracy, if any, was that any of the people involved who failed in their role to prevent the assassination of the president by a lone unstable man, or to conduct a flawless investigation following it, were incentivized to bend evidence and testimoney in their favour (whether unconsciously or intentionally). I don't think this was done out of malice, rather, who would want to admit to any actions that could conceivably invite criticism? In the article itself he provides several (perhaps reasonable) reasons for why he moved the bullet at all, probably to defend against criticism that leaving all evidence in place (seems to me) would have been the best course of action.
As for the article itself, human memory is notoriously unreliable (even shortly after shocking events like this), so even if he beleives he is telling the truth, and isn't interested in the profit motive, I don't think it's compelling enough evidence to believe in a conspiracy beyond human fallacy.
I used to be passingly interested in the conspiracy part of the JFK assassination until I watched this EXTENSIVE in length and sourced video on the assassination: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC8tO16xdrY
> Landis saw and did something that he has kept secret for six decades, he says now. He claims he spotted a bullet resting on the top of the back of the seat. He says he picked it up, put it in his pocket, and brought it into the hospital. Then, upon entering Trauma Room No. 1 (at that stage, he was the only nonmedical person in the room besides Mrs. Kennedy, and both stayed for only a short period), he insists, he p…
Landis' behaviour strikes me as being very peculiar. Shouldn't he have attempted to preserve evidence on the bullet rather than simply putting it into his pocket?
I am also skeptical of Landis, but what do you mean about preserving evidence?
It's a bullet. It just was next to an explosion that cleared it most most evidence. Then the barrel rifling altered the metal. That would not be harmed by picking it up. Then it went through jfk. Okay, we already know his DNA is on it.
The real question is why are you picking up random things from a crime scene and then putting them down in a hospital stretcher.
I don't understand why regular people care about this. If it was a conspiracy then some elite was killed by other elites. Conspiracies to kill relatively powerless people seems more interesting to me because it's The Man vs. the everyman.
He was loved by the people. And he had ambition to deeply change the country. And let us not forget that one famous speech about a certain "conspiracy".
To those who haven't seen it, I'd really recommend Lemmino's video on the assassination https://youtu.be/5u7euN1HTuU?feature=shared He dives pretty deep into the details, and it helped me form my own opinion of what probably happened
Thanks for this link. I've never seen nor heard of this film before.
You're very welcome, he gives a similar video rundown on Jack the Ripper; in both cases I find it fascinating how messy real life investigations are.
He was loved by the people. And he had ambition to deeply change the country. And let us not forget that one famous speech about a certain "conspiracy".
This was during the Civil rights movement. The March on Washington—involving over 200K people—happened under him. Maybe I'm cherry-picking? But this narrative that he was just swoons loved by the people and everyone got along seems like some rose-tinted glasses.
Not directly related to this article, but I found the lone gunman theory much easier to accept after visiting the museum in the former book depository in Dallas. You can look down onto the plaza from the exact spot Oswald shot from, and you can easily imagine how the bullet fired from there would go through JFK and into the governor sitting in front of him. Not that this proves anything, it was just a "oh, I can tang…
Similar: recent PR photos made it "click" for me that modern stealthy aircraft look exactly like "flying saucer" UFOs from the front. https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/02/politics/b-21-stealth-bomber-...
You can get this view only when the aircraft is flying directly towards you, any change in direction will reveal its true shape. For me this isn't very convincing.