351–360 of 403 posts
Interesting turn of phrase. Princess Di was far closer a contemporary of Jackie Kennedy than either are today. I can't imagine there is a large audience of people who would understand the reference to Princess Di but not Jackie Kennedy. Like saying "Will Rogers was the Red Skelton of his era". Iykyk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Note that he was pretty young and his only "law enforcement" experience was from working in the Secret Service. Presumably all of his training and experience was for things involving VIP protection activities. It shouldn't be surprising that he didn't know much at all about crime scene investigation.
And his “only law enforcement experience was being in the Secret Service? That isn’t a low bar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not think the soviets were involved, I think this is an extremely risky move no one would do. I do think there were probably fears it would be perceived as a foreign assassination which drove some actions in the US government. I was vague on that because my post was overlong already and I don't have a clue or guess about who (if anybody) was involved besides Oswald. But I agree with you: I cannot imagine that Kh…
Can’t say I believe there was another gunman. There may be forensics technicalities that are hard to explain but it seems that in any event that is highly ‘investigated’ people find too many patterns in the noise (9/11 for example) Like most of those Cold War events, these cover ups look more like protecting intelligence sources and blunders than some large overarching cabal
The official explanation for 9/11 is also the simplest possible explanation: terrorists carried out a very low tech and plausible hijacking attack that exploited some rather obvious holes in our airline security.
The 9/11 conspiracy theories are orders of magnitude more complex than this official narrative.
I don't think the JFK "second gunman" theory is more complex than the official truth. In it's simplest form (Oswald worked with another gunman, but there was no overarching conspiracy involving Russia or Martians or lizardmen or whatever pulling the strings) I would argue it's simpler than the official narrative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Or the fact that I assume Oswald was crazy and being a megalomaniac did actions that might have started a war?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never really understood the logic because it is deeply oxymoronic. People that generally wanted him dead (ultra right) think that he was killed by the secret service (presumably left) and Yigal Amir (ultra right) was framed. But it is something about putting blank bullets in order to gather support with a fake assassination and then he was really killed by the Shabak on order of Shimon Peres (but can’t say that’s v…
I mean, that would be like a secret service sniper shooting JFK when Oswald missed, or something. Surely is is reasonable to believe that the risk of a secrete service assassination increases during a assassination attempt. But, there is not really anything that would indicate that. During the 1WW the death rate of officers was about twice that of privates for a sample. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Agree. However, what if that wasn't the conspiracy? What if the conspiracy was, "let's avoid war with the USSR"? If the US Government knew of or suspected USSR involvement in JFK's assassination: their choices were essentially "war with the USSR", "look like fools who bowed down to the USSR",…
Why would the USSR assassinate a US president at all? Why would they risk war (and their recent backing down in the Cuban missile crisis shows they really didn't want war) for something that gives them no strategic gain against the US?
What I think the US government feared was a public perception that Russia (or Cuba, or whoever) might have been behind it.
That's when swathes of the public and various grandstanding politicians start rattling their sabers and thinking about war. Any official story besides "Oswald was a crazy lone gunman" would have looked awful for the US and increased the odds of war, a recurrence of McCarthyism, etc.
So I don't think the possibility of a second gunman was ever seriously entertained, even though there's some evidence for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that needs a bigger conspiracy than just kill JFK. Either there are two shooters working together from the beginning, or one knows about the other and the other does not.
People seem to go between lone gunman or giant conspiracy and exclude the middle. It could have been a conspiracy of say four people: two shooters, one insider providing info and cover, and someone behind and planning the whole thing. Much easier to keep everything quiet too. The difficulty of keeping secrets increases exponentially with the number of people who know it.
I mean, sometimes a former military guy decides to do some killing and sometimes he has somebody working with him.
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 It's all very logical and straightforward.
I personally believe it's somewhat possible that there was some CIA involvement in JFK's assassination. I did not watch the entire video, but the part that addresses potential CIA involvement seems to have 2 main flaws IMO: 1. It only addresses the Vietnam War as a potential motive and "debunks" this motive. Geopolitics is complicated, and there are countless other potential motives, especially surrounding Cuba and t…
Distraction is the point.
Distraction from several key points which beg a series of questions.
- Dulles formed the CIA from the OSS.
- Dulles hated Castro and thought he'd trigger a full scale invasion by launching the Bay of Pigs "raid"
- Dulles was not all that happy when that plan, not only failed, but triggered his dismissal from the agency he formed and headed up, by JFK.
- Dulles, may not have been a psychopath, but he calmly watched his sister almost drown in the ocean, before their finally mother rushed to save her.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I personally believe it's somewhat possible that there was some CIA involvement in JFK's assassination. I did not watch the entire video, but the part that addresses potential CIA involvement seems to have 2 main flaws IMO: 1. It only addresses the Vietnam War as a potential motive and "debunks" this motive. Geopolitics is complicated, and there are countless other potential motives, especially surrounding Cuba and t…
This is what’s fascinating and terrifying about conspiracy theories. You’re clearly an intelligent person who can articulate their thoughts. But none of this is well reasoned. In the face of compelling evidence you propose vague, unsubstantiated alternative theories. This is a bottomless pit. It’s not hard to make up a fantasy to explain reality. But that way lies madness. Reasonable people can disagree and arrive at…
This seems untrue in the current media landscape. It is more likely people will disagree and then drift back to their echo chamber.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>But none of this is well reasoned. Conjecture: A is not the culprit because motive xyz does not check out. Reasoning: That doesn't exonerate A, who could have other motives. Without agreeing with it, that looks perfectly well reasoned to me. Compelling evidence exonerating the CIA you say? Well ok, I'll believe that when I see it, just like any other evidence from gravity onward. The CIA's docs haven't been declassi…
The meta argument is the one which is unreasonable. Forming reasonable small arguments is easy. People engage them easily. But because so many can be created so cheaply it’s possible for people’s minds to cloud.
So many well reasoned arguments can be created so it is possible for people's minds to cloud.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here but it seems like it's not contributing anything much to the discussion. Perhaps your mind clouded before you wrote it?
edit: did you edit your original post /after/ I replied?