Gyroscopic Investing

I figured someone just had to ask the question given the anniversary.

How do I know it wasn't you?

The Kennedy mini-series that is showing on Reelz is pretty good. Might be the last chance to see it if interest dies down after 50 years. Takes you all the way through the assassination of Bobby. I was watching TV when he gave the peace sign and said "on to Chicago" and then I turned it off. I think he was shot about 10 seconds later as I learned the next morning. Lots of conspiracy theories about that one too, including Sirhan Sirhan as a Manchurian candidate. To this day he says he doesn't remember doing it, but the CIA says it's not possible to create a Manchurian candidate. They know because they tried.

ns2 wrote: CIA says it's not possible to create a Manchurian candidate. They know because they tried.

So they admit to trying to create involuntary assasins to murder and take all blame (hardly a noble thing) but you believe them when they say they failed?

"Yes we are complete and utter scumbags but trust us, we're not good at it. We would never lie about though "

An ABC News documentary examines the evidence using modern technology that wasn't available in the 1960's.
http://youtu.be/sYmLf749K5U

Pointedstick wrote: How do I know it wasn't you?

I wasn't born. But then again, maybe my birth certificate is an elaborate fake.... hmmm.

Although all signs point to Oswald being the lone assassin, the idea of being able to hit a moving target at that range twice in such a short time frame is absolutely amazing.

Kennedy was hit in the neck and a few seconds later in the head as he sat in a moving vehicle (and Kennedy himself was moving around after being hit the first time).

Oswald was just tragically lucky that day.  I'll bet if he tried to make those same two shots 100 times, he wouldn't be able to do it more than a few times.

The sniper's nest is open to the public now and there are large X's painted on Elm street showing exactly where the car was when each shot was fired. Some people I know who have been up on the sixth floor tell me it was like shooting fish in a barrel. The wonder is not that Oswald hit Kennedy twice (he was a crack shot), but that one of the three shots missed him.

Kshartle wrote: So they admit to trying to create involuntary assasins to murder and take all blame (hardly a noble thing) but you believe them when they say they failed?

They've done far less noble things than that and no, I don't believe a word they say. Kennedy himself was behind some of those ignoble things and that is well documented.

One of the more interesting pieces of fuel for the conspiracy fires is the deathbed confession of E. Howard Hunt, the convicted Watergate burglar and former CIA agent. He made a recorded deathbed confession to his son, and I think you can hear it on the internet, in which he confessed that it was a CIA hit job.

I'm still not convinced and probably never will be but I've always thought if there was a conspiracy, they were the most likely culprits behind it - not the Russians and not the mob.

Simonjester wrote: one of the best ways to hide a conspiracy, is by starting a series of multiple competing conspiracies, some of which are so ridiculous that when you debunk them, it gives all the competing theories, or the idea of even proposing a theory a black eye..

how many competing theories are there about Kennedy? and how quickly did they emerge?

ns2 wrote:

Kshartle wrote: So they admit to trying to create involuntary assasins to murder and take all blame (hardly a noble thing) but you believe them when they say they failed?

They've done far less noble things than that and no, I don't believe a word they say. Kennedy himself was behind some of those ignoble things and that is well documented.

One of the more interesting pieces of fuel for the conspiracy fires is the deathbed confession of E. Howard Hunt, the convicted Watergate burglar and former CIA agent. He made a recorded deathbed confession to his son, and I think you can hear it on the internet, in which he confessed that it was a CIA hit job.

I'm still not convinced and probably never will be but I've always thought if there was a conspiracy, they were the most likely culprits behind it - not the Russians and not the mob.

Yeah, how could the russians and mob keep the us govt from exposing them? It's obvious it was the US govt. The Oswald theory is silly.

Nova: Cold Case JFK

Can modern forensic science uncover fresh clues about the assassination of JFK?
Aired November 13, 2013 on PBS

Kshartle wrote:

ns2 wrote:

Kshartle wrote: So they admit to trying to create involuntary assasins to murder and take all blame (hardly a noble thing) but you believe them when they say they failed?

They've done far less noble things than that and no, I don't believe a word they say. Kennedy himself was behind some of those ignoble things and that is well documented.

One of the more interesting pieces of fuel for the conspiracy fires is the deathbed confession of E. Howard Hunt, the convicted Watergate burglar and former CIA agent. He made a recorded deathbed confession to his son, and I think you can hear it on the internet, in which he confessed that it was a CIA hit job.

I'm still not convinced and probably never will be but I've always thought if there was a conspiracy, they were the most likely culprits behind it - not the Russians and not the mob.

Yeah, how could the russians and mob keep the us govt from exposing them? It's obvious it was the US govt. The Oswald theory is silly.

What is your evidence?

Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-Histor ... f.+kennedy

TennPaGa wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote: I figured someone just had to ask the question given the anniversary.

I seem to recall you writing that you were a Kennedy assassination (conspiracy) buff at one point (but not now).  Is that right?  If so, I'd be interested in your thoughts (both about the facts of the assassination and your own intellectual journey).

A Conspiracy of One (or the confessions of an ex-conspiracy nut)

One thing is clear: a large number of people ripped off Serge Gainsbourg's Histoire de Melody Nelson, although they probably acted independently. Beck has one of the more egregious examples with Paper Tiger (although I do think it sounds fantastic).

As for Kennedy, he was shot by Oswald alone. I have seen the conspiracy theories systematically debunked but, like the case with the moon landing, there will always be those who cannot let go of their suspicions.

Did no one here watch Salt? it explains everything!

It was a secret Russia deep cover spy program called MK Ultra run by Oleg Orlov (who is actually based on Dmitry Orlov)

I'm sure there is a perfectly innocent reason why a lot of the files are still sealed:
http://www.ibtimes.com/jfk-assassinatio ... rs-1389437

Right?

Libertarian666 wrote: I'm sure there is a perfectly innocent reason why a lot of the files are still sealed:
http://www.ibtimes.com/jfk-assassinatio ... rs-1389437

Right?

The CIA lies about having an Oswald file when in fact they did. They lie about knowing of his trip to Mexico City when, in fact, they monitored him the whole time (I think this is fairly well documented now but somebody can correct me if I'm wrong).

Oswald kills Kennedy. Jack Ruby, a man with mafia connections kills Oswald before he can be brought to trial.

I think there are perfectly plausible explanations for things like this, such as the CIA always lies because that's just what they do, and Jack Ruby loved Kennedy and wanted to be a hero for killing Oswald.

But I don't see how, with so many mysteries surrounding it, anyone can be considered nuts for believing there might have been a conspiracy. Even a Congressional committee came to that very same conclusion.

Modification: Actually I think the congressional committee concluded that it was likely there was a conspiracy and that was the last government word on the matter, as far as I know.

ns2 wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: I'm sure there is a perfectly innocent reason why a lot of the files are still sealed:
http://www.ibtimes.com/jfk-assassinatio ... rs-1389437

Right?

The CIA lies about having an Oswald file when in fact they did. They lie about knowing of his trip to Mexico City when, in fact, they monitored him the whole time (I think this is fairly well documented now but somebody can correct me if I'm wrong).

Oswald kills Kennedy. Jack Ruby, a man with mafia connections kills Oswald before he can be brought to trial.

I think there are perfectly plausible explanations for things like this, such as the CIA always lies because that's what they do, and Jack Ruby loved Kennedy and wanted to be a hero for killing Oswald.

But I don't see how, with so many mysteries surrounding it, anyone can be considered nuts for believing there might have been a conspiracy. Even a Congressional committee came to that very same conclusion.

And of course Ruby died of cancerbefore he could spill the beans, which I'm sure was also a coincidence.

Techno,

You're employing the old, "I'm not really making a point, but just appearing to make one by way of sarcasm" technique.
Just tell us what you think happened already.

I agree that Jack Ruby tips the scales in favor of a conspiracy. Someone wanted to make sure that Oswald would never talk. If it was Castro, the Soviets, or the Mafia behind the assassination, the government would never want the fact that there was a conspiracy to get out to the general public.

Unfortunately none of this is evidence. It's conjecture. The actual evidence, and there is a mountain of it, all points to Oswald.

There is also evidence (obviously) that Oswald was shot to death shortly thereafter. That certainly raises flags with me.

Reub wrote: There is also evidence (obviously) that Oswald was shot to death shortly thereafter. That certainly raises flags with me.

Why wasn't he killed immediately after he killed Kennedy?