Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

JFK

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • JFK

    So i thought it may be a good idea for a thread to discuss everyone's beliefs on what happened during the JFK assassination, with the 50th anniversary coming up next week and all. I do consider myself a history buff and have always been interested to hear others opinions on this topic because certain details of this case do indeed make you scratch your head. Do i believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did it? Yes i do. Do i also believe that another shooter was involved? Absolutely

    I also found it interesting that at one point ( a year after his assassination) 80% of the American Population believed some type of conspiracy was involved

  • #2
    Probably much more to it (e.g. Cuba, communists, etc), but that the government power brokers learned from Franz Ferdinand's death to not go to war over one man's death when the result would be tens of millions of deaths, if not the end of civilization altogether.

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm completely ignorant of JFK and the supposed conspiracy. I'm in my 20s, and my history teacher in high school was the worst teacher I've ever had, so it was never an interest of mine. But now that I'm older I'm getting into it a bit more.

      I look forward to hearing the stories on here.

      Comment


      • #4
        Not about JFK assassination per se (and since this is a JFK thread), but I've come across a very interesting article on JFK versus the military. It is from The Atlantic and was written by a presidential historian. Thought I'd share this article with the IE board.

        JFK vs. the Military - Robert Dallek - The Atlantic

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by kuehnja View Post
          I'm completely ignorant of JFK and the supposed conspiracy. I'm in my 20s, and my history teacher in high school was the worst teacher I've ever had, so it was never an interest of mine. But now that I'm older I'm getting into it a bit more.

          I look forward to hearing the stories on here.
          I'm also in my 20's, i just happened to have a US history teacher who made history extremely interesting. I have no idea how she managed to pull it off but she was one hell of a teacher

          Comment


          • #6
            Literally all I know is that he was a great president with great hair who was assasignated and his father funded his campaign with liquor, lol.

            In the off season, I'd love to get a history thread going. I'm also ignorant of Water Gate.

            Like I said, I pretty much despised American Civics and US history in high school because both were taught by the same teacher.

            And I'm not anti-teacher which it may sound, lol. We just really didn't like this one.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rikkitikki08 View Post
              I'm also in my 20's, i just happened to have a US history teacher who made history extremely interesting. I have no idea how she managed to pull it off but she was one hell of a teacher
              To be a good history teacher and/or historian, I think the first rule should be: you have to be a good storyteller. To do this, you not only have to have a good grasp of facts but also be able to weave them within the context that it occurred. Second rule: try to hide biases and let the students be the interpreters. These are some the key fundamentals of the historian's craft.

              Comment


              • #8
                One of the strangest things for me is the way they handled the car he was shot in. Within 24 hours i believe the car had been deep cleaned and the wind shield was destroyed. Some believe a bullet entrance or exit hole was located in that window

                Comment


                • #9
                  Interesting take on JFK 40 years later. For all those who think the Republicans have drifted so far right (I disagree), take 5 minutes and think about how far left the Democrats have gone since JFK's time. Hard to believe he'd be a Democrat in 2013.


                  Forbes Magazine
                  Kyle Smith

                  Modern Democrats Would View John F. Kennedy As A Reaganite Extremist

                  Pushing for a huge, across-the-board tax cut in the final year of his life, President John F. Kennedy dismissed the idea that it would increase the debt in the long run: “By removing tax roadblocks to new jobs and new growth,” he declared, “the enactment of this measure next year will eventually more than make up in new revenue all that it will initially cost.”
                  When assessing the legacy of President Kennedy 50 years after his death, journalist Ira Stoll makes the case that Kennedy wasn’t what we think: The title of his new book “JFK, Conservative” says it all.

                  Stoll lays out Kennedy’s fierce anti-communism, his religious devotion (he gave faith-based speeches of a kind Michele Bachmann might consider extreme today) and his advocacy for low deficits, a strong dollar, free trade, tax cuts, free enterprise and individual responsibility. If JFK were here today, he would either have to renounce most of what he stood for or join the Republican party.

                  Even as late as 1980, supply-side policies could be denounced as “voodoo economics” by George H.W. Bush, but before the term was popularized Kennedy was an instinctive supply-sider. It’s important to keep in mind how unusually courageous a stance this was. The triumph of Keynesian economic theory in the immediate postwar decades was complete. It was simply taken for granted by the leadership class that the government needed to stimulate the economy with centralized spending during downturns. One adviser to Kennedy, the Keynes disciple John Kenneth Galbraith, argued as much. The waggish Kennedy simply exiled him with the post of Ambassador to India.

                  Kennedy inherited a major recession (a contraction at an annualized rate of five percent in the fourth quarter of 1960) but kept domestic spending basically flat while ramping up military and overseas spending. Though he did preside over a 25 percent increase (over two years) in the federal minimum wage and launch several domestic programs beloved by liberals including food stamps and what became Medicare when it was passed in 1965, he harbored deep suspicions of the creeping influence of the state. Albert Jay Nock’s anti-New Deal book “Our Enemy, the State” was a volume JFK kept at his Boston home in the 1950s and he sometimes echoed the book in public statements. “I do not believe in a super state,” he said in a 1960 speech in which he declared himself a liberal, with heavy qualifiers that made him sound more like one of today’s conservatives. “I see no magic to tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned,” he continued, smartly summarizing the voodoo economics of Keynesianism. “I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well.”

                  Even Kennedy’s “ask what you can do for your country” line may not be as chilling an endorsement of state supremacy as it appears: longtime Democratic operative and pundit Chris Matthews believes it was simply a “hard Republican-sounding slap at the welfare state.” JFK didn’t seem to foresee what would happen to Medicare, calling it “a very modest proposal cut to meet absolutely essential needs, and with sufficient ‘deductible’ requirements to discourage any malingering or unnecessary overcrowding of our hospitals.” He also twice rejected a union proposal to reduce the work week from 40 hours to 35. He kept deficits modest (his budget shortfalls for 1961-63 were, when totalled, only slightly more than the 1959 deficit alone), maintained a strict, inflation-fighting price of $35 to the ounce of gold and, despite his gauzy rhetoric about a New Frontier, framed the Space Race as simply a new front in the Cold War: “Everything that we do really ought to be tied in to getting onto the moon and ahead of the Russians….Otherwise we shouldn’t be spending this kind of money, because I’m not that interested in space.”

                  Kennedy reserved the bulk of his energy for opposing communism abroad and freeing up markets at home. Pushing for “the fullest possible measure of tariff reduction,” Kennedy made a stirring appeal. In 1962 he said, “The American consumer benefits most of all from an increase in foreign trade. Imports give him a wider choice of products at competitive prices….The warnings against increased imports based upon the lower level of wages paid in other countries are not telling the whole story.” And he added that the “philosophy of the free market” was “not a partisan philosophy” but is “as old as freedom itself.” Kennedy carried on a robust disagreement with statist Sen. Al Gore Sr. about the virtues of Keynesianism: Gore later said, “I thought the real needs of our society lay in the inadequacy of health, education, transportation. These were largely in the public sector. Not the private sector.” He also warned dourly that “once taxes are cut, they are not likely to be reimposed.”

                  Exactly, replied Kennedy, who understood that only permanent tax cuts provide a true economic stimulus because consumers who expect their taxes to go right back up after a momentary easing tend to spend cautiously. “To increase demand and lift our economy,” he said in 1962, “the Federal Government’s most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures….the greatest danger is a tax cut too little or too late to be effective.” Republicans, in general, considered the idea of tax cuts reckless, and in the Kennedy-Nixon debates it was the former who mused about the presumed need to increase taxes. Kennedy even framed his tax relief as a Civil Rights issue: “In 1963 he counted on his tax cut to reduce Negro unemployment,” wrote his adviser Arthur Schlesinger.

                  It’s almost impossible to picture a Democrat even speaking this way anymore, and yet Kennedy followed up on his beliefs with action. As his speechwriter Ted Sorensen put it, “In fiscal matters, he was extremely conservative, very cautious about the size of the budget.” He went on to say, years later that Kennedy, “never identified himself as a liberal….on fiscal matters he was more conservative than any president we’ve had since. On Nov. 22, 1963, the fateful motorcade through Dallas was headed for Fort Worth, where Kennedy planned to say these words: “by maintaining a more stable level of prices than almost any of our overseas competitors, and by cutting personal and corporate income taxes by some $11 billion, as I have proposed, [we will] assure this Nation of the longest and strongest expansion in our peacetime economic history.” Ronald Reagan couldn’t have said it better.
                  The yellow mustard pants are hideous and have to go.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Look up the name James Fetzer. He was my professor at UMD and he was an expert on conspiracy theories. I don't really believe in any of his (JFK, 9/11, the plane crash of Paul Wellstone). It's interesting stuff, take a look.
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      just watched a really good doc on the Reelz channel. it was called JFK:the smoking gun.
                      it points to oswald firing 2 shots, missing on the 1st one and hitting JFK in the neck on the 2nd.
                      the 3rd and fatal headshot came from a secret service agent, hicky, in the Secret Service follow vehicle. it was a complete accident, but there was a cover up in order to save the secret service face--as one of their own had just accidentally shot and killed the president.

                      i've always prescribed to more of a conspiracy theory. "jfk" really opened my eyes, as the only thing we ever heard in school was oswald worked alone, but there were people that believed different, that was about all that was said. i'm not saying that i took oliver stones film as gospel, but it definitely sent me out to find my own answers.

                      my questions now, if agent hicky did accidentally discharge a round and it hit the president, how does everything else fall in to place so conveniently? i.e. oswalds movements after the shooting.

                      somehow caught 45 minutes after the shooting? after going home--killing a police officer (?), entering a theatre without buying a ticket--all in opposite directions of each other.
                      Biggie was killed on wilshire and Tupac on the strip in front of the MGM after a mayweather fight. how has there not been 1 arrest in either case? thats just REALLY convenient police work.
                      Oh yeah, I ain't allowed to say "goddamn" no more.--D-Bob

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Polish Leppy 22 View Post
                        Interesting take on JFK 40 years later. For all those who think the Republicans have drifted so far right (I disagree), take 5 minutes and think about how far left the Democrats have gone since JFK's time. Hard to believe he'd be a Democrat in 2013.


                        Forbes Magazine
                        Kyle Smith

                        Modern Democrats Would View John F. Kennedy As A Reaganite Extremist

                        Pushing for a huge, across-the-board tax cut in the final year of his life, President John F. Kennedy dismissed the idea that it would increase the debt in the long run: “By removing tax roadblocks to new jobs and new growth,” he declared, “the enactment of this measure next year will eventually more than make up in new revenue all that it will initially cost.”
                        When assessing the legacy of President Kennedy 50 years after his death, journalist Ira Stoll makes the case that Kennedy wasn’t what we think: The title of his new book “JFK, Conservative” says it all.

                        Stoll lays out Kennedy’s fierce anti-communism, his religious devotion (he gave faith-based speeches of a kind Michele Bachmann might consider extreme today) and his advocacy for low deficits, a strong dollar, free trade, tax cuts, free enterprise and individual responsibility. If JFK were here today, he would either have to renounce most of what he stood for or join the Republican party.

                        Even as late as 1980, supply-side policies could be denounced as “voodoo economics” by George H.W. Bush, but before the term was popularized Kennedy was an instinctive supply-sider. It’s important to keep in mind how unusually courageous a stance this was. The triumph of Keynesian economic theory in the immediate postwar decades was complete. It was simply taken for granted by the leadership class that the government needed to stimulate the economy with centralized spending during downturns. One adviser to Kennedy, the Keynes disciple John Kenneth Galbraith, argued as much. The waggish Kennedy simply exiled him with the post of Ambassador to India.

                        Kennedy inherited a major recession (a contraction at an annualized rate of five percent in the fourth quarter of 1960) but kept domestic spending basically flat while ramping up military and overseas spending. Though he did preside over a 25 percent increase (over two years) in the federal minimum wage and launch several domestic programs beloved by liberals including food stamps and what became Medicare when it was passed in 1965, he harbored deep suspicions of the creeping influence of the state. Albert Jay Nock’s anti-New Deal book “Our Enemy, the State” was a volume JFK kept at his Boston home in the 1950s and he sometimes echoed the book in public statements. “I do not believe in a super state,” he said in a 1960 speech in which he declared himself a liberal, with heavy qualifiers that made him sound more like one of today’s conservatives. “I see no magic to tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned,” he continued, smartly summarizing the voodoo economics of Keynesianism. “I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well.”

                        Even Kennedy’s “ask what you can do for your country” line may not be as chilling an endorsement of state supremacy as it appears: longtime Democratic operative and pundit Chris Matthews believes it was simply a “hard Republican-sounding slap at the welfare state.” JFK didn’t seem to foresee what would happen to Medicare, calling it “a very modest proposal cut to meet absolutely essential needs, and with sufficient ‘deductible’ requirements to discourage any malingering or unnecessary overcrowding of our hospitals.” He also twice rejected a union proposal to reduce the work week from 40 hours to 35. He kept deficits modest (his budget shortfalls for 1961-63 were, when totalled, only slightly more than the 1959 deficit alone), maintained a strict, inflation-fighting price of $35 to the ounce of gold and, despite his gauzy rhetoric about a New Frontier, framed the Space Race as simply a new front in the Cold War: “Everything that we do really ought to be tied in to getting onto the moon and ahead of the Russians….Otherwise we shouldn’t be spending this kind of money, because I’m not that interested in space.”

                        Kennedy reserved the bulk of his energy for opposing communism abroad and freeing up markets at home. Pushing for “the fullest possible measure of tariff reduction,” Kennedy made a stirring appeal. In 1962 he said, “The American consumer benefits most of all from an increase in foreign trade. Imports give him a wider choice of products at competitive prices….The warnings against increased imports based upon the lower level of wages paid in other countries are not telling the whole story.” And he added that the “philosophy of the free market” was “not a partisan philosophy” but is “as old as freedom itself.” Kennedy carried on a robust disagreement with statist Sen. Al Gore Sr. about the virtues of Keynesianism: Gore later said, “I thought the real needs of our society lay in the inadequacy of health, education, transportation. These were largely in the public sector. Not the private sector.” He also warned dourly that “once taxes are cut, they are not likely to be reimposed.”

                        Exactly, replied Kennedy, who understood that only permanent tax cuts provide a true economic stimulus because consumers who expect their taxes to go right back up after a momentary easing tend to spend cautiously. “To increase demand and lift our economy,” he said in 1962, “the Federal Government’s most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures….the greatest danger is a tax cut too little or too late to be effective.” Republicans, in general, considered the idea of tax cuts reckless, and in the Kennedy-Nixon debates it was the former who mused about the presumed need to increase taxes. Kennedy even framed his tax relief as a Civil Rights issue: “In 1963 he counted on his tax cut to reduce Negro unemployment,” wrote his adviser Arthur Schlesinger.

                        It’s almost impossible to picture a Democrat even speaking this way anymore, and yet Kennedy followed up on his beliefs with action. As his speechwriter Ted Sorensen put it, “In fiscal matters, he was extremely conservative, very cautious about the size of the budget.” He went on to say, years later that Kennedy, “never identified himself as a liberal….on fiscal matters he was more conservative than any president we’ve had since. On Nov. 22, 1963, the fateful motorcade through Dallas was headed for Fort Worth, where Kennedy planned to say these words: “by maintaining a more stable level of prices than almost any of our overseas competitors, and by cutting personal and corporate income taxes by some $11 billion, as I have proposed, [we will] assure this Nation of the longest and strongest expansion in our peacetime economic history.” Ronald Reagan couldn’t have said it better.
                        WTF does this have to do with the Conspiracy? LOL.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Polish Leppy 22 View Post
                          Interesting take on JFK 40 years later. For all those who think the Republicans have drifted so far right (I disagree), take 5 minutes and think about how far left the Democrats have gone since JFK's time. Hard to believe he'd be a Democrat in 2013.


                          Forbes Magazine
                          Kyle Smith

                          Modern Democrats Would View John F. Kennedy As A Reaganite Extremist

                          Pushing for a huge, across-the-board tax cut in the final year of his life, President John F. Kennedy dismissed the idea that it would increase the debt in the long run: “By removing tax roadblocks to new jobs and new growth,” he declared, “the enactment of this measure next year will eventually more than make up in new revenue all that it will initially cost.”
                          When assessing the legacy of President Kennedy 50 years after his death, journalist Ira Stoll makes the case that Kennedy wasn’t what we think: The title of his new book “JFK, Conservative” says it all.

                          Stoll lays out Kennedy’s fierce anti-communism, his religious devotion (he gave faith-based speeches of a kind Michele Bachmann might consider extreme today) and his advocacy for low deficits, a strong dollar, free trade, tax cuts, free enterprise and individual responsibility. If JFK were here today, he would either have to renounce most of what he stood for or join the Republican party.

                          Even as late as 1980, supply-side policies could be denounced as “voodoo economics” by George H.W. Bush, but before the term was popularized Kennedy was an instinctive supply-sider. It’s important to keep in mind how unusually courageous a stance this was. The triumph of Keynesian economic theory in the immediate postwar decades was complete. It was simply taken for granted by the leadership class that the government needed to stimulate the economy with centralized spending during downturns. One adviser to Kennedy, the Keynes disciple John Kenneth Galbraith, argued as much. The waggish Kennedy simply exiled him with the post of Ambassador to India.

                          Kennedy inherited a major recession (a contraction at an annualized rate of five percent in the fourth quarter of 1960) but kept domestic spending basically flat while ramping up military and overseas spending. Though he did preside over a 25 percent increase (over two years) in the federal minimum wage and launch several domestic programs beloved by liberals including food stamps and what became Medicare when it was passed in 1965, he harbored deep suspicions of the creeping influence of the state. Albert Jay Nock’s anti-New Deal book “Our Enemy, the State” was a volume JFK kept at his Boston home in the 1950s and he sometimes echoed the book in public statements. “I do not believe in a super state,” he said in a 1960 speech in which he declared himself a liberal, with heavy qualifiers that made him sound more like one of today’s conservatives. “I see no magic to tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned,” he continued, smartly summarizing the voodoo economics of Keynesianism. “I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well.”

                          Even Kennedy’s “ask what you can do for your country” line may not be as chilling an endorsement of state supremacy as it appears: longtime Democratic operative and pundit Chris Matthews believes it was simply a “hard Republican-sounding slap at the welfare state.” JFK didn’t seem to foresee what would happen to Medicare, calling it “a very modest proposal cut to meet absolutely essential needs, and with sufficient ‘deductible’ requirements to discourage any malingering or unnecessary overcrowding of our hospitals.” He also twice rejected a union proposal to reduce the work week from 40 hours to 35. He kept deficits modest (his budget shortfalls for 1961-63 were, when totalled, only slightly more than the 1959 deficit alone), maintained a strict, inflation-fighting price of $35 to the ounce of gold and, despite his gauzy rhetoric about a New Frontier, framed the Space Race as simply a new front in the Cold War: “Everything that we do really ought to be tied in to getting onto the moon and ahead of the Russians….Otherwise we shouldn’t be spending this kind of money, because I’m not that interested in space.”

                          Kennedy reserved the bulk of his energy for opposing communism abroad and freeing up markets at home. Pushing for “the fullest possible measure of tariff reduction,” Kennedy made a stirring appeal. In 1962 he said, “The American consumer benefits most of all from an increase in foreign trade. Imports give him a wider choice of products at competitive prices….The warnings against increased imports based upon the lower level of wages paid in other countries are not telling the whole story.” And he added that the “philosophy of the free market” was “not a partisan philosophy” but is “as old as freedom itself.” Kennedy carried on a robust disagreement with statist Sen. Al Gore Sr. about the virtues of Keynesianism: Gore later said, “I thought the real needs of our society lay in the inadequacy of health, education, transportation. These were largely in the public sector. Not the private sector.” He also warned dourly that “once taxes are cut, they are not likely to be reimposed.”

                          Exactly, replied Kennedy, who understood that only permanent tax cuts provide a true economic stimulus because consumers who expect their taxes to go right back up after a momentary easing tend to spend cautiously. “To increase demand and lift our economy,” he said in 1962, “the Federal Government’s most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures….the greatest danger is a tax cut too little or too late to be effective.” Republicans, in general, considered the idea of tax cuts reckless, and in the Kennedy-Nixon debates it was the former who mused about the presumed need to increase taxes. Kennedy even framed his tax relief as a Civil Rights issue: “In 1963 he counted on his tax cut to reduce Negro unemployment,” wrote his adviser Arthur Schlesinger.

                          It’s almost impossible to picture a Democrat even speaking this way anymore, and yet Kennedy followed up on his beliefs with action. As his speechwriter Ted Sorensen put it, “In fiscal matters, he was extremely conservative, very cautious about the size of the budget.” He went on to say, years later that Kennedy, “never identified himself as a liberal….on fiscal matters he was more conservative than any president we’ve had since. On Nov. 22, 1963, the fateful motorcade through Dallas was headed for Fort Worth, where Kennedy planned to say these words: “by maintaining a more stable level of prices than almost any of our overseas competitors, and by cutting personal and corporate income taxes by some $11 billion, as I have proposed, [we will] assure this Nation of the longest and strongest expansion in our peacetime economic history.” Ronald Reagan couldn’t have said it better.
                          I fail to see what this has anything to do with his assassination lol I do agree though that now a days JFK would probably be considered a republican

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            My theory? Joe Kuharich shot JFK as part of a cover up, which prompted his resignation from Notre Dame, and the reason this thread is showing up in the ND Football Forum

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ulukinatme View Post
                              My theory? Joe Kuharich shot JFK as part of a cover up, which prompted his resignation from Notre Dame, and the reason this thread is showing up in the ND Football Forum
                              You mean like the 10 other threads that have nothing to do with ND football. Its a message board man, who cares. I just wanted to start a thread because i know im not the only one who finds this topic interesting
                              Last edited by rikkitikki08; 11-14-2013, 09:56 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Originally posted by rikkitikki08 View Post
                                You mean like the 10 other threads that have nothing to do with ND football. Its a message board man, who cares
                                I was trying to make a joke, but honestly...other than the Winston thread, every thread on the current page is related to ND football in some shape or form except this one. One of these things is not like the other...

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Originally posted by ulukinatme View Post
                                  I was trying to make a joke, but honestly...other than the Winston thread, every thread on the current page is related to ND football in some shape or form except this one. One of these things is not like the other...
                                  I meant nothing by it man, just wanted to make a new interesting thread

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    I was in the first grade, will never forget the "earth just moved" feeling. Suddenly things didn't seem so solid, predictable anymore. Even as a six year old I knew the world had changed in some manner.

                                    I don't know about a conspiracy other than I believe Oswald did not act alone. To me, I have never heard an explanation of the Zapruder film that made sense. The force of a high powered bullet is going to knock the target in the direction of the force. Clearly Kennedy's head is forced backward with the fatal shot. Grassy knoll? Don't know but I believe the shot cam from in front of the limousine. Take a look:

                                    <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/kq1PbgeBoQ4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

                                    Thoughts?

                                    Edit: Ok, I'll admit I was 8 but 1st grade was tough. What with all that reading and writing stuff.....
                                    Last edited by tadman95; 11-14-2013, 10:10 AM.
                                    Admit it. You looked at the avatar first.

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Man I'll never forget those days that JFK suited up for our Irish. He was a monster LB and opposing players trembled in fear over his policing of the middle.

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        That has always been one of my main things, a bullet does not force your head the direction it came from. Like i said i believe Oswald did it but i don't think he was the only one to take aim and pull a trigger

                                        Comment


                                        • #21
                                          Originally posted by phork View Post
                                          Man I'll never forget those days that JFK suited up for our Irish. He was a monster LB and opposing players trembled in fear over his policing of the middle.
                                          Look at Bobby tackle. I haven't seen a tackle like that since Joe Montana.

                                          Comment


                                          • #22
                                            So many perspectives and context from which one has to sift through to gleam fact from fiction.

                                            From the populist perspective JFK was very popular. So popular that a Catholic became president. He was very beloved and his family and his wife were a picture of American "royalty."

                                            From Republican's perspective at the time, he stole the election from Nixon or as Nixon stated, they stole it fair and square.

                                            The Bay of Pigs fiasco, which JFK ordered and was "guaranteed to succeed by the CIA and military" failed and JFK was then very hesitant to use military intervention in Cuba for many reasons after that. He used diplomacy and strategy during the missile crisis while the Joint Chiefs/Pentagon wanted to use force. The military did not like the Kennedy's.

                                            The Kennedy's were not going to intervene in Vietnam, though LBJ was more open to it.

                                            I don't buy Oswald's timeline from the Warren report and the fact a mobster executed him in front of the press is very strange.

                                            The fact he traveled in an open top car in Dallas was a special circumstance (from what I understand), possibly orchestrated by CIA.

                                            The entire aftermath, autopsy, etc. was botched or intentionally vague.

                                            Bobby Kennedy's subsequent assassination is also very strange.

                                            Comment


                                            • #23
                                              Just watched Parkland the other night.... Anyway Gerald Posner is known for being pretty good with these things and he insists it was easily LHO alone... The video is pretty damning though... That sure as hell doesn't look like a few shots from the back and many, many eyewitnesses said shots came from the front...

                                              Who knows, I think it's pretty likely either way...

                                              One thing is clear, our nations confidence in gov began to shatter with hat event.
                                              Last edited by ACamp1900; 11-14-2013, 11:46 AM.
                                              This sig will not change until The Browns win the Super Bowl... So get real used to it.

                                              Comment


                                              • #24
                                                Originally posted by ulukinatme View Post
                                                I was trying to make a joke, but honestly...other than the Winston thread, every thread on the current page is related to ND football in some shape or form except this one. One of these things is not like the other...
                                                He was Catholic and loved football. Continue.

                                                Comment


                                                • #25
                                                  Originally posted by tadman95 View Post
                                                  I was in the first grade, will never forget the "earth just moved" feeling. Suddenly things didn't seem so solid, predictable anymore. Even as a six year old I knew the world had changed in some manner.

                                                  I don't know about a conspiracy other than I believe Oswald did not act alone. To me, I have never heard an explanation of the Zapruder film that made sense. The force of a high powered bullet is going to knock the target in the direction of the force. Clearly Kennedy's head is forced backward with the fatal shot. Grassy knoll? Don't know but I believe the shot cam from in front of the limousine. Take a look:

                                                  <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/kq1PbgeBoQ4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

                                                  Thoughts?

                                                  Edit: Ok, I'll admit I was 8 but 1st grade was tough. What with all that reading and writing stuff.....
                                                  the doc that I'm referring to brings up a couple things.
                                                  1. his head actually moves forward and down slightly, and the explosion from the exit forces the head back.
                                                  2. no entry wound in the frontal lobe/tempral regions.
                                                  3. a full metal jacket (which oswald {or whoever was in the snipers nest on the 6th floor} fired, goes straight through--the in and out of jfk's neck and the 5 wounds to connolly), but a hollow point fired from an AR-15, has an explosive property.
                                                  Oh yeah, I ain't allowed to say "goddamn" no more.--D-Bob

                                                  Comment


                                                  • #26
                                                    I hope to post more on this topic later. Great idea.

                                                    I say this to the younger posters: One of the things that makes it interesting and so ripe for conspiracy talk is that JFK really had a lot of people -- and all over the map (literally and figuratively) -- who didn't like him and didn't like him for all sorts of reasons: personal, political, geopolitical, financial, philosophical/ideological, and probably others.

                                                    Really, if you look at it like an old film noir where the police detective comes in and says, "who had a motive?", you end up with a pretty long list. "who had the means?" -- most of them. "who had the opportunity?" -- most of them.

                                                    It puts a lot of other supposed conspiracies to shame. Add to it a lot of weird behavior by third parties, and you have a mystery I don't think we ever solve on this earth.

                                                    edit: and I didn't even mention the people who have tried, and still try, to exploit this for current political or ideological purposes (e.g., Oliver Stone, JFK). These people just add to the confusion.
                                                    Last edited by palinurus; 11-14-2013, 10:42 AM.
                                                    Optimism is the madness of insisting that all is well when we are miserable.

                                                    Comment


                                                    • #27
                                                      Not sure about the Secret Service theory. If that was the case, how did the Governor of Texas get wounded, too?

                                                      Comment


                                                      • #28
                                                        Originally posted by IrishinTN View Post
                                                        Not sure about the Secret Service theory. If that was the case, how did the Governor of Texas get wounded, too?
                                                        I think they say at least, the driver of the car was in on it as he slowed down to a near stop, which was abnormal for a presidential motorcade. And if he was not in on it, he was under orders to do so.

                                                        The type of car, route, and low speed are all questionable occurrences.

                                                        The governor was wounded probably by several rounds fired at the car.

                                                        EDIT: I did not see the Hicky post above. Never heard that one before.
                                                        Last edited by Cackalacky; 11-14-2013, 11:47 AM.

                                                        Comment


                                                        • #29
                                                          Originally posted by IrishinTN View Post
                                                          Not sure about the Secret Service theory. If that was the case, how did the Governor of Texas get wounded, too?
                                                          please re-read my post(s).
                                                          Oh yeah, I ain't allowed to say "goddamn" no more.--D-Bob

                                                          Comment


                                                          • #30
                                                            Can anyone really wrap their head around why the secret service pulled the president out of Dallas other than the fact that he was the president?A crime was committed, a part of me hopes that it was just the heat of the moment and thus is the reason why the reacted that way, just really makes you wonder what their motive was for doing that

                                                            Comment


                                                            • #31
                                                              Originally posted by rikkitikki08 View Post
                                                              Can anyone really wrap their head around why the secret service pulled the president out of Dallas other than the fact that he was the president?A crime was committed, a part of me hopes that it was just the heat of the moment and thus is the reason why the reacted that way, just really makes you wonder what their motive was for doing that
                                                              It wasn't the Secret Services decision. It was one of JFK's top aide.

                                                              Comment


                                                              • #32
                                                                Originally posted by Grahambo View Post
                                                                It wasn't the Secret Services decision. It was one of JFK's top aide.
                                                                Oh OK well still doesn't change the fact that it was the wrong decision to make

                                                                Comment


                                                                • #33
                                                                  One thing that always stuck with me is the fairly well known tape recording of important Mafia members, in Miami I think it was, discussing how they are going to hit Kennedy, "by the end of the year, in the South"... that Convo. was recorded about eight months before JFK was killed...

                                                                  could be a coincidence, but there it is. I have read a quite a bit on this subject, I tend to believe SOMEONE else was in on it… who?.. who the hell knows? LHO doing it by himself certainly isn’t impossible or fantastical either in fairness.
                                                                  This sig will not change until The Browns win the Super Bowl... So get real used to it.

                                                                  Comment


                                                                  • #34
                                                                    Originally posted by ACamp1900 View Post
                                                                    One thing that always stuck with me is the fairly well known tape recording of important Mafia members, in Miami I think it was, discussing how they are going to hit Kennedy, "by the end of the year, in the South"... that Convo. was recorded about eight months before JFK was killed...

                                                                    could be a coincidence, but there it is. I have read a quite a bit on this subject, I tend to believe SOMEONE else was in on it… who?.. who the hell knows? LHO doing it by himself certainly isn’t impossible or fantastical either in fairness.
                                                                    Yeah me too. I think there was definitely more than one person and therefor a conspiracy. Wasn't Bobby really going hard (or at least talking about going after) after organized crime at that time?

                                                                    I just watched a video about a sound expert who took the Dallas motorcycle cop's cycle recording and identified 5 distinct shots (coming from the depository and the knoll) with the last two almost overlapping (would have been the head shot). The implication is that two shots from separate shooters fired simultaneously with one passing through the head from back to front, followed almost instantaneously by the other passing from the left to right, causing the "explosion" and movement of his head.
                                                                    Last edited by Cackalacky; 11-14-2013, 01:16 PM.

                                                                    Comment


                                                                    • #35
                                                                      Originally posted by rikkitikki08 View Post
                                                                      So i thought it may be a good idea for a thread to discuss everyone's beliefs on what happened during the JFK assassination, with the 50th anniversary coming up next week and all. I do consider myself a history buff and have always been interested to hear others opinions on this topic because certain details of this case do indeed make you scratch your head. Do i believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did it? Yes i do. Do i also believe that another shooter was involved? Absolutely

                                                                      I also found it interesting that at one point ( a year after his assassination) 80% of the American Population believed some type of conspiracy was involved
                                                                      Yea...I've always been in the camp that said Oswald was in it...but that the kill shot was not Oswald's.

                                                                      I just read an interesting book...The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ. I'll be honest, it stacks up a circumstantial case that makes the CIA look pretty bad...but I never got to the ...AhHa moment...good gathering of political facts surrounding the event and an interesting approach.

                                                                      As far as Posner and some of the other twits who think they can belittle people into thinking it was just Oswald...sell that bridge elsewhere. You can't solve the physics riddle of momentum...so NOPE!
                                                                      One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

                                                                      Comment


                                                                      • #36
                                                                        Originally posted by phgreek View Post
                                                                        Yea...I've always been in the camp that said Oswald was in it...but that the kill shot was not Oswald's.

                                                                        I just read an interesting book...The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ. I'll be honest, it stacks up a circumstantial case that makes the CIA look pretty bad...but I never got to the ...AhHa moment...good gathering of political facts surrounding the event and an interesting approach.

                                                                        As far as Posner and some of the other twits who think they can belittle people into thinking it was just Oswald...sell that bridge elsewhere. You can't solve the physics riddle of momentum...so NOPE!
                                                                        Isn't that the truth... I loved when I saw him in an interview and he basically said in so many words that dumb Americans are won over by the Costner film... as if the theories started there... the film was inspired by and losely based on a couple of well read books, Crossfire: The Plot to Kill Kennedy and Best Evidence (I think those were the two) and I remember growing up with my parents and their friends discussing it LONG before the film came out, hell I remember arguing about it as school kids in the mid 80's...
                                                                        This sig will not change until The Browns win the Super Bowl... So get real used to it.

                                                                        Comment


                                                                        • #37
                                                                          Originally posted by kuehnja View Post
                                                                          Literally all I know is that he was a great president with great hair who was assasignated and his father funded his campaign with liquor, lol.

                                                                          In the off season, I'd love to get a history thread going. I'm also ignorant of Water Gate.

                                                                          Like I said, I pretty much despised American Civics and US history in high school because both were taught by the same teacher.

                                                                          And I'm not anti-teacher which it may sound, lol. We just really didn't like this one.
                                                                          Family fortune was made through insider trading and stock manipulation.

                                                                          Comment


                                                                          • #38
                                                                            Originally posted by UmphreakDomer View Post
                                                                            just watched a really good doc on the Reelz channel. it was called JFK:the smoking gun.
                                                                            it points to oswald firing 2 shots, missing on the 1st one and hitting JFK in the neck on the 2nd.
                                                                            the 3rd and fatal headshot came from a secret service agent, hicky, in the Secret Service follow vehicle. it was a complete accident, but there was a cover up in order to save the secret service face--as one of their own had just accidentally shot and killed the president.

                                                                            i've always prescribed to more of a conspiracy theory. "jfk" really opened my eyes, as the only thing we ever heard in school was oswald worked alone, but there were people that believed different, that was about all that was said. i'm not saying that i took oliver stones film as gospel, but it definitely sent me out to find my own answers.

                                                                            my questions now, if agent hicky did accidentally discharge a round and it hit the president, how does everything else fall in to place so conveniently? i.e. oswalds movements after the shooting.

                                                                            somehow caught 45 minutes after the shooting? after going home--killing a police officer (?), entering a theatre without buying a ticket--all in opposite directions of each other.
                                                                            Biggie was killed on wilshire and Tupac on the strip in front of the MGM after a mayweather fight. how has there not been 1 arrest in either case? thats just REALLY convenient police work.
                                                                            Dirty cops killed Biggie Smalls...

                                                                            I never really paid any attention to this, but it looks like he got shot from the front to me...

                                                                            I'm guessing 1,000 years from now people will still be trying to figure out what happened to him
                                                                            "And then secondly, it's just very, very pleasant. I mean, very pleasant." - Gary Johnson

                                                                            Comment


                                                                            • #39
                                                                              I love history... it was the only topic in school I really found legit joy in.
                                                                              This sig will not change until The Browns win the Super Bowl... So get real used to it.

                                                                              Comment


                                                                              • #40
                                                                                Originally posted by phgreek View Post
                                                                                Yea...I've always been in the camp that said Oswald was in it...but that the kill shot was not Oswald's.

                                                                                I just read an interesting book...The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ. I'll be honest, it stacks up a circumstantial case that makes the CIA look pretty bad...but I never got to the ...AhHa moment...good gathering of political facts surrounding the event and an interesting approach.

                                                                                As far as Posner and some of the other twits who think they can belittle people into thinking it was just Oswald...sell that bridge elsewhere. You can't solve the physics riddle of momentum...so NOPE!
                                                                                The video I referenced above said you can see Kennedy moving forward just as his head opens up. He said a shot from the depository would have passed through moving his head forward followed closely by a shot from the knoll and the exploding head caused by the damage from the initial head shot. That along with the audio evidence ties a miss from the depository, a miss from the knoll, a hit from the depository hurting Kennedy and the Gov, and then the final two shots almost instantaneously.

                                                                                I personally think the CIA was involved for several reasons and I do not think it is too far of a stretch to see how Dealy Plaza is a perfect kill zone.

                                                                                Comment


                                                                                • #41
                                                                                  Originally posted by Cackalacky View Post
                                                                                  I personally think the CIA was involved for several reasons and I do not think it is too far of a stretch to see how Dealy Plaza is a perfect kill zone.
                                                                                  There is a lot to support this.. though it's not impossible to say LHO did act alone... I have seen 'experts', 'debunk' the audio stuff with the amount of gun shots as well...
                                                                                  This sig will not change until The Browns win the Super Bowl... So get real used to it.

                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                  • #42
                                                                                    Originally posted by ACamp1900 View Post
                                                                                    Isn't that the truth... I loved when I saw him in an interview and he basically said in so many words that dumb Americans are won over by the Costner film... as if the theories started there... the film was inspired by and losely based on a couple of well read books, Crossfire: The Plot to Kill Kennedy and Best Evidence (I think those were the two) and I remember growing up with my parents and their friends discussing it LONG before the film came out, hell I remember arguing about it as school kids in the mid 80's...
                                                                                    exactly...see, the thing is, the VERY FIRST TIME I saw the Zapruder film I had already been indoctrinated the other way...ie it was crazy Oswald. My parents explained it based on the government's story...In the mean time my brother and I lived a life time of Hunting, with large game animals in our sights...in addition to all manner of milk jugs full of water...frozen and not...even ones filled with gelatin and whatever else we could put in there to see which bullets were most effective...

                                                                                    so when we saw the film my brother and I literally came out of our chairs...LIARS!

                                                                                    Point is there are simply things you can't BS around...I can remember my dad laughing, and my mom being horrified...because they knew they had perpetuated an obvious, and ridiculous lie...not their fault.

                                                                                    I've been to dealy plaza...I've stood at the X...I've looked...IMHO you can't possibly get an angle that explains a vehicle moving away as it was even slowly...where a head would do that... That bullet, had it been fired from behind would have come out at a downward trajectory and removed face on the way out...much lower exit had it have been Oswald...that shot was damn near flat....again IMHO.
                                                                                    One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                    • #43
                                                                                      The thing that opened a lot of this up, IMO, was the Warren Commission findings... I think, even if LHO acted alone, the WCR had so many holes that it opened the door for so many other ideas and theories.
                                                                                      Last edited by ACamp1900; 11-14-2013, 01:56 PM.
                                                                                      This sig will not change until The Browns win the Super Bowl... So get real used to it.

                                                                                      Comment


                                                                                      • #44
                                                                                        Originally posted by UmphreakDomer View Post
                                                                                        please re-read my post(s).
                                                                                        My question was more along the lines of only referring to Hicky. If it was Hicky's gun that killed the president, are you saying the other shots still came from the gunman? Not arguing, just trying to understand the theory on Hicky's gun. Never heard that one before.

                                                                                        in other words, Oswald and possibly someone else was shooting, but Hicky is the one who killed the president totally by accident. Is that right?

                                                                                        Comment


                                                                                        • #45
                                                                                          There is a book on that theory... I remember reading it... I forget teh title though...
                                                                                          This sig will not change until The Browns win the Super Bowl... So get real used to it.

                                                                                          Comment


                                                                                          • #46
                                                                                            Originally posted by IrishinTN View Post
                                                                                            My question was more along the lines of only referring to Hicky. If it was Hicky's gun that killed the president, are you saying the other shots still came from the gunman? Not arguing, just trying to understand the theory on Hicky's gun. Never heard that one before.

                                                                                            in other words, Oswald and possibly someone else was shooting, but Hicky is the one who killed the president totally by accident. Is that right?
                                                                                            it is the documentary's position, based on the book listed below, that, yes--the motorcade was under attack by sniper fire originating from the book depository. 2 shots were fired from "oswald" (i put oswald as this doc is merely about the forensics and ballistics, not the conspiracy theories of anything else). "oswalds" 1st shot missed and hit the street near the limo.

                                                                                            the 2nd shot is the "magic bullet" as it were. but they do a very good analysis about how connelly was in a jump seat which was lower and set to the middle of the car--so the whole u-turn theory is laid to rest. this shot entered the back of the presidents neck traveling through and into and out of and back into connelly--this all makes sense in the way its presented. these rifle shots were full metal jackets with a 6.5mm projectile.

                                                                                            at this point, this secret service agent, hicky, was reaching for and taking the safety off an AR-15 with hollow points--5.56mm. the gun discharged and was the subsequent "kill shot".

                                                                                            everything that ensues from there is the secret services attempt at a cover up. the warren report is falsified because A) they had their shooter, so, B) didn't need to defame the presidents "royal guard".

                                                                                            Originally posted by ACamp1900 View Post
                                                                                            There is a book on that theory... I remember reading it... I forget teh title though...
                                                                                            Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK
                                                                                            Oh yeah, I ain't allowed to say "goddamn" no more.--D-Bob

                                                                                            Comment


                                                                                            • #47
                                                                                              So many variables and questions.
                                                                                              1. Was Ruby hired to kill LHO to make sure he wouldn't talk and open the flood gates?
                                                                                              2. Why was everything rushed after JFK died? Today, nothing would be moved or touched until it was examined a 1,000 times by a 1,000 eyes.
                                                                                              3. Indeed, Bobby Kennedy was going after organized crime. It was his top priority while AG.
                                                                                              4. The Kennedy's were know to be somewhat reckless with their personal lives and beyond reproach. Many think Marilyn Monroe was killed by the SS to ensure she didn't expose JFK & RFK for the infidelities which would be a major taboo back then. It would have ruined their political careers.
                                                                                              5. The attempt to kill Castro exposed Kennedy for his taste to do things undercover without involving the typical parties and working through the normal channels. That's why the military didn't care for him.
                                                                                              6. All of these things plus a lot more are the reasons that so many conspiracies abound. Was it the Mafia, the Russians, the Secret Service or just LHO on his own?

                                                                                              Comment


                                                                                              • #48
                                                                                                Originally posted by rikkitikki08 View Post
                                                                                                I'm also in my 20's, i just happened to have a US history teacher who made history extremely interesting. I have no idea how she managed to pull it off but she was one hell of a teacher
                                                                                                probably had big boobs
                                                                                                EMPTY SPACE WAITING FOR THE NEXT HOT TAKE

                                                                                                Comment


                                                                                                • #49
                                                                                                  Originally posted by UmphreakDomer View Post
                                                                                                  it is the documentary's position, based on the book listed below, that, yes--the motorcade was under attack by sniper fire originating from the book depository. 2 shots were fired from "oswald" (i put oswald as this doc is merely about the forensics and ballistics, not the conspiracy theories of anything else). "oswalds" 1st shot missed and hit the street near the limo.

                                                                                                  the 2nd shot is the "magic bullet" as it were. but they do a very good analysis about how connelly was in a jump seat which was lower and set to the middle of the car--so the whole u-turn theory is laid to rest. this shot entered the back of the presidents neck traveling through and into and out of and back into connelly--this all makes sense in the way its presented. these rifle shots were full metal jackets with a 6.5mm projectile.

                                                                                                  at this point, this secret service agent, hicky, was reaching for and taking the safety off an AR-15 with hollow points--5.56mm. the gun discharged and was the subsequent "kill shot".

                                                                                                  everything that ensues from there is the secret services attempt at a cover up. the warren report is falsified because A) they had their shooter, so, B) didn't need to defame the presidents "royal guard".



                                                                                                  Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK
                                                                                                  Indeed. reps. I have read that...
                                                                                                  This sig will not change until The Browns win the Super Bowl... So get real used to it.

                                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                                  • #50
                                                                                                    Originally posted by Cackalacky View Post
                                                                                                    WTF does this have to do with the Conspiracy? LOL.
                                                                                                    Originally posted by rikkitikki08 View Post
                                                                                                    I fail to see what this has anything to do with his assassination lol I do agree though that now a days JFK would probably be considered a republican
                                                                                                    Guys... try to keep up... Democrats from the future... namely Pelosi, Reid and Obama... Killed Kennedy...
                                                                                                    This sig will not change until The Browns win the Super Bowl... So get real used to it.

                                                                                                    Comment

                                                                                                    Adsense

                                                                                                    Collapse
                                                                                                    Working...
                                                                                                    X