Quote: (03-03-2017 11:31 AM)Steve McQueen Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 10:41 AM)LockeAndLoad Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 03:31 AM)Only One Man Wrote:  

If you believe the "official story" of the JFK assassination, you're fucking retarded.

That's an incredibly nuanced, articulate, thought-out analysis. Care to elaborate?

Why dont you just research it mate

There are so many inconsistencies and unanswered questions its obvious that there was a cover up and Oswald was a patsy

If you have an opposing view please state your argument and give us supporting facts, otherwise your just a troll

I didn't say there isn't any conspiracy or cover-up, though I tend to think conspiracy theories usually get way out of hand, mostly by people who look at the movie JFK as a historical record rather than a piece of entertainment. My comment was in response to the terse "you're fucking retarded," which didn't exactly put forth a new argument regarding the matter.

Quote: (03-03-2017 12:01 PM)LockeAndLoad Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 11:31 AM)Steve McQueen Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 10:41 AM)LockeAndLoad Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 03:31 AM)Only One Man Wrote:  

If you believe the "official story" of the JFK assassination, you're fucking retarded.

That's an incredibly nuanced, articulate, thought-out analysis. Care to elaborate?

Why dont you just research it mate

There are so many inconsistencies and unanswered questions its obvious that there was a cover up and Oswald was a patsy

If you have an opposing view please state your argument and give us supporting facts, otherwise your just a troll

I didn't say there isn't any conspiracy or cover-up, though I tend to think conspiracy theories usually get way out of hand, mostly by people who look at the movie JFK as a historical record rather than a piece of entertainment. My comment was in response to the terse "you're fucking retarded," which didn't exactly put forth a new argument regarding the matter.

This forum allows the discussion on theories such as collider demons and flat planets, I don't think such a demeaning comment was needed. I think its smart to discuss all theories to prevent people from thinking others are suppressing knowledge for a sinister reason.

That being said, there are several mechanisms I look at when reviewing a conspiracy theory. First I believe in the Axel Oxenstierna quote, "Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?" There are many people who undersell their own value and intelligence by believing the world is concisely run by much smarter and controlling people. The façade of authority is shallow and most events happen by redundancy or luck. I'm also a fan of Occam's Razor which can be used in my final thought too.

I always try and imagine what I would need to do, to carry out these conspiracies. Most of the conspiracies require a collusion so great between so many people it is simply not possible. People are incentivized to sell out conspiracies and crimes. It also ignores the virtues that most humans have. Just think how many law enforcement, investigators or anyone for that matter could have made their careers by blowing the lid off a JFK conspiracy.

Does anyone have a theory as to what Richard Nixon was doing in Dallas at the time of the assassination? Sightseeing?

Quote: (03-03-2017 12:43 PM)Number one bummer Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 12:01 PM)LockeAndLoad Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 11:31 AM)Steve McQueen Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 10:41 AM)LockeAndLoad Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 03:31 AM)Only One Man Wrote:  

If you believe the "official story" of the JFK assassination, you're fucking retarded.

That's an incredibly nuanced, articulate, thought-out analysis. Care to elaborate?

Why dont you just research it mate

There are so many inconsistencies and unanswered questions its obvious that there was a cover up and Oswald was a patsy

If you have an opposing view please state your argument and give us supporting facts, otherwise your just a troll

I didn't say there isn't any conspiracy or cover-up, though I tend to think conspiracy theories usually get way out of hand, mostly by people who look at the movie JFK as a historical record rather than a piece of entertainment. My comment was in response to the terse "you're fucking retarded," which didn't exactly put forth a new argument regarding the matter.

This forum allows the discussion on theories such as collider demons and flat planets, I don't think such a demeaning comment was needed. I think its smart to discuss all theories to prevent people from thinking others are suppressing knowledge for a sinister reason.

That being said, there are several mechanisms I look at when reviewing a conspiracy theory. First I believe in the Axel Oxenstierna quote, "Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?" There are many people who undersell their own value and intelligence by believing the world is concisely run by much smarter and controlling people. The façade of authority is shallow and most events happen by redundancy or luck. I'm also a fan of Occam's Razor which can be used in my final thought too.

I always try and imagine what I would need to do, to carry out these conspiracies. Most of the conspiracies require a collusion so great between so many people it is simply not possible. People are incentivized to sell out conspiracies and crimes. It also ignores the virtues that most humans have. Just think how many law enforcement, investigators or anyone for that matter could have made their careers by blowing the lid off a JFK conspiracy.

I can't "like" this post enough. Well said.

Quote: (03-03-2017 12:54 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

Does anyone have a theory as to what Richard Nixon was doing in Dallas at the time of the assassination? Sightseeing?

Lyndon B Johnson's mistress (Madeleine Duncan Brown) claimed in the TV documentary "The men who killed kennedy" (and in a few other interviews) that there was a secret meeting the day before the assassination in the home of Clint Murchison with the following people:

Lyndon B Johnson
Haroldson L. Hunt
J. Edgar Hoover
Clyde Tolson
John J. McCloy
Richard Nixon

(and maybe a few others) in which the final details of the assassination and coup d'etat were discussed.


4 years after Oliver Stone made the film JFK, he made a film about Richard Nixon (played by anthony hopkins) which was released in 1995.
In that film the above mentioned incident of November 1963 was a scene in that movie.
Here it is:







The film also talks about how during the watergate crisis of 1974 Nixon deliberately erased 18 and half minutes from a White House recording which the film implies contained Nixon talking about his role or knowledge of the assassination. The film is a biography of Nixon, but shows him obsessed with destroying Kennedy politically who he felt stole the election of 1960 right from him. So, in essence Nixon and Lyndon B Johnson both arranged to have the presidency between them one after another. In fact, Johnson only ran once for president and shocked everyone when he didn't run again in 1968.

The 1968 election then came down to the fight between Nixon and Robert Kennedy (JFK's brother). Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June 1968 while on the campaign trail, also in circumstances which have never been clarified....but thats for another thread.

Quote: (03-03-2017 12:43 PM)Number one bummer Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 12:01 PM)LockeAndLoad Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 11:31 AM)Steve McQueen Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 10:41 AM)LockeAndLoad Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 03:31 AM)Only One Man Wrote:  

If you believe the "official story" of the JFK assassination, you're fucking retarded.

That's an incredibly nuanced, articulate, thought-out analysis. Care to elaborate?

Why dont you just research it mate

There are so many inconsistencies and unanswered questions its obvious that there was a cover up and Oswald was a patsy

If you have an opposing view please state your argument and give us supporting facts, otherwise your just a troll

I didn't say there isn't any conspiracy or cover-up, though I tend to think conspiracy theories usually get way out of hand, mostly by people who look at the movie JFK as a historical record rather than a piece of entertainment. My comment was in response to the terse "you're fucking retarded," which didn't exactly put forth a new argument regarding the matter.

This forum allows the discussion on theories such as collider demons and flat planets, I don't think such a demeaning comment was needed. I think its smart to discuss all theories to prevent people from thinking others are suppressing knowledge for a sinister reason.

That being said, there are several mechanisms I look at when reviewing a conspiracy theory. First I believe in the Axel Oxenstierna quote, "Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?" There are many people who undersell their own value and intelligence by believing the world is concisely run by much smarter and controlling people. The façade of authority is shallow and most events happen by redundancy or luck. I'm also a fan of Occam's Razor which can be used in my final thought too.

I always try and imagine what I would need to do, to carry out these conspiracies. Most of the conspiracies require a collusion so great between so many people it is simply not possible. People are incentivized to sell out conspiracies and crimes. It also ignores the virtues that most humans have. Just think how many law enforcement, investigators or anyone for that matter could have made their careers by blowing the lid off a JFK conspiracy.

Arguably the most blue-pilled post ever posted on this forum, the old "someone would have blown the whistle" canard...

The media has been in the tank for decades now. Many whistleblowers, including some of the best journalists of their time (like Dorothy Kilgallen) did not live to tell their story, while others who followed the official line or lied about it, like Dan Rather, or politicians involved in the cover-up like Arlen Spector, went on to become household names.

5min tour:





-18 witnesses confirm that the exit wound was in the back of JFK's head, which means he had to be shot from the front:



-Statistical/actuarial analysis of JFK witnesses death rate sets the likelihood of the observed unnatural death rates somewhere around 1 in a trillion. There were 78 unnatural deaths from a pool of 1400 witnesses, when the expected number would be around 17, and those unnatural deaths happen to peak right before/at major inquiry years:



https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/201...o-testify/

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/201...abilities/

Quote: (03-03-2017 02:26 PM)911 Wrote:  

-18 witnesses confirm that the exit wound was in the back of JFK's head, which means he had to be shot from the front:

There is a photo (and maybe video) somewhere of a bullet hole in the front windshield of the presidential limousine, which was taken while parked outside the hospital where they took the president.

Johnson had the limo fully cleaned and fixed within a few days, so all evidence was destroyed.

Quote: (03-03-2017 12:43 PM)Number one bummer Wrote:  

I always try and imagine what I would need to do, to carry out these conspiracies. Most of the conspiracies require a collusion so great between so many people it is simply not possible. People are incentivized to sell out conspiracies and crimes. It also ignores the virtues that most humans have. Just think how many law enforcement, investigators or anyone for that matter could have made their careers by blowing the lid off a JFK conspiracy.

GREAT point. People talk. It's human nature to gab and gossip. "I know a secret" and such.

I don't usually buy into conspiracy theories, but they are FUN to theorize and talk about. However you have to admit with the JFK thing, there is a lot of 'fuzzy' stuff. Not saying there is or isn't but things just don't sit right. But it happened 50 years ago, it was a low point in my country but it happened and we've moved on. Sure it's fun to talk and speculate but no one will ever know the truth, no matter how many books and documentaries are sold telling otherwise.

Quote: (03-03-2017 02:20 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

Lyndon B Johnson's mistress (Madeleine Duncan Brown) claimed in the TV documentary "The men who killed kennedy" (and in a few other interviews) that there was a secret meeting the day before the assassination in the home of Clint Murchison with the following people:

Lyndon B Johnson
Haroldson L. Hunt
J. Edgar Hoover
Clyde Tolson
John J. McCloy
Richard Nixon

(and maybe a few others) in which the final details of the assassination and coup d'etat were discussed.

Here is one interview of Madeleine Duncan Brown:






At the 2:35 mark, she says this about Johnson, the night before the shooting:

"He grabbed me by the arm and said: after tomorrow, those SOBs {Kennedys} will never embarrass me again, and that's no threat, that's a promise".

Quote: (03-03-2017 02:39 PM)graffix13 Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 12:43 PM)Number one bummer Wrote:  

I always try and imagine what I would need to do, to carry out these conspiracies. Most of the conspiracies require a collusion so great between so many people it is simply not possible. People are incentivized to sell out conspiracies and crimes. It also ignores the virtues that most humans have. Just think how many law enforcement, investigators or anyone for that matter could have made their careers by blowing the lid off a JFK conspiracy.

GREAT point. People talk. It's human nature to gab and gossip. "I know a secret" and such.

I don't usually buy into conspiracy theories, but they are FUN to theorize and talk about. However you have to admit with the JFK thing, there is a lot of 'fuzzy' stuff. Not saying there is or isn't but things just don't sit right. But it happened 50 years ago, it was a low point in my country but it happened and we've moved on. Sure it's fun to talk and speculate but no one will ever know the truth, no matter how many books and documentaries are sold telling otherwise.

The problem when people imagine conspiracies is that they always think all the participants know everything.
That's not how a conspiracy works.

All the people involved in a big conspiracy are on a NEED TO KNOW BASIS.

Only the really big players know everything...the rest only know small details.

So in this instance the various snipers in Dallas had no idea who was really paying them, the people destroying evidence in government agencies were told it was because "the russians did it" but they had to prevent World War 3, Lee Harvey Oswald was simply told to be in a certain location at a certain time to get "further orders" and so on.


If you are going to pull off a big conspiracy you only tell all your helpers the bare minimum amount they need to know to do their part, so that the whole operation and its various participants can never be fully revealed.

As said above: the problem with the vast majority of conspiracy theories is the fact that an INSANE amount of people from various walks of life--and with widely varying motivations and interests--within the country would have to be complicit in the conspiracy to one degree or another. Furthermore, there is almost no way to account for random individuals who happen to be in the area, have some sort of connection to someone involved, etc.

Secondly, people who believe in and perpetuate these types of conspiracy theories also tend to be the same people that believe the federal government is a bloated, incompetent bureaucracy incapable of functioning correctly--except, of course, in this MASSIVE undertaking. Yes, conspiracy theories are interesting and make for good entertainment. They are convenient ways to explain tragedies and seemingly unthinkable occurrences. Yes, you can find books, interviews, movies, etc. that offer someone's version of what happened--usually for economic gain. Estimates are that over 40 groups, 80+ assassins, and over 200 people have been somehow implicated in the Kennedy Assassination. There may be "fuzzy" elements involved in the assassination, but many of those elements exist particularly because of these varying accounts.

There certainly may be a conspiracy, but the tinfoil hat crowd seems to come out in droves with all sorts of speculation based on pseudo-science and cloaked in the veil of "You're naive/'blue pill' if you think X. I know how the world REALLY works." When I hear hooves, I think horses--not zebras.

Why can't the simplest answer be the right answer? Lee Harvey killed JFK.

There doesn't have to be magic bullets or a guy on the grassy knoll. Oswald was a Marine. He didn't have the best score on the range, but even a shitty Marine can shoot a guy in the head at 50 yards with a scope.

Wait a minute, next thing you'll be telling me is that 9/11 happened because of Saudis with box cutters and jet fuel fires..

Quote: (03-03-2017 02:26 PM)911 Wrote:  

Arguably the most blue-pilled post ever posted on this forum, the old "someone would have blown the whistle" canard...

I don't understand, why there needs to be pejorative statements every time conspiracies are discussed. The identity politics and negative labeling, I've seen in this thread and others are counter productive. Arguments that rely on staunch, "us vs them" narratives only create alienation on both sides. I simply presented my line of thinking.

I can present a real life example, albeit anecdotal, but meaningful nonetheless. A few years ago while I was living in Cincinnati a UC student went missing. He was assumed kidnapped or murdered since most of the student living is positioned in bad neighborhoods. They searched everywhere for his body or clues. I believe it was around a week or two later they found his body hanging in the empty house next to his. It was discovered the house was locked up, which is why it wasn't searched.

They found he had forced his way into the building and committed suicide. I was out at bar months later and these UC students began telling me how he was murdered and the school/police covered it up to save the reputation of the university. They brought up evidence that I could not verify existed. These students stated other evidence was suppressed at crime scene and that the police would have found body faster if he really killed himself. Basically they presented a case that university staff, university police, city police, and assisting agencies took part in collusion to cover up a murder so a more kids would attend UC...

A few months after that, I randomly met the student's brother. He brought the case up and verified that his brother had severe mental health issues and that it was apparent suicide. The brother seemed perturbed people were making up baseless claims about his brother. I won't dive into the psycho analysis needed to figure out why the other students were lying/believed a false narrative. This is a more regional case but highlights how conspiracies can get started.

Quote: (03-03-2017 03:08 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

Why can't the simplest answer be the right answer? Lee Harvey killed JFK.

Because there is no evidence to make it possible.
There was never a trial by jury where the accusations could be cross examined.
Oswald was killed 2 days after the assassination and never got a lawyer or a way to give his defense.
And then the dude who shot him, also died in prison....so no trial with evidence there either.

Most of the crucial documents (like Oswald's tax returns) are still classified.

Quote: (03-03-2017 03:18 PM)Ski pro Wrote:  

Wait a minute, next thing you'll be telling me is that 9/11 happened because of Saudis with box cutters and jet fuel fires..

Quote: (03-03-2017 03:22 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 03:08 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

Why can't the simplest answer be the right answer? Lee Harvey killed JFK.

Because there is no evidence to make it possible.
There was never a trial by jury where the accusations could be cross examined.
Oswald was killed 2 days after the assassination and never got a lawyer or a way to give his defense.
And then the dude who shot him, also died in prison....so no trial with evidence there either.

Most of the crucial documents (like Oswald's tax returns) are still classified.

"No evidence to make it possible"? It absolutely is "possible." A lack of a jury verdict doesn't make anything impossible (and, conspiracy theorists would most likely dismiss any verdict as part of the conspiracy anyway). That's just a logical fallacy.

Also, LOVE the statement on this forum that someone's tax returns, if released, would help to clear up a potential conspiracy. What an interesting idea...

Quote: (03-03-2017 03:50 PM)LockeAndLoad Wrote:  

Also, LOVE the statement on this forum that someone's tax returns, if released, would help to clear up a potential conspiracy. What an interesting idea...

Are you sure you're an attorney (lawyer) as you claim ? I have my serious doubts about you now.

Oswald lived a expensive player lifestyle on a minimum wage salary and almost empty bank account for years.
His tax returns are classified because it would show where he got all that money.

Quote: (03-03-2017 03:22 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 03:08 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

Why can't the simplest answer be the right answer? Lee Harvey killed JFK.

Because there is no evidence to make it possible.
There was never a trial by jury where the accusations could be cross examined.
Oswald was killed 2 days after the assassination and never got a lawyer or a way to give his defense.
And then the dude who shot him, also died in prison....so no trial with evidence there either.

Most of the crucial documents (like Oswald's tax returns) are still classified.

Stephen King wrote a novel 11/22/63. Very good book.

In his prologue, King says that after exhaustive research into the JFK assassination, he was 98% certain that Oswald was alone.

Sure, King is a mere novelist, but his opinion is certainly noteworthy.

Quote: (03-03-2017 03:56 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 03:50 PM)LockeAndLoad Wrote:  

Also, LOVE the statement on this forum that someone's tax returns, if released, would help to clear up a potential conspiracy. What an interesting idea...

Are you sure you're a lawyer as you claim ? I have my serious doubts about you now.

Oswald lived a expensive player lifestyle on a minimum wage salary and almost empty bank account for years.
His tax returns are classified because it would show where he got all that money.

I guess you won't be hiring me to provide legal services any time soon.

And yes, tax returns do show where an individual gets their money from. I agree that tax returns should be released in order to gain a better understanding of one's finances and whether an individual has ties to foreign governments or other entities, which would certainly help to clear up any potentially compromising entanglements.

Quote: (03-03-2017 03:59 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

Stephen King wrote a novel 11/22/63. Very good book.

In his prologue, King says that after exhaustive research into the JFK assassination, he was 98% certain that Oswald was alone.

Sure, King is a mere novelist, but his opinion is certainly noteworthy.

BrewDog, you're slipping bro....must be the age getting to you.
Gotta come up with something better.

Quote: (03-03-2017 03:59 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 03:22 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 03:08 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

Why can't the simplest answer be the right answer? Lee Harvey killed JFK.

Because there is no evidence to make it possible.
There was never a trial by jury where the accusations could be cross examined.
Oswald was killed 2 days after the assassination and never got a lawyer or a way to give his defense.
And then the dude who shot him, also died in prison....so no trial with evidence there either.

Most of the crucial documents (like Oswald's tax returns) are still classified.

Stephen King wrote a novel 11/22/63. Very good book.

In his prologue, King says that after exhaustive research into the JFK assassination, he was 98% certain that Oswald was alone.

Sure, King is a mere novelist, but his opinion is certainly noteworthy.

Very good book, very entertaining Amazon miniseries as well.

Quote: (03-03-2017 04:04 PM)LockeAndLoad Wrote:  

Very good book, very entertaining Amazon miniseries as well.

Lolwut? That shit is on TV? I'm gonna go get that right now. Thanks!

Quote: (03-03-2017 04:01 PM)LockeAndLoad Wrote:  

I guess you won't be hiring me to provide legal services any time soon.

Jim Garrison was a real attorney....he gathered real evidence and presented it a court of law.

I have presented real evidence in the past 2 pages in the form of videos, crime scene objects, eyewitness testimony and highlighted the absence of important missing documentation...you have presented no evidence in favour of the lone gunman theory.

You don't sound like a very good attorney to me.