Conspiracy To Assassinate JFK

[DemPGH]

Great post, Polnut! That's very plausible and again, I have no trouble with anyone trying to defend the WC Report, although as time goes by it looks increasingly outlandish. The movie JFK actually did a lot of good. Jim Marrs (who is sadly not always as credible) has taught courses on the assassination, and his book about Garrison coupled with the 1979 congressional report I cite above were the bases for the movie. The movie in turn brought about the 1994-98 Assassination Records Review Board's conclusion that 50,000 pages of information locked up plus a botched WC Report is simply not good enough. I concur. However, as long as that much information is hidden it's all sadly conjecture. I just think it's strange that we went wholesale into a perpetual state of war after JFK was killed, and most everyone on the Warren Panel profited in some way. The conspiracy could have been small, it could have been large, but thinking that Oswald did it himself from a warehouse through a tree with a rickety bolt action rifle capable of firing on top of itself? Nah. I've fired enough rifles and guns to know that that whole scenario isn't even serious.

But I'm a huge fan of that movie, and have been since it came out when I was a kid. That movie was great for being provocative, for being based on reality, and for being good entertainment (e.g., Joe Pesci rules!).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) "Mobbed up gay Republicans" gets into Garrison's work; all those shady New Orleans people were the only ones he could get to. They were side people, and Stone played that up by depicting them as colorful, outrageous characters. He never wants you to think they did it.

2) The movie had a huge historical impact because it brought about the 1992 JFK Act and the 1994 ARRB investigation. It's not just fiction.

3) There is a mountain of evidence in support of a conspiracy, much of which I have cited. The conjecture continues to be how big or how small. God is a completely separate issue. There is no evidence at all for God.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

4) It's simply not possible for Oswald to have done the shooting. He couldn't have done it. I don't get why that's so hard to accept, really. For starters, a bolt action rifle cannot fire on top of itself (there is a recycle time between shots that was not satisfied in the Warren report), there were four shots (not three) unless Oswald used a bullet that self-replicated in air, and very clearly the fatal head shot came from the front, not the back. To accept the Warren version of this you have to believe that Oswald was using a rifle with bullets that could operate beyond the laws of physics.

5) You don't think they could keep a secret? That's silly. I mean, I assume you are of age. There are people in Intel whose jobs are to keep secrets. That's why there are clearances. "For your eyes only." You know?

[The Mikado]

5) You don't think they could keep a secret? That's silly. I mean, I assume you are of age. There are people in Intel whose jobs are to keep secrets. That's why there are clearances. "For your eyes only." You know?

No, people are fundamentally incapable of keeping secrets without a lot of help from incidental factors (fires, bombings, floods etc. destroying records).  Otherwise, the historical profession (I'm finishing my MA in history next week, God willing) wouldn't exist in the first place.  I've actually dug around in government archives, including things that were classified in their time, and it's not nearly as interesting or titillating a process as you seem to think.  Politicians, especially, are the most leak-happy group of people in the world, and if any interesting classified information gets into their grasp, it inevitably gets out.  I mean, hell, have you ever read a newspaper?  The CIA leaks like a sieve. 

[DemPGH]

5) You don't think they could keep a secret? That's silly. I mean, I assume you are of age. There are people in Intel whose jobs are to keep secrets. That's why there are clearances. "For your eyes only." You know?

No, people are fundamentally incapable of keeping secrets without a lot of help from incidental factors (fires, bombings, floods etc. destroying records).  Otherwise, the historical profession (I'm finishing my MA in history next week, God willing) wouldn't exist in the first place.  I've actually dug around in government archives, including things that were classified in their time, and it's not nearly as interesting or titillating a process as you seem to think.  Politicians, especially, are the most leak-happy group of people in the world, and if any interesting classified information gets into their grasp, it inevitably gets out.  I mean, hell, have you ever read a newspaper?  The CIA leaks like a sieve. 

Okay, I suppose I just disagree on the secret keeping. But nonetheless, lots of luck on the MA and if you're headed to a PhD program, even more good luck! I hear these days that process has become insanely difficult. In the old days they looked mainly at your paper sample and your personal statement, but now they look at everything because they get swamped with applications. Hope that doesn't discourage, just put your best foot forward in the process and if your degree comes from a good program you'll have a great shot.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Great post, Polnut! That's very plausible and again, I have no trouble with anyone trying to defend the WC Report, although as time goes by it looks increasingly outlandish. The movie JFK actually did a lot of good. Jim Marrs (who is sadly not always as credible) has taught courses on the assassination, and his book about Garrison coupled with the 1979 congressional report I cite above were the bases for the movie. The movie in turn brought about the 1994-98 Assassination Records Review Board's conclusion that 50,000 pages of information locked up plus a botched WC Report is simply not good enough. I concur. However, as long as that much information is hidden it's all sadly conjecture. I just think it's strange that we went wholesale into a perpetual state of war after JFK was killed, and most everyone on the Warren Panel profited in some way. The conspiracy could have been small, it could have been large, but thinking that Oswald did it himself from a warehouse through a tree with a rickety bolt action rifle capable of firing on top of itself? Nah. I've fired enough rifles and guns to know that that whole scenario isn't even serious.

But I'm a huge fan of that movie, and have been since it came out when I was a kid. That movie was great for being provocative, for being based on reality, and for being good entertainment (e.g., Joe Pesci rules!).

So let me get this straight.  Belief in God is unrealistic fantasy thought, but a movie claiming that a group of gay mobbed-up Republicans in conjunction with the military and top officials in the US government killed Kennedy and had Oswald shot as a coverup is based on reality and fact?  Because I think that God is a lot less implausible than the events of JFK.

Also, what unreleased documents?  The remaining files are all going to be out by 2017, and have you ever read government archives?  50,000 pages would be a neverending list of triplicate copies of memos and requests for funds.  The idea that that small amount of paper is concealing anything more than eyebrow-raising is absurd: the documents were reviewed and if there's one thing politicians do when they're handed interesting information is leak. 

Honestly, it's hard to imagine a thought process less-reality-based than thinking that Oswald did not kill Kennedy.

Perhaps you should say right wingers, instead of Republicans. Massive party switching in LA and TX wasn't yet in vogue in the early 1960's. You are predating the switch of Thurmond and impacts of 1964 for instance.

[The Mikado]

Great post, Polnut! That's very plausible and again, I have no trouble with anyone trying to defend the WC Report, although as time goes by it looks increasingly outlandish. The movie JFK actually did a lot of good. Jim Marrs (who is sadly not always as credible) has taught courses on the assassination, and his book about Garrison coupled with the 1979 congressional report I cite above were the bases for the movie. The movie in turn brought about the 1994-98 Assassination Records Review Board's conclusion that 50,000 pages of information locked up plus a botched WC Report is simply not good enough. I concur. However, as long as that much information is hidden it's all sadly conjecture. I just think it's strange that we went wholesale into a perpetual state of war after JFK was killed, and most everyone on the Warren Panel profited in some way. The conspiracy could have been small, it could have been large, but thinking that Oswald did it himself from a warehouse through a tree with a rickety bolt action rifle capable of firing on top of itself? Nah. I've fired enough rifles and guns to know that that whole scenario isn't even serious.

But I'm a huge fan of that movie, and have been since it came out when I was a kid. That movie was great for being provocative, for being based on reality, and for being good entertainment (e.g., Joe Pesci rules!).

So let me get this straight.  Belief in God is unrealistic fantasy thought, but a movie claiming that a group of gay mobbed-up Republicans in conjunction with the military and top officials in the US government killed Kennedy and had Oswald shot as a coverup is based on reality and fact?  Because I think that God is a lot less implausible than the events of JFK.

Also, what unreleased documents?  The remaining files are all going to be out by 2017, and have you ever read government archives?  50,000 pages would be a neverending list of triplicate copies of memos and requests for funds.  The idea that that small amount of paper is concealing anything more than eyebrow-raising is absurd: the documents were reviewed and if there's one thing politicians do when they're handed interesting information is leak.  

Honestly, it's hard to imagine a thought process less-reality-based than thinking that Oswald did not kill Kennedy.

Perhaps you should say right wingers, instead of Republicans. Massive party switching in LA and TX wasn't yet in vogue in the early 1960's. You are predating the switch of Thurmond and impacts of 1964 for instance.

...Did you ever watch the movie?  The people in question were explicitly Republican Party operatives.

Also, and this is irrelevant to the movie or anything, but it's worth pointing out that Texas in particular was already a swing state by the beginning of the 1960s, and even had a GOP Senator win the special election to fill LBJ's old Senate seat.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tower  Texas began to swing to the GOP a full decade before the Deep South, in large part because of the GOP's ties to the oil industry, which was king in Texas.

[Middle-aged Europe]

The post was originally part of the worst presidents post WW2 thread, but I felt and do feel that that was / is a difficult determination to make, in large part because after JFK was assassinated we entered into an escalated, perpetual state of war and tax cuts that have benefitted the wealthy and the industry of defense.

I don't understand how anyone can seriously make the claim that the US has been in an "perpetual state of war" since the death of Kennedy. If anything, the year 1941 would be the starting point for such a claim. Before the Kennedy assasination, WWII and the Korean War had already happened and American involvement in Vietnam had started under Eisenhower and was then expanded under JFK. The Kennedy assasination seems to be a rather arbitrarily chosen starting point for that.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Obviously the CIA, in a field operation organized by George H.W. Bush (who happened to be in Dallas on the 22nd), murdered JFK because he was going to out the secret drug ring the Bushes had with the Cubans (who raised revenue by selling cocaine to the CIA and to HW's son).

It makes perfect sense, right?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Obviously the CIA, in a field operation organized by George H.W. Bush (who happened to be in Dallas on the 22nd), murdered JFK because he was going to out the secret drug ring the Bushes had with the Cubans (who raised revenue by selling cocaine to the CIA and to HW's son).

It makes perfect sense, right?

Snow, you're forgetting the part where LBJ & Nixon plotted together so they would both later become president.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Obviously the CIA, in a field operation organized by George H.W. Bush (who happened to be in Dallas on the 22nd), murdered JFK because he was going to out the secret drug ring the Bushes had with the Cubans (who raised revenue by selling cocaine to the CIA and to HW's son).

It makes perfect sense, right?

Snow, you're forgetting the part where LBJ & Nixon plotted together so they would both later become president.

Don't forget the part about the Mafia, KGB, Vatican, and the John Birch Society being somehow involved.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Obviously the CIA, in a field operation organized by George H.W. Bush (who happened to be in Dallas on the 22nd), murdered JFK because he was going to out the secret drug ring the Bushes had with the Cubans (who raised revenue by selling cocaine to the CIA and to HW's son).

It makes perfect sense, right?

Snow, you're forgetting the part where LBJ & Nixon plotted together so they would both later become president.

Don't forget the part about the Mafia, KGB, Vatican, and the John Birch Society being somehow involved.

They all worked together (FACT!)