JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Joe Elliott on September 03, 2018, 01:07:33 AM
-
Do the CTers here believe there was a conspiracy to murder President Kennedy, but this conspiracy never had any control of subsequent events. President Johnson may or may not get re-elected. President Johnson may or may not decide to escalate in Vietnam after his re-election in 1964. Or do they think that they did have control over these issues and that is why the President was murdered.
Or alternatively, the conspirators got control on whether to reign in the Federal Reserve.
Basically, I?m looking to see if CTers believe the conspirators had control of some aspect of the U. S. Government Policy, like whether to get involved in certain wars or not.
Vote for what you think is most probable, not necessarily for what you know absolutely to be true.
-
Each of your choices in your poll has ?government? in it. Bias anybody?
-
Interesting that first choice right now has the most votes. How do you explain that?
-
I see. So, you?re stating people on this site are being paid for their position on JFK event? Is that correct?
-
Do the CTers here believe there was a conspiracy to murder President Kennedy, but this conspiracy never had any control of subsequent events. President Johnson may or may not get re-elected. President Johnson may or may not decide to escalate in Vietnam after his re-election in 1964. Or do they think that they did have control over these issues and that is why the President was murdered.
Or alternatively, the conspirators got control on whether to reign in the Federal Reserve.
Basically, I?m looking to see if CTers believe the conspirators had control of some aspect of the U. S. Government Policy, like whether to get involved in certain wars or not.
Vote for what you think is most probable, not necessarily for what you know absolutely to be true.
Ask yourself,
Who had the most to gain from JFK?s murder?
- The Mafia: Attorney General Robert Kennedy declared war on organized crime. Removing JFK would?ve ensured that a more favorable AG took over.
- The anti-Castro Hawks: They were xxxxxx at JFK because of the BOP and Cuban Missile crisis. If they had succeeded at linking Oswald to Castro (attempts were made to do exactly that), they would?ve almost ensured that they?d get the US to go to war against Cuba.
- Fidel Castro: He knew the CIA under Kennedy was trying to kill him. Having Kennedy killed would?ve sent a strong message but also could?ve potentially lead to an unwinnable war if it was found that Cuba conspired against Kennedy.
- The Far Right in the US South: The Civil Rights movement was gaining momentum by the time JFK?s administration started drafting the Civil Rights Act. I don?t think anyone could?ve predicted that Lyndon Johnson would be make a strong push to pass the Civil Rights Act. The conventional wisdom was probably that Johnson, a White southerner, wouldn?t go big on Civil Rights.
-
So, when you have no response you revert directly to ad hom attack. You can?t even defend your own poll with any degree of insight. I won?t comment on your ignorance. People can read this thread. What a hoot.
-
You implied people on this site are being paid for their positions on the JFK event. How can you seriously make that comment?
-
So, once again, rather than answer a DIRECT question ABOUT YOUR OWN POLL, you digress with misdirection. Remarkable. Unlike yourself, I will respond. Of course people will respond a certain way if paid to do so. That being said, this forum might have a few hundred posters at best out of a world wide population. So, let?s say 50 people respond to your poll out of a world population of some 8 billion people. Let?s then assume 50% are honest researchers giving an opinion. That leaves 25 people of which you believe a portion of those people are being paid by some entity to go on JFK Internet forums/blogs in the event somebody does a poll. Does that about sum it up?
-
You have refused to respond to ANY question I have asked regarding your own poll. So much for credibility.
-
No reason to repeat any question. The readers can determine what?s been said. FYI, you?re an embarrassment even for a conspiracy theorist and you have to live with that. Frightening.
-
Each of your choices in your poll has ?government? in it. Bias anybody?
The conspiracy theories I heard of all involve getting control of the ?government?. So, the war in Vietnam can be escalated. Or so the CIA can keep its power. Or so the Federal Reserve can keep its power. I have not heard that the murder of President Kennedy was done to get control of General Motors.
There is always some purpose behind every alleged conspiracy and the purpose is to prevent a looming President Kennedy decision so the U. S. Government can follow a different course than President Kennedy intended.
-
If Johnson wasn't willingly complicit to escalate Vietnam, the people who killed killed JFK were certainly smart enough to blackmail him. He was an easy mark.
-
If Johnson wasn't willingly complicit to escalate Vietnam, the people who killed killed JFK were certainly smart enough to blackmail him. He was an easy mark.
They could have blackmailed President Johnson but could not have blackmail President Kennedy and so they had to kill him?
-
Keep reading conspiracy crap. You?ll get all the wacky spombleprofglidnoctobuns you can handle.
-
They could have blackmailed President Johnson but could not have blackmail President Kennedy and so they had to kill him?
Johnson's case was on the front burner at the time, many thinking his career was over. Dig a little further and you have many alleged murders attributed to him. JFK's sins were just not keeping his pants on, and all the insiders already knew this, including Jackie. Not a very strong blackmail, especially when he's being told to take the country to war.
-
Johnson's case was on the front burner at the time, many thinking his career was over. Dig a little further and you have many alleged murders attributed to him. JFK's sins were just not keeping his pants on, and all the insiders already knew this, including Jackie. Not a very strong blackmail, especially when he's being told to take the country to war.
So you believe these very powerful forces (FBI, CIA, Pentagon, Justice) that murdered JFK - and framed Oswald and then covered their tracks - didn't have the ability and resources to frame JFK for something? Their only course was to shoot him in broad daylight in the middle of a crowded street and then frame someone for it? Then cover all of this up?
This is what is odd about the conspiracy claims: these forces can do anything but yet are quite limited at the same time.
BTW: LBJ "escalated" US involvement because the North's attacks on the South increased. The South, after Diem's death, was increasingly incapable of defending itself from the North's increased activity. LBJ was faced with the problem of either abandoning the South to the North or trying to prevent that by increasing the US role. The South simply couldn't do it by themselves.
-
So you believe these very powerful forces (FBI, CIA, Pentagon, Justice) that murdered JFK - and framed Oswald and then covered their tracks - didn't have the ability and resources to frame JFK for something? Their only course was to shoot him in broad daylight in the middle of a crowded street and then frame someone for it? Then cover all of this up?
This is what is odd about the conspiracy claims: these forces can do anything but yet are quite limited at the same time.
BTW: LBJ "escalated" US involvement because the North's attacks on the South increased. The South, after Diem's death, was increasingly incapable of defending itself from the North's increased activity. LBJ was faced with the problem of either abandoning the South to the North or trying to prevent that by increasing the US role. The South simply couldn't do it by themselves.
Easier said than done.
What could they have Framed Kennedy with? Something illegal? A Sex Scandal?
I doubt they would've been able to get Kennedy to unwittingly commit a crime. Plus his brother was the Attorney General. Good luck with that.
A sex scandal? Not in the 60s. The Press was different back then. The News media greatly ignored the womanizing and sexual escapades of Presidents in that time. Kennedy and Johnson did stuff in the White House that would make Bill Clinton's Lewinsky scandal look Rated PG.
I don't think using violence to remove politicians and heads of state is Easy relative to other options but in the 50s and 60s a number of politicians and heads of state were violently removed from office. People viewed assassinaton as an effective way to accomplish regime change.
I'm not endorsing the idea that Kennedy's murder was an inside job. Just saying if you really think about it, removing a popular head of state from office via non-violent conspiracies or elections is very difficult...
-
Easier said than done.
What could they have Framed Kennedy with? Something illegal? A Sex Scandal?
I doubt they would've been able to get Kennedy to unwittingly commit a crime. Plus his brother was the Attorney General. Good luck with that.
A sex scandal? Not in the 60s. The Press was different back then. The News media greatly ignored the womanizing and sexual escapades of Presidents in that time. Kennedy and Johnson did stuff in the White House that would make Bill Clinton's Lewinsky scandal look Rated PG.
I don't think using violence to remove politicians and heads of state is Easy relative to other options but in the 50s and 60s a number of politicians and heads of state were violently removed from office. People viewed assassinaton as an effective way to accomplish regime change.
I'm not endorsing the idea that Kennedy's murder was an inside job. Just saying if you really think about it, removing a popular head of state from office via non-violent conspiracies or elections is very difficult...
Tell us what would be the sense of framing Dirty Harvey, who was apparently (according to CTer brainiacs) a lousy shot, have him fire at Kennedy from behind (meanwhile claiming post-shots frontal wounds) supplied with an apparently crappy weapon and crappy ammo, and then expect the public to swallow that little gem?
A sniper with a proven kill record, with the best gear, would be a more plausible patsy. But no hitman would take that assignment from that location: Snipers choose locations which include escape routes that don't rely on luck.
And, arguably, Oswald was likely resigned to being shot or captured, despite certain CT 'ring-a-ding' piecemeal protestations hereabouts.
-
Tell us what would be the sense of framing Oswald who was apparently (according to CTer brainiacs) a lousy shot, have him fire at Kennedy from behind, supplied with an apparently crappy weapon and crappy ammo, and then expect the public to swallow that little gem?
Oswald was a "Commie" who spoke Russian and had a Russian wife. The perfect Patsy at the peak of the Cold War.
The details of the assassination wouldn't have mattered if a) the Warren Report wasn't so flawed and b) the Zapruder film had never been shown to the Public.
-
Oswald was a "Commie" who spoke Russian and had a Russian wife. The perfect Patsy at the peak of the Cold War.
The details of the assassination wouldn't have mattered if a) the Warren Report wasn't so flawed and b) the Zapruder film had never been shown to the Public.
To achieve what? World War 3?
-
To achieve what? World War 3?
Some wanted an escalation in Vietnam. Some wanted a confrontation with the Soviets. Some wanted an invasion of Cuba.
All those things were on the table but ultimately, Johnson only escalated US intervention in Vietnam despite his suspicions about a Communist conspiracy in Kennedy's assassiantion.
-
Some wanted an escalation in Vietnam. Some wanted a confrontation with the Soviets. Some wanted an invasion of Cuba.
All those things were on the table but ultimately, Johnson only escalated US intervention in Vietnam despite his suspicions about a Communist conspiracy in Kennedy's assassiantion.
So if that was the purpose of a conspiracy it failed, so how was Oswald the perfect patsy? His unstable background made the conclusion that he was an unstable character and a lone nut the most likely one surely. An unexplained assassination with leaked evidence of Russian involvement would seem a better approach to me.
-
So if that was the purpose of a conspiracy it failed, so how was Oswald the perfect patsy?
Sometimes good plans fail.
The conventional wisdom was probably that Johnson would retaliate against Cuba or the Soviets if Oswald was linked to the Communists.
It was Johnson who used the possibility of war with the Soviets to convince Earl Warren to join his Commission.
Johnson and Hoover did the unexpected by suppressing conspiratorial loose ends and declaring before all evidence could be analyzed that Oswald acted alone.
His unstable background made the conclusion that he was an unstable character and a lone nut the most likely one surely. An unexplained assassination with leaked evidence of Russian involvement would seem a better approach to me.
You need a fall guy to keep the investigation from taking unexpected turns.
-
Sometimes good plans fail.
The conventional wisdom was probably that Johnson would retaliate against Cuba or the Soviets if Oswald was linked to the Communists.
It was Johnson who used the possibility of war with the Soviets to convince Earl Warren to join his Commission.
Johnson and Hoover did the unexpected by suppressing conspiratorial loose ends and declaring before all evidence could be analyzed that Oswald acted alone.
You need a fall guy to keep the investigation from taking unexpected turns.
Makes no sense to me. Oswald as a lone gunman makes a lot more sense.
-
So you believe these very powerful forces (FBI, CIA, Pentagon, Justice) that murdered JFK - and framed Oswald and then covered their tracks - didn't have the ability and resources to frame JFK for something? Their only course was to shoot him in broad daylight in the middle of a crowded street and then frame someone for it? Then cover all of this up?
This is what is odd about the conspiracy claims: these forces can do anything but yet are quite limited at the same time.
BTW: LBJ "escalated" US involvement because the North's attacks on the South increased. The South, after Diem's death, was increasingly incapable of defending itself from the North's increased activity. LBJ was faced with the problem of either abandoning the South to the North or trying to prevent that by increasing the US role. The South simply couldn't do it by themselves.
I believe that after JFK became President he became aware of the extreme immorality and illegal actions being exercised by the national security apparatus. Any attempt to blackmail him, would have ended in disaster for the perpetrators. Eventuaully South Vietnam did fall and communism didn't take over the world. But many made billions of dollars, including LBJ's friends. I would point back to my original post in that if the killers knew LBJ's stance on Vietnam, there would be no need to blackmail anyone.
-
And, arguably, Oswald was likely resigned to being shot or captured, despite certain CT 'ring-a-ding' piecemeal protestations hereabouts.
There's nothing like attaching the word "likely" to baseless conjecture and then pretending like that actually makes it likely.
-
I find it interesting that more than half of the respondents to this survey believe there was NO conspiracy - yet they have taken the time to respond on an assassination forum site - I smell a rat!
There are plenty of all-conspiracy/dominant-conspiracy JFK sites and blogs out there. Things are a bit more even-handed here, despite the CT trolls and spammers.
-
There are plenty of all-conspiracy/dominant-conspiracy JFK sites and blogs out there. Things are a bit more even-handed here, despite the CT trolls and spammers.
McGaw, his real name, has been deleted and is permanently banned from the Forum.
He joined the Forum using three different names, they have been deleted too, and I suspect they voted three times for the same answer in the poll.