JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Jon Banks on November 24, 2021, 06:09:01 PM
-
Jacobin: Oliver Stone Talks to Jacobin About JFK’s Killing
Jacobin: Why is finding out the truth about who shot JFK so important in 2021 and beyond?
Stone:
Because in 1963, our so-called democracy went down the drain. After Kennedy was killed, there’s been no American president — none! — who has been able to challenge the authority of intelligence agencies or the military. Their budgets keep growing, and they have carte blanche. In other words, no one can change what they’re doing, and they’re on a course to protect our national security — which, of course, they define in the most unrealistic terms. So, under that aegis, you can do pretty much whatever you want. You cannot touch national security as president — it’s a third rail in politics.
I think the media has no desire to bring this back as a subject. It’s a memory hole. But it’s very important because you have to behold American foreign policy, what we’ve been doing. We’ve been in forever wars — we never stop. That’s what Kennedy was fighting about — he was a warrior for peace, for peace. And he saw the problem of Pax Americana — his speech at American University, his desire for détente with the Soviet Union, and Cuba, too. He was a man who’d been to war, he knew war, he didn’t believe in the generals anymore. He thought they were old men who’d lost contact with reality.
Operation Northwoods, all the crazy schemes they devised to invade Cuba, shocked him, horrified him. That’s what he was dealing with — a war-state mentality that came out of the 1950s. It’s actually true, the Pentagon wanted war with Russia, they wanted to go for it now because they figured in the future Russia would build up its nuclear arms. And they wanted to get them now. This was the Curtis LeMay point of view.
https://jacobinmag.com/2021/11/oliver-stone-talks-to-jacobin-about-jfks-killing/
-
Jacobin: Oliver Stone Talks to Jacobin About JFK’s Killing
Jacobin: Why is finding out the truth about who shot JFK so important in 2021 and beyond?
Stone:
Because in 1963, our so-called democracy went down the drain. After Kennedy was killed, there’s been no American president — none! — who has been able to challenge the authority of intelligence agencies or the military. Their budgets keep growing, and they have carte blanche. In other words, no one can change what they’re doing, and they’re on a course to protect our national security — which, of course, they define in the most unrealistic terms. So, under that aegis, you can do pretty much whatever you want. You cannot touch national security as president — it’s a third rail in politics.
I think the media has no desire to bring this back as a subject. It’s a memory hole. But it’s very important because you have to behold American foreign policy, what we’ve been doing. We’ve been in forever wars — we never stop. That’s what Kennedy was fighting about — he was a warrior for peace, for peace. And he saw the problem of Pax Americana — his speech at American University, his desire for détente with the Soviet Union, and Cuba, too. He was a man who’d been to war, he knew war, he didn’t believe in the generals anymore. He thought they were old men who’d lost contact with reality.
Operation Northwoods, all the crazy schemes they devised to invade Cuba, shocked him, horrified him. That’s what he was dealing with — a war-state mentality that came out of the 1950s. It’s actually true, the Pentagon wanted war with Russia, they wanted to go for it now because they figured in the future Russia would build up its nuclear arms. And they wanted to get them now. This was the Curtis LeMay point of view.
https://jacobinmag.com/2021/11/oliver-stone-talks-to-jacobin-about-jfks-killing/
So, if he is correct (about his words that I bolded) then why didn’t we go to war with Russia right after JFK was assassinated?
I tend to believe that JFK did want peaceful solutions. And that the brink of nuclear war that happened during the Cuban Missle Crisis affected JFK (and those of us who were old enough to understand that situation) profoundly. But I don’t believe that no other President since JFK has been able to effectively challenge the authority of the intelligence agencies or military. That’s just paranoid nonsense!
-
So, if he is correct (about his words that I bolded) then why didn’t we go to war with Russia right after JFK was assassinated?
I tend to believe that JFK did want peaceful solutions. And that the brink of nuclear war that happened during the Cuban Missle Crisis affected JFK (and those of us who were old enough to understand that situation) profoundly. But I don’t believe that no other President since JFK has been able to effectively challenge the authority of the intelligence agencies or military. That’s just paranoid nonsense!
Good question. I can't speak for him but I don't think Stone was talking about the 1960s.
In the early 1950s, before the Soviets caught up to our number of nuclear weapons, there were some within the US MIC that wanted to go to war against Russia. And from recently declassified records, we know that some of those same generals wanted to Nuke China in the 1950s. There was a belief that we could win a nuclear confrontation back in the 50s.
What grew out of President Eisenhower's reluctance to use military force all over the world was the growth of Covert Operations. In other words, rather than just observe and report intelligence, the CIA and Defense Intel agencies became more proactive at trying to influence or control events abroad. Covert Ops became a different way to wage war.
-
Good question. I can't speak for him but I don't think Stone was talking about the 1960s.
In the early 1950s, before the Soviets caught up to our number of nuclear weapons, there were some within the US MIC that wanted to go to war against Russia. And from recently declassified records, we know that some of those same generals wanted to Nuke China in the 1950s. There was a belief that we could win a nuclear confrontation back in the 50s.
What grew out of President Eisenhower's reluctance to use military force all over the world was the growth of Covert Operations. In other words, rather than just observe and report intelligence, the CIA and Defense Intel agencies became more proactive at trying to influence or control events abroad. Covert Ops became a different way to wage war.
Oftentimes, movies reflect a society’s attitudes and opinions. Dr. Strangelove premiered in 1964. I saw it before I was legally old enough to get in. And it was pretty intense for a young lad. Especially the last scene. Here’s a synopsis from google:
A film about what could happen if the wrong person pushed the wrong button -- and it played the situation for laughs. U.S. Air Force General Jack Ripper goes completely insane, and sends his bomber wing to destroy the U.S.S.R. He thinks that the communists are conspiring to pollute the "precious bodily fluids" of the American people.
Yes, covert Ops are what triggered the Gulf of Tonkin incident which caused the US congress to fund and authorize LBJ to have a war without actually declaring war. But LBJ certainly still had the authority to control the intelligence agencies and the military. It was LBJ’s decision to make, if he had decided differently then the military would have had to comply. Oliver Stone is spouting nonsense.
-
Oftentimes, movies reflect a society’s attitudes and opinions. Dr. Strangelove premiered in 1964. I saw it before I was legally old enough to get in. And it was pretty intense for a young lad. Especially the last scene. Here’s a synopsis from google:
A film about what could happen if the wrong person pushed the wrong button -- and it played the situation for laughs. U.S. Air Force General Jack Ripper goes completely insane, and sends his bomber wing to destroy the U.S.S.R. He thinks that the communists are conspiring to pollute the "precious bodily fluids" of the American people.
Yes, covert Ops are what triggered the Gulf of Tonkin incident which caused the US congress to fund and authorize LBJ to have a war without actually declaring war. But LBJ certainly still had the authority to control the intelligence agencies and the military. It was LBJ’s decision to make, if he had decided differently then the military would have had to comply. Oliver Stone is spouting nonsense.
Jon is embracing the Oliver Stone/Jim Garrison history of the Cold War. That is, the US wanted to do this, the US did that, the US planned another thing. The MIC wanted this, the CIA that. That is, essentially, that this covert, all powerful "war state" hijacked American policy after WWII and created mythical threats to justify that power. Stone actually says that if Henry Wallace had been elected president in 1948 instead of Truman that no cold war would have followed. I would think one Josef Stalin would have had something to say about that.
Footnote: one of the top advisers to Henry Wallace during his campaign was one John Abt. Yes, the same John Abt that Oswald wanted as his lawyer.
All of that history ignores the actions of the Soviets, of China, of North Korea et cetera, during this conflict. The actions of Moscow or Beijing or Hanoi doesn't excuse whatever we did, doesn't justify all of the policies. I'm not saying that at all. But you can't look at what the US (and our allies who supported these efforts; how did the MIC get the UK and France and other western European nations to go with these policies?) did in a vacuum.
Garrison and Stone and DiEugenio put forward this vision of the Cold War to explain why JFK was killed. It was because JFK was going to dismantle the "war state", end the Cold War, pull out of Vietnam, normalize relations with Castro, et cetera. And it was for that that they had to kill him.
I'll repeat again: all of this conspiracy history is a sort of reverse engineering. Conspiracists think JFK couldn't have been killed by this pathetic Oswald with a cheap rifle; it had to be more. So who could have done it? And how could they pull it off? It had to be this secret military "deep state". Only they had the power and resources and motive to do so.
As to the Gulf of Tonkin: I think the whole discussion about the event - and it did happen; the North did attack US ships in the Gulf that first day; but NOT the second - is meaningless really. The North was intent on attacking the South and taking it over. For good or bad, the US was determined not to let that happen. So the conflict was bound to happen. Either initiated by that event or something else down the line.
-
Jon is embracing the Oliver Stone/Jim Garrison history of the Cold War. That is, the US wanted to do this, the US did that, the US planned another thing. The MIC wanted this, the CIA that. That is, essentially, that this covert, all powerful "war state" hijacked American policy after WWII and created mythical threats to justify that power. Stone actually says that if Henry Wallace had been elected president in 1948 instead of Truman that no cold war would have followed. I would think one Josef Stalin would have had something to say about that.
Footnote: one of the top advisers to Henry Wallace during his campaign was one John Abt. Yes, the same John Abt that Oswald wanted as his lawyer.
All of that history ignores the actions of the Soviets, of China, of North Korea et cetera, during this conflict. The actions of Moscow or Beijing or Hanoi doesn't excuse whatever we did, doesn't justify all of the policies. I'm not saying that at all. But you can't look at what the US (and our allies who supported these efforts; how did the MIC get the UK and France and other western European nations to go with these policies?) did in a vacuum.
Garrison and Stone and DiEugenio put forward this vision of the Cold War to explain why JFK was killed. It was because JFK was going to dismantle the "war state", end the Cold War, pull out of Vietnam, normalize relations with Castro, et cetera. And it was for that that they had to kill him.
I'll repeat again: all of this conspiracy history is a sort of reverse engineering. Conspiracists think JFK couldn't have been killed by this pathetic Oswald with a cheap rifle; it had to be more. So who could have done it? And how could they pull it off? It had to be this secret military "deep state". Only they had the power and resources and motive to do so.
As to the Gulf of Tonkin: I think the whole discussion about the event - and it did happen; the North did attack US ships in the Gulf that first day; but NOT the second - is meaningless really. The North was intent on attacking the South and taking it over. For good or bad, the US was determined not to let that happen. So the conflict was bound to happen. Either initiated by that event or something else down the line.
JFK had been gone for a while before the Gulf of Tonkin events happened. LBJ’s mindset regarding Vietnam was different than JFK’s mindset. No one can say with certainty what JFK might have done regarding Vietnam if he had not been assassinated. But he never strayed from his opinion that the conflict was one that the Vietnamese had to resolve. He believed that the U.S.’s role should be to assist the South Vietnamese, not to fight the war for them with American combat forces. LBJ, on the other hand, let his ego and insecurities get in the way of good judgment. He said that “HE wasn’t going to be the first U.S. President to loose a war.” The conflict was Vietnam’s war until LBJ decided to Americanize it by sending U.S. combat forces. Once Nixon became President, he began to re-Vietnamize the war by reducing U.S. forces and training Vietnamese forces to take the place of them. This, by the way, was exactly what JFK was doing when he was assassinated.
-
Jon is embracing the Oliver Stone/Jim Garrison history of the Cold War. That is, the US wanted to do this, the US did that, the US planned another thing. The MIC wanted this, the CIA that. That is, essentially, that this covert, all powerful "war state" hijacked American policy after WWII and created mythical threats to justify that power. Stone actually says that if Henry Wallace had been elected president in 1948 instead of Truman that no cold war would have followed. I would think one Josef Stalin would have had something to say about that.
Footnote: one of the top advisers to Henry Wallace during his campaign was one John Abt. Yes, the same John Abt that Oswald wanted as his lawyer.
All of that history ignores the actions of the Soviets, of China, of North Korea et cetera, during this conflict. The actions of Moscow or Beijing or Hanoi doesn't excuse whatever we did, doesn't justify all of the policies. I'm not saying that at all. But you can't look at what the US (and our allies who supported these efforts; how did the MIC get the UK and France and other western European nations to go with these policies?) did in a vacuum.
Garrison and Stone and DiEugenio put forward this vision of the Cold War to explain why JFK was killed. It was because JFK was going to dismantle the "war state", end the Cold War, pull out of Vietnam, normalize relations with Castro, et cetera. And it was for that that they had to kill him.
Oliver Stone is entitled to his own opinions, I'm entitled to my own, and you're entitled to your own.
Here's my opinion:
I don't agree with Stone's thesis that 'JFK was killed for refusing to escalate in Vietnam'. My opinion is, if there was a conspiracy plot against JFK, I suspect it had more to do with Cuba and the Mafia, than Vietnam.
However, in the bigger picture, Stone isn't wrong about the Military Industrial Complex and the Cold War. Like most great artists, his work appeals to such a wide range of people because there's a lot of truth in it even if some specific details are wrong. For example, Stone's 1991 film, 'JFK', is heavily dramatized and shows lots of things that didn't really happen but Stone nailed the broader narrative of how many Americans 'feel' about the JFK assassination. The film works as a political thriller because of the feelings (and an all-star cast), not the facts. 'JFK', 'Platoon', 'Wall Street', and 'The Doors' were great and iconic films because of the compelling stories, not the fact that they accurately portrayed the subjects. Unlike Stone's feature films, 'JFK Revisited' is a documentary and while there are a few things in the film that I don't agree with, it's a solid documentary in terms of facts and accuracy.
I don't know as much about Jim Garrison's political views but I know that both Stone and DiEugenio have far-left political opinions outside of the JFK topic as do I. So for that reason I'm sympathetic to how they attach the Kennedy assassination to the broader cultural war against the Left in the 1960s. What I mean is, many on the Left don't view the political assassinations of Liberal/Left leaders in the 1960s as isolated events. The Leftwing narrative on the JFK/Malcolm X/MLK/RFK murders is that villains like J Edgar Hoover and the CIA conspired to destroy the most charismatic Liberal/Left leaders of the 60s in order to destroy the Progressive movement in the US. No, I don't know for a fact that all those assassinations had "Deep State" conspiracies behind them but we know a great deal about the COINTELPRO operations that went on in the 60s and 70s. I feel that it's broadly true that people like Hoover in fact were very proactive in their efforts to take down Leftist leaders and Leftist movements in the US (and the CIA did the same abroad).
If you're not politically on the Left, I doubt that you spend much time thinking about COINTELPRO. I'm just bringing this up to explain that our contemporary political views affect how we interpret history.
As for the Cold War, I think the truth is in the middle but the paranoia and threat inflation within the US national security State likely did extend the Cold War longer than it needed to last. And I'm fully aware that I'm speaking with 20/20 hindsight. Back when the Cold War was happening, it was difficult to see it for what it was so I'm not arguing that the decision makers in those times intentionally made mistakes. Just acknowledging that mistakes were made and noting the patterns of behavior which led to those mistakes.
I'll repeat again: all of this conspiracy history is a sort of reverse engineering.
It's not reverse engineering. The vast majority of Americans accepted the conclusions of the Warren Report until researchers began to actually READ the entire 26 volumes and take a closer look at the evidence. And the problem back then as well as today is that there was a rush to judgement by investigators, not a good faith effort to figure out if others were involved.
So we're left with only two plausible conclusions:
A) The Warren Commission got it right in spite of the flawed evidence, cover-ups, and omissions of relevant information.
or
B) There was a conspiracy plot and we may never know the whole truth about it due to the botched investigations and government secrecy.
Conspiracists think JFK couldn't have been killed by this pathetic Oswald with a cheap rifle; it had to be more. So who could have done it? And how could they pull it off? It had to be this secret military "deep state". Only they had the power and resources and motive to do so.
Not me. I think it's plausible that Oswald alone did it. I'm just not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt due to the mountain of questionable and inconclusive stuff in the case. Once you see certain things, you just can't unsee them and the LN side doesn't have answers for every inconclusive piece of evidence.
-
Oliver Stone is entitled to his own opinions, I'm entitled to my own, and you're entitled to your own.
Here's my opinion:
I don't agree with Stone's thesis that 'JFK was killed for refusing to escalate in Vietnam'. My opinion is, if there was a conspiracy plot against JFK, I suspect it had more to do with Cuba and the Mafia, than Vietnam.
However, in the bigger picture, Stone isn't wrong about the Military Industrial Complex and the Cold War. Like most great artists, his work appeals to such a wide range of people because there's a lot of truth in it even if some specific details are wrong. For example, Stone's 1991 film, 'JFK', is heavily dramatized and shows lots of things that didn't really happen but Stone nailed the broader narrative of how many Americans 'feel' about the JFK assassination. The film works as a political thriller because of the feelings (and an all-star cast), not the facts. 'JFK', 'Platoon', 'Wall Street', and 'The Doors' were great and iconic films because of the compelling stories, not the fact that they accurately portrayed the subjects. Unlike Stone's feature films, 'JFK Revisited' is a documentary and while there are a few things in the film that I don't agree with, it's a solid documentary in terms of facts and accuracy.
I don't know as much about Jim Garrison's political views but I know that both Stone and DiEugenio have far-left political opinions outside of the JFK topic as do I. So for that reason I'm sympathetic to how they attach the Kennedy assassination to the broader cultural war against the Left in the 1960s. What I mean is, many on the Left don't view the political assassinations of Liberal/Left leaders in the 1960s as isolated events. The Leftwing narrative on the JFK/Malcolm X/MLK/RFK murders is that villains like J Edgar Hoover and the CIA conspired to destroy the most charismatic Liberal/Left leaders of the 60s in order to destroy the Progressive movement in the US. No, I don't know for a fact that all those assassinations had "Deep State" conspiracies behind them but we know a great deal about the COINTELPRO operations that went on in the 60s and 70s. I feel that it's broadly true that people like Hoover in fact were very proactive in their efforts to take down Leftist leaders and Leftist movements in the US (and the CIA did the same abroad).
If you're not politically on the Left, I doubt that you spend much time thinking about COINTELPRO. I'm just bringing this up to explain that our contemporary political views affect how we interpret history.
As for the Cold War, I think the truth is in the middle but the paranoia and threat inflation within the US national security State likely did extend the Cold War longer than it needed to last. And I'm fully aware that I'm speaking with 20/20 hindsight. Back when the Cold War was happening, it was difficult to see it for what it was so I'm not arguing that the decision makers in those times intentionally made mistakes. Just acknowledging that mistakes were made and noting the patterns of behavior which led to those mistakes.
It's not reverse engineering. The vast majority of Americans accepted the conclusions of the Warren Report until researchers began to actually READ the entire 26 volumes and take a closer look at the evidence. And the problem back then as well as today is that there was a rush to judgement by investigators, not a good faith effort to figure out if others were involved.
So we're left with only two plausible conclusions:
A) The Warren Commission got it right in spite of the flawed evidence, cover-ups, and omissions of relevant information.
or
B) There was a conspiracy plot and we may never know the whole truth about it due to the botched investigations and government secrecy.
Not me. I think it's plausible that Oswald alone did it. I'm just not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt due to the mountain of questionable and inconclusive stuff in the case. Once you see certain things, you just can't unsee them and the LN side doesn't have answers for every inconclusive piece of evidence.
The starting and ending point of this case is the rifle. Do you accept that Oswald owned the MC rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD? The evidence of that fact is substantial. There are order forms, PO Box, use of a known alias, prints, photos, and other circumstances that link Oswald to that particular rifle beyond any reasonable doubt. Once you accept the fact that it was Oswald's rifle left at the crime scene, you have arrived at the simplicity that lies on the far side of CTer complexity. Oswald had an opportunity to explain the presence of his rifle there, but instead he lied about his ownership of any rifle. His rifle was not in the place where his own wife indicated that he stored it when the DPD searched the Paine's garage. And there is no accounting for any other rifle ever belonging to Oswald EXCEPT for the one found on the 6th floor. Oswald's rifle was found at the crime scene. He had no explanation for it being there or alibi for the moment of the assassination. Witnesses confirm that they saw a rifle in the 6th floor window at the moment of the assassination. Fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle were found by that window. His prints are on the very SN boxes and bag by that window. The basic evidence convicts him a million times over. The prisons are full of criminals convicted with much less evidence.
-
JFK had been gone for a while before the Gulf of Tonkin events happened. LBJ’s mindset regarding Vietnam was different than JFK’s mindset. No one can say with certainty what JFK might have done regarding Vietnam if he had not been assassinated. But he never strayed from his opinion that the conflict was one that the Vietnamese had to resolve. He believed that the U.S.’s role should be to assist the South Vietnamese, not to fight the war for them with American combat forces. LBJ, on the other hand, let his ego and insecurities get in the way of good judgment. He said that “HE wasn’t going to be the first U.S. President to loose a war.” The conflict was Vietnam’s war until LBJ decided to Americanize it by sending U.S. combat forces. Once Nixon became President, he began to re-Vietnamize the war by reducing U.S. forces and training Vietnamese forces to take the place of them. This, by the way, was exactly what JFK was doing when he was assassinated.
Well, we've gone round-and-round on JFK and Vietnam. JFK's top advisers all wrote books about their experiences. McNamara, Bundy, Rusk. Even RFK talked about it. All said that there were no plans, none, to simply leave the conflict. That's what they all said. In November of 1963 they still thought the war was winnable. The Pentagon Papers, the top secret history of the war, also said the same thing.
At what point does a JFK recognize that it wasn't? Who knows? What does he do? Leave? Or try to find a way out? As the people above said: that idea wasn't even considered since at that time they thought it was still possible to keep the South from being overrun. If JFK decides to leave, the South falls, in a year? six months?, and the entire region is likely thrown into disarray. Refugees pour out of the South (as they did in 1975) and destabilize Laos and Cambodia. Those governments fall to the communists. So all of SE Asia "dominoes" into communist control. Can JFK allow that to happen? Politically? He's not up for re-election but he wants, probably, RFK to follow him. Or a Democrat. Can he throw his party overboard? What happens in the rest of the world? Again, we're all guessing about what he'd do if he decided it was unwinnable without putting ground troops there.
I insist on one thing though: If you asked JFK on November 22, 1963 what he was going to do if the South couldn't defend itself, it his policy of building a self-sustaining government after removing Diem failed, what would you do? He would say, "I don't know."
In any case, Stone's thesis that JFK was going to leave and it was that, in large part, that he was killed is a flat out wrong. I won't say lie because I'm sure Stone believes it. But he's a ridiculously misinformed person.
-
Well, we've gone round-and-round on JFK and Vietnam. JFK's top advisers all wrote books about their experiences. McNamara, Bundy, Rusk. Even RFK talked about it. All said that there were no plans, none, to simply leave the conflict. That's what they all said. In November of 1963 they still thought the war was winnable. The Pentagon Papers, the top secret history of the war, also said the same thing.
At what point does a JFK recognize that it wasn't? Who knows? What does he do? Leave? Or try to find a way out? As the people above said: that idea wasn't even considered since at that time they thought it was still possible to keep the South from being overrun. If JFK leaves the South falls and the entire region is thrown into disarray. Refugees pour out of the South and destabilize Laos and Cambodia. Those governments fall to the communists. Can JFK allow that to happen? He's not up for re-election but he wants, probably, RFK to follow him. Or a Democrat. Can he throw his party overboard? Again, we're all guessing.
I insist on one thing though: If you asked JFK on November 22, 1963 what he was going to do if the South couldn't defend itself, it his policy of building a self-sustaining government after removing Diem failed, what would you do? He would say, "I don't know."
In any case, Stone's thesis that JFK was going to leave and it was that, in large part, that he was killed is a flat out wrong. I won't say lie because I'm sure Stone believes it. But he's a ridiculously misinformed person.
I think that Oliver Stone’s belief in the Vietnam situation being the reason that JFK was assassinated is nonsense. I don’t believe it whatsoever. My point is simply that I believe that JFK would not have sent U.S. combat troops to Vietnam. The plan at the time of his death was to reduce the number of U.S. military advisers back to the level it was before he took office. I think JFK probably would have been willing to negotiate a settlement after the 1964 elections. Sadly, LBJ had a different viewpoint. He took the situation personally. And he was willing to send hundreds of thousands of soldiers to fight so that HE wouldn’t be the first U.S. President to loose a war.
-
The starting and ending point of this case is the rifle. Do you accept that Oswald owned the MC rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD? The evidence of that fact is substantial.
I don't know if the rifle found on the Sixth Floor is the same one Oswald allegedly ordered. The facts surrounding the rifle evidence remain as murky as lots of other stuff in the case.
And we learned just a few years ago that we can't conclusively say that all the bullets came from one rifle:
Bullet Evidence Challenges Findings In JFK Assassination
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070517142528.htm
There are order forms, PO Box, use of a known alias, prints, photos, and other circumstances that link Oswald to that particular rifle beyond any reasonable doubt. Once you accept the fact that it was Oswald's rifle left at the crime scene, you have arrived at the simplicity that lies on the far side of CTer complexity. Oswald had an opportunity to explain the presence of his rifle there, but instead he lied about his ownership of any rifle. His rifle was not in the place where his own wife indicated that he stored it when the DPD searched the Paine's garage. And there is no accounting for any other rifle ever belonging to Oswald EXCEPT for the one found on the 6th floor. Oswald's rifle was found at the crime scene. He had no explanation for it being there or alibi for the moment of the assassination. Witnesses confirm that they saw a rifle in the 6th floor window at the moment of the assassination. Fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle were found by that window. His prints are on the very SN boxes and bag by that window. The basic evidence convicts him a million times over. The prisons are full of criminals convicted with much less evidence.
I fully aware of all of the above. However, I pay attention to the parts of that which remain contested while you choose to ignore it.
No one would ever be exonerated in court if only Prosecutors, not Prosecutors and Defense attorneys, were allowed to present evidence. That's pretty much what basing your opinion on the Warren Report is. It's a prosecutorial document. They didn't allow counter arguments from people who wanted to challenge the evidence at that time.
Oswald never got his day in court so the stuff that would've been challenged in court by his Defense attorneys has never faced legal scrutiny. It can only be debated in the court of public opinion.
-
Well, we've gone round-and-round on JFK and Vietnam. JFK's top advisers all wrote books about their experiences. McNamara, Bundy, Rusk. Even RFK talked about it. All said that there were no plans, none, to simply leave the conflict. That's what they all said. In November of 1963 they still thought the war was winnable. The Pentagon Papers, the top secret history of the war, also said the same thing.
At what point does a JFK recognize that it wasn't? Who knows? What does he do? Leave? Or try to find a way out? As the people above said: that idea wasn't even considered since at that time they thought it was still possible to keep the South from being overrun. If JFK leaves the South falls and the entire region is thrown into disarray. Refugees pour out of the South and destabilize Laos and Cambodia. Those governments fall to the communists. Can JFK allow that to happen? He's not up for re-election but he wants, probably, RFK to follow him. Or a Democrat. Can he throw his party overboard? Again, we're all guessing.
What we can say with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight is that the Communist threat (ie. the Domino Theory) was inflated.
The north Vietnamese were more Nationalist than Communist. Hence why they went to war against China following our exit from Vietnam.
Most of the anti-colonial movements of the post-WWII era were driven by Nationalism and the desire for Independence moreso than political ideology. There's evidence that JFK understood and sympathized with some of the anti-Colonial movements of the early 60s. He was not nearly as rabidly anti-Communist as Eisenhower and Johnson. So it's fair to speculate that he indeed wouldn't have followed the same path as Johnson (who didn't like Kennedy and was taking advice from Eisenhower on Vietnam).
I'm fully aware that Kennedy was also anti-Communist, I just don't think he agreed with most of the national security establishment's views on how to deal with Africa, Asia, and Cuba.
In any case, Stone's thesis that JFK was going to leave and it was that, in large part, that he was killed is a flat out wrong. I won't say lie because I'm sure Stone believes it. But he's a ridiculously misinformed person.
The declassified documents since the 1990s vindicated Stone's view that JFK wanted to get out of Vietnam. Whether the political circumstances would've allowed Kennedy to do so if he had lived to serve a second term remains an open question. But Stone's view isn't baseless. It has corroboration.
-
All of this has been argued to death, but here are a couple links.
Oswald owned the rifle:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html
JFK's intentions regarding Vietnam:
https://americandiplomacy.web.unc.edu/2020/11/without-dallas-john-f-kennedy-and-the-vietnam-war/
-
All of this has been argued to death, but here are a couple links.
Oswald owned the rifle:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html
JFK's intentions regarding Vietnam:
https://americandiplomacy.web.unc.edu/2020/11/without-dallas-john-f-kennedy-and-the-vietnam-war/
All of this has been argued to death, but here are a couple links.
Oswald owned the rifle:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html
BS. Even if Oswald did write the order form documents (and we only have a photocopy and an FBI agent's word for that) how does that even begin to prove he actually owned the rifle?
Are you really saying that there is no other explanation for Oswald writing the order forms.
-
All of this has been argued to death, but here are a couple links.
Oswald owned the rifle:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html
JFK's intentions regarding Vietnam:
https://americandiplomacy.web.unc.edu/2020/11/without-dallas-john-f-kennedy-and-the-vietnam-war/
Sorry but there's no final draft or interpretation of history.
The narrative on JFK and Vietnam has changed since the 90s due in part to Oliver Stone.
We can't possibly know what JFK would've done had he lived but we know he had plenty of opportunities to escalate in Vietnam as LBJ did (but chose not to).
-
Jon is embracing the Oliver Stone/Jim Garrison history of the Cold War. That is, the US wanted to do this, the US did that, the US planned another thing. The MIC wanted this, the CIA that. That is, essentially, that this covert, all powerful "war state" hijacked American policy after WWII and created mythical threats to justify that power. Stone actually says that if Henry Wallace had been elected president in 1948 instead of Truman that no cold war would have followed. I would think one Josef Stalin would have had something to say about that.
Footnote: one of the top advisers to Henry Wallace during his campaign was one John Abt. Yes, the same John Abt that Oswald wanted as his lawyer.
All of that history ignores the actions of the Soviets, of China, of North Korea et cetera, during this conflict. The actions of Moscow or Beijing or Hanoi doesn't excuse whatever we did, doesn't justify all of the policies. I'm not saying that at all. But you can't look at what the US (and our allies who supported these efforts; how did the MIC get the UK and France and other western European nations to go with these policies?) did in a vacuum.
Garrison and Stone and DiEugenio put forward this vision of the Cold War to explain why JFK was killed. It was because JFK was going to dismantle the "war state", end the Cold War, pull out of Vietnam, normalize relations with Castro, et cetera. And it was for that that they had to kill him.
I'll repeat again: all of this conspiracy history is a sort of reverse engineering. Conspiracists think JFK couldn't have been killed by this pathetic Oswald with a cheap rifle; it had to be more. So who could have done it? And how could they pull it off? It had to be this secret military "deep state". Only they had the power and resources and motive to do so.
As to the Gulf of Tonkin: I think the whole discussion about the event - and it did happen; the North did attack US ships in the Gulf that first day; but NOT the second - is meaningless really. The North was intent on attacking the South and taking it over. For good or bad, the US was determined not to let that happen. So the conflict was bound to happen. Either initiated by that event or something else down the line.
You almost seemed reasonable. JFK did not create what he found himself confronted with, or appoint them, except the extremist hawks of the Ex-Comm...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyman_Lemnitzer
"...Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September 1960. As Chairman, Lemnitzer was involved in the Bay of Pigs crisis and the early years of United States involvement in the Vietnam War. He was also required to testify before the United States Senate Foreign Affairs Committee about his knowledge of the activities of Major General Edwin Walker, who had been dismissed from the Army over alleged attempts to promote his political beliefs in the military.
As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, Lemnitzer approved the plans known as Operation Northwoods in 1962, a proposed plan to discredit the Castro regime and create support for military action against Cuba by staging false flag acts of terrorism and developing "a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington". Lemnitzer presented the plans to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962. It is unclear how McNamara reacted, but three days later President John F. Kennedy told the general that there was no chance that the US would take military action against Cuba. Within a few months, after the refusal to endorse Operation Northwoods, Lemnitzer was denied another term as JCS chairman.[3] ..."
https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/CMC50/DavidGWelchandJamesGBlightAnIntroductiontotheExCommTranscriptsInternationalSecurity.pdf
Page 6
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51707821508_cc62e2bbca_b.jpg)
Page 8
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51708216709_59bef5ff1d_b.jpg)
-
I think that Oliver Stone’s belief in the Vietnam situation being the reason that JFK was assassinated is nonsense. I don’t believe it whatsoever. My point is simply that I believe that JFK would not have sent U.S. combat troops to Vietnam. The plan at the time of his death was to reduce the number of U.S. military advisers back to the level it was before he took office. I think JFK probably would have been willing to negotiate a settlement after the 1964 elections. Sadly, LBJ had a different viewpoint. He took the situation personally. And he was willing to send hundreds of thousands of soldiers to fight so that HE wouldn’t be the first U.S. President to loose a war.
The plan as I read it was to withdraw forces as the South was able - through our training, assistance, aid et cetera - to take on more of the battle. It wasn't simply to withdraw regardless of the situation on the ground. Two things were to happen simultaneously: we withdraw as they step up. So what would JFK do it the South wasn't able to accomplish that? That's what happened. That's what LBJ faced; and what JFK would have to face. That's why we had to take on more of the effort or leave. Nixon tried to reverse that but it was too late.
As to JFK and a settlement: What's the evidence that Hanoi wanted one? Or Moscow either? After 1964 the Soviets fundamentally changed their approach to SE Asia and, after Khrushchev's removal (he was reluctant to get involved because he believed it would help Mao), began providing massive military and economic support to the North.
JFK was able to settle - for a time - the Laotian crisis without sending in troops because Khrushchev agreed to one. The historian and conspiracy believer John Newman argues that JFK would have dealt with Vietnam like he did with Laos. That is, not send in ground troops. But that ignores the key fact that Soviet policy towards Vietnam was completely different after Khrushchev then it was when he was in charge.
As to LBJ: he uncritically listened to his advisers, the "Best and Brightest", who gave him bad advice and didn't like disagreement among his people. As you pointed out, JFK was much more willing to challenge his advisers, especially the Pentagon and liked hearing dissenting views; so while LBJ went along with their advice, JFK was probably going to reject it.
Anyway: again, what JFK wanted to do is not the same thing as what he was able to do. I don't think LBJ wanted to send in troops either. There are records of conversations he had with people where he said he didn't know what to do. We had to get out but how? What about the consequences?
-
We can't possibly know what JFK would've done had he lived ...
That's the point. Stone and DiEugenio tell us that we do know. JFK would have pulled out and he was killed for it. Which is nonsense.
-
That's the point. Stone and DiEugenio tell us that we do know. JFK would have pulled out and he was killed for it. Which is nonsense.
Thank you, Tracy. I don't know how many times I have to make the same observation.
There's no evidence that JFK - at the time of his death (hint: it was Oswald) - had decided to simply leave. He had just supported the removal of Diem and with that the idea that a new government would be better able to take on the war, e.g., the Buddhist crisis would end. The plan was to pull our troops out AS the South was able to take on the war by itself. It simply wasn't to leave. Not at that time.
As to Vietnam and the Cold War: I find it remarkable at this date, after all we've learned about the Soviets and Mao and Hanoi, that the left (and some on the far right) in America still argue the US was the chief or primary (or sole as Stone does) cause for that conflict. Nothing about the policies from Moscow, from Mao. This is the Oliver Stone/Howard Zinn description of the Cold War. It's nonsense, it's a lie, it's false and even now people still believe it.
They're free to express it. And I am free to say they're wrong and they're free to say I am. This is the US. Not the Soviet Union. Or China. Or Hanoi. Or Havana. Or North Korea.
-
That's the point. Stone and DiEugenio tell us that we do know. JFK would have pulled out and he was killed for it. Which is nonsense.
I agree that it’s not very convincing that JFK’s foot-dragging over Vietnam got folks angry enough to want him killed.
OTOH, there was documented outrage over Kennedy’s Cuba policies beginning with the failed Bay of Pigs operation. There was also a lot of anger over RFK’s crusade against Organized Crime especially due to the fact that the Mob felt they helped Kennedy beat Nixon in 1960. So in terms of motive, I think the CIA-Mafia thing seems more plausible than the Vietnam angle.
-
As to Vietnam and the Cold War: I find it remarkable at this date, after all we've learned about the Soviets and Mao and Hanoi, that the left (and some on the far right) in America still argue the US was the chief or primary (or sole as Stone does) cause for that conflict. Nothing about the policies from Moscow, from Mao. This is the Oliver Stone/Howard Zinn description of the Cold War. It's nonsense, it's a lie, it's false and even now people still believe it.
Steve, it's absurd that in 2021, you still believe that myth.
With the benefit of Hindsight we now can say that the threat of Soviet/China takeover of Vietnam was overstated while the strength of Vietnamese nationalism understated at the time. The Vietnamese were fighting an anti-colonial war of independence against the French and then a civil war and then they fought the Chinese.
Ho Chi Minh admired the US and the American Revolution. Things could've turned out radically different if Eisenhower didn't commit us to a futile attempt to try to reverse the tide of anti-Colonialism.
Here's why Eisenhower was largely to blame for our Vietnam folly:
Eisenhower had inherited Harry Truman's folly of supporting French colonialism as vital to containing communism in Vietnam. But that commitment ended in 1954, when Ho Chi Minh's forces shattered French power at Dien Bien Phu and peacemakers in Geneva outlined their blueprint for peace: an independent, self-ruled Vietnam. The "Geneva Accords" divided the country temporarily into northern and southern zones -- not separate nations -- to be reunited through general elections in 1956.
Ike could have had a clean break from past mistakes. But he blew it. After publicly endorsing the Accords, he proceeded to trash them, swayed by reports that Ho Chi Minh -- Vietnam's popular revolutionary hero but also a communist -- would easily win the 1956 elections.
Ike took a fatal turn, setting America on course for disaster. His administration forged the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), committing the United States to protect a South Vietnam that was not even supposed to exist. Ike boosted Ngo Dinh Diem into power, backed his refusal to hold the 1956 elections and then pumped massive aid into building a new nation around him.
Defending these actions with his doctrinaire anti-communism, Eisenhower reinforced the fatal illusions luring the nation toward calamity. Ho, fiercely nationalistic and distrustful of both Chinese and Russians, was falsely portrayed as their puppet in the communist conspiracy to conquer the rest of Asia. And while Ike was touting Diem's "statesmanship" as guardian of freedom against communist expansion, it was Diem's despotism in the South, not Ho's aggression from the North, that started the conflict.
https://buffalonews.com/news/want-to-place-blame-for-vietnam-start-with-eisenhower/article_1e6bfcab-2fe1-5482-b79b-cdde83261032.html
More on Eisenhower's influence over Vietnam policy even as an ex-President:
With the United States on the brink of a major intervention in Vietnam, the nation needed Ike’s sense of caution and restraint, and his recognition that the use of force can trap a country in foreign adventures. Unfortunately, Eisenhower’s good judgment vanished during the 1960s, as he urged officials into ever-greater escalation in Vietnam. As Andrew Johns detailed in his book on the Republican Party and the war, Vietnam’s Second Front, Eisenhower sought victory in Vietnam by almost any means.
In February 1965, Eisenhower spent two hours explaining to LBJ’s inner circle the vital importance of “denying Southeast Asia to the Communists,” and the need to massively expand the bombing of North Vietnam. But air power didn’t work, and by the summer of 1965, South Vietnam was crumbling in the face of a Communist insurgency. LBJ faced a critical decision about whether to send large numbers of American troops, and Ike urged the president to Americanize the war. “When you once appeal to force in an international situation involving military help for a nation, you have to go all out!” Eisenhower told Johnson. “We are not going to be run out of a free country that we helped establish.”
...
If Ike in winter had retreated from public life, and railed against the peaceniks from his farm in Gettysburg, it might have mattered less. But Eisenhower was still a highly influential player who reinforced LBJ’s hawkish views and made it more difficult to find an exit strategy from a tragic conflict...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/ike-winter-soldier/360857/
Ike didn't have a relationship at all with Kennedy but he had LBJ's ear.
-
(hint: it was Oswald)
Why only hint if you have the evidence to back it up?
Presenting the evidence and defending it, makes him and his belief system vulnerable, because he fully understands that the evidence is weak, superficial, speculative and non-conclusive. By not presenting and/or defending the evidence, he can stay in his comfort zone and keep on whining about all those nasty contrarians who only challenge LNs and not CTs.
It's sad
-
The plan as I read it was to withdraw forces as the South was able - through our training, assistance, aid et cetera - to take on more of the battle. It wasn't simply to withdraw regardless of the situation on the ground. Two things were to happen simultaneously: we withdraw as they step up. So what would JFK do it the South wasn't able to accomplish that? That's what happened. That's what LBJ faced; and what JFK would have to face. That's why we had to take on more of the effort or leave. Nixon tried to reverse that but it was too late.
As to JFK and a settlement: What's the evidence that Hanoi wanted one? Or Moscow either? After 1964 the Soviets fundamentally changed their approach to SE Asia and, after Khrushchev's removal (he was reluctant to get involved because he believed it would help Mao), began providing massive military and economic support to the North.
JFK was able to settle - for a time - the Laotian crisis without sending in troops because Khrushchev agreed to one. The historian and conspiracy believer John Newman argues that JFK would have dealt with Vietnam like he did with Laos. That is, not send in ground troops. But that ignores the key fact that Soviet policy towards Vietnam was completely different after Khrushchev then it was when he was in charge.
As to LBJ: he uncritically listened to his advisers, the "Best and Brightest", who gave him bad advice and didn't like disagreement among his people. As you pointed out, JFK was much more willing to challenge his advisers, especially the Pentagon and liked hearing dissenting views; so while LBJ went along with their advice, JFK was probably going to reject it.
Anyway: again, what JFK wanted to do is not the same thing as what he was able to do. I don't think LBJ wanted to send in troops either. There are records of conversations he had with people where he said he didn't know what to do. We had to get out but how? What about the consequences?
But that ignores the key fact that Soviet policy towards Vietnam was completely different after Khrushchev then it was when he was in charge.
I think that the Soviet policy changes had more to do with a response to the U.S. policy changes that took place under LBJ’s reign than anything else.
By August, 1964, the Johnson Administration believed that escalation of the U.S. presence in Vietnam was the only solution. The post-Diem South proved no more stable than it had been before his ouster, and South Vietnamese troops were generally ineffective. In addition to supporting on-going South Vietnamese raids in the countryside and implementing a U.S. program of bombing the Lao border to disrupt supply lines, the U.S. military began backing South Vietnamese raids of the North Vietnamese coast. The U.S. Navy stationed two destroyers, the Maddox and the Turner Joy, in the Gulf of Tonkin to bolster these actions. They reported an attack by North Vietnamese patrol boats on August 2, and a second attack on August 4. Doubts later emerged as to whether or not the attack against the Turner Joy had taken place.
Immediately after reports of the second attack, Johnson asked the U.S. Congress for permission to defend U.S. forces in Southeast Asia. The Senate passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution with only two opposing votes, and the House of Representatives passed it unanimously. Congress supported the resolution with the assumption that the president would return and seek their support before engaging in additional escalations of the war.
The Gulf of Tonkin incident and the subsequent Gulf of Tonkin resolution provided the justification for further U.S. escalation of the conflict in Vietnam. Acting on the belief that Hanoi would eventually weaken when faced with stepped up bombing raids, Johnson and his advisers ordered the U.S. military to launch Operation Rolling Thunder, a bombing campaign against the North. Operation Rolling Thunder commenced on February 13, 1965 and continued through the spring of 1967. Johnson also authorized the first of many deployments of regular ground combat troops to Vietnam to fight the Viet Cong in the countryside.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/gulf-of-tonkin (https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/gulf-of-tonkin)
-
You almost seemed reasonable. JFK did not create what he found himself confronted with, or appoint them, except the extremist hawks of the Ex-Comm...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyman_Lemnitzer
"...Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September 1960. As Chairman, Lemnitzer was involved in the Bay of Pigs crisis and the early years of United States involvement in the Vietnam War. He was also required to testify before the United States Senate Foreign Affairs Committee about his knowledge of the activities of Major General Edwin Walker, who had been dismissed from the Army over alleged attempts to promote his political beliefs in the military.
As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, Lemnitzer approved the plans known as Operation Northwoods in 1962, a proposed plan to discredit the Castro regime and create support for military action against Cuba by staging false flag acts of terrorism and developing "a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington". Lemnitzer presented the plans to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962. It is unclear how McNamara reacted, but three days later President John F. Kennedy told the general that there was no chance that the US would take military action against Cuba. Within a few months, after the refusal to endorse Operation Northwoods, Lemnitzer was denied another term as JCS chairman.[3] ..."
https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/CMC50/DavidGWelchandJamesGBlightAnIntroductiontotheExCommTranscriptsInternationalSecurity.pdf
Page 6
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51707821508_cc62e2bbca_b.jpg)
Page 8
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51708216709_59bef5ff1d_b.jpg)
says a lot+
-
All of this has been argued to death, but here are a couple links.
Oswald owned the rifle:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html
From that page---
Regardless of the fact that Oswald technically did order a 36-inch Italian carbine, per the words written in the February 1963 American Rifleman magazine ad that Oswald used to order the rifle (pictured below), Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago shipped a 40-inch rifle with serial number C2766 on it to "A. Hidell" on March 20, 1963.
A company doesn't have what you ordered so they send something else instead? Not an acceptable explanation at all.
The company will send a statement advising you that what you ordered is not available but has an alternative stock if you wish.
Especially a firearm.
Also there is the still unexplained situation where Oswald [never to be separated from his supposed precious rifle] somehow ships it back from a New Orleans location with Ruth Paine ...not telling her or Marina about the concealed cargo...but yet it arrives voila' back in Irving-- covering itself up with a blanket, remaining snug until Lee [without even asking it's location] recovers it [un-noticed by all others] on a garage floor.
All that the nutters can come up with.. is maybe, perhaps, coulda, shoulda, woulda speculation and conjecture and none of it can hold even one drop of water.
-
A company doesn't have what you ordered so they send something else instead?
Yes it was quite common for companies to substitute a very similar item in the pre-Internet age.
-
Yes it was quite common for companies to substitute a very similar item in the pre-Internet age.
What's the evidence to support such a claim?
-
From that page---
A company doesn't have what you ordered so they send something else instead? Not an acceptable explanation at all.
The company will send a statement advising you that what you ordered is not available but has an alternative stock if you wish.
Especially a firearm.
Not all that long ago, Mytton posted a copy of the Carcano entry in the Klein's ad from the April, '63 issue or American Rifleman. The April issue would have been published at the beginning of March, so this advertisement reflects what Klein's was offering at the time the A Hidell order was fulfilled. In this ad, C20-T750 refers to the 40" FC rather than the 36" TS rifle advertised as C20-T750. Oswald got exactly what he ordered, if not exactly what he thought he ordered.
(https://i.postimg.cc/y6JLCWPj/Riflead1.jpg)
-
Not all that long ago, Mytton posted a copy of the Carcano entry in the Klein's ad from the April, '63 issue or American Rifleman. The April issue would have been published at the beginning of March, so this advertisement reflects what Klein's was offering at the time the A Hidell order was fulfilled. In this ad, C20-T750 refers to the 40" FC rather than the 36" TS rifle advertised as C20-T750. Oswald got exactly what he ordered, if not exactly what he thought he ordered.
(https://i.postimg.cc/y6JLCWPj/Riflead1.jpg)
Except of course that Department 358 on the envelope indicated that the order form came from an earlier advertisment and most certainly not from the April issue.
-
Except of course that Department 358 on the envelope indicated that the order form came from an earlier advertisment and most certainly not from the April issue.
As usual...an ounce of guesses for a tanker full of questions.
So Ruth lied and she knew about the rifle all of the time?...Even tucked it nicely away on her garage floor. Thumb1:
BTW...how many gun magazines were found in Oswald's possessions?
-
JFK's intentions regarding Vietnam:
https://americandiplomacy.web.unc.edu/2020/11/without-dallas-john-f-kennedy-and-the-vietnam-war/
From that article....What if the most famous murder in history had not taken place on November 22, 1963? With a life and a presidency ended prematurely by an assassin’s bullets, there has been an understandable impulse on the part of historians to consider what would have happened to Kennedy had he lived beyond Dallas.
Had the action not happened in Dallas...It would have happened in Los Angeles or New York or even in Washington D C. Kennedy was a marked man..doomed to go in advance of another election...It was just in his cards.
-
As usual...an ounce of guesses for a tanker full of questions.
So Ruth lied and she knew about the rifle all of the time?...Even tucked it nicely away on her garage floor. Thumb1:
BTW...how many gun magazines were found in Oswald's possessions?
And he apparently owned no more than three bullets since no additional bullets were found in his belongings...
-
Except of course that Department 358 on the envelope indicated that the order form came from an earlier advertisment and most certainly not from the April issue.
So what? Why would that have made a difference to the people who actually fulfilled the order?
-
So what? Why would that have made a difference to the people who actually fulfilled the order?
If you need to ask, then you don't understand how Klein's worked.
They needed to know the Department number to fill the order correctly, exactly because in later issues of the magazine (with different department numbers) there could be changes.
Mr. BELIN. Can you just give us one or more of the magazines in which this coupon might have been taken?
Mr. WALDMAN. Well, this coupon was specifically taken from American Rifleman Magazine, issue of February 1963. It's identified by the department number which is shown as--now, if I can read this--shown as Department 358 on the coupon.
Mr. BELIN. And that number also appears in the address on the envelope to you, is that correct, or to your company?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
-
What's the evidence to support such a claim?
No scientific evidence-just personal experience.
-
No scientific evidence-just personal experience.
Klein's shipped the wrong rifle to you?
-
Klein's shipped the wrong rifle to you?
Funny. :)
In my experience as an older individual, companies in general used to substitute items-I assume to avoid losing a sale because they didn't have an item in stock.
-
Funny. :)
In my experience as an older individual, companies in general used to substitute items-I assume to avoid losing a sale because they didn't have an item in stock.
companies in general used to substitute items
In my experience people frequently generalize too quickly.
How do you know what companies in general do? Have you had first hand experience with so many companies that you can justify such a generalization without it being an informal fallacy?
And how does what other companies, or even companies in general, do apply to Klein's in this particular instance?
-
companies in general used to substitute items
In my experience people frequently generalize too quickly.
How do you know what companies in general do? Have you had first hand experience with so many companies that you can justify such a generalization without it being an informal fallacy?
And how does what other companies, or even companies in general, do apply to Klein's in this particular instance?
As I already stated I have no scientific evidence (only anecdotal) that companies substituted items when they were out of stock. But I am betting that you have no scientific evidence that they did not do this. So we are wasting time. But I notice that quite a few people waste time here arguing silly matters.
-
As I already stated I have no scientific evidence (only anecdotal) that companies substituted items when they were out of stock. But I am betting that you have no scientific evidence that they did not do this. So we are wasting time. But I notice that quite a few people waste time here arguing silly matters.
But I am betting that you have no scientific evidence that they did not do this.
argumentum ad ignorantiam
So we are wasting time.
Well, at least one of us is. Without any scientific or any other kind of evidence you just threw this out there;
Yes it was quite common for companies to substitute a very similar item in the pre-Internet age.
to give the impression that it was normal for a company like Klein's to send out a different item than the one that was ordered.
I don't consider it to be a waste of time to address such a misrepresentation.
-
Funny. :)
In my experience as an older individual, companies in general used to substitute items-I assume to avoid losing a sale because they didn't have an item in stock.
You are dealing with contrarians that will take the discussion down the rabbit hole of the history of business practices regarding substituting items instead of dealing with the evidence in this case. Oswald was sent a specific rifle with a specific serial number. It was sent to his PO box. He is pictured holding that rifle. There is no accounting for that rifle except as the rifle found at his place of employment on 11.22.63. That rifle has the same serial number as the one Klein's sent him. It has his prints on it. There is absolutely no doubt base on the evidence that Oswald was sent a specific rifle, he possessed that rifle, and it is the one found at the TSBD. Even if it could be demonstrated that Klein's was the only company in the history of the world to substitute items, it makes no difference regarding what the evidence demonstrates happened in this case. The contrarians can't deal with the evidence. So the rabbit hole deflections are their preference.
-
You are dealing with contrarians that will take the discussion down the rabbit hole of the history of business practices regarding substituting items instead of dealing with the evidence in this case. Oswald was sent a specific rifle with a specific serial number. It was sent to his PO box. He is pictured holding that rifle. There is no accounting for that rifle except as the rifle found at his place of employment on 11.22.63. That rifle has the same serial number as the one Klein's sent him. It has his prints on it. There is absolutely no doubt base on the evidence that Oswald was sent a specific rifle, he possessed that rifle, and it is the one found at the TSBD. Even if it could be demonstrated that Klein's was the only company in the history of the world to substitute items, it makes no difference regarding what the evidence demonstrates happened in this case. The contrarians can't deal with the evidence. So the rabbit hole deflections are their preference.
The photographic experts for the HSCA concluded that the rifle in the photos was the same rifle recovered by the Dallas Police. I know, I know, they don't accept the legitimacy of the photos. Even if they did, they'd reject the photographic analysis too.
I mean, we go round-and-round on this and they just won't accept it.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/dUEG4rK_eF9OHv687rxi2L9L7x2PB1SDP5j_sEVrHhYV_Jqx9PT0ef6JDdA56MZ_qtAGyrq9ivgDaA6O1PSEHaCfpzJaPDHY5oE6P3Dv056Ep7Tpywt1LLF4teDtNqM8ikm13zavIbcEpfj7VL5GfRorzTj4OAP2zJSiePw54HvLGLS4xEzZFL4bB50UCetfcImxQE5tbS1G_tMTuEEd-Y5MRoi1tCCVa1xzqItkUGiwd5emNS9bO9u2eLXRiZmFtRBiZ2fidxx1tppoIuod__P4hR_KkWqI8Sh-l_JLf2NF7MOr1v-Uo5qtQEMLn9oee7GqK5R83oAbV1L9pgpfgWQQq-IUMpNBhQZY544n42Ohe-g5wPDSZhTfLQ-2MlchC4U5z254DFlzIi_N6kktIKl7Topm9AWVoJnrZL6TW0uTyBCblvuPQ_VbZPs_gnue9LwJHOu2uth7TxgFhHm4dSId8C12ymlgqJbWLNs4VPf1sy14xnR6ocAfSkvETWFWpMXRbJIVqNMXp2Ze499B2Qvm2V6w92_R2Ry4V5lMR6D7etDV995AfACYHQCxodlEgtJWbqYi_8V34Ci0Gpq5UKDoSr-bYMv_sUkL4cluTDlvdAJO5mj_xDupjVLm2N_2yhmX7I_RFk3p0Sx4mG9Mh-P_R5N2Nbvwj2v2-iXFj8NHGdKo-u_rJpU_R6P7QSLWm8zj7vQqosHYv2geYYnHb2g=w641-h216-no?authuser=0)
Source/link: https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0036b.htm
-
You are dealing with contrarians that will take the discussion down the rabbit hole of the history of business practices regarding substituting items instead of dealing with the evidence in this case. Oswald was sent a specific rifle with a specific serial number. It was sent to his PO box. He is pictured holding that rifle. There is no accounting for that rifle except as the rifle found at his place of employment on 11.22.63. That rifle has the same serial number as the one Klein's sent him. It has his prints on it. There is absolutely no doubt base on the evidence that Oswald was sent a specific rifle, he possessed that rifle, and it is the one found at the TSBD. Even if it could be demonstrated that Klein's was the only company in the history of the world to substitute items, it makes no difference regarding what the evidence demonstrates happened in this case. The contrarians can't deal with the evidence. So the rabbit hole deflections are their preference.
instead of dealing with the evidence in this case.
Let's see who is the one not dealing with the evidence.....
Oswald was sent a specific rifle with a specific serial number. It was sent to his PO box.
Really? What's the evidence for that? Any shipping documents you can produce?
And before you go there; Waldman 7 does not provide proof of any rifle actually having been send.
He is pictured holding that rifle.
Says who?
There is no accounting for that rifle except as the rifle found at his place of employment on 11.22.63.
Which means that there is no evidence for that rifle having ever been stored in Ruth Paine's garage, right?
It has his prints on it.
No it doesn't. The FBI found no usuable prints on the rifle.
There is absolutely no doubt base on the evidence that Oswald was sent a specific rifle, he possessed that rifle, and it is the one found at the TSBD.
No doubt? Really? In your opinion, perhaps, but your opinion is not proof of anything, except perhaps that you have no standard of proof and swallow up, without questioning, just about everything the official narrative tells you.
Even if it could be demonstrated that Klein's was the only company in the history of the world to substitute items, it makes no difference regarding what the evidence demonstrates happened in this case.
Funny :D
-
The photographic experts for the HSCA concluded that the rifle in the photos was the same rifle recovered by the Dallas Police. I know, I know, they don't accept the legitimacy of the photos. Even if they did, they'd reject the photographic analysis too.
I mean, we go round-and-round on this and they just won't accept it.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/dUEG4rK_eF9OHv687rxi2L9L7x2PB1SDP5j_sEVrHhYV_Jqx9PT0ef6JDdA56MZ_qtAGyrq9ivgDaA6O1PSEHaCfpzJaPDHY5oE6P3Dv056Ep7Tpywt1LLF4teDtNqM8ikm13zavIbcEpfj7VL5GfRorzTj4OAP2zJSiePw54HvLGLS4xEzZFL4bB50UCetfcImxQE5tbS1G_tMTuEEd-Y5MRoi1tCCVa1xzqItkUGiwd5emNS9bO9u2eLXRiZmFtRBiZ2fidxx1tppoIuod__P4hR_KkWqI8Sh-l_JLf2NF7MOr1v-Uo5qtQEMLn9oee7GqK5R83oAbV1L9pgpfgWQQq-IUMpNBhQZY544n42Ohe-g5wPDSZhTfLQ-2MlchC4U5z254DFlzIi_N6kktIKl7Topm9AWVoJnrZL6TW0uTyBCblvuPQ_VbZPs_gnue9LwJHOu2uth7TxgFhHm4dSId8C12ymlgqJbWLNs4VPf1sy14xnR6ocAfSkvETWFWpMXRbJIVqNMXp2Ze499B2Qvm2V6w92_R2Ry4V5lMR6D7etDV995AfACYHQCxodlEgtJWbqYi_8V34Ci0Gpq5UKDoSr-bYMv_sUkL4cluTDlvdAJO5mj_xDupjVLm2N_2yhmX7I_RFk3p0Sx4mG9Mh-P_R5N2Nbvwj2v2-iXFj8NHGdKo-u_rJpU_R6P7QSLWm8zj7vQqosHYv2geYYnHb2g=w641-h216-no?authuser=0)
Source/link: https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0036b.htm
Even if that conclusion by the HSCA is correct, how does that even begin to show that the rifle found at the 6th floor was owned by Oswald?
-
You are dealing with contrarians that will take the discussion down the rabbit hole of the history of business practices regarding substituting items instead of dealing with the evidence in this case. Oswald was sent a specific rifle with a specific serial number. It was sent to his PO box. He is pictured holding that rifle. There is no accounting for that rifle except as the rifle found at his place of employment on 11.22.63. That rifle has the same serial number as the one Klein's sent him. It has his prints on it. There is absolutely no doubt base on the evidence that Oswald was sent a specific rifle, he possessed that rifle, and it is the one found at the TSBD. Even if it could be demonstrated that Klein's was the only company in the history of the world to substitute items, it makes no difference regarding what the evidence demonstrates happened in this case. The contrarians can't deal with the evidence. So the rabbit hole deflections are their preference.
Good point-thank you.
-
The photographic experts for the HSCA concluded that the rifle in the photos was the same rifle recovered by the Dallas Police. I know, I know, they don't accept the legitimacy of the photos. Even if they did, they'd reject the photographic analysis too.
I mean, we go round-and-round on this and they just won't accept it.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/dUEG4rK_eF9OHv687rxi2L9L7x2PB1SDP5j_sEVrHhYV_Jqx9PT0ef6JDdA56MZ_qtAGyrq9ivgDaA6O1PSEHaCfpzJaPDHY5oE6P3Dv056Ep7Tpywt1LLF4teDtNqM8ikm13zavIbcEpfj7VL5GfRorzTj4OAP2zJSiePw54HvLGLS4xEzZFL4bB50UCetfcImxQE5tbS1G_tMTuEEd-Y5MRoi1tCCVa1xzqItkUGiwd5emNS9bO9u2eLXRiZmFtRBiZ2fidxx1tppoIuod__P4hR_KkWqI8Sh-l_JLf2NF7MOr1v-Uo5qtQEMLn9oee7GqK5R83oAbV1L9pgpfgWQQq-IUMpNBhQZY544n42Ohe-g5wPDSZhTfLQ-2MlchC4U5z254DFlzIi_N6kktIKl7Topm9AWVoJnrZL6TW0uTyBCblvuPQ_VbZPs_gnue9LwJHOu2uth7TxgFhHm4dSId8C12ymlgqJbWLNs4VPf1sy14xnR6ocAfSkvETWFWpMXRbJIVqNMXp2Ze499B2Qvm2V6w92_R2Ry4V5lMR6D7etDV995AfACYHQCxodlEgtJWbqYi_8V34Ci0Gpq5UKDoSr-bYMv_sUkL4cluTDlvdAJO5mj_xDupjVLm2N_2yhmX7I_RFk3p0Sx4mG9Mh-P_R5N2Nbvwj2v2-iXFj8NHGdKo-u_rJpU_R6P7QSLWm8zj7vQqosHYv2geYYnHb2g=w641-h216-no?authuser=0)
Source/link: https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0036b.htm
BBC: The troubling flaws in forensic science
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150512-can-we-trust-forensic-science
Forensic science is highly subjective even without considering how difficult it is to give conclusive answers based on photographic evidence alone. So while I take into account what experts say about these matters, their conclusions aren't infallible.
Unless someone physically witnessed Oswald taking the backyard photos, it's impossible to say with 100% certainty that the rifle in the photos is the same as the Sixth Floor rifle.
The most obvious discrepancy is the location of the straps between different Carcano models. In the BYP, the straps appear to be on the bottom of the rifle, not on the side of the barrel like the rifle from the Sixth Floor of TSBD.
-
Good point-thank you.
Isn't it amazing how LNs start attacking critics the moment they get caught in presenting a selfserving assumption as if it had any factual significance and/or their own lies.
-
Yes it was quite common for companies to substitute a very similar item in the pre-Internet age.
For firearms especially?----Nonsense.
-
Stone on the 'Breaking Points' Youtube show discusses his new film, Russiagate, and militarism. He has been doing lots of interviews with independent media due to the lack of interest in his film from the Corporate media in the US.
-
The photographic experts for the HSCA concluded that the rifle in the photos was the same rifle recovered by the Dallas Police.
Conclusions aren't evidence. You have to look at what the conclusions are based on. In this particular case, a single panel member, Cecil Kirk, saw what looked to him like a single mark on the forestock of the rifle in the CE133A photo, and the CE139 rifle also had a mark in the same general area. He said in his testimony that he thought that "tilted the scales" for it being the same rifle. No measurements were provided for the mark in the photo -- no data for it whatsoever. Lyndal Shaneyfelt saw the same mark in 1964 and (perhaps more honestly) said that it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.