Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
81
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: U.S. Politics
« Last post by Richard Smith on June 30, 2025, 12:40:51 AM »
Quote from: Tom Graves on June 28, 2025, 07:40:12 PM
The will of zombified-by-KGB-disinformation and hornswoggled-by-fascistic-Trump one-half of the American people.

I rest my case.  No wonder the Republicans won the WH, Senate, House, and control the Supreme Court with lunatic ravings like this one. Imagine believing the KGB commies are working with fascists to control America.  No reason to let logic or historical accuracy or facts get in the way of a paranoid delusion.
82
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Do JFKA CTs have a psychological need to believe it was a conspiracy?
« Last post by Tom Graves on June 30, 2025, 12:11:44 AM »
Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on June 29, 2025, 11:41:28 PM


Just curious: What happened between 1966 and 1976 that caused the percentage of people who believed it was a conspiracy to rise precipitously, and the percentage of people who believed LHO did it all by him widdle Marxist self to fall equally dramatically?

Likewise, what happened between 2001 and 2003 that caused the former to fall by 6 points and the latter to rise by 6 points?
83
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Do JFKA CTs have a psychological need to believe it was a conspiracy?
« Last post by Steve M. Galbraith on June 29, 2025, 11:53:17 PM »
Quote from: Dr Alan Howard Davis on June 29, 2025, 09:25:59 PM
My research shows that the cover-up was both for hiding actions of government agencies AND revealing the identity of the conspirators would damage national security -as has always been mooted. This does NOT mean that the CIA or FBI -or even the Dallas Police Department had anything to do with the assassination

The only thing that drives myself and fellow researchers is discovering the truth of what happened, and has nothing to do with 'psychological need' as some sort of satisfying cognitive function.
And your research says the conspirators were? Who exactly? You keep mentioning them but never telling us who they were.

It's 2025 not 1963 or '64. What national security threat or harm is there today if the government revealed that "X" killed JFK in 1963? Anyone who was involved is probably long dead. If they were in the 30s and 40s at the time they would be 90+ if even still alive. What would be revealed that injures the state, threatens US security? Besides, how have they kept it quiet all of these decades?

The question about a psychological need to believe in a conspiracy wasn't, as I understood it, just about you and your fellow researchers (whoever they are) or conspiracy activist types. It was a question about conspiracy theorists in general, those who think it wasn't Oswald alone.
84
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Do JFKA CTs have a psychological need to believe it was a conspiracy?
« Last post by Steve M. Galbraith on June 29, 2025, 11:41:28 PM »
Quote from: Tom Graves on June 29, 2025, 11:18:43 PM
You don't think the anti-CIA / anti-Clay Shaw KGB article that was published in the Communist-owned Italian newspaper Paese Sera three days after Garrison arrested Shaw on the suspicion that he had orchestrated a homosexual thrill-kill assassination of JFK influenced Garrison to change his theory to "Clay Shaw organized the Assassination of JFK for the CIA"?

You don't think Vietnam War-traumatized Oliver Stone based his self-described mythological ("to counter the myth of the Warren Report") film "JFK" on Garrison's 1988 book, On the Trail of the Assassins, and that said film had a negative effect on our body politic -- making it more cynical, paranoiac, and/or apathetic?

You don't think the KGB would want to make our body politic more cynical, paranoiac and/or apathetic?

LOL!

Did Manchester and Jackie think it would make more sense if J. Paul Getty had killed JFK?
I don't think most Americans who believe in a conspiracy know anything about any of that at all or were influenced by it other than marginally. Certainly Stone's movie influenced opinion. Apparently Garrison's investigation did too. But it was already there; they didn't create it out of nothing. Again, right *after* the assassination - well before Garrison and that Shaw nonsense and Stone's propaganda - most Americans, over 50%, said they believed there was a conspiracy.

This was in 1963 and '64; all before the KGB started blaming the CIA or Jim Garrison or Oliver Stone were promoting their nonsense. From the early days and weeks after the assassination many believed that it was more than one person who assassinated JFK.

85
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Do JFKA CTs have a psychological need to believe it was a conspiracy?
« Last post by Tom Graves on June 29, 2025, 11:18:43 PM »
Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on June 29, 2025, 06:22:39 PM
It has nothing to do with the KGB or Putin or Oliver Stone or anyone else.

You don't think the anti-CIA / anti-Clay Shaw KGB article that was published in the Communist-owned Italian newspaper Paese Sera three days after Garrison arrested Shaw on the suspicion that he had orchestrated a homosexual thrill-kill assassination of JFK influenced Garrison to change his theory to "Clay Shaw organized the Assassination of JFK for the CIA"?

You don't think Vietnam War-traumatized Oliver Stone based his self-described mythological ("to counter the myth of the Warren Report") film "JFK" on Garrison's 1988 book, On the Trail of the Assassins, and that said film had a negative effect on our body politic -- making it more cynical, paranoiac, and/or apathetic?

You don't think the KGB would want to make our body politic more cynical, paranoiac and/or apathetic?

LOL!

Did Manchester and Jackie think it would make more sense if J. Paul Getty had killed JFK?
86
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Assassination was Sloppy and Amateurish
« Last post by Charles Collins on June 29, 2025, 10:47:53 PM »
Quote from: Dan O'meara on June 28, 2025, 11:22:01 AM
I think you're missing the point I was making about the very large element of luck involved in the actual shooting.
In a professional hit, luck is not a factor.
The head shot is an easy shot for a professional. The distances involved are small and there is only minimal lateral movement of the target. To miss the limo completely is not an option for a professional. Even the shot that passes through JFK's throat is a 'miss' as the target is the head.
There is then, at the very minimum, a period of 5 seconds between the non-fatal throat shot and the fatal head shot. This is where the large slice of luck comes in because anything could've happened in this interval that could have rendered the head shot impossible to take.
Luckily, for the shooter, JFK stayed upright and no-one came to his assistance.

I'm surprised that the sloppy and amateurish nature of the assassination isn't used more often by those who believe Oswald was the shooter.


I said that I agreed with the main point of your original post. I simply pointed out that the assassin did a lot of things right in order to be able to take advantage of the “luck”. Frankly, I do not think that any professional assassin would have chosen Dealey Plaza for an assassination attempt in the first place. Add that one to your list if you wish (you are welcome).
87
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Assassination was Sloppy and Amateurish
« Last post by Royell Storing on June 29, 2025, 09:49:23 PM »
 
   At no time during Officer Haygood's WC Testimony does he say he heard Chief Curry's command, "get a man on top of that Triple Underpass.......". Haygood did testify that he saw people on the ground pointing back up to the railroad yard, along with a couple of people being headed back up that way. This prompted Haygood to park his motorcycle at the curb and then run up the grassy knoll toward the railroad yard. This is one of the many reasons that being familiar with Sworn Testimony is important. It prevents Urban Legends from being created and/or passed along.
88
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Do JFKA CTs have a psychological need to believe it was a conspiracy?
« Last post by Dr Alan Howard Davis on June 29, 2025, 09:25:59 PM »
My research shows that the cover-up was both for hiding actions of government agencies AND revealing the identity of the conspirators would damage national security -as has always been mooted. This does NOT mean that the CIA or FBI -or even the Dallas Police Department had anything to do with the assassination

The only thing that drives myself and fellow researchers is discovering the truth of what happened, and has nothing to do with 'psychological need' as some sort of satisfying cognitive function.
89
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Do JFKA CTs have a psychological need to believe it was a conspiracy?
« Last post by Mitch Todd on June 29, 2025, 07:51:12 PM »
Quote from: Tom Graves on June 26, 2025, 08:22:15 PM
Do JFKA conspiracy theorists have a psychological need to believe it was a conspiracy?

If so, is it the result of sixty-six years (it started in 1959) of KGB* disinformation, "active measures," and mole-based strategic deception counterintelligence operations (what Nosenko-protecting John L. Hart derisively called Angleton and Golitsyn's "Monster Plot") waged against us and our NATO allies?

JFKA-specific disinformation wittingly spread by the likes of Joachim Joesten, Robert G. Buchanan, and Mark "KGB" Lane, and (probably) unwittingly spread by Paese Sera-influenced Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone, and James DiEugenio, et al. ad nauseam?

*Today's SVR and FSB

Regarding Nosenko, the funny thing is that he was a false defector-in-place in Geneva in June 1962 (sent there to prevent "moles" from being uncovered in the CIA) and a rogue physical defector to the U.S. in February 1964 whose bona fides the KGB had no choice but to continue to support (through the likes of Bruce Leonard Solie, Leonard V. McCoy, FEDORA, SHAMROCK, AND KITTY HAWK) because he was telling the CIA and a very grateful FBI what it desperately wanted them to hear -- that the KGB had absolutely nothing to do with former sharpshooting Marine U-2 radar operator Lee Harvey Oswald during the two-and-one-half years he lived half-a-mile from a KGB school in Minsk.
Some do. For different reasons.

There are some fairly narcissistic sorts who think that if they disprove the "official story," it will validate their self-importance.

Others already have a boogey man haunting their minds, like the CIA or the Military-Industrial Complex, or the illuminati, or the KGB or a vaguely-defined "far right" or LBJ or the "deep state." Boogey men who are the cause of All the Bad Things in the World, so therefore must have orchestrated the assassination.

I think that there really are people who come to this honestly. For instance, it's no wonder that Oswald's murder in the DPD basement garage....on TV no less... launched a thousand suspicions. But these people rarely come out to  debate this stuff publicly on the inter-toobs. 
90
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Do JFKA CTs have a psychological need to believe it was a conspiracy?
« Last post by Steve M. Galbraith on June 29, 2025, 06:22:39 PM »
The historian William Manchester put it this way:

"If you put the murdered President of the United States on one side of a scale and that wretched waif Oswald on the other side, it doesn't balance. You want to add something weightier to Oswald. It would invest the President's death with meaning, endowing him with martyrdom. He would have died for something.

A conspiracy would, of course, do the job nicely. Unfortunately, there is no evidence whatever that there was one."

I think Manchester is talking specifically about ordinary Americans and not the conspiracy theorists who actively promote their beliefs; but I think it applies generally to them too.

It has nothing to do with the KGB or Putin or Oliver Stone or anyone else. It's an emotional need for some to believe his death had greater meaning, that there was a larger purpose or force behind it. That is, he was killed for some reason. It couldn't just be some nobody, some crackpot, some wifebeater, "some silly little communist" (as Jackie Kennedy said), with a rifle. That makes no sense.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10