View Full Version : Lee Harvey Oswald
Evil Chris
10-12-2004, 08:31 AM
Based on 40+ years of reflection, theories, and a lot of misinformation, is there anyone who still thinks, or rather, is sure in their belief that Oswald shot and killed President Kennedy?
Winetalk.com
10-12-2004, 08:40 AM
yes, he did...among others
;-))
Mike AI
10-12-2004, 10:20 AM
It was Cheney!
:lol: :lol:
gonzo
10-12-2004, 10:21 AM
He was socially engineered.
RawAlex
10-12-2004, 10:32 AM
Kerry did it. It was all part of his master plan to become president. He made a movie too, but somewhere the film got list.
Alex
Mike AI
10-12-2004, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by RawAlex@Oct 12 2004, 09:33 AM
Kerry did it. It was all part of his master plan to become president. He made a movie too, but somewhere the film got list.
Alex
Kerry would have just re-staged the event, making him the hero and catching it all on video!
Oh wait, he was ding that but in Vietnam!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
i dont think there is any conclusive evidence that supports the notion that Oswald fired a shot at Kennedy.
It was Al Gore.. oh no wait he invented the interweb ;)
CDSmith
10-12-2004, 01:01 PM
What is the consensus here on the movie "JFK"? I've watched it through maybe 3 times over the years, and find a lot of it rather hard to argue with. The "magic bullet" theory IS quite ridiculous, and so is the timeline of events when examined closely and compared to what the official statements suggest happened.
I suspect Oswald was a patsy, and I suspect there were multiple shooters.
The US most likely did experience a coup d'etat, and because all the real records are sealed until almost 2040 (and will probably be continued to be sealed for a further 50 years at that time), you the people will probably never know the real truth about it. I find it odd that America continues to allow those records to be sealed, but I suppose there are those in government who believe that revealing the truth would cause such an uproar that the country is simply better off with it's collective head in the clouds thinking one lone man could pull it off all on his own.
Winetalk.com
10-12-2004, 01:05 PM
CD, I agree with your conclusions....
LBJ didn't fire the shot, but he sure as shit was behind the plot.
grimm
10-12-2004, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Mike AI+Oct 12 2004, 06:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Oct 12 2004, 06:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RawAlex@Oct 12 2004, 09:33 AM
Kerry did it. It was all part of his master plan to become president. He made a movie too, but somewhere the film got list.
Alex
Kerry would have just re-staged the event, making him the hero and catching it all on video!
Oh wait, he was ding that but in Vietnam!
:lol: :lol: :lol: [/b][/quote]
I heard that after they tore down the friday night lights set, they built a new set to film "George Bush, keeping the Viet Kong out of texas"
i cant wait for the dvd
:)
there was a program on the History Channel i believe called The Men Who Killed Kennedy. it was very disturbing. Apart from who fired from where, they were explaining that there was already an official plan in place (initiated by Robert) to cover up an assassination due to the nuclear tensions with Cuba/USSR and the ongoing attempts to kill each others leaders and the fears of escalating tensions and the need to retaliate during the missile crisis.
they were also showing how someone most likely fired the head shot from inside a storm drain (where the asphalt meets the sidewalk by sitting in the void under the sidewalk) and then easily slipped away through the system. the angles were all consistent with what you see when Kennedy got shot.... and if someone fired a shot from inside that void, it would be impossible for people to really hear or see or immediately understand where the shot came from.
anyway, given the depth of the coverup (assuming there is one)... i sincerely doubt that anything new would be uncovered in 2040.
Anonymous
10-12-2004, 02:02 PM
I was the second gunman on the grassy knoll
Originally posted by Anonymous@Oct 12 2004, 10:03 AM
I was the second gunman on the grassy knoll
you are the sperm that should have been wiped up with a dirty sock.
If you love the conspiracy I would call this film a must see Interview With The Assassin (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=interview+with+the+assasin)
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000092Q59.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
I was lucky enough to have soemone tell me that it was a documentary and a true story before seeing it... If you see it with soemone, do them a favour and try and put them in that mindset... will make it even more enjoyable for them. :)
grimm
10-12-2004, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Opti@Oct 12 2004, 10:25 AM
If you love the conspiracy I would call this film a must see Interview With The Assassin (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=interview+with+the+assasin)
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000092Q59.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
I was lucky enough to have soemone tell me that it was a documentary and a true story before seeing it... If you see it with soemone, do them a favour and try and put them in that mindset... will make it even more enjoyable for them. :)
true story?
"Nearly 30 years have passed since the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and still many question what really happened on that sunny day in Dallas, Texas. Several books and films have been made searching for the truth and in Interview With the Assassin, a fictional take on the events directed by Neil Burger, the true identity of the second gunman — located on the infamous grassy knoll — is revealed."
PornoDoggy
10-12-2004, 04:20 PM
I have never believed that the whole truth has been told, but have pretty much ignored the subject because the vast majority of material I've seen talking about the conspiracy theories has made the speculation about Elvis being alive seem almost intellectual. I may actually break down and read the White House Press Secretary's father's book, wherein he lays the plot to Johnson and Brown and Root, but only if I feel the need for a good laugh.
Of far greater interest to me than how many shooters were standing where is who ordered the shooting. The assasination came just weeks after a U.S. sponsored coup in Vietnam to replace a defective patsy and after several years of attempting to assasinate Castro, amoung other various and sundry plots.
My money has always been on Castro and/or one of the KGB subsidiaries in Eastern Europe, probably without any Soviet knowledge whatsoever. I do not believe that Johnson and/or his people had the sophistication to pull it off without exposing themselves in some way.
Evil Chris
10-12-2004, 05:17 PM
I have a copy of the Zapruder film in case anyone is interested.
Hell Puppy
10-12-2004, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by Evil Chris@Oct 12 2004, 04:18 PM
I have a copy of the Zapruder film in case anyone is interested.
back and to the left
back and to the left
back and to the left
XXXPhoto
10-12-2004, 11:45 PM
He died on my birthday... albeit a few years before I popped out.
Originally posted by grimm+Oct 13 2004, 04:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (grimm @ Oct 13 2004, 04:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Opti@Oct 12 2004, 10:25 AM
I was lucky enough to have soemone tell me that it was a documentary and a true story before seeing it... If you see it with soemone, do them a favour and try and put them in that mindset... will make it even more enjoyable for them. :)
true story?
[/b][/quote]
No, just a well made, and psychologically interesting film.
I think I enjoyed it more because someone lied to me, and said it was true before i saw it.
Evil Chris
10-13-2004, 08:56 AM
Since I only heard a couple of serious opinions on the matter, should I conclude that the minds of Oprano agree that Oswald could not have possibly been working alone, or for that matter in on it at all?
It might have been "a lone gunman", and the quick coverup was probably not to protect some major conspiracy to kill the president, but to protect the country from being drawn into war, if a long investigation had shown that the lone gunman was connected to another country or political movement... it was convenient that Lee Harvey Oswald was killed, because it left the system with a chance to draw its own conclusions, and not be trapped in events started by "a lone gunman".
JoesHO
10-13-2004, 10:31 AM
Hold the phone, maybe it was GW..... I love a good conspiricy it is what us leftist liberals live for....... ( that and sandlewood incense)
Nickatilynx
10-13-2004, 01:02 PM
K.I.S.S.
one gunman...
Is it simplier that one looney LHO shot him , or write 5million pages each page with a supposition on it that brings it round to a conspiracy7?
LHO shot him.
http://oprano.com/graphics/OSWALD.jpg
Evil Chris
10-13-2004, 10:16 PM
Hey a quick question... are Americans even *allowed* to see the Zapruder film yet?
THE J.F.K. FLAP
The most fascinating thing about JFK, as exciting and well-done as it is, is not the movie itself but the hysterical attempt to marginalize, if not to suppress it. How many movies can you remember where the entire Establishment, in serried ranks, from left (The Nation) through Center to Right, joined together as one in a frantic orgy of calumny and denunciation. Time and Newsweek actually doing so before the movie came out? Apparently, so fearful was the Establishment that the Oliver Stone movie might prove convincing that the public had to be thoroughly inoculated in advance. It was a remarkable performance by the media, and it demonstrates, as nothing else, the enormous and growing gap between Respectable Media opinion and what the public Knows in its Heart.
You would think from the shock of the Respectable Media, that Stone's JFK was totally outlandish, off-the-wall, monstrous and fanciful in its accusations against the American power structure. And you would think that historical films never engaged in dramatic license, as if such solemnly hailed garbage as Wilson and Sunrise at Campobello had been models of scholarly precision. Hey, come off it guys!
Despite the fuss and feathers, to veteran Kennedy Assassination buffs, there was nothing new in JFK. What Stone does is to summarize admirably the best of a veritable industry of assassination revisionism – of literally scores of books, articles, tapes, annual conventions, and archival research. Stone himself is quite knowledgeable in the area, as shown by his devastating answer in the Washington Post, to the smears of the last surviving Warren Commission member, Gerald Ford, and the old Commission hack, David W. Belin. Despite the smears in the press, there was nothing outlandish in the movie. Interestingly enough, JFK has been lambasted much more furiously than was the first revisionist movie, Don Freed's Executive Action (1973), an exciting film with Robert Ryan and Will Geer, which actually did go way beyond the evidence, and beyond plausibility, by trying to make an H.L. Hunt figure the main conspirator.
The evidence is now overwhelming that the orthodox Warren legend, that Oswald did it and did it alone, is pure fabrication. It now seems clear that Kennedy died in a classic military triangulation hit, that, as Parkland Memorial autopsy pathologist Dr. Charles Crenshaw has very recently affirmed, the fatal shots were fired from in front, from the grassy knoll, and that the conspirators were, at the very least, the right-wing of the CIA, joined by its long-time associates and employees, the Mafia. It is less well established that President Johnson himself was in on the original hit, though he obviously conducted the coordinated cover-up, but certainly his involvement is highly plausible.
The last-ditch defenders of the Warren view cannot refute the details, so they always fall back on generalized vaporings, such as: "How could all the government be in on it?" But since Watergate, we have all become familiar with the basic fact: only a few key people need be in on the original crime, while lots of high and low government officials can be in on the subsequent cover-up, which can always be justified as "patriotic," on "national security" grounds, or simply because the president ordered it. The fact that the highest levels of the U.S. government are all-too capable of lying to the public, should have been clear since Watergate and Iran-Contra. The final fallback argument, getting less plausible all the time is: if the Warren case isn't true, why hasn't the truth come out by this time? The fact is, however, that the truth has largely come out, in the assassination industry, from books – some of them best-sellers – by Mark Lane, David Lifton, Peter Dale Scott, Jim Marrs, and many others, but the Respectable Media pay no attention. With that sort of mindset, that stubborn refusal to face reality, no truth can ever come out. And yet, despite this blackout, because books, local TV and radio, magazine articles, supermarket tabloids, etc. can't be suppressed – but only ignored – by the Respectable Media, we have the remarkable result that the great majority of the public, in all the polls, strongly disbelieve the Warren legend. Hence, the frantic attempts of the Establishment to suppress as gripping and convincing a film as Stone's JFK.
Conservatives, as well as centrists, are smearing JFK because Stone is a notorious leftist. Well, so what? It is not simply that the ideology of the teller has no logical bearing on the truth of the tale. The case is stronger than that. For in a day when the Moderate Left to Moderate Right constitute an increasingly monolithic Establishment, with only nuanced variations among them, we can only get the truth from people outside the Establishment, either on the far right or far left, or even from the highly non-respectable supermarket tabloids. And it is no accident that it is an open secret that the heroic "Deep Throat" figure in JFK is Colonel Fletcher Prouty, who is certainly no leftist. And one of the outstanding Revisionist writers is the long-time libertarian Carl Oglesby.
One particularly welcome aspect of JFK, by the way, is its making Jim Garrison the central heroic figure. Garrison, one of the most viciously smeared figures in modern political history, was simply a district attorney trying to do his job in the most important criminal case of our time. Kevin Costner's expressionless style fits in well with the Garrison role, and Tommy Lee Jones is outstanding as the evil CIA-businessman conspirator Clay Shaw.
All in all, a fine movie, for the history as well as the cinematics. There are some minor problems. It is unfortunate that the founding Kennedy Revisionist Mark Lane, felt that he had to leave the movie-making early, with the result that the film does not bring out the crucial testimony of Cuban ex-CIA agent Marita Lorenz, who has identified right-wing CIA operative E. Howard Hunt, Bill Buckley's pal and control in the CIA, as paymaster for the assassination. (See the brilliant new book by Lane, Plausible Denial.) According to Lane, heat from the CIA during the filming led Stone to underplay the CIA's role by spreading the blame a little too thickly to the rest of the Johnson administration.
As the case for revisionism piles up, there is evidence that some of the more sophisticated members of the Establishment are preparing to jettison the Warren legend, and fall back on an explanation less threatening than blaming E. Howard Hunt or the CIA: that is to lay blame solely on the Mafia, specifically on Sam Giancana, Johnny Roselli, and Jimmy Hoffa, none of whom are around to debate the issue. A convincing attack on the Mafia-only thesis was leveled by Carl Oglesby in his Afterward to Jim Garrison's book of a few years back (which formed one of the bases for JFK) On the Trail of the Assassins. The Mafia simply did not have the resources, for example, to change the route or call off military or Secret Service protection.
Many conservatives and libertarians will surely be irritated by one theme of the film: the old-fashioned view of Kennedy as the shining young prince of Camelot, the great hero about to redeem America who was chopped down in his prime by dark reactionary forces. That sort of attitude has long been discredited by a very different kind of Revisionism – as tales have come out about the sleazy Kennedy brothers, Judith Exner, Sam Giancana, Marilyn Monroe, et al. Well, OK, but look at it this way: a president was murdered, for heaven's sake, and good, bad, or indifferent, it is surely vital to get to the bottom of the conspiracy, and bring the villains to justice, if only at the bar of history. Let the chips fall where they may.
One happy result of the film was the conclusive Stoneian argument: if everything is on the up and up, why not open up all the secret government files on the assassination? It looks as if the pressure for opening will win out, but once again, phony "national security" will prevail, so we won't get the really incriminating stuff. And some of the crucial material is long gone, e.g., the famed Kennedy brain, which mysteriously never made it into the National Archives.
May 1992
I love Oprano... where else can you go and find discussions like this one peppered in with the usual business and bullshit? Answer: nowhere.
*sigh* I missed it...
Been AFK for awhile (too long) - if I owe you an email or you were trying to reach me, try again... busy catching up on my reading here. Miss a day, miss a lot. Miss a week or more - whew!
:awinky:
Evil Chris
10-14-2004, 01:26 PM
Thanks for that Buff... a very good read.
Could you provide a URL of the source though please.
Originally posted by Evil Chris@Oct 14 2004, 11:27 AM
Thanks for that Buff... a very good read.
Could you provide a URL of the source though please.
Famed libertarian Murray Rothbard, Chris!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch57.html
PornoDoggy
10-14-2004, 02:50 PM
Do you think that there will be as much attention paid to the 9/11 Commission in 40 years?
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Oct 14 2004, 12:51 PM
Do you think that there will be as much attention paid to the 9/11 Commission in 40 years?
I doubt it.
But the 2000 Presidential Election -- that one will give it a run for its money.
PornoDoggy
10-14-2004, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by Buff+Oct 14 2004, 01:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Oct 14 2004, 01:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-PornoDoggy@Oct 14 2004, 12:51 PM
Do you think that there will be as much attention paid to the 9/11 Commission in 40 years?
I doubt it.
But the 2000 Presidential Election -- that one will give it a run for its money. [/b][/quote]
I agree about the 2000 election, although I think that the biggest factor over time will become the Supreme Court's role more than anything else.
I disagree on the 9/11 Commission Report, however. The event had the magnitude of the Kennedy assasination, and nothing - particularly the lack of factual evidence - has ever stopped a conspiracy theory from gaining new adherents.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.