Who Killed JFK?

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
Some people point the finger at Dulles as he had the connections, despised Kennedy and was appointed to the Warren Commission.
the until recent long-time head of the CIA (and brother of the Secretary of State, etc) ordering a revenge assassination of the sitting President is exactly the kind of thing that would require an extensive coverup
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
idk dude it's just like people don't know or try to learn anything else about American politics in the 50s and 60s or the rest of the context in which Kennedy was assassinated bc it would ruin their deep state or whatever fantasies

but look if you all just want to have a fun kick around the can fantasy session who am I to stop you? I'll leave you to your thread
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
I don't know who killed JFK. The more you look into it, the muddier it gets. There's all sorts of intriguing details and tidbits, e.g. Jolly West, noted MKUltra psychiatrist, visiting and treating Ruby after his arrest.

That's what's weird all these tidbits. The stuff that I read recently about how they couldn't give a reason for why Oswald was arrested at first. And then he was only accused of killing a policeman. At the press conference when they asked him about being charged with killing Kennedy he said he had not been charged, in fact he had not even heard that he was in the frame for it until that moment. So stuff like that is werid.

BUT

I gotta say, with all these mysteries, everything is like that and it's so frustrating. Times differ, eye-witness reports contradict on crucial details and so on and so forth. And the first with Jack the Ripper or whatever I saw that happening I thought "weird, what does it mean?" but now I just find it frustrating and familiar and I realise that 99 times out of a hundred you can't get anything from these mix-ups and they are not sinister but usually just incompetence.
 

version

Well-known member
the until recent long-time head of the CIA (and brother of the Secretary of State, etc) ordering a revenge assassination of the sitting President is exactly the kind of thing that would require an extensive coverup

Would a faction within the CIA loyal to Dulles plus a few contractors and Cuban exiles or whoever really be that massive? Can't be much bigger, logistically, than the various coups he staged around the world, MKUltra and whatever else happened under his watch.
 

version

Well-known member
That's what's weird all these tidbits. The stuff that I read recently about how they couldn't give a reason for why Oswald was arrested at first. And then he was only accused of killing a policeman. At the press conference when they asked him about being charged with killing Kennedy he said he had not been charged, in fact he had not even heard that he was in the frame for it until that moment. So stuff like that is werid.

BUT

I gotta say, with all these mysteries, everything is like that and it's so frustrating. Times differ, eye-witness reports contradict on crucial details and so on and so forth. And the first with Jack the Ripper or whatever I saw that happening I thought "weird, what does it mean?" but now I just find it frustrating and familiar and I realise that 99 times out of a hundred you can't get anything from these mix-ups and they are not sinister but usually just incompetence.

You also have to wonder why Oswald, someone who defected to Russia during the height of the Cold War, was allowed back into the country.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
Can't be much bigger, logistically, than the various coups he staged around the world, MKUltra and whatever else happened under his watch.
all of which eventually became public knowledge, which undermines rather than strengthens what you're trying to say

just like Watergate, the Tuskegee experiments, etc

very few people need to know a secret to vastly increase its chances of coming out

but yeah I'll leave you all to your fun
 

version

Well-known member
One of the less fantastical theories, although still somewhat implausible, is that one of the security detail accidentally shot Kennedy trying to shoot back at Oswald.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
it's not about whether "the deep state" murdered the president. it's about believing someone is in control.

it is not a lazy point. it is borne out in essentially all major conspiracist thinking, from 9/11 to QAnon to whatever else.

It feels lazy to me cos it's a point that we say all the time but which doesn't really fit here. And reaching for an obvious point but failing to properly assess whether it's gonna do the job is really the acme of laziness.

I mean, taken in isolation, the idea that some ex-marine went mental and took a crack at the pres is surely not as scary as there being a planned murder by a group of people. I think to argue the other way is deliberate contrarianism.

not sure why your tone is consistently insulting in this thread btw, especially since your own arguments aren't exactly dynamite

like you read a novel and speculated some bullshit

if you just want to have fun that's fine. if you want an actual answer, it was Lee Harvey Oswald.

That's interesting cos I was myself wondering why you started with such a dismissive and rude tone "Is this a serious question?". I think it's ok to be rude every now and again, and it's ok to be annoyed when others are rude every now and again. But you can't have it both ways. Somebody starts a thread and your first response is to ask if they are serious... ok that's fine, but when people reply in the same tone... complaining about it is just hypocrisy.

I don't think I've made any arguments yet, and I don't really expect to as such, I just want to see what other people think about it and learn. What they think, why they think it, why so many have different views on this. I want to open it up not shut it down, and that's it really.

But please (this is not sarcasm, I realise it sounds like it) educate me. Or tell me your version - basically LHO was disaffected (possibly by his time in Russia) to the extent that he wanted to shoot the president and so he climbed into the tower, waited until the cavalcade went past and shot him. End of story. Is that about it?
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
as a film, it's entertaining

as history, it's not only absolutely terrible but dangerous, bc it's the defining view for so many people and it perpetuates so many myths and outright inventions. Stone wanted to have it both ways - sell an entertaining fiction while presenting his film as a truth to power document and split the difference by referring to it as a "countermyth to the Warren Commission" (like I said - if all facts are simply competing myths then nothing is "true"). the money shot is a famous scene where Donald Sutherland appears as a kind of ex-special ops Deep Throat breaking down the supposed deep state coup d'etat to murder to Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner). it includes a shot of LBJ saying point blank to a bunch of spooks and generals that if they put him into power he'll give them their war in Vietnam. it's fucking preposterous.
Well liike i say, i aint seen, maybe one day.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
point me to all the non-massive, overarching JFK conspiracy theories, Rich

go ahead, do it

The whole point of this thread, is for me, knowing next to nothing, to have people point stuff out to me. That's the point. You've engaged to the extent that you have said that you think it was LHO on his own, thank you for that. The rest of what you've said though is, I feel, undermining, or affecting what others might say. Maybe my fault for not starting at a good time when there people around to chuck in their ideas so we're left with this meta talk that I wanted to avoid.
 

Clinamenic

The Wild Drunkard
Maybe @padraig (u.s.) is just part of the conspiracy and wants to snuff out any incipient investigations here, seeing as Dissensus is historically known for its scrupulous analysis and in-depth intelligence gathering, and may prove to be the undoing of padraig and his coterie of conspirators.
 

version

Well-known member
There's a Zapruder upload on YouTube where you can move the camera around a little.



And another with the supposedly missing frames.

 

version

Well-known member
I don't agree with everything Padraig said, but I think he's right about the most interesting aspect being its position as the ur-text of American conspiracy.

You look at stuff like this. People painstakingly tracking down individual frames, slowing the thing down, trying to view it from every possible angle and it's hard not to think about Fincher's Zodiac film and how what it's really about is a bunch of people losing themselves down rabbit holes.
 

Clinamenic

The Wild Drunkard
Come to think of it, where was padraig when JFK was killed? I for one didn't have a visual on him, nor am I him, therefore he is culpable.
 

Clinamenic

The Wild Drunkard
I don't agree with everything Padraig said, but I think he's right about the most interesting aspect being its position as the ur-text of American conspiracy.
Yeah in greater seriousness I found this point padraig made very interesting, and true I suspect.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
To me there is some stuff that seems to undermine the "It was just Oswald on his own" version. Just the first thing that stuck in my head was that I understand that his shooting records from the marines showed that he would be unlikely to pull off that shot once, never mind five times in twenty seconds or whatever it was (I made up those numbers).

Then when I learnt that they were unable to explain his original arrest. They just grabbed him and eventually said he'd killed a policeman but couldn't explain why they grabbed him. I forget the details but when they did give reasons for his arrest they were contradictory and didn't make sense. And I think that to this day they have never satisfactorily explained why they chose to grab that guy and then it turned out to be the right one.

Also, why did they only mention to him his shooting of the cop and not thef shooting the president? And this seems to be true in that you can see LHO was surprised to hear from journalists that he was accused of shooting the president.

And then he was obviously killed by Jack Ruby, who died in prison without really giving a satisfactory reason for why he shot LHO (and who contradicted the original reasons he gave).

The thing is, I'm not a big one for conspiracies and I can see that any of the above, just in isolation wouldn't mean much, but when you put them all together like that, I find it really quite odd. What I would like is someone to say "Actually it's a myth that they didn't give a good reason for his arrest" and then produce something that convinces me otherwise. But just saying "it's stupid to ask about this" is not helpful to me. You can say that for Flat Earth and other things, in fact you can say that for most, but this, for once, has met my personal threshold for being officially a bit weird, and now I feel that I need actual dismantling and explaining of these problems.

Cos, I'm not saying that this is what I think, but, from those points above, if they are indeed true, then it really looks as though LHO was set up to be charged and was just picked up with that express aim, then killed before he could say too much. Honestly, I don't even think that that is it, but I want someone to give me a good, solid way of dismissing it, or of removing one or more of those four points above which seemingly point in that direction.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Maybe @padraig (u.s.) is just part of the conspiracy and wants to snuff out any incipient investigations here, seeing as Dissensus is historically known for its scrupulous analysis and in-depth intelligence gathering, and may prove to be the undoing of padraig and his coterie of conspirators.

OK, well, I did say he was a little rude, but now I think about it, that is much preferable to tracking us down one by one and putting a bullet in the back of the head so I'll allow it.
 
Top