This person's take on why JFK was murdered

Discussion in 'JFK' started by WAN, Nov 27, 2016.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Proof of claim not in evidence. How odd.



    And what was the Bay of Pigs fiasco all about? A tea party?

    True and self evident but so what?
    I really don't know what your angle is but maybe you and the inexplicable Soupnazi should get together and have a chat. You both seem to be on the same wavelength of obtuse abstraction.with this issue.
     
  2. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have never provided proof of claims either just repeated assertions perhaps you should not criticize
     
  3. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Offered just as much "proof" as you did except history is on my side.


    Kennedy was still alive. The argument being made was that Kennedy was iced to allow the nation to go to war.

    It's only abstract to those with inactive minds.
     
  4. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually no you didn't and I don't even know what "your " side is. Kennedy, according to overwhelming theory, was killed for a number of reasons and the fact that he was not going to continue to perpetuate the Cold War was the main one, and was a common thread among knowledgeable historians.

    Backed out of the Bay of Pigs invasion hanging the CIA out to dry, making overtures to the Soviet Union and unwilling to plunge us into Vietnam
    all are signs that Kennedy wanted to cool down the Cold War. On October 5, 1963 Kennedy formally made the decision to withdraw all military advisors
    and end our involvement in Vietnam. However just five days after JFK was gunned down LBJ signed NSAM #273 (national security action memorandum)
    making absolutely certain we not only stayed there but ramping up our military build up there.

    This is not my opinion and you should really look around sometime because "history" is far from on your side (whatever that means, given you've made no definitive claims as to why JFK was slaughtered in Dallas).http://bostonreview.net/us/galbraith-exit-strategy-vietnam
    And don't bother doubting the record unless you can actually counter it. Factless denials are cowardly.



    Yes. Still alive during the Bay of Pigs fiasco and it was one of the factors that pissed off the cabal of interests that wanted him dead. You realize he was shot in Dallas sometime after
    the aborted invasion of Cuba...right?


    Yes.
    Your mind is certainly active....with confused and murky thinking that amounts to intellectual gibberish. Still unclear as to your angle but you seem to know nothing about the events that led up to the coup d'etat staged by powerful forces within our government.
     
  5. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Very wrong.

    The theories are not theories at all but merely supposition.

    Kennedy escalated the Vietnam war and showed no signs of de-escalation.

    One of the biggest mistakes made by conspiracy theorists is not properly reading NSAM 273. If they did bother to read it they would note that the memorandum was written and prepared BEFORE Kennedy was assassinated at his direction.

    LBJ signed it because Kennedy was dead but he was in fact merely carrying on what Kennedy had already put into works. He was not changing or altering Kennedy's policy or intent he was in fact following it.
     
  6. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You would do well to read the citations I provided because on Oct. 11 President Kennedy signed NSAM # 263 (it's a matter of record) withdrawing ALL military personnel in Vietnam by the end of the year.

    LBJ was in fact NOT carrying on the new amended wishes of President Kennedy and NSAM #263 proves it!
    Kennedy wanted to withdraw from Vietnam and wind down the Cold War and forces inside the government would not have it and they considered
    JFK a traitor and wanted him dead. The cover up by the Warren Commission is absolute empirical proof that forces within our government and military
    were behind the coup d'etat and despite determined deniers most people do not buy the Warren Commission story.
     
  7. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Opinion… You even use the words “based on overwhelming theory”.

    Theories, by definition, are things that are not proven.



    The theory that Kennedy was killed so that the government that remained can wage war makes a lot more sense if the target for invasion 90 miles off the coast of Florida—that fits the perfect description of our enemy—was included. Since it didn’t happen, the fact is that either the theory is wrong or it wasn’t possible. Viet Nam proved it was possible (obviously if we can execute a war 9,000 miles away, we can do one 90 miles away) so the theory is nonsense.

    Nothing confusing about it except for the intentionally obtuse.

    If you’re going to proffer the opinion that Kennedy was killed so the hawks can have their day, passing up on Cuba makes your opinion rather silly. Its much like saying a person divorced her husband because she wants to travel, fights for the frequent flyer miles and luggage in the settlement, then she never leaves the house
     
  8. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Evolution is actually a theory but I wonder if you are willing to call it a bit of fiction because it is not as of yet proven? The theory of who killed Kennedy is a theory only to the degree that key figures have died and are, naturally out of touch, key documents are also out of reach and so forth and so on. There are volumes of empirical and circumstantial evidence as well as documents like the NSAM's that give absolute windows into Kennedy's decision to get out of Vietnam before he was killed and his decision totally reversed by the new administration.



    If that's the inexplicable bit of the puzzle that you can't wrap your mind around, despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary,
    then what can anyone say to you once an irrational thought enters your trap door mind?
    I've already explained why the government might not want to fight a war on two fronts simultaneously, especially as the anti war movement was gaining steam, but you go ahead and believe what you want. It's not worth my time trying to move a boulder.



    It's actually not like that at all.
     
  9. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong.

    NSAM did not call for the withdrawal of ALL troops and yes it is a matter of public record proving you wrong.

    It only called for the withdraw of 1000 troops and made no mention of immediate replacements for them which was planned.

    Everytime you are stating the Warren Commission was a cover up you are stating an outright lie.

    You have been asked to provide evidence of such a cover up and you have never responded because you cannot.

    You have not even read the report and are clueless of what it says.

    It is not empirical evidence at all which is yet another example of your not even comprehending what the word empirical means. You are ignorant of many words.

    There was no coup and Oswald acted alone that is fact supported by evidence which you have failed to even challenge

    - - - Updated - - -

    Evolution is a theory which is profoundly proven by evidence.

    The conspiracy theories are not proven by any evidence. You keep asserting they are but you have yet to cite any.

    As I pointed out there was never a decision to withdraw from Vietnam by Kennedy and Johnson in fact followed his wishes. You messed up on that one by misquoting and falsely describing the contents of two different NSAMs
     
  10. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    There are no such documents. You’re in the business of simply mischaracterizing what was known at the time.



    It wouldn’t have been a “two front” war for one thing. Picking and choosing your battles is the privilege of the invader. Picking and choosing which facts to embrace seems to be your only talent and you’re not particularly effective at it.

    Its exactly like that.

    If you’re going to state that the hawks killed Kennedy, it is antithetical that we didn’t go to war in Cuba. It’s a fact that you cannot get around. Again, much like the conspiracy retards on 9/11, you have to account for the physical evidence. None of them can and it’s a 3 ring circus watching the lengths they go to in attempting to explain it. You’re becoming quite the clown yourself.
     
  11. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I
    don't believe John Kennedy could have been killed by forces within the government, a conclusion arrived at based on the white washed Warren Commission report and the lengths to which an elaborate cover up by key government entities (FBI, CIA, Pentagon, Secret Service, etc.) took place, without the president being seen as a very great threat to the interests of extremely powerful forces within the government itself.

    To insist otherwise is idiocy, give the obvious fiction of Lee Harvey Oswald, the lone assassin and similarly, to dismiss the clear intention by Kennedy to
    wind down our involvement in Vietnam and withdraw all military personnel by the end of 1963 (which was reversed just days after his killing)
    also shows a lack of honest intellectual investment and an ulterior motive for ignoring what is plainly in front of one if they only look.

    My only question is what's your motive for trying to throw up a smoke screen?



    Then your "clever" rationale has just admitted, unwittingly (as is your wont). that just because Cuba was not the big fish you theorize the US should have wanted to attack (though the Bay of Pigs invasion seems like an invasion to me....duhhh) their attention was fixed on Vietnam instead because we could indeed pick and choose who we would attend to and when.

    Frankly your whole theory is so lame brained and senseless it's difficult to even characterize it properly but the fact that we went ahead with invading Vietnam and not Cuba after Kennedy was killed seems totally unremarkable to me, and many other historians, and it says nothing at all about the motives for killing the president. Nothing!



    We DID go to war in Cuba and it went very badly because Kennedy thought a CIA sponsored invasion was transparent and gave the US a black eye so he pulled out his promise for air support and, therefore, the invasion flopped. Hello? Is anyone there? Are you paying attention at all?

    Even though I just did :)roll:)?

    "Retard" and "clown"? It took awhile for your true colors to show but there they are and if you draw people out long enough eventually they give themselves up.


    The Summation: I think I've given some people enough attention. And apparently you have emotional problems and it seems to hurt you to believe our own president could be killed by people in uniform and other authority figures. Or there is some other problem you have with reality. I really don't care about your difficulties.

    Yet JFK had the top of his head blown off by a professional hit, an ad hoc panel was thrown together to cover up the very real crime (complete with fall guy and distinguished liars who led the nation completely astray) and once Kennedy was out of the way (his burial was hardly over before LBJ, on behalf of the cabal, reversed course and the war they all wanted was back on and the nation knew nothing of it) things quickly reverted to "normal" (a violent coup d'etat notwithstanding).

    If you have a likely counter scenario (and I know you don't) I'd like to hear it but I fear that's beyond you and I really don't care about your opinion
    now that I think about it. I've seen your handiwork and it's vile and not worth my time.
     
  12. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once again every time you claim the WC was a cover up or white wash you are lying.

    You have no evidence of these claims and do not even know what they stated.

    Also it has already been proven you are wrong about the NSAM they actually prove you are wrong and you are merely avoiding that fact.

    There was indeed a memo to withdraw 1000 troops from Vietnam under Kennedy but it there never was a memo for the withdraw or even lost and that is fact easily verified.

    In addition NSAM 273 was in fact prepared for JFK at his direction and signed by LBJ after JFK died. This proves LBJ merely followed JFK's intent and did not change it,

    The only one attempting a smoke screen here is you willfully ignoring facts and attempting to scream that fiction from a movie is reality
     
  13. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Again, youÂ’re trading in theory and theory only. You may have connected the dots more than most but in essence, it is only your theory.


    IÂ’m with you insofar as Oswald being in Dallas is a little too convenient for me to believe. As for Oswald being interested in our goals in Viet Nam??? IÂ’ll use your word and call it a conclusion based on idiocy.

    While youÂ’re asking others to provide an honest examination, perhaps you should take your own advice.

    What smoke screen?

    YOU: Kennedy was killed so hawks can have their war
    THE FACT: The closest (i.e. most dangerous) threat to national security was the island of Cuba where our enemy had set up shop. That it remained (and remains) untouched defeats your statement.

    These are facts. Your speculation is not valid.

    Not sure what youÂ’re talking about here. Again the BOP happened while Kennedy was alive so you cannot use it as an example. Again, not sure if youÂ’re just being obtuse or if youÂ’re really this uninformed.

    The facts remain thatÂ…
    “Selling” a war 9,000 miles away is harder than selling one 90 miles away with a demonstrated threat to our national security.
    Kennedy enjoyed a 70% approval rating during his presidency. Given it’s short lifespan and how dealing with the Soviets was an ongoing crisis, the data suggests that his aggressive actions (as aggressive as a quarantine of Cuba can be) were widely supported. Whether the people would have supported a war in Cuba depends on the execution of the conflict and the body count. Suffice to say that the nation didn’t have any problem with it’s westward expansion as the “Indians” were seen as hostile actors who happened to have the mis-fortune of being on our land before we got here. The conquerers were rewarded and the public supported it. On the other hand, Wilson largely had to run as an isolationist prior to WWI since there was no clear threat to the US seen by the public.

    I donÂ’t worry much about the assessment of message board academics.

    Again, your argument is that JFK was killed so we could expand our war. That we didnÂ’t take out Cuba during this expansion pretty much devastates your argument.

    Yeah, youÂ’re rightÂ…calling 9/11 retards is insulting to those who are retarded and are light years more intelligent than that strain of loser. As for calling you a clownÂ…wellÂ…when you go negative first, itÂ’s to be expected; no?


    I love pointing out reality. Facts are my friends.

    Tissue?
     
  14. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've never claimed otherwise although it's a very well researched, regarded and reasonable theory and nothing else explains
    why the government went into cover up mode with the Warren Commission as they so obviously did.

    Powerful forces within our government putting forth the Big Lie with regards to Lee Harvey Oswald that fails on every single level and has been dissected to death countless times. You have to ask yourself why would it be in the government's interests to stage a massive cover up and who would benefit from such
    a white wash? The perpetrators of a coup are the only people capable of staging such a feat of misdirection and once that's established the only question
    remaining is why? Why was killing Kennedy necessary?
    I submit the only reasonable explanation is powerful forces did not want to go where Kennedy intended on taking us.

    Oswald was doing undercover work for the government for years before the assassination and receiving payments from the FBI as an informant. http://22november1963.org.uk/memo-was-oswald-an-fbi-agent
    What he thought about Vietnam or anything else is irrelevant, in my view, and I don't know where you get the idea that I have ever thought he was anything
    more than a fall guy used by the people who controlled the murky espionage swamps he dealt in for his entire adult life. His "defection" to Russia and reemergence back into the U.S. are good indicators of the work he was involved in.



    Your opinions of Cuba as a threat do not constitute fact, and never will, and Castro was merely
    the head of a Soviet Union client state which, absent their missiles, was a thorn in the paw of the lion but no more than that (your obsession with them and claims notwithstanding).


    I certainly can and did use it as an example of JFK thwarting the will of the Cold Warriors by not backing their scheme to retake the island of Cuba away from Castro and the Communists.
    Why you have so many problems comprehending this simple fact is a mystery to me.

    The fact that many of the minor players in the plot to kill itself were members of the Cuban exiles community and organized crime, who wanted their island playground back, lend even more credence to the idea that the cabal of killers had a mixed bag of motives for killing Kennedy but nonetheless they all have their reasons when the plot for a coup d'etat was hatched and they all did their part.

    Since Kennedy succeeded in forcing Khrushchev to withdraw missiles pointed at the US and since we actually had a military base on the island of Cuba (Guantanamo Bay) from which we could monitor and strike out at any moment, and since our navy and air force were only a short trip away where we could have pounded Cuba into a rubble heap anytime we wanted you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that Castro represented the existential crisis that Vietnam did (or was purported to be).
    I just don't accept such nonsense and never have.


    Your failure to use good judgement yourself is your own business.
    The book shelves are crammed with scholarly well researched and documented dissections of the Kennedy assassination.


    How much more plain can I be about things? Cuba was in our back pocket and not a serious threat by any stretch of the imagination, as already explained. The fall of Indo-China and the global ramifications of Communist hegemony in the far east was the real threat that got
    everyone's attention. I laugh at ridiculous people who fear a mouse while a tiger roams through the house. It truly is absurd...so much so I still have a suspicion I am being pranked.

    Nonsensical drivel and I really have no idea what your are
    talking about. I only know your outright insults are a sure sign you can't keep up and it frustrates you no end. That's not my problem.

    I invited you to suggest a counter scenario, since you seem convinced I don't know what's going on, and of course you did not. You judge your own "contributions" here so worthless and intellectually lacking you won't even make an attempt to justify them and therefore condemn yourself. I need say nothing more.
     
  15. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once again you have never read the Warren Commission report and have no idea what it says. Your claim that it was a cover up and white wash is unsupported by any evidence. You have been asked repeatedly to provide any at all but only repeat the assertion without evidence. This is an admission by you that you are lying and you know it.

    You also have a habit of posting worthless link.

    The link you posted shows no evidence of Oswald being a paid agent in fact it specifically states that there were ONLY RUMORS that he was a paid FBI agent.

    Rumors are not evidence.

    Traveling to the USSR and returning is NOT evidence of being a spy or agent.
     
  16. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Not worth really rehashing as we seem to be going in circles although the stuff about mice and tigers is amusing as is your theories. What it boils down to is this:

    Cuba, 90 miles off the coast was and still is a threat. Pretty much only fools and those with a stake in saying-so would argue that it is not. Which, by the way, is probably why JFK signed off on the invasion. One does not, in the real world, invade a non-threatening entity.

    The assertion at the base of your "argument" is that Kennedy was killed so we could let slip the dogs of war. That the dogs didn't attack Cuba is strange to say the least. I think it disqualifies that for being a reason for the killing of JFK. You do not. You're welcome to your opinion, of course. However there seems to be a gaping hole in the logic that the dogs of war didn't go after the closest target, the easiest target, the most convenient target, and, a target that would have been a stepping stone to gain national support of the wider war effort.

    As for conduct, I debate in the manner for which I'm engaged. If you do not like it, I advise you to avoid casting the first stone.
     
  17. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your "argument" (such as it is) seems to boil down entirely to your inability to understand why the US decided to intervene militarily in Southeast Asia (which they did) vs Cuba (which they did not, albeit after the aborted Bay of Pigs invasion took place).

    That's how things worked out. If you want to keep insisting our military should have valued the target of Cuba over that of Vietnam, well...I can assure you they did not! I'll let you to puzzle over that missed opportunity and perhaps you should jump in your time machine and see if you
    can change some minds.

    By the way, I don't know if you are aware but the CIA DID try to invade Cuba and it was JFK who aborted the attack by ending all promises of air support, necessary for victory. He made many bitter enemies because of that and the plans to deal with Vietnam (which were cooking on the back burner all during the Bay of Pigs episode) came to the fore for many reasons and the cold warriors would not let Kennedy stop them again.

    I'd be interested for you to document where I called you a "retard" and a "clown". Take a little responsibility for your own petulant childish behavior.
     
  18. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Again...they are so pissed at JFK for stopping/thwarting them; they Killed JFK...then forgot all about Cuba... Are you sure you want your story to be that nutty?

    Do the words:

    “obviously impaired person”
    “clueless myopic clowns”

    come to mind? Again, I engage you as I am engaged.
     
  19. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Time and history marches on. You should take that into consideration. The same Cold War dynamic that existed in '63 was gone after Vietnam. What's "nutty" is your obsession with Cuba.
    Stop and think how silly your comment is: to a degree our foreign policy hawks DID forget about Cuba. We slapped a bunch of sanctions on them and that was that. We tried killing Castro over and over again with no success and wound up just ignoring them, basically.

    There was NO American appetite for invading Cuba after Nixon withdrew from Vietnam. NONE! And Cuba represented zero threat to the US, after the Soviet missiles were removed.
    And the Soviets couldn't pump money into the nation anymore and collapsed itself in 1991. And the relationship between the Soviets and their client states (like Cuba) had deteriorated badly by that time anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba–Soviet_Union_relations



    One can be impaired in many ways. Like one's judgement or knowledge of history, for instance. You personalized things by calling me "retarded", which used to be enough to get people removed from the forum should I make an issue of things. And clueless myopic clowns refers to a whole group of people. If you self identify (as you did) then that's on you.
    You hardly reply in kind.
     
  20. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    You may not know this, but Kennedy was killed long before Vietnam ended. Look it up.


    Your version of history is quite hilarious; and fraudulent.
     
  21. jack4freedom

    jack4freedom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    19,874
    Likes Received:
    8,447
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Howard Hunt admitted that there was CIA involvement in the JFK assassination. Generally speaking, deathbed confessions are considered evidence champ. Again as always you fail miserably and expose yourself as a dunce and a dupe. Now run along....
     
  22. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know what would ever cause you to make a comment like that but I'm surprised by nothing you say and informed by even less.

    Says the guy who is baffled by our war in Vietnam when Cuba when sitting there all along.
     
  23. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You speak the truth. With all the volumes of evidence out there it takes a supreme act of will to ignore it all.
     
  24. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong.

    Death bed confessions are often uttered by people who are sick and mentally ill as he was and they mean nothing without evidence.

    Also I absolutely crushed the idiotic claims of the other conspiracy minded morons like you who are the PROVEN dunces and dupes.

    the evidence is irrefutable and proves the conspiracy theories wrong.

    But you trust in your movies

    - - - Updated - - -

    HE is proven wrong and there i no such evidence or you would have cited some by now and you never have.

    There is no mountain of evidence supporting any conspiracy theory. What you do not seem to grasp is that of books and movies is not evidence it is just people writing and making films. Most of which are fictional.
     
  25. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    That you are ignorant about it comes as no surprise. It's a trend with you.

    Your concession is noted.
     

Share This Page