Poll about JFK Assassination: Who Killed JFK?

Discussion in 'JFK' started by usda_select, Mar 21, 2017.

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.

?

Who Killed JFK?

Poll closed Sep 21, 2017.
  1. Lee Harvey Oswald; acting alone

    37.0%
  2. Lee Harvey Oswald was the trigger man; but as part of a larger conspriacy

    40.7%
  3. Lee Harvey Oswald was one of multiple triggermen.

    22.2%
  1. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    As suspected…you give no details or specifics.

    Facts and truth are missing as well.
     
  2. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The issue has been argued extensively, details and specifics included, so your point is noted and rejected as a lie.
    And it's a strange point indeed coming from someone who wants to convince me where our political and military priorities should have been despite American history of the early and mid sixties, based solely on his own bizarre views.

    If you want to convince me Kennedy's proposed Vietnam draw down (NASM 263), which was reversed, as the president had his head blown off and we went full speed ahead in a major war under new president Lyndon Baines Johnson in South east Asia, aren't significant things
    then you better bring something to the table (other than your unsupported belief that what LBJ and his boys really wanted was to invade Cuba and take it back).
    Considering how history actually unfolded, your claims are embarrassingly wrong.
     
  3. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Never made such a claim. You’re the one saying war hawks killed JFK. I’m pointing out that if “war hawks” were responsible, they didn’t persecute the most obvious and easily winnable war on the globe; Cuba which was both strategically the most important Commie nation on earth (90 miles off the coast) and the one in the news and most worrisome to Americans.

    That you believe there was an “either/or” is so hilarious it’s almost precious. If the “war hawks” had been in control; they would have no problem persecuting both simultaneously.
     
  4. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It does appear the Cold Warriors were afraid Kennedy would capitulate and "go soft" on the commies and we only have to look at what Johnson did once Kennedy was buried....we went full tilt in Vietnam.
    And regardless of what YOU think about Cuba the people in charge at the CIA, in the Pentagon and in the White House were more afraid of what the collapse of South Vietnam would mean (the famous "domino" theory) than a little isolated island off our coast with zero potential to hurt our nation.
    And any paranoid notions that Cuba could hurt us, somehow, evaporated when Nikita Khrushchev dismantled his nuclear missiles and sent them back to Russia.

    An absolutely ridiculous claim without any supporting evidence at all. The hawks were in control (Vietnam proves that)
    and still we slapped sanctions and embargoes on Cuba and pretty much stopped paying any real attention to them.

    This is what history shows! You don't get to substitute your own bats*it crazy version of it just so you can hang onto your Lee Harvey Oswald fantasies.
    Grow up. Learn something of value. Stop spouting off idiocy.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2017
  5. Lesh

    Lesh Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    42,206
    Likes Received:
    14,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A government and a nation are huge things with often complicated and sometimes conflicting concerns.

    It's a fact that Kennedy was trying to disentangle us from Vietnam and it's also a fact that many in our government and among population supported action against Cuba. In fact Bobby Kennedy had become sucked int an operation to assassinate Castro (There had been many). In fact covering up that attempted assassination (in case it was the cause of his brother's death) brought Bobby into the Oswald cover up.
     
  6. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,909
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one has shown any evidence of an Oswald cover up
     
  7. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Were you around during Vietnam? My brother served there in aerial reconnaissance (and died decades later of related cancer problems) and I was in the Phillipines as the war wound down in medical support for soldiers coming back.
    It was a pretty big deal and by the end of the war the public appetite for another conflict, like in Cuba for example, was absolutely not there!
    Who thinks we could have handled both those fights at the same time? Or that the Cold Warriors who ran the government really wanted to invade Cuba fist and foremost?
    No one with an ounce of brains.

    So I'm not sure where the argument is. Was Cuba a thorn in our side? Yes. Did it rise to the level of Vietnam? Hell no!
    In the grand geopolitical scheme of things is it surprising that LBJ went whole hog into Vietnam and NOT into Cuba? Not for people who've cracked a book open or lived through those times. Can we justifiably call LBJ a war hawk considering how he reversed JFK's call for a Vietnam draw down? Absolutely!

    Be careful not to slip down the same nonsensical rabbit hole as at least one troll has around here.
     
  8. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Again, tying Kennedy’s murder to the war hawks is your crazy dream; not mine. US Military doctrine up until Clinton was being able to fight two full scale wars at one time. This would translate into not having to choose between conflicts. Politically, an “easy” win in Cuba would all but ensure a 3rd term for Johnson.

    Only a fool believes that the Soviet Premier would be trustworthy. Kennedy was no fool. But you seem to be.
     
  9. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nice syntax. Been speaking English long?

    That was the ideal, alright.
    It hardly means we would choose to do so unless another world war broke out. You know just enough to prove you actually know nothing.

    Sure thing, champ. You know how the American public loves fighting fighting wars of choice simultaneously all around the globe. That's why we do it all the time. Extreme sarcasm time.... :roll:

    If you are to be taken seriously, and you are NOT, one wonders why LBJ didn't attack Cuba while he was sending tens of thousands of young Americans off to die in Vietnam (thereby dooming any further political aspirations of Johnson, contrary to your idiotic claim about a third term). Seldom have I read anything so dense and pitifully stupid. Vietnam killed Johnson's political career...you think he should have piled Cuba on top of that? OMG!! How clever.

    Am I supposed to take from this that I called Krushchev "trustworthy"? What a profound lie.
     
  10. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Longer than you apparently.

    Well, first you have the war hawks killing Kennedy to have a free hand to make war. Now you’re alleging that they didn’t want too much war? Perhaps I’ll buy you a mirror so you can debate yourself.

    “fighting fighting” Are you stuttering? :banana::banana::banana::banana:

    The American public doesn’t like fighting any wars that they might lose. Which makes your Vietnam theory even more bizarre. If you’re the war hawk, why not just have Cuba, a winnable war you can almost win by intimidation…instead of one that we were almost destined to lose? Don’t worry about answering, your answers are nonsense.


    You should read your own material. You should get a job in Hollywood writing comedy and fiction. They are your speciality. Seriously, are you incapable of doing any research? And I do like how you are in denial mode with me about Cuba and when Lesh corrects you, you put you tuck your tail and admit you were full of sh*t. It’s beautiful to see you get your ass handed to you by a fellow conspiracy theorist!!!!

    Anyway for those interested in the truth; here is what the “hawks” actually did:

    [​IMG]


    Amazingly, they waited until 1966 to start really sending troops over to ’Nam; after going through the trouble of producing your now famous body doubles to kill Kennedy, employing thousands of people in the enterprise, paying all of them hush money ,etc… Seriously, do your ridiculous conspiracy theories ever end? Ever?

    No. Viet’nam is your reasoning (if you want to call it that). I would think he would have gone after the war Americans cared about—Cuba; if he had JFK killed. Which I seriously doubt he did.

    Well, if you believed he dismantled the missile program out of Cuba, you’re trusting him. So the lie is yours. One would think that with all of the lies you tell, you’d be better at it.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2017
  11. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh...a regular comedian (you ain't).


    No debate needed. There is nothing contradictory about wanting to stay on and fight in Vietnam and NOT start a senseless second front in Cuba, which would be idiotically counter productive and unacceptable to the public, by and large.
    Do you remember how much people "loved" the war in Vietnam? I do.


    Good one troll. When you can't win the argument be sure to
    point out every typo you can find.

    Or wars they win, like in Iraq. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq
    Do you actually think about things before posting them? Or you could say we might lose any war we enter. What's your point, assuming you have one?

    Because, we didn't go to Vietnam just because we wanted to get into a war....duhhh!
    We fought in Vietnam due to it's strategic value, or so the politicians and generals all claimed. Try thinking once in awhile.


    Tell me where exactly you see that. More troll idiocy claiming victory by imagination when you cannot possibly earn it by smarts and facts.

    By your own graph the troop build up begins in '65 but I fail to see your point anyway. Kennedy wanted to draw down our involvement in Vietnam, as already proved. LBJ and his boys did just the opposite.
    So what? You only make my point for me.

    Well go ahead and double down on stupid and see if I care.
    LBJ had his chance to invade Cuba and he didn't care enough to do it. Your opinion of what you think he should have cared about is absolutely worthless and as moot as hell!


    LOL!!! The fact that Krushchev blinked in the Cuban missile crisis and removed his nukes is verified historical fact! Our naval blockade stopped further delivery of missiles and we verified the ones already there were dismantled the same way we spotted them to begin with...through spy planes and aerial reconnaissance of Cuba.

    Geezus Christ....how foolish and dim can one person be? That you keep making a clown of yourself is incredible in and of itself and
    that you have the nuts to disparage anyone else is incredible considering you seem to know nothing at all.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2017
  12. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When you refuse to reply to the points raised, which were counter to yours, I can only assume it's because you were unable to make a worthwhile argument. Cheers.
     
  13. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Because we’ve been over them before!!!!

    You make this allegation that the “war hawks” had JFK killed. Then, the very last place we went to war, Cuba, is still there, still synonymous with American failure. And the hawks pull off the crime of the century, live to tell about it and then promptly forget about settling the score with the only nation we didn’t absolutely decimate militarily AND the only one the public cares about.

    Your position makes no sense.
     
  14. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's the conclusion of bright informed people.
    It certainly explains the obvious cover up by the Warren Commission.There are consequence for crossing the CIA and threatening to destroy it.

    "Went to war"?
    Are you possibly referring to the Spanish-American war?
    Once again you are ignoring the reality of Vietnam in favor of your own ridiculous theory. Whatever.

    That they did, thanks to folks like you.
    Ask Jack Ruby about that. Oh, right....you can't!
    What is your fascination with "settling the score" and do you feel the same way about North Korea or Afghanistan? And where is the clamor you constantly refer to about going to war with Cuba?

    My position makes no sense?
    My "position" reflects actual history. Yours...not so much.
    Or are you not aware of the Vietnam war? You are literally arguing against the history of this nation in the '60s. It's so bizarre
    and ridiculous.
    The "war hawks" you refer to, our leadership that jumped wholeheartedly into a major war in Vietnam, didn't seem to care all that much about Cuba, as you insist they should have. You are the one out of touch with reality and history. Jeeezus.....listen to yourself.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2017
  15. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Oh brother.

    The Bay of Pigs....

    In 1963 very few people even knew we had advisors in Viet Nam.

    Just looking at the map logically and strategically from the point of view of a "war hawk". We had the Cuban Missile Crisis shortly before JFK was killed. Having a communist nation within a 30 minute flight of Miami was disconcerting to many in Florida and the US. Not to mention we had nothing but Kruschev's word that he took his missiles out. From the war hawk's point of view, Cuba was much more convenient and much more prosecutable than the Vietnam Conflict.

    In no way shape or form.

    Viet nam didn't enter the public consciousness until sometime around 1966. Between 1959 and December 1963, Cuba was the weekly cover story on Time Magazine in 7 different issues. As best I can tell, there is no mention about Vietnam until 1965; nearly 3 years after Kennedy was killed.

    What is bizarre is that you do not seem to realize Cuba was the dominant story at the beginning of the 1960's which is when all of the events we're talking about have taken place.

    In the first place, the ramp up didn't happen until 1965.
    Secondly, it would be only logical to persecute a winnable and popular war as a war with Cuba would have been.

    Of course I listen to myself; I sometimes need an expert opinion. Frankly, when I read your words, it makes my case for me. In the last half of the decade, Viet Nam was the war that we were fighting. No question about that. However Kennedy was killed in 1963; well before the place became a household name. It's been demonstrated to you time and again.
     
  16. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Find anyone of any repute at all who takes your view of history. Anyone at all.


    The Bay of Pigs was a war? It was a covert and aborted invasion by a small group of CIA sponsored (yes...sponsored) Cuban exiles that was shut down by JFK when he refused to lend air support (quite possibly the one single action that got him killed) like CIA hawks figured he would. He didn't! It's things like this that convinces me you have ZERO historical knowledge
    and therefore your claims about Vietnam are equally suspect and dubious (although whether everyone or no one knew about Vietnam in 1963 is irrelevant).


    So tell me why the people that committed us to a major war in Vietnam did nothing about Cuba then?
    History....reality itself seems to make no impression on you at all!. I find that incredible. Effin' incredible.

    You've already been informed why we had considerably more than just Kruschev's word that missiles were removed from Cuba. You probably don't bother to read what was written about this but that's all on you....someone so ill informed and in love with his own crazed theories he doesn't bother with the truth of reality. In any event you were informed.

    And again, if the "war hawks", who only ran the nation after all, saw Cuba as the more desirable military target why in hell didn't we skip
    the long major protracted war (we had been there since the Eisenhower administration) in Vietnam in favor of Cuba?

    Do you live in the same reality as the rest of us do?

    But yours do? :roll: :roll: :roll:
    Your ideas about Vietnam and Cuba are hilarious considering they do not reflect reality in any way at all!

    Well you are wrong on a very basic factual level but your point, which you keep making for some reason, is irrelevant anyway. We don't invade nations based on their popularity or renown. Does Iraq ring a bell for you?

    No. What's bizarre is you think we invade foreign nations for the same reasons we program t.v. networks or buy consumer goods...by popularity.

    Okay. Your brilliant credentials and persuasive genius has convinced me (cough)....now tell me why we opted to go all in over Vietnam and just put Cuba on the back burner? What do you know that all of the Pentagon, CIA and White House did not know?

    And Kennedy was looking
    for a way to get out of Vietnam whereas LBJ reversed course and went all in when he assumed power............does this tell you anything at all?
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2017
  17. Aphotic

    Aphotic Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2014
    Messages:
    13,595
    Likes Received:
    6,113
    Trophy Points:
    113
    JFK was assassinated by multiple gunmen, the primary killshot having been fired from a sewer grate in the street, which explains the upward and backward to the left motion of the head and ejection of brain matter.

    /endthread
     
  18. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Try convincing our notorious trolls of that. They simply don't believe all the eyewitness testimony of so many ER doctors at Parkland hospital that mention the huge exit wound in the back of Kennedy's skull.
     
  19. Aphotic

    Aphotic Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2014
    Messages:
    13,595
    Likes Received:
    6,113
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh I don't care what government slaves believe. The physics and motion as well as WELL documented doctoring of the Zapruder film pretty much debunk the claims that there was no conspiracy to murder kennedy.

    It gets even fishier when you look into how many coffins they had at the white house "carrying Kennedy" an all the other sordid and sundry back room deals going on.
     
  20. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have to agree on all this and more. Jack Ruby spoke on camera from his jail cell about the terrible bind some very "powerful men" had put him in and how he wanted to go before the Warren Commission and get on the record so the people would know something was very very wrong. The gentlemen on the commission just couldn't be bothered to help Ruby out.

    They were only interested in promoting their "truth" of the Kennedy coup.
     
  21. Aphotic

    Aphotic Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2014
    Messages:
    13,595
    Likes Received:
    6,113
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Or how the cop so conveniently killed by Oswald was remarkable for bearing a striking resemblance to Kennedy himself.

    Strange, right?

    What a joke.

    No one can deny the government covered this up.
     
  22. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,909
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I see no resemblance at all between the cop and kennedy.

    http://assassinationofjfk.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/jd-tippit.jpg

    https://www.jfklibrary.org/~/media/...ingway Photograph Collection/JFK Official.jpg

    Even if there were a resemblance it is not relevant and indicates...........nothing.

    There is no evidence of any cover up of the assassination by the government so there is nothing wrong with denying such silly theories
     
  23. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,909
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ruby did no such thing from his jail cell he made those statements from the court room during his trial.

    After his conviction he maintained until he died that he acted alone. He DID testify before the Warren Commission which has been linked to and proven.
     
  24. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28

    Really?

    What exactly do you think my view of History is?

    Okay, it was a small military invasion that the public knew about.

    Why we were in Vietnam is a question a lot of people still ask today. That they didn’t invade Cuba hurts your case that “war hawks” had Kennedy killed.

    Oh and congrats on using the word “sponsor” correctly for a change.


    Its a matter of coincidence. Otherwise, you’d have seen the ramp up in troops sooner than 1965-66.
     
  25. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Judging from your posts here I would say your view of history is sadly ignorant of the facts and warped. Thanks for asking.


    No kidding.Isn't history interesting?



    No. It really doesn't. Once Kennedy was out of the way we reversed course in Vietnam.
    Cuba was an annoyance and a pebble our shoe compared to Vietnam.
    That we DID invade Vietnam and engage in a major war there (over 3,400,000 dead Americans as a result....the fourth deadliest war in our history!) and that we DIDN'T go into Cuba seems to make no impression on you at all.

    Let's review: John Kennedy signs NASM 263 calling for a draw down of our troops in Vietnam and a path out of the morass of Vietnam.
    He is killed and LBJ and friends gets us into the fourth deadliest war in United States history! Only the Civil War and the two World Wars are responsible for more American dead. Now, what part of that confuses you?

    We had people running the nation who willingly led us into a major war of dubious value. Yet they did nothing about Cuba. I wish I could draw you a picture but you probably wouldn't understand it.

    LOL...I've never misused it.
    North Vietnam was a client state of Red China and as such China was "sponsoring" them with financial and military aid.
    Please crack a dictionary open and see for yourself.


    Right! :roll: No cause and effect. Just a "coincidence". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_in_the_Vietnam_War

    The troop build up in '65 was more due to the perceived failure of the S. Vietnamese government to stem the loss of ground to the North than any lack of will on the part of LBJ to stay in Vietnam and win no matter what!
    There was a real fear in the Pentagon and White House that we might lose
    in Vietnam and that prompted the increased military response.
    It's no more complicated than that.


    Once more, Kennedy said we should be getting out. And LBJ said, no we shouldn't and nearly three and a half million Americans died
    in an unpopular war the war hawks insisted on. You will never show otherwise because reality proves you wrong.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2017

Share This Page