There are still unsettled questions from the presidential primaries. The first is whether or not Senator Ted Cruz is, in fact, the Zodiac killer. The second is whether or not Cruz’s father, Rafael, was instrumental in helping Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Now, we know that the Zodiac killer committed some of his crimes prior to Ted Cruz being born in 1970 and also that the crimes occurred in Northern California and not in Calgary, Canada. But this doesn’t mean that this theory can be entirely ruled out.
Likewise, it’s theoretically possible that Rafael Cruz assisted Oswald or other conspirators in the death of JFK. Surely, as RNC chairman Reince Priebus says, the candidates have a “right to talk about whatever they want to talk about.” And if Trump is done speculating about President Obama’s birth certificate or Rafael Cruz’s appearance on the Grassy Knoll, then there’s no reason to “think he was ever saying this was some sort of factual information” and “we can move on from it.”
you snark quite well when you put your mind to it.
Maybe he should have picked Jon Not-meant-as-a-factual-statement Kyl for his running mate.
I’ve heard that Booman is actually the Zodiac killer. (I can’t tell you the name of the source, who fears for his life. Apparently an “accident” on the soccer pitch could be easily arranged.) The same objection to this hypothesis on account of age applies as it does to Cruz, as does the fact that Booman lived in New Jersey (amirite?), but given what we now know about the time-travel capabilities of the space aliens who regularly visit Earth–some of this information has leaked from the USAF–it’s premature to rule out this idea.
(Warning: graphic; players either sustaining fatal injuries or dying on the pitch before your eyes)
Tragically. (All actually “accidents”, I think. Though an unpadded concrete wall a yard from the endline amounts to criminal negligence, imo. Every time I watch a match and see 2 players go up in the air after a “50-50 ball” header, I cringe. For reasons illustrated here.)
Never let anybody tell you Real Football isn’t a contact sport.
Thank you. Stuff I read farther down depressed the hell out of me.
Actually, if you read the website Citizens For The Truth About The Kennedy Assassination, the stupid little meme about Rafael Cruz was dismissed soon after it arose. And the author of it was undoubtedly in Trump’s camp.
http://www.ctka.net/2016/jfk-assassination-and-2016-presidential-election.html
However, it’s sad that people think that examining politics, the corridors of power, et al, should not be interrupted with crazy conspiracy stuff.
Here are some basic facts that people like John Newman and Peter Dale Scott have been pointing out since the 1990s, at least:
A month and a half before the assassination a man impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald in front of the Russian embassy and the Cuban consulate in Mexico City. This man, who looks nothing like the Oswald we know, was photographed by CIA surveillance cameras at both locations.
Two (2) Oswalds. Who knew about the cameras? The CIA and no one else. Who would benefit from tying the future assassin to the USSR and Cuba? The CIA. Who is still withholding documents about the assassination fifty years after the assassination.
Two Oswalds means that there was a conspiracy, and CIA fingerprints are all over it.
That means that everyone who poohpoohed conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination was wrong. If nothing else, you have two Oswalds. Two people using the same identity to commit a crime is a conspiracy. J. Edgar Hoover knew about Oswald and wrote a letter during Oswald’s stay in the USSR that someone else was using Oswald’s identity, several years before the assassination.
When you overthrow a government and kill the elected leader you don’t just go home after the dirty work and rely on democracy. Democracy failed the coup plotters. That’s why they killed JFK.
Okay. The CIA has a fifty-year head start on everyone. I know, if we actually had a coup in 1963 by the CIA we’d have CIA Directors and their kids running the country, wouldn’t we? We’d have candidates who are consonant with CIA goals.
One day I expect a couple of people to wake up. Hello?
Hello!
If it’s true, and if people wake up to the truth, what would you expect to happen?
It would be interesting. You would expect people to be pretty untrusting of the current political model, which would not be a bad thing. I would expect Scott and Newman to do well with book sales. Someone might even give me a high five at the pub across the street.
But I do know what happens when people don’t wake up. We’re sleeping through it.
A few bad apples. Ancient history. Look! Driverless cars!
Nietzsche said, “A joke is an epigram on the death of a feeling.”
I was having a political discussion one day with the 25 year old member of my household, who happened to obsessively watch and listen to Sanders’ speeches, and whose opinion of Hillary Clinton resembled yours. He was going on about the Clinton e-mail scandal, and I remarked that having lived through 25 years of organized Hillary Hate, I had a very hard time taking the affair seriously. He told me that Ms. Clinton was a criminal and, in the next breath–I don’t remember why–that the attacks on the World Trade Center had been an inside job. I decided at that point that for the sake of a peaceful household, I would stay away from political discussion with my younger relative.
I have a similar issue with what you write about the JFK assassination, for example (or more accurately the website to which you linked). Grainy photographs. The National Enquirer. PT Barnum. Archie Bunker. The CIA has been running the country for 50 years. It feels like random free association, and if I or anyone else questions your claims, the response is that “one day I expect a couple of people to wake up.”
I figure we have enough legitimately bad stuff going on without confabulating more. But that’s just me.
Sorry, post error. My favorite theory is Mossad manipulated Oswald to kill JFK because he was planning on rescinding the blank check to Israel. I don’t believe this for a monent (it originiated via an anti-Jewish writer) but in terms of dramatic novelty it ties together a lot of cliches in a fun way.
On a more serious note we have seen that our intelligence services are basically beyond control of the civilian apparatus. I am far more concerned over what can be done about that.
A favorite theory? Is that like being a “conspiracy buff”?
I suppose you could say that. I’m skeptical of most crazy theories but some do make interesting reading.
My favorite is Lincoln and the trans continental railroad. The best conspiracies are the ones nobody knows about. That means they succeeded.
.
One of the craziest I’ve heard — from a book that actually became a best-seller for a while in the 90s — was the one that has the SS shooting JFK. I think it was one of the two SS sitting in the front seat.
I think there was another even more absurd one that had Jackie arranging for the hit because she was fed up with Jack’s womanizing, and wanted to pursue a romantic relationship with Bobby. Something ridiculous like that, probably made it into a book that made a profit.
Well, when you die, no one can sue on your behalf for libel, so it’s anything goes. Especially if it’s coupled with a plan, say, by one or two of our intelligence agencies, to muddy the waters on Dallas and make reasonable conspiracy proponents look bad by association, as well as to deliberately lie and mislead about the facts of JFK the president and the person in order to make people not care so much about his murder.
Well, I paid no attention to Hillary’s initial email problem except that she must have felt privileged not to follow the then-current rules at the State Department. I cheered when Sanders said enough with the damned emails. I would have rather listened to them debate about how they would rescue the bottom 80% of Americans.
So I guess I’m not identical with the 25 year-old in your household.
But you inadvertantly point out a problem with Clintonistas this election cycle. You seem incapable of seeing the difference between left-wing and right-wing critiques of H. Clinton. After all this you still don’t. Critical thinking requires understanding other people’s arguments. You haven’t reached that yet. Try again. Go back and read the posts of right-wing and left-wing critiques of Clinton. If you can’t tell the difference, then how about those Cubs?
I’m assuming that his young relatives views him/herself as left-wing; so, I’d rephrase your comment as “…the difference between fact-based, rational, and logical critiques and crazy-talk.
As told by Joel, his younger relative went to the place of emotionally driven crazy talk. OTOH, the description of the discussion may not be accurate. Young people and women have a greater propensity to get emotional and sound a bit nutso when attempting to communicate with older people and men that are closed-minded to facts and get into a patronizing mode. A thorny issue in couples therapy because the men look and sound rational, pragmatic, etc. while the women appear hysterical and out of control and then embarrassed and ashamed at their weakness in keeping it together. The reality of the interpersonal dynamics is rarely what is first presented.
That’s a conscious psychological tactic–maintaining cool and projecting one’s stress onto someone else so you can appear “rational.” I’ve usually seen it done by older/white men to women or younger men or minorities.
It’s something that tends to bridge ideologies, too–I’ve seen older liberal men do it and older conservative men do it. It’s up there with “confusion as a control tactic” in terms of the worst shit people do.
Yes, definitely a control and dominance tactic. As is all the unprovoked stupid mocking and snark crap that many here at the pond engage in these days.
In written form it’s not always easy to discriminate between playful snark/mock (which can be fun because it’s often funny) (Colbert and Stewart turf), and the nasty control/dominance form. Once or occasionally from a single individual can be overlooked off as snark/mock that failed to hit the funny. Continued/continuous — nope — that’s the nasty play for power.
It’s interesting that you adopt the methods that you claim I use to control and dominate you.
You’d better come rescue my nephew from my vicious control and dominance methods. My spouse and child, too. And my cats. And my neighbors. And my co-workers. And the 600K citizens of Portland. They are all weak vessels powerless against my psychopathic personality.
I wrote that for the sake of household amity, I was refraining from talking politics with my nephew. He seems to be adopting the same approach. Similarly, I avoid political talk with my GOP gun rights neighbor, as it allows us to be the sort of neighbors who look out for each other. These are real human relationships, to be distinguished from cartoonish pop psychology versions that for some reason you seem to prefer.
Nice pop psych analysis in absentia from you, too.
I apologize, I didn’t realize it was actually applying to another commenter.
Seriously, I’m sorry.
I was unaware, Marie3, that you were listening in on my nephew and me. Also, brilliant pop psychology there.
“Emotionally driven crazy talk” is your phrase, Marie3, not mine. Please quit projecting.
One. I am not a Clintonista.
Two. I accurately represented my young relative’a remarks.
Three. Thanks for the patronizing remarks about my obtuseness.
Four. I still invite you to meet me for coffee.
One. You only sound and act like one on a blog? (Take that with the light-hearted tone intended.)
Two. I did allow allow for the possibility that your report was accurate and that your young relative was accepting allegations, etc. as facts. Also accepted that he was emotional in making his arguments. “crazy-talk” is must my shorthand description of how people can sound when they’re passionate and ill-informed and/or not fully rational in that moment. All of us have been there at least once in our lives.
Three. I don’t know what you’re like in your real life. I only know how many of your comments read and that I and a few others (those not firmly “with her”) here experience them. Indistinguishable from what I referred to as bully-boys that first invaded dKos in mid-2003. (Years later Armando at least conceded that I kicked his butt around a few blocks.) I don’t shy away from those that want to engage in a honest and fair debate. And I don’t believe I ever throw the first personal insult, mean, dismissive, etc. punch. Until demonstrated otherwise, I always assume that others are honest and looking to engage thought, information, perspectives, etc. in a written conversational type mode and not looking to “win” or “defeat” someone that they have decided is an enemy. But, I’m not a doormat and have limited patience and tolerance for those prowling for fights and scalps.
Four. Still?
Bob–I was hoping for a response from you about the general issue of, as I see it, conspiratorial thinking, which you evidently consider quite reasonable but which I do not. Instead you replied in a patronizing manner. “Gosh he’s so dense, he’ll never understand.” Try me.
Vision is a series of pictures, like motion pictures. You watch someone onscreen and you see him or her talking, moving around, riding a horse, etc. But you aren’t actually watching anyone riding a horse. You are watching a series of pictures.
We get continuous information. We get information all the time, and we learn to screen out what we don’t want to hear. Lots of times it’s redundant, sometimes you know that it’s untrue. But often we screen out things that don’t jibe with our understanding of things. All information is at some point theoretical. I didn’t know that Saddam didn’t have WMDs when the US accused him, but from the information I’d gleaned I decided that he didn’t and therefore the US was inventing an excuse for war. I knew about other lies that the government has told us in order to get into wars. My estimation was correct.
You may believe that your wife would never cheat on you until you see your naked neighbor diving out of your bedroom window as you pull in the driveway. Then you add in the new facts and proceed from there.
The term “conspiracy theory” as used in American parlance arose after the JFK assassination. I have seen it linked to a friend of J. Edgar Hoover’s who bought the rights to the photo of Ruby shooting Oswald who wrote a book about those bad conspiracy theorists. What is clear is that it was hardly used before 1964, if it’s usage in the New York Times is any indicator. 1964 and beyond its use rapidly expanded.
What constitutes a conspiracy theory? Well, technically you can never know the absolute veracity of anything, so anything can be theoretical. Someone can always demand more proof, or think of another reason not to believe something. For example, Marie will not give any credence to the information about the second Oswald because it came out of the CIA. Okay. So the CIA deliberately lied about someone who was accused of killing the president six weeks BEFORE THE ASSASSINATION, when no one in America knew who Oswald was. To me that would suggest an accessory before the fact, that someone impersonating Oswald before the assassination knew there was going to be an assassination. But to Marie it means that you can’t believe that CIA is telling the truth, so therefore you cannot believe that they are lying, or why or what exactly they’re lying about. It’s inherently illogical, but that’s the kind of absolute that we’re discussing here.
Another example: There’s no proof that the DNC ever acted on making Sanders’ religion or lack thereof an issue. They discussed it in emails, and around that time stories about Sanders inelectability because he was Jewish/because he was a suspected atheist began circulating in the media, the meme being fronted by Clinton supporters. I wouldn’t doubt it but it’s not 100% provable beyond a reasonable doubt. You can look at other actions by the DNC and other people connected to Clinton and make a judgment, and ultimately, that’s the best that can be done. And we do it everyday because we can’t go through our lives asking “true or false” on every bit of data that enters our brain.
So “conspiracy theory” is a derogatory term circulated by elements of the government who were trying to dissuade citizenry from believing that our government was lying to us. You can find memos about “conspiracy theory” in the FBI records and in CIA memos. Americans, no matter how dubious of the truth of the lone nut assassin, were taught, had it drilled into their heads over and over, that if you believed in a conspiracy theory not endorsed by the proper authorities, then you are crazy or somehow malign.
Today someone posted a link to a VICE article here about how Putin was the one behind leaking the DNC emails. Go and read the article and see if you can find any proof that Putin did it.
So here we are. Six weeks before the JFK assassination the CIA took surveillance pictures of a fake Oswald trying to make contact with both the Soviet and Cuban embassies. The CIA then transferred this information to the FBI (not the pictures). Six weeks before the JFK assassination. Of this there is no doubt. There is no theory here.
The fake Oswald had to have some reason for impersonating Oswald in a foreign country six weeks before the assassination. Why? Remember, Oswald was essentially unknown in America before the assassination. He didn’t even have a telephone listing so the fake Oswald couldn’t have gone through all the phonebooks in America and gotten that name.
What did this fake Oswald do? He allowed, convinced the CIA to draw a tenuous connection between the real Oswald (and I use “real” carefully here because the Oswald arrested is not the original Lee Harvey Oswald) and hostile foreign governments who in the hours after the assassination were accused of employing Oswald to kill Kennedy.
So what is a “conspiracy theory”? When uttered to shut down discussion it’s the equivalent of “shut up”.
Agree with you general comment wrt conspiracy theory and how it’s employed in the US.
However, in this:
For example, Marie will not give any credence to the information about the second Oswald …
You completely mischaracterized what I said. Hell, I even stated that it wouldn’t surprise me that a CIA operative had assumed the “identity” of Oswald after he defected. Why let a perfectly good, nobody identity that wouldn’t be around go to waste? (Hardly a novel thought from me: As early as 1960, government officials, including J. Edgar Hoover, had raised the possibility that a Soviet imposter might try to assume Oswald’s identity after his defection to Russia. Not that I know JEH recorded such on observation inf real time.) But evidence for even that much is sketchy at best. Not sure you have the facts and timeline on whatever allegedly went down in MX City correct, but not interested in putting in the time to go down that murky path again. However, your claim is contingent on a real time, direct communication link between the CIA and FBI. That has never existed except in joint task forces which are rare and even then what flows into such a JTF don’t flow out to the sponsoring agencies or with any speed.
…Oswald arrested is not the original Lee Harvey Oswald)
Whoever the “original” LHO was/is. Where is the “original” LHO? This fake LHO storyline never appeared until over a decade after the assassination. The conjecture of a man to “prove” Khrushchev Killed Kennedy with a fake LHO. It should have died with the exhumation and examination of LHO’s remains that was done in 1981. Why bark up some tree for which no solid, reliable, and verified info has emerged after over fifty years?
My problem in looking at this is sorting out what evidence is real and what is false, contaminated, and/or hastily and poorly constructed in the immediate to fit with the narrative that emerged a mere 80 minutes after JFK was shot.
Assuming only half the information about Oswald is totally accurate, he does fit the profile of a lone assassin. Doesn’t mean he was, but all the proposed alternative narratives quickly get fantastically complex and thus lose credibility.
An example of possible and rigid contamination. JD Tippit. It’s so locked into our brains that his death is related to JFK’s assassination that alternative JFK narratives have to jump through complex hoops to accommodate the Tippit piece. As if a cop had never been shot while on duty and it was totally unrelated to anything else.
Was there really anything unusual or out of character in Oswald’s behavior in the minutes after the assassination? He was young and poor and may have been in habit of sneaking into movie theaters when he had nothing better to do. Even tracking him down from the murder of Tippit to that theater in such a short period of time is unusually swift police action. So, this part does look very hinky.
Which Oswald was the lone assassin? The one who impersonated him in Mexico City? The one who went to Cuba when Oswald was in the USSR and Hoover noted it in a letter? Maybe the Oswald who ordered trucks for anti-Castro rebels at a dealership in New Orleans when Oswald was in the USSR? Or the Oswald who went crosstown to order the Mannlicher-Carcano when he was working at the offices of that spy satellite office in Dallas? Maybe it was the one who test-drove a car and bragged that he would soon be getting lots of money at the same time that Oswald was on the clock at the Texas Book Depository. Maybe the one who went to an opera with a friend in New Orleans while another Oswald was in Japan in the Marines. Maybe the Oswald who returned a book to the New Orleans public library while Oswald was in Mexico City, or the one who met with anti-Castro rebels in Forth Worth while the other Oswald was in Mexico City.
Or maybe the kid in the New York City school system whose height changed by a foot or so within weeks.
Marie, there are a lot of people who are emotionally blocked from looking into the assassination of JFK. Most people know not to go there. It’s time you go there.
And there are a lot of people that run with a fact or two and string it together with a lot stuff made out of whole cloth by various people along the way, mostly after the fact.
Memories are so fragile and humans are after the fact narrative creating beings that I can’t put much credence in the long-term two Oswalds story. KISS. Don’t find it implausible that one of the CIA anti-Castro operations had one of its operatives assume the identity of Oswald. At that time he was just a poorly educated, and not too bright kid that had defected to the USSR and was unlikely to be seen again in the US anytime soon. If the Oswald “double” succeed at any covert operation and managed to get away, he could drop his ID card and his mask and disappear. The investigation would then lead to the dead end of Oswald in the USSR at the time of the operation.
Not buying that pre-Castro and pre-JFK (years before) a rogue operation was set up using a thirteen year old kid with demonstrated behavioral problems and that briefly attended a NYC school.
Well, you don’t have to buy anything.
There was someone impersonating Oswald in Mexico City in front of CIA surveillance cameras six weeks before the assassination. You can google the pictures. You don’t even have to buy them. It’s free.
People who are so convinced of something that they don’t know anything about that they won’t look make model citizens. Carry on, good citizen.
Consider what you said in your comment. You’re basing the claim that someone impersonating Oswald in MX was captured on a CIA surveillance camera and the CIA was also in control of dating when the photo was taken.
Apparently, I have less faith in the veracity of covert ops info coming out of the CIA than you do.
Using stock phrases to disparage others (“People who are so convinced …”) is exactly what another poster in this thread does and you rightly criticized that. Wrap your head around:
a) I’m not convinced the official USG narrative wrt to the JFK assassination is correct or has even been fully disclosed.
b) I don’t avoid looking at or considering information/data that conflicts with USG official positions.
c) What I don’t do is run with crap info/data regardless of whether it confirms or dis-confirms the official USG narrative or claims. Or use pretzel logic to connect dots.
d) Model citizen? pfft Take it that you mean people that believe whatever USG officials say. As Democrats rarely accept only that promulgated by Democratic officials, and Republicans reject everything promulgated by Democratic officials and teabag Republicans reject half of what non-bag Republican officials promulgate, under your definition, there are no “model citizens” in this country.
The website crashed and my long, annotated reply was lost.
Forget all the comments about your incuriousness. We’ll get to that later.
You don’t trust the pictures because the CIA took them, so the CIA may have been involved in the assassination, may not have been, but since you don’t plan on looking any further because of your lack of curiosity, therefore something you seem to know nothing about is “crap info”.
Two Oswalds. Let’s say the CIA took these pictures in Salt Lake City in 1955. Or they found them in the gutter. They claimed these pictures were taken in front of the Soviet embassy and the Cuban consulate. It wasn’t Oswald and the CIA transmitted information (without the pictures available to those who got the information); or the tape recordings of this man’s voice (which were lost, darn it). This information was then forwarded back to US intelligence agencies. When the FBI heard that someone named Lee Harvey Oswald, who Hoover knew had been impersonated in the US and in Cuba while he was a defector, in the Soviet Union the FBI took him off of their watch list. Whoopsy.
Now if you know nothing about this, and you don’t want to look stupid or insult others, you always have the option of saying, gee, I don’t know about that. Or, you don’t have to comment at all. If you don’t care about who kills our President, then why cast shadow on people who do?
By the way, at about ten a.m. on November 23, less than a day after the assassination, LBJ and Hoover discussed over the phone the Mexico City Oswald. Hoover admitted that the picture and the voice of the Mexico City Oswald did not match the Oswald that had been arrested. (This recording was released twenty or forty years after the assassination, but if you are interested you can find it easily on the net. I can even give you the net address. If you’re interested.)
So, like you, the great men LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover, knew that there was a fraudulent Oswald in Mexico City, apparently trying to link the real Oswald to the Russians and the Cubans. So what did they do? Just what you do. Ignore it.
As far as crap info, if the New York TImes and Washington Post lie to you every day, how do you verify what’s crap info? I know what I do. Granted, I’ll sometimes see things and post them and then find out they’re incorrect, and if the thread is still going I’ll admit it, but if they’re untrue they’re untrue. I don’t stick my head in the sand. You have. Like the great Lyndon Johnson and the great J. Edgar Hoover.
If you give a damn at all about American politics and don’t care who shot the President then you’re a dilettante. You sort of care, but not too far.
That is my disappointment in you. We’ve had this discussion before. Between then and now you haven’t made any effort on your own. You are contented.
The same process that keeps you from looking up a couple of things on the net, or reading a book or two about the JFK assassination, is the very same process is the same process that, say, keeps Trump voters away from liberal websites. It’s the same process that keeps Hillary voters from reading adverse information on her.
All I ask you to do is to look. And you close your eyes.
It’s gross for you to throw out that people who aren’t obsessed about the JFK assassination don’t care about “who killed their President” or have no interest in knowing the truth about it.
Similarly, as you have no idea what books and articles I’ve read about that event, it’s insulting to be told that I’m a no-nothing. FYI — I did read Russ Baker and Bugliosi’s books (both contained massive amounts of interesting information and neither persuaded me of his hypothesis) and far more stuff available on the internet than I ever should have.
What you can’t seem to accept is that someone could be well informed on this issue and still struggle with all of the proposed speculative plots AND the official narrative as well. Nor can you admit that the info available was always of poor quality and has been corrupted over the decades which may mean that the truth, whatever it is, will never be known. Do I like provisionally coming to that conclusion? Of course not. But my reading any and all available information in the public domain isn’t going to change that and as thousands (tens of thousands?) of people have already done that and come up with a huge number of different conclusions/hypotheses that are also conflicting and rely on too little hard data and too much painting in all the gaps, it would be arrogant in the extreme to think I could do better than them.
JFK, according to the various proposed conspiracies had so damn many enemies that wanted him dead, that it’s amazing he lived as long as he did. Almost like “Murder on the Orient Express.”
Thank you for a clear statement of reasons why many people have a hard time digesting conspiracy claims.
However, how does it feel when you make statements of fact about your actions, but another commenter refuses to believe you?
Huh?
Obsession is a curious word. Are you obsessed about the Middle East? You keep talking about things the most Americans don’t know or want to know. Being obsessed can be as good as being a “conspiracy theorist”. Maybe those things you talk about in the Middle East are conspiracy theories. And in fact they are to uninformed people.
You’re right. I don’t know what books you’ve read. You behave as if you aren’t familiar with what I’m talking about. So now that I’ve told you about this fake Oswald will you ask, oh where can I find more about it? No. You say that you’ve read Bugliosi and you’ve read Baker, so that is apparently all the time you plan to devote on an incident that puts the credibility of our government throughout your life into question.
I’m open to hearing an alternative theory about the fake Oswald in Mexico City. Care to venture one? Of course not, you’ve read two books so you aren’t going to look any farther. You will normalize the information. Oh, that Bob in Portland, he’s a rude conspiracy theorist. He’s obsessed.
Yes, a lot of people wanted him dead. But at least on the Orient Express we had someone tie up the loose ends at the end of the book. Do you think all the loose ends of the JFK assassination are tied up? What about the fake Oswald?
Thanking you in advance for a real reply which will include your theory about the fake Mexico City Oswald.
Oh, and who convinced you that there weren’t two Oswalds (actually three if you count the guy in Mexico City)? Bugliosi. A fine, fine resource.
You maybe are claiming that you are well-informed on the issue. Or you are claiming that Bugliosi’s word is as good as gold and you trust him. Did you go to the author that Bugliosi was critiquing about the two Oswalds? No, you accepted Bugliosi’s version. If you don’t want to read the book (John Armstrong’s HARVEY AND LEE) about the two Oswalds I could point you to a review of the Bugliosi book. Or you could read it for free online. But you’re satisfied with what you know about the JFK assassination.
The JFK assassination interests me a lot less than the never initiated Operation Northwoods, for example.
Thomas Power was a real charmer, for example:
Because the murder of the President means nothing to you. That makes you a good boy. Carry on being incurious.
Bob, are you inadvertently doing the opposite of what you intend by failing to distinguish this particular conspiracy theory from crap and making everyone dismiss the rest of what you want to say?
his first comment was that it had been immediately dismissed as crap. I’m answering for him because I have no clue how to engage this discussion at all except my one comment downthread somewhere
When I identify what seems to be crap, like the current round of finger-pointing at Putin as responsible for what’s wrong in the world, I point it out. Not saying that as head of state and formerly of the KGB that he or other people in the Russian government aren’t capable of it. Just no proof.
There’s nothing much unsettled about the JFK assassination. And if the assassination were in fact an assassination run by people in our government, until we face up to it then everything flowing from that assassination is tainted. That makes everything about every election since then a fraud.
I remember my bogusness antenna going off when I saw Ruby shoot Oswald. I was thirteen. Then I pushed it to the back of my mind. But when critics of the Warren Commission were unfairly attacked I wondered why, unlike most observers. A few years later I read a book my father’d bought, I think it was by Josiah Thompson. Then I forgot about it until Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot. I didn’t have time to forget anything before Bobby Kennedy was shot.
Political assassination exists. Considering that the most successful political assassinations, coups et al in the last half century or so have been done by the CIA, when I began reading more about the JFK assassination in the late eighties, early nineties and the same dark hand was all over the JFK case, well, it seemed like the natural thing to pursue. I mean, this has been bugging me since I got sent home from school early that Friday afternoon in 1963.
So what conspiracies have I failed to distinguish for lack of evidence?
The Rafael Cruz one.
Oh you must mean my first comment on this thread with the link that you apparently never followed. That one?
This thread is supposed to be about bogus conspiracy theories, not plausible ones. You jacked it and now you want me acknowledge that you admitted that the theory in question is shit?
So your immediate comment, that I didn’t refute the Rafael Cruz as presidential assassin story, was snark? Because it was untrue.
The beginning of my first post on this thread:
Actually, if you read the website Citizens For The Truth About The Kennedy Assassination, the stupid little meme about Rafael Cruz was dismissed soon after it arose. And the author of it was undoubtedly in Trump’s camp.
http://www.ctka.net/2016/jfk-assassination-and-2016-presidential-election.html
+++
You’ll see, if you look carefully, that I said the Rafael Cruz meme was bogus, pointed to the Trump campaign and then, separated so that it wouldn’t be overlooked, I provided a link which not only offers proof that the Cruz meme is bogus, but names the source of the meme.
Then you said I didn’t address it. Care to revise your comment?
Really? There’s nothing much unsettled about the JFK assassination? I have read other people here claiming that LBJ was the perp…not your thesis, as far as I can tell. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
There is some evidence that LBJ might have known about it beforehand. Other evidence suggesting otherwise. It’s clear he was an accessory after the fact.
Look, it is a big topic. Go here and read the next thousand pages:
http://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Harvey_And_Lee.pdf
Yes, sorta. Not exactly “the perp” as you put it, but it’s likely, imo, that Lyndon had foreknowledge. He was extremely clued in to what was happening in his home state, especially if it had anything to do with his political career. Other reasons have to do with his extreme ambition to become president coupled with his known bad character. He likely sensed — rightly, imo –that he was about to be dumped by Kennedy from the 1964 ticket. There was, literally at the time of the assassination, a senate inquiry looking into illegal activities of several people known to be very close to Lyndon — he may well have also feared going to jail.
Who was the mastermind is one of the other unanswered Qs. The recent book by David Talbot makes a decent argument that it was the CIA director Kennedy fired, Allen Dulles.
Also at issue is whether the Z film is substantially correct or whether it’s been substantially altered. Even very strong researchers like Jim DiEugenio, who has a good background in film, is non committal on this one.
How do you know Operation Northwoods or a variation on the theme was never used?
Zodiac? Zodiak? Zodiark?
Let me spin you a tale of multiple killers and pokemon.
Anyhow I think some of Z’s kills were mistakenly attributed to them. Either by ignorance or Z deciding to take credit opportunistically to build cred. I think the murders stopped because Z had more fun fucking with the cops than actually committing crimes.
EAR/ONS or LISK are far more interesting to me as serial killers go.
DNC hack appears worse. No surprise there.
DNC exposes bankrupt IT security practices. Also no surprise there.
http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/07/new-evidence-suggests-dnc-hackers-penetrated-deeper-than-pre
viously-thought/
Russian computer hackers 2, Americans 0.
Yep.. these people are incompetent. There have been so many instances now that orgs have no excuse for neglecting info/data security. The last paragraph is the key and why I find this so fascinating.
Ultimately, there are no secrets on the internet.
Anyone who handles secure communications should appreciate this fact.
So if we can talk about how Cruz’s dad killed JFK can we also talk about how much money The Donald owes Putin?
There’s a thought to keep you up at night.
.
Can we put a cork in all the Zodiac killer talk? There must be people still around whose loved ones were killed by the guy. I don’t see how joking about it is going to do those people any good.