Never-before-seen photos of JFK's final moments...

AMDG

Tenderized for Christ
May 24, 2004
25,362
1,286
74
Pacific Northwest, United States
✟47,022.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
All conspiracy theories have been debunked with objective analysis. Why would LBJ put together the Warren commission of very reputable respectful people to investigate the assassination if he was behind it?

People just don't want to accept a goofball like Oswald could have killed a president, but the evidence shows he did. Just a few months before he killed JFK, he tried to assassinate a General in Texas and took a shot at him in his home. He had the means to kill JFK and he did.

Actually the LBJ one seems to have been from the very start. I remember. And hardly anyone believes that the Warren Commission was completely honest--yes even all 26 books. Oh yes, the Warren Commission said that there were only 3 bullets shot even when 51 eyewitnesses mentioned hearing 4 shots. Others reported smelling gun smoke and seeing a flash from the grassy knoll. Another person was hit by a piece of concrete that a stray bullet hit. Then there was that "magic bullet theory" of the Warren Commission that traveled through two people, made a right turn and somehow came out pristine on a gurney at the hospital. And oddest of all, was that magazine I had given my son (the Life magazine that came out right after the assassination and showed pictures of the back of JFKs head that was a large wound--an exit wound, not a small entry wound :::and that makes sense since Jackie had climbed out on the back of the car to retrieve part of her husband's skull!--there's even pictures of that!)

Anyway, if you look at the Warren Commission again, it seems to note that there isn't evidence that there was a conspiracy. It said that it is their belief that Oswald acted all alone and JFK's large back head wound was really a small entry wound, but really there are many people who still have questions. I guess they hoped the Commission would end the questions, but it didn't. Much was sealed. Just coming out now. And even more will come out in a few years.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Actually the LBJ one seems to have been from the very start. I remember. And hardly anyone believes that the Warren Commission was completely honest--yes even all 26 books. Oh yes, the Warren Commission said that there were only 3 bullets shot even when 51 eyewitnesses mentioned hearing 4 shots. Others reported smelling gun smoke and seeing a flash from the grassy knoll. Another person was hit by a piece of concrete that a stray bullet hit. Then there was that "magic bullet theory" of the Warren Commission that traveled through two people, made a right turn and somehow came out pristine on a gurney at the hospital. And oddest of all, was that magazine I had given my son (the Life magazine that came out right after the assassination and showed pictures of the back of JFKs head that was a large wound--an exit wound, not a small entry wound :::and that makes sense since Jackie had climbed out on the back of the car to retrieve part of her husband's skull!--there's even pictures of that!)

Anyway, if you look at the Warren Commission again, it seems to note that there isn't evidence that there was a conspiracy. It said that it is their belief that Oswald acted all alone and JFK's large back head wound was really a small entry wound, but really there are many people who still have questions. I guess they hoped the Commission would end the questions, but it didn't. Much was sealed. Just coming out now. And even more will come out in a few years.

You really are stuck on the old conspiracy theories from the 60's and 70's. I would urge you to look at the books written by Gerald Posner and Vincent Bugliosi (the guy who prosecuted Charles Manson), they explain these age old conspiracy questions away quite easily.

And, the bullet never needed to take a right turn, because Connelly was seated to the left and below of Kennedy in the car and the dudes that said the bullet took a turn, didn't factor in the true positions of the seats. There have been plenty of recent documentaries using the latest forensic and computer animated techniques that also debunk all the conspiracy theories and show Oswald acted alone.
 
Upvote 0

AMDG

Tenderized for Christ
May 24, 2004
25,362
1,286
74
Pacific Northwest, United States
✟47,022.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The motive for the assassination was never addressed by the Warren Commission. None of us know Oswald's motive for the assassination. Jack Ruby took that piece away from us when he shot and killed Oswald. (Can't supply you with information on that except that Oswald was shot and killed by Ruby since I was at Church at the time.)

But yes, I guess I am sort of interested in the little more than a 1000 days of the JFK presidency that were so full of hope. (Afterall, JFK was the last classical liberal president we had, and I am sort of classical liberal--limited government, personal responsibility--what Conservatives now seem to embrace. JFK was Catholic and I can identify with that. And as for Johnson, have already mentioned that family lived the town over from his and we knew what a cad he was--as we have seen over the years.)

Back to the assassination, you somehow never found it odd that when the motorcade made that turn into Dealy Plaza, Johnson was seen "hitting the deck" (there are some pictures) before the first shots were supposedly fired. (How'd he or his bodyguard know?) And why that turn? And why the different-from-other-cities secret service protocols? Don't find those questions answered. I know, just "move on". The damage was already done.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The motive for the assassination was never addressed by the Warren Commission. None of us know Oswald's motive for the assassination. Jack Ruby took that piece away from us when he shot and killed Oswald. (Can't supply you with information on that except that Oswald was shot and killed by Ruby since I was at Church at the time.)

But yes, I guess I am sort of interested in the little more than a 1000 days of the JFK presidency that were so full of hope. (Afterall, JFK was the last classical liberal president we had, and I am sort of classical liberal--limited government, personal responsibility--what Conservatives now seem to embrace. JFK was Catholic and I can identify with that. And as for Johnson, have already mentioned that family lived the town over from his and we knew what a cad he was--as we have seen over the years.)

Back to the assassination, you somehow never found it odd that when the motorcade made that turn into Dealy Plaza, Johnson was seen "hitting the deck" (there are some pictures) before the first shots were supposedly fired. (How'd he or his bodyguard know?) And why that turn? And why the different-from-other-cities secret service protocols? Don't find those questions answered. I know, just "move on". The damage was already done.

Your holding onto old conspiracy thoughts that have all been explained away and some people have a hard time letting go, I understand. You want everything to make perfect sense and it just doesn't always happen that way.

The secret service pleaded with Kennedy to have the bubble top on the car during the motorcade for protection and he refused, are you going to say now that Kennedy himself was in on the conspiracy?

The motive? How do you figure out the motive for a guy like Oswald who was a certified nut case. Oswald tried to assassinate General Walker in his Dallas home just months before the Kennedy assassination, so he obviously had a penchant for this sort of thing. People that knew him, always said Oswald was the type of guy who wanted to do something to get him noticed forever and he did just that.

Here is the bottom line, many people just can't accept, that a goof ball like Oswald could have killed Kennedy by himself, so they have to create a conspiracy to make it work. It is called cognitive dissonance, that creates all these wild stories with no evidence to back them up.
 
Upvote 0

AMDG

Tenderized for Christ
May 24, 2004
25,362
1,286
74
Pacific Northwest, United States
✟47,022.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You are right, a goof ball coming up with a plot to kill the president for no reason and changing secret service protocol (that can only be changed by higher ups on the chain of command) all by his lonesome when he was just smart enough to load books is kinda a leap. Surprised that any reasonable folks want others to buy it. (Although I can see why the Warren Commission wanted folks to "move-on" and stop with the questions.)

As to the Warren Commission claiming that there were only 3 bullets shot, 51 eyewitnesses did not buy it and neither did the guy who was hit by the ricocheting of cement from the fourth bullet.

About the entry/exit wounds, I know what I saw. Jackie climbed on the trunk of the car to retrieve a piece of skull from her husband and you want me to believe that a bullet entering the back of the skull caused that. And that magazine I had given son (showing the wounds from the Hospital right after the shooting) is different from the one always shown after the autopsy (the cover of the one I gave son was red while the one shown now is white. :confused:)

Must be remembered that the Warren Commission only said that they see no evidence of a conspiracy--they never said that one didn't exist. And the Warren Commission only said that Oswald acted alone not why and motive does matter. And lack of motive is not the only hole in this story. I figure that when everything is unsealed in a few years we'll know more but we'll only be able to guess at a motive.


BTW I contend that when evidence and conclusions are sealed (like this was) it always generates questions.

Oh, I've followed the different conspiracy theories over the years from the Neville Chamberlain with the umbrella, to "the Communists did it and we have to pin the blame solely on Oswald to stop WWIII", to the CIA was involved, to the it was the work of the Mob. It seems that every decade has a new theory. But I think I'll still figure that the one who benefits the most (and has a nasty track record besides) should be considered like some of us suspected from the beginning. Of course we'll probably only know for sure after our own deaths.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You are right, a goof ball coming up with a plot to kill the president for no reason and changing secret service protocol (that can only be changed by higher ups on the chain of command) all by his lonesome when he was just smart enough to load books is kinda a leap. Surprised that any reasonable folks want others to buy it. (Although I can see why the Warren Commission wanted folks to "move-on" and stop with the questions.)

As to the Warren Commission claiming that there were only 3 bullets shot, 51 eyewitnesses did not buy it and neither did the guy who was hit by the ricocheting of cement from the fourth bullet.

About the entry/exit wounds, I know what I saw. Jackie climbed on the trunk of the car to retrieve a piece of skull from her husband and you want me to believe that a bullet entering the back of the skull caused that. And that magazine I had given son (showing the wounds from the Hospital right after the shooting) is different from the one always shown after the autopsy (the cover of the one I gave son was red while the one shown now is white. :confused:)

Must be remembered that the Warren Commission only said that they see no evidence of a conspiracy--they never said that one didn't exist. And the Warren Commission only said that Oswald acted alone not why and motive does matter. And lack of motive is not the only hole in this story. I figure that when everything is unsealed in a few years we'll know more but we'll only be able to guess at a motive.


BTW I contend that when evidence and conclusions are sealed (like this was) it always generates questions.

Oh, I've followed the different conspiracy theories over the years from the Neville Chamberlain with the umbrella, to "the Communists did it and we have to pin the blame solely on Oswald to stop WWIII", to the CIA was involved, to the it was the work of the Mob. It seems that every decade has a new theory. But I think I'll still figure that the one who benefits the most (and has a nasty track record besides) should be considered like some of us suspected from the beginning. Of course we'll probably only know for sure after our own deaths.

Ok. Who benefited most and what is the objective evidence that shows their guilt?
 
Upvote 0

AMDG

Tenderized for Christ
May 24, 2004
25,362
1,286
74
Pacific Northwest, United States
✟47,022.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Ok. Who benefited most and what is the objective evidence that shows their guilt?

LBJ. The French investigation that Jackie asked for said it. The KGB one said it. Some other's have suggested it too. LBJ's behavior during and after--his even admission that Robert Kennedy will "come after him".

I'm pretty sure that there's even a book out about it now. Have no idea of the title, since I haven't read it....yet. Anyway it should point out the "objective evidence" you want.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
LBJ. The French investigation that Jackie asked for said it. The KGB one said it. Some other's have suggested it too. LBJ's behavior during and after--his even admission that Robert Kennedy will "come after him".

I'm pretty sure that there's even a book out about it now. Have no idea of the title, since I haven't read it....yet. Anyway it should point out the "objective evidence" you want.

Most people have claimed the mafia had most to gain by killing Kennedy, I see you disagree.

Suggesting something, or saying LBJ said Bobby would come after him, is not exactly compelling evidence. In fact, a DA wouldn't even give it the time of day.
 
Upvote 0

Vanilla Scripture

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2013
855
42
✟1,215.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I was a child when President Kennedy was assissinated. I think it resonates through history because it was the first assasination of an American President ever captured live on film.
Horrible! There is an X on the roadway where President Kennedy's car was when he was shot in Dallas. Gives me chills every time I see it.


 
Upvote 0

eastcoast_bsc

Veteran
Mar 29, 2005
19,296
10,781
Boston
✟394,442.00
Faith
Christian
Not that I have a major problem with JFK over any other president but I've never understood Roman Catholic's obsession with him just because he was nominally Roman Catholic.


Because it was thought improbable at best. He was attacked by Protestants who felt he would answer to the Vatican. There were all kind of vicious rumours regarding Catholics.

JFK was the first Catholic to be elected president. You can call him nominal, but don't we all fall short of the glory of God?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Luther073082

κύριε ἐλέησον χριστὲ ἐλέησον
Apr 1, 2007
19,202
840
41
New Carlisle, IN
✟31,326.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Obsession? Not the way I see it, but a realization that a Catholic was elected and anti-Catholic issues were fading somewhat. Yes, there was still some in the presidential campaign, but he won.
As for nominal Catholic, don't believe that can be applied, he was observed attending Mass, belonging to the Knights of Columbus, and doing what most Catholics practice. The dirt on his life of sin came after he was gone, and therefore may even be disputed.

So he's just a symbol of a greater victory of anti-Catholic hatred going away?

Still it's not like the dirt on his life just goes away.

I mean there's never been a Lutheran president, and if there was one I hardly think we would care all that much.
 
Upvote 0

Luther073082

κύριε ἐλέησον χριστὲ ἐλέησον
Apr 1, 2007
19,202
840
41
New Carlisle, IN
✟31,326.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Because it was thought improbable at best. He was attacked by Protestants who felt he would answer to the Vatican. There were all kind of vicious rumours regarding Catholics.

JFK was the first Catholic to be elected president. You can call him nominal, but don't we all fall short of the glory of God?

I would agree, but carrying on numerous affairs is typically not something seen of someone who puts a great deal of effort or true belief into their faith.
 
Upvote 0