November 22 1963

[Bugman]

Yesterday marked the 44th anniversery of the assination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas Texas.I know many of us are old enough to remember the actual event and the aftermath.

I was in class when the principal walked into the room and began to whiper something to our teacher,Mrs. Fairfield.I will never forget the look of horror on her face.She turned white as a sheet and tears began to run down her face.When the principal left the room she told us President Kennedy had been shot.There was a short prayer then we were sent home.The president was already dead by the time i made it home.

For the next few days there was almost round the clock coverage on both tv and radio,culminating with the funeral several days later.Who can ever forget the sight of little John Jr. saluting as the cassion bearing his fathers casket passed by.

After all these years consipary theories still abound.Was it the CIA,the Secret Service or the Mafia?The Cubans or some combination of the above?Or was it just a lone nut,Lee Harvey Oswald with a cheap mail order rifle.

Anyone else care to share your memories of that day?

 

[Tickle Fiend]

I was watching something about it yesterday and they showed the video of his head basically exploding. It was surreal to see that happen to a president.

 

[milagros317]

I was in junior high school, specifically in art class, when the public address system suddenly came on, tuned to a radio station. This was extremely unusual, the P.A. system was normally used twice a day, always at the same times, for announcements from the principal or one of the vice-principals.

The first words I heard were, "The Vice President is unharmed, no shots hit Lyndon Johnson." The implication was obvious and soon comfirmed by later statements by the radio announcer. We were all sent home about half an hour later.

 

[SamuelKhan]

Dark day...

JFK's assassination happened less than three years before I was born, but I remember watching the Zapruder film in the 70's seeing his head literally explode as the killing blow struck.

I also remember my parents telling me that some people cheered in some parts of the country when they learned he was shot. Kennedy was not only well liked and admired, but he was also despised as intensely enough to kill him. He may have told Khrushchev to get his missiles out of Cuba and set the tone for the space race, but he also stepped on a lot of toes, as well.

November 22, 1963 still divides this country today. No one can simply agree on the definite explanation of how he was killed. Oswald may have been the only trigger puller, but that changed when Ruby shot him outside the police station ON LIVE TV! It was now possible to be a conspiracy right after that.

Despite that, I could imagine the terror and uncertainty that followed. "Would the Soviets launch an attack in Europe? Was a coup de tat under way in Washington."

September 11, 2001 is my dark day in my lifetime, but I have a feeling JFK's murder was somewhat darker. The utter shock and emotional distress it followed. The sick joy...anyone who cheers this is a total sick fuck.

I don't think this case will ever be solved. It will be like trying to reassemble a shattered light bulb that was smashed against a brick wall to its previous state. It's not going to happen.

 

[Bugman]

but I have a feeling JFK's murder was somewhat darker.

Some have said that the death of President Kennedy resulted in the lose of innocence in our society,if such a thing ever existed.With what was to follow,the misery of a never ending war in Vietnam,the murders of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy,the terrible race riots and all it did seem to many that the country was spiraling out of control.

 

[Strider]

There's ultimately no way to tell if things would have been different had he not died, though, personally, I don't think they would have been that overly different from what did end up happening. The advantage to being cut down in your prime is that people can then go on and decide that you would have done whatever it is they'd like to think you'd have done.

 

[Bugman]

There's ultimately no way to tell if things would have been different had he not died, though, personally, I don't think they would have been that overly different from what did end up happening. The advantage to being cut down in your prime is that people can then go on and decide that you would have done whatever it is they'd like to think you'd have done.

You're right Strider but theres something i've always wondered about.Kennedy had a meeting with General MacArthur at one time and he urged the President not to introduce U.S. ground forces into S.E. Asia.Kennedy had a lot of respect for the old general.One has to wonder if he would have followed that advice.Things would have been very different then.It's fun playing what if with history don't ya think?😀

 

[paracarl44]

I Do Not Believe that Oswald was a Lone Gunman.

I feel that Oswald shot the President from behind in the neck. The Zapruder film shows his head flying back as though he was shot from the front.

 

[Bugman]

I feel that Oswald shot the President from behind in the neck. The Zapruder film shows his head flying back as though he was shot from the front.

I remember reading some studies that indicate people shot from behind often react in that manner due to muscle contractions.I would have to try to find them and i'm not even sure where to start looking.Perhaps someone here with a science background would know what i'm talking about.

 

[Strider]

You're right Strider but theres something i've always wondered about.Kennedy had a meeting with General MacArthur at one time and he urged the President not to introduce U.S. ground forces into S.E. Asia.Kennedy had a lot of respect for the old general.One has to wonder if he would have followed that advice.Things would have been very different then.It's fun playing what if with history don't ya think?😀

Counterfactuals can definitely be useful when looking at history. But you have to apply the same standards you apply to any historical theory; to wit, was this likely? I don't know when JFK and MacArthur met, but you have to take into account that the introduction of ground troops to Vietnam was done largely in response to the chaos that had occurred after Diem's assassination, and that really, the only other alternative was just to disengage from Vietnam entirely.

Anyway, this is probably coming off as needlessly contrarian and irrelevant to the OP, so I apologize if I dragged your thread off topic. I was just commenting that we all have a tendency to romanticize individuals who get cut down at the height of their influence.

 

[Bugman]

Counterfactuals can definitely be useful when looking at history. But you have to apply the same standards you apply to any historical theory; to wit, was this likely? I don't know when JFK and MacArthur met, but you have to take into account that the introduction of ground troops to Vietnam was done largely in response to the chaos that had occurred after Diem's assassination, and that really, the only other alternative was just to disengage from Vietnam entirely.

Anyway, this is probably coming off as needlessly contrarian and irrelevant to the OP, so I apologize if I dragged your thread off topic. I was just commenting that we all have a tendency to romanticize individuals who get cut down at the height of their influence.

Not at all Strider,i find it intresting.Thanks for your input.I have a great deal of respect for your opinions on any subject.😀

 

[Strider]

Not at all Strider,i find it intresting.Thanks for your input.I have a great deal of respect for your opinions on any subject.😀

That's only because you've never heard me share my theories that Elvis is still alive and employed at a Burger King in the greater Des Moines area.

 

[Bugman]

That's only because you've never heard me share my theories that Elvis is still alive and employed at a Burger King in the greater Des Moines area.

LMAO.Do tell me more.I heard it was McDonalds myself.😉

 

[aurora5150]

i wasn't alive when that happened. but like most others i've seen the footage. my mom was in school just like you were buggy. and they made the announcement and then everyone was dismissed to go home.

i can't even fathom what it must have been like to have witnessed it you know. even if you wern't at the parade (?) when it happened, that i believe was felt across the nation.

 

[steph]

I wasn't born yet. But, I WAS born on the same day as JFK Jr. (yum) 😛 November 25. I was born and raised in Santa Barbara where JFK and Jackie O were married. My pop moved us to the East Coast where I got to ride the elevator at the Kennedy's Newport R.I. summer home, with Jackie. I was a dumb starstruck kid and she was soooo classy and sweet!
XOXO

 

[lk70]

Mythbusters did an entire episode looking at the likelihood that there was more than one bullet and whether there could have been a shot from the "grassy knoll."

I have very little interest in the whole thing but that episode was really fascinating. I recommend Tivoing or if you're really into the whole Kennedy mystique, order it from the Discovery Channel.

 

[Horatio]

Yes, I wasn't born yet either. I support the lone gunman theory as two separate computer generated recreations show that it was probably a single shooter from the Texas Schoolbook Depository. Here's one:

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl3.htm

 

[kingp]

Might I suggest....

About 10-15 yrs ago A&E showed a documentary about it from the BBC, of all networks, which explorered the 3 shooter theory. 2 in the building at different levels and one at the grassy knoll to cover the field as it "they" wanted to be sure of a kill. It got into more detail than I have ever heard before. The clincher for me was a photo taken on the other side of the street showing a man holding a movie camera and beginning to duck as a policeman has his gun raised, smoke exiting the gun, face half covered from the smoke.

This was the mysterious grassy knoll shooter who was dressed as a policeman. He was a professional whose signature was bullets with explosive tendancies. The man they named was killed around 1970 in Mexico, himself hit by who knows who. They interviewed the man with the movie camera (not Zapruder) who said he had just gotten out of the army and knew what gunfire sounded like, and said he knew exactly what it was the moment it happened. When he saw the picture (which the reporter showed to him for first time) he pointed himself out and said the policeman was exactly where the shot came from.

Very interesting to me.....will never be solved.

 

[BLUE_THUNDER]

i was born in 1973 so it was before my time, but ive read a number of books on the subject. while i dont consider myself a conspiracy theorist, there is no way i am buying the whole "magic bullet theory"........there was a 2nd gunman that day, possibly even a 3rd........and by the way, elvis is here in ann arbor......i saw him in front of best buy collecting for the salvation army....i gave him a dollar and he said "thank you, thank you very much"

 

[Krokus]

I live less than 2 blocks from where his death took place. I am too young to know the true impact of what happened, but I surely wish it never had.

 

[brianspencer66]

I too like Bugman was in school that day. 4th grade in catholic school when It was announced over the PA system that the president had been shot.We too were soon sent home. One the way home the streets of Harlem NYC were suprisingly quiet as people stood around somber looks on their faces listening to store and tiny japanese transister radios (remember those?) When I got home my mother was there and gave me a knowing look of the horror that just transpired. We watched the news in silence and soon learned the President was dead. For days afterward as Bugman mentioned there was nothing on television but news about the presidents shooting. We also saw the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald on live TV, pretty shocking stuff for 1963.And do keep in mind televison was for the most part in black and white in those days, very few people had color sets then. I dont like to get lost in all the conspiracy talk as its a waste of time to me. And I think at the time I did not realize the enormity of what happened until years later being a kid. I think his assination was a pivotal moment in the 20th century along with the Pearl Harbor attacks and just as important as the 9/11 attacks will be for the 21 century. not a day will ever go by for a long long time when these 3 events will not be mentioned in the news somewhere.

 

[CitY of MicA]

The case has been solved. Lee Harvey Oswald did it and did it alone. Most of these conspiracy theories crack under the slightest scrutiny.

So does the suggestion that Oswald acted alone. A House committee that investigated the assisination in the late 70s found that it was probably a conspiracy. Even if Oswald was the lone gunman, this in no way suggests that he wasn't acting in concert with others.

 

[cabalist]

That's only because you've never heard me share my theories that Elvis is still alive and employed at a Burger King in the greater Des Moines area.

Not only might my younger sister consider this not-so-farfetched a possibility, she might even suggest that Jim Morrison may be managing that same Burger King.
From the last verse of a silly poem I memorized in the 7th grade (and never forgot):

Oh let us never, never doubt
what nobody is sure about.



Somewhat more seriously, the facts alone that Oswald declared himself "a patsy" in front of television cameras and was shortly thereafter shot by Ruby tends to cast strong doubt on the "lone gunman theory", or at least the assumption that he was "acting" completely alone, although we might have to accept that we may never know the full "real story" with a great deal of certainty.

Edit:

Except that it wasn't. In 44 years, not one single solid shred of evidence has come forward to ever indicate a conspiracy.

Which may possibly only prove that it was a very successful conspiracy. 😉

Oswald did it himself people, and it is long past time we accepted this as fact.

I'm sure the conspirators will appreciate that (any who may still be living, that is). 😉

 

[cabalist]

Oswald saying he is a patsy is just Oswald claiming innocence, which he did the entire time he was in police custody. The sum total of anything Oswald said to even indicate conspiracy was his "patsy" declaration. And this declaration was predicated on the idea, that Oswald himself was trying to get across to the press, that the police were making him take the fall because he had lived in Russia.

Ruby killing Oswald, at first glance, may seem a part of a conspiracy, but even the quickest study of Jack Ruby and his actions before killing Oswald reveal that Ruby did this all himself. I mean the man was in a Western Union making a wire transfer a mere 4 minutes before he killed Oswald. Does that sound like a disciplined hitman lying in wait to perform the biggest hit in history?

Killing two birds with one stone, so to say? Why not? Maybe he wanted/needed an alibi? Obviously it would have "worked" for you. 😉

Not to mention that for all he knew, Oswald was gone, as the transfer of Oswald was running an hour late. A delay caused by a postal inspector who joined in the interrogation of Oswald and Oswald himself delaying because he wanted to change into a sweater. I guess Oswald was in on his own hit too. And the funniest of all was that Ruby left his dog in the car while he went out. What kind of hitman brings his dog to the hit?

Truthfully, never having personally known any "hitmen", I've never asked one whether he might bring his dog along with him. But as I can't offhand recall ever seeing any hit men on TV bringing a dog along, I suppose I might consider that evidence of what a "'real" hit man might or might not do. Works for me. 😉

But the fact remains that he did "hit" Oswald and he did bring his dog with him...correct? (Assuming your facts correct, that is.) But these kinds of arguments remind me a little of some of O.J.'s "defenses" -- remember "O.J."? 😉

The truth is that all conspiracy "evidence" crumbles under even the slightest scrutiny.

While certain specific claims or hypotheses may well "crumble" under the "slightest" scrutiny, that hardly constitutes evidence against the general theory/belief that a conspiracy was involved.

Oswald did it alone. The imaginary conspirators no doubt rejoice that I believe this. But who cares what they think, they are imaginary.

But if you believe that both Oswald and Ruby "acted alone", apparently merely because you haven't seen proof of a conspiracy, do you happen to have an opinion/theory on their respective motives? Of course, even madmen have motives, if only imaginary ones.

Mind you, I'm not saying there definitely was a conspiracy, nor making any specific claims about who may or may not have been involved. Only that a conspiracy of some kind seems more plausible to me than both these men "acting" completely on their own, along with my own general belief that many conspiracies, historically, have probably been well-conceived enough to have left no "solid" proof that might ever be reconstructed. After all, a conspiracy is, ultimately, only a contrived plan, and it can be pretty difficult to prove what someone has "contrived" -- especially if we may not even know who that someone/someones is/are.

While I know it has been used to support some far-fetched theories, nonetheless, the fact is that a lack of proof doesn't equate to "proof of a lack" -- and there hardly seems anything particularly far-fetched about the idea of a conspiracy being behind a politically-motivated assassination -- including one well-contrived enough to forever defy "solid" proof.

Edit: Perhaps I should summarize by saying that I personally believe that there probably was a conspiracy of some sort behind the assassination -- AND that there will probably NEVER be sufficient proof of that to convince those who prefer to believe otherwise.

 

[cabalist]

I am not sure who you are referring to about the alibi. If it is Ruby, he has no use for an alibi. He obviously shot Oswald. As for Oswald, his alibi was that he was having lunch in the 1st floor lunchroom. He mentioned eating with a co-worker. The co-worker categorically denied eating lunch with Oswald. Not to mention that the co-worker was watching the motorcade from the 5th floor of the depository, as photos taken that day show.

Sorry, apparently I wasn't as clear as I thought I was. I was speaking of Ruby having an alibi. And I wasn't seriously "arguing" that that was the case. It was just an off-the-top-of-the-head suggestion.

Well I have never known any lepers, but I don't have to know any to know that leprosy is not something I want. And yes he did kill Oswald and he did bring his dog. But isn't it just a little common sense to think that maybe Ruby wasn't planning to kill anyone, that he happened to stumble on his moment in history and in the heat of the moment took it?

Sure it's possible. I don't consider it a proven fact, however. Unless you're a mindreader, as I'm not.

Bringing his dog goes to showing his mindset.

Well, again, being no mindreader, to me it only "goes to showing" that he brought his dog. It doesn't tell me anything about his mindset. Except possibly that he liked his dog?

Wiring money a scant four minutes before killing Oswald shows that he clearly did not intend to kill Oswald.

Again, this doesn't tell me anything about what was going on in his mind.

He had no control over when Oswald was being transferred, and, as I stated earlier, for all he knew, Oswald was already gone. Not to mention that had the customer in front of him, and there was a customer in front of him, taken just 30 seconds longer with their transaction, he would have missed his chance. Forget about the dog, no hired gun is wasting time like this when he has a job to do. And presuming this is at the behest of some very dangerous people, it could cost him his life. No it just does not fit.

Perhaps not if one makes all the assumptions about the facts which you seem to, including apparently a unwavering trust in your sources as to who was exactly where and when, etc. Assuming you weren't there yourself, that is. However, perhaps I should point out that I'm not even necessarily arguing that if there was a conspiracy that Ruby was necessarily "in on it", or at least not necessarily from the start. He may have only been "lucky happenstance" for the conspirators, in helping ensure Oswald's silence. Remember, I haven't said who I think the conspirators were.

But the "general theory/beleif" in conspiracy is based on nothing more than hearsay, innuendo and rumor. There is not one scintilla of evidence that multiple guns were firing on JFK that day. The best are earwitnesses. You can run down a nice size list of earwitnesses who said they thought the shots originated from the grassy knoll. Plenty more thought they came from the book depository. But more telling is that a scant 4 thought that shots originated from more than one source. And the only "eyewitnesses" to a grassy knoll gunman are people not even the biggest conspiracy theorist would believe.

I'm not sure that anyone's "earwitness" or eyewitness testimony necessarily means much under the circumstances, as I doubt many could easily reliably reconstruct from memory exactly what they saw or heard. But I differ with your apparent assumption that a general theory/belief in a conspiracy is based on "nothing more" than hearsay, innuendo and rumor. It's also based on common sense. That being that there's good reason to consider that there's always a strong possibility that the assassination of a political leader is based on political motives and that a "conspiracy" of some sort is/was behind it. That's what I meant by a "general" theory.

I don't beleive Oswald shot Kennedy merely because there is no proof of conspiracy. The evidence against Oswald is overwhelming.

His rifle was found in the area where shots were fired. The bullets and fragments recovered were matched ballistically to his rifle. Oswald was witnessed bringing a package with him to work that day. He said it had curtain rods, no curtain rods were ever found. Oswald was identified as the shooter by Howard Brennan. Oswalds actions after the shooting indicate a man on the run. He was the only employee missing when a roll call was taken after the shooting. He went to his boarding room, changed clothes and got his handgun. He shot Officer Tippet. He snuck into a movie theater after being spotted on the street. When confronted by police in the theater he pulled his weapon and pulled the trigger. Luckily it was a misfire.

The night before he went to the house where his wife was staying. He was seperated and normally would come over for the weekends, but not without calling to get permission first. This time he came over on a Thursday and without permission. Why? Maybe he wanted to see his wife and kids, but considering his rifle was stored in the garage of that home, I'm going to say it was related to the assassination. Before he left for work the next morning, he left his wife $170 dollars, just about all the money Oswald had in the world. He also left his wedding ring.

I mean maybe the CIA put together a big operation in conjunction with the Mob, Cuban Exiles, Right Wing Extremists, the Chubb Group and the reverse-vampires. But even they would have to agree that they couldn't have picked a better patsy than Oswald. They didn't have to do anything. The guy did everything, on his own, to appear guilty.

Or maybe Oswald did it himself. Why is that so hard to believe? I mean I could believe in a conspiracy if there was anything to it. But there really isn't. After 44 years, nothing. Not one single thing to indicate conspiracy. No one is that good.

There's where we disagree. I never said Oswald "didn't do it." It's very possible, if not more than likely, that he did. I simply disagree with your opinion that "no one is that good." A crime doesn't have to be "perfect" to be "good enough." And I think a conspiracy involving a relatively small number of people in the "right" position(s) who know how to keep their mouths shut, can easily be "good enough" to do a clean enough job as to leave insufficient "hard" evidence. In fact, I suspect it's happened many times.

Oswald is guilty. Don't let him off just because a conspiracy is more fun to think about.

Again I'm not trying to "let him off." It's a little late for that anyway, isn't it? I'm simply saying (again) that I think that a conspiracy was not only possible, but IMO, likely. Not at all because I think it's "fun" to think that. Believe it or not, there's little that I have less interest in than conspiracy theories. But simply because, unlike yourself, I consider it entirely plausible.