Well /k/, with all the controversy around it, did Lee Harvey Oswald kill JFK, or did another shooter have to be involved?
>>30079578
Lee Harvey Oswald pulled the trigger on the Carcano that killed JFK.
No, his Secret Service agent did not trip on a banana peel and blow JFK's brains out by accident.
No, LBJ didn't order him bumped off.
No, the MiC didn't put a hit on him.
>>30079578
The world's a chaotic and random place.
I don't think a lot of people want to believe that one pissed off guy can off the most powerful man on earth.
Oswald did it.
Due to the seating arrangement inside the vehicle and the positioning of the victims' bodies prior to the shots being fired, as well as the angle from which those shots were fired, Oswald was able to hit both targets simultaneously from his position.
Anybody who talks about the necessity of a second shooter or goes back to that 'magic bullet' horseshit is somebody whose opinion should be discounted on the spot.
It's funny to see people on 4chan attempting to prove that the whole thing was a conspiracy. They find it hard to believe that a lone whackjob would just go out and assassinate the president, even though they share a site with just such people.
>>30079606
Why hasnt anyone to this day successfully replicated the amount of shots with a carcano In the time frame he did it?
Why were ops 40 CIA agents dressed as bums seen and taken pics of?
Ect ect ect
So many questions
>>30079578
Too many people refuse to accept that a pro-communist could do something wrong.
Far easier to believe that a VRWC was responsible, or, failing that, the mafia.
I find the more interesting question is why Jack Ruby went and shot Oswald.
Back and to the left faggots. Ring ring, grassy knoll calling.
On a related note, dealy plaza is a great tourist destination and I highly encourage all of you to visit.
>>30079671
Funny, I live near Dallas and have never gone, should make a visit sometime.
>>30079627
To be fair, the Secret Service wasn't exactly the best at its job back in the day. I remember reading Daryl Gates' autobiography a while back, and in it, he gives an account of JFK's visit to Los Angeles, soon before his fateful visit to Texas. Gates claims that the LAPD was a better provider of security than Kennedy's own detail. In particular, it never occured to them to sweep the rooftops along his roof, whereas LAPD did so, and even had patrol officers stationed on most of them.
I guess he assumed that the Secret Service would use what it had learned during the next event, but obviously they didn't. Is there any truth to Gates' account? Probably. Regardless, one thing that isn't in doubt is that the Secret Service left much to be desired back then in terms of tactics. Scary as it may be, it shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone that a lone nutjob could pull off something like that, particularly if said nutjob happens to be a former Marine.
>>30079645
It was three shots in six seconds, yes? That doesn't sound particularly difficult for anybody with a modicum of training, let alone a former Marine.
>>30079645
Any reliable sources? He was a former sniper anyways, IIRC.
>>30079690
I had no clue they were that bad. Any other stuff you got to share?
>>30079629
The thing is (for me anyways) the aftermath and the people involved.
Sure, maniacs kill people, but it usually ends there....this was a sketchy case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald
>Oswald denied killing Kennedy and Tippit; denied owning a rifle; said two photographs of him holding a rifle and a pistol were fakes.
>Oswald was then shown a forged Selective Service System card bearing his photograph and the alias, "Alek James Hidell" that he had in his possession at the time of his arrest. Oswald refused to answer any questions concerning the card, saying "...you have the card yourself and you know as much about it as I do
I don't think he wanted to get caught, he definitely planned to get away....
>>30079578
Oswald did it, the motives and forces behind him doing it are open to speculation.
>>30079788
Then they decide to take him from interrogation to a county jail, without speaking to a lawyer, where he is shot by jack ruby...
>Oswald was being led through the basement of Dallas Police Headquarters toward an armored car that was to take him to the nearby county jail
who shot him because...
Ruby later said he had been distraught over Kennedy's death and that his motive for killing Oswald was "saving Mrs. Kennedy the discomfiture of coming back to trial."[231] Others have hypothesized that Ruby was part of a conspiracy. G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel for the House Select Committee on Assassinations from 1977 to 1979, said: "The most plausible explanation for the murder of Oswald by Jack Ruby was that Ruby had stalked him on behalf of organized crime, trying to reach him on at least three occasions in the forty-eight hours before he silenced him forever.
6.5 MM CANT PENETRATE 4 PEOPLE'S BODIES
>>30079832
>On behalf of organized crime
Was Oswald in the crime world, or owed money or something? I'm a little lost at what that means
>>30079796
You sound sure...please take the time to back your claim!
>>30079832
But here's where it gets interesting. Although the circumstances leading him to get close to oswald are fishy, its what happened next that gets your attention...
>Ruby appealed his conviction, had it overturned and was granted a new trial. As the date for his new trial was being set,[2] Ruby became ill and died in prison of a pulmonary embolism due to lung cancer.
And before he died he said
>Ruby conducted a brief televised news conference in which he stated: "Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts of what occurred, my motives. The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world." When asked by a reporter, "Are these people in very high positions, Jack?", he responded "Yes."[54]
Dallas Deputy Sheriff Al Maddox claimed: "Ruby told me, he said, 'Well, they injected me for a cold.' He said it was cancer cells. That's what he told me, Ruby did. I said you don't believe that bullshit. He said, 'I damn sure do!' [Then] one day when I started to leave, Ruby shook hands with me and I could feel a piece of paper in his palm… [In this note] he said it was a conspiracy and he said … if you will keep your eyes open and your mouth shut, you're gonna learn a lot. And that was the last letter I ever got from him."[55] Not long before Ruby died, according to an article in the London Sunday Times, he told psychiatrist Werner Teuter that the assassination was "an act of overthrowing the government" and that he knew "who had President Kennedy killed." He added: "I am doomed. I do not want to die. But I am not insane. I was framed to kill Oswald."[55][56][57]
He was givin another trail...but he died of cancer first....sounds similar to Putins journalists...
I am not sure. There's so much bullshit out there it's hard to tell it apart. Anyone have a good visual line-up of the shots, where they would come from, and how the exit wounds would go? Honestly, having seen the remnants of Kennedy's head, it really did not look like it exited the proper way at all, all considered. It looked back and to the left, not to the right like it should be. Then, I'm not an expert.
The whole thing just has too much crazy shit behind it. Sometimes you hear Oswald thought he was on a government op, sometimes >>30079788
where he denied it altogether. Then there's the fact that it was hot on the heels of Operation Northwood's rejection by Kennedy, which was some shady shit, and we all know Johnson was a ladder-climbing asshole.
>>30079832
>>30079883
Then there's all that, where, allegedly, though his family line, the Kennedys supposedly had some kind of mafia connections while he was kind of anti-mafia himself, etc. etc.
Who knows. Maybe it's the best government disinfo job ever, because there's so much chaff you can't figure the real thing out. Maybe it isn't, and it's all just paranoia. All I know is, I don't think we have the whole story, and I don't know if we ever will. It's all just shady as hell, anyhow.
not sure, but I do know sketchy shit went down
>>30079645
>Why hasnt anyone to this day successfully replicated the amount of shots with a carcano In the time frame he did it?
youre kidding right? it was like 3 shots in 6 seconds. one missed completely, the other was well off target at like 70 yards. thats not exactly extraordinary shooting.
>>30079708
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1556184/Oswald-had-no-time-to-fire-all-Kennedy-bullets.html
>>30079883
On behalf means he did it as a extension of their wishes, he did it for them, because they wanted him too.
>>30079922
Time to hit the hay, with one last thought.
All of the Warren Commission's records were submitted to the National Archives in 1964. The unpublished portion of those records was initially sealed for 75 years (to 2039) under a general National Archives policy that applied to all federal investigations by the executive branch of government,[122] a period "intended to serve as protection for innocent persons who could otherwise be damaged because of their relationship with participants in the case.”[123] The 75-year rule no longer exists, supplanted by the Freedom of Information Act of 1966 and the JFK Records Act of 1992.
Read it, and above all find out who had so much to gain...The shooting itself is like a jigsaw puzzle picture, the piece's are all here.
The pictures resulting from pic related are the proof you want but will never have...
>>30079954
>moving target
>iron sights
Carcano is italian pice of shit
>oswald failed rifle qualification
>>30079983
>moving directly away from at a parades pace
>had a scope
>implying carcanos dont work just fine
>explains why he missed twice
Why are so many people clueless as to what a conspiracy is? The conspiracy is not that LHO killed Kennedy. But who planned it with him? Or who recruited him to do it? The conspiracy is not how the WTC was taken down (hijacked planes or explosive devices). But who allowed it to happen? Who funded it? Were the US government involved or complicit in any way?
Get it, pinheads?
>>30079992
Read the article i posted above
>>30079983
>le carcano was a POS
mamma mia, what a stale meme
>>30079983
actually oswald scored a rating of sharpshooter in the marines
>>30080014
i own a carcano and i can absolutely fire three aimed shots in 8 seconds.
>But when the Italian team test-fired the identical model of gun, they were unable to load and fire three shots in less than 19 seconds
>load and fire
>load
found your problem
>>30079645
Of course people have replicated it. It's not some magical feat. Did you even Google it before you asked that retarded question? Because if you did, you'd find dozens of times people have recreated the shots, and dozens of cases showing a person can easily make that many shots with a bolt action rifle in that time.
The only reason for you to believe that crap is that you desperately want to.
>>30080012
I dunno. You hear that grassy knoll, accidental secret service, and magic bullet shit all the time. Quite a few people believe Oswald didn't kill him, or at the very least didn't act alone.
>>30080039
>>30080040
Guess your right guys
No thats a theory i read a long time ago didnt even research it
Still u cant negate the CIA ties oswald had or the op40 guys disguised as bums
>>30080047
Because there are quite a few people in the world who are desperate to believe conspiracies. They can't handle that the world is a fucked up place where sometimes crazy shit happens, so they have to rationalize everything as being "all part of the plan".
Some crazy communist fuck shoots the president? It was some grand conspiracy by the Mafia, the Russians, the Cubans, and LBJ, etc.
Some crazy goatfuckers hatch some plan to hijack planes and kamikaze them into buildings and it works? Must have been some government-performed false flag and it was actually demolition charges and da jews made money off it, etc.
It's always the same kind of people who are prone to conspiracy theories, and usually if they believe in one of them, they believe in all of them.
Shots were fired to fast, had to be at lest two shooters. Two shots were almost simultaneous.
>>30079680
The sixth floor museum too. Great time.
>>30080078
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcjKYBccoqs
>>30080105
listen to the audio retard. Two shots are literally on top of eachother and JFK's dead ass face moves the wrong direction. There were two shooters.
>>30080117
The audio shows that four shots were fired, to were at essentially the same time and one was a total miss. Anyone with ears can tell.
>>30080105
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gm-MoQfe7E
Clearly shot in the neck from the front and then hit in the head from behind with an exit wound out the front right forehead.
>>30080132
>>30080117
>>30080155
i dont really care to argue the rest of your claims but anyone claiming the shots werent possible is a retard whos opinion i immediately disregard
>>30080155
>Clearly shot in the neck from the front
>from the front
and how exactly did you determine which direction the bullet entered and exited?
>>30080165
Are you fucking retarded? You can't "Not argue the other claims" but also think that a person can fire two shots at the same time without having a brain problem.
>An anti-US leftist that defected to the Soviet Union did not kill the President of the US during one of the most high tension parts of the Cold War.
Why do some people not believe this?
>>30080177
Because there isn't a giant goddamn plume of blood coming out the front of him like happens with an exit wound on a slow motion film. Anyone who can't see this hasn't seen a lot of things being shot IRL.
>>30080194
>the fact that two gunshots were kinda close together on a 60s quality video proves it
pack it up, boys. he figured it out.
>>30080206
theres not a giant plume of blood coming out of the back of his neck, either.
>>30080221
I'm not talking about the video alone. Get a film that has audio/video synced and listen to the goddamn audio and you can hear that there is one shot (upperchest/neck in, out the back) then two at the same time (one hits back of head, left out front right. Can't see what happens with the other, likely hits the governor circumstantially. This shot is louder and longer than the other two) and then a fourth one that misses.
>>30080233
Because the shot is at a downward angle and it's into the chair.
>>30080255
so a gunshot wound from the back into the neck through the throat is going to bleed profusely through the exit wound but a gunshot through the throat into the upper back isnt?
>>30080278
What in the fuck are you talking about? Have you ever shot anything? Exit wounds are bigger than entry wounds and exits bleed more and shoot material out in a slow-mo video. No shit comes out of his front chest where he grabs, maybe a small dab of blood on his shirt. Then he gets shot in the back of the head to the left diagonal forward and it blows the shit out of his front right forehead. How is this not apparent to anyone with eyes?
>>30080074
This, exactly this.
It's too much of a stretch for them to accept that small groups of people can cause catastrophic damage to a seemingly untouchable institution.
>>30080312
Is it implausible that it was allowed to happen for political gain, though?
>>30079671
It sure is. We were treated to a tour of the Plaza by the most overweight homeless black dude ever. Dude actually knew his shit, even.
>>30079645
I can fire shots that fast with my nugget. Its not hard.
>>30080074
Better to be sceptical of the official story then to blindy accept everything they say on the news as truth.
You think governments don't do this kind of shit? Russians assassinate dissidents. Chinese execute and torture people.
Best Korea has tens of thousands in camps.
Even the nordic countries are corrupt when you look close enough.
You think the US gov't is not doing some fucked up shit right now? Because they are. They just control the information better.
oswald didnt even know he was being blamed for the jfk shooting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n9VQ-dXrwQ
also jack ruby just happned to kill him.. sure
Both shots were clearly from above and behind. The first shot entered the upper back and exited the throat, and then hit the governor in the arm who was sitting in front, and a bit below JFK. The magic bullet is BS and the trajectory matches perfectly. The second shot entered the back of his head and exited the front of his forehead, and caused a large piece of his skull to break and flop out forwards and to the right.
Both shots are consistent with Oswald in the book depository. There's no mysterious ballistics. There was no second shooter. There was no magic bullet. There was no shooter in the grassy knoll or the bridge or wherever. There was one guy with a rifle on a high floor of a building from behind.
The only mystery is with Jack Ruby. It's not really clear why he shot Oswald and it's sketchy that he also died shortly after.
>>30080367
Being skeptical of everything regardless of the evidence in its favour just makes you a fucking moron.
>>30080887
the driver clearly shot him.. supposed to protect him, ended up killing him.
I killed jfk
No Oswald didn't. But you can't expect the typical person who hasn't done any research in to the matter to think otherwise. Even if they have I've noticed throughout life's course many do not possess critical thinking skills to properly analyze them.
They learned in school Oswald did it, they've been told and retold that. So that's what they believe.
It's just a coincidence Bobby Kennedy was merced right before he would have been president too. Right?
I'm a libertarian and JFK was my favorite president, because he was our last real president. He was murdered because he didn't want America to go into Vietnam. People pressured him and he refused. They killed him for it.
>>30080997
This post is the height of autism.
You can just tell morons like this (and others ITT) have watched the movie JFK about bought it at face value.
Read the rest of the thread duncecap. I bet you think they still shot from le grassy knoll meme.
I hate summers here when the tards come out.
>>30080997
Also pretending that you somehow have a wealth of "critical thinking" and knowledge the general public doesn't is so cringeworthy.
Bobby Kennedy was going to be president? Really? He was just elected as a SENATOR.
You are 16 years old max. Sage your posts all day.
>>30081109
I won't bother debating you. Your half adequate brain has already come to a conclusion.
But I'm not a summer fag. In fact I wish I were I'd argue more with you. But I have to go mow my lawn.
JFK with Kevin Costner is pretty good. But it's not where I draw my facts from. Kevin Bacon telling him "You won't understand... you're not a faggot. You've never been fucked in the ass" was worth the price of admission.
>>30081120
He was running for president you twit.
You're 14 at max.
>>30080887
>The only mystery is with Jack Ruby.
Why?
>It's not really clear why he shot Oswald
He explained it many times.
>and it's sketchy that he also died shortly after.
If by short time you mean 4 years.
>>30080997
>I'm a libertarian and JFK was my favorite president, because he was our last real president. He was murdered because he didn't want America to go into Vietnam.
This is not true.
It is a common misconception, but JFK was very willing to go into Vietnam.
>>30080997
Holy fuck you sound like one of those lonely pseudo-smart kids in highschool who talked like that, and wondered why no one liked them
>>30081152
Nope.
>>30081156
I am that kid just all grown up. Insult my argument not me as a person please.
>>30081167
Do you have any basis for your arguement other than those FB pages that say vaccines cause autism and always post Anonymous shit?
All of you claiming a conspiracy should read this book:
Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy by Vincent Bugliosi.
1,632 pages with a DVD containing an additional 1000 pages of notes.
>>30081167
Yes.
In addition to being the father of Vietnam, JFK ran on a platform of being strong on defense. He criticized the USAF for not having enough nuclear weapons.
He had built or authorized 19 ballistic missile submarines.
The construction or replacement of 5,000 warheads.
The development of Limited Nuclear war concept began with him.
He pushed for the Apollo project.
Where do you think all that money for those project went? Defense Contractors.
If you think that JFK was done in because he wasn't willing to tow the line with the MIC, you are mistaken. He was the best friend the MIC ever had.
>>30081173
>Implying I Facebook
Get lost kid. I could list an encyclopedia but you (Facebook) probably (gotta check my Facebook) don't have the (I wonder if people liked my comments) attention span.
>>30079629
If you actually go to the plaza site you will see that any shooter who was reasonably competent with a rifle could have made the shot. I was surprised at how close the buildings were.
>>30079690
This, the Secret Service is filled with lonely drunks. They have incredibly high standards to get in, but they are still lonely drunks.
They pass out drunk on the fucking job, get busted in prostitution stings, fail even the most basic security sweeps, and overall just leave a lot to he desired.
Most of this can be traced back to the fact that it's near impossible to maintain a healthy relationship with near anybody, much less a romantic one when you're in that kind of position, and the fact that they all have this swaggery "nobody fucks with me, I'm Secret Goddamn Service!" attitude that gets people fucking killed.
Look at the Reagan case, a dude made it past 3 rings of security and managed to get several accurate shots off on the fucking president, nearly killing him.
Not to mention, that's not even the Secret Service's original job, which was busting counterfeitters.
>>30081187
>Apollo mission
>Vietnam related
There were a lot of things that led up to Vietnam. The nation is more than 1 person but Kennedy wanted peace. Like the Cuban Missile crisis. If he was a warmonger we would of fought Russia. Kennedy deescalated it, and wanted to do the same in Vietnam. All while smashing Marilyn Monroe close.
America +1.
>>30079645
i can do that with a 1894 mosin, although i dont hit the target often it has happened
its not difficult, theres a bit of luck involved
>>30081199
Yeah, I mean, give me a scoped rifle, an elevated position, and a human sized, slow moving target at 70 yards and I guarantee you I can hit it at least twice.
It's really fucking easy.
>>30081215
>The nation is more than 1 person but Kennedy wanted peace.
Then why did he build so many nuclear weapons, anon?
Why did he direct the creation of limited nuclear war options that would have allowed him to deploy nuclear weapons in a limited scale during the Cuban Missile Crisis?
You see, that was one of his main concerns during the CMC. JFK wanted the option to deploy nuclear weapons selectively, and SAC was not set up to do that.
So afterwards, he directed the development of limited attack options, so he would have more options for the use of nuclear weapons.
He didn't avoid fighting the Soviets in the CMC because he didn't want to. He avoided fighting them because he felt that he would lose control of it once it started.
He wanted to go into Cuba.
He wanted to use nuclear weapons on the Soviet missile sites if needed.
That sure sounds like a real peaceful man.
>>30081241
>at 70 yards
holy shit, it was only 70 yards?
>>30081188
So... Do it then? Instead of sperging out and being triggered.
That's an idea
I've heard claims the whole Kennedy family were corrupt.
an someone elaborate?
>>30081254
>Why did he build so many weapons
Why do you think /k/ is a bunch of armed hooligans? Just because we have them doesn't mean we use them on people.
Because there was a bigger picture. Soviets were building nukes, like we wouldn't? Oppenheimer our local nuclear trip could chime in on that he posted earlier. It was an insurance policy.
>>30081215
He wasn't peaceful. He was just pragmatic
>>30081263
Yeah, and he missed his opening shot.
Honestly the only reason people talk up the Kennedy assassination or conspiracies is that people don't want to admit a fuck up former marine turned homeless commie could kill the leader of the free world.
The debate should have never been about "did Oswald do it" it should've been "how the fuck did the Secret Service fuck up so badly?"
>>30081281
I don't do your thinking or research for you. Do it yourself, or stay dumb.
>>30081299
But you're supposed to present the info to me instead of acting like a 14 year old conspiracy nut.
I'm just asking in the 4chan appropriate way to tell me why you think this way
>>30081299
Not even him but that's the dumbest fucking argument I see, and I see it constantly.
>makes unsubstantiated claim
>proofs?
>DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH PLEB
nah, that's not how this works.
Btw the moon is made of cheese, different colors denote different kinds, but most of it is mozzarella and provalone.
>do your OWN research!
>>30081297
Are you sure it's not because all the people thinking it was impossible are noguns?
I mean, if he was using a pistol, yea, that'd be an amazing feat, but 70 yards with a rifle + optics and a guy who had training, sitting at a good vantage?
Come on.
>>30081309
>>30081312
>I'm a god damn millennial, I demand to be spoon fed!
Nah.
>>30081326
>the moon is STILL made of cheese!
>WHY won't people believe me!?
Nah
>>30079645
You are actually retarded.
>>30081287
>Oppenheimer our local nuclear trip could chime in on that he posted earlier.
That was me.
Kennedy was the first US President who began to take steps to fight and win a nuclear war.
He was willing to invade Cuba twice, and drop nuclear weapons on it as well, but the nuclear forces of the United States were not deployed and trained in such a manner to allow that without (in Kennedy's mind) also immediately dropping them on the Soviet Union as well.
He wanted a middle ground.
He believed that if he had ordered the US into Cuba, that the Soviets would have stood by.
The problem was that he did not know if the Cubans would be able to seize the weapons from the Soviets and attempt to deploy them.
Due to this uncertainty, he wanted to his those sites with nuclear weapons in concert with the invasion force.
He believed that if the Soviets understood that they were not being threatened with nuclear attack, they would let the Cubans swing in the wind, rather than start a general exchange (that the Soviets would lose anyway)
However, there was no policy that allowed for the limited use of nuclear weapons, or for changing the readiness of some of our nuclear forces but not all.
These two factors led JFK to believe that he would not be able to keep the Soviets out of it if he went into Cuba because of their probable perception of being painted into a corner with no option but nuclear war.
Thus was born the concept of limited nuclear war.
Kennedy was not a pacifist by any means. He was a man who, for 13 days in 1962, tried to find any way he could to drop several megatons of nuclear weapons on Cuba, and when he couldn't, created a policy so that next time he could.
>>30081358
Stanley Kubrick turned the moon to cheese for the moon landing scene.
I won't argue with stupid teenagers. Present your proof contrary to my statement. Then maybe I'll counter it.
>>30081319
No, it has literally nothing to do with that.
Most establishment liberals actually are the ones to accept the official story, while it's paranoid conservative conspiracy theorists, you know, the "guburnment is chemtrails" types, that dispute it.
Conspiracies started almost immediately after the shooting, like, within days. They started because of the literally thousands of people being interviewed in Dallas and someone wanting a story, they persisted because people were shocked that a commie and complete, absolute, utter loser could dome the president.
>>30079645
bad camera that picks up sound different from what humans can hear.
>>30081377
So he has to back up his arguments, but you don't?
>>30081369
Thanks for reply. Interesting.
>Limited Nuclear war
So only nuke large population and use conventional forces for everything else?
>>30081418
Yeah. I mean if this was a simple subject.
There is a reason in debate class certain subjects aren't allowed. Such as religion. Because a person shows up with their mind set. You're not going to convince them.
Same goes with Kennedy in my mind. Everybody has their beliefs on what happened. I stated my opinion, he (you) said yours. If you want to disprove me and put me in my place I ask for proof. Otherwise this is all conjecture.
>>30081424
More like using nuclear weapons in a restrained manner so that you give time and space for both parties to end the conflict.
If gives the leaders stepping stones of escalation. Rather than either peace or total massive exchange of nuclear weapons.
>>30080367
being skeptical is fine. But if you are ALWAYS skeptical, 100%, and permanently skeptical, regardless of what the evidence shows, it makes you an autist who's desperate to see conspiracies everywhere.
>>30080997
what if you've done tons of research on the topic, and have concluded that based on the evidence, Oswald DID do it? Or do you just declare that anyone who doesn't believe the way you do isn't "thinking critically"?
>open your eyes man, you're just blinded by the government propaganda dude
lol
Sometimes the shit you learn in school is actually true. Sure, the education system is fucked up and run by leftists who brainwash kids with their ideas, but that doesn't mean 100% of the things taught in school are BS.
JFK was not a libertarian, so your faith is misplaced. And the first drafts and papers to wage the Vietnam War were done under JFK and signed by JFK. He wasn't against the war, and he didn't "refuse" anything.
>>30081132
>already came to conclusion and says everyone who disagrees isn't critically thinking
>accuses everyone else of already having a pre-conceived conclusion
>>30081152
don't confuse me with the conspiracy-tard. I think JFK was a salty commie and shot JFK because of that. I'm just saying that there is some sketchy shit about Jack Ruby, and I just don't buy the explanation of "I wanted to spare Mrs. Kennedy the court trials". That's BS.
>>30081187
yeah, JFK was no pacifist lol
>>30081199
yeah the shot was like 70 meters. With a scoped bolt action rifle, the target moving slowly in a straight line, and a perfect vantage point, it's far from a miraculous shot.
>>30081263
yes.
go look up the game "JFK Reloaded". it's a simple game but it was made based on all the real exact positions, speeds, distances, etc. So you are in the book depository window and JFK drives by and you try to shoot him. The "objective" is to try and replicate the real event as close as possible, but it also just gives a good picture of the shooting
>>30081453
I'm not even him, but holy shit, how far up your ass is your head right now?
We're not talking about something like religion you mong, we're talking about JFK getting shot. He should provide some evidence, yes, but so should you.
>>30081468
>I think JFK was a salty commie and shot JFK because of that.
I know this is a typo, but its funny.
>>30079578
CIA did it because JFK refused to back them up during their unauthorized invasion of Cuba. They were all captured but getting caught was part of their plan, they wanted commander in chief to be forced to incade Cuba. He didn't play ball, so he got the nose of the ball.
Pretty solid """theory""" desu.
>>30081378
conspiracy theorists come from both sides of the aisle. It tends to depend on the nature of the event. Take JFK. those conspiracy theorists are usually leftists who can't accept that a communist did something evil, and they need JFK to be one of their leftist heroes so they can't admit that a leftist shot him.
With the moon landing, it tends to also be leftists because they are generally less patriotic and "rah rah go USA".
9/11, it's generally leftists because they hate Bush.
With chemtrails, FEMA camps, all that shit, it's usually libertarians/conservatives because of the whole "da gubment is out to get us" and "SHALL NOT INFRINGE".
Then there's the Alex Jones types, who literally believe that everything is a conspiracy.
>>30081475
All I need is Occam's Razor.
What requires less assumptions?
We KNOW Oswald was in the building
We KNOW Oswald had that rifle
We KNOW Oswald shot at Kennedy
We KNOW Oswald was a communist
There's almost nothing to assume
I won't even go into the immense amount of assumptions that require a second shooter or conspiracy theory.
>>30081477
lol. yeah, meant "Oswald was a salty commie"
>>30081492
>unauthorized
Brah, the plan was authorized under Eisenhower and given the green light under Kennedy.
>>30081475
The idea is people have a preconceived notion you won't change.
There is no proof. Many people have covered it up. It's why it requires critical thinking.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED
Neither do you. I just know Oswald and official story is shit. Jackie Kennedy gave an interview where she said she was convinced it was a conspiracy killing... dumb cunt right?
>>30081519
>There is no proof. Many people have covered it up
If two hypotheses correspond to identical evidence, it's generally good form to pick the simplest.
>>30081501
even though 99% of the time someone brings up Occam's Razor to help their argument they're being autistic, you're right in this case. To believe a conspiracy, you need to assume that there was some mysterious second and even third shooter, from all different locations, with no solid evidence to prove it.
That's what gets me too. THere's never one solid conspiracy theory. It's always a hodge-podge of shit all blended together. Like "there was a second shooter at the grassy knoll, no there was three shooters, one on the bridge. there were 6 shots total. No there were two shots too close together to be possible for just oswald. No, oswald couldn't have done it because it was an impossible shot. No, it was the CIA that did it. No it was the soviets. No it was the cubans. No it was the mafia. No it was the military."
such a clusterfuck of theories instead of one comprehensive and coherent theory.
>>30081519
What about me? I used to believe it was a conspiracy, and then I looked into it more and realized the conspiracies are full of shit. What about my preconceived notion?
There is plenty of proof. The simple forensics of the shots place a shooter exactly where Oswald was. Your bullshit conspiracy theories always have to rely on "tons of evidence was covered up but if it was released it would TOTALLY support my theory".
>>30081468
>I'm just saying that there is some sketchy shit about Jack Ruby, and I just don't buy the explanation of "I wanted to spare Mrs. Kennedy the court trials". That's BS.
It's only sketchy if you want to believe that.
He was known to be a hot head with an irrational temper. Thats how he earned the nickname "Sparky".
He was well known by the cops in Dallas, and seeing him hanging around the HQ was not unusual.
He thought he would be a hero. He said that he saw Oswald with that smug look on his face, he just reacted. Anger, poorly handled, is a powerful emotion.
Imagine that Bin Laden was captured a few days after 9/11, and as they walk him past a group of American's he starts laughing. Laughing at their pain, at the fact that all those people were killed. The buildings are still smoking, the shock of what has happened is still fresh in everyone's mind.
You telling me that if someone in that crowd was armed and had the chance no one would have taken a shot at him just out of anger alone?
>>30081453
>Because a person shows up with their mind set. You're not going to convince them.
so debate class just sits quietly in a room then?
>>30081527
By the way that interview of Jackie was sealed and wasn't supposed to be released until 30 years after her death.
Her daughter took it out 3 years early because she felt she might get killed if she waited.
It was her opinion Texas Oil conglomerates did it, or funded it. LBJ included. Happened in Texas.
She might be wrong, but she shared a bedroom with the man. Probably knows more than us.
>>30081499
No, honestly there are a lot more conservatives that believe the second shooter theory than liberals.
You're absolutely right about different political ideologues believing in different conspiracies, in fact I was going to bring that up, but I have to put the second shooter theory slightly in the conservative catagory, because it demonstrates the ultimate fear conservatives have: a pro-American, patriotic president cut down *seemingly* in his prime (we now know the medical issues he had) by disgruntled members of an American "shadow government"
Conversely, it CAN be a liberal conspiracy, if the "the businesses/crimebosses took him out" angle is taken.
The second shooter theory also goes back to the conservative side though in the second shooter theory if "the teamsters/unions" are to 'blame.'
I don't really put myself in a single political camp like that, so I'm not saying one side is crazier/less stable than the other, it's honestly just observations I've made.
>>30081519
>. I just know Oswald and official story is shit.
Of course.
You just have no evidence to actually support your opinion.
Got it.
>Jackie Kennedy gave an interview where she said she was convinced it was a conspiracy killing... dumb cunt right?
Dose she have some sort of skill that enables her to analyze the evidence?
No?
Shes just an eyewitness?
So then why does her word carry any weight at all?
>>30081555
Durr
>>30081519
You still haven't answered my original question you fuck: why does he have to provide evidence for his claims, but you don't?
>>30081557
Or shes a widow trying to make sense of a tragic event brought about by an insignificant man.
My issue with Oswald is how he was identified and captured so quickly. I think he probably was involved and probably fired from the depository. However, how was he identified by a street cop if a description hadn't already been released? How did the authorities know he was in a movie theater full of people if it hadn't been set up as a rendezvous point? How did they acquire all this information within hours of the shooting?
It took the FBI three days to identify the Boston bombers in 2013, so how did they identify Oswald in a matter of hours in 1963?
>>30081568
Because he probably confided things to her, like men with wives often do.
She also said she knew he cheated but they were getting over it and becoming happier.
>>30081536
I have a shit ton of experience using Occam's Razor, and I totally understand what you mean, I just happen to be using it correctly, most people don't.
All Occam's Razor states is that *generally* the path of explanation that requires the fewest assumptions is the *most accurate*
People make it out to be something it isn't, you know? Which really pisses me off, because Occam's Razor is really helpful and gets a shitty rap.
All using Occam's Razor means is "this explanation is *probably* more accurate than others."
>>30081574
He just told you he doesn't actually have any evidence.
He has his opinion, and he want you to try to talk him out of it.
And he thinks everyone else is the same way.
The reality is that most people with open minds base their opinions on what evidence they are aware of, and alter it as new evidence becomes available.
What he has done is reach is conclusion first, in the absence of any evidence.
>>30081574
Burden of proof falls on person making the claim.
>>30081554
dude, that's fine. Like I said, I'm not some conspiracy nut, and I'm perfectly willing to accept that Jack Ruby just had a moment of crazy and shot him. I just haven't looked into that part of the event as much, and I focused more on the actual shooting.
>>30081557
lol so it was a Texas Oil company? I thought it was the A-team of communists, cubans, soviets, mafia, and CIA?
>>30081559
fair enough. JFK seems to be more split that way.
>>30081568
first of all, who the hell knows what she actually believes. Second, all she knows is that she was sitting beside her husband smiling, and suddenly he bends forward and grabs his throat, and then his head popped open and brains were everywhere. She, of all people, is probably the person in the worst situation to be able to analyze the event.
>>30081591
the tricky thing is when people simplify it to be "the simplest" explanation is the correct one. Because sometimes "simpleness" is subjective.
>>30081604
in this case, the burden of proof is more on the conspiracy theorist than the other person. The official story is based on the evidence that's out there, and if someone wants to claim it's bullshit, they need to prove it.
>>30081581
>. However, how was he identified by a street cop if a description hadn't already been released?
Because the description had already been released.
>How did the authorities know he was in a movie theater full of people if it hadn't been set up as a rendezvous point?
Because the description was all over already and someone recognized him.
>How did they acquire all this information within hours of the shooting?
Because law enforcement went to the Book Depository because most of the people reported hearing gun shots from there. They asked who was in the building and who was missing.
>>30081588
>Because he probably confided things to her, like men with wives often do.
And?
That's her drawing a conclusion with no evidence either.
>>30081603
I pretty much figured he had no evidence.
>>30081604
>Burden of proof falls on person making the claim
You mean like your claim that JFK wasn't killed by Oswald and that it was all a huge conspiracy?
>>30081621
OK. OJ Simpson.
>He wasnt found/ or was found guilty. So it's the way it was
>>30081588
Ted Bundy's mother defended her son, and she raised him, don't you think she knows more about her son than some stupid cop?
People don't want to believe those they love can be destroyed in almost trivial means. The people they love are superheroes, they defend the weak and feed the hungry, the don't murder, and the president of the United States doesn't get domed by a filthy commie.d
>>30081622
I'm saying she knows more than you or I.
There is no evidence to be had. Except your official story, which is fucked.
>>30081621
>the simplest explanation
Yeah, that irks me, because when you're actually taught it, it specifically means "the least number of assumptions" which I think is a clear difference.
Also, it also doesn't mean the explanation is right, just probably more accurate.
>>30081646
>I'm saying she knows more than you or I.
She knows more about things he husband said to her.
She doesn't know more about what happened that day.
You seem to think the two are the same thing.
Provide evidence that things that her husband told her are in any way related to what happened when he was shot.
>>30081641
>Ted Bundy's mother defended her son, and she raised him, don't you think she knows more about her son than some stupid cop?
Ted Bundy is JFK.
I have no evidence, but thats what I know.
Prove me different.
>>30081641
Ted Bundy killed Ppl. Wasn't assassinated.
JFK was killed by some one else. He wasn't a psychopath and his wife didn't raise him.
Your argument is MOOT.
>>30081660
Totally this.
>honey, some bad oil men may want me dead
>gets shot by a communist
>see! The bad oil men killed Kennedy!
Not how it works at all.
What surprises me is that this sort of thing doesn't happen more often. Even taking the Secret Service and whatnot into account, you'd think there'd be more malcontents or wackos trying to take potshots at government figures.
>>30081667
Please provide proof that anything he told his wife is an anyway related to how he died.
>>30081673
>Provide proof
For the 50th time, there is none. Go tickle Elmo faggot. Provide proof to contrary.
>>30081622
This is 1963 we're talking about. It's not like his picture could be plastered everywhere almost immediately. And descriptions going out over the radio less than 15 minutes after the shooting when everything was still chaotic? That would a super efficient timeframe now, much less 50 years ago.
>>30081686
>there is none
So your opinion is one of faith. Like a religion.
Got it.
>>30081701
Well then I guess you have to conclude that the Dallas PD was in on it then.
>>30081718
I don't know who was in on it but let's not pretend that the timeframe in which Oswald was identified is not suspiciously short.
>>30081241
Not to mention Marine rifle training. He wasn't just some schmuck plinker, the man had experience.
>>30081731
It wasn't.
What is the normal timeframe for someone to be identified?
What study are you basing this off of? Or your own extenisve experince as law enforcement in 1963 Dallas pehaps?
>>30081709
Yes. Just like your opinion is also faith.
Guess we're different denominations.
>>30081771
No. I have evidence galore that he did it.
>>30081764
Bullshit I was a Marine. Oswalds fellow Marines said he was a novice shot. Pretty sure he scored Marksman.
That's civilian "my daddy's shotgun" status.
If I thought he actually did it, or it was a good shot I'd be the first to shout Oorah.
>>30081784
But you won't post it...
Because it's full of holes.
>>30081800
Its still more evidence than you have.
So i have evidence to support my postion. You admit that you have absolutly nothing other than your imagination.
Interesting.
>>30081813
>The evidence I haven't posted is more compelling than yours
>Trust me
I actually laughed.
>>30081830
Wait, are you the guy who thinks Oswald did it? I've lost track.
>>30080012
>But who planned it with him?
Google Georges De Mohrenschild. Shits spooky yo.
>>30081845
No I am of the opinion he didn't. So many monkeys have thrown poop at my eyes I can barely see either.
>>30081813
>So i have evidence to support my postion.
>But I won't show it because reasons
Holy shit this is a new low for debating skills even on 4chan.
>>30081765
Use some fucking common sense dumbass.
>President is shot
>People running, screaming
>Total chaos
>Onlooker tells cop he saw a shooter at the depository
>Cops enter, question employees, account for who is missing
>Get description of Oswald, relay it to dispatch, who relays it to everyone
>All this happens in just 15 minutes
Nobody is that efficient, especially not some Average Joe patrolman
>>30080997
>He was murdered because he didn't want America to go into Vietnam.
Bullshit. He had Ziem killed so it would be easier to get involved in vietnam.
>>30081873
How do you know?
What are you comparing it to?
What study or personal experience do you have that allows you to know that it is wrong?
Common sense tells us a lot of things that upon closer examination are shown to be incorrect.
>>30081830
Google Warren Commision.
There. Evidence.
You can say you dont like it, or that you think its wrong, but under your own admission, you have only your imagination to support your position.
>>30081872
Are you stupid too? Or just pretending?
>>30081893
>The Warren Commission
THAT IS LITERALLY THE EVIDENCE AGAINST YOU
>>30081884
Ziem? Was he some tripfag that pissed Kennedy off?
>>30081900
Im saying that Oswald acted alone.
The Warren Commission supports that.
>>30081918
So the ATF pays you for trolling us with official government nonsense too?
God damn, our tax money at work.
>>30081933
More lack of evidence from you.
Again. You can not like my evidence. But at least its there.
You have nothing.
At all.
>>30081918
Sorry. I don't even know what we're argueing about anymore.
All I know is that I turned a thread to shit by picking an arguement with some edgy minded 14 year old
>>30081283
Papa kennedy was a notorious gangster who was in bed with the bew deal democrats. He helped johnny and bobby both buy their first elections and get johnny in the white house.
>>30081933
Why dont you tell us what a peaceful man JFK was again? You got BTFO on that one and havent said shit about it since.
>>30079606
>No, LBJ didn't order him bumped off.
CIA is shitposting today.
>>30081946
You're Warren commission is shit.
Why did Oswald scream "I'm a Patsy", never seen anyone do that before.
Why did Ruby kill him if nothing to hide?
I'll tell you why Fox Mulder, the truth is out there but your eyes aren't open.
>>30081968
We are arguing that you are claiming that you know what happened while admitting to having absoloutly no evidence to support your opinion.
I said that I have evidence that supports my opinion.
So your counter is "that evidence doesnt count".
>>30081973
I've said things since. You're just a newfag and can't follow along.
And that shit was weak, no BTFO.
>>30081982
Ok. Thank you for the critique of the evidence supplied.
You may now provide your evidence so that it may under go the same.
Ill wait for you. >>30081982
>>30081991
Dude. Oppenheimer blew you the fuck out.
And you had no response.
Link your response to Oppens post.
>>30081999
I said Interesting. I'm the guy who replied to him. It's no surprise.
I'm a peaceful man. Peaceful men still go to war. Doesn't mean any war for any reason.
>>30081989
But that's not me
>>30082014
Peaceful men do not try to find a way to drop thermonuclear weapons on a nation like Cuba.
Your idea that JFK was peaceful is not supported by this simple fact.
>>30082018
Well then you are a fucking idiot.
>>30082037
But I was argueing that it's not some grand conspiracy
I don't even know what we're argueing against anymore
>>30079720
No, he wasn't.
Why has thr education system failed us?
>>30082031
>Civil rights
>Space program
>Asking Americans to be patriotic
He was pretty civil. I punched a crippled kid in the 6th grade because he was getting froggy. Am I going to hell?
That's all JFK did was trying to punch a cripple. PLUS PLUS I think Oppenheimer is wrong. We fucking took the Pacific an Island at a time, we could take Cuba without nukes easy.
I'm sure it was retaliation if soviets put nukes in Cuba.
>>30082060
>PLUS I think Oppenheimer is wrong.
Moron detected.
>>30082060
>We fucking took the Pacific an Island at a time, we could take Cuba without nukes easy.
How many of those Pacific islands had Soviet made nuclear weapons on them?
>>30082093
He's not infallible.
>>30082106
That's what I'm saying. Wed only nuke Cuba in response to nuclear threat.
Reading comprehension gentleman.
>>30082111
And you are basing your opinion that he is incorrect on your own vast knowledge of nuclear policy?
>>30082135
See
>>30082125
Even Oppenheimer goofed and I like him.
Someone said "peaceful men wouldn't nuke Cuba".
Then I said only in response to nuclear threat
Then he said "durr but they had nukes" (yeah I know why I said it)
Then you show up "I suck trip dick. Nu-uh I'm a big boy"
Get fucked.
>>30082125
You are ignoring the fact that he started development of a policy designed to make it easier to use nuclear weapons.
He wanted to drop nuclear weapons on Cuba. Bottom line.
If he had is way, we would have willingly done it, even though history bears out that it would not have been needed.
You can call Kennedy a lot of things. Peaceful is not one of those things. He was a Cold Warrior back when that meant something.
Put in another way, JFK and Curtis LeMay had more in common than not when it came to nuclear war.
Would you say that LeMay was a peaceful man?
>>30082160
>Then I said only in response to nuclear threat
Are you intentionally missing the point of what I have been saying, or do I need to make myself more clear?
>>30082160
And he BTFO of you again! >>30082164
Lol. Love it.
>>30081635
yes, he was found not guilty.
the jury held up their fists in the black power sign, and the prosecution was grossly incompetent.
There's no conspiracy theory, just what happened.
>>30081650
well yes. because you can quantify the number of assumptions and compare them. "simple" is subjective and relative, and you could make the argument that ANY explanation is "simple"
>>30081900
lol I love how conspiracy theorists do this. They will cite the official reports and studies done on the incident as evidence supporting them, even though the reports conclusion contradicts them.
>>30081982
Why do you think Oswald said that? Do you think he didn't shoot Kennedy? Because we've already explained how it's pretty damn obvious and supported by the evidence that Oswald shot Kennedy.
>>30082164
>>30082174
Take a critique when it applies.
So Kennedy was just going to start nuking everybody?
First: I doubt that
Second: Cultural Relativism. It was a different time and they knew less than we do now.
>>30082188
>Evidence
Ok
>>30082203
what the hell are you trying to say you illiterate fuck
What did I say that you want evidence for???
>>30082200
Kennedy wanted to have more freedom to use nuclear weapons.
This was unusual at the time. He would fit in more with policy makers today.
Would you call LeMay peaceful?
>>30081907
President of s. Vietnam who was trying to diplomatically ease tensions with the north.
>>30080074
Spot on. Also worth considering is the fact that we have proof that the KGB started some of these conspiracy theories themselves in the wake of the assassination, in order to sow doubt and distrust in the government among the American populace.
>>30080322
Yes. What isn't implausible is that the people in power used the tragedy to their own ends. But letting it happen? That's a step too far.
The problem was that the FBI and the CIA, who both had hints that SOMETHING was about to go down, were behaving like squabbling children and refused to collaborate with one another.
Had they actually worked together...well, it's unlikely that the outcome could have been changed significantly. We probably couldn't have stopped the attack, but at least it wouldn't have been for lack of trying.
>>30082732
>I don't believe in conspiracy theories
>Gives KGB conspiracy people
Show yourself LIZARD PEOPLE!
>>30081212
Not the anon you replied to, but I've read the book he was talking about. My first reaction to that story was amusement.
I mean, the LAPD was a top tier department back in the day, but the Secret Service is, well, the Secret Service. It's like, you're a federal agency tasked with protecting the most powerful man on Earth, and you're being outclassed by a municipal PD?
So, when these recent scandals came to light, I wasn't terribly surprised. I hope these boys can get their act together.
>>30081297
See
>>30079690
They didn't do something as simple as a preliminary security sweep, didn't think to check rooftops along the presidents route, didn't think to station agents atop those roofs, and didn't take the advice of anothet agency that ended up doing their job better than they did.
>>30081377
Burden of proof dumbass. You're the only one making yourself out to be stupid here.
Jackie Kennedy wouldn't remove her bloodstained dress for LBJ's swearing into office.
> " I wanted them to see what they did to John "
Regardless of the ballistics and who the shooter was you have to admit that there are very bizarre circumstances to the murder of JFK. Isn't it odd that Oswald was shot soon after capture by a man with Mafia connections? Add to the fact that JFK had made enemies in government (Federal Reserve and not wanting to escalate in Vietnam) and the fact that Oswald had a odd history (Former Marine moved to USSR and then moved back) and well some things seem off.
>>30083241
it's "odd" that Oswald was shot afterwards, but there ARE explanations for it, and there's never been anything solid proving any kind of conspiracy about it.
JFK was not some anti-Vietnam-War activist. He signed off on papers and reports about starting the war.
and Oswald's history isn't "odd", it fits the profile of a guy who was a crazy communist who decided to shoot a US president.
>>30081464
Hey, Oppenheimer, as a soon to be submarine officer, I always love your contributions to threads.
>>30083327
What are the explanations behinds Oswald getting shot? Was there a history of him being obsessed with Jackie O?
I think there isn't any reason to doubt that there was a single shooter. It's far from difficult. Did that shooter have outside motives? Perhaps.
>>30083639
well, Ruby claimed that he was really pissed about the assassination, and didn't want Jackie Kennedy to go through the pain of a trial.
That's the official line anyways.
It's a little sketchy, but there's been never anything solid proving otherwise
>>30079629
It's funny that most JFK conspiracy theorist focus mostly on how JFK was killed rather than the why and the what happened after he died. All the focus on ballistics and grassy knolls reminds me of how 9/11 truthers talk about jet fuel not melting steel beams and microthermite rather than the more provable facts like think tanks like the New American Century advocating for Pax Americana after a "new Pearl Harbor", the repeated ignored warnings and the fact members of the Bin Ladin family were allowed to leave the country so soon after the attack.
>>30083754
well, that's the thing. Nobody ever said that the government wasn't corrupt, or involved in shady business, or takes advantage of events like that to further an agenda.
But to literally be as retarded as to say that the planes fired missiles just before impact? Or claim that no plane hit the pentagon even while being shown dozens of photos of plane debris from the pentagon, or of course the famous "jet fuel can't melt steel beams"? That shit is just retarded.
>>30081369
>YFW Kennedy was killed to prevent WWIII.
>>30083838
My point is people disregard conspiracies because either by design or by accident theorist get too caught up in the minutiae of how they happened. You can chalk that up to obsessive people being retarded or to counter intel but it seems to happen often.
>>30083936
I think it's because it's a certain kind of person who believes in conspiracy theories. If you're prone to believing in conspiracy theories, chances are you will believe in more and more of them.
It's not that it's legitimately a conspiracy and the people just get caught up in the minutiae, it's that the kind of people who are prone to believing in vast shadowy conspiracies to kill the President will also be prone to believing that there were secret russian cuban CIA mafia snipers who were in the grassy knoll and that Kennedy was shot from different angles and that LBJ was behind it etc etc.
>>30083987
What's upsetting is that a lot of these events do have "official stories" that should be questioned. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground with conspiracies. Most people either believe the official story released or they believe everything is false when maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle.
>>30081120
He was Attorney General
>>30080074
wew lad you chat shite
>>30080684
Their is a lot of idiots or shills out tonight, this is clearly a conspiracy to kill kennedy. You only have to look at the political situation at the time and the kennedys father made shit loads during prohibition, read the book" i heard you paint houses" hints at mafia involvement in the bay of pigs and the kennedy assasination.
>>30079659
>Too many people refuse to accept that a pro-communist could do something wrong.
The problem was that him being killed right after just reeked of him being set up then killed to remove any links to the "secret masterminds"
Problem with that is that just means jack ruby is the link to them instead of the shooter.
>>30079578
3 shooters. Only two fired.
>>30082060
You too? I did the same thing!
>>30088727
Wrong. There were four shooters. None fired.
>>30081477
That's actually what happened--see Red Dwarf for details.
>>30081499
FEMA camps, yes, but chemtrails believers tend to be rabid environmentalists.
>>30079578
It was LHO but he was hired by General Dynamics.
>>30083838
The "no plane hit the Pentagon" really irks me--not only are there pictures of jet engine parts on the grass (the plane hit a little short and then bounced into the building), but there were many witnesses on the freeway who watched it fly overhead and crash into the building.
