...or it could be the job of one nutter butter.Turquoise wrote:
The most coherent theory I've heard is that he pissed off some anti-Castro Cubans who helped coordinate the failed Gulf of Tonkin incident.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Why did they kill JFK anyway
The official story is that Lee Harvey Oswald did it, because he was just crazy.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
I'm not saying that the government killed him. I'm just saying that whoever did kill him, what was the motive?Is that the real reason?Turquoise wrote:
The most coherent theory I've heard is that he pissed off some anti-Castro Cubans who helped coordinate the failed Gulf of Tonkin incident.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Why did they kill JFK anyway
cubans and gulf of tonkin?Turquoise wrote:
The most coherent theory I've heard is that he pissed off some anti-Castro Cubans who helped coordinate the failed Gulf of Tonkin incident.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Why did they kill JFK anyway
not bay of pigs maybe?
Excuse me... I don't know how I mixed those up... lolGod Save the Queen wrote:
cubans and gulf of tonkin?Turquoise wrote:
The most coherent theory I've heard is that he pissed off some anti-Castro Cubans who helped coordinate the failed Gulf of Tonkin incident.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Why did they kill JFK anyway
not bay of pigs maybe?
...since the Gulf of Tonkin might have something to do with of of those "Imperialist, expansionist" violent military sing-alongs in Asia.God Save the Queen wrote:
cubans and gulf of tonkin?Turquoise wrote:
The most coherent theory I've heard is that he pissed off some anti-Castro Cubans who helped coordinate the failed Gulf of Tonkin incident.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Why did they kill JFK anyway
not bay of pigs maybe?
On the weekend of [September 8-9, 2001], there was a “power down” condition in . . . the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approximately 36 hours from floor 50 up. . . . The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded . . . . Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors [while] many, many “engineers” [were] coming in and out of the tower.[58]
From here
The source for that statement: [58]Forbes’ statement is posted at www.apfn.org/apfn/patriotic.htm.
I guess that link doesn't work, here's the site though http://www.apfn.org/apfn/.
Here's what Forbes said if you want to take a look:
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/182624/893932
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12/sc … rview.html
From here
The source for that statement: [58]Forbes’ statement is posted at www.apfn.org/apfn/patriotic.htm.
I guess that link doesn't work, here's the site though http://www.apfn.org/apfn/.
Here's what Forbes said if you want to take a look:
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/182624/893932
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12/sc … rview.html
Last edited by CommieChipmunk (2008-07-17 19:19:22)
by several thousand milesTurquoise wrote:
Excuse me... I don't know how I mixed those up... lolGod Save the Queen wrote:
cubans and gulf of tonkin?Turquoise wrote:
The most coherent theory I've heard is that he pissed off some anti-Castro Cubans who helped coordinate the failed Gulf of Tonkin incident.
not bay of pigs maybe?
Dang. And beat me to it AGAIN!Turquoise wrote:
Excuse me... I don't know how I mixed those up... lolGod Save the Queen wrote:
cubans and gulf of tonkin?Turquoise wrote:
The most coherent theory I've heard is that he pissed off some anti-Castro Cubans who helped coordinate the failed Gulf of Tonkin incident.
not bay of pigs maybe?
lol, I was thinking what Vietnam had to do with any of that, but I don't know much about things in that time of history so I just shut up
No shit you're getting so many theories coming out, that's weakTurquoise wrote:
The official story is that Lee Harvey Oswald did it, because he was just crazy.
Details, details...God Save the Queen wrote:
by several thousand milesTurquoise wrote:
Excuse me... I don't know how I mixed those up... lolGod Save the Queen wrote:
cubans and gulf of tonkin?
not bay of pigs maybe?
Yeah, I would suspect it had a lot to do with Cuba, not Vietnam. But then again, maybe it was just Oswald and maybe Jack Ruby (the guy who killed Oswald).Mek-Stizzle wrote:
lol, I was thinking what Vietnam had to do with any of that, but I don't know much about things in that time of history so I just shut upNo shit you're getting so many theories coming out, that's weakTurquoise wrote:
The official story is that Lee Harvey Oswald did it, because he was just crazy.
We'll probably never know....
oliver stone says that it was the military industrial complex orchestrating CIA to use their connections with the italian mob. the italian mob had connections with pre castro cubans and through that, had connections with marxist and anti marxist groups and organizations. kennedy was supposedly going to stop the escalation of military forces in asia, the military industrial conglomerate didnt like that. the mob was mad at kennedy for his administration's sweeps of organized crime after they felt they had an important role in kennedy getting elected.
i know enough about conspiracies to know that the people who believe em arent the sharpest knives in the drawer.
i know enough about conspiracies to know that the people who believe em arent the sharpest knives in the drawer.
The Ruby thing always made me wonder though. To have one guy kill the president and then that guy gets killed by some other guy... that's just too much of a coincidence. I know the Dallas P.D. was pretty sloppy back then, but damn...God Save the Queen wrote:
oliver stone says that it was the military industrial complex orchestrating CIA to use their connections with the italian mob. the italian mob had connections with pre castro cubans and through that, had connections with marxist and anti marxist groups and organizations. kennedy was supposedly going to stop the escalation of military forces in asia, the military industrial conglomerate didnt like that. the mob was mad at kennedy for his administration's sweeps of organized crime after they felt they had an important role in kennedy getting elected.
i know enough about conspiracies to know that the people who believe em arent the sharpest knives in the drawer.
But again, if any conspiracy did actually occur, we'll never know. It doesn't really matter. And honestly, I don't think it matters with 9/11 either, because if that was a conspiracy, it was REALLY done well.
I believe I requested OBJECTIVE evidence, which none of them are. Nope, not a one. YOU are proposing the theory, therefore YOU must be the one to bring the source. I am not going to look for it. Come on, do you mean to tell me that a never-before closing of the largest office building in the United States does not even merit a three line blurb in the NYT?CommieChipmunk wrote:
On the weekend of [September 8-9, 2001], there was a “power down” condition in . . . the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approximately 36 hours from floor 50 up. . . . The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded . . . . Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors [while] many, many “engineers” [were] coming in and out of the tower.[58]
From here
The source for that statement: [58]Forbes’ statement is posted at www.apfn.org/apfn/patriotic.htm.
I guess that link doesn't work, here's the site though http://www.apfn.org/apfn/.
Here's what Forbes said if you want to take a look:
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/182624/893932
Also, engineers moving around during an upgrade of the power system. If such an upgrade was taking place, would engineers be needed? I am thinking yes, unless you have figures out how to make a building upgrade itself. If you have, you may be able to make a lot of money.
[rant]You WANT it to be true (along with all of these other people, so do not feel I am singling you out, but youare here, and they are not), you want to be a person who shows the light to someone else, to feel you hold special knowledge, to feel just that little bit better about yourself "because they can't pull the wool over your eyes." It has become a religion to those like you; more of a cult, actually. No matter what someone brings to you, you will dismiss it. You will hold onto your mis-interpreted and out of context facts like lifelines, depending on them to show you the truth in the face of cold hard reality. You want there to have been something massive wrong with the world that would let or cause something like this to happen, because you can't face the fact that sometimes, things like this really do happen. 1-in-a-billion odds really do payout sometimes. Every single 'fact' you present can be refuted scientifically, put down to coincidence or misquotes or being taken out of context. To that, you can only reply "I just can't believe that..." "there is no way that..." "you can't tell me that..." and then go on with your own assumptions as if you can change the laws of physics through sheer belief and a constant will to ignore any evidence you disagree with. [/rant]
Disclaimer: sorry if it seems I directed that at you personally. Obviously I do not know you, but used 'you' as a generic term to refer to anyone who tends to believe in a similar fashion that you do. There, was that PC enough?
It's now easy to figure out who really hated JFK. There were recodings and documents released a few years ago under the freedom of information act. The CIA was encouraging him to take on the Soviets. There were some tools who actually wanted an all out war.. He didn't bite and they loathed him for that. I gained even more respect for Kennedy after seeing the way he dealt with those officials. I'll see if I can find them.Turquoise wrote:
The most coherent theory I've heard is that he pissed off some anti-Castro Cubans who helped coordinate the failed Bay of Pigs incident.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Why did they kill JFK anyway
EDIT: oops
Xbone Stormsurgezz
And this is why it could have never been done by our government.Turquoise wrote:
because if that was a conspiracy, it was REALLY done well.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Really? So you think maybe the hawks of the military industrial complex really did kill him? It wouldn't surprise me if Stone was vaguely near the truth.Kmarion wrote:
It's now easy to figure out who really hated JFK. There were recodings and documents released a few years ago under the freedom of information act. The CIA was encouraging him to take on the Soviets. There were some tools who actually wanted an all out war.. He didn't bite and they loathed him for that. I gained even more respect for Kennedy after seeing the way he dealt with those officials. I'll see if I can find them.Turquoise wrote:
The most coherent theory I've heard is that he pissed off some anti-Castro Cubans who helped coordinate the failed Bay of Pigs incident.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Why did they kill JFK anyway
EDIT: oops
Here is a plausible explanation of Ruby. Just my own take on it. I heard once, somewhere, that Ruby knew Oswald somehow. Now, for the sake of argument assume that was true, and the Ruby and Oswald met; not friends, but enough to know each others face and name. Now, as Ruby, you see your beloved President shot, and by someone you know. Could you, in a fit of rage, go to the station and manage to shoot Oswald out of revenge for killing the guy you voted for and admired?Turquoise wrote:
The Ruby thing always made me wonder though. To have one guy kill the president and then that guy gets killed by some other guy... that's just too much of a coincidence. I know the Dallas P.D. was pretty sloppy back then, but damn...God Save the Queen wrote:
oliver stone says that it was the military industrial complex orchestrating CIA to use their connections with the italian mob. the italian mob had connections with pre castro cubans and through that, had connections with marxist and anti marxist groups and organizations. kennedy was supposedly going to stop the escalation of military forces in asia, the military industrial conglomerate didnt like that. the mob was mad at kennedy for his administration's sweeps of organized crime after they felt they had an important role in kennedy getting elected.
i know enough about conspiracies to know that the people who believe em arent the sharpest knives in the drawer.
But again, if any conspiracy did actually occur, we'll never know. It doesn't really matter. And honestly, I don't think it matters with 9/11 either, because if that was a conspiracy, it was REALLY done well.
As to the DPD, the Secret Service did not manage to prevent Reagan from getting shot. Do you think that the Dallas PD was more able or motivated to keep Oswald alive?
Fair points, but I'd always heard that Ruby really didn't care for JFK.imortal wrote:
Here is a plausible explanation of Ruby. Just my own take on it. I heard once, somewhere, that Ruby knew Oswald somehow. Now, for the sake of argument assume that was true, and the Ruby and Oswald met; not friends, but enough to know each others face and name. Now, as Ruby, you see your beloved President shot, and by someone you know. Could you, in a fit of rage, go to the station and manage to shoot Oswald out of revenge for killing the guy you voted for and admired?
As to the DPD, the Secret Service did not manage to prevent Reagan from getting shot. Do you think that the Dallas PD was more able or motivated to keep Oswald alive?
I think ruby's stated reason for killing oswald was that he wanted to spare the first lady of the horrors of a trial
I'm not saying they did, but they certainly had the motivation. That's not enough tbh.Turquoise wrote:
Really? So you think maybe the hawks of the military industrial complex really did kill him? It wouldn't surprise me if Stone was vaguely near the truth.Kmarion wrote:
It's now easy to figure out who really hated JFK. There were recodings and documents released a few years ago under the freedom of information act. The CIA was encouraging him to take on the Soviets. There were some tools who actually wanted an all out war.. He didn't bite and they loathed him for that. I gained even more respect for Kennedy after seeing the way he dealt with those officials. I'll see if I can find them.Turquoise wrote:
The most coherent theory I've heard is that he pissed off some anti-Castro Cubans who helped coordinate the failed Bay of Pigs incident.
EDIT: oops
Xbone Stormsurgezz
That works too, and doesn't clash with the scenario I presented, just tweaked it a bit. Granted, I just pulled mine from my brain with no eveidence one way or another. See how easy this is?God Save the Queen wrote:
I think ruby's stated reason for killing oswald was that he wanted to spare the first lady of the horrors of a trial
You're not going to look for it? Great, because the government and media will obviously hand you the evidence.
Pt 1
Pt 2
Everything he says makes sense, seeing that he's an engineer from MIT... butI'm guessing that an MIT engineer isn't objective enough for anyone here.
I'm still looking for an article from anywhere, but I don't see why people would make up the power down. Did you read or watch the interviews with Scott Forbes that I posted?
I don't want it to be true, I just don't want to trust everything the government says either. It's really dangerous to have a society that never questions its government, especially a government with the track record this one has.
Pt 1
Pt 2
Everything he says makes sense, seeing that he's an engineer from MIT... butI'm guessing that an MIT engineer isn't objective enough for anyone here.
I'm still looking for an article from anywhere, but I don't see why people would make up the power down. Did you read or watch the interviews with Scott Forbes that I posted?
I don't want it to be true, I just don't want to trust everything the government says either. It's really dangerous to have a society that never questions its government, especially a government with the track record this one has.
I know what you're saying, and I've done some research on this. I'll give these a look, because I'm not a big fan of government in general, but I'm a skeptic by nature. I go with the simplest explanation first, and then I move on according to what has the most convincing evidence.
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-07-17 19:46:07)
Here's your simplest explanation: