JFK assassination and the CIA
- Thread starter curious
- Start date
-
- Tags
- assassination cia jfk thread
I still wonder why Ruby shot Oswald? Found this entertaining answer in WikiAnswers :
By the way, why do you think Ruby shot Oswald?
Last edited:
I don't think that there needed to be anything special for it. Ruby was a mob-boy wannabe and decided to take his 15 minutes of fame. He was absolutely certain that they wouldn't arrest him for it (and said numerous things to that effect).
This is way off topic but I just had to share it with someone. I saw the picture of his assassination (in the car with the open top?) and realized... that that was who the Comedian killed in Watchmen! I didn't understand that part of the movie, and then bam, I saw the pic in my psych text, and now I get it.
Yeah. I personally liked the reference. Didn't actually happen in the book. He just cracked a joke about doing it "Don't ask me where I was when JFK was shot *laughter*".
I have not seen the movie ... yet .... however, do you think (since we are in a conspiracy forum) that there may be such organization in the United States anyway, and could have been involved in the shooting of Kennedy, and other such-like assassinations and financial disasters?
Read the book first. Watchmen is best in book form.
I don't think that anything like that exists. The reason is pretty simple. Conspiracies haven't succeeded in the past. Just look at the examples we have. Someone pointed out the Triumvirate in Rome at another forum. They did a grand scheme for power and ultimately were at each others throats the whole time...killing each other off at the end (with Caesar only having power for a month or so before being stabbed too death).
Things haven't changed in social workings. Look at Watergate. A true government conspiracy with a fairly small group of people. One still came forward when he got mad at Nixon. This marks just about every conspiracy. Out of every 12 people, there is one guy who will turn traitor out of guilt, anger, lust for power, etc.
That's just how it works. There's also no real evidence for any conspiracy. It is usually just an attempt to make things "make sense." JFK couldn't have been killed by some nut with a cheap rifle. 19 Arabs couldn't take out the WTC. We couldn't have really landed on the moon. It's just people who want things to be more complicated and "cool."
I don't think that anything like that exists. The reason is pretty simple. Conspiracies haven't succeeded in the past. Just look at the examples we have. Someone pointed out the Triumvirate in Rome at another forum. They did a grand scheme for power and ultimately were at each others throats the whole time...killing each other off at the end (with Caesar only having power for a month or so before being stabbed too death).
Things haven't changed in social workings. Look at Watergate. A true government conspiracy with a fairly small group of people. One still came forward when he got mad at Nixon. This marks just about every conspiracy. Out of every 12 people, there is one guy who will turn traitor out of guilt, anger, lust for power, etc.
That's just how it works. There's also no real evidence for any conspiracy. It is usually just an attempt to make things "make sense." JFK couldn't have been killed by some nut with a cheap rifle. 19 Arabs couldn't take out the WTC. We couldn't have really landed on the moon. It's just people who want things to be more complicated and "cool."
How would you compare this with the El Qaeda type cells? And their ability to keep things confidential? They did pretty well with the September 11 2001 attacks.
They were small groups with a clear command structure. Each cell had a leader. Fanatical devotion also helps hold people together.
The key point is also that there wasn't much of a conspiracy. What they did wasn't conceptually harder than a large bank robbery. They hijacked some airplanes and crashed them into buildings. It's only a conspiracy because it happened to feature a group of people. There is a marked difference between that and anything that's been proposed for JFK conspiracy theories.
The key point is also that there wasn't much of a conspiracy. What they did wasn't conceptually harder than a large bank robbery. They hijacked some airplanes and crashed them into buildings. It's only a conspiracy because it happened to feature a group of people. There is a marked difference between that and anything that's been proposed for JFK conspiracy theories.
If there were a conspiracy, possibly the JFK one survived confidentiality. It never got revealed. Same with the TWA crash in Long Island:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/twa.html . Almost certain that that was an accident, and it has been successfully covered up.
The thing is...where is the evidence? Stop and think about all of the things that you are hand waving away by saying that they just kept it secret.
How could they have done it? Who? Why? Why in this manner?
In the end, just think about it. Is there any reason that some guy with a grudge couldn't get a rifle and shoot the president from that area? Occam's razor pretty much guides you the rest of the way.
How could they have done it? Who? Why? Why in this manner?
In the end, just think about it. Is there any reason that some guy with a grudge couldn't get a rifle and shoot the president from that area? Occam's razor pretty much guides you the rest of the way.
The big hole in the common JFK assasination conspiracy theories is that they are so complex. The general theory is that the CIA, FBI, Lyndon Johnson, and the military plotted this. Well, as we learned after 9/11, the CIA and the FBI did not and have never talked to each other or shared anything. The military hates them both. And Lyndon Johnson was a political manipulator who gloried in his abilty to get things done by controlling people. No way they all got together.
The only thing I ever thought was credible is that the Mafie did it. Some mob boss said they did. The theory is that Joseph Kennedy Sr. promised the mob that if they deliverd Chicago, the administration would go light on them. The President and the Attorney General didn't feel bound by this, since they hadn't been party to the agreement and went after the mob with a vengeance. The mob did it? That I can believe.
The only thing I ever thought was credible is that the Mafie did it. Some mob boss said they did. The theory is that Joseph Kennedy Sr. promised the mob that if they deliverd Chicago, the administration would go light on them. The President and the Attorney General didn't feel bound by this, since they hadn't been party to the agreement and went after the mob with a vengeance. The mob did it? That I can believe.
This is a good one. More plausible for sure. How about his womanizing? Perhaps he ruffled some feathers in this too?
I'll actually give a nod to the mafia theory. It's simple and quite possible. That would also explain the cover up, since we wouldn't want the people to know that the mafia had gotten that powerful.
There's also some links to the CIA using mafia contacts to try and kill Castro, so that's another point.
It just doesn't explain Oswald's behavior that well. The only real support is that Ruby shot him. It also didn't real seem like a mafia hit. Sniping just didn't seem to be their style and Oswald was a pretty bad guy to pick as your assassin.
There's also some links to the CIA using mafia contacts to try and kill Castro, so that's another point.
It just doesn't explain Oswald's behavior that well. The only real support is that Ruby shot him. It also didn't real seem like a mafia hit. Sniping just didn't seem to be their style and Oswald was a pretty bad guy to pick as your assassin.
Ah, but in jail you have socialized medicine, provided by the state!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
I actually think Oswald and Ruby both acted alone. Occam's razor.
Well, the most obvious, was to kill him.I still wonder why Ruby shot Oswald? Found this entertaining answer in WikiAnswers :
By the way, why do you think Ruby shot Oswald?
lol.....
He must have been seriously depraved to have done it so publicly though. Almost like a form of one upmanship?Similar threads
