Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Who killed Kennedy


Timur
 Share

Who was the mastermind of the assassination?  

15 members have voted

  1. 1. Who do you think is most likely to be the mastermind of the assassination?

    • Lee Harvey Oswald
    • CIA
    • LBJ
    • George H. W. Bush
      0
    • Aliens
      0
    • Secret Service
      0
    • FBI
      0
    • The Illuminati/Rockefellers/NWO etc.
      0
    • The Vatican
      0
    • Israel
      0
    • Military Industrial Complex
      0
    • Cuban Exiles
      0
    • Fidel Castro
      0
    • Soviet Union
      0
    • Federal Reserve
      0
    • Texas Oil Businessmen
      0
    • The Mafia
    • General Edwin Walker
      0
    • Joe DiMaggio
      0
    • Other/Please Specify
    • Kennedy obviously killed himself
      0


Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Timur said:

This year in November, the remaining Kennedy documents are expected to be released. Who do you think is likely to be the mastermind behind Kennedy's assassination.

I think it was Oswald. Wouldn't mind if others were involved too, but not many if there were, otherwise there'd be more leaks. 

I once met someone that worked on the House Committee of Assassinations, which operated independently of the Warren Commission. He was a young aid or something, so wasn't a major investigator. He and some other guy that was involved (the other guy was more involved but wasn't majorly involved) both thought that actor Woody Haralson's father killed JFK and was hired to do so. They weren't clear on who they thought hired him. He said they both of them were run off the road by officials more than once for their independent thinking. I couldn't tell if the guy was crazy or not. He seemed calm. He sold guns from his car though, which seemed a little illegal. He gave me a free bullet--the type that killed JFK. Other than this story he was an extremely long-winded and boring conversationalist who liked to talk about Wyoming for what seemed like hours. He was really hard to disengage from because he was nice and had few breaks in conversation. One of my friends got stuck in conversation with him, and finally got free to get a refill of coffee, and said to the barista, "Right now I'm having a conversation more unengaging than death." The conspiracy theorist stayed in San Marcos TX, where this coffee shop was located and where I lived at the time, for about two or three months. Then he disappeared. I remember his name was Ron. This was c. 2007,  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I think it was Oswald. Wouldn't mind if others were involved too, but not many if there were, otherwise there'd be more leaks. 

I once met someone that worked on the House Committee of Assassinations, which operated independently of the Warren Commission. He was a young aid or something, so wasn't a major investigator. He and some other guy that was involved (the other guy was more involved but wasn't majorly involved) both thought that actor Woody Haralson's father killed JFK and was hired to do so. They weren't clear on who they thought hired him. He said they both of them were run off the road by officials more than once for their independent thinking. I couldn't tell if the guy was crazy or not. He seemed calm. He sold guns from his car though, which seemed a little illegal. He gave me a free bullet--the type that killed JFK. Other than this story he was an extremely long-winded and boring conversationalist who liked to talk about Wyoming for what seemed like hours. He was really hard to disengage from because he was nice and had few breaks in conversation. One of my friends got stuck in conversation with him, and finally got free to get a refill of coffee, and said to the barista, "Right now I'm having a conversation more unengaging than death." The conspiracy theorist stayed in San Marcos TX, where this coffee shop was located and where I lived at the time, for about two or three months. Then he disappeared. I remember his name was Ron. This was c. 2007,  

We need a book of vcczar's true short stories

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, themiddlepolitical said:

We need a book of vcczar's true short stories

I've thought about writing one. I've met so many weird people and had so many weird stories from just one coffee shops that I went to every day for hours for several years. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I've thought about writing one. I've met so many weird people and had so many weird stories from just one coffee shops that I went to every day for hours for several years. 

Going to college which I'm still in I thought I would meet the most interesting people in bars-nope, it has been the local coffee shops as well. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, themiddlepolitical said:

Going to college which I'm still in I thought I would meet the most interesting people in bars-nope, it has been the local coffee shops as well. 

Yeah, bars seem to attract people with little or no personality, which is why they have to go to bars. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Phone Company killed Kennedy because he was trying to break them up.  They tried to kill Reagan too for the same reason, but he survived and their monopoly was busted.  That's what opened the door for cell phones.  The technology had been around for decades but Ma Bell buried it until the early 80's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, vcczar said:

I think it was Oswald. Wouldn't mind if others were involved too, but not many if there were, otherwise there'd be more leaks. 

I once met someone that worked on the House Committee of Assassinations, which operated independently of the Warren Commission. He was a young aid or something, so wasn't a major investigator. He and some other guy that was involved (the other guy was more involved but wasn't majorly involved) both thought that actor Woody Haralson's father killed JFK and was hired to do so. They weren't clear on who they thought hired him. He said they both of them were run off the road by officials more than once for their independent thinking. I couldn't tell if the guy was crazy or not. He seemed calm. He sold guns from his car though, which seemed a little illegal. He gave me a free bullet--the type that killed JFK. Other than this story he was an extremely long-winded and boring conversationalist who liked to talk about Wyoming for what seemed like hours. He was really hard to disengage from because he was nice and had few breaks in conversation. One of my friends got stuck in conversation with him, and finally got free to get a refill of coffee, and said to the barista, "Right now I'm having a conversation more unengaging than death." The conspiracy theorist stayed in San Marcos TX, where this coffee shop was located and where I lived at the time, for about two or three months. Then he disappeared. I remember his name was Ron. This was c. 2007,  

Dude's selling guns out of the trunk of his car, doesn't know how to have a normal conversation, and claims he of all people somehow reached the point in his career where he was working on the House Committee on Assassinations?  And he, alone, figured out who really killed him?  I'm not sure whether "run off the road" means someone was literally trying to kill them or if they were just told to stop going down the wrong path -- but either way, after all of this, he's also super calm about it?

I mean, that's definitely just a crazy dude.  Haha.

But Woody Harrelson's father is one of the more fun theories, at least.  Daddy Harrelson even confessed to the police during a standoff (He was an actual hitman who killed a judge, amongst others), but his "confession" was investigated and dismissed as nonsense.  Part of the rumor/confession regarding Harrelson hinged on him being one of the three "tramps" arrested on the grassy knoll.  But their names were released publicly years later, and confirmed by the former tramps themselves, and Harrelson wasn't one of them.  Harrelson recanted his confession and said he personally believed the mafia had done it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Mafia had a hand in it at least. Kennedy had all kinds of connections, and the Mafia inarguably handed him the election in Illinois. In return they wanted access to the White House, Kennedy didn't give it to them, so they took him out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

You sometimes have the habit of judging people's competences and insight by their superficial demeanour, like just here. I'm not saying this guy has a point or not, because I don't know (and neither do you), but this sort of flawed judgementalism has popped up in as an oversight and character flaw of yours before.

So you'd still be open minded about a dude selling cocaine or something from the back of his car telling you stories about who killed JFK? 

Give me a break. 😂

In all seriousness though I think the mafia had a role in JFKs death. Oswald was the killer. I dont buy into the other ludicrous conspiracy theories. Umbrella man, black dress ladies, all of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Patine said:

What's so funny, @MrPotatoTed? Once again, a statement I have made that has gotten an inappropriate or inexplicable laugh emote by you, @Pringles, or occasionally one or two, is not a statement with any mirth attached, nor is any at all called for? So, tell me, are you trolling and being an ass (in which case, just stop - it's highly unbecoming), or are you trying to make yourself out to be a new Batman villain or coming unhinged, in which case you should promptly arrange an appointment with a psychiatrist. But you're current conduct, and that of @Pringlesreally needs to end, as you two have become the biggest sources of active disharmony and discord on this forum - not me. Now grow up! I mean this. This emote shit has gotten old a while ago. Now knock it off!

I won't speak for Pringles, but I'm happy to at least explain my own use of the emote.  Usually, it's that I'm literally laughing at what I perceive to be an overly ridiculous thing that you've said.  For example, above, you are defending someone where literally the only thing we know about them is they SELL GUNS from their CAR.  This is the noble cause you've taken up, which from my perspective, is just you trying to argue with me for the sake of arguing with me.  It's clearly something you enjoy doing, and so I won't take that away from you.  But sometimes I'm laughing at the ridiculousness of it.  And honestly, I'm allowed to laugh at you, just like you're allowed to make insane characterizations of me, and we're both just going to keep doing that and it's going to be okay.

Now, back to the topic of JFK's assassination, I think I generally agree with Stephen King's version as presented in 11/22/63 (one of my favorite books).  Basically, that it was Oswald working alone, but that he also was in fact a bit of a patsy.  I believe he was a bit off his rocker, whether by nature or nurture or both, and became desperate for the approval of people he admired.  He did manage to gain access to some of these people, and some of them saw him as an unwitting source of entertainment.  They'd play along with him, work him up, prod him along...hell, maybe they were claiming to secretly be CIA or FBI or mafia or working on behalf of Johnson or Cuban expats or Russia or who knows what else, just to mess with him and play along with his rants.  But eventually this escalated into them at least saying something ought to be done about Kennedy, and Oswald interpreted this to mean the CIA/FBI/Mafia/Johnson/Cuba/Russia/whatever was asking him to execute Kennedy -- even though in reality these individuals never imagined he'd actually do it.

A tragic case all around, including for Oswald himself.

 

Edited by MrPotatoTed
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patine said:

You've got my point the wrong way around. I was pointing out that the only thing we know about the person is not sufficient to make a snap judgement on their whole profile and say, with resumed certainty, that we know for certain his entire credibility and any merit and truth to his story based on one, "snapshot of character," if you will. As I said, he probably wasn't selling guns out of his as a way of making a living all his life, nor living at that income bracket all his life, especially if he had earlier been an employee of Federal Government committee. I also SPECIFICALLY said, myself, didn't know the truth of his story or point, but pointed out that NEITHER did you nor @Pringles - but that it was the two of you presumptuously proclaiming the truth or lack thereof to this guy's story, when you two know jack, to be honest. It is NOT this particular person I'm defending, specifically, but warning against presumptuous dismissals of credibility of statement (or, in other cases, believing it at face value, in fact) just because of such a, "snapshot of character," of the one speaking it, alone. Do you understand, now?

Out of curiosity who do you think killed Kennedy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I won't speak for Pringles, but I'm happy to at least explain my own use of the emote.  Usually, it's that I'm literally laughing at what I perceive to be an overly ridiculous thing that you've said.  For example, above, you are defending someone where literally the only thing we know about them is they SELL GUNS from their CAR.  This is the noble cause you've taken up, which from my perspective, is just you trying to argue with me for the sake of arguing with me.  It's clearly something you enjoy doing, and so I won't take that away from you.  But sometimes I'm laughing at the ridiculousness of it.  And honestly, I'm allowed to laugh at you, just like you're allowed to make insane characterizations of me, and we're both just going to keep doing that and it's going to be okay.

Now, back to the topic of JFK's assassination, I think I generally agree with Stephen King's version as presented in 11/22/63 (one of my favorite books).  Basically, that it was Oswald working alone, but that he also was in fact a bit of a patsy.  I believe he was a bit off his rocker, whether by nature or nurture or both, and became desperate for the approval of people he admired.  He did manage to gain access to some of these people, and some of them saw him as an unwitting source of entertainment.  They'd play along with him, work him up, prod him along...hell, maybe they were claiming to secretly be CIA or FBI or mafia or working on behalf of Johnson or Cuban expats or Russia or who knows what else, just to mess with him and play along with his rants.  But eventually this escalated into them at least saying something ought to be done about Kennedy, and Oswald interpreted this to mean the CIA/FBI/Mafia/Johnson/Cuba/Russia/whatever was asking him to execute Kennedy -- even though in reality these individuals never imagined he'd actually do it.

A tragic case all around, including for Oswald himself.

 

Thank you for not speaking for me, but you ended up doing so anyways! 🙂

Whenever I laugh or use the confused emote. It is because of the reasons you stated, and ridiculousness of whatever I'm reading, OR it's me facetiously making my opposition to your argument noted because I dont feel like writing a book back and forth all day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

Given some of the things you use those emotes on, you must have a very sheltered view of reality where many of the very serious issues, flaws, and failings out there are not only, "ridiculous," to you, but obviously beyond the Pale. Time to wake up from your LSD-laced dreams and face the grey, dreary morning that needs to taken serious, of which many of it's flaws and faults, and needed solutions to tackle them, may not be compatible with your dream reality, and SEEM ridiculous - but are VERY real, need addressing, and are in fact tearing damned world, whether YOU take find credible or not! But your inappropriate, gallows humour approach when such things are brought up only marks you as PART OF THE PROBLEM! Now, I ask again, VERY FIRMLY, cut the fucking guerilla emote warfare! You and @MrPotatoTed's reasoning does nothing to make it seem any less of a juvenile, trolling tactic!

You really need to calm your shit man. I'm surprised you've made it this far with your inability to handle others and their criticism. You can bash the duopoly all day yet get offended when someone calls you a boomer.

Everyone else does this here and only you whine about it like a 2 year old.

Go use your aunts credit card on some book for anger management. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Patine said:

Given some of the things you use those emotes on, you must have a very sheltered view of reality where many of the very serious issues, flaws, and failings out there are not only, "ridiculous," to you, but obviously beyond the Pale. Time to wake up from your LSD-laced dreams and face the grey, dreary morning that needs to taken serious, of which many of it's flaws and faults, and needed solutions to tackle them, may not be compatible with your dream reality, and SEEM ridiculous - but are VERY real, need addressing, and are in fact tearing damned world, whether YOU take find credible or not! But your inappropriate, gallows humour approach when such things are brought up only marks you as PART OF THE PROBLEM! Now, I ask again, VERY FIRMLY, cut the fucking guerilla emote warfare! You and @MrPotatoTed's reasoning does nothing to make it seem any less of a juvenile, trolling tactic!

Look...you're overreacting.  And that's fine, you're allowed to overreact.  I just think it would be better for your health to not overreact.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Patine said:

 

Alright, here's the litmus test on, "ridiculous," posts. Any rational, reasonable, sensible, sane person with any social skills and who got out at all would agree, if they thought about it a while, that assuming an entire person's credibility and any truth to any of their stories whatsoever based on a mere, "snapshot of character," that is obviously a falling on hard times, and not a dedicated lifestyle, would be, "ridiculous." By criticizing such a shallow and vapid way of thinking and viewing people would not be viewed as, "ridiculous," by said rational, reasonable, sensible, sane person with any social skills and who got out at all. So, if your laugh emotes are supposedly to call out, "ridiculous," posts, why were they obviously applied to the wrong post - that is, mine and not @MrPotatoTed's? And I hope the answer to this one is a good answer.

Who are you asking?  Pringles didn't react with a laughing emote to a single post you've put in this thread so far.  I did, but why would I react to my own post with laughter?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

I'm not, "bitching." I'm making genuine, legitimate gripes and grievances - and all three of you are providing the actual and real material my complaints - genuine complaints - are based on. You've become a real trouble-maker and troll here, @Pringles, and you've become damned self-righteous about it.

Seems like bitching to me. And funny how no one else seems to have a problem with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Patine said:

I'm not, "bitching." I'm making genuine, legitimate gripes and grievances - and all three of you are providing the actual and real material my complaints - genuine complaints - are based on. You've become a real trouble-maker and troll here, @Pringles, and you've become damned self-righteous about it.

Here's a real world fact I would've expected an expert in social science to know. Sometimes, people don't give a shit about your gripes. This is a political forum, I listen to everyone's views with respect, or at least I try to. When it comes to bitching though, I really couldn't care less about your feelings getting hurt over an emoji, and the word, boomer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing how well my phone company joke went ever, I guess I should try a serious answer...

John F Kennedy died of old age in the late 1990's.  The NSA shot him but he survived.  However, seeing his own intelligence agencies try to kill him convinced him he couldn't be an effective president and live so he went into hiding after faking his death from the shooting.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...