Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Who killed JFK?

124

Comments

  • Nice and topical, only took place nearly 49 years ago. What next for a discussion on CL, did Princip really murder Archduke Ferdinand to set off the First World War? Where are the photos and the forensic?:-)

    Got something better to discuss?
    They may well do by now, bearing in mind that was said 6 years ago.
  • Thanks SD - I'd forgotten some of that. I read the 2 books that JFK was based on soon after the film came out & also Oswald Talked by Norman Mailer. As you say, the assassination theoridys fall into 2 camps & the conspiracy one dies have its share of nutters. There is a photo taken around the time of the shooting of a man that looks suspiciously like Bush outside the School Book Depository & its convenient now that he has got a bit "forgetful" in his old age. Definitely the reason why a shed load of documents where held back on the latest release of classified stuff. The Oswald "double" is interesting as there is certainly a lot of info showing 2 men of v simialar likeness being in 2 places at once in 62 & 63. The man arrested that day imo is the real Oswald but maybe not the same man who went to Russia or was in Mexico months before the shooting.
  • Isn't the film JFK just a load of fabricated shite?
  • Brexit voters killed JFK. You know the ones that are now, thankfully, dead and whose vote should count for nothing as they were nothing but moronic racists that have taken away the entire futures of millenials. The b*stards.

    Early fishing trip...
  • Nice and topical, only took place nearly 49 years ago. What next for a discussion on CL, did Princip really murder Archduke Ferdinand to set off the First World War? Where are the photos and the forensic?:-)

    Got something better to discuss?
    They may well do by now, bearing in mind that was said 6 years ago.
    Bugger!
  • Brexit voters killed JFK. You know the ones that are now, thankfully, dead and whose vote should count for nothing as they were nothing but moronic racists that have taken away the entire futures of millenials. The b*stards.

    Early fishing trip...
    That and also the ability to laugh both at myself, any topic and as well as others :wink:
  • Isn't the film JFK just a load of fabricated shite?

    er, No.

    One thing the film did is to show that the public were lied to & mis-informed by the US Government from day 1. The Zapruder film, that captures the fatal head shot, was not shown to the public for around 15 years and any reference to it (especially from Time magazine that bought the rights from Zapruder) actually reversed the frame to show JFK's head moving forward & not back to support the claim that the shot came from behind.

    I admit that there are a few bits on the film that are there for dramatic effect but essentially 95% of it is accurate & gave more details of what lead up to the assassination than had ever been made public before.
  • Look, I was nowhere near the book depository store.
  • edited February 6
    For anyone interested in conspiracy theories one of the best docs I've seen on one is the Channel 5 Documentary: Did We Land On The Moon? (2013).

    I've always thought we did, but after watching that, and some of the facts that are presented (which if you follow up are true) it really casts a shadow onto it.

    Well worth a watch and definitely worth a discussion on another thread.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Isn't the film JFK just a load of fabricated shite?

    er, No.

    One thing the film did is to show that the public were lied to & mis-informed by the US Government from day 1. The Zapruder film, that captures the fatal head shot, was not shown to the public for around 15 years and any reference to it (especially from Time magazine that bought the rights from Zapruder) actually reversed the frame to show JFK's head moving forward & not back to support the claim that the shot came from behind.

    I admit that there are a few bits on the film that are there for dramatic effect but essentially 95% of it is accurate & gave more details of what lead up to the assassination than had ever been made public before.
    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/apr/28/jfk-oliver-stone-john-f-kennedy
  • Every time I see this thread I keep thinking it says who killled JFC for a split second. Makes me shit myself and think the battle for a midfield starting spot with Kashi and Aribo is more serious than first thought
  • Isn't the film JFK just a load of fabricated shite?

    er, No.

    One thing the film did is to show that the public were lied to & mis-informed by the US Government from day 1. The Zapruder film, that captures the fatal head shot, was not shown to the public for around 15 years and any reference to it (especially from Time magazine that bought the rights from Zapruder) actually reversed the frame to show JFK's head moving forward & not back to support the claim that the shot came from behind.

    I admit that there are a few bits on the film that are there for dramatic effect but essentially 95% of it is accurate & gave more details of what lead up to the assassination than had ever been made public before.
    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/apr/28/jfk-oliver-stone-john-f-kennedy
    All you need for a conspiracy theory is a theory, a willing audience and no real evidence.
    Sometimes the truth is a little too bland for some to believe.
    I myself love a good story, like Hollywood makes so well, but they seldom tell the whole truth and they do love a bit of artistic licence.
  • Riviera said:

    Riviera said:

    Wasn't Oswald. There is no way the gun recovered and linked to him could have fired off three rounds so quickly.

    Could it have been Roland?
    Gift or Orzabal?
    Both were alive at the time.
    Definitely Gift. That 'Johnny We're Sorry' song was actually the killer's lament.
  • Isn't the film JFK just a load of fabricated shite?

    er, No.

    One thing the film did is to show that the public were lied to & mis-informed by the US Government from day 1. The Zapruder film, that captures the fatal head shot, was not shown to the public for around 15 years and any reference to it (especially from Time magazine that bought the rights from Zapruder) actually reversed the frame to show JFK's head moving forward & not back to support the claim that the shot came from behind.

    I admit that there are a few bits on the film that are there for dramatic effect but essentially 95% of it is accurate & gave more details of what lead up to the assassination than had ever been made public before.
    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/apr/28/jfk-oliver-stone-john-f-kennedy
    All you need for a conspiracy theory is a theory, a willing audience and no real evidence.
    Sometimes the truth is a little too bland for some to believe.
    I myself love a good story, like Hollywood makes so well, but they seldom tell the whole truth and they do love a bit of artistic licence.
    What about the Takeover Theory?
  • Isn't the film JFK just a load of fabricated shite?

    er, No.

    One thing the film did is to show that the public were lied to & mis-informed by the US Government from day 1. The Zapruder film, that captures the fatal head shot, was not shown to the public for around 15 years and any reference to it (especially from Time magazine that bought the rights from Zapruder) actually reversed the frame to show JFK's head moving forward & not back to support the claim that the shot came from behind.

    I admit that there are a few bits on the film that are there for dramatic effect but essentially 95% of it is accurate & gave more details of what lead up to the assassination than had ever been made public before.
    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/apr/28/jfk-oliver-stone-john-f-kennedy
    All you need for a conspiracy theory is a theory, a willing audience and no real evidence.
    Sometimes the truth is a little too bland for some to believe.
    I myself love a good story, like Hollywood makes so well, but they seldom tell the whole truth and they do love a bit of artistic licence.
    The film is mainly based on 2 books & whilst I agree that there has been some poetic licence made in the film (remember, its a hollywood blockbuster, not a documentary) the vast majority is based on truth. The main points is raises have been debated for years & which there are still no real answers;

    1- There were supposedly only 3 shots (3 shell cases found) but there was known to be at least 4 bullets fired (and possibly 6)

    2 - The time between the 1st shot & the 3rd was about 6 seconds, but the gun found could not be fired that accurately in that time

    3 - the fatal head shot makes JFK's head jerk backwards - the laws of physics means that the shot had to come from in front (unless Isaac Newton is wrong)

    Then you have the issue of Oswald defecting to Russia & then going back to the US a couple of years later without any problems - the fact that he was previously in the army & stationed at a secret army base in Japan.
  • edited February 6

    Isn't the film JFK just a load of fabricated shite?

    er, No.

    One thing the film did is to show that the public were lied to & mis-informed by the US Government from day 1. The Zapruder film, that captures the fatal head shot, was not shown to the public for around 15 years and any reference to it (especially from Time magazine that bought the rights from Zapruder) actually reversed the frame to show JFK's head moving forward & not back to support the claim that the shot came from behind.

    I admit that there are a few bits on the film that are there for dramatic effect but essentially 95% of it is accurate & gave more details of what lead up to the assassination than had ever been made public before.
    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/apr/28/jfk-oliver-stone-john-f-kennedy
    All you need for a conspiracy theory is a theory, a willing audience and no real evidence.
    Sometimes the truth is a little too bland for some to believe.
    I myself love a good story, like Hollywood makes so well, but they seldom tell the whole truth and they do love a bit of artistic licence.
    The film is mainly based on 2 books & whilst I agree that there has been some poetic licence made in the film (remember, its a hollywood blockbuster, not a documentary) the vast majority is based on truth. The main points is raises have been debated for years & which there are still no real answers;

    1- There were supposedly only 3 shots (3 shell cases found) but there was known to be at least 4 bullets fired (and possibly 6)

    2 - The time between the 1st shot & the 3rd was about 6 seconds, but the gun found could not be fired that accurately in that time

    3 - the fatal head shot makes JFK's head jerk backwards - the laws of physics means that the shot had to come from in front (unless Isaac Newton is wrong)

    Then you have the issue of Oswald defecting to Russia & then going back to the US a couple of years later without any problems - the fact that he was previously in the army & stationed at a secret army base in Japan.
    Re 3.
    A hit with a hand to the head makes the head go forward as the energy stops with the hit. But a bullet goes into the skull and the energy travels around the bowl and blows back the head. Bit like if you have two doors on a cupboard and shut one, the 2nd door opens a bit as the air inside the cupboard is pushed back out by the extra air being pushed in by door 1.

    Someone must be able to describe what I am trying to say simpler/ better
  • Think the Russians might have had something to say if it was faked.....
  • The biggest conspiracy theory of all is how the fuck someone convinced Daisy and Roland they knew anything about running a football club!
  • Sponsored links:


  • MrOneLung said:

    Isn't the film JFK just a load of fabricated shite?

    er, No.

    One thing the film did is to show that the public were lied to & mis-informed by the US Government from day 1. The Zapruder film, that captures the fatal head shot, was not shown to the public for around 15 years and any reference to it (especially from Time magazine that bought the rights from Zapruder) actually reversed the frame to show JFK's head moving forward & not back to support the claim that the shot came from behind.

    I admit that there are a few bits on the film that are there for dramatic effect but essentially 95% of it is accurate & gave more details of what lead up to the assassination than had ever been made public before.
    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/apr/28/jfk-oliver-stone-john-f-kennedy
    All you need for a conspiracy theory is a theory, a willing audience and no real evidence.
    Sometimes the truth is a little too bland for some to believe.
    I myself love a good story, like Hollywood makes so well, but they seldom tell the whole truth and they do love a bit of artistic licence.
    The film is mainly based on 2 books & whilst I agree that there has been some poetic licence made in the film (remember, its a hollywood blockbuster, not a documentary) the vast majority is based on truth. The main points is raises have been debated for years & which there are still no real answers;

    1- There were supposedly only 3 shots (3 shell cases found) but there was known to be at least 4 bullets fired (and possibly 6)

    2 - The time between the 1st shot & the 3rd was about 6 seconds, but the gun found could not be fired that accurately in that time

    3 - the fatal head shot makes JFK's head jerk backwards - the laws of physics means that the shot had to come from in front (unless Isaac Newton is wrong)

    Then you have the issue of Oswald defecting to Russia & then going back to the US a couple of years later without any problems - the fact that he was previously in the army & stationed at a secret army base in Japan.
    Re 3.
    A hit with a hand to the head makes the head go forward as the energy stops with the hit. But a bullet goes into the skull and the energy travels around the bowl and blows back the head. Bit like if you have two doors on a cupboard and shut one, the 2nd door opens a bit as the air inside the cupboard is pushed back out by the extra air being pushed in by door 1.

    Someone must be able to describe what I am trying to say simpler/ better
    You may be an airhead but I'm sure JFK wasn't

    btw who do you work for - the CIA ???
  • Was it CARD?
  • T_C_E said:

    Was it CARD?

    They considered it however they went after Eddie the Eagle.
  • For anyone interested in conspiracy theories one of the best docs I've seen on one is the Channel 5 Documentary: Did We Land On The Moon? (2013).

    I've always thought we did, but after watching that, and some of the facts that are presented (which if you follow up are true) it really casts a shadow onto it.

    Well worth a watch and definitely worth a discussion on another thread.

    Freudian slip?

  • edited February 6

    Isn't the film JFK just a load of fabricated shite?

    er, No.

    One thing the film did is to show that the public were lied to & mis-informed by the US Government from day 1. The Zapruder film, that captures the fatal head shot, was not shown to the public for around 15 years and any reference to it (especially from Time magazine that bought the rights from Zapruder) actually reversed the frame to show JFK's head moving forward & not back to support the claim that the shot came from behind.

    I admit that there are a few bits on the film that are there for dramatic effect but essentially 95% of it is accurate & gave more details of what lead up to the assassination than had ever been made public before.
    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/apr/28/jfk-oliver-stone-john-f-kennedy
    All you need for a conspiracy theory is a theory, a willing audience and no real evidence.
    Sometimes the truth is a little too bland for some to believe.
    I myself love a good story, like Hollywood makes so well, but they seldom tell the whole truth and they do love a bit of artistic licence.
    I personally really like conspiracy theories, at least the more harmless ones. I think of it as modern-day myth making, and in some you can absolutely find some excellent storytelling. But that's not to say I believe in any, with the exception of the JFK assassination.

    I think it's worth noting that the last official US Government verdict came from the HSCA, part of the Church Committee investigation (Congress' look into the CIA after Watergate), and they ruled the killing a conspiracy (with four shots fired). Now, the acoustics evidence they used as one of their primary points is shaky, and it would be way down the list of evidence I would cite, but I do think it's worth noting.

    For me, literally every element of the crime can and has been intelligently rebutted by smart people. From the balistics and the gun (Dallas PD originally found a Remington, it was later changed to a Mannlicher–Carcano), to the autopsy, to narratives about Oswald, to eye witness testimony of both the Dealey Plaza and Tippit shootings, to the crime scene in Dealey Plaza, to the Warren Commission, through to the Garrison investigation and any number of confessions later in life, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that supports conspiracy and cover-up.

    There are absolutely nut jobs, as I mentioned Roger Stone is a prominent figure in some circles, Jim Fetzer, a "Sandy Hook Truther" of the Alex Jones variety is another. But there are also a lot of smart, sober, otherwise successful people, academics and journalists, who have devoted a large amount of time to investigating this. I wish I had one good jumping off point, one over-arching documentary or book I could point you to, but it's hard given there are so many aspects to this crime.

    I would not use the film JFK as anything other than historical fiction. There are things in that film that are based on real people, but again, historical fiction. I do enjoy it, but I've also seen it enough and know enough to know what's like based on...something, a theory of something, and what's, shall we say, "movie magic." I know Oliver Stone has said some really dumb things about it down the years. As with everything in life, ignore the things Oliver Stone says. Joe Pesci is absolutely brilliant as David Ferrie. Gary Oldman, who is a scumbag in real life, is really good as Oswald. Kevin Costner doesn't ruin the movie, which is the best thing you can ever say about Kevin Costner in a film (see also: Thirteen Days). As golfie points out, that movie brings up arguments that have legitimacy to them, but they are made in other places better by better people not working under on a fictional story.
  • edited February 7
    I know it's a little simplistic to say, but finding the culprit for any "political" act is usually best served by asking, who stands to gain?
    I have no particular theory about the JFK assassination and I suspect the shear volume of disinformation down the years means that the truth will forever be "lost".
    But for every theory put forward I am forever intrigued by the question who stands to gain.
    1. What would the CIA stand to gain from the public execution of their President?
    2. What would the mob stand to gain?
    3. What would the Russians stand to gain?
    4. What would Lee Harvey Oswald stand to gain if indeed he was acting alone and not a patsy for one of the above?
    5. What on earth, apart from the Presidency, would LBJ stand to gain?
    6. Who else might stand to gain?
    And if there is no compelling argument that any vested interest stands to gain then does that not support the theory of a lone nut job?
  • Its not always about what to gain but more about revenge

    1. for bay of pigs
    2. looking into their activities
    3. Nothing. They were blamed to tie Oswald into it
    4. As above
    5. As you say, the presidency.
  • edited February 7

    I know it's a little simplistic to say, but finding the culprit for any "political" act is usually best served by asking, who stands to gain?
    I have no particular theory about the JFK assassination and I suspect the shear volume of disinformation down the years means that the truth will forever be "lost".
    But for every theory put forward I am forever intrigued by the question who stands to gain.
    1. What would the CIA stand to gain from the public execution of their President?
    2. What would the mob stand to gain?
    3. What would the Russians stand to gain?
    4. What would Lee Harvey Oswald stand to gain if indeed he was acting alone and not a patsy for one of the above?
    5. What on earth, apart from the Presidency, would LBJ stand to gain?
    6. Who else might stand to gain?
    And if there is no compelling argument that any vested interest stands to gain then does that not support the theory of a lone butt job?

    Fixed it for you.
  • For anyone interested in conspiracy theories one of the best docs I've seen on one is the Channel 5 Documentary: Did We Land On The Moon? (2013).

    I've always thought we did, but after watching that, and some of the facts that are presented (which if you follow up are true) it really casts a shadow onto it.

    Well worth a watch and definitely worth a discussion on another thread.

    I see what you did there.
  • Isn't the film JFK just a load of fabricated shite?

    I think he crams in every conspiracy theory going. Personally I think it's all bollocks and Oswald did it. And all the other conspiracy theories are bullshit too, like 9-11 and the moon landing, in my opinion. It's got to the point where every time there is a major event, like the Westminster and London Bridge incidents, someone will go on social media saying it's fake news.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!