57 years: Does it matter how we remember 11-22-63?

[Joffrey van de Wiel]

You're absolutely right, Jerry....... The government lies , and their propaganda agency regurgitates the lie and invents convincing information to convince the suckers that the governments tale is the truth.

Last week I watched a BBC documentary about a 'third rate burglary' in other words the Watergate Affair. The British excel in these types of programs, in a way they still "rule the waves" I suppose.

It showed how a high-level conspiracy worked and was organized. In this case, the President expressed his desire to develop a political intelligence capability after leaks of classified information to the press. His wish was sent down the White House hierarchy through Haldeman and Ehrlichman, at a point people who had experience in covert operations like Hunt and Liddy got involved, who in turn hired the Cubans to execute the burglary and install the wire tapping devices.

Not sure if something like this happened in the JFK assassination, as spying on the opposing political party and enemies of the state is a whole different ballgame than the murder of a US president. And just look how quickly the Watergate cover-up collapsed.

[Christer Jacobsson]

Conclusions reached by the HSCA: "The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy." "It is probable that more than one person was involved in the President's murder. That fact compels acceptance and it demands a re-examination of all that was thought to be true".

The many obvious similarities between the JFK assassination and the reasons which forced president Nixon to resign are explained in this presentation:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5iA_dEf5Ds

Best Rgds,
Christer

[Jon Banks]

Last week I watched a BBC documentary about a 'third rate burglary' in other words the Watergate Affair. The British excel in these types of programs, in a way they still "rule the waves" I suppose.

It showed how a high-level conspiracy worked and was organized. In this case, the President expressed his desire to develop a political intelligence capability after leaks of classified information to the press. His wish was sent down the White House hierarchy through Haldeman and Ehrlichman, at a point people who had experience in covert operations like Hunt and Liddy got involved, who in turn hired the Cubans to execute the burglary and install the wire tapping devices.

Not sure if something like this happened in the JFK assassination, as spying on the opposing political party and enemies of the state is a whole different ballgame than the murder of a US president. And just look how quickly the Watergate cover-up collapsed.

Obviously a conspiracy isn’t successful if participants get caught and prosecuted.

Iran Contra is another conspiracy that was exposed by someone getting caught.

But there are lots of other conspiracies that have been successfully executed in the sense that we don’t know specifically who did what or there’s not enough evidence to connect the dots to any potential suspects.

This occurs frequently with organized crime conspiracies but also in covert operations.

Organized crime organizations and Intelligence operatives are capable of successfully planning and executing conspiracies. They do it often.

[Jerry Freeman]

Obviously a conspiracy isn’t successful if participants get caught and prosecuted.

No...a murder conspiracy is successful if their their victim is dead.
 The Lincoln conspiracy as well as the Kennedy [assuming it was a conspiracy]

[Walt Cakebread]

No...a murder conspiracy is successful if their their victim is dead.
 The Lincoln conspiracy as well as the Kennedy [assuming it was a conspiracy]

a murder conspiracy is successful if their their victim is dead.

The conspiracy is successful.... If they can successfully blame some hapless individual for their deed......

[Jon Banks]

No...a murder conspiracy is successful if their their victim is dead.
 The Lincoln conspiracy as well as the Kennedy [assuming it was a conspiracy]

From the standpoint of the perpetrators, it's not successful if they get caught.

But I guess, you're right that achieving the main objective (if it's murdering someone) makes the conspiracy at least partly successful.

[Andrew Mason]

Does it matter how Americans interpret the events that occurred on November 22, 1963?

I believe it was a conspiracy and one of the greatest crimes of the 20th century.

I’m not the type of person who typically believes in Conspiracy Theories but I think there’s enough smoke or inconsistencies in the Kennedy assassination evidence for people to reasonably speculate that there were others involved.

I don’t think we’ll ever reach the point where most people agree on what happened that fateful day in Dallas.

Does it matter whether someone believes Oswald acted alone or whether someone believes there was a conspiracy?

There are credible arguments for both ends of the spectrum and we’ll never know beyond all doubt what really happened or why it happened...

At a time when truth is hard to find and major news services promulgate "deep state" conspiracies and fraudulent elections with absolutely no evidence, it would be refreshing to find someone point out things based on actual documented evidence:
1. there is abundant evidence that Oswald shot JFK, Governor Connally, and officer Tippitt
2. that the evidence surrounding the shooting of Oswald by Ruby shows that Ruby by coincidence encountered Oswald being transferred 2 hours later than scheduled and that no evidence of any connection between the two exists;
3. that  no evidence of a second shooter in Dealey Plaza has ever been found.
4. that the HSCA conclusion that there was a fourth shot from the grassy knoll based on acoustic evidence has been debunked by science and at least 150 witnesses.
5. the lack of any consistent theory let alone evidence that anyone put Oswald up to carrying out the killings.

[Jon Banks]

At a time when truth is hard to find and major news services promulgate "deep state" conspiracies and fraudulent elections with absolutely no evidence, it would be refreshing to find someone point out things based on actual documented evidence:
1. there is abundant evidence that Oswald shot JFK, Governor Connally, and officer Tippitt
2. that the evidence surrounding the shooting of Oswald by Ruby shows that Ruby by coincidence encountered Oswald being transferred 2 hours later than scheduled and that no evidence of any connection between the two exists;
3. that  no evidence of a second shooter in Dealey Plaza has ever been found.
4. that the HSCA conclusion that there was a fourth shot from the grassy knoll based on acoustic evidence has been debunked by science and at least 150 witnesses.
5. the lack of any consistent theory let alone evidence that anyone put Oswald up to carrying out the killings.

1 - It's not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald fired a rifle on 11/22/63 or was even on the 6th floor at the time JFK was shot.

2 - Ruby was affiliated with the Mob. The Mob hated the Kennedys. Ruby owed debts at the time of the JFK assassination.

3 - There's not enough evidence to rule out multiple shooters and the physical evidence is flawed. Several books have been written detailing the problems with the evidence.

4 - The HSCA's bullet analysis linking all the Dealey Plaza bullet's to Oswald's rifle has been debunked too.

5 - Even among those who think Oswald acted alone, there's no consensus on Oswald's motive. No proof that he opposed or even disliked JFK.


There's plenty of smoke but no smoking gun...