babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » How would you evaluate Lyndon B. Johnson?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: How would you evaluate Lyndon B. Johnson?
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 16 June 2007 09:42 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In the thread on Zimbabwe, Ken Burch and I veered on a tangent, and he posted this:

Ken Burch wrote:

quote:
LBJ was great on civil rights. He gave up on the War on Poverty as soon as he started it, though, leaving all the right-wing attacks unchallenged. This was the real reason the U.S. presidential turned against social programs, not that "they failed", since they were never really given a chance and they were too underfunded and limited to succeed.
And not only did LBJ refuse to listen to reason on Vietnam, he refused to go public with the proof he had, in the last weeks of the 1968 campaign, that the Nixon campaign had interfered with the Paris Peace Talks in order to make sure there wouldn't be a peace settlement before the election. In my view, Johnson did this because he wanted to make sure that the Democrats lost the White House as punishment for dumping him.

So yes, good on civil rights, but otherwise a bully and a coward and a loser. The man had too many limitations he couldn't overcome, and he was too scarred by the 50's Red Scare to avoid escalating a war that was solely about proving Democrats WEREN'T "Soft on Communism".


And I very much disagree.

He did what John F. Kennedy could not do. One of the few things he did as VP (he was bored in that job) was to organize NASA, and NASA proved very successful that decade.

quote:
When, in April 1961, the Soviets beat the U.S. with the first manned spaceflight Kennedy tasked Johnson with coming up with a 'scientific bonanza' that would prove world leadership. Johnson knew that Project Apollo and an enlarged NASA were feasible, so he steered the recommendation towards a program for landing an American on the moon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_johnson#_note-11

He knew the senators, and was a southerner. That helped him with the political capital he needed to implement these profound changes. He had one good negotiating skill, the treatment, lol:

quote:
The Treatment could last ten minutes or four hours. It came, enveloping its target, at the LBJ Ranch swimming pool, in one of LBJ's offices, in the Senate cloakroom, on the floor of the Senate itself—wherever Johnson might find a fellow Senator within his reach.
Its tone could be supplication, accusation, cajolery, exuberance, scorn, tears, complaint and the hint of threat. It was all of these together. It ran the gamut of human emotions. Its velocity was breathtaking, and it was all in one direction. Interjections from the target were rare. Johnson anticipated them before they could be spoken. He moved in close, his face a scant millimeter from his target, his eyes widening and narrowing, his eyebrows rising and falling. From his pockets poured clippings, memos, statistics. Mimicry, humor, and the genius of analogy made The Treatment an almost hypnotic experience and rendered the target stunned and helpless.

Rowland Evans and Robert Novak. Lyndon B. Johnson: The Exercise of Power (1966), p. 104

Tidbit: Thurgood Marshall was the first African American appointed to the supreme court.

There was the Civil Rights act and the Voting rights act.

He beat Barry Goldwater in the 1964 election, the man who was the first doctrinaire conservative of the modern political era.

quote:
Great Society
The Great Society program became Johnson's agenda for Congress in January 1965: aid to education, attack on disease, Medicare, urban renewal, beautification, conservation, development of depressed regions, a wide-scale fight against poverty, control and prevention of crime, and removal of obstacles to the right to vote. Congress, at times augmenting or amending, enacted many of Johnson's recommendations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_johnson#Great_Society

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 was the first time large amounts of money went to public schools.

I would not blame it on Johnson that Nixon won the election in 1968. Johnson didn't run due to bad health (he died in 1973). He also wanted to focus 100% on the war effort rather than on an election campaign. He was never as happy in the white house as he was in the senate.

Sources:

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_johnson
2) Lyndon: An Oral Biography by Merle Miller


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 16 June 2007 10:58 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And if I'm not mistaken, I think the Soviets were the first to put an unmanned satellite around the moon as well?. Sputnik really shook them up on this side of the pond. Because the devastation of two world wars and a civil war was thought to have put Russia so far behind that they wouldn't recover in the last century.

Here's an interesting tidbit for JFK conspiracy theorists: E. Howard Hunt gives death bed confession to son about who killed JFK Rolling Stone Magazine


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 16 June 2007 11:02 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I stand by what I said, with elaborations.

On civil rights, LBJ became a hero. I respect him for this, since it would have been incredibly difficult for him to make that choice knowing, as he did, that ending segregation would drive the South into Republican hands for decades to come(it was during the 60's that the GOP stopped, for all time, being "the Party of Lincoln" and instead became the "Party of The Confederacy".)

On the War on Poverty, Johnson started some great programs, but, despite his legislative skill, displayed failure of nerve at some crucial times. He gave up, very early on, trying to do anything serious to end poverty in Appalachia, because he was afraid of pissing off big campaign contributors in the area who depended on keeping Appalachia dirt poor to maintain their economic dominance.

Johnson also made the key blunder of telling the American people that poverty could be wiped out almost instantly. This set up expectations the antipoverty programs could never possibly live up to. When the backlash came, Johnson did little to speak out in defense of those programs in public debate.

Johnson's other mistakes were to appease organized labor by refusing to start any meaningful and effective job training programs in the inner cities, or to do anything at all to try to stop the crime of "redlining", in which banks and insurers refused to provide their services in inner city areas, thus guaranteeing that those areas became and remained economic "dead zones", and his decision to fund highway construction projects that facilitated the development of the suburbs and exurbs, a factor that contributed heavily to the "white flight" problem that has helped create a bitter and long-lasting divide between urban and non-urban Americans.

I do hold Johnson largely responsible for Nixon's narrow victory in 1968, a victory that drove politics in my country over to the side of ugliness. After Johnson was forced out of the race, he pressured his vice president, Hubert Humphrey, to not only enter the race but to run as an arrogant and all-out defender of the war. This went against Humphrey's own instincts. According to Norman Cousins, (the journalist and future editor of The Saturday Review, who was a Humphrey campaign staffer that year)Humphrey had privately turned against the war in June of '68, but Johnson wouldn't let him break with the Administration position, threatening to have his own name put into nomination if Humphrey deviated in the slightest from the pro-death line. Two weeks before the convention, Humphrey went to Johnson and BEGGED him to let him let his own delegates vote for the McCarthy/McGovern/Kennedy peace plank, but Johnson wouldn't hear of it. This guaranteed that Chicago would be a disaster. Humphrey left Chicago 13 points behind Nixon in the polls, and finally, in desperation, broke slightly with Johnson at the end of September. This break, and this break alone, was the reason that Humphrey was nearly able to close the gap by election day. Johnson also, as I mentioned in the other thread, suppressed the proof that Nixon's campaign had intervened in the Paris Peace Talks in order to make sure the war didn't end before the election. Had the voters known of this, it goes without saying that Nixon would have been beaten solidly, as everyone in the country, whether hawk or dove, would have regarded this intervention as treason.


There were only slight cuts to the Great Society programs in Nixon's first term, and I've always wondered if Johnson cut a deal with Nixon to make sure Humphrey lost in exchange for Nixon keeping the War on Poverty barely alive for four years. Nixon made massive cuts in the programs two days after being sworn in for his second term, and Johnson died of a heart attack the same day. I've always regarded that as a homicide on Nixon's part.

Lyndon Johnson was a complex character, a man who could have been remembered as the Second Lincoln if only he had let his New Deal side overrule his mindless Cold Warrior side.

[ 16 June 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 16 June 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 16 June 2007 11:17 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It was a similar result in Canada, Ken. Our conservatives convinced Trudeau that "lavish spending on social programs" was causing runaway inflation. In the end, Trudeau fell in line.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 19 June 2007 05:00 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Given the clowns that followed him, Johnson looks better and better. He was the best domestic president since FDR, and the best on civil rights since Lincoln. However, his own personal and political insecurities led him into the Vietnam quagmire. Had he more self-confidence, he could have rejected the advice he was given on escalating the war in Vietnam.

His style also became out of steps with the times. He was a wheeler-dealer insider politician at a time when people began looking for more outsider/nontraditional politicians. While he could be quite engaging and folksy in private, and on the campaign trail, he was stiff and boring on TV.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 19 June 2007 09:26 AM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:


Here's an interesting tidbit for JFK conspiracy theorists: E. Howard Hunt gives death bed confession to son about who killed JFK Rolling Stone Magazine


Interesting from the article - Hunt's son goes on about how when he saw the picture of the three "tramps" he knew without a doubt one of them was his father.

Rolling Stones Magazine, doesn't mention that it was them, in the 70's, who actually first published the story saying that Hunt and another CIA agent (Sturgis? There have been at least 8 people who conspiracy theorists have positively identified as being among the three tramps - and Sturgis has been identified by CT's as both tramp #1 and #2 even though they don't look alike - the poorest ID is Hunt who looks nothing like tramp #3.) were among the three tramps in the picture. Afterwards the magazine brought in experts who concluded that there was zero chance that either Hunt or Sturgis were in the picture. (Other experts agree, in fact I don't know of any expert who has ever said that Hunt, Sturgis or any of the others could be one of the three in that picture with the exception that tramp #3 looks similar to Fred Chrisman who was teaching class that day in Oregon with dozens of witnesses).

Hunt's son appears to be after money. Let's see the conspirators come to Hunt and tell him where and how they are going to kill Kennedy, tell Hunt the chain of command, and ask him to participate. He tells them that he will not participate, yet despite having knowledge of the conspiracy and the conspirators he lives for another 44 years, writing books - right. Then while he is dying and most of time doesn't even recognize his family, he finally gives in to his son who had him pestering him for decades to give him the inside scoop on the JFK assassination. Hunt has always denied that he knew anything about the assassination, but now he secretly gives his son the story. The son, who is a career criminal, publishes this information after Hunt dies.

The benefit of being a conspiracy theorist (as I have found out arguing with people who think that global warming is a conspiracy) is that you can take the most ridiculous argument and people will believe it.

[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 19 June 2007 02:43 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Given the clowns that followed him, Johnson looks better and better. He was the best domestic president since FDR, and the best on civil rights since Lincoln.

This is hard to swallow for someone who actually lived through the sixties.

We all agree that Vietnam was a disaster. But it was a HUGE disaster. Funding for the war eventually undercut the domestic programmes which Johnson initiated. While Johnson supported BOTH "guns and butter", the reality was that they had to be paid for through inflation, and eventual cutbacks.

Also, the war in Vietnam impacted domestic policies in other ways. One need only think of Cointelpro and its surveillance of university campuses to recognise that Johnson's support of civil rights had important limits.

Even such events as police brutality at the Chicago Convention, and police repression of the black panthers resulted from the need to prosecute the war, and the need to suppress opposition.

So, my bottom line on LBJ is still:

"Hey hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 19 June 2007 04:27 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

Hunt's son appears to be after money. Let's see the conspirators come to Hunt and tell him where and how they are going to kill Kennedy, tell Hunt the chain of command, and ask him to participate. He tells them that he will not participate, yet despite having knowledge of the conspiracy and the conspirators he lives for another 44 years, writing books - right.


I thought it was four years, not 44?. Anyway, if there were any badasses who could have been involved in a plot to assassinate JFK, it was this guy. Planning the overthrow of democratically-elected leaders, bugging political offices, and invasions of Caribbean countries were what Hunt was paid to do for a living. He lived above the law for most of his life. He was full of hatred for just about everyone. EH Hunt was pure evil.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 19 June 2007 06:35 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

I thought it was four years, not 44?. Anyway, if there were any badasses who could have been involved in a plot to assassinate JFK, it was this guy. Planning the overthrow of democratically-elected leaders, bugging political offices, and invasions of Caribbean countries were what Hunt was paid to do for a living. He lived above the law for most of his life. He was full of hatred for just about everyone. EH Hunt was pure evil.


Hunt died 4 years after secretly telling his son who was involved in the assassination, but if there was a conspiracy and Hunt had been told about it prior to it occuring than the conspirators allowed him to live with that knowledge for 44 years until he died in 2007. Given all of the people who conspiracy theorists feel were "knocked off" because of their knowledge of the conspiracy, I find it damned hard to believe that conspirators would allow Hunt to live, not with his track record.

No doubt Hunt was a very bad man. No doubt that Hunt was capable of being involved in a plot to assassinate Kennedy. However, Hunt said that the assassination involves a second gunman on the grassy knoll. That is just not believable. First of all if you are planning an assassination and don't want to evoke conspiracy theories which would increase your chances of being found out, then you wouldn't use two shooters - as that confirms a conspiracy, especially when the evidence shows that a single gunman of Oswald's skill and training can easily assassinate the president from his sniper's den on the 6th floor of the book depository (Oswald was a trained military sniper, who was excellent at rapid fire - records show that he hit targets 91% of the time while shooting rapidly so his 2/3 hits on JFK from a closer distance was actually poor shooting for him - and he was in the best position for an unimpeded shot at the president and being able to escape.) The grassy knoll was a poor spot that was wide open and in the line of vision for hundreds of people (Oswald being out of the line of vision on the sixth floor and behind the motorcade - ie people were looking towards the president and in the opposite direction of oswald - was still seen by at least a half dozen people both in the act of shooting and while setting up his position, yet no one saw a second sniper, nor does a picture show anyone despite all kinds of pictures including the grassy knoll. Similarly there is no way that a gunman could have escaped from the grassy knoll without being seen as the overpass with hundreds of people overlooked the wide open parking lot. Oh yeah, and it is a parking lot - who in their right mind would decide to set up a sniper position in a parking lot knowing that vehicles could enter and anyone could see you. Of course it is also a poor place to shoot from - there were hundreds of people who came to see Kennedy who were standing between Kennedy and the grassy knoll, plus all the medical evidence supports shots from behind (unless one believes that the body was switched). If Hunt had of said that Oswald was a lone gunman hired by a group like the CIA to assassinate Kennedy then I would say that it might have some validity, but saying that there was a second gunman is not supported by any evidence and requires a level of conspiracy far to great and complicated for any group to have agreed to and be kept secret all these years.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 20 June 2007 04:39 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

However, Hunt said that the assassination involves a second gunman on the grassy knoll. That is just not believable. First of all if you are planning an assassination and don't want to evoke conspiracy theories which would increase your chances of being found out, then you wouldn't use two shooters - as that confirms a conspiracy, especially when the evidence shows that a single gunman of Oswald's skill and training can easily assassinate the president from his sniper's den on the 6th floor of the book depository (Oswald was a trained military sniper, who was excellent at rapid fire - records show that he hit targets 91% of the time while shooting rapidly so his 2/3 hits on JFK from a closer distance was actually poor shooting for him - and he was in the best position for an unimpeded shot at the president and being able to escape.) The grassy knoll was a poor spot that was wide open and in the line of vision for hundreds of people (Oswald being out of the line of vision on the sixth floor and behind the motorcade - ie people were looking towards the president and in the opposite direction of oswald - was still seen by at least a half dozen people both in the act of shooting and while setting up his position, yet no one saw a second sniper, nor does a picture show anyone despite all kinds of pictures including the grassy knoll. Similarly there is no way that a gunman could have escaped from the grassy knoll without being seen as the overpass with hundreds of people overlooked the wide open parking lot. Oh yeah, and it is a parking lot - who in their right mind would decide to set up a sniper position in a parking lot knowing that vehicles could enter and anyone could see you. Of course it is also a poor place to shoot from - there were hundreds of people who came to see Kennedy who were standing between Kennedy and the grassy knoll, plus all the medical evidence supports shots from behind (unless one believes that the body was switched).




With all due respect, I suggest you read up a little more on the assasination. The House committee in the late 1970s established through acoustic evidence that a shot did come from the grassy knoll. Despite challenges, this conclusion has been supported by more technologically sophisticated studies as recently as last year. Witnesses saw smoke coming from the grassy knoll. Several who were in front of the knoll heard shots coming from behind them. People ran to the fence behind the knoll after the motorcade sped away only to be met by an individual with a secret service badge. However, the secret service has no record of any on their personnel being in back of the knoll. Plus, the fence was a good, secluded spot, to get off a shot.

As for the medical evidence, the doctors in Dallas viewed the throat shot as an entrance wound, but used it to insert a breathing tube, which confused the autopsy doctors. There's a lot more to the medical evidence which I don't have time to go into.

As for Oswald being a marksman, that's not supported by his military records. He was adequate at best. Real marksman who tried to get off three shots within the time agreed upon had great difficulty, and the rifle allegedly used was not the greatest.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 20 June 2007 04:43 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

This is hard to swallow for someone who actually lived through the sixties.

We all agree that Vietnam was a disaster. But it was a HUGE disaster. Funding for the war eventually undercut the domestic programmes which Johnson initiated. While Johnson supported BOTH "guns and butter", the reality was that they had to be paid for through inflation, and eventual cutbacks.

Also, the war in Vietnam impacted domestic policies in other ways. One need only think of Cointelpro and its surveillance of university campuses to recognise that Johnson's support of civil rights had important limits.

Even such events as police brutality at the Chicago Convention, and police repression of the black panthers resulted from the need to prosecute the war, and the need to suppress opposition.

So, my bottom line on LBJ is still:

"Hey hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"


I don't agree. First off, compared to Iraq, Vietnam was a legitimate war. At least there was some legal basis for it. LBJ was not unique in his inability to control the FBI, and the worst of Cointelpro came with Nixon. It's unfair to blame LBJ for Chicago; that was Richard Daley.

As someone who was young, but politically aware in the sixties, I'll take LBJ over any of his successors, Republican or Democratic.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 20 June 2007 05:01 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
josh: ... compared to Iraq, Vietnam was a legitimate war. At least there was some legal basis for it.

Lying and fraud over WMD's in Iraq versus lying and fraud over incidents in the Gulf of Tonkin - both seem like lying and fraud to me. But at least the US didn't use pathological anti-communism and "domino" theory to justify invading Iraq.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 20 June 2007 05:08 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The U.S. had an agreement to support and defend South Vietnam which, rightly or wrongly, was recognized as a separate country. Iraq was simply an invasion of another country without any basis in law, and based on fraudulent intelligence. Historians have concluded that one of the Gulf of Tonkin incidents did occur, while the other did not. In any event, even without those incidents, the war likely would have escalated. This is not to defend the U.S. intervention in Vietnam, but merely to note that it was more defensible than the Iraq invasion.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 20 June 2007 05:16 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
josh: The U.S. had an agreement to support and defend South Vietnam which, rightly or wrongly, was recognized as a separate country.

Well, if it was a separate country then perhaps you could explain why present-day Vietnam has been required, as a pre-condition of economic assistance from Bretton Woods institutions dominated by the US, to pay the debts accumulated by "South Vietnam"?


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 20 June 2007 05:24 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I would imagine because, like a corporation that takes over another corporation, it assumed the debts when the South Vietnam government went belly up.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 20 June 2007 05:47 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So the lying in regard to Iraq is more disgraceful than the lying in regard to Vietnam. But that hardly strenthens an argument that killing zillions of people in Southeast Asia is somehow more "legitimate" than killing zillions of people in Iraq. I think you're splitting hairs here.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 20 June 2007 06:16 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's not a major point. Nonetheless, simply totalling up the dead is not the best way to measure the impact of the two interventions. I believe Iraq is far more a foreign policy debacle than was Vietnam. And not just in motivation and implementation. Vietnam was relatively isolated and not all that significant in geopolitical terms. Iraq presents a far greater danger for violent regional destabilization, and is located in a geopolitically significant area of the world.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 20 June 2007 06:27 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Perhaps you ought to mention "the good guys" in your assessment. By this I mean the anti-war and peace movements. And it is much better this time around; the opposition to the US invasion of Iraq has been swifter, more global in scope, and more successful than the opposition to the US war in Vietnam. The US Republicans took a well deserved thumping in the November Congressional elections thanks in large part to their unpopular Iraq policy.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 20 June 2007 08:51 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
Given all of the people who conspiracy theorists feel were "knocked off" because of their knowledge of the conspiracy, I find it damned hard to believe that conspirators would allow Hunt to live, not with his track record.

Hunt's track record was that he was a mastermind of assassination plots of foreign leaders, a CIA-Gusanos invasion of Cuba and of having indirectly caused the deaths of several hundred thousand Guatemalan natives by way of U.S.-backed death squad government. EH Hunt was one of the most evil and vile people in U.S. shadow government history. EH Hunt WAS the kiss of death. Who could possibly represent a menace to him besides the doctor and the madman themselves ?. Hunt was a total psychopath who did a paltry three years in prison for being party to the Watergate scandal. He feared no one.

And, Hunt was riddled with cancer in the end. Wasn't cancer a plague that so many of the people involved died from eventually?. And he implicates Johnson as one of the people involved.

If Hunt hadn't been such a total psychopath for the shadow government, his son's account could be believed. But then again, who would believe anything that ever came out of the mouths of such terrible people anyway?.

[ 20 June 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 20 June 2007 09:07 AM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I remember as a kid, around 1966, being awed by hearing US protesters chant:

quote:
Hey, Hey, Hey, LBJ
How many kids did you kill today!

LBJ was, to say the least, a complicated character. Actually, the Wikipedia has a fairly good article on him, with many similarities to other things I have read on his history.

It seems he was trying to recreate himself as a Franklin D Roosevelt social reformer while remaining a loyal puppet to the US corporate dictatorship.

On one hand, he was an unrepentant front-liner for US-based corporate capitalist interests all across the globe--and it seems to me his whole Vietnam debacle was just to prove more to Corporate America than anyone else that he was willing to do this.

On the other hand, his "Great Society" initiatives for civil rights, poverty alleviation and environmental awareness were clearly influenced by the "New Deal (for the common man)" reforms 30 years earlier.

But it seems the problems for him were two-fold.

First, the social and economic conditions were different. Roosevelt came to power in the midst of the worst depression in history, when the US economy was totally wrecked, people were desperate and the corporate establishment was faced with either an eventual revolution or just plain total collapse. Roosevelt got much of the ruling corporate class to grudgingly accept his reforms under the banner of “reform to preserve”—in other words create reforms that would satisfy, at least to some degree, some of the concerns of the burgeoning socialist and labour movements, while still maintaining the overall capitalist order (much like Bismarck and, in many respects, the Bolsheviks in earlier years).

Then, with the advent of war, and the huge government military initiatives, followed by the rise of the US as the dominant world power and its expansion all over the place, Corporate America’s wealth and power grew exponentially, and so it accepted many of those reforms.

Johnson wasn’t faced either with a crippling depression or a world war. There were, and still are, huge restrictions of freedom and gross poverty-stricken living conditions among most racial and ethnic minorities—and the growing unrest created by the civil rights movement, supported by many labour unions, along with the growing back lash to the McCarthyist Cold War era (campus free speech movement, budding anti-war/ban the bomb, etc.), gave Kennedy and later Johnson the motivation to propose further reforms.

But where Roosevelt had the threat/opportunity of war to get Corporate America on side, Johnson didn’t. So he created Vietnam as a way to do it. It obviously failed, since Vietnam did little to actually increase US influence abroad, and may have ever curtailed it due to the global opposition to it.

Second, was just the limitation of his loyalty to corporate capitalist economic policy that caused much of the “Great Society” stuff to get aborted. Despite the effectiveness and intent of those reforms, Johnson & Co. refused to even consider any serious socialistic economics of democratizing the economy that would give more power to working people and communities and free up resources to back these reforms. Instead, faced with a ballooning debt, mostly due to the war effort, and afraid to tax corporate America and the rich, he came up with a bone-headed six per cent payroll tax on workers. Although much of the right-wing and corporate media blamed the reforms, it soon surfaced that most of that money would be used to pay for Vietnam. The 1966 congressional elections caused the tax idea to be scrapped—and Johnson got labeled as a baby-killing, war-mongering tax-the-poor closet racist.

SO he didn’t run again, and left the Democratic Party divided between the more radical and social democratic forces (they were around at the time) and the more conservative establishment that was so deep and intense it was unable to fight a proper election campaign (especially with a weak-kneed pro-war dolt like Hubert Humphrey as leader) against Nixon, who squeaked in on a false promise to create jobs, fight inflation and wind down the Vietnam war.


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 20 June 2007 11:04 AM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josh:

With all due respect, I suggest you read up a little more on the assasination.


I have read thousands of pages on the Kennedy Assassination. First I read thousands supporting a conspiracy theory and was sure there was a conspiracy, then I realized I should read something from the other side. The evidence when you read both sides is obvious. Actually kind of embarrassingly so. About 75% of people in the US today believe that there was a conspiracy, 40 years ago it was the opposite. That is not because (as I originally thought) people are becoming more educated on the Kennedy assassination and more critical of the information they are fed. In fact it is the exact opposite. People are becoming dumber because they unquestionally believe what they are fed about the assassination and almost everything they are fed comes from conspiracy theorists who are often frauds and loons twisting the truth to "confirm" their beliefs and putting out dozens of conspiracy books each year (versus the rare non-conspiracy book published, I would recommend the recently published "Reclaiming History", or any of the Commissions done, including the HSCA which said that there was a conspiracy despite only one piece of evidence pointing that way and that piece of evidence later being shown to be impossible). Conspiracy books which people have a tendency to believe even though people who have read any information supporting the case against Oswald can shoot through the theories in these books in seconds. Oswald was a nutcase who tried to assassinate someone not long before Kennedy, he also planned to assassinate Nixon, but his wife talked him out of it. Oswald's mother knew that he was guilty the second she heard his name on the radio. Oswald's wife knew that he was guilty the second she saw that his rifle was not in the garage. That was before any of the evidence even came out and there is tons of it.

quote:
The House committee in the late 1970s established through acoustic evidence that a shot did come from the grassy knoll.

No it did not. No acoustic evidence could determine where a shot came from. The HSCA found evidence that there may have been a fourth shot and they guessed that it probably came from the grassy knoll. That additional "shot" occured about a minute after the first three shots, when Kennedy was about a mile away and the car he was in was traveling at about 90 miles an hour. Furthermore the 2 people testifying that there was a fourth shot were not basing that on hearing an actual shot, but hearing an "impulse." Shortly afterwards a panel of 12 physicists and scientists reviewed the tapes and also heard the same impulse (which they said could have been shot, but could have just as easily been something else), but as I said it occured about 1 minute after the shots. If someone was shooting from the grassy knoll they would have a damned hard time aiming at the President as he was already a mile away and not even on the same street. Furthermore there was no bullet ever found and out of the 180 or so people interviewed only about 6 said that they heard more than 3 shots (and those 6 or so said that they heard 4 or more shots together. No one heard a shot 1 minute later. No one.)

quote:
Despite challenges, this conclusion has been supported by more technologically sophisticated studies as recently as last year.

Yes an impulse which may have been a fourth shot, but could have been something else. It could not have been aimed at the motorcade, and like I said nobody heard it.

quote:
Witnesses saw smoke coming from the grassy knoll.

Only one witness saw smoke coming from the grassy knoll (Holland) Another witness saw smoke coming from the Pavillion (Johnson) and another witness saw smoke coming from the book depository (Potter). However, chances of seeing smoke coming from a gun on a windy day is near impossible (Oliver Stone tried it on a calm day, but had to revert to a smoke making machine for his film) experts said that you would have to be looking directly at the gun from close range at the exact time of a shot to see the smoke, in which case you would have also seen: (1) the gun and (2) the assassin.

quote:
Several who were in front of the knoll heard shots coming from behind them.

When they interviewed people about the direction the shots came from most of them said that the shots came from behind them no matter where they were standing. Lots of people were standing in front of the grassy knoll therefore lots of people felt that the the shots came from the grassy knoll, but the same goes for people standing anywhere else. More than 95% of the witnesses present said that the shots came from only one direction.
They have done tests at the scene since then and found that people could not determine where shots were coming from (that included at least one prominent conspiracy theory who could not tell which direction the shots were coming from), but in the tests people could easily tell if shots were coming from two different locations, just not what the locations were. So if there had of been two shooters then witnesses would have known that.

quote:
People ran to the fence behind the knoll after the motorcade sped away only to be met by an individual with a secret service badge.

Many people ran after shots were fired because that is what people do (some dive for cover, some run), running in the direction of the grassy knoll was the most logical direction for people run who were standing in front of the grassy knoll. In the case of police officers running to the grassy knoll made sense because it was a good spot to see anyone trying to run away. However the secret service agent showing his badge is based on one police officer (smith) approaching a person who showed him his badge and that police officer guessing that he was a secret service agent despite not looking at the badge. The "agent" might have been plainclothes Dallas officer Ellesworth who admitted to going to the grassy knoll immediately after the shots and showing his (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) badge to an officer. (seeing as Ellesworth admitted showing his badge to an officer the chances are pretty decent I would say) There was another officer who believed that he saw a secret service agent. There were plainclothes officers all over the motorcade route with many of them stating that they went to the grassy knoll immediately after the shots (Mooney, Webster, Walters, Vickery, Craig etc).

Also contrary to what you say there was one secret service agent who remained at the seen and this is well documented. Thomas Lem Johns who jumped out the the fourth vehicle in the motorcade and ran towards LBJ's car in order to help protect him. Johns was left behind as the motorcade sped off before he made it to LBJ and he may have ran towards (but not to) the grassy knoll, but witnesses differ on this and Johns denies it.
However, despite dozens of police officers and plainclothes officers going there immediately only two saw someone they thought might be a secret service agent (their statements were very vague on the possibility and have been exploited by conspiracy theorists, however most of the others deny seeing anyone who resembled an agent being there) same goes for all of the bystanders who ran towards the area.

quote:
However, the secret service has no record of any on their personnel being in back of the knoll.

True, nor does one or two officers (with vague statements that there might have been one) out of dozens confirm that there was a Secret Service agent back there.

quote:
Plus, the fence was a good, secluded spot, to get off a shot.

Simply not true, no sniper would ever consider the wide open grassy knoll. As you said dozens of people were there in seconds, yet found no shells, or anyone escaping, or a weapon. People on the overpass could see the fence along the grassy knoll along with any possible escape route (as could the people working in the train yard). Furthermore it was a parking lot and a train yard. At any point in time a train or vehicle could have passed through spotting a shooter. It was a bad spot. Finally if you look at the repositioning for multiple shots you will see that Oswald required almost no repositioning to fire subsequent shots, but a shooter from the grassy knoll would have required to change his angle significantly (like 30+ degrees) to get off each additional shot. The physical act of shooting from the grassy knoll was many times harder than the book depository, on top of all of the other disadvantages.

quote:
As for the medical evidence, the doctors in Dallas viewed the throat shot as an entrance wound, but used it to insert a breathing tube, which confused the autopsy doctors.

First of all, the doctors were trying to save Kennedy's life in a extremely chaotic scene. One felt that the front throat was a entrance wound, but the bullet only went through soft tissue so to tell which was the entrance and which was the exit the only way to know was to look at both the lower throat and the upper back, which the doctor did not do. Every examiner who did so could instantly tell that the back was the entrance and the throat was the exit. It is not uncommon for doctors to realize that things were much different than they originally thought after they step back and take a better look at the situation following the initial chaos. The doctors at the hospital admitted that they didn't look at his back for wounds (one did a sweep with his hand) and they only glanced at the top of head (recognizing that was hopeless). But every single pathologist who examined the wounds and/or photographs and/or x-rays concluded that there was no entrance wound to the front or right of Kennedy's body. That includes conspiracy theorist Dr. Cyril Wecht

Second of all as someone who has been present for autopsies I can say that it would be completely amazing if anyone would be confused by a breathing tube. The upper back has a wound which can only be an entry wound, the bottom of the throat has a wound which is larger. Opening the throat to insert a cric-tube only requires a small hole, so no doctor would have needed to enlarge the exit wound, indeed the doctors in this case just stuck the tube into the already larger than needed opening.

Third, if the front of the neck was an entry wound and the upper back was an exit wound than the shot could not have come from the grassy knoll. It would have had to have come from the front left (not the front right). If the front of the throat is an entry wound and the shot came from the grassy knoll then we are missing an exit wound which is pretty significant.

quote:
There's a lot more to the medical evidence which I don't have time to go into.

I would love to here it. Although chances are I have heard it all before.

quote:
As for Oswald being a marksman, that's not supported by his military records. He was adequate at best.

That is a lie. Military experts who testified said that Oswald was "above average" (that is compared to military sharp shooters).

Oswald was a sharp shooter in the military. Easily qualifying in 1956. His score for rapid shot was 91% as I said earlier.

quote:
Real marksman who tried to get off three shots within the time agreed upon had great difficulty,

The case that you are referring to as was in the Warren Commission. It included one expert (the first) and two markmen (which is a level below sharp shooter)
The first rifleman easily beat Oswald's time with three sets of three rounds in 4.45, 4.6 and 5.15 seconds hitting at least two targets each time. The second rifleman did 2 sets in 6.75 and 6.45 seconds and the third rifleman also did 2 sets at 8.25 and 7.0 seconds in every case hitting at least 2 targets. At least 6 of those 7 total attempts beat Oswald's time of approx 8.3 - 8.4 seconds. Several of those attempts beat Oswald's time by close to half. All 7 attempts were with Oswald's actual rifle (some sets using the scope, some the iron sites) and because of fear of damaging it none of those riflemen had any practice with the rifle (not even being allowed to test the trigger with an unloaded gun) as compared to Oswald who had taken the rifle to the shooting range several times.

After that I believe 8 Dallas police department members attempted to replicate Oswald's shooting, using the same model of rifle and using the iron sites. I believe that 6 out of the 8 topped or equaled what Oswald did, and these were regular police officers, with no additional fire arms training, not snipers.

Also CBS did a test with 11 volunteers who had no experience with that type of rifle. Many of them even achieved what Oswald did.

These were close range shots, much closer than sniper's use for their testing (which would be targets twice as far as Kennedy was on the third shot and four times as far away as Kennedy was on the first shot).

quote:
and the rifle allegedly used was not the greatest.

This is another of the examples that I have repeatedly seen of conspiracy authors just making shit up. The type of weapon Oswald used (a Mannlicher-Carcano) was used by the Italians and Germans in WWII. The rifle was still being used by the Italian NATO rifle team in competitions (they stopped using it after the assassination). The chief of the US Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Department of the Army, had his men test the rifle (the actual one Oswald used) and found it be as accurate as the M-14 that they used. On top of that with a shorter recoil it was actually better for getting off multiple shots quickly.

[ 20 June 2007: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 20 June 2007 11:31 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's exactly what I was going to say, but you beat me to it. But what about the Zapruder film ?. I don't think it was a lone gunman.

And then the magic bullet theory doesn't add up. The Warren Commish was coverup. Definitely a coverup.

[ 20 June 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 20 June 2007 11:39 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, I'll take back my comment about reading up on it. Clearly, you're well-versed. But you evaluation of the evidence is rather selective (you ignore such witnesses as Bowers, Holland and Arnold), not to mention the question of the magic bullet. And if hiding behind a knoll picket fence where the crowd was sparse was too much in view, what do you call sticking a gun out of the window of a building with scores of people across the street? Plus, it would have been a lot easier to make an escape from the former than the latter. Also, if Oswald was such a great shot how come he couldn't hit a stationary General Edwin Walker with no one around, as he was alleged to have done?

We could debate this all day and never agree.

[ 20 June 2007: Message edited by: josh ]


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 20 June 2007 05:30 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am heading out tonight, but I will answer this tomorrow, hopefully in the morning, but if I am too busy at work then by the evening for sure. My favorite is the "magic bullet theory."
From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 21 June 2007 02:41 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
First I guess I will start out with the “Magic Bullet Theory” and the Zapruder film. (I will respond about Arnold, Holland, Bowers and Walker later) The Zapruder film which was an 8mm film and without audio is important because it supposedly shows the delayed reaction time between Kennedy and then Governor Connally which would imply that they were not hit by the same bullet. It also show’s Kennedy’s head snapping backwards implying that the kill shot came from the front. The magic or single bullet theory is important because conspiracy theorists believe that the Warren Commission (and the three commissions that followed) are saying that the bullet changed direction in mid air.

Here are two pictures showing Kennedy in the rear and Governor Connally in the front which have frequently been shown in conspiracy theory books.

The first pictures shows that Connally was directly in front of kennedy and the second picture shows that Connally’s seat was at the same height as Kennedy’s. Neither is true as every picture from that day shows.

Here is a picture of the Presidential limo taken just after the assassination.

It is easy to see that Kennedy’s back seat was several inches higher than the two small seats ahead of him. You can also see that the back seat is very spaciously wide while there are only two narrow seats ahead of that back seat. Those two seats are inset significantly and have a low back. All this was so that the President would be easy to see. They did not want vision of the president blocked by someone sitting in front of him. Pictures from that day show clearly that Governor Connally was lower than the President and many inches to the left. The pictures also show that Connally was turned to the right, not seated facing directly forward. Furthermore his arm was not raised as it shown in conspiracy sketch.

Here is a sketch showing that Connally was to the left and turned to the right.

This pictures shows the elevation of several inches of the Kennedy’s over the governor and his wife.


Several pictures show the Governor inset from the President as well as the Zapruder film. For instance just taking a random frame from the film here you can see Kennedy, but the Governor in front is much harder to see, which was the way the vehicle was designed – for people to get a minimally impeded view of the president.

So the pictures make it pretty obvious that the two conspiracy sketches are being purposely deceitful.

When one analyses the Zapruder film concerning the second shot, you find that Kennedy and Connally were blocked by a freeway sign just after Z205 with Connally emerging back into view at Z221 and Kennedy not fully reappearing until Z225.

(about 20 frames after disappearing or 1 second as the film moved at 18.3 frames per second.). The view of most Conspiracy theorists appears to be that Kennedy was hit while out of view and was already reacting to that hit when he came back into view but Connally doesn’t react to being hit until about Z236.

That would be at least a half second later meaning that the two could not have been hit by the same bullet. (now of course, it is well known that people do not necessarily react to being hit by a bullet immediately, in fact often people take several seconds to realize that they were hit)

In the case of Kennedy that film shows that he is still smiling and waving from Z190 to Z205, but when he reemerges from being behind the sign it appears that by Z226
his arms start to move towards his throat which can be seen progressing towards (Z231)
Z236
which shows strong evidence of reaction to painful stimuli to the neck area.

In the case of Governor Connally however, conspiracy books like Thompson’s “Six Seconds in Dallas” say that Connally did react until Z236 and Z237

Thompson was basing this on Connally having puffing cheeks caused by air rushing out of Connally’s lungs as his right lung collapsed from being punctured by a bullet. (This is medically wrong. In the case of a lung being punctured air goes into the chest cavity – as there is now an opening there and the chest cavity is at a lower pressure – not out through the mouth).

However, there is evidence that Connally may have been hit earlier than Z236 and there is evidence of Connally reacting to being hit by bullet earlier than Kennedy (because Connally came back into view first).

This is a close up of Connally at Z223 and Z224 (when Kennedy was still out of view) it shows that either Connally is reacting at the area when he hit (right chest) or possibly that the exiting bullet has ripped through his jacket flap (it goes back an forth between the two to show you the difference)

This close up of Connally at Z224 and Z225 appears to show Connally with facial reactions to painful stimuli.

So it appears very possible that a single bullet struck Kennedy and Connally between frames Z210 and Z225 as the Warren Commission believed. The other possibility is that a different bullet struck Kennedy and Connally, but both of those shots had to have been fired at the same time and both of them had to have been shot from behind. Also the entrance wound in the back of Connally is oval which means that the bullet was tumbling. There are only two things that could have caused this: 1) the bullet could have hit something first (eg Kennedy’s neck) or the bullet could have been shot from extremely far away allowing it to loose enough speed that it would start to tumble.

So could the same bullet have hit both?

According to expert Robert Frazier “The bullet through the President had to cause Connally’s wound, otherwise it would have struck somewhere else in the car and it did not hit somewhere else.” (Warren Commission)

Wound ballistic’s expert Frederick Light said “the most likely thing is what everyone else has said so far, that the bullet did go through the president’s neck and then through the Governor’s chest and through the wrist and then into his thigh.” (Warren Commission)

Since that time analysis and tests have been able to recreate the shot showing that it was possible:

Thomas Canning from NASA showed that Kennedy and Connally were properly aligned for the shot to work. Computer models using the Zapruder film have recreated the shot.

Computer models might not mean anything, so Dr. Lattimer recreated the actual scene with convincing results:

quote:
In 1994, Dr. John K. Lattimer and three colleagues, Angus Laidlaw, Paul Heneghan, and Eric J. Haubner, attempted to verify Dr. Robert Piziali’s findings by duplicating the shooting in Dallas as closely as possible. They created a simulation of President Kennedy’s size 16 neck, using fresh pork muscle, and assembled a special rack to hold a rib cage at a distance of twenty-four inches from the
neck (the distance they computed Connally was in front of Kennedy). A white dress shirt, necktie, and tropical worsted jacket were placed over the rib cage to simulate the clothing the governor wore that day. An array of arm bones, encased in simulated forearms, was arranged in front of the right lapel of the “governor” to simulate Connally’s arm, and the entire mock-up was backed up with a bullet trap, where the test bullets were recovered. The experimenters fired Western Cartridge
Company 6.5-millimeter ammunition (from the same lots used by Oswald)
through an identical model Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. A video camera and a high-speed 35-millimeter motion picture camera captured the results.
Lattimer knew from his previous experiments that the test bullet would almost certainly “tumble” after passing through the simulated neck (just as the bullet did during the assassination) and strike the mock-up of the governor’s “back” at about the point where he was actually hit. Sure enough, as the bullet tumbled and plowed into one of the ribs, removing 4.5 centimeters (1 34 inches was destroyed during
the actual assassination), it exited at a point compatible with the exit wound in Connally’s right chest. The flying fragments of rib and soft tissue, which were blown out by the tumbling bullet, ripped a large ragged hole in both the shirt and the jacket, just as Oswald’s bullet had done in Dealey Plaza. The test bullet then struck
one of the forearms arrayed in front of the jacket, and was finally stopped by the bullet trap just beyond.
When the high-speed films were examined, Dr. Lattimer and his associates discovered that the suit coat bulged out about six inches in one-tenth of a second, snapping back shortly thereafter. Of particular importance is the fact that subsequent test rounds that were fired directly into the mock-up of the governor without first passing through the mock-up of Kennedy’s neck produced no bulge of the jacket. Without the tumble caused by the bullet’s passage through the simu-lated neck, there was no billowing of the jacket. According to Lattimer and his colleagues, the bulge of Governor Connally’s jacket, starting at Z224, “does indeed establish, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the exact moment when bullet 399 went through him.” (Lattimer, Laidlaw, Heneghan, and Haubner, “Experimental Duplication of the Important Physical Evidence,” pp.517–522)

So the options are the improbable, but possible (and replicable) single bullet theory, or a much more improbable theory where two different bullets hit at basically the exact same time (no one heard two shots directly on top of each other). One of those bullets disappeared into thin air and the other was already tumbling at the time of impact with Connally meaning that it must have hit something first. The single bullet theory is less magical than the alternative in my opinion.


We also have the issue of the pristine bullet, here is a picture of it from the
bottom.

Experiments have shown that bullets which are initially slowed (for example by going through soft tissue) are less likely to be significantly damaged, verses bullets which strike a hard object at full speed (for example hitting a skull). This supports why the skull shot bullet fragmented, while the bullet which hit Kennedy and Connally didn’t – it was slowed by soft tissue. Furthermore Conspiracy theorists say that with the bullet fragments in Connally’s wrist it adds up to more than the sum of the initial bullet. There is no evidence to support that.

Then we have the issue of the third gun shot – the kill shot.

Conspiracy theorists use the Zapruder film to show that the shot must have come from the front as the head jerks backwards.

The impact is believed to be at Z313 (there does not appear to be any argument from conspiracy theorists or non-conspiracy theorists on this)

Here you can see in Z312 Kennedy prior to being shot (note that unlike Connally, Kennedy could not get undercover as he had a very stiff back brace that stopped him from getting out of the way.)

Here is the impact of the kill shot Z313: You can clearly see blood and skull parts spraying forward. All of the bullet fragments were found to the front of Kennedy as were the three skull fragments. There was no blood spray to the rear of Kennedy in the Limo.

However, starting from Z314 to Z321 the President’s head snaps back violently which Garrison and Mark Lane (among others) maintain is proof of a head shot from the front. HSCA stated that it believed the snapping back was due to neuromuscular reactions. Sturdivan (who was the expert on this) stated that in the case of neurmuscular reactions the heavy back muscles dominate the lighter abdominal muscles throwing the victim backward no matter where the bullet came from. He showed a video to the Commission of a experiment from 1948 where goats were shot in the brain causing a neuromuscular reaction resulting in the goat’s back arching backwards. Now I haven’t seen that video, nor do I want to. Nor do I think it matters. That is because the head moves forward first, making the backward motion irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

The pro-conspiracy book that I mentioned earlier (Six Seconds in Dallas) shows that Kennedy’s head was propelled forward and downward at the moment of impact comparing Z312 with Z313 (if you download both pictures and switch back and forth between them the movement is obvious) this was confirmed by a team of experts from Itek in the late 70s and has been held up ever since, but other experts. The President’s head moves forward about 6 cm in 1/18th of a second and the shoulders move forward about 3 cm. Then at Z314 the head and body begin to move backwards until Z321 when Kennedy reaches the seat and then begins to move slightly forward again. The speed of Kennedy’s head moving forward at impact is considered by experts to be approximately twice the speed of when his head jerks backwards.

The expert physicist Dr Guinn (or Quinn, I can’t remember) when interviewed stated that physics shows that a bullet striking a head would have caused the head to move only slightly. The bullet weighed about 161 grams, whereas a head weighs 4.5 to 7 kilograms. The small mass is not expected to move the much larger mass much. A high speed blunt force (eg baseball bat) would have moved the head much more (due to a complete transfer of energy ie the speed of blunt force is reduced to zero) than a high speed penetrating force (with much less transfer of energy to the back of the head). Physicist Dr. Petty was also interviewed and confirmed this showing that firing a bullet through a half open door only moves it slightly (not enough energy is transferred to the door. There are very few examples of head shots which have been filmed but allegedly a series of mass executions were filmed in china (under Mao) and none of those head shots display significant head movement in the direction that the bullet was heading as conspiracy theorists allege is the reason to support a head shot from the front in regards to JFK (however I have not seen that film, nor to I plan to).

I will get to other parts tomorrow.

[ 21 June 2007: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 21 June 2007 03:04 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
First off, compared to Iraq, Vietnam was a legitimate war.

Oh arggh! Josh is an intelligent guy, but how can he believe this? How can he believe that Operation Rolling Thunder (carpet bombing of peasant areas) or the very idea of Free Fire Zones, or napalming villages, or Tiger Cages, or the activities of the Tiger Force itself, were "legitimate"????

I mean, take one single thing:

quote:
TOLEDO, Ohio -- An elite unit of American soldiers mutilated and killed hundreds of unarmed villagers over seven months in 1967 during the Vietnam War, and an Army investigation was closed with no charges filed, The Blade reported yesterday

quote:

vietnam sucked

As someone who has been arguing from the get-go that the invasion of Iraq violates international law, I can say that "compared to Iraq" most things are relatively legitimate.

But not the Vietnam war!!!!!

There's not enough space to go through the whole argument, but the US CREATED the government of South Vietnam even though Vietnam was ONE country pursuant to the Geneva Accords.

In Eisenhower's memoirs, he says that South Vietnam had to be created, and the elections not held, because Ho Chi minh would have won them.

And we could talk about the Gulf of Tonkin Affair, the lies of Johnson, etc. etc. etc.

55,000 Americans and five zillion Vietnamese died in Vietnam! Just because Iraq is a horror doesn't mean Vietnam was "legitimate".


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 21 June 2007 04:38 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
On top of that, the people the US was fighting in Vietnam had SOME redeeming features. Ho Chi Minh was a great political theorist who brilliant and had led the battle to rid Vietnam of the Japanese and the French and while Vietnamese communism was a flop in practice - it sounded good on paper and they meant well. It was always clear that if the US puppet was defeated in Vietnam, the alternative was a united Vietnam, led by a man who clearly would have won any free election.

In contrast, who exactly is "the other side" in Iraq? Who is the Ho Chi Minh of Iraq?

I am NOT for one nano-second trying to justify the war in Iraq. But in Vietnam in 1968, i would have happily worn a Vietcong t-shirt to a demo and openly hoped that they would win. I take no satisfaction in Iraq in seeing a victory by various fundamentalist psychopaths who will only get into a bloody civil war with each other, the day after the US admitted defeat.

i know who i am against in iraq - but there is no one I am "for"


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 21 June 2007 05:39 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
vietnam sucked

As someone who has been arguing from the get-go that the invasion of Iraq violates international law, I can say that "compared to Iraq" most things are relatively legitimate.

But not the Vietnam war!!!!!

There's not enough space to go through the whole argument, but the US CREATED the government of South Vietnam even though Vietnam was ONE country pursuant to the Geneva Accords.

In Eisenhower's memoirs, he says that South Vietnam had to be created, and the elections not held, because Ho Chi minh would have won them.

And we could talk about the Gulf of Tonkin Affair, the lies of Johnson, etc. etc. etc.

55,000 Americans and five zillion Vietnamese died in Vietnam! Just because Iraq is a horror doesn't mean Vietnam was "legitimate".


You're confusing the creation of South Vietnam, and the prosecution of the war, with the legal basis of US involvement. South Vietnam was a member of the UN and recognized, rightly or wrongly, as an independent country. The SEATO treaty provided the legal basis for US involvement. That involvement was not wise. But there was some legal basis for it. Unlike Iraq, where there was none. That's all I was pointing out.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 21 June 2007 08:15 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josh:

You're confusing the creation of South Vietnam, and the prosecution of the war, with the legal basis of US involvement. South Vietnam was a member of the UN and recognized, rightly or wrongly, as an independent country. The SEATO treaty provided the legal basis for US involvement.


It was legal in the eyes of the invaders only. It wasn't legal if you don't believe the U.S. army were within their rights to bomb rice paddies and torch the grass homes of poor people. It wasn't legal when you realize that it was a foreign army that was trying to occupy another and declared local people the enemy. There were too many things wrong with that "war" to list in one thread.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
trippie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12090

posted 21 June 2007 10:24 PM      Profile for trippie        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mr Johnson was a scumbag human.... he did nothing for humanity..

He was in the position of great power and what did he do?

sweet fuck all... fuck him.....

how many people died under his leadership???

[ 21 June 2007: Message edited by: trippie ]


From: essex county | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
trippie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12090

posted 21 June 2007 10:31 PM      Profile for trippie        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
stockholm... maybe you should be for the Iraqi people and not some dumbass bourgeiosie leader....
From: essex county | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
greencrow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14266

posted 22 June 2007 12:59 PM      Profile for greencrow        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
According to some very well sourced links, LBJ was one of the kingpins behind the assassination of JFK. According to his mistress, he told her the night before the assassination...words to the effect...just you wait, that SOB will never blankety blank me again. Let me see if I can post a link on this on this thread

Here it is:

[ 25 June 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: coquitlam | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
greencrow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14266

posted 22 June 2007 01:01 PM      Profile for greencrow        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry for stretching the thread by posting the link above...Hopefully I will be able to post links without stretching the thread in the future.

gc


From: coquitlam | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 22 June 2007 01:39 PM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You can still edit it.

Click the edit icon top of your post (one with pencil)

Cut your URL entry

Click the "URL" button below and paste your URL over the existing "http" box
click "ok"

add a short title
click "ok"
Click "edit" button

[ 22 June 2007: Message edited by: contrarianna ]


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 22 June 2007 01:51 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
(you ignore such witnesses as Bowers, Holland and Arnold)

Gordon Arnold is a great example of the quality of "witnesses" that conspiracy theorists use. In 1978 (that is 15 years after the assassination) he first came forward saying that he was in Dallas when JFK was assassinated. And he came forward with a story so ridiculous that I can't believe that anyone would believe him (the story changed significantly when he was interviewed again ten years later, but still conspiracy theorists believe him whole-heartedly). So what was Arnold's story?

The 1978 one was: minutes before the motorcade came by, he was moving toward the railroad overpass to film the motorcade when a "guy walked towards me and said I shouldn't be up there." Arnold challenged the man's authority and then said the man "showed me a badge and said he was with the Secret Service."

Arnold said at that time he took a position in front of the picket fence high up on the grassy knoll. When he heard the first of two shots that came from behind him (over his left shoulder) he "hit the dirt." After all the shots were fired, and while he was still on the ground, "the next thing I knew someone was kicking my butt and telling me to get up. It was a policeman. And I told him to go jump in the river. And then this other guy, a policeman, comes up with a shotgun and that thing was waving back and forth. I said you can have everything I've got. Just point it someplace else." Arnold gave the policeman his film.

Now not only is that a ridiculous story, but no one who was there that day ever saw this. Despite all of those people running towards the grassy knoll, no one saw anyone a police officer with a shotgun or another one kicking someone's butt. You would think someone would have noticed it or filmed it. Nope. In fact there are numerous pictures (and film footage as well) which shows the exact spot where Arnold says he was both before and after the shooting. Do any of them show Arnold or the incident in question? Not one. On top of that Arnold must be the world's best secret keeper because before he came forward not one relative, friend or coworker ever heard a word of this from Arnold in fifteen years.

Ten years later when Arnold was being interviewed by a British television production team which was filming "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." This time the man Arnold met was no longer a Secret Service agent, but now a CIA agent. Also this time instead of two police officers harrassing him afterwards it was only one who was "kicking his butt" while holding onto the rifle.

Arnold is a fraud, pure and simple.

How about Sterling Holland?
Holland has the best story ever. This is what he said to authorities on the day of the shooting. He was on the overpass watching the presidential limo. He hears the first gun shot, immediately looks to the grassy knoll and sees the puff of smoke under the trees in the grassy knoll (this is smoke which would have dissipated instantly, and would not be visible from 60 yards away like Holland was, and what are the chances that he would look towards the grassy knoll when he said that the first 2 or 3 shots sounded like they came from the book depository building, so why didn't he look at that building instead - oh well, then the story gets good!) after seeing the puff of smoke Holland immediately looked back at the Presidental limo and saw a Secret Service Agent stand up in the back with a machine gun and point it at the grassy knoll! Then the secret service agent fell backward as if he was shot. (no picture or film ever captured this, in fact there was no secret agent agent in the back of the presidential limo - had there been one he would have protected the president, nor was there a secret service agent with a machine gun anywhere that day.) Holland maintained this lunacy of a story in interviews for years. Holland was also the only person to see footprints along the immediate back of the fence at the grassy knoll. He saw about a hundred (warren commission) and then a couple years later it was up to 400 - 500. He consistently said that he only saw smoke after the first shot (although at the Warren Commission he testified that the one shot he saw the smoke on was the first, then later in the interview said it was the 3rd or 4th.) and Holland has also seen an assassin pointing a rifle in pictures which no one else has, yup in pictures which experts and modern technology have found nothing. Holland's mind sees what ever he wants to see. He has no credibility as a witness.


Lee Bowers - Great witness? Nope. Changed his story repeatedly? Yup.

In Stone's movie JFK he shows Bowers testifying at the Warren Commission saying that he saw a "flash of light and smoke" coming from behind the area of the picket fence. Only problem - Bowers didn't say that. On the day of the assassination Bowers completed two affidavits saying that the only thing unusual he saw that day was three cars parked in the parking lot in the morning, one that had out of state plates. All three vehicles were gone before the assassination. He said that he saw a couple police officers walk through the parking lot a couple hours prior and the only other people he saw back there all morning were two people wearing County courthouse custodian uniforms, one of whom he knew personally. (the parking lot was for the courthouse and police station so that was normal). He also said that he was in a position to see the whole railyard and parking lot, yet saw no one walking, running or standing there when or immediately after the shots were fired. When Bowers was being interviewed at the Warren Commission he suddenly remembered that there was a suspicious commotion atop the grassy knoll - further questions found that he could not describe this commotion at all, but his memory would get better in the next year or two. It was not until two years later when Bowers was coaxed by multiple JFK conspiracy theory book author Mark Lane that Bowers ever said he saw a "flash of light and smoke." Before that he had seen no such thing.


quote:
Also, if Oswald was such a great shot how come he couldn't hit a stationary General Edwin Walker with no one around, as he was alleged to have done?

We will never know why Oswald missed Walker. But Walker himself, doesn't think it was because Oswald was a poor shot. After he examined the situation Walker said "the glare of light from the room would have blurred the horizontal frame of the window making it all but invisible to the shooter, especially if using the scopic site." The bullet hit that horizontal frame between the two panes of glass deflecting the bullet just enough to miss Walker.

As much as people want to believe that the Warren Commission was a cover up. It wasn’t. That would require something to cover up in the first place.

[ 22 June 2007: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 22 June 2007 02:14 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What about Jean Hill, the woman in red who was a few feet away from the car when he was shot ?.

quote:
Hill would tell each interviewer, "All I know is I heard more than three shots and at least one of them came from behind the fence at the top of the knoll."

She claimed countless times that she was threatened by the feds during the interview to change her version of how many shots were fired.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 22 June 2007 02:50 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
What about Jean Hill, the woman in red who was a few feet away from the car when he was shot ?.

No one has changed their story more than Hill. It would take me an hour to write all of the changes in her story from the day of the assassination (when the only thing of significance that she saw was that when JFK and his wife passed by at 11 miles per hour JFK and Jackie were both looking at a white dog which was sitting in between them she saw no weapon and made no mention of a man running or anything else), through her testimony at the Warren Commision (saw a man running, looked similar to Jack Ruby, saw no weapon), through her many interviews (saw the assassin fire from behind the fence, saw puffs of smoke, saw Jack Ruby for sure) and finally up to the book she wrote (saw everything). Things changed every time she talked. She is so loony that when the London media had a mock trial in 1986 with real lawyers, real jurors, a real judge with the real witnesses and many conspiracy theorists. The producer was going to provide money for her trip (like everyone else) but the defence team for Oswald, despite using every witness possible and many conspiracy authors, said they didn't want her.

[ 22 June 2007: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 22 June 2007 04:03 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by greencrow:
According to some very well sourced links, LBJ was one of the kingpins behind the assassination of JFK. According to his mistress, he told her the night before the assassination...words to the effect...just you wait, that SOB will never blankety blank me again.

Robert Caro in his three volumes on LBJ never mentions Madeleine Brown once (and Caro does talk about LBJ's affairs and mistresses).

The night before the assassination Brown alledges that she was at a party held at the Dallas home of Clint Murchison (an oil tycoon). The party included LBJ, Hoover and Nixon.

Only a couple problems with that:

LBJ was with the President in Houston at an event with many witnesses, then they flew to Fort Worth arriving at their motel about 1am.

Hoover was at his office late on the 21st and back at his office early on the morning on 22nd. He did not fly to Texas.

Nixon was in Dallas at the Hilton's Empire room watching a singing performance. He was seen and photographed at the event quite late.

Oh, and Clint Murchison didn't even own a house in Dallas at the time and hadn't for four years, making it very hard for him to host a party at his house. He was also recovering from Cancer and hadn't left his house in months.

In her book Brown talks about the start of her affair with LBJ while he was in Austin for a couple weeks in 1948, but at the time it is known that LBJ was actually in Washington, D.C. No one has found any proof that the two ever met, and her book shows but one picture of her with LBJ. In the picture the alledged LBJ has his back to the camera and apparently the alledged LBJ doesn't look a lot like LBJ.

Brown also says repeatedly that LBJ was the most secretive man she ever met. Odd then the most secretive man she ever met told her that JFK would be gone the next day. She also says that he also told Jesse Kellam the same thing that night. Odd for such a secretive man.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 22 June 2007 06:56 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

No one has changed their story more than Hill. It would take me an hour to write all of the changes in her story from the day of the assassination (when the only thing of significance that she saw was that when JFK and his wife passed by at 11 miles per hour JFK and Jackie were both looking at a white dog which was sitting in between them


The Warren Commission exploited her inconsistencies after she was threatened by the feds during the initial interview. They exploited the fact there was no dog in the car. Later it came out that there was "a dog" in the car beside Jackie - it was a stuffed toy poodle. The Warren Commission was slip shod at best.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 22 June 2007 07:03 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

The Warren Commission exploited her inconsistencies after she was threatened by the feds during the initial interview. They exploited the fact there was no dog in the car. Later it came out that there was "a dog" in the car beside Jackie - it was a stuffed toy poodle. The Warren Commission was slip shod at best.


There was no stuffed animal. There were white flowers beside Jackie. The feds interviewed hundreds of people. The only ones who claim to have been threatened turned out to be nutbars. As I said earlier about a half dozen people said they heard more than 3 shots. Why were they not threatened as well.

Have you read the Warren Commission?


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 22 June 2007 07:23 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

There was no stuffed animal. There were white flowers beside Jackie.


Ah! It was a stuffed "Lambchop" in the backseat of the limo. It's been a while since I've read anything about the assassination.

quote:
Have you read the Warren Commission?

I've read one or two books critical of the WC. One of them was "Contract on America", dealing with the mafia as possible hitters for the guys at the top. Other books come to the conclusion that the mob didn't have the moxy to pull it off. Those guys were barely competent with killing each other at the best of times. If Oswald was a lone sniper, then he was an army-trained sniper.

Like the Oliver Stone movie described, there should have been dozens of federal agents on the street and blending in with the crowd of onlookers. Abd there were so many inconsistencies and screwups concerning everything from the bungled autopsy to the slip-shod investigation itself.

It doesn't really matter who pulled the trigger(s) - because the contracted job'ers will never be linked to the coup plotters. That's a coup d'etat. Assassination of foreign leaders and "dirty tricks" in general were routine for the CIA even then. Killing JFK would have been a yawner for them.

There is a general rule of thumb in science which says that the simplest explanation is the most likely one. When he was arrested, Oswald told news reporters he was just a Patsy, a fall guy.

[ 22 June 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 22 June 2007 08:16 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
There is a general rule of thumb in science which says that the simplest explanation is the most likely one.

The science shows that the simplest explanation is that Oswald was the assassin. The science and medical evidence shows that Kennedy was shot from behind. The science shows that one gunman could have and must have done the shooting. The evidence shows that Oswald had the gun, was in the book depository, has his finger prints all over the sniper's den and rifle. The science and evidence make this one the simplest murder cases in history. This short piece from a History channel film shows how science, through a reconstruction of the Zapruder film, can tell us exactly what happened.

quote:
When he was arrested, Oswald told news reporters he was just a Patsy, a fall guy.

A patsy who unloaded his pistol killing a police officer shortly after (with a half dozen witnesses) he assassinated the President (and that included a final point blank head shot after he had already shot the officer several times) and then tried to shoot another police officer in the theatre. Oswald was a delusional madman, not a patsy.

The CIA had the ability to assassinate Kennedy. We know that because of their history. However, just because an organization had the ability to kill someone doesn't mean they did. In the case of Kennedy the CIA was not involved. The conspiracy community has tried to come up with even the tiniest connection for years. They have found nothing in 44 years. The CIA is not that good.

Stone's film was enjoyable. I have watched it many times. But there is nothing historically accurate in that film (except the proper date and victim). My favorite part is when it says that there is no way that Oswald could have got off 3 shots as quickly as he did with a bolt action rifle and then showed an "oswald" firing off three shots with a bolt action rifle from the book depository building in 4 seconds (which of course proves that it can be done in less than half the time that Oswald actually took.)

[ 22 June 2007: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 22 June 2007 08:51 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No offense intended, but as the high level Warren Commish was described as slip shod, you, too, were wrong about the "dog." That's just one small detail that I did happen to remember from reading about it. The fact that Oswald was murdered immediately left no accused shooter to deny or corroborate anyone's version of events - the mark of professionals.

Sam Giancana's son wrote another book indicating that the mob and Kennedy's/Washington were connected. A lot of Americans believe that, too, as organized crime was a part of recent American history. I think mobsters had the motive then, but so did more powerful people in the U.S. and who were known to associate with mafia dons at their luxury resorts, including the long-time head of the FBI himself who despised the Kennedy's.

It's been too long since I've read about it. Most people believe it was a coup d'etat. They've been witholding evidence surrounding the case from interested groups for too long. They just want to understand what happened for the sake of knowing that justice was carried out and not abused. It doesn't matter who killed JFK. He was only a Liberal politician anyway. They were paranoid of anyone on the left at the time, especially Bobby Kennedy. Lots of powerful people had motive for wanting him dead. And dead he was.

An Italian businessman once told JFK that America would have to deal with fascism at some point. There are lots of people who believe fascism has already taken root in the U.S.

Texas A&M Statistician Probes Bullet Evidence in JFK Assassination forensic science now says second shooter a possibility

[ 22 June 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 22 June 2007 11:17 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
No offense intended, but as the high level Warren Commish was described as slip shod,

Like I would take offense from someone who has only read one side of the story. The Warren Commission was not perfect. People can find lots to quibble with in any report that 26 volumes long, but those points are minor. Not only are there the 26 volumes, but there are hundreds of thousands of additional pages of investigative reports and documents on its investigation. All of that is available. The actual 26 volumes include over 8000 pages of testimony, almost 10000 pages of documents and exhibits. The commission took direct testimony, affidavits or statements from over 550 witnesses and the FBI as the investigative arm of the Warren Commission conducted more than 25000 additional interviews. Well over 3000 items of evidence were introduced before the investigation. The Commission blew away any previous commission in both scope and thoroughness. People routinely trash the WC without having any knowledge of it. (For instance Oliver Stone's movie saying that there was no index. Flat out lie. In fact there was two indexes in the initial report and a third was delayed but added shortly thereafter.)

As Pieere Salinger wrote: "It is the very thoroughness of the Warren Commission that has caused its problems. It listened patiently to everyone, no matter how credible or incredible the testimony. It then appended all this testimony to its report, providing an opportunity to anyone with a typewriter and a lot of time on his hands to write a book on the subject."

That has been true for many years most JFK conspiracy books were based entirely on authors finding something in the Warren Commission. Conspiracy author Michael Eddowes said as much in the introduction to one of his books: "The basis of my study has always been the contents of the volumes of testimony and exhibits, from which my assistants and I were able to finally assemble evidence disclosing the truth."

Conspiracy Author David Lifton in his book "Best Evidence" complained that testimony of witnesses who said that shots were fired from the grassy knoll was "scattered throughout the 26 volumes."
That's right, instead of the Warren Commission hiding evidence whole conspiracy books have been written using evidence and testimony entirely from the WC.

The Warren Commission has been proven right over the test of time. The scientific advancement since 1964 has proven it was right. Unlike every conspiracy book which has been trashed easily.

As the most legendary JFK assassination conspiracy writer Harold Weisberg said in 1999: "Much as it looks like Oswald was some kind of agent for somebody, I have not found a shred of evidence to support it, and he never had an extra penny, so he had no loot from being an agent." (this is from the man who dedicated his whole life to undercovering the conspiracy; wrote 8 conspiracy books and is considered by far the best researcher ever on JFK)


quote:
you, too, were wrong about the "dog." That's just one small detail that I did happen to remember from reading about it.

Bull shit. I let this go the first time, but just because it says so on an internet site does not make it so. The claim that it was lambchop was made by Richard Trask in his 1994 book "Pictures of Pain" but four years later he corrected his error in his book "The Day in Dallas" when high quality images showed that without a doubt what he and critics thought was Lamb Chop toy was, in fact a bouquet of white flowers (asters) that a child in the greating party at Love Field had given the first lady. No photo of the interior of the car ever showed the toy, and such a toy never surfaced.

quote:
The fact that Oswald was murdered immediately left no accused shooter to deny or corroborate anyone's version of events - the mark of professionals.

You think that Jack Ruby was a professional hired to rub out Oswald? Wow, just wow. The CIA or the mob hired 52 year old Jack Ruby? Sure. Of course Oswald survived after the assassination for several days of questioning and Jack Ruby lived in prision for several years. Very professional.

quote:
Sam Giancana's son wrote another book indicating that the mob and Kennedy's/Washington were connected. A lot of Americans believe that, too, as organized crime was a part of recent American history. I think mobsters had the motive then, but so did more powerful people in the U.S. and who were known to associate with mafia dons at their luxury resorts, including the long-time head of the FBI himself who despised the Kennedy's.

Yet in 44 years of conspiracy theorists overturning every rock not a speck of evidence has come up.

quote:
It's been too long since I've read about it. Most people believe it was a coup d'etat. They've been witholding evidence surrounding the case from interested groups for too long.

What evidence has been withheld? The Warren Commission and supplemental documents are all available.

quote:
They just want to understand what happened for the sake of knowing that justice was carried out and not abused.

Bull. Yes there are some conspiracy theorists who are actually looking for the truth. Many more are looking for money and fame. Most have outright lied and fabricated the truth as I showed in the pictures that conspiracy theorists always show in their books for the positioning of Kennedy and Connally in the limo. It is a flat out lie to their readers and they know they are lying to their readers.

quote:
It doesn't matter who killed JFK. He was only a Liberal politician anyway. They were paranoid of anyone on the left at the time, especially Bobby Kennedy. Lots of powerful people had motive for wanting him dead. And dead he was.

There were lots of people who hated anyone on the left. But a lot of this belief that Kennedy had to be killed is spread by people believing Kennedy was not what he was. "Kennedy was going to end the war in vietnam, Kennedy was going to smash the CIA (to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds)." There is no proof that Kennedy ever said those words. There is no proof that Kennedy was at odds with the CIA and there is no proof that Kennedy would have eneded the Vietnam War. People just elevate him due to their own fantasies. (for Kennedy's close ties with the CIA see here.

Furthermore their was no evidence that LBJ was going to be more hawkish on any of those issues. The CIA had everything to loose by assassinating the President and had no idea if it would gain anything.

quote:
An Italian businessman once told JFK that America would have to deal with fascism at some point. There are lots of people who believe fascism has already taken root in the U.S.

Whether or not that is true has absolutely nothing to do with the assassination.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 22 June 2007 11:50 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Again, I don't mean to antagonize you or anything. You seem somewhat knowledgeable. However, I still think you're full of it about the dog. Sorry bout that. They didn't know about the stuffed toy given to Jackie until 20 years later. And I'd tend to give more credence to an actual eye witness to the event than even you, as credible as you are.

House Select Committee on Assassinations (1976 - 1979) said Warren investigation was "seriously flawed"

quote:
Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.

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. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy


And in case you missed it, New forensic evidence says 2nd shooter a possibility


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 22 June 2007 11:56 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

Texas A&M Statistician Probes Bullet Evidence in JFK Assassination forensic science now says second shooter a possibility


I read the study. Dr. Guinn said the bullet fragments had to come from one bullet. The study found that 1 out of 30 bullets (from the same lot) they analyzed had the same composition of the bullet fragments as another bullet. Meaning that it is possible (but highly unlikely) for identical bullet fragments to be from two different bullets. Of course seeing as there was no fourth shot, it is irrelevant. They will test this theory, as they should, and as they have tested every single thing imaginable in this case. It will turn up nothing as it requires a fourth shot (which about 97% of the witnesses didn't hear), a third shot to have hit Kennedy (I guess entering the same entrance and exit wounds that already exists as there are only two entrance wounds and two exit wounds in the President). But yes anything is possible. It is also possible that aliens stopped time, killed Kennedy, put Oswald's fingerprints all over the den and rifle and then started time again. The suspence is killing me.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 23 June 2007 12:12 AM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

House Select Committee on Assassinations (1976 - 1979) said Warren investigation was "seriously flawed"


As far as I know the HSCA said that Warren Commission was seriously flawed due to it not finding the fourth gun shot which proved a conspiracy. Problem is it was actually the HSCA which was seriously flawed as they were the ones who didn't inquire enough into the fourth gunshot which (if it was a shot at all) occured a full minute after the assassination.

Of the Warren Commission the HSCA said:

"conducted a thorough and professional investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination."

"Of the highest level of professionalism, dedication, and integrity."

The committee also noted that criticisms leveled at the Commission had often been biased, unfair, and inaccurate.

Let's not forget that while the HSCA had several years, the Warren Commission only had nine months. And while the HSCA did improve on many things over the WC, it was ultimately the HSCA that got taken for a ride through sloppy and inadequate investigation into the supposed fourth shot.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 23 June 2007 12:27 AM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is a zoom in of a picture of the asters which were mistaken for Lamb chop. The original picture is here which shows the limo after the assassination. Unless Jackie took Lamb chop in to the hospital with her (which is doubtful as she never let go of President and they had a difficult time getting him out of the vehicle because of that) then there was no lamb chop.

Other than that you can check your library for Richard Trask's "That Day in Dallas" which is a book of enhanced pictures.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 23 June 2007 03:03 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

I read the study. ... Of course seeing as there was no fourth shot, it is irrelevant.


The Guinn evidence was actually used to rule out the possibility of a second shooter by suggesting that fragments were all from two bullets from the same box of 30 and fired from "Oswald's" rifle. That evidence is now being called into question.

The new statistical analysis will include more than the seven elements used by Guinn in his analysis to prove bullet heterogenity as well as quality control and considerations for fragment geometry to establish the basis for matching fragments originating from a single bullet. IOW's, they think there is a good chance they'll prove Guinn's evidenciary slam dunk was no slam dunk at all.

And, with the new analysis of fragment evidence from the assassination, they will also run the risk of discovering that those bullet fragments were not all from the two bullets "Oswald" is supposed to have hit Kennedy with but from three or more different bullets - in which case, a second shooter was likely. And the likelihood will be reported by the forensic team in the form of a mathematical probability, probably.

The HSCA said that the the Warren Commission investigation was seriously flawed and that a cospiracy was likely. That's what people in general have understood about it since the 1970's.

And, Jean Hill repeatedly said there was a stuffed animal in the backseat. It was shown from an actual film taken that day that a child did hand Jackie what looked like a Lambchop doll before the motorcade took off. This was in addition to the flowers in your nice picture.

Sorry that you're jousting at illusions with aliens and stuff. You should read a better book about what happened than just the dingy old Warren Commission report. It's been discredited long time now.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 23 June 2007 10:25 AM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

The Guinn evidence was actually used to rule out the possibility of a second shooter


Guinn's testimony was one of the many things the HSCA used to rule out the possibility of a second shooter. Three other commissions also ruled out the possibility of a second shooter without Guinn and scientific evidence over the last 28 years has also ruled out the possibility.

quote:
And, with the new analysis of fragment evidence from the assassination, they will also run the risk of discovering that those bullet fragments were not all from the two bullets "Oswald" is supposed to have hit Kennedy with but from three or more different bullets - in which case, a second shooter was likely.

Yes the magic silent bullets which didn't leave a mark on Kennedy. I can't wait.

quote:
The HSCA said that the the Warren Commission investigation was seriously flawed and that a cospiracy was likely. That's what people in general have understood about it since the 1970's.

The HSCA was set up to find a conspiracy – it’s level of funding depended on that. The first two chairmen resigned (Downing and Gonzalez) and the chief counsel Richard Sprague (who was chosen partly on the recommendation of long time conspiracy author Mark Lane) also resigned as he was under fire for advocating activities regarding the HSCA’s investigations which were illegal. In 1977 the Committee barely passed a vote from the House to continue their investigation based on anger that the HSCA had not come up with anything. Shortly after funding for the Committee was cut by more than 75%. Months after that with the HSCA needing to drastically cut staff and travel they decided on a different route – they announced they had developed evidence of a conspiracy (in the MLK case) and at the same time sought more funding, they were rewarded for "finding" what they were set up to do. Later on when coasting on financial fumes again the HSCA was contacted about the possibility of a fourth shot recorded from a Dallas police radio transmission. Up until then all of their findings had confirmed the WC conclusions. Even in the areas of scientific examination which the HSCA could go into in a far more accurate and more detailed manner their findings had only strengthened the WC findings. They had their smoking gun – their purpose - and didn’t examine the evidence closely which would have showed - as all future analysis of the recorded radio transmission has - that even if there was an additional shot it could not have been related to the Kennedy assassination and there is no way that the shot was fired from the grassy knoll. The shot occurred 1 minute after Oswald’s three shots (which the HSCA showed had to have been fired from the book depository building and had to have been fired by Oswald) when the grassy knoll was already swarmed by officers and witnesses. The HSCA was taken for a ride and they were only too happy to hop on. Their conclusion that Kennedy was “probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy” was reached with nearly a total reliance on the accoustical evidence which has been totally discredited. Even then 4 out of the 12 members of HSCA filed written dissents (compared to the unanimous WC report). Typical of conspiracy theorists, they brandish the information which has proven completely wrong.

quote:
And, Jean Hill repeatedly said there was a stuffed animal in the backseat. It was shown from an actual film taken that day that a child did hand Jackie what looked like a Lambchop doll before the motorcade took off. This was in addition to the flowers in your nice picture.

Says who? It took conspiracy theorists twenty years to come up with that load of rubbish.

quote:
Sorry that you're jousting at illusions with aliens and stuff. You should read a better book about what happened than just the dingy old Warren Commission report. It's been discredited long time now.

I have read the one volume summary of the Warren Commission (not the 26 volumes) and the one volume summary of the HSCA. I have also read Vincent Bugliosi's massive book "Reclaiming History" and a half dozen conspiracy books. I would agree that reading the Warren Commission is not the best book on the subject as too much new evidence proving Oswald's guilt has come out since 1964, while no evidence has ever come out to dispute that guilt or implicate the involvement of others. "Reclaiming History" is the by far the best book on the assassination and anyone who wants to know just how badly they are being lied to conspiracy theorists should read it.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 23 June 2007 10:57 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Perhaps I can help with a decent book list for you:

"Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why," by Gerald D. McKnight

"JFK For A New Generation", a good beginners book to the photgraphic evidence

Contract on America: The Mafia Murder of President John F. Kennedy" -- talks about the murders of JFK, RFK and MLK, the decade of politcally-motivated assassinations of leftists in America

"Double Cross" , by Sam Giancana's son, Chuck

Ya, that Warren Commission stuff is a waste of time. That investigation was so slip-shod and bass-ackward that it actually fueled the coverup theories. I can understand now where you're coming from with your 1960's POV on the assassination and botched attempts to cover it up. Good luck


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 23 June 2007 12:28 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[QB]Perhaps I can help with a decent book list for you:

"Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why," by Gerald D. McKnight


I have read it. LBJ. Hoover, the justice department, the secret service, the US Nay, the CIA and the Warren Commission were all from the start involved in covering up the truth. Backed up by not even the slightest scrap of evidence. A cover up that large would have required hundreds, if not thousands of people. Not one of them talked, not one document was ever leaked. Only a completely delusional would believe a word of that.

quote:
"JFK For A New Generation", a good beginners book to the photgraphic evidence

I have seen more photographic evidence on the Kennedy case than I could ever need.

quote:
Contract on America: The Mafia Murder of President John F. Kennedy" -- talks about the murders of JFK, RFK and MLK, the decade of politcally-motivated assassinations of leftists in America

There is not shred of evidence supporting any link between Jack Ruby and the Mafia. Not in Chicago – where Ruby grew up, not in Texas or New Orleans.

quote:
"Double Cross" , by Sam Giancana's son, Chuck

Ah hahaha. Shit I think I will write a book about how the easter bunny, santa clause, the tooth fiary and bigfoot killed Kennedy, no doubt you will believe that too. (the Loch Ness Monster wanted to be a part of it to but she had a hard time swimming to Dallas)

Chuck is actually Sam’s brother btw, not son. This brilliant book also tells us that Sam had Marilyn Monroe and RFK killed (again both pulled off with out a shred of evidence ever being found by anyone including all of he conspiracy theorists). Lets see Sam Giancana, along with the CIA, Jack Ruby, Nixon, LBJ, Hoover, higher ups in the Dallas police force and Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell all planned the killing (making sure a swath of people this large is involved was super smart and I guess they were not worried about anyone ever coming clean, or refusing involvement when they initially planned the killing ) . A half dozen fanatical right-wing texans were involved too (because the above dozen people were hardly enough to come up with the plan). Sam himself hired a team of 7 professional killers who were top marksmen (yet who missed completely on the first shot, missed the kill on the second shot, and only got off a third shot which was the kill because Kennedy with his back brace couldn’t get down. That is one hell of a team.) They also hired two police officers to kill Oswald, but when officer Tippit wavered officer White had to kill Tippit (although at least a half dozen witnesses saw the murder of Tippit by Oswald). Seriously you believe that story???? Pretty pathetic. Again a conspiracy that large and no evidence of it has ever emerged. On top of that the three books don’t even agree on what actually happened or who was involved. They have the shooters in different spots (grassy knoll vs book depository), the have different shooters, they have different numbers of shooter. They have different...oh never mind each story is obviously completely true. The only thing that these books prove is that people can make money off gullible people desperate to believe that Kennedy’s death must have had more significance then it did. Kennedy himself knew that any lone crazy gunman could easily kill him. It did not required anything more.

quote:
Ya, that Warren Commission stuff is a waste of time. That investigation was so slip-shod and bass-ackward that it actually fueled the coverup theories. I can understand now where you're coming from with your 1960's POV on the assassination and botched attempts to cover it up. Good luck

OK the Warren Commission IS a waste of time, but reading a bunch of crack pot books written by frauds is not. You are being lied to Fidel. Only in the case of the JFK assassination the people who are lying to you are the ones you are choosing to never question. Those books will make anyone who reads them dumber on the subject.

[ 23 June 2007: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 23 June 2007 02:20 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Apparently it can't make you any dumber than if you were relying on the slip-shod Warren Commission investigation. That was dumb. A CBS opinion poll conducted in 1998 said just under 80 percent of Americans don't believe the lone assassin coverup. And that's because the feds botched the investigation and have failed to prove without a doubt their own shaky claim that Oswald acted alone.

That means, you don't have to believe the "official story" either unless you want to. The moral of the story is, don't spend all your money in one place, kid. JFK was only a Liberal, and the lunatic right-wing fringe of about 36 percent of American voters manage to run the show down there. We've got our own mini-hawks in Ottawa elected to power with less than 24 percent of the eligible vote in 2006. Liberal Democrats are that other party representing wealth and power. Who cares anyway?. Not me, that's for sure. We don't have democracy in North America. What we have in both countries is an all powerful plutocracy. That's the real conspiracy. It's time to move on from JFK to more important things, like democratizing this frozen Puerto Rico. The Yanks have their hands full now with trying to offload what has to be the worst cosmetic government they've ever had if not for appearance sake.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 June 2007 06:39 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yesterday, I walked by Sam the Record Man downtown in Toronto, and saw that they're going out of business. They had a ton of video cassette movies on sale for a couple of bucks each, so I picked up a bunch.

Including "LBJ: The Early Years". As soon as I saw it, I thought of this thread and thought, I'm going to pick that up! And now I'm watching it.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 23 June 2007 09:05 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[QB]Apparently it can't make you any dumber than if you were relying on the slip-shod Warren Commission investigation. That was dumb. A CBS opinion poll conducted in 1998 said just under 80 percent of Americans don't believe the lone assassin coverup. And that's because the feds botched the investigation and have failed to prove without a doubt their own shaky claim that Oswald acted alone.

No I already explained above why 80% of people believe there is a conspiracy. Because people are constantly bombarded by conspiracy theory lies, while hearing nothing of the side which scientists, evidence and experts confirm. The same thing is happening with 9/11 - just through enough BS out there and eventually people will believe that there must be something to it. Take the movie JFK for instance. Complete bull from start to finish. Stone couldn't have made the movie more dishonest if he tried and it has been effective propaganda. The Nazis or Stalin would have had a hard time topping such shameless propaganda. Conspiracy theorists have faith that they are right, much like religious fanatics, so I guess they figure that when they flat out lie and deceive, like with magic bullet theory, that it is OK as they are doing it for a higher purpose. Conspiracy theories have a tendency to start out small, but then as more and more experts confirm the official story conspiracy theorists have to add those experts in as well. That is how things snowball to dozens of people being involved in the planning of the JFK assassination and every agency and thousands of people were involved in the cover up. It doesn't matter how solid the evidence is that they are wrong, as that is part of the coverup. And it doesn't matter crappy their position/witness is as that is the truth. I pointed out how ridiculously uncredible each witness that has been brought up here has been. But no instead conspiracy theorists dismiss the hundreds of credible witness as having been "got to" while accepting some of the most insane and delusional witnesses ever (and even calling some of them witnesses is a big stretch because several of them came along many years later and there is no evidence that they were actually there, but hey good enough for most conspirators)

You yourself have made it obvious that you have read nothing except conspiracy theory supporting material. I don't blame you, wouldn't want to challenge a long held belief. You can say what ever you want by implying that I am relying on the Warren Commission, I don't care (and as I have pointed out I rely on and have read far more than the WC). Like most people I watched JFK and believed their had to be a conspiracy. I read many books supporting the conspiracy. Then I had the brains to challenge that belief. Reading anything from the other side makes you realize immediately how completely idiotic almost every JFK assassination related conspiracy really is.

But it has been nice "discussing" this with you.

[ 23 June 2007: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 23 June 2007 09:25 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not all of us are "up to-date" on the Warren Commission's findings, if that's what you're meaning. Keep an eye out for Spiegelman's report in the meantime. You'll discover what 80 percent of us already know about the "lone gunman" theory.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 23 June 2007 09:27 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Yesterday, I walked by Sam the Record Man downtown in Toronto, and saw that they're going out of business. They had a ton of video cassette movies on sale for a couple of bucks each, so I picked up a bunch.

Including "LBJ: The Early Years". As soon as I saw it, I thought of this thread and thought, I'm going to pick that up! And now I'm watching it.


Looking forward to the prospect of your review.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 25 June 2007 03:12 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Robert Dallek has a great two-volume biography of Johnson (recently condensed into a single volume, although I'd still recommend at least the first volume of the two-part version).

Dallek argues for Johnson as something of a tragic figure -- "tragic" is a frequently misused term, but I'd agree that it applies in this case. Johnson was an unscrupulous sonofabitch who was nonetheless motivated to go into politics by a desire to end the grinding poverty and the ingrained racism he had seen growing up in Texas. Sure, his motives weren't pure -- he had no qualms about enjoying the perks of public office and making a buck on the side -- but they were sincere.

And on civil rights, Johnson accomplished what the presidents before him had tried and failed to do (or more often, hadn't even tried to do). His War on Poverty was even more ambitious in scope, but perhaps more of it could have been realized if Johnson hadn't allowed himself to be consumed by his obsession with winning the Vietnam War, and with proving to his opponents on both sides that he was right on foreign policy and they were wrong. Johnson bears the bulk of the blame for escalating the American role in Vietnam, and the subsequent conduct of the war. Although he did have many of Kennedy's advisers egging him on. The idea that Kennedy would have taken a substantially different approach toward Vietnam is probably wishful thinking for the most part.

Johnson certainly was less familiar with foreign policy than Kennedy, but part of the problem was that Kennedy left Johnson out of the loop as vice-president, leaving Johnson largely insulated from the foreign-policy lessons that Kennedy learned in his three years in office.

It's interesting to contrast the Kennedys with Johnson. As I said, JFK had much better grounding in foreign policy than LBJ (who was more of a reflexive anti-Communist), but much of that was learned on the job. On domestic policy, LBJ left JFK in the dust. He left the Senate as a master of the political game, and also had a much stronger vision of social justice than JFK ever did. LBJ's stubborn and blinkered Vietnam policy derailed everything else he was working for, making LBJ more of a true tragic figure than either of the Kennedys, although who knows how they would have developed further had they lived.

JFK went through a steeper learning curve in three years than just about any other president. He went from being a more confrontational president than Eisenhower, one much more prone to brinksmanship, to signing a nuclear test ban moratorium.

RFK had a learning curve of his own. He went from being his brother's chief dirty-tricks operative, to a cynical politician with a career of his own, to (very briefly) something of a young statesman. RFK hated LBJ (the feeling was mutual), but this was from long before Vietnam became LBJ's albatross, and even before JFK's death.

Part of me thinks that the centre-left in the States needs to find a leader much like Lyndon Johnson -- a ruthless operator who knows all the tricks of the game, but with the determination to craft and implement a progressive legislative agenda. Although I agree with Josh that Johnson's style was out of date even at the time. And the U.S. needs a leader who won't uncritically accept and reinforce the militaristic culture of his (or her) times, which was where Johnson failed spectacularly. I'm not sure I see any politicians who have Johnson's positive attributes while lacking his negative ones, and who have a chance of winning. Hillary Clinton? Only if she's hiding it REALLY well. Obama? Maybe if you squint and close one eye. Edwards? He may have the commitment, but does he have the experience, the resources, the connections, or the sheer grit that he needs to make his words anything more than eloquent promises?

Maybe it won't even be a Democrat who turns things around. Maybe it'll be someone like Chuck Hagel, who in some ways is Johnson's mirror image. Like Johnson, Hagel is thoroughly corrupt in terms of stealing elections, but even as a southern good-old-boy, LBJ was more radical in advancing equality and civil rights than a lot of northern "liberals" were. Unfortunately, he came to the presidency with a cartoonishly simplistic attitude toward foreign policy, and while he did learn something on the job, his kneejerk anti-Communism combined with his deference toward the tremendously bad advice of most of the advisors he inherited from JFK, leading to disaster. Hagel, by contrast, is a Vietnam vet who has learned from LBJ's mistakes and misdeeds, becoming one of the Iraq war's fiercest critics, but who has an extremely narrow view of what "freedom" means on the home front, at least as far as abortion and sexual orientation are concerned. I'm not arguing in favour of a Hagel presidential campaign here, just suggesting that the political climate could be more favourable to an antiwar reactionary like Hagel, as opposed to a hawkish liberal like Johnson.

[ 25 June 2007: Message edited by: obscurantist ]


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 25 June 2007 03:24 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Good points. I don't think we'll see another LBJ anytime soon because of the voter adversion to Washington insiders and because the media proliferation makes it difficult to do the wheeling and dealing LBJ did. Only in the US is qualification for the job a disqualification.

While Dallek's two volume work is good, there's only one place to go to study LBJ. That's Robert Caro's masterful multi-volume work on LBJ's life. Unfortunately, Caro gives birth to his volumes every seven years to twelve years, 1983, 1990 and 2002. So, even though the first volume was published in 1983, he's only up to 1960, when LBJ became vice-president. And probably the earliest the next volume will come out will be 2009.

Also, because of the taping system used by LBJ, we have a bird's eye view of his presidency. So far only the first two years have been transcribed. Highlights can be found in Michael Beschloss's two volume work.

[ 25 June 2007: Message edited by: josh ]


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 June 2007 04:04 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:

Looking forward to the prospect of your review.


Well, it's hard for me to review it because I blushingly admit that I knew pretty much nothing about LBJ before watching the movie, except for reading a few (not all!) of the posts in this thread. But it was this thread that made me want to learn more.

And the movie ends at LBJ being sworn in on the airplane right after Kennedy is shot, so I don't know a lot about LBJ's time in office as President. What I know is what I saw in this movie, and he seemed like a really blustery, obnoxious, and deeply principled person who was really strong on class and civil rights issues. And I loved that about him during the movie. Compared to Reagan? And Dubya? And Bush Sr.? And I don't know, maybe even Clinton on domestic economic issues? I can see why josh thinks he looks pretty good in comparison.

But as jeff house says, Vietnam is a dealbreaker. Any war is a dealbreaker for me, but Vietnam was just so vicious, so horrific...well.

Anyhow, that's my reaction to the movie - if it's accurate, then I think there is a lot to admire about LBJ.

Now, what I should do to balance it out is to watch that McNamara documentary, Fog of War. I wanted to see it while it was out but didn't get a chance. I have a feeling my opinion might change if I do.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 25 June 2007 09:36 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
While Dallek's two volume work is good, there's only one place to go to study LBJ. That's Robert Caro's masterful multi-volume work on LBJ's life. Unfortunately, Caro gives birth to his volumes every seven years to twelve years, 1983, 1990 and 2002. So, even though the first volume was published in 1983, he's only up to 1960, when LBJ became vice-president. And probably the earliest the next volume will come out will be 2009.
But is longer necessarily better in a biography?

I haven't read Caro's work. (It was in a review of his most recent volume that I first heard about Dallek's treatment of the same subject.) But to spend three substantial volumes on the first fifty years of a man best known for what he did between age fifty and fifty-five (and who died at sixty-five) suggests to me that Johnson obsesses Caro to a degree that affects his ability to write objectively about him, or at least his ability to effectively edit what he's written. Sure, Johnson is a compellingly complex character worthy of considerable attention. But four volumes? We're not talking about Winston Churchill here.

Caro also wrote a biography of Robert Moses, and the sense I get is that he's motivated to write about political figures who make him really angry. I could be wrong. But the length of his Johnson biography discourages me from reading it, for more reasons than just a simple lack of time. I'd almost be more inclined to read a good Nixon biography -- if I could find one. Stephen Ambrose sounds like too much of a partisan shill, and as for Conrad Black's recent Nixon book ... well, that might actually be interesting in a weird sort of way.

[ 25 June 2007: Message edited by: obscurantist ]


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 26 June 2007 02:27 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Caro's volumes are worth the read, especially the first one, if for no other reason than he writes so well. His description of life in the Texas hill country before electrification (which LBJ got passed) is novelesque.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 11 July 2007 04:37 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey, I just read on Daily Kos that Ladybird Johnson is dead.

Gee, I'm just the grim reaper today, aren't I? First Honest Ed and now Ladybird.

P.S. The Kossacks' remembrance of Ladybird sure is making them see LBJ through rose-coloured glasses too.

[ 11 July 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 11 July 2007 05:18 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just remember the worst excesses of the Vietnam War came after the Tet offensive and that came quite a bit after LBJ

edited to add

Whoops fucked that one up. Tet happened during he last year of his presidency and was one reason why he pulled out of the next presidential election.


quote:
Although US public opinion polls continued to show a majority supporting involvement in the war, this support continued to deteriorate and the nation became increasingly polarized over the war.[18] President Lyndon Johnson saw his popularity fall sharply after the Offensive, and he withdrew as a candidate for re-election in March of 1968.

[ 11 July 2007: Message edited by: Bacchus ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%E1%BA%BFt_Offensive

[ 11 July 2007: Message edited by: Bacchus ]


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca