MovieChat Forums > Parkland (2013) Discussion > Some basic things to know about JFK's mu...

Some basic things to know about JFK's murder...


JFK was killed by an amalgem of CIA/oil interests, with mob support, and complicity from VP Lyndon Johnson and FBI Director J Edgar Hoover.

Today, having the public know what essentially happened in Dallas seems to be just fine (as long as no one tries to actually do anything about it) because it communicates clearly to everyone "who rules".



** Oswald was set up as "the nut," the CIA routinely setting up official patsies in advance when committing assassinations overseas. Oswald was a low-level intelligence grunt who'd participated in the fake-defector program of the Cold War era and who was carefully positioned to take the blame.

** 95% of Oliver Stone's movie was based on the more responsible investigations of many researchers from the '60s to the '90s.

** While some continue to assert that "there's not one piece of evidence that anyone other that Oswald killed JFK," in fact valid evidence has fallen out left and right... Recently, infamous Watergate conspirator, E Howard Hunt, long-assumed complicit in JFK's death, left an audio and handwritten confession for his son, although only "Rolling Stone" would touch it and, later, Jesse Ventura; CBS' 60 MINUTES was going to do a piece on it, and had investigated and verified the portions which could be so verified (like the handwriting and voice) but word came down from the top of CBS that they weren't going to let 60 MINUTES run the story, no matter what they had.

So it was killed and shelved away.

** Whatever data in the official files hidden away for 75 years will, in all probability, not reveal the truth of the assassination, but will likely re-affirm comfortable Lone Nut lies, and maybe falsely implicate Castro and the KGB, insisting that such data "supporting" a Communist conspiracy had to be kept secret in order to avoid WW3 (which is what LBJ told Earl Warren to get him to participate in the commission that bore his name).

The records are never going to say, "Oh, by the way, LBJ, H L Hunt and Murchison, Brown & Root, and Texas oil, the CIA, the mafia, and the Cuban exhiles all colluded to kill the 35th President, with Hoover's FBI manipulating the Warren Commission's investigation... "

** LBJ was being investigated by Ways & Means for a long series of corrupt activities including skimming Texas Agricultural Commission funds for personal and political finance reasons, and local Texas murders. Bobby Kennedy at the Justice Dept could have suppressed this but didn't, and there was much backroom talk of LBJ either being off the 1964 ticket, or removed once JFK won re-election. LBJ was about to be destroyed and JFK's death would stop all of it. (Once JFK was dead, the necessary pressure was applied to end the investigations directed at Johnson).

** LBJ's well-known girlfriend, Madeleine Duncan Brown, (and mother of his spittin' image son, Steven, who died in 1990) and who spoke well of Lyndon Johnson until she herself died in 2002, nevertheless remained consistent for many years about LBJ's admitting complicity in JFK's murder (when asked by her on New Year's Eve 1963, he angrily insisted the Texas oil guys and the CIA had done it, yet it was evident to her that he'd known all about it, before and after the fact). Others from LBJ's law office have said the same thing essentially.

In Dallas, it was immediately understood that LBJ had green-lighted the assassination, if not planned it personally.

** LBJ had very, very close ties to the Texas oil guys involved, the mob guys involved, and, of course, J Edgar Hoover. In 1963, the men at the top of these groups were all a very tight circle (half of them literally vacationed together). And they essentially owned the CIA because that agency was up for the highest bidder (which meant oil and defense contractors). And you don't want defense contractors setting war policy in order to create an artificial market for their own product. But that's what was happening, and JFK had attempted to rein this in.

** Miss Brown and others have also admitted that the Viet Nam war went on as long as it did because of the profits being made by LBJ's buddies in the oil/defense-hardware business, and the kickbacks that LBJ and Nixon received over a period of years for prolonging the war while publicly stating their intent to end it.

** One of the reasons Oswald was sheep-dipped as a Communist, and thereby potentially framing the Kremlin and Castro in JFK's murder, was to create a huge public backlash to launch a nuclear strike on Cuba and even Russia. Today, this sounds unthinkable, but in the Cold War hysteria of the late-'50s/early-'60s, many in the federal government thought this was not only doable but necessary --- the CIA and the Joint Chiefs approached JFK twice (in June 1961 and again in September 1963) to drop the Bomb on Russia, and he angrily refused... They believed that a unilateral strike on Russia was possible as long as it happened by late 1963 (or 1965 at the latest) because Russia's automated nuclear response system was supposedly still so shaky -- and even if Russia was able to get in a retaliatory strike, 30 million Americans lost was seen as acceptable collateral damage.

Even JFK's public success in preventing nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 was deemed just another wasted opportunity by many hawks in military/intelligence.

Once in the White House, LBJ nixed any nuclear holocaust occurring on his own watch and dictated that the Warren Commission minimize Oswald's manufactured Communist connections. As a consolation prize, LBJ immediately ramped-up the lucrative ground war in southeast asia (Vitenam was the biggest business in America by the late-'60s), a war Kennedy had been dragging his feet on and privately talking about pulling out of.

** The 2 presidents which followed JFK were in on his assassination, and the third (Ford) was a(n easily duped) member of the Warren Commission.

** The mainstream media still wont deal honestly with the subject even after 50 years, insisting that "there's no irrefutable evidence of a conspiracy" and giving their stamp of approval to every book or documentary which exercises wild selectivity in its choice of data to "confirm" the Warren Commission's Lone Nut findings. Because the same dynamic still exists today: the oil and defense industries (and other corporate influences) are still setting federal governmental policy.

** 51 people at least heard and saw shots from the grassy knoll. Almost none were asked to testify, and the couple that were were dismissed with the old "echoes" rationale. Even a couple of Kennedy aides, Dave Powers and Kenneth O'Donnell, in the motorcade saw shots from the front coming from the grassy knoll, and both later told Senator Tip O'Niell that they'd been coerced into changing their story by the FBI because "you're wrong, and the family wants to get this behind them". And when the media runs assassination retrospective programs today, they never show you the widely-available footage (from multiple cameras) of the Dealey Plaza witnesses, both young and old, sprinting up the grassy knoll to look behind the fence, because the footage is too evocative of something other than a Lone Nut inside the Schoolbook Depository.

** Discussions of assassination amongst the guilty parties began as early as 1961 after the Bay of Pigs failure, dependent on what Kennedy did in office. Not only was Oswald trained in Russian as a private(!) in the service (which was only done for those being groomed for intelligence work), once he "defected" and then returned to America, he not only wasn't prosecuted as a traitor, he actually brought back a Russian wife (almost impossible to do at the time) and was never even de-briefed by any federal agency. All of which was unheard of for 1963. (In fact, the State Department gave him money for living expenses).

** Oswald had known Jack Ruby (with mob, CIA and FBI in his background) since the former was a child. And Jack Ruby had worked for Nixon during the McCarthy days.

** Terrified, Marina's verifying at the time that Oswald had attempted to shoot General Walker earlier in the year was something she was pressured to say by the CIA. (She has long since expressed her view that Lee didn't do it). And even the "package" Lee was duped into taking into the TSBD was too short to be the weapon, even when broken down... Marina admits to taking the famed photo of Lee behind their house (with the rifle and the Russian paper) and it is not a fake, but she's said he came home one afternoon and urgently asked her to take the photo as if he'd been assigned it.

** All the Dallas police initially identified the "sniper's nest" rifle at the TSBD as a German Mauser. Later, it became an Italian Mannlicher Carcano.

** Russia's KGB was, however, well aware of the plans to murder Kennedy by his own government, and the intention to use Oswald to frame the Communists. In order to preempt this, the KGB dispatched Richard Case Nagel, a double agent also with the CIA, to kill Oswald in advance to prevent it.

Nagel walked into a bank in El Paso, Texas in the fall of 1963 and shot thru the ceiling and then went and sat on the curb and awaited arrest by the local police in order to avoid his assassination assignment. He later nervously relayed this in 1967 to Jim Garrison, and this meeting was the partial basis for the "X" scene in Oliver Stone's 1991 film.

** Earlier in November, JFK's murder was scheduled to occur in Chicago, with mental patient, Thomas Arthur Valle, the intended patsy and an even better choice than Oswald. The scheme was foiled and re-scheduled for Miami on November 18, which was also stopped.

** None of the Parkland medical team recognized the "official" autopsy photos of the back of JFK's head showing it intact. They all described seeing a huge, grapefruit-sized rear exit wound when he was brought into the ER.

** JFK was beloved only by the public and (most of, if not all) the press. There was no single motive for the murder, but a myriad of them.

** As far as the "someone would have talked by now" argument, in fact plenty have. And no matter how credible, the mainstream media in the U.S. simply will not report it.

And why not?

The CIA now even admits that their Operation Mockingbird Program placed "friendlies" in the media to control the flow and tone of information (although they insist it was disbanded in the '60s because it had "failed"). In the '70s, even CIA Director Colby admitted that the agency had every journalists of note on their payroll (and while this was hopefully hyperbole, it certainly speaks to the agency's confidence that they had the press sufficiently battened down).

Also in the '70s, a CIA memo was leaked directing reviewers to use the same canned phrases and observastions about any book released which addressed the conspiracy to kill JFK (e.g., "there's nothing new here;" this material has already been thoroughly de-bunked; there's a cottage industry in keeping the conspiracy theories going; the author has a well-known agenda; etc...). Phrases still widely used even today.

** When former president Harry Truman made comments in the press (only one month after the assassination, and suspiciously under-reported by the nation's newspapers) that the CIA had been doing things it wasn't supposed to do ever since he'd expanded the agency's power 15 years earlier at the behest of CIA godfather Allen Dulles, Dulles (who really ran the Warren Commission, not Earl Warren) asked Truman to retract his comments; when Truman refused, Dulles forged a retraction for Truman -- and then published it!!

** Watergate, ten years later, was largely about the assassination of JFK... Numerous key figures in Watergate (Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis) were in Dallas for the assassination in 1963 (which Hunt recently confessed to on paper and audiotape just before his death). Watergate was not so much about the break-in at national DNC headquarters, but attempts to protect the intelligence's black-operations, most noteably, as Nixon cryptically said, "that whole Bay of Pigs thing" (an odd comments since everything about the Bay of Pigs had supposedly been public knowledge for a decade). It was a reference to what happened in Dallas, and led Nixon and CIA-demigod Richard Helms to essentially blackmail each other during the Watergate scandal regarding all they "had' on each other.

Nixon's White House aide, H R Haldeman, believed that "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" was a reference to the assassination, and was told by Nixon that fellow aide, John Ehrlichman, "knows all about it."

When asked by respected Republican senator Howard Baker what he knew about JFK's death, Nixon responded, "You don't want to know."

**In the mid-1980s, Howard Hunt sued a rightwing periodical, Liberty Lobby, which ran an article about Hunt's presence in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Hunt initially won the suit, and his win was broadcast throughout the American media (thus "validating" yet again the lone gunman scenario the establishment media is so fond of). But on appeal, Liberty Lobby hired famed JFK researcher Mark Lane who found ex-Castro lover and CIA moll, Marita Lorenz, who testified that she'd ridden with Sturgis from Miami to Dallas (in that muddy white Chevy seen roaming behind the fence on the grassy knoll) carrying guns a day or so before JFK was killed. They met E. Howard Hunt in a nearby motel who apparently was acting as paymaster.

Lorenz was sent home. A few day later, Sturgis wistfully admitted to Lorenz that they had killed Kennedy... Liberty Lobby won -- and Hunt lost -- on appeal, only this time there was no media coverage of the final verdict at all, even locally.

Twenty years later, of course, Hunt confessed to the entire thing shortly before his own death. A confession accompanied by essentially zero media coverage.

** Efforts have since been made besmirch the Kennedys' reputations over the years (given that a governmental conspiracy in their assassination is likely to eventually become accepted as historical fact) by making it look like they were the victims of a kind of "rough justice" or "blowback" brought about by their own supposed complicity in the plots to assassinate the Ngo brothers and Castro -- an implication which created some friction between the JFK and LBJ staffers. (Bobby, angry at the assertion, snarled "I didn't start it, I stopped it!", regarding the failed CIA/mafia attempts on Castro).

Also, JFK had demanded that the agency be broken up "into a thousand pieces" because it was now setting policy on its own (decidedly not the CIA's proper function) as they had done in the Bay of Pigs fiasco (during which they lied to Kennedy left and right) and in the assassinations of several foreign leaders not sanctioned by the White House, as in the Ngo brothers' murders in Vietnam. (Kennedy couldn't even get the agency, or his own ambassador to Vitenam, on the phone prior to the Ngo brothers' murders).

And then there's the showbiz gossip about Marilyn Monroe's death, also dumped at the feet of Jack & Bobby.

By making the Kennedys look in history as if they were behind all of this, it appears as if the assassinated Kennedy brother were in turn "assassins" themselves --- which isn't true at all, but is designed to make the public care less about what happened to them, and why and by whom.

And this may have been the most effectively subversive approach in neutralizing concern over what happened to JFK.


------------------------------------------

Just a potpourri of enlightening pro-conspiracy videos :

----
Oswald's killer, Jack Ruby, implicates LBJ in the assassination:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsZ59X2_46M


This is Part 9 of a British produced documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", a flawed but admirable effort. The doc started in 1988, and has had additional chapters added over the years.

In 2003, three more chapter (7 thru 9) were added for the 40th anniversary of JFK's death --- but Chapter 9 in particular, "The Guilty Men", elicited such a response from LBJ's corner of the world, that The History Channel was pressured to remove it from the air, and even from Amazon.com, despite (or perhaps because of) the fact it was based on fairly good data. The British producer was even censured on the floor of Parliament for this 'travesty'.

(Even though Chapter 9 is the main object of suppression, they yanked Chapter 7 & 8 too, just for good measure, because they were the sections also completed in 2003). Here's Chapter 9:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8M-8CIPiI8

Here's an interesting ~80 minute interview with Madeleine Brown, the mistress of of LBJ (from 1948 to 1969) whose relationship to Johnson was known to all around him including the press corps and Lady Bird.

She addresses LBJ's complicity in JFK's death; she's never waivered on her story:

Part 1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSRJ5cm8XCg

Here's is the confession audiotaped for his son by infamous Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt regarding JFK:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bknUDgKdEJQ



------

______

reply

Oswald killed JFK, alone. I have little Patients for conspiracy theorist. Are you sure aliens didn't team up with Bigfoot to setup the CIA and Oswald? That's how crazy you sound.

reply

Oswald killed JFK, alone. I have little Patients for conspiracy theorist. Are you sure aliens didn't team up with Bigfoot to setup the CIA and Oswald? That's how crazy you sound.


"Patients"?

Now who sounds crazy, breakfastclubbily?

--

reply

JFK was a poor speller as well, does that disqualify his accomplishments?



let's go and say a prayer for a boy who couldn't run as fast as I could

reply

The "patience/patients" issue isn't about JFK's spelling accomplishments, but breakfastclubbilly's pretenses.

--

reply

JFK was a great speller wasn't he?! And supposedly he could read 1200 words a minute!

ü
Lance Henriksen is KING!
RIP MASK!

reply

JFK was an early proponent of the Evelyn Wood speed reading system but was a bad speller.


let's go and say a prayer for a boy who couldn't run as fast as I could

reply

This is a contribution to this thread? Unbelievable or insane.

reply

The comment is at least partially true (concerning the speed reading course) but is otherwise entirely irrelevant when it comes to the murder.

reply

Great rebuttal breakfastclubbilly. Each point more sound and true than the one before. You'll be remembered here as one of the great IMDb debaters. I also have little patients for listening to conspiracy theories. Since I can't listen to them myself, I get my little patients to do it.

Sincerely,

Dr. Gon Trollin, M.D.

reply

Great rebuttal breakfastclubbilly. Each point more sound and true than the one before. You'll be remembered here as one of the great IMDb debaters

Too funny.

I like it when people say, "All the cool people think JFK was killed by Oswald."

--

reply

Great thread. Actually I just came here to recommend the most extensively researched book on the assassination: "Crossfire: The Men Who Killed Kennedy" by Jim Marrs.

Marrs covers it all: from the mafia to the KGB to the CIA. Yeah, I admit I am bit of the conspiracy theorist. I believe most, but not all, theories. I'll tell you one thing, conspiracies are intentionally constructed never to be solved. They are highly elaborate and designed to lead researchers down many dead ends and forks in the road on their quest for truth. Conspiracies may exist, but are never conclusive. And there are carefully created several years, if not decades, beforehand.

I think this "Parkland" movie will just stick to conventional wisdom as instructed by the Hollywood gatekeepers. Hell, even King did the whole Oswald angle for his "11/22/1963" novel. I wouldn't expect any more.


I will always say this about the JFK assassination: Do you believe a man that was reputed to be a horrible marksman by government reports accurately shot a moving target from a couple hundred yards with a tree obstructing his line of vision from a three-dollar wholesale bolt action rifle?

reply

Yes.

And people should also read James Douglass' "JFK and the Unspeakable."

--

reply

"Crossfire: The Men Who Killed Kennedy" by Jim Marrs.

as instructed by the Hollywood gatekeepers

Just like Stone's "JFK"?
I will always say this about the JFK assassination: Do you believe a man that was reputed to be a horrible marksman by government reports accurately shot a moving target from a couple hundred yards with a tree obstructing his line of vision from a three-dollar wholesale bolt action rifle?

Where do you people get this crap? LHO qualified as a Sharpshooter in the Marines and still qualified a few years later as a Marksman when I'm sure he could have cared less at that point, working on a "hardship" discharge to defect to the Soviet Union. The fatal shot was only 88 yards away and the sight picture along Elm Street is nearly static. The tree may very well explain the first shot fired which was a miss; the sight picture is clear from there on. In today's dollars the rifle was ~$100 and with the scope mounted totaled ~$150. You could buy a similar surplus battle rifle today like a Moisin-Nagant for a similar price, battle accurate as they have always been.

Yeah, keeping reading Jim Marrs, Mark Lane and rest of the CT industry hacks in your search for the truth.



"Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye." 2001: A Space Odyssey

reply

And you keep reading Posner and Bugliosi.

Now go cash your check, Doc.

--
People are not flawed and imperfect --- flawed and imperfect you can work with...


reply

Waitin' for you to send the check my friend.

Apparently you find it difficult to be confronted by irrefutable facts, of course the rest of us already knew that.



"Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye." 2001: A Space Odyssey

reply

Apparently you find it difficult to be confronted by irrefutable facts, of course the rest of us already knew that.


Because you're a brilliant debater?

You'll never be able to (validly) counter the OP.

--


reply

Prommybaby - who shot Kennedy (in your ridiculous opinion)?
I dare you to answer it you pathetic little toad.

"The internet is for lonely people. People should live." Charlton Heston

reply

As usual, OSK, you and your various, profane sockpuppet accounts didn't read the OP.

The OP? Do you even know what that is? Or will you just continue spewing nonsensical, four-letter epithets instead?

--
People are not flawed and imperfect --- flawed and imperfect you can work with...


reply

[deleted]

You're unable to post, OSK, without ad hominem slams.

But you're so cute and stupid, it's almost nice.

Read the OP, as you clearly have not.

--
People are not flawed and imperfect --- flawed and imperfect you can work with...


reply

Try reading the op above troll. That not good enough for you? Let's see you refute all those points one by one with verifiable facts.

reply

Oh, I see no one has challenged the OP with their own set of facts or details. Trolls go home.

reply

Their home is The Underworld. We have to wait.

--

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Lol! I was defending you and you're joining with Kari to attack me? Wow, can't imagine how you are with those who disagree and abuse you, lol. You and your friend should get the context of the thareads before jumping in and attacking those who agree with you and are defending you.

reply

Lol! I was defending you and you're joining with Kari to attack me? Wow, can't imagine how you are with those who disagree and abuse you, lol. You and your friend should get the context of the thareads before jumping in and attacking those who agree with you and are defending you.


Huh? No, I was being funny.

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

reply

Hmm. Maybe raise your hand next time. ; )

reply

I'm ticklish!

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

reply

Funny, you don't look ticklish.

reply

And shy, too!

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

reply

Do you just reply to people without eve reading the comment or the context of the thread you were replying too??? I was responding to oswaldshotjfk's nasty attack against Prometheus. Try comprehending what is written before you jump down someone's throat and inadvertently become the troll you accuse me of.

reply

That is a great book! Have you read "Family of Secrets" by Russ Baker? Although not initially meant as a book that would cover the JFK assasination, Baker found the trail of the Bush family that led right to it. He does an amazing and irrefutable job of connecting a large array of individuals who had one thing or another to do with the route that was chosen, how Oswald got his job at the Book Depository, who was working Oswald, why H.W. was in and around Dallas that day and much more. It's a great addendum to Crossfire and even has clear details to the connections between JFK's murder and Watergate.

reply

LOL!! Good one.

reply

Are you sure aliens didn't team up with Bigfoot to setup the CIA and Oswald?

Didn't you see Spanish Fry? Aliens are only interested in noses and Bigfoot is no more dangerous than a teddy bear, just ask Lrrr and Ndnd.

Now if you really want to get to the bottom of this you should look into the time traveling ghost of Patrick Swayze. He's had a deep seated hatred of JFK since before he was even born. Some say the new world order implanted that hatred at birth, but that's just silly. Swayze might be dead, but he's not stupid. So he took control of Oswald's body and got the job done.

Remember, you heard it here first. Pass it on. If you don't you'll have 7 years of bad luck and also bad anal sex. Dr. Trollin can attest to that last one.

reply

Ah, the old space-aliens/Bigfoot reference. It only comes from a political analyst.

--


reply

It's quite pathetic that while HolyCloud listed such a large array of specifics that you're lone defense for your pov is based on childish insults and innuendo as well as your "little Patients" (do learn to spell btw unless you're some pretend doctor talking about your little clients as the reason for your not believing in anything but the standard line of the W.C.)

But, please, you're such an expert, please do take HolyCloud's points one by one and dispel them with the indisputable, verifiable facts that you have at your disposal.

reply

[deleted]

Ole!

--

reply

I need more protein, fewer carbs.


--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

reply

I'm open to all possibilities to what happened. What I would like to know is

1) Why was Oswald able to come back to America after he defected to Russia?
2) Who hired Oswald for the Texas Book Depository job? Who recommended him or gave him references?
3) How was he able to sneak a large gun into the building and nobody seeing it?
4) Why WAS LBJ in Dallas at the same time as JFK? Was it normal to have a sitting President and Vice President travel together.
5) Why did all the phone lines go down in DC on that terrible day?
6) Why did they keep the files sealed for so long?
7) Why didn't they remove the bullet for Governor Connolly after he died? (Were they afraid that bullet was different then the one that came from Oswald's riffle?

reply

1) Why was Oswald able to come back to America after he defected to Russia?

Oswald was part of the fake defector program that both sides had going at that time. So his return to America was easy.

2) Who hired Oswald for the Texas Book Depository job? Who recommended him or gave him references?

Oswald got the job thru the woman Marina was living with, Ruth Payne (whose husband worked for Bell Helicopter); the TSBD was also owned by David Byrd, the same oil man who co-founded the Texas Civil Air Patrol where young Oswald met David Ferry.

3) How was he able to sneak a large gun into the building and nobody seeing it?

He didn't. He took a package of curtain rods -- which were, in fact, curtain rods -- to frame him. But even broken down, the rifle was too large for his parcel.

4) Why WAS LBJ in Dallas at the same time as JFK? Was it normal to have a sitting President and Vice President travel together.

Not usually, but it was his home state.

5) Why did all the phone lines go down in DC on that terrible day?

Probably rolling brown outs, because of an influx of calls after the assassination.

6) Why did they keep the files sealed for so long?

Somebody doesn't want them seen, one guesses. But don't think they'll contain concrete data naming the true killers -- the files will likely contain, if anything, lies framing the Soviet Union and the Communists.

However, when the files began to tumble out in the mid-'90s in response to Stone's film, there were definitely smoking guns researchers were able to use (the standard take on this was that there "was nothing in them," which isn't really true).


7) Why didn't they remove the bullet for Governor Connolly after he died? (Were they afraid that bullet was different then the one that came from Oswald's rifle?)

The nearly-pristine Magic Bullet is supposed to be responsible for ALL of Kennedy's and Connally's wounds, which is preposterous. So any amount of material recovered from Connally (it lodged in his wrist) can't match the Magic Bullett. In the 1990s, the Connally family refused to allow his body to be exhumed in order to have the fragments in his wrist examined, but one can't really blame them.

______

"In America, fascism will come in the form of anti-fascism" -- Huey Long

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Fascinating.


--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

Your gripe is too long. Not gonna wade through all that.

reply

Your gripe is too short.

______

reply

Perhaps, but at least you read it! Which is more than I can say for your novela.

reply

Whose fault is that? Or do you think soundbytes are the way to educate yourself on history?

reply

It's the OP's fault, for going on such a long rant. Condense and get to the point, or have no audience.

reply

Oh, he'll have an audience. It just wont include you... Is that much of a loss?

--

reply

Doesn't look like he has much of an audience. And it must matter to you, because you seem to keep replying to me.

That, and the fact that you want to have the "last word" on an obviously disinteresting and overly lengthy topic.

reply

You're spending a lot of time here arguing about why you wont read a post, if you're not really interested. And it must matter to you because you seem to keep replying to me.

That, and the fact that you want to have the "last word" on a supposedly "disinteresting and overly lengthy" topic.

BTW: 99% of the traffic on IMDb read and don't post. But you'd have to read this post to know that, and it's probably too long by now.


-

reply

[deleted]

mmmmmmmmm...... hundred bucks says that 'sconefield' has an agenda since he never posts. There's your "invested in this topic" right there, baby.

--

reply

The HolyCloud grants you all loving absolution, my socketpuppet children. Go forth and multiply into additional IMDb accounts.

______

reply

SuperBigGulp,

What does that say about you then? You took the time to click on the thread and then click on the message, only to say that you're not going to read his whole post. Is that what this world is coming to? Lazy rhetoric, followed by lazy responses? Hell, you took enough time to post 4 responses. But no, I think that is your way of telling the OP that you have an attention span and/or reading comprehension problem.

Being stupid and lazy is no way to go through life...



"Every time there is a bang, the world's a wanker short." -Billy Connolly

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

HKMoviefan,

I'd say that makes me someone that is busy and on-the-move, not lazy. In the hustle and bustle of this day and age, people are lucky enough to read the headlines. If you're not able to realize that, you must be an unemployed bum that simply has NOTHING BETTER TO DO.

Your asinine retort is nothing but a feeble attempt to resurrect a dead issue I was willing to let go. I would almost venture into territory of calling you a troll, which is trite and cliche, but you certainly fit the bill in this case. As for my comprehensions skills, I definitely have no reading or developmental issues, but you apparently have the social grace of a barn owl.

Perhaps if your parents took a more vested interest in your education and socialization during your rearing, you wouldn't come across as such a scornful cretin. It's obvious to me that your posting here is in fact a mere manifestation of your own deep-rooted self-loathing; and instead of dealing with your failings and shortcomings, find it MUCH EASIER to come here and insult a nameless, faceless stranger instead.

And you know what? Your return here will only bolster my claims--and given your sporadic posting history, I will have to echo a prior sentiment and surmise that you're nothing more than a lame sock-puppet account.

Being stupid must be a way of life for you. I feel sorry for your parents--they should have raised cucumbers.

reply

But how is HKmoviefan's retort "asinine" or "trolly"? He makes a lot of sense, SuperBigGulp.

And how is he an "unemployed bum" because he's posting here? You're the main one posting here, except for maybe me.

Do you engage in this kind of transparent projection where e'er you go, SuperBigGulp? Does this mean you're unemployed???

The assumptions you make online about people when they dare question your .... assumptions ... is pretty bizarre. And your vengeful rant towards HKmoviefan is actually kind of nuts.

--

reply

Sounds like superbiggulp hit a nerve. You really are defensive.

reply

Sounds like I hit a nerve. You really are defensive.

--

reply

It seems Tex-29 is unable to accept the truth. LHO was NOT the lone shooter. 80% of people polled agree. Perhaps there is something in his background that makes it too painful to accept the truth?

reply

Perhaps a paycheck

--

reply

Someone would pay Tex-29 money for not recognizing the truth? For example, if the CIA was involved, and he had previously worked for them, he might say that theory isn't true? To be honest, I wish the documents would be opened now. However, if there is negative information about George H. W. Bush, Obama may feel it is best that we don't know the details.

reply

[deleted]

OMG!

--

reply

To SuperBigGulp:

I'd say that makes me someone that is busy and on-the-move, not lazy. In the hustle and bustle of this day and age, people are lucky enough to read the headlines. If you're not able to realize that, you must be an unemployed bum that simply has NOTHING BETTER TO DO.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Bud, you are giving yourself WAY TOO MUCH credit. So, you're somebody who is busy and on the move, yet, you have time to respond multiple times...and without having any substance whatsoever. The fact of the matter is, you're not a "Stock Jockey". You are nothing more than a slightly above minimum-wage brown-noser, who has nothing to show for in his life. I will deconstruct your retort step-by-step, and point out any logical fallacies that there may be. For instance, you try your hardest to portray yourself as this busy New York-esque worker bee who barely has time to read the news, yet has time to respond to a post negatively on multiple occasions. After all, you were the one who posted multiple times between the 17th-19th of August, merely griping about the same things. So, it tells me one of two things: 1.) You are inflating the amount of hours you work in the week, therefore inflating your pseudo-importance OR 2.) You are lying altogether about having a full time job. With your illogical retort, you proclaimed that I must be an "unemployed bum that simply has NOTHING BETTER TO DO". I find plenty of idiotic humor in that response alone, first and foremost being that I am somehow unemployed, yet have access to a computer and Internet. Before you claim that I may be perhaps homeless, riddle me this: If I were homeless, would I bother coming onto a movie message board to post, when chances are that I may not see a decent film for quite some time? As for having nothing better to do, I do not post on IMDB everyday. I am someone interested in the JFK assassination, so when I saw this film coming out, I naturally went to the boards.

...a feeble attempt to resurrect a dead issue I was willing to let go


Oh, well how gracious of you, kind sir. We would have been blessed with your absolution!
...... Give me a break.

Your asinine retort is nothing but a feeble attempt to resurrect a dead issue I was willing to let go. I would almost venture into territory of calling you a troll, which is trite and cliche, but you certainly fit the bill in this case. As for my comprehensions skills, I definitely have no reading or developmental issues, but you apparently have the social grace of a barn owl.


Pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot. Let me get down to brass tacks. Your prior responses were nothing but abrupt and rude. Why should I have to appease to your delicate sensibilities? After all, that is clearly what you are trying to convey to me. You want to be rude to others, but then you want someone like myself to stay classy and be diplomatic with the likes of you. Who are you fooling? You are nothing more than a douche, and yet you are clearly offended (e.g. pointing out that I was curt with you) when someone isn't catering to your every need.

You know what I find most astounding? You want others' posts to be both logical and cogent, yet while your responses may be short, they are far from logical. You want something typed out succinctly? Then go look at news captions on the bottom of the tv screen when watching CNN. This is a message board, where people discuss, often at length, anything and everything.

Perhaps if your parents took a more vested interest in your education and socialization during your rearing, you wouldn't come across as such a scornful cretin. It's obvious to me that your posting here is in fact a mere manifestation of your own deep-rooted self-loathing; and instead of dealing with your failings and shortcomings, find it MUCH EASIER to come here and insult a nameless, faceless stranger instead.


Interesting......Apparently I pissed you off that much. That was not my intent. My intent was to tell said troll (you) to go screw off someplace else. YOU turned this into something much, much bigger. What does that say about you? You like to come onto the OP's post and disrespect him MULTIPLE times, yet you cry like a little girl. Here, since you are here to pseudo-analyze, allow me to return the favor. The likelyhood of you being wealthy or comfortable is just as likely as you being poor. If you are wealthy, you have an inferiority complex that no bank account, no mutual fund, no Corvette can fix. If you are poor, the same applies, except that you can't afford vices to try to make yourself feel better.

If I had to guess, I would estimate that you are between the ages of 45 to 54. You are a male, either Caucasian or Latin, and within the last few years, you have been suffering an identity crisis. You are educated, but you are not as educated as most young working adults between the ages of 24-35, and this contributes to your low self esteem. I think that regardless of your social status, you try to make yourself look wealthier or more prosperous than what you really are. What gives credence to my belief that you have an inferiority complex, is the fact that on numerous occasions within this post, you have demanded respect. Not only that, you have tried ordering others around. What I find to be most intriguing, is how you try to assert your dominance over this thread. You tried to show your dominance by using a broad vocabulary. Now, that is not a bad thing. What I find intriguing, is that in your post to me, you threw brevity out of the equation, and included language and grammar usage that most would not use, unless they were trying to impress. When you sound like you are trying to emulate Shakespeare while 'insulting' me, it makes you look either over-dramatic, or a pseudo-intellectual. Also, how do you know that I don't know what you look like?

And you know what? Your return here will only bolster my claims--and given your sporadic posting history, I will have to echo a prior sentiment and surmise that you're nothing more than a lame sock-puppet account.


How so? Please, do tell...
I have been a member of IMDB for 5 years. I have 12 pages of postings that have not been erased, and plenty more that have either been erased because of age, or IMDB wanted to make room (plenty from even a few months ago because of IMDB changes). I actually have had another account opened back in '03, but I lost the password after I was overseas. I find it interesting how you talk about how I have shortcomings, failings, and how I am self loathing, yet, you took the time to look up my profile to look into details about me. That furthers my notion that you are the one with deep rooted insecurities. After all, you went off the handle because of one post.

In summary, you demand respect, and you feel the need to be rude to someone for no reason. Yet, when someone is merely annoyed with your post, you feel insulted, as if your dignity is taken from you.

Being stupid must be a way of life for you. I feel sorry for your parents--they should have raised cucumbers.


Ah! How very clever of you...You take my quote, and you omit a word here and there, and insert a few words, and try to make it all shiny and new. Aren't you special? How you didn't end up in the back of your mother's throat is beyond me.


"Every time there is a bang, the world's a wanker short." -Billy Connolly

reply

Haha! Don't worry little man, if reading a few paragraphs is too much for you click on the videos.

reply

Detail is so difficult!

--

reply

Fortunately, none of the above has any relevance to the film, so, unless you want to read a long treatise that sums up everything ever said on any Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy site on the internet, don't bother.

YAY!

reply

So you don't want anybody to read it either... Fascinating.

--

reply

the-hippo also misrepresents my post when he says it "sums up everything ever said on any Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy site on the internet" so he may have an agenda.

But The HolyCloud forgives all.

______

reply

Yep.

The Hippo's agenda is to get people to stop pre-judging a film that they've not seen.

Granted, I realize you are just using this forum to put forth your evidence for the "conspiracy" side of the argument.

I also know that (apparently) Tom Hanks and Vincent Bugliosi are both on the "lone gunman" side of the argument, which is probably why so many people on the "conspiracy" side choose to come here and post about how this film is a lie... which I admit, you don't make any specific claims (or at least, don't apparently do so in my quick skim of what you wrote).

All I ask is that you (plural) give the film a chance to tell its story... because, despite having ties to Hanks and Bugliosi, it doesn't pick a "side".

reply

I don't actually have any preference.

Any flippancy is just me feeling disinterested in reading any argument on either side... particularly large tracts of land... text.

I don't really care who killed Kennedy.

All I'm trying to say is that who anyone thinks killed Kennedy has no bearing on this film.

The film doesn't discuss it.

I know this for a fact.

~The Hippo

reply

Are you involved with the production, hippo?

--

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Yes.

reply

In what capacity, Mr Hippo?

______

"In America, fascism will come in the form of anti-fascism" -- Huey Long

reply

The pre-reviews are mixed.

--
Anybody who trashes Christina Crawford is akin to a satan-worshipper...

reply

Considering the topic, that's understandable.

Most of the complaints I see are that it doesn't feature the Kennedys much... which is sort of the point of the whole film.

I don't think it's the best film ever made but it's not dull... Though it's difficult to think about all the little scenes or parts of scenes that were cut from the final film.

Was Jacki Weaver's performance over the top? yes. It's disappointing to see how she stands out as being a little off target.
Can you look at Carrico without remembering that it's Zac Efron and half expecting him to burst out in song and dance... no.
Are there a bunch of big actors in it who don't really ever have a moment? Completely. eg: Jackie Earle Haley practically disappeared in the final cut.

Most of the reviews, regardless of their overall opinion seems to think that James Badge Dale did a stand-out job... which I completely agree with. His character is the one everyone is supposed to relate to and feel empathetic towards, and it's the best written character in the film and he plays it well.

Am I disappointed in the reviews?... yes.
Was I expecting everyone to gush about it?... no.

reply

Your dismissal of the reviews ("most of the complaints are that it doesn't feature the Kennedys much") is silly.

That's not the complaint.

______
"In America, fascism will come in the form of anti-fascism" -- Huey Long

reply

Production Crew.

reply

Specifically? JC

--

reply

I know. Those conspiracy whack-a-doos are sooooo annoying, stale, boring, and pathetically tedious. They're like ticks that get into your crotch area. Just grab them and flick them off like a booger and move on.

reply

I know. Those conspiracy whack-a-doos are sooooo annoying, stale, boring, and pathetically tedious. They're like ticks that get into your crotch area. Just grab them and flick them off like a booger and move on.

You're so wizened! Your arguments so nuanced!

--

reply

Haha! Thanks, I put a lot of thought in that. OK, maybe not too much.

reply

Fair enough.

--

reply

It's also worth noting that LBJ's mistress, Madeleine Brown, has stated that there was a party at the Murchison mansion in Dallas the night before the assassination (she addresses it in the video HolyCloud posted) and that Nixon and Hoover were in attendance, and that LBJ showed up unexpectedly at about 11pm and all the men went into the back conference room for a few minutes.

After emerging, a red-faced LBJ told Brown that the Kennedys "would never embarrass me again after tomorrow." She didn't take it seriously because he was always fussing about the Kennedys, but he repeated the comment the next morning on the phone to her, and, once JFK was dead by 12:30, she realized this time it was different.

Brown knew the Dallas oil community through LBJ, and even oil magnate H.L. Hunt (perhaps the richest man in the country) told her "we lost a battle but we won the war" after Kennedy was dead.

Predictably, there have been attempts to impugn Brown's integrity. She was charged with forging a will (after she began telling her story publicly in the '90s) to establish that she "lies" but the charges were dropped on appeal because they knew she was going to win.

Also, people have tried to claim that she'd supposedly made the story up about the 11/21/63 party, their insisting that Nixon was at a Dallas hotel lounge with fellow-Pepsi boardmember, Joan Crawford, attending a Robert Clary comedy show during which Clary allegedly mentioned Nixon from the stage...

However, Dallas press member and future legendary White House reporter, Helen Thomas, signed an afadavit stating that she was in attendance at the Murchison party and essentially who was there (which aligned with Brown's recollections).

On New Year's Eve 1963/64, Brown, who had not seen LBJ in 5 weeks, asked him to dispel for her the rampant rumors ciruculating around Dallas that he'd planned Kennedy's murder himself. Enraged, LBJ told his lover that he had not ordered it, but that the CIA and the Texas oil people whom she knew personally had been behind it.

One needs to consider that Hunt Oil is still one of the 90 largest private companies in America. And that Brown & Root (George Brown was at the party) merged with ... ahem ... Halliburton a year before the assassination, that union dissolved in 2007 after 45 years, and Brown & Root received 85% of the Vietnam contracts once LBJ immediately kickstarted that war for real (Kennedy had been dragging his feet on Vietnam, and even talking off-the-record about pulling out if it, believing it to be the potential quagmire it indeed became).

And the Vietnam war became the single biggest business in America by the late-'60s.

--

reply

I don't really like diving into the George Herbert Walker Bush angle, because it always seems like OneTheoryToExplainEverythingInThe Universe...

But Nixon owed his career to Bush' father, Prescott. Prescott and other super-wealthy American families helped Hitler, funded him, and they plotted FDR's murder in 1934 with the intent of installing a fascist, Hitlerian-style regime (for similar reasons JFK would be killed thirty years later) in America, and would have succeeded had the general they assigned the job, Smedley Butler, not spilled the beans to stop the coup.

So truth is stranger, and more damning, than fiction.


--

reply

HolyCloud, I see you have your own post here. Thank you for taking the time to post the entire message. I appreciate the knowledge you have presented. What I don't understand about this thread is the number of insults. Intelligent people can certainly attempt to disagree with you, but calling others names seems so childish. On top of that, those that disagree with you don't come up with their long list pointing out that Oswald was the lone gunman.

I just don't understand why some people keep insisting the Warren Commission was accurate in their investigation. There have been written confessions and death bed confessions stating Oswald was not the only shooter. Yes, there was a conspiracy. Which one is accurate - I don't know. Come to think of it, there was no physical evidence that Oswald shot even one bullet.

Keep up the fight. You and that other gentleman are doing a fine job.

reply

HolyCloud, I see you have your own post here. Thank you for taking the time to post the entire message. I appreciate the knowledge you have presented. What I don't understand about this thread is the number of insults. Intelligent people can certainly attempt to disagree with you, but calling others names seems so childish. On top of that, those that disagree with you don't come up with their long list pointing out that Oswald was the lone gunman.

I just don't understand why some people keep insisting the Warren Commission was accurate in their investigation. There have been written confessions and death bed confessions stating Oswald was not the only shooter. Yes, there was a conspiracy. Whicvh one is accurate - I don't know. Come to think of it, there was no physical evidence that Oswald shot even one bullet.

Keep up the fight. You and that other gentleman are doing a fine job.



Good point, Kariann1964.

But some people just take the manipulative, argumentative approach of "All the cool people believe Oswald killed JFK alone," and if you don't agree, "then you're a ph**king homo!"

Followed quickly by some smug proclamation about "obvious facts" which really aren't.

It's a kind of peer pressure tactic.

Even Bugliosi in his dreadful "Reclaiming History" asserts that people who believe the conspiracy scenario in the president's death should be shunned and ostracized.

Which is, at the very least, revealing.

--

reply

People who publish history books for our children will have an influence on how these events occurred. When there are no more witnesses left, what will history tell? This peer pressure tactic seems rather childish, IMO. Thank you for the reply.

reply

Indeed.

--

reply

I would have loved to be a fly on the wall in the meeting room at the Murchison house if what Madeleine Brown has said is true. J. Edgar Hoover (code named Bulldog) was flown in specifically for the meeting and flew back to Washington that night. We know that he personally called RFK from Washington on Nov 22 to tell him his brother was dead. She states that Nixon was at the meeting, even though he couldn’t remember where he was on Nov 22. She says that LBJ was there even though he had earlier been in Fort Worth with the Kennedy party. Sounds like LBJ was personally involved since his buddy, Malcolm Wallace’s fingerprints were found in the sniper’s nest at the TSBD. I’ve always been fascinated by the phrase “grassy knoll” which I heard used in archival video even before the death announcement. Were all Dallasites on the same page referring to this specific plot of land as the grassy knoll long before JFK arrived in Dallas? Knoll isn’t a particularly common phrase to use – yet Walter Cronkite and the Newman family eyewitnesses were using it that day. Also curious that the entire US cabinet was enroute to Japan when the assassination occurred. I don’t ever remember a time when the entire US Cabinet (including press secretary Pierre Salinger) ever all flew together. I’ve never bought into the lone nut conclusion and if Parkland regurgitates this story I think I’ll pass.

reply

I’ve never bought into the lone nut conclusion and if Parkland regurgitates this story I think I’ll pass.
Sadly, producer Tom Hanks has indeed bought the Lone Nut conclusion. It is, after all, simpler.

--

reply

The uber-leftist revisionist Hanks would probably prefer to portray Oswald as a Duck Dynasty cast member; Bible in one hand and AR-15 in the other, and sporting a T-shirt emblazoned “Tea Party Anarchist” or possibly Ted Cruz.

reply

The uber-leftist revisionist Hanks would probably prefer to portray Oswald as a Duck Dynasty cast member; Bible in one hand and AR-15 in the other, and sporting a T-shirt emblazoned “Tea Party Anarchist” or possibly Ted Cruz.

Wowee. That doesn't ring true at all.

--

reply

The HolyCloud forgives all.

______

"In America, fascism will come in the form of anti-fascism" -- Huey Long

reply

I know it is a hectic and busy time for Obama, but do you think he has seen any of the papers. I visualize a huge vault containing the documents. If so, where is it located? I had hoped we'd have the definite answers by now.

reply

Heh!

--

reply

Okay, I am allowed to dream. I won't be around when that 75 years date comes around. Personally, I will never know the truth.

reply

Like the OP says, by the time those files are opened, they'll probably just contain false "Castro/KGB did it" lies.

--

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

That's some crazy unsupported bs. The fact that you take the word of an ex-CIA/Watergate felon/notorious liar Hunt tells me everything I need to know about your confirmation biases. Hunt's deathbed confession is best thought of as his last dirty trick. There is no credible evidence if a conspiracy. None!

reply

Check out tex-29's IMDb profile. That tells you all you need to know about what's going on with him.

--

reply

[deleted]

Ah, but 51 witnesses don't matter if no one asks them to testify.

--

reply

In my thirty years on the net, I've seen plenty of conspiracy nuts. They have plenty of time for lengthy posts to forums promoting their paranoid beliefs. However, sane people don't waste their time rebutting because they have a life and know you can't reason with lunatics. This leads them think they're winning the argument. I've wasted enough time, good night.

Three More Years! Carbon Taxes! NSA!

reply

In my thirty years on the net, I've seen plenty of conspiracy nuts. They have plenty of time for lengthy posts to forums promoting their paranoid beliefs. However, sane people don't waste their time rebutting because they have a life and know you can't reason with lunatics. This leads them think they're winning the argument. I've wasted enough time, good night.


And yet you just "wasted your time rebutting," LordObama.

Ironic, isn't it? You obviously realize there was a conspiracy.

BTW: you've "been on the net 30 years" ??? You're FABulous!!

--

reply

And yet you just "wasted your time rebutting," LordObama.

Ironic, isn't it? You obviously realize there was a conspiracy.

BTW: you've "been on the net 30 years" ??? You're FABulous!!


It is possible that LordObama was involved in "The largest one-day on line event (2-8-96)." There were some search engines, but most were associated with universities (California, Michigan, Utah,, etc.) thirty years ago. So, let's not make fun of LordObama. Maybe he's a professor or researcher and di use the Internet 30 years ago. Either way, the lone-shooter belief is full of holes. Use the Internet to find the truth.

reply

I remember 2/8/96. We had an ice storm!

--

reply

Makes sense to me!

reply