I usually don't consider the conspiracy people "nuts".  I think it's a very natural and human reaction to want to believe that unanswered questions or grey areas must indicate some sort of deeper conspiracy.  I used to fall into that trap myself on certain topics but with an open mind you begin to understand that unanswered questions are just that...unanswered questions.  They usually don't indicate any deeper conspiracy unless the preponderance of the evidence proves it definitively.

 

Thank you for making the effort. People love conspiracies. They are a lot more fun then good old logic and fact.

 

I'm not going down the rabbit hole of refuting each "theory", although the LBJ Did It is one of the more ludicrous ones. People are going to believe what they want to believe, and anyone who has any interest in the JFK assassination soon figures out that there is nothing that some people won't believe. 

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Thank you for making the effort. People love conspiracies. They are a lot more fun then good old logic and fact.

 

I'm not going down the rabbit hole of refuting each "theory", although the LBJ Did It is one of the more ludicrous ones. People are going to believe what they want to believe, and anyone who has any interest in the JFK assassination soon figures out that there is nothing that some people won't believe. 

 

Actually there is one thing that nobody has denied: that it happened during a presidential motorcade with the Texas governor. With the First Lady in the limo with him, it is impossible to not know that part.

---

Thank you for making the effort. People love conspiracies. They are a lot more fun then good old logic and fact.


I'm not going down the rabbit hole of refuting each "theory", although the LBJ Did It is one of the more ludicrous ones. People are going to believe what they want to believe, and anyone who has any interest in the JFK assassination soon figures out that there is nothing that some people won't believe.

I don't think it's ludicrous that LBJ would be involved. Many a Benedict Arnold has poisoned the supper of their king or queen to steal the throne throughout the history of mankind. To think it couldn't happen in modern America is hubris.


I don't agree with your perspective on Ruby. For me, the facts and circumstances about his life don't line up with his actions. He was a nightclub owner who pimped women out to corrupt police officers. He had known ties to the mob. The idea that a pimp's natural reaction to the murder of his president is compassion for his wife is incomprehensible to me. For me, it makes more sense that he was coerced into silencing Oswald.


In regards to the idea that people love conspiracies, I would argue that people just want to know that what they believe is true.

---

BTW; here's something I kind of knew but didn't know the full extent: Kennedy had type two Autoimmune Polyendocrine Syndrome which caused Addison's disease. He had laready lived way longer than his doctors had originally predicted and most likely wouldn't have made it to election in 1964 anyway. 

---

I don't think it's ludicrous that LBJ would be involved. Many a Benedict Arnold has poisoned the supper of their king or queen to steal the throne throughout the history of mankind. To think it couldn't happen in modern America is hubris.


I don't agree with your perspective on Ruby. For me, the facts and circumstances about his life don't line up with his actions. He was a nightclub owner who pimped women out to corrupt police officers. He had known ties to the mob. The idea that a pimp's natural reaction to the murder of his president is compassion for his wife is incomprehensible to me. For me, it makes more sense that he was coerced into silencing Oswald.


In regards to the idea that people love conspiracies, I would argue that people just want to know that what they believe is true.

 

It's not that people love conspiracies, it's that it's a natural human reaction when things happen that they can't immediately explain.  In the JFK case, looking at the unexplained circumstances over the years, they generally turn out to be pretty mundane once they are understood.  Jack Ruby is a just an example.  His ties to organized crime were minimal and at best circumstantial.  Given some of the issues he'd had in his life, he would have been one of the worst choices to participate in a high level conspiracy.   Not to mention that in his final days he made a statement to the associated press that he'd acted alone and that no one else was involved.  It's Occam's razor.  You have to be able to take things like that at face value or before long, everything is a conspiracy.

---

I'm condescending. That means I talk down to you. 
Check out the Jag's Forum Alternative: Duval Football Fans.

I don't think it's ludicrous that LBJ would be involved. Many a Benedict Arnold has poisoned the supper of their king or queen to steal the throne throughout the history of mankind. To think it couldn't happen in modern America is hubris.


I don't agree with your perspective on Ruby. For me, the facts and circumstances about his life don't line up with his actions. He was a nightclub owner who pimped women out to corrupt police officers. He had known ties to the mob. The idea that a pimp's natural reaction to the murder of his president is compassion for his wife is incomprehensible to me. For me, it makes more sense that he was coerced into silencing Oswald.


In regards to the idea that people love conspiracies, I would argue that people just want to know that what they believe is true.

 

Again, feel free to buy into what ever you "feel' is right. You've not presented any information as to why you feel that way.

 

Just because something could happen doesn't mean it did. What seems to make sense to you doesn't matter. You have to go a lot deeper than that.

 

It's fun to speculate, I'll give you that.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

BTW; here's something I kind of knew but didn't know the full extent: Kennedy had type two Autoimmune Polyendocrine Syndrome which caused Addison's disease. He had laready lived way longer than his doctors had originally predicted and most likely wouldn't have made it to election in 1964 anyway. 

 

But the 1964 election was almost a year away. Had he already decided before traveling to Dallas he would not run for re-election?

---

But the 1964 election was almost a year away. Had he already decided before traveling to Dallas he would not run for re-election?

 

He was going to run for re-election.

 

Not really disputing DF's info, but that supposition may be exaggerated. I was aware of his medical condition (he was on all kinds of drugs) but I've never read that he would not have lived another year.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

He was going to run for re-election.

 

Not really disputing DF's info, but that supposition may be exaggerated. I was aware of his medical condition (he was on all kinds of drugs) but I've never read that he would not have lived another year.

 

I can't imagine why JFK would decide to run for re-election if a doctor said he had less than a year left to live. Maybe he was give five years to live, just enough time to keep his job until a new Democrat was elected.

---

Okay, I read the whole thread and I would like to add a couple of points. 

 

First of all, about the rifle and Oswald's ability to do the act.   I saw a TV documentary re-enactment, with the same firearm, and a re-enactor was able to hit the target within the time frame allotted, easily.   So it wasn't impossible for Oswald to hit Kennedy and Connolly from where he was, with the rifle he had. 

 

Secondly, about Jack Ruby.   the documentary laid out where Ruby was leading up to his killing Oswald, and it was a pure fluke he got there at the time Oswald came out and got shot.  The guy handcuffed to Oswald talked about an unplanned delay in bringing him out, which Ruby could not possibly have known about, Ruby stopped off at various places along the way, and just sort of got there at the right time by accident.  Ruby was buddies with the police, and they let him in because they knew him and he was around all the time.  He carried a gun often.  And he was a very emotional guy who loved Kennedy.   It appears to me that he didn't go to the police station to kill Oswald, but killed him on impulse when he saw him. 

 

Thirdly, I saw a documentary on the life of Lee Harvey Oswald, and he lines up perfectly as the type of guy to do this sort of thing.  He had tried to assassinate someone else before he tried to kill Kennedy. 

 

Was there another person shooting at Kennedy?   I haven't seen any solid evidence of it.  

---

 

Take it at face value

 

Mafia Hit Man Confesses to Killing President Kennedy
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-align:left;">

Mafia hit man James Files says in interviews first aired nationally on Newsmax TV Thursday night that he worked along with major mob figures and fired the shot that killed Kennedy from the grassy knoll at Dealey Plaza in Dallas.
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-align:left;">

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/john-ke...z3JkcWbYZv

 
</div>
 

</div>

 

The guy says, "Oswald never fired a shot," and yet we know Oswald bought the gun that was found at the window of the school book depository, and we know that he had tried to assassinate someone in the past, and we know he was up on that floor right when Kennedy's motorcade came by.  So it's a real stretch to say Oswald didn't fire a shot. 

 

We also know Oswald shot the police officer who stopped him later, so he was definitely on the run from something and did not want to be stopped by the police under any circumstances. 

---