JFK

Freddie-B 27.11.2003 12:56	40 years after his death- any thoughts?
Red_Special 27.11.2003 12:58	No
Banquo 27.11.2003 13:33	He sounds like Mayor Quimby.
*the Time Guardian* 27.11.2003 14:10	No... just another dead American president...
wstüssyb 27.11.2003 15:06	no, im getting tired of always hearing about it...he was a great president, so was Abe...but we never hear much about him anymore.
MexQueenFM 27.11.2003 17:27	no
Mr.Jingles 27.11.2003 18:19	I'd rather talk about JFK and not JFK Jr. It seems like he didn't achieve much in his life other than being the son of one of the most famous presidents.
Mayboy 27.11.2003 18:40	no
Holly2003 27.11.2003 19:50	"[The Warren Commission]... was the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated" - President Richard Nixon link
behind blue eyes 27.11.2003 20:15	Hhmmm! Now that's a thought!
D.Blythe 27.11.2003 21:11	JFK was a decent president. Decent as in average. He is one of the most overrated presidents of all time. I think what he did to inspire the young people around the country (Peace Corps, rousing speeches, etc) and the fact that he died relatively young contributed to the high rating he gets. I find it hard to believe that one man was totally responsible for the assassination. I know there is no hard evidence to support a conspiracy, but there are a lot of gray areas.
behind blue eyes 27.11.2003 21:43	that would be true and circle gets the square. sorry hollywood squares kind of thing.
deleted user 27.11.2003 22:27	I think all of you are missing the point. He had the potential to become the greatest American President. His time in office was so short compared to the others we see today (and some too long as well) it was a shame he died. Murdered is more like it. The same government that we all have to obey, and the ones that the world used to look up to, killed him. The moral of the story is: Don't trust the goverment. On any level.
behind blue eyes 27.11.2003 22:53	THAT! I can totally agree with. How ya doin' So was I? Did I make you want to run away?
behind blue eyes 27.11.2003 23:33	Hey Lucy, You've got mail again.
siljeoen 28.11.2003 05:31	hmm..my english class saw a movie about him some days ago...pretty interesting..
Mr Coolest Cat 28.11.2003 09:27	Its nice to see all our American friends have at last got another decent President.
D.Blythe 28.11.2003 11:30	That thing about not trusting the government; does that apply to Global Internet Government?
Adam Baboolal 28.11.2003 17:34	There was a fantastic BBC docu on Sunday. It convinced me, a believer in a possible conspiracy, that it was all Lee-H-Oswald. No conspiracy afer-all. Although, people will still believe otherwise... I remember studying and gathering the facts for a school exam assignment in History. I got an A+ for that. My first and last! Anyway, that got my interest and a conspiracy always seemed the only logical explanation for the unanswered questions. For 12 years, I believed that idea. And after watching many documentarys on the subject - the bbc one really brought new facts into play that explained a lot of the gray areas. I was surprised, because it righted a lot of wrongful information. It even put the so-called Magic Bullet to shame. It explains it very well. No longer does that one standup. Peace, Adam. link
Josuè 28.11.2003 18:14	"Its nice to see all our American friends have at last got another decent President." LOL!
Holly2003 28.11.2003 20:06	Adam, I haven't seen the documentary you talk about but I have read about it. Doesn't it claim that Gov Connally was sitting in the front seat but to JFK's left? That is the only way the "magic bullet" could possibly have hit both JFK and Connally, right? I am looking at pictures right now which clearly show Connally sitting right in front of JFK, with one arm out over the car door. Furthermore, when JFK was hit first (by the "magic" bullet) Connally turns round to look at JFK and is then hit himself. Not only does the Zapruder film show this, his wife has been saying it for 30 years and confirmed it again on Larry King a few days ago. Not a single witness (read that again) - not one of the 100s interviewed said things happened in the way that the Warren Commission claimed. That includes Connally's wife who was in the car beside him when he was shot AFTER Jfk. It was only after he was shot after JFK that COnnally said "My God they're trying to kill us all" (to parapharse). The Warren Commission is bullshit, as Richard Nixon's tapes confirm. The best book on this is Jim Marrs' "Crossfire." Read that and tell me that Oswald was a "lone crazed gunman" as the Warren Commission claims.
iGSM 28.11.2003 20:28	Violent. Violent young nation. Same with that United Kingdom. Sucks to be Spencer Perceval.
Adam Baboolal 28.11.2003 21:56	"Doesn't it claim that Gov Connally was sitting in the front seat but to JFK's left?" Not directly on the left. In fact, they revisited the same type of car used and found that the front seat was actually seated more to the left and therefore not directly in front of JFK. Until I watched the docu, I had never seen that demonstrated and they asked people to sit in the car. "Connally turns round to look at JFK and is then hit himself. Not only does the Zapruder film show this, his wife has been saying it for 30 years..." Well, that's strange because they were showing the Zapruder footage and they showed frame 222 (as they emerge from the sign) and as it hits in frame 223, both men are clearly shown to be hit at the same time. They further demonstrated by showing on that frame, Connally's shirt changes colour (blood) and his jacket pushes out slightly (The bullet hitting) and reacts a couple of frames later. Showing the point of entry as well as the moment where both men were struck. I can't answer any of your other points as there's just too much detail to explain. And a lot of it would be better seen on the actual program. I also think the Warren Commission was crap. But who doesn't!? Anyway, search for the documentary on the internet or something. After 12 years, it changed my mind. Because they explain everything very carefully and correct the shoddy details in the WCom. Peace, Adam.
D.Blythe 29.11.2003 01:32	"Executive Action" by Mark Lane is yet another theory on the JFK assassination. One part of the "magic bullet" theory I have a hard time believing is how the bullet that entered Kennedy's back did not mushroom out as it exited his body, leaving a sizeable hole. His throat wound was expanded by the doctors at Parkview to facilitate a tracheotomy. Also for you conspiracy buffs, how about the JFK assassination death ring? Some 300 people directly or indirectly involved with the assassination and the events in Dallas have "mysteriously" died. Most of the deaths occurred under "questionable" circumstances. (i.e. people suddenly "developing" cancer shortly after receiving a physical that claimed they were in good health, car accidents, "self inflicted" gunshot wounds, etc...)
Mr Coolest Cat 30.11.2003 09:57	Got to agree with Adam, after watching the fantastic documentary on BBC, i am now convinced LHO was the lone gunman, the factual evidence was overwhelming.
deleted user 30.11.2003 11:30	Absolute crap. How can you people believe that?! The facts are that LHO was not even in the room where the gun was found. He was eating luch in the luch room. Seen by quite a few people. Eye witnesses. He ws used by the government to be a scape goat so all those gullible people like you would believe what crap they are feeding you. You tell me how on earth the mans (Kennedy's) head went BACK, and there was a hole the size of a fist in the BACK of his head. How could there be 1 bullet? Impossible. People on the grass heard shots fired. Let me guess. An echo right?. Bull shit. Kennedy's head went back violently due to the shock of a bullet hitting him on the right temple. The bullet was taken from the medical examiner by who? The government so we wouldn't know it wasn't from LHO's gun. He never killed the cop either. It was two other men. Good grief are you THAT stupid to believe that? Guess who is behind the making of the crap you saw? The government.
Ian R 30.11.2003 14:09	I suppose you also think that the Moon landings were faked by the 'evil' US government then, Lucy?
Mr Coolest Cat 30.11.2003 15:00	Lucy was high, or Lucy is high.
Mr Coolest Cat 30.11.2003 15:04	I take it you did'nt watch the documentry last week then Lucy,everything you've just mentioned was explained away in plain English, with evidence to back it up. I think you've watch the Kevin Costner movie JFK too many times
Holly2003 30.11.2003 15:20	There is no connection between whether the moon landings were faked (they weren't) and whether the Warren Commission was fraudulent, or what really did happen to Kennedy. Furthermore, just because you watched one documentary doesn't make you an expert and doesn't give you the right to dismiss other points of view. Stick to the points raised and stop attacking the messenger.
Adam Baboolal 01.12.2003 12:09	I'm not going to shout anyone down about their view. All I can say is that I always believed the conspiracy idea. Docu after docu tapped into the conspiracy idea and I really believed it. But this one simple BBC docu simply showed truths - Good evidence and explanation. For instance, the fatal blow where Kennedy pulls back and to the left - It is explained that a body being shot does not have to act in any specific way i.e. shot from the back or the front doesn't matter. A myth explained. The JFK film was referred to because it managed to get 4million documents released. The film caused a stir and in 1999, those documents were forced into being released early because of the film's impact. The docu showed that there are many myths in the film that are given as truths. The Garrett guy Costner played was actually a bit of a dick. :) Anyway...there will never be rest on this because too many will stick to their long-term views. For once in 12 years, I now tred a different path on this one. All I can say is please don't discard this docu before seeing it. Seek it out and watch it - then decide. Peace, Adam.
Mr Coolest Cat 02.12.2003 08:09	Adam, that is the best advice i've read on the subject. Watch it first then comment, if you aint seen it don't slag it.
D.Blythe 02.12.2003 11:27	I admire Oliver Stone for making a film about the JFK assassination, although I wish he had a better story for the film than the Garrison investigation. Garrison's case against Clay Shaw was shaky to begin with. Also, by hanging his film on Garrison's far fetched case, Stone opened the film up to attacks from everyone who either fervently believes the Warren Commission or is afraid to contradict it. We did need a forum to bring out the inconsistencies such as the "magic bullet" and the wounds the President suffered in relation to a "lone gunman" in a building behind him. There may not be hard evidence of a conspiracy, but that does not mean there was not one. After all, there is no hard evidence that God exists, yet millions believe in His existence.
Freddie-B 03.12.2003 08:02	I didn't see the BBC documentary, much as I'd like to have, but I'm sure it can all be explained, one way or another. I do think the film JFK is excellent though, and even if it is all bollocks, you've got to admit, they do put forward a pretty good case for the conspiracy. I always like a good consipracy theory, and that film, despite being 16 hours long, does do a great job!
Adam Baboolal 16.08.2004 14:14	Guess what I found folks... - link The documentay is on Supernova.org! I'm gonna download it immediately. Love to keep this. Watch it. That's all I'll say. Peace, Adam.
agneepath! 11994 16.08.2004 14:48	Thanks for the link Adam!
agneepath! 11994 16.08.2004 14:54	"For instance, the fatal blow where Kennedy pulls back and to the left - It is explained that a body being shot does not have to act in any specific way i.e. shot from the back or the front doesn't matter. A myth explained." My old Uni professor (an expert in US history - what he didn't know about US history, wasn't worth knowing!) said the same thing. The BBC documentary did make me think about what I considered to be facts in the whole JFK case. - I'll enjoy watching it again.
Bob The Shrek 16.08.2004 16:24	I believe there were at least 2 shooters - based on my own, in depth, pure guesswork ;-)
Sir B.A Baracus 16.08.2004 19:12	"Overrated, Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap. Overrated, Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap. Overrated, Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap. Overrated, Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap."
The Real Wizard 17.08.2004 00:38	Ian R wrote: I suppose you also think that the Moon landings were faked by the 'evil' US government then, Lucy? I wish I could say I wasn't considering the possibility. But think about it... just about everything else in space was done by Russia first, so the US had every motivation in the world to fake it out. One theory says it was all done in Sudbury, ON. I wouldn't doubt ANYTHING in regards to the power of the US.
The Real Wizard 17.08.2004 00:38	sorry, double post
Ian R 17.08.2004 07:22	Anyone who seriously thinks that the Moon landings were faked is either a conspiracy theorist or simply misinformed. The Russians were only ahead of the Americans until the Gemini missions of the mid 1960's proved that NASA had mastered many of the techniques needed for a successful Moon landing, i.e., Rendezvous and Docking, EVA, etc. At this time, the Russians had many problems with their version of the Saturn V rocket (the N1), which had an unfortunate tendancy to explode on take-off. This, essentially, was why America got to the Moon and the Russians didn't.
Ian R 17.08.2004 07:24	Here is a more in-depth response to the suggestion that the Russians did just about everything in space first before the Americans: link Read also: link
John S Stuart 17.08.2004 20:31	Adam - I have the BBC JFK doc you refer to on DVD. (I own a DVD recorder). It shed no new light on the subject at all. In fact, all the BBC "Uncovered" was broadcast over 10 years ago on a NOVA special broadcast in the USA - and available as an official NOVA NTSC video release. The problem for Nova is that it used a very primitive BBC computer at the time so the effects look very "Space Invaders"! Regurgetated using new high powered digitally generated graphics - it was indeed very convincing - but those graphics are "programmed" into a PC - not physical evidence. Also graphics can be manipulated. Rather, I suggest you search out a book called "The Death Of A President" - it should be available from on-line book sellers like Amazon. It is not a "read", but a collection of all known photographs of the assassination - and it is a revelation, as the President's car is vrtually riddled with bullets and bullet holes. One through the windscreen. Another in the dashboard (Under the windscreen and can not be the same bullet). One in the back seat. One bullet hit James Tague standing in the underpass. One hit a manhole cover. One hit the kerb. One hit the grassy verge opposite Zeprudder. Another was supposed to have lodged in Conelly's thigh. This is all documented, physical evidence the BBC ignored. I make that at least six bullet holes - from six different bullets - which kind of buggers the three shot magic bullet theory! Do some research of your own. The BBC is a powerful persuader, but it is British propaganda as much as Pravda is Russian propaganda. If the above is correct, it can not be explained away so "magically".
Adam Baboolal 17.08.2004 20:37	I watched the Capricorn One film yesterday. Now that was cool! I remember a crazy story that Kubrick did the filming of the moon landings. Heeheee. Yeah, I've begun questioning whether they did go to the moon. Nice conspiracy progs on tv about it in the last few years. Interesting evidence. Getting past all the evidence in pictures etc. - The one thing that always confuses me is how they didn't get poisoned by the radiation above Earth. Could someone explain that? Peace, Adam.
Adam Baboolal 17.08.2004 20:45	Curious, "The Death Of A President" was one of the books I referred to in my old school report. I'll take another look. But I don't think they'd intentionally manipulate the graphics to support the show. They do show how the images are matched frame by frame to the footage. So, I'm confused - what's manipulated about it? Peace, Adam.
John S Stuart 17.08.2004 20:57	Here is a little teaser. A fragment from the President's skull was found by a Mr Billy Harper. Here is a picture of the Harper fragment. (You can also read about it if you like on the link underneath). link link Yet, here is a copy of the official autopsy photograph. link As you can see, the large red dot in the centre of the crown (by the end of the ruler) is supposed to be the bullet entrance wound. However, the harper fragment is bigger than the entrance hole! So, who faked this autopsy photo - and why? It could not be Oswald - as the pictures were released after his death. If the autopsy pictures are faked, what is that if not conspiracy - but the BBC failed to deal with this also. Finally: Motorcycle cop Bobby Hargis, riding to Kennedy's left and a bit behind him, was hit by human brain matter blown out from Kennedy's skull, while his wife Jackie and Conelly was not. Draw from this what you will, but without all the evidence presented fairly, the BBC did a really good stitch-up job!
Adam Baboolal 17.08.2004 22:18	Well, they didn't cover much, if anything after the shooting. The shooting was the main focus, along with the characters involved. I'll take a look at the book tomorrow. It's too late here. Peace, Adam.
Ian R 17.08.2004 22:40	Barry_uk wrote: Of course the moon landings were fake... You sound very certain of that. However, I'm also pretty certain that your statement is couldn't be more wrong. The evidence shows that the Apollo missions to the Moon happened as documented and are one of the greatest achievements that mankind has ever accomplished. Barry_uk wrote: ...there's plenty of proof.Hell i wish it were true but good evidence points otherwise. Proof?! You must be joking right???!!! A few conspiracy theorists have made a fortune by hoodwinking various members of the public into thinking that Neil Armstrong made his first steps on a soundstage in Nevada somewhere. They are nothing more than conmen who know nothing about science or photographic analysis. Please, by all means, show me any proof or evidence you have seen that the Moon landings were falsified. I would be interested to see if it's the same old stuff that has been debunked by engineers and scientists many times over. Don’t let the conspiracy pseudo-scientists fool you into believing this kind of tripe. They cannot be trusted.
Ian R 17.08.2004 22:46	Adam, The radiation belts did not harm the astronauts as they passed through them fairly quickly (approx 1 hour transit). The cosmic background radiation beyond the Van Allen Belts is not so much of a problem, as it is generally pretty low level stuff. The conspiracy theorists would have you believe that space is filled with dangerous gamma-rays and X-rays that would instantly toast any intrepid astronauts, but they are simply talking bull. When asked, they cannot provide any hard scientific evidence to back up their claims. Further reading: link link
Holly2003 17.08.2004 22:58	"The conspiracy theorists would have you believe that space is filled with dangerous gamma-rays and X-rays that would instantly toast any intrepid astronauts, but they are simply talking bull. When asked, they cannot provide any hard scientific evidence to back up their claims." I beg to differ. Benjamin Grimm, Reed Richards, Johnny Storm, and Sue Richards were caught in a solar storm while orbiting the earth and were transformed into the The Thing, Mr Fantastic, The Human Torch, and Invisible Girl. If Neal Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and...ah...Johnny Moonguy had actually passed through a radiation belt on their way to the moon then surely some sort of superhero, or possibly supervillain team would have been the result. Scientifically speaking, that proves the moon landings were faked.
Maz 18.08.2004 00:06	Holly2003 wrote: I beg to differ. Benjamin Grimm, Reed Richards, Johnny Storm, and Sue Richards were caught in a solar storm while orbiting the earth and were transformed into the The Thing, Mr Fantastic, The Human Torch, and Invisible Girl. Reed never did forgive himself for that accident and what he inadvertently did to Ben.
iGSM 18.08.2004 01:13	<> Best evidence yet. Intrinsically and dihyrogen mono-oxygenically the best!
Holly2003 18.08.2004 01:36	"Reed never did forgive himself for that accident and what he inadvertently did to Ben." Yes. A tragedy. So what do you say to that Ian so called R, if indeed that is your real name. If those astronauts had ACTUALLY landed on the moon instead of just flying around the sun a few times before coming home, don't you think they would've mentioned something about Arthur C. Clarke's monolith? And what about the Klangers? I mean, how could they keep a secret like that for 35 years? Furthermore, the moon's not even there anymore. According to the documentry Space 1999, narrated by Martin Landau, there was an accident and it's now floating off through space somewhere. Finally, the Americans could never have gotten to the moon because a spaceship can't go to warp inside a solar system and the astronauts would turn inside out and go back in time, or something. Ha!
Adam Baboolal 18.08.2004 18:53	Who brought Venom back to Earth? Adam. Boy, this is getting really random.
Adam Baboolal 01.09.2004 16:04	Guess what's on RIGHT NOW on BBC2... Beyond Conspiracy is now showing on BBC2 in the UK. I'm recording it straight away. Peace, Adam.

QueenZone discussion #291763

JFK