A couple of especially interesting highlights:
Soviet officials believed right away that it was an “ultraright” coup
As of 1965, KGB claimed to have data that implicated LBJ in the plot
I think the Soviets knew exactly what was going on. The fact that they do quickly called it out as a coup attempt is pretty telling, especially because they had double agents fucking everywhere.
The LBJ thing is interesting too, I usually just hear about Bush being involved.
especially because they had double agents fucking everywhere.
They actually didn't. The idea of widespread infiltration of the US by the Soviets was just American cold war propaganda. Makes it easier to drum up antagonism against communist sympathisers and the likes.
Huh, I always just thought that they had a lot of sympathizers that would feed them info for ideological reasons
The LBJ thing is interesting too, I usually just hear about Bush being involved.
LBJ was also fingered in the article I posted yesterday about E. Howard Hunt’s (CIA agent and Watergate burglar) supposed confession regarding the JFK assassination: https://web.archive.org/web/20080620083703/http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13893143/the_last_confessions_of_e_howard_hunt/
I’ve also seen speculation that Dallas was chosen as the location in part due to LBJ’s connections there. This would make sense, but I haven’t seen much actual evidence to support that idea.
I know it's basic, but I feel like the evidence most supports the LHO as lone gunman explanation for the assassination.
That said, if it was something more conspiratorial, LBJ was absolutely in on it. The man was a sociopath, and he'd almost certainly had people who threatened his political ambitions killed in the past.
If anyone is interested in reading 2 a 2000+ page dissection of the way America is governed, as viewed through LBJ's rise to power, The Years Of Lyndon Johnson by Robert Caro is probably the best book ever written about American politics.
Unfortunately, it looks like he won't get to write the best part: a book about LBJs administration during the Vietnam war. He was supposed to have written it already, but COVID stopped his research trips to Vietnam, and Caro is in his 80s now.
^ thats the most unlikely versions of them all , the version that fits not one detail and the version the ruling class decieded upon..
okay why ?
please in details ...not vague notions..
"the answer has to be there idk stop asking questions and just believe what I tell you"
Come on man. At this point it seems like you're just deliberately being a jerk.
I don't even see how you can extract that from what I said. Everything was phrased to make it clear I was talking about my personal assessment of the evidence.
Did I ever suggest you "stop asking questions and believe what I tell you?" I mean, the majority of my original comment was about the idea that LBJ was highly involved in the assassination. What the heck?
I was being a bit of jerk there, comrade, so sorry about that. :meow-hug:
Self-Crit:
I made the snarky comment because I was annoyed that I wasn't getting the engagement that I wanted, but it's within your right to state your beliefs without defending them in a discussion, and I need to accept that. I can recall times where I've been in your shoes and didn't have the energy to debate.
Just to be clear, I am agnostic on the question of who killed JFK. I thought that was clear in my original comment, which is why I used the "I feel" phrasing, but then went on to devote the majority of the comment to the idea that LBJ was involved in the assassination plot (an idea that I view as wholely plausible)
A large part of why I didn't want to get into a massive debate with you (too late now, haha) is that my take on who shot JFK is not a strongly held position.
I'm also in the middle of all kinds of Christmas stuff right now, so I'm not able to crack out sources that dig into individual points in detail.
Anyway, I appreciate your response here, and hope you are having a good holiday and don't spend too much of it getting worked up on Hexbear. I will try to do the same.
:comrades:
That's cool, I'm glad that you're at least open-minded/agnostic about it. Yes, your original comment was perfectly clear and fine. I can empathize with having a controversial opinion that attracts debate bros like flies to a street lamp.
Merry Christmas, comrade!
You're welcome to do your own research, and draw your own conclusions. I have no interest in convincing you of anything.
dude at least link me the Warren Komission Report , what a cop out .,
lets talk intreagly about Bullet Trajectories and Oswalds wierd Biografie ?
But on a serious Note
"Why was Oswald the Shooter ?" turns the Hole affair around , does it not ? and lets it suddenly stand naked ...
I feel like the evidence most supports the LHO as lone gunman explanation for the assassination.
LHO tested negative for gunshot residue that day, and there were witnesses in the stairwell in the moments after the assassination who would have seen him descending (but did not). Not to mention the magic bullet, which is the only way to make a single shooter work. There was also a tree blocking his view for two of the three shots.
:this:
If you believe the Warren report the. You don't believe the standard physics model, no way a bullet cause 7 wounds changed direction mid air multiple times and remained intact after shattering a wrist bone
I’ve been listening to an audiobook of JFK and the Unspeakable and if even a sliver of what the book describes is true, it makes it very difficult to believe the official version of events.
Aside from everything else, one of the biggest things that has always stuck out to me (besides the magic bullet) is that the head wound seems entirely inconsistent with a shot from behind, and lines up much better with a shot coming from the fence/grassy knoll (since the head immediately went back and to the left). There were also witnesses who claimed they heard at least one of the gunshots coming from that area.
Related, there was a great documentary that came out this year called JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass that covers this and other questionable aspects of the assassination pretty well.
best scene in the Movie , "Back and to the Left" - Rewind - "Back and to the Left" .. it was full of so many details i totally forgot , but "Back and to the Left" was profund .
That's from Stone's first film on JFK, no? I haven't yet seen Through the Looking Glass.
Yep, that’s from the first JFK.
Through the Looking Glass is a full blown documentary and not a dramatization (unlike JFK), but I thought it was great and highly recommend it.
My favorite scene of any movie. I was on the edge of my seat with my eyes glued to every frame. Every piece of the movie is threaded together in that climax :chefs-kiss: .
This copy is better quality I think.
spoiler
"Ten to twelve men. Three teams. Three shooters. The triangulation of fire that Clay Shaw and David Ferrie discussed two months before..."
spoiler
THEY'VE WALKED THE PLAZA.
spoiler
THEY KNOW EVER INCH.
spoiler
THEY'VE CALIBRATED THEIR SIGHTS.
spoiler
THEY'VE PRACTICED ON MOVING TARGETS.
spoiler
THEY'RE READY!
spoiler
KENNEDY'S MOTORCADE MAKES THE TURN FROM MAIN ONTO HOUSTON.
spoiler
IT'S GONNA BE A TURKEY SHOOT.
spoiler
They don't shoot him coming up Houston, WHICH IS THE EASIEST SHOT FOR A SINGLE SHOOTER IN THE BOOK DEPOSITORY!
spoiler
THEY WAIT!
spoiler
THEY WAIT UNTIL HE GETS IN THE KILLING ZONE BETWEEN THREE RIFLES.
spoiler
KENNEDY MAKES THE FINAL TURN FROM HOUSTON ONTO ELM, SLOWING DOWN TO SOME 11 MILES AN HOUR.
spoiler
The shooters across Dealey Plaza tighten, taking their aim, waiting for the radio to say
"GREEN! GREEN!" or "ABORT! ABORT!"...
:shrek-pixel-despair:
The witnesses are often overlooked. If there were one or two outlier witnesses who claimed to hear something from the knoll that would be one thing ("chaos of the moment" blah blah blah), but it was like FIFTY fucking people who claimed they heard shots there, by far the majority. On amateur footage you can even see groups of people rushing over to the knoll to investigate.
The need for a "magic bullet" misunderstands the layout of the car itself. It wasn't a standard car with standard seating- JFK's seat was offset in an unusual position for the sake of emphasizing him vs the other occupants of the car.
Assuming you're correct for a moment and the unusual seating position is sufficient to explain the bizarre locations of the seven bullet wounds, there is still the matter of timing. Kennedy can be seen grasping at his throat wound for several moments in the film while Connally's wrist is still unharmed. This is a problem because the same bullet is supposed to have caused both wounds (throat and wrist) in the single shooter theory.
Also, I'm curious where you found that explanation; I'd like to check it out. The source wouldn't happen to be the History Channel, would it? I remember seeing a lot of assassination documentaries on there.
I honestly don't fully remember where I saw that, but I do remember seeing it in multiple places.
Sorry, I know that's really unhelpful
That's okay, comrade. If you happen to remember or see it in the future, send it my way.
This stuff has all been hashed out at length and there have been MASSIVE books written on the subject, both for and against. At this point, anyone can find mountains of evidence to support whatever POV they want.
That's intellectually lazy tbh. You'll find that a lot of this stuff actually doesn't have a proper response to it. It's just dealt with by ignoring the question entirely, gaslighting, or repeating a different set of talking points to make you forget it.
It's not "intellectually lazy" to think we aren't going to finally settle this debate that's been ongoing for almost 60 years in this forum thread.
I'm familiar with the points you raised, and personally found them unconvincing, but I'm not interested in writing a massive essay about it here, especially because as I said, that essay has already been written a thousand times.
Evolution is settled science but the debate over it will continue indefinitely because there exist people for which it is completely incompatible with their belief system.
In a similar fashion, the debate over JFK will continue for so long as the current power structure remains in place in America, because admitting to complicity in state crimes against democracy would completely undermine the legitimacy of their claim to power.
With that closing remark, I'm happy to disengage like you suggested, comrade.
Sometimes people can be wrong about a subject for a long time. People still think Socialism is bad, guess we can't disagree!
What are you talking about? Thats not even close to relevant.
The point isn't that the issue can never be settled, it's that I personally don't want to argue about it. But I guess you really had to "score some points" huh?
Why did you bring this stupid bullshit up if you didn't want to talk about it?
The magic bullet theory is easily addressed by the knowledge that Connally was sitting on a jumper seat that was lower and more inboard than Kennedy
That doesn't address the timing issues, as I explained here.
Edit: Do you remember where you heard or read that?
I saw it on a documentary like 20 years ago (maybe on Discovery?) but you can also see it by googling "kennedy limousine seats"
I had a strong feeling that this came from a documentary that aired on the History or Discovery Channel. The CIA has produced several MSM documentaries over the decades to prop up the Warren Commission. One of them even had me fooled until a few years ago.
Yeah, it was very successful. Basically the Business Plot finally coming to fruition.
why would ultrarights kill kennedy, wouldn't they love him? some choice quotes from his diary btw
“He had in him the stuff of which legends are made. You can easily understand how that within a few years Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived"
“He had boundless ambition for his country which rendered him a menace to the peace of the world, but he had a mystery about him in the way he lived and in the manner of his death that will live and grow after him,” he added. “He had in him the stuff of which legends are made.”
After a visit to the river Rhine in 1937, he wrote: "Very beautiful, because there are many castles along the route.
"The towns are all charming, which shows that the Nordic races appear to be definitely superior to their Latin counterparts. The Germans are really too good – that's why people conspire against them – they do it to protect themselves." A fortnight earlier, Mr Kennedy, who was touring with his friend Lem Billings, wrote in his diary: "I have come to the conclusion that fascism is right for Germany and Italy. What are the evils of fascism compared to communism?" Mr Billings later recalled that Mr Kennedy was "completely consumed by his interest for the Hitler movement" on their trip.
His father was also a nazi sympathizer, President Roosevelt sacked Kennedy Snr in 1940 after he remarked during the Battle of Britain that "democracy is finished in England" and sought to negotiate with Hitler to prevent America entering the Second World War.
why would ultrarights kill kennedy, wouldn’t they love him?
This is like asking why Republicans don't love Joe Biden for being a pro-segregation conservative who was tough on crime. There are many different degrees of right-wing, and the American fascists view anything to the left of them as communist sympathizers.
Simplest answer: because Kennedy was going to withdraw from Vietnam and curtail the CIA for having lied to him about the Bay of Pigs.
why would ultrarights kill kennedy, wouldn’t they love him?
Biggest reason, based on what I’ve read, is likely because after the Cuban Missile Crises he generally favored rapprochement with the Soviet Union, which would have included the US withdrawing from Vietnam. He also supposedly had a number of spats with the CIA before this, including over the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem, the Bay of Pigs invasion, and probably much more.
He also fired Allen Dulles, the CIA director, and privately said he wanted "to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." He was also sleeping with the ex-wife of a CIA agent reported to be involved int the plot, so maybe that also didn’t help things. She was murdered suspiciously in 1964 in a crime that was never solved.
So, there were quite a few reasons why they’d want him dead. The CIA at that time would not hesitate to kill a democratically elected leader who stood in their way. Why would they not apply that to the US itself?
Nixon was way softer on Cuba as well as on the USSR than JFK was. JFK was pretty far out.
American intelligence had to get involved during JFK's presidential campaign because JFK was accidentally revealing the planned invasion of Cuba by telling people at his rallies that if he were president he would support a policy of arming, training and supporting cuban refugees to invade Cuba.
this idea of JFK being a moderate president in terms of the cold war is insane. both Truman and Eisenhower were far more reasonable.
Actions are more important than speeches. When the time for the invasion of Cuba came, Kennedy was horrified with what the CIA was planning, and he denied them the air support that was needed to secure a victory over Cuba. He then dismantled the policy of arming, training, and supporting the Cuban refugees for another invasion (Operation Mongoose). That made him a lot of enemies.
Kennedy promised the Soviets he wouldn't invade Cuba and Nixon did that as well, so I'm not seeing a difference in policy there. Nixon also escalated Vietnam to its peak intensity, the war that Kennedy was going to end. Kennedy ran to the right and governed to the left (relatively). Johnson did the reverse.
How were Truman and Eisenhower reasonable? The Truman Doctrine was an incredibly successful anti-communist program, and Eisenhower basically gave the CIA free reign.
When the time for the invasion of Cuba came, Kennedy was horrified with what the CIA was planning, and he denied them the air support that was needed to secure a victory over Cuba.
This isn't true. Most of JFK's most generous biographers say that at best he went with the plans with a bit of hesitation. He certainly wasn't horrified(id be interested in a source if you have one).
Of course the plan for Bay of Pigs originated with Eisenhower's administration when Nixon was VP. But it should be telling that you're trying to defend a man who tried to out maneuver Nixon in his campaign by going even farther right in order to call Nixon soft on communism.
The Bay of Pigs invasion was entirely designed to provide the US with plausible deniability against accusations of outright invasion in the event of a failed invasion of Cuba. It wasn't some deep dark conspiracy shit, it was a logical work around for a potential diplomatic crisis with the USSR. JFK only refused to send in direct air support because he wanted to maintain that plausible deniability. Not because he had any moral stance on the matter or on cuba/communism.
The original plan was to provide gusanos with weapons and training, including fighter jets and bombers for the initial landing. He kept to that. If you wanna worship the dude for trying to limit the possibility of nuclear Armageddon, go ahead. I'm not joining you though.
How were Truman and Eisenhower reasonable?
I'm being provocative here. I've simply noticed this insane tendency on the left as of late where people seem to increasingly think JFK's assassination was some pivotal moment in the cold war. This is a historically illiterate and anti-materialist position to me. It's effectively Bonapartism.
Our lives would be just as shitty had JFK not been shot dead.
At least Eisenhower went out with that one speech to warn us against the military industrial complex. Plus Eisenhower gifted Zhukov a fine ass fishing rod. JFK would have just given us some bullshit about freedom and liberty. He was the first president who was stupid enough to believe his bullshit. All of his successors (except for Nixon) have been stupid enough to believe it as well.
I wish he hadn't been shot so you could hate him as much as everyone else like I do.
I already do hate Kennedy about as much as every other American president. The problem is that you're mistaking a dispassionate recognition of the significance of his assassination for hagiography or "worship", because you're letting your contrarianism and hatred of JFK blind you. It's similar to how Ben Shapiro decries leftists for being motivated by feelings rather than facts, when it's actually the other way around: Ben is motivated by his contrarianism and hatred of leftists and marginalized groups, which blinds him to the rational arguments for scientific socialism (please understand, I don't think you're anywhere near as bad as Ben Shapiro, comrade, it's just an analogy).
You may be right about the Cuba stuff. I may have perhaps given Kennedy too much credit by projecting a moral stance for his decisions during the Bay of Pigs invasion, so I'll do a self-crit there. However, I do know that for whatever reason, the invasion resulted in JFK and the CIA hating each other. I also know for a fact that Kennedy was going to withdraw from Vietnam---which by itself is enough to make his assassination a huge deal (regardless of whatever motivation he had for doing so).
I completely agree that our lives would be just as shitty today had JFK not been killed. But I also believe that his assassination was a pivotal moment in the Cold War---and this is actually a completely materialist position, not great man theorizing. How can that be? I'll explain with another analogy.
The First World War happened entirely due to material, not personal, reasons: capitalist imperialism. Nevertheless, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was a pivotal moment in world history, because it marked a significant turning point. It was when the material forces of capitalism finally came to a head and burst into bloody imperial conquest. It's not that we're worshiping Franz Ferdidand as some great man who was holding together peace in Europe.
In a similar fashion, the escalations of the Cold War and the Vietnam War were entirely inevitable due to the material necessities of the military industrial complex. JFK was high on his own supply, as you suggested. He was stupid enough to believe that he could say some pretty things about freedom and liberty and successfully lead the world to peace despite the material need for war, and it cost him his life. No, the world would not be a better place today if he hadn't been shot dead, because the Deep State would have eventually gotten its wishes by another means in due time---just like World War I would have eventually happened if Ferdinand had survived that day. JFK was not holding the peace of the world in his hands, he was just some asshole who got merc'd because he stood in the path of the rampaging elephant of imperialism, and highlighting that fact is useful and illustrative to liberals that we don't live in a democracy, but rather a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, because capitalism doesn't care about who you vote for.
It was actually because JFK had sex with Khruschev, and the CIA killed him to cover it up
Gonna leave this here for anyone curious about what else the evilest government to ever exist might have done.
