Posted On: Wednesday - November 22nd 2023 3:35PM MST
In Topics: History Pundits Dead/Ex- Presidents
I was not aware of this important happening on November 22nd of 1963. Now, right at 6 decades later, I would not have been aware of the anniversary yet but for the Steve Sailer post from today noting that It Was 60 Years Ago Today.
I don't doubt Mr. Sailer's arithmetic. As far as the significance, I somewhat agree with his writing here:
In Boomer mythology, America changed between the assassination of JFK on 11/22/1963 and the Beatles’ appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show on 2/9/1964. Over the decades, I’ve come to believe that cliche is largely true.The Shea Stadium show would have been nice to have gone to, though I'd rather have had my ears blown out from big woofers playing Rush or Zeppelin than screaming female Beatles fans.
What I do doubt is the downplaying of anything off the (Warren Commission) narrative involving other players and conspiracies, as Mr. Sailer seems to. I claim no special knowledge of this assassination having only read part of one book (it got boring) and possibly having seen the Oliver Stone movie. (I really can't remember, so I'll check it out again and see.)
Another pivotal event from 2 generations later was 9/11, and as per our 2 y/a post At Peak Stupidity club, YOU! DO! NOT! TALK! ABOUT! 9/11!, I don't mind some comments about JFK - anywhere and anytime the reader would like - but I won't get into this too much.
In comparing these two events and the possible real stories, there seem to be two big parts to this type of speculation*: Motivations and the Details.
For the speculation on motivations, it's fairly easy to read up on the politics in order to come up with pretty good reasons that some other party or parties must have been involved. That's why I think most conspiracy theorists start from this side. "These people HAD to want him dead." or "These people would of course have wanted to blame the Moslem world for this huge attack." Lots of these theories make lots of sense.
As for speculation and calculations on the details, that's quite a bit more difficult. When it comes to the earlier event, JFK's assassination, this is not ridiculously difficult. It's about ballistics, fields of view, bullet impact(s) on the body, autopsy information, etc. About the most difficult thing is the problem of the amount of time that has gone by... after a time in which there weren't a whole lot of cameras around, and one could get away with a whole lot more, sight unseen, hence unrecorded.
As I wrote in the post about 9/11, the details on the airplane impacts and effects on the building structures are not something I know so much about, but there's one thing I am pretty confident on. That is how difficult if not impossible it is to model what went on, with high-velocity impact, fast-moving burning jet fuel, and all that. Additionally, of the one area I DO know a lot about, the aviation side, even one of the internet commentators I really like let me down on the subject at the very beginning of a long video on his theories. If he doesn't understand that part, how could I trust that he understands the rest of it? So, I don't know, and motivations alone don't make a case for me.
Back to this JFK assassination anniversary, and going back to motivations, here is my main reason for thinking over the last 60 years America has not been told the true story by the big media. There were just too many people or organizations that WOULD have a motivation to off that President! Maybe it was his understanding of sound money - my favorite explanation just because I care about that - that made him "not viable" as President. I have run into so many other reasons. Was it just the one Communist Lee Harvey Oswald that didn't like anti-Commies, as iSteve thinks? With all those other people with reasons to get him, if nothing else, they could have really "used" a dupe like that. In this case, I'll admit, I've only followed some of the details. I won't say I'm sure things didn't go down as advertised, because, as I wrote above, motivations are not enough. Still, there were a LOT of people motivated ...
Speaking of the Commies and the events of 60 years back today, Mr. Sailer included (from an 11 year ago TakiMag article of his) this excerpt from the widow:
When Jackie Kennedy learned the unwelcome truth, she lamented, “He didn’t even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights. It had to be some silly little communist. It robs his death of any meaning.”Wow, what a proto-Woke little ninny Jackie was 6 decades ago! I mean, Communism was THE big issue, problem, and worry back then. Being shot dead by a Communist was anything but silly in 1963. What an airhead, but, they say she was hot …
Maybe I got her all wrong. Was she upset that the assassination had the unfortunate effect of setting Civil Rights efforts forward 10 years? I'd have been.
We close with a comment by Alarmist in which I have added 4 lines. Going back to the Beatles, who weren't on the Ed Sullivan show till 59 3/4 years ago, I wouldn't be able to read Mr. Sailer's title without their A Day in the Life in my head:
🎶 It was sixty years ago today.
Lyndon Johnson told the band to play.
He was shot inside a half a mile.
Now convertibles are outta style….
So let me induce in you
some vomiting from all these fears
of Johnson and his ruin-America plaaaaaan.🎶
Any improvement will be welcomed.
* A third one could be the trust, or lack thereof, of Americans in the ability/desire of the media of the time to even make a serious effort to delve into other possibilities. That had plunged a lot already from 1963 to 2001. Now, only 22 years further on? People would be less ignorant without the Lyin Press.
Comments:
M
Friday - November 24th 2023 7:54AM MST
PS
Nah, my money is still on Oswald as the lone gunman.
His motivation was likely that he was disillusioned with Soviet communism (having lived under it for a few years) but he just thought they hadn't done it properly. So he changed to thinking that the Cubans would do it right. I doubt the Cubans actually told him to do it; he was an enthusiast.
Apparently he had attempted to shoot a different politician earlier but missed.
I picture him as being like those "lone wolves" that the media talk about when some Islamic blows himself up or starts stabbing people one day while out for a walk.
Nothing in his preparation or tools really required anyone else to be involved.
A lot of Democrats didn't like how it looked; a communist shooting the President. So they made it a "civil rights" thing. Oswald was completely not a civil rights activist, so it *must* have been someone else.
This is where most of the conspiracy motivations started. Of course now a lot of it is just that we've been lied to a lot, so of course they lie about this as well. As per Sailer, we're turning into Turks, where *everything* is a conspiracy.
Nah, my money is still on Oswald as the lone gunman.
His motivation was likely that he was disillusioned with Soviet communism (having lived under it for a few years) but he just thought they hadn't done it properly. So he changed to thinking that the Cubans would do it right. I doubt the Cubans actually told him to do it; he was an enthusiast.
Apparently he had attempted to shoot a different politician earlier but missed.
I picture him as being like those "lone wolves" that the media talk about when some Islamic blows himself up or starts stabbing people one day while out for a walk.
Nothing in his preparation or tools really required anyone else to be involved.
A lot of Democrats didn't like how it looked; a communist shooting the President. So they made it a "civil rights" thing. Oswald was completely not a civil rights activist, so it *must* have been someone else.
This is where most of the conspiracy motivations started. Of course now a lot of it is just that we've been lied to a lot, so of course they lie about this as well. As per Sailer, we're turning into Turks, where *everything* is a conspiracy.
The Alarmist
Friday - November 24th 2023 6:00AM MST
PS
@MrBlanc, my money is on David Ben Gurion and James Jesus Angleton being the principal string-pullers. LBJ was a willing participant, for obvious reasons. The Cubans were not a factor, though interesting enough, Ted Cruz’s father was allegedly a pro-Castro revolutionary who was at UT roughly the same time as Oswald. Then there is GHW Bush, who is the only person in the English-speaking world who couldn’t remember where he was on the 22 Nov 1963 (he was in Dallas that day) while running his See-Eye-Eh front oil business.
Conspiracy Theorists are nothing more than people who notice reality.
@MrBlanc, my money is on David Ben Gurion and James Jesus Angleton being the principal string-pullers. LBJ was a willing participant, for obvious reasons. The Cubans were not a factor, though interesting enough, Ted Cruz’s father was allegedly a pro-Castro revolutionary who was at UT roughly the same time as Oswald. Then there is GHW Bush, who is the only person in the English-speaking world who couldn’t remember where he was on the 22 Nov 1963 (he was in Dallas that day) while running his See-Eye-Eh front oil business.
Conspiracy Theorists are nothing more than people who notice reality.
MBlanvc46
Thursday - November 23rd 2023 5:06PM MST
PS Yeah, something of a Commie. But the main point is that the US spooks were. trying to assassinate Castro, and the Cubans decided to try the same with Kennedy.
Moderator
Thursday - November 23rd 2023 8:05AM MST
PS: Ahaaa, we've got you pinned down to France, Alarmist! Homing in here... and sunny Florida, and Central Park. I'll get some assets on this.
There's a Johnny Cougar (OK, fine, MelonCamp) song that mentions Jackie O'Nassis, which came in my head after your comment. One thing about her that I still don't get. When I was a kid, this Jackie O'Nassis was featured on just about every other National Enquirer front page at the grocery. I had no earthly idea who this lady was at the time... heard of JFK, of course.
There's a Johnny Cougar (OK, fine, MelonCamp) song that mentions Jackie O'Nassis, which came in my head after your comment. One thing about her that I still don't get. When I was a kid, this Jackie O'Nassis was featured on just about every other National Enquirer front page at the grocery. I had no earthly idea who this lady was at the time... heard of JFK, of course.
The Alarmist
Thursday - November 23rd 2023 7:23AM MST
PS
I used to occasionally see Jackie O while I was jogging around the Central Park Reservoir that is now named after her. I can’t say she was hot, especially since she was somewhat older, but she was still a handsome woman.
Happy Thanksgiving, y’all. Over here we call it Jeudi, which translates to Thursday.
🕉
🙏🍗🥧🍷😊
I used to occasionally see Jackie O while I was jogging around the Central Park Reservoir that is now named after her. I can’t say she was hot, especially since she was somewhat older, but she was still a handsome woman.
Happy Thanksgiving, y’all. Over here we call it Jeudi, which translates to Thursday.
🕉
🙏🍗🥧🍷😊
Moderator
Thursday - November 23rd 2023 5:52AM MST
PS: Happy Thanksgiving, Adam, and welcome back. I know this was your busy time.
Adam Smith
Wednesday - November 22nd 2023 11:08PM MST
PS: Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!!
☮️
☮️
Maybe it was Bar ... but Roger stone has another theory around Bush the Elder.
———
Author Roger Stone's Latest Conspiracy Theory: George H.W. Bush Behind Reagan Assassination Attempt
PHILADELPHIA (CBS) -- Conspiracy theorist and author of the upcoming booking book, Jeb! and the Bush Crime Family, Roger Stone alleges that former President George H. W. Bush played a role in the 1981 assassination attempt against Ronald Reagan.
Stone, during an interview with Rich Zeoli on Talk Radio 1210 WPHT, claimed he has done research to have found a second gunman at the scene on the grounds of the Washington Hilton Hotel.
"There are two shooters in the Reagan assassination attempt, not one. I give you photographic evidence and eye-witness evidence of a second man standing on a balcony holding a gun, who can clearly be seen in the uncropped photos and I traced many of the connections of the Bushes to the Hinckleys. It's more than you've been told."
He maintains the motivation for the plan to kill the President was Bush's desire to shift away from Reagan's foreign policy and help institute a one world government.
"I think it is more than possible because one has to understand the backdrop here and that is this story is missing from Bill O'Reilly's Killing Reagan book entirely. Al Haig, Reagan's Secretary of State and Vice President George Bush are fighting over control of foreign policy. George 'Poppy' Bush is for the 'New World Order.' Haig has the quaint notion that he's Reagan's man. This is supposed to be Reagan's foreign policy, more conservative than what Bush wants. There are two different executive orders sitting on Reagan's desk. One giving authority to Haig. One giving authority to Bush...Then there's an assassination attempt on Reagan and he comes back, three days into his hospital stay he signs the order putting George Bush in charge of the machinery."
Stone also believes a massive cover up continues to hide the truth.
"The Government says five bullets and I traced the trajectory of five bullets and the angle at which the bullet enters Reagan could not have come from the crouching position of Hinckley and if it bounced off a door, where's the chip of paint or evidence that it did? There's none. The government won't release any of these records. They've never released the photos."
source: https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/author-roger-stones-latest-conspiracy-theory-george-h-w-bush-behind-reagan-assassination-attempt/