• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Big Oil Killed JFK?

NWO Sentryman

Proud NWO Gatekeeper
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
6,994
I read some interesting stuff about how big oil intended to kill jfk because he was getting rid of the oil depletion allowance.

Not content with blackmiling him with sex scandals or knowledge of Addison's, Big oil apparently decided to off him.

What was it really?
 
I know that, but i read somewhere that JFK cheesed off big oil by planning to repeal the oil depletion allowance.

Anyhoo, some rick texans get together and hatch a plan to off JFK.
 
I know that, but i read somewhere that JFK cheesed off big oil by planning to repeal the oil depletion allowance.
If powerful constituencies resorted to assassination whenever a president advocated a policy they disagreed with, I doubt any presidential candidate would survive the primaries.

Anyhoo, some rick texans get together and hatch a plan to off JFK.
Evidence, please. Specific details, not hearsay and supposition. What were the names of these Texans? What were the dates of their meetings? What were the details of their plan? How did you get this evidence? How reliable is your source?
 
if you want to know:

existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2008/09/three-reasons-jfk-was-murdered.html

Federal reserve and CIA are debunked, yet the Texan oil barons have yet to be addressed.
 
I read just the first paragraph and it's already filled with fallacies.

Especially this one: "Those who benefited most from JFKs murder are most certainly guilty of it."

Well, no.
 
I read just the first paragraph and it's already filled with fallacies.

Especially this one: "Those who benefited most from JFKs murder are most certainly guilty of it."

Well, no.

I can see why. by that logic, i could be arrested for murder if i inherited the most from my grandmother.
 
Federal reserve and CIA are debunked, yet the Texan oil barons have yet to be addressed.

The argument is that some people who are known not to have done something may nevertheless have had a motive for doing it, so if it weren't for the fact that they didn't do it then it might have been understandable if they had.

To which I address the response: Who cares?

There is no need to debunk the argument from motive, as it's a non-argument in the first place.

Dave
 
and LBH, his blog is chock full of it. Violation's of godwin's law left, right and centre.

I know JFK didnt intend to shut down the CIA or the Federal reserve.
 
Does every JFK conspiracy theory have to have their own separate thread?

I shot JFK.

There, you happy?
 
I can see why. by that logic, i could be arrested for murder if i inherited the most from my grandmother.
No, you couldn't. First the police would have to find evidence that you had opportunity AND prove with other evidence that you did it. And, it is not necessarily the one who inherits the most. More likely the one who is in the most desperate need of the inheritance. That's why the police don't get to just arrest the most likely suspect, they must provide evidence.
 
Tin foil killed JFK. Yes, Reynolds, or whatever company, just knew the assassination would make people paranoid, which even back then drove them to wear tinfoil hats. I know this because it came to me in a dream after eating too much kimchee one afternoon. :tinfoil:
 
The whole "XXX hated JFK and had motive to do it so therefore they are suspect" is long past it's time.

Some JFK researcher somewhere could report tomorrow that they have an audio recording of someone in the mafia claiming they wanted to kill JFK and his brother, even speculating on ways to do it, and it still wouldn't implicate them in a conspiracy, unless you can find a legitimate way to connect them with Lee Harvey Oswald.

This much is established: JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, who was in the window on the 6th floor of the School Book Depository Building. He was the only shooter. These are the facts.

As of now, despite desperate attempts, there is no indication that he was working with or on behalf of any but himself. Any attempts to claim otherwise will require actual evidence that there was a connection and not just the implication that something "could be there."
 

Back
Top Bottom