JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[abaddon]

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

That you would find it odd that I have some familiarity on the internet creepy, is more that odd.

It says more about you.

ETA: Now I think of it, I have stood at the grave of one I knew through the net, and the memorial card I chucked into the grave travelled around the world, and was signed by many compadres, on many continents, so get over yourself.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I have not speculated anything; I presented events that occurred. A plausible theory is not required when facts are provided.

A plausible theory certainly is required to connect unrelated events. Otherwise, if you were just mentioning other stuff that happened, whats the point? It doesn't matter if it was singular, outside the normal behaviour, or anything else. Unless you are actually going to offer some kind of evidence it in any way relates to the subject being described it is of no interest and pointless speculation.

 

[JayUtah]

A plausible theory certainly is required to connect unrelated events.

The author he's probably cribbing from, Harrison Livingstone, presents no theory either. Livingstone too simply drops those allegations and speculates that the particular collection of cherry-picked facts cannot likely have arisen by coincidence. Innuendo in, innuendo out.

As typically happens when conspiracy enthusiasts pushed beyond their spoon-feeding, ladmo has chosen simply to lash out at those who want him to complete the argument.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I have not speculated anything;

Ah, then you aren't saying it was in any way related to the JFK assassination. Glad we could put that to bed.

 

[jhunter1163]

Do not personalize your arguments, and remain civil and polite.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[HSienzant]

It shouldn't be a requirement for CT lunatics to provide a single coherent theory; it is just necessary to point out "coincidences" that are plausible in building a case. Maybe you can explain this particular coincidence that took place. James Ling and an investment partner took out a put options purchase on their own Defense company LTV, in early November of '63. In February of '64, LBJ announced his FIRST major prime defense contract since taking office and it went to LTV, it was for a fighter aircraft to be used in Vietnam. This short position went 10X in under 3 years. The $2.5M that the two men took out represented over 100 times the size of any other put options in the Aerospace issues durinng the same time period. Is this a coincidence? It very well could be but it is just another interesting point that WC supporters dismiss; especially since the WC never brought this up.

What's the evidence for this claim? Or more accurately, for all these claims?

Is it something you read in a conspiracy book?

Care to cite some actual evidence?

Also, what is the evidence that the Warren Commission was even aware of this? If there is none, what's the point of saying the WC never brought it up? Should the WC have investigated every put option in the sixth months preceding the assassination? lol.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I have provided evidence what I have not provided is my opinion...

Actually, you presented no evidence. Just a paragraph of unsourced allegations, the validity of which is unproven.

We'll await the evidence that all you claim in your post is true.

When can you provide that?

Hank

 

[Regnad Kcin]

A picture is worth a thousand words.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=6378[/qimg]

Mr. Prey, Mr. Prey...

Come now, mine is a simple request. Provide your definition and/or description of the term "blow-out" [sic]. Not a sketch, not a clay sculpture, not a street mime performance.

At least make a reasonable attempt or admit you can't.

 

[BStrong]

American involvement in Vietnam had been going on a long time before Kennedy's assassination, and Kennedy did escalate the American presence in Vietnam. Defence contractors would have been aware of that, and they and investors would be looking toward making money from escalating tensions. It's not a deviation from the norm.

We had air support liasons w/ the French before and during Dien Bien Phu, advisors with the Vietnamese government before and after the partition and We had troops in Laos in 1958 under project White Star.

Everybody paying attention even before Kennedy was elected knew that it was heating up, and assertions to the contrary, the U.S. wasn't walking away from Vietnam under Kennedy.

 

[CORed]

Hah, I see your baloney and raise you two baloneys, you know in your heart you cannot beat me

I don't like baloney. Can't we have ham? Something that's not made out of finely ground unkown pig parts, anyway?


Sorry: Getting close to lunch time.

 

[CORed]

I understand the difference; I provided a specific example as I never implied that this stand alone event is a sufficient enough coincident to indict anyone. Having said that, I would like to see the rationale behind the stock trade as it was so far out of the "typical" action of any aerospace company buying back it's own stock. What even made this transaction all the more strange is that not one Brokerage House followed suit on the Owners actions; if those Houses felt that it was a smart move, they would have followed suit.

Assuming that this trade really happened and was as far from the norm as you suggest, it is much more likely that insider trading was involved than that it had anything to do with the JFK assassination.

 

[CORed]

We had air support liasons w/ the French before and during Dien Bien Phu, advisors with the Vietnamese government before and after the partition and We had troops in Laos in 1958 under project White Star.

Everybody paying attention even before Kennedy was elected knew that it was heating up, and assertions to the contrary, the U.S. wasn't walking away from Vietnam under Kennedy.

All the Vietnam related JFK CT's work on the assumption that JFK would not have escalated US involvement in Vietnam the way LBJ did. Of course, there's no way of knowing for sure what JFK would have done regarding Vietnam had he lived, but my own opinion is that it wouldn't have been all that different.

 

[HSienzant]

I understand the difference; I provided a specific example as I never implied that this stand alone event is a sufficient enough coincident to indict anyone. Having said that, I would like to see the rationale behind the stock trade as it was so far out of the "typical" action of any aerospace company buying back it's own stock. What even made this transaction all the more strange is that not one Brokerage House followed suit on the Owners actions; if those Houses felt that it was a smart move, they would have followed suit.

The rationale would be best known to those who supposedly executed this trade. If you really wanted to know, it's a pity you waited until now to bring it up - 50 years after the fact.

I gather you never asked the principles involved, and since they are all now dead, the precise rationale may never be known, although it's no doubt safe to say they did it to make money.

So saying "I would like to see the rationale behind the stock trade" is meaningless, as we both know we'll never learn the rationale behind the trade as you're only questioning it 50 years after the fact, and after the principles involved are dead.

Why'd you wait until now to raise the issue?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

It shouldn't be a requirement for CT lunatics to provide a single coherent theory; it is just necessary to point out "coincidences" that are plausible in building a case. Maybe you can explain this particular coincidence that took place. James Ling and an investment partner took out a put options purchase on their own Defense company LTV, in early November of '63. In February of '64, LBJ announced his FIRST major prime defense contract since taking office and it went to LTV, it was for a fighter aircraft to be used in Vietnam. This short position went 10X in under 3 years. The $2.5M that the two men took out represented over 100 times the size of any other put options in the Aerospace issues durinng the same time period. Is this a coincidence? It very well could be but it is just another interesting point that WC supporters dismiss; especially since the WC never brought this up.

SECOND REQUEST
What's the evidence for this claim? Or more accurately, for all these claims?

Is it something you read in a conspiracy book?

Care to cite some actual evidence?

Also, what is the evidence that the Warren Commission was even aware of this? If there is none, what's the point of saying the WC never brought it up? Should the WC have investigated every put option in the sixth months preceding the assassination? lol.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Duplicate posting

 

[Mudcat]

Maybe someone can help me out with this, but I know someone who claims that LHO couldn't have acted alone due to the specifics of his riffle (namely, because of the fact it's a bolt action riffle) because when the WC tried to reproduce the shooting using his riffle with the help of Marine core snipers, it couldn't be done.

I know that this is utter crap and probably been discused (likely in this very thread) but if someone can help me find a reference disputing this claim it would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Straw Man]

I've actually shot with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (although, not the actual rifle LHO used), and it is entirely possible that it could be done. Your first shot is in the barrel, and, as long as the bolt removes the spent cartridge and ejects it cleanly, your next round is in there in just over than two seconds (again, my experience).

LHO's final shot was a(n un)lucky shot.

 

[TheRedWorm]

I've actually shot with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (although, not the actual rifle LHO used), and it is entirely possible that it could be done. Your first shot is in the barrel, and, as long as the bolt removes the spent cartridge and ejects it cleanly, your next round is in there in just over than two seconds (again, my experience).

LHO's final shot was a(n un)lucky shot.

I disagree. It was a well aimed and well executed shot.

 

[A'isha]

I know that this is utter crap and probably been discused (likely in this very thread) but if someone can help me find a reference disputing this claim it would be greatly appreciated.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zirbel.txt

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/jfk8/mc.htm

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100timing.html (this one is particularly amusing, since it additionally documents how the claim is actually debunked by the very scene in Oliver Stone's JFK that purports to confirm the claim).

 

[Straw Man]

My suggestion for it being a lucky shot is based solely on ly own experience, and trying to translate that to Oswald.

If, when using a weapon, I strike out on my first hit (and don't see where my shot ended up), I aim lower and to the left (I find guns pull up and to the right). I usually get a result from that, and adjust my aim accordingly.

I believe that LHO missed with his first shot, saw a reaction with his second, and then adjusted for the third that dealt the fatal blow. It wasn't a precisely calibrated weapon, otherwise it would have been game over with one shot. LHO fired his first, and then tried to sight in, and managed to do it fatally, hence luck.