JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theory Laid to Rest.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Prof., Nov 13, 2008.

  1. Prof. macrumors 601

    Prof.

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago
    #1
    Tech puts JFK conspiracy theories to rest
    Sixth floor of book depository, not the grassy knoll, was origin of lethal shot
    [​IMG]
    LINK
     
  2. Big-TDI-Guy macrumors 68030

    Big-TDI-Guy

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    #2
    All the facts and scientific evidence in the world will not lay this conspiracy to rest. Ever.

    People always dream up things, and stories evolve.
     
  3. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #3
    but but WHY did the body guards back off? lol
     
  4. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #4
    Same with 9/11 conspiracy "theories".
     
  5. Cleverboy macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #5
    No. Perfect the chronovisor. Done.

    ~ CB
     
  6. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #6
    I like the one from a year or two ago where they went had a sniper recreate the magic bullet shot using gel simulants.

    And was off by about 1/2 inch which slowed the bullet down just enough that it didn't make the last penetrating wound, but came darn close.
     
  7. 63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #7
    Definitively saying Bush planned and carried out 9/11 in every detail in order to get into Iraq is a crazy theory. Heck, he was going to Iraq anyway (Frontline - Bush's War).

    But what is truly strange is that either tower fell. The original architect, legendary Minoru Yamasaki, was contracted to build such a tall building, likely to accidentally get hit by jet liners, and to be able to take six hits from similar sized jets, full of fuel as would be the case of jets taking off nearby.

    A slower moving jet, as one taking off, would hit the building splattering less fuel outward lending more fuel and heat into the tower itself. No amount of heat created from jet fuel, is enough to melt the steel infrastructure of the twin towers. So anybody who has any knowledge of architecture will be very suspicious and rightly so. But that does not automatically equate to any conspiracy, either.

    As much as I don't like Bush, and as many things America can blame him for, the falling of the twin towers is not one of them.

    .........


    As for Kennedy being shot from one vantage point, if the Governor was in front of him, slightly lower and toward the center of the car, as photos suggest, then the bullet trajectories make it possible, too. One shooter, one vantage point.

    But did anyone put Oswald up to it? That then remains the question. Yes, he could have done it himself with no allies. But Castro, the Mob, the Soviets, all could have funded him, or possibly shown even a slight motive. But unless there is evidence, all we have is that one person shot the President based on his own design, with maybe some connection with Jack Ruby, but further conspiracy is hard to prove. I find it terribly hard to believe that Johnson, the FBI, the CIA, or a Kennedy personal enemy did this. Who had the most to gain? Probably a powerful enemy like Russia or Cuba, or a criminal (like very powerful mobster Meyer Lansky) who could have been feeling the heat from Bobby Kennedy. Lansky had connections with Ruby.

    One powerful argument against Cuba or Russia doing it was, if found out, it could cause a war. Probably not worth it since Kennedy made no aggressive actions against the communists willing to have them take such a big chance. If Castro was unstable, and this is possible, then he could have had an all or nothing attitude regardless of what ally Russa would have thought.
     
  8. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #8
    Doesn't have to melt steel just weaken if enough to cause the floor truss systems to collapse, which they will and do in a normal fire.

    NY fire code has a lot written to prevent and slow this process, but it still happens if you don't get there to slow it down by fighting the fire.

    Losing floors = collapsing building if enough floors get removed from towers.
     
  9. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
  10. 63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #10

    Yes, floors could collapse and destruct, but steel beams would stay intact as in many fire and earthquake scenarios.

    Have you ever seen some aftermath pictures of WWII firebombing raids? Everything destroyed yet many, many steel beams still standing like lonely trees.

    The fire bombs used in WWII and later used were designed to burn far hotter than mere gasoline or jet fuel.
     
  11. Big-TDI-Guy macrumors 68030

    Big-TDI-Guy

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    #11
    The towers weren't built with an internal steel skeleton though.
     
  12. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #12
    This hardly lays it to wrest. And OP, not ever Republican is opposed to gay marriage and has opted to move to Canada. :rolleyes:
     
  13. 63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #13
    Many buildings built earlier in the century relied on stone and brick for structural strength, before that wood. The WTC did not rely on stone/brick/wood, but steel. The wtc had an internal steel support and that could be found on any website. Aircraft fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel.

    Some may say that there were deficiencies in the design of the building, that there was a delay that had to be erased in order to stay within budget, and that there were shortcuts made in the making of the building. I find these theories most likely.

    If an architect designs any structure to be a certain strength, are there any factors that would make a contractor skimp on materials or quality? Could money be a factor? And has a contractor ever built a large building not quite up to the architect's plan?

    The unfortunate thing is that this likely, underbuilt/compromised contracting coincided with terrorists hitting these buildings. It was an unfortunate coincidence.

    No, Bush didn't do it. Aliens didn't do it. But terrorists attacked a building that was probably not built completely to spec.

    A perfect example of this phenomenon of less than stellar contracting is Kobe Japan during their big quake when many buildings were found to be built way under code to save money on the contractor's end. The architects designed the buildings in this earthquake region of the world to withstand quite a bit, but human greed intervened. Many were prosecuted.

    The most damning evidence was the paper trail left by the contractors. My cousin was a cpa in Kobe at the time and among many others, investigated buildings built not to code and their ledgers of expenses and materials bought from suppliers which didn't add up, but got signed off anyway as built up to code. So some big businessmen and officials lied, so what? Well, people died. This happened in Japan though.

    Would any American contractors cheat to save money, especially on a project that was threatened to go way over budget? Do bears pee in the woods?

    There are probably other large American structures that were skimped on by some contractors, as there are houses not up to code even though one is told it is up to code.
     
  14. ntrigue macrumors 68040

    ntrigue

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    #14
    It's one thing if the bottom few floors of a 60-story building have weakened structural beams and another for a few stories up high to bring the whole thing down; despite being built to support collapsing floors. Same thing happened in South America and burned more than a day without collapsing at all. This was in an inferior building built a decade before the twin towers.
     
  15. Prof. thread starter macrumors 601

    Prof.

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago
    #15
    Hmhmm... not everyone can take a joke apparently. :rolleyes:

    May I encourage you to go find your long lost sense of humor?
     
  16. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #16
    Can we please get this back on topic.
    I have always been fascinated with this. I don't think Oswald worked on his own. JFK had enemies and a lot of secret relationships that I'm sure annoyed a lot of people. Without Oswald being put to trial we will never learn the truth. I don't think we will ever find out what really happened.
     
  17. 63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #17
    Many people tend to think in black and white. Either Bush (or the warmongers of the GOP) took this set of buildings down or the planes hijacked by Al Qaeda did.

    Legally speaking, there are many scenarios of multiple defendants. Let's say the liability for the terrorists is the intent to kill with malice aforethought (aka murder) and the liability against the contractors is product tort liability. This creates a multiple defendant scenario.

    As an analogy of a multiple defendant scenario on a smaller scale:

    Let's say your teenage kid steals some beer from 7-11 (larceny) late at night, gets extremely drunk in public (misdemeanor), steals a car worth over $5,000 dollars (grand larceny) and crashes into a Catepillar tractor the City accidentally left in the middle of the road after work (gross negligence).

    In this legal scenario, we have two defendants, (1) the kid who stole the beer and stole a car, and drove while intoxicated or under the influence and (2) the city who has been negligent in leaving a Catepillar tractor in the middle of the road at night after work.
     
  18. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #18
    We already have a 9-11 thread for this. I don't see anything to do with 9-11 in the op.
     
  19. Anuba macrumors 68040

    Anuba

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    #19
    Conspiracy theories: Psychological origins

    I especially like the part about "epistemic bias":

    That's exactly right. If Oswald had missed by a few inches and JFK would've survived the assassination attempt, but Hinckley would've succeeded in killing Reagan, the attempt on JFK would've been forgotten long ago but conspiracy buffs would still be busy trying to find out who really killed Reagan.

    I also like the part about "paranoia, denial, schizophrenia and mean world syndrome". Watching Oliver Stone's JFK with clinical psychology glasses on is hugely entertaining, some sequences will have you rolling on the floor in fits of uncontrollable laughter. Like this scene...

    [​IMG]

    ...Where David Ferrie, Clay Shaw and "Willie O'Keefe" are engaged in some sort of amyl sniffing gay S&M role-playing nipple twisting orgy while Oswald is watching. It's a disturbing look inside Oliver Stone's demented mind.
     
  20. 63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #20
    Sorry for getting off topic. :)

    Anyway, I agree with you as to us never getting to the truth. Either Oswald did it alone without any conspirators, or he was paid to do the deed. He could have done it on his own, as I think Hinckley did shooting Reagan, but my gut tells me that Oswald was a part of a plan. This won't get me points at law school though. :)

    Anyway, for the crime of conspiracy, Model Penal Code, to be present, two or more bad actors have to work together with the objective of furthering a crime, called the target objective. If Oswald had just one other partner, it is legally considered a conspiracy.

    When many people think conspiracy, they think of many people. But the law only requires two people so even if Oswald planned this thing out and went over scenarios with his drinking buddy, let's say, and that drinking buddy gave him suggestions, whether used or not, but had the same target objective of shooting Kennedy, that legally qualifies as conspiracy. Even if that drinking buddy only wanted to "scare" the President, and thought that's all that Oswald planned to do, it's still the crime of conspiracy with two defendants.

    Let's go even further and say Oswald and his drinking buddy only wanted to scare the President as a prank, both bad actors would likely be found guilty of conspiracy and Oswald would be found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon.

    Conspiracy is not hard to prove, regardless of intent.
     
  21. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #21
    What was Oswald's motive, did we ever get one before he was killed by Ruby.
     
  22. Big-TDI-Guy macrumors 68030

    Big-TDI-Guy

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    #22
    Oswald's motive? To be the envy of those in Sniper School? Hi profile target, in a moving vehicle, at a good distance, with a POS firearm. Too bad he couldn't have been sent back in time to take out Hitler in his motorcade.
     
  23. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #23
    Did he know they were going to be in a convertible or was that just luck.
     
  24. 63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #24
    That's as good a theory as any. Maybe he was a lone psycho trying to impress somebody who would not care, in this case sniper school.

    Hinckley shot at Reagan to impress Jody Foster.

    Crazy people do crazy things and then the motive scenario really gets weird.

    Unless somebody confesses, and back it up with direct and circumstantial evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, that there was a conspiracy, then we may never know. But perhaps Oswald left a diary or note "memorializing" the conspiracy naming another defendant who is still alive. Maybe that person could be questioned.

    Maybe a criminal from the underworld or a former Soviet/Cuban agent will make a deathbed confession and back it with direct or circumstantial evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Unless one of these, or other possible things happen, we will never know if anybody besides Oswald was involved. Even Oswald can be absolved on the crime through six legal theories.

    1) Duress
    2) Entrapment
    3) McNaughton Rule (is so unbalanced he would shoot at JFK in front of cop)
    4) Self-Defense (unlikely, unless insane and thought JFK was out to get him)
    5) Defense of Others (thinking JFK was attacking or going to attack someone he knew or cared about or felt was helpless)
    6) Defense of Property (if he thought, in his insanity, that JFK was infringing on his turf

    As crazy as some of those defenses are, they are legal defenses open to Oswald.

    To me, I can see #3 being possible, and there being a smart, sane kingpin in this two or more person plot.

    Just guesses. I too wish I knew the truth.

    I always wondered about who "deep throat" was during the Watergate scandal and never thought I would ever know, but surprise! (If somebody on this forum said that deep throat was Deputy Director Felt of the FBI before he came out, I would have laughed!).

    Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

    Let's hope we similarly find out what the truth behind the JFK assassination is.
     
  25. Anuba macrumors 68040

    Anuba

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    #25
    Lee Harvey Oswald’s Motives.

    Short version:
     

Share This Page