What If JFK Wasn’t a Conspiracy

[DraftNerd]

We talked earlier about Tague, he took the shrapnel. He had no intention of being near the President that day. Wasn’t on his agenda. Life just took him to Dealy Plaza, that day, at that time. John Kennedy had no influence on his decisions in any way. Yet nearly 60 years later, we talked about him.

Umbrella Man was completely influence by JFK that day. He was there, with that umbrella, specifically for Kennedy. Because he was a nerd. The umbrella went up and down for the same reason, he was a nerd. Look at me, Mr. President….

Total WTF though.

This is super well said. This thing revolves around what media we got that day, and not just Zapruder. Zapruder is what we all turn to to test out most theories….thank God we at least had Mr Zapruder filming here. I just always wished this new 8mm technology had sound at the time. Would have surely settled a lot. Or maybe not.

We have a man with the umbrella. We can see him. What’s he doing? We can’t see Tague. He’s never in any media. But, he’s a critical piece just by catching a chip of concrete to the face way down by the overpass.

 

[batchaps4me]

You’ve gotta like this guy. He fully admitted he was demonstrating (about what exactly I’ve never caught….doesn’t matter).

This guy got to be one of the silliest theories.

IIRC it was one of JFK's foreign policies and the umbrella opening was a reference to Prime Minister Chamberlin and his appeasement policy at the start of WWII.

 

[DraftNerd]

IIRC it was one of JFK's foreign policies and the umbrella opening was a reference to Prime Minister Chamberlin and his appeasement policy at the start of WWII.

Exactly. It was pointedly to Joseph Kennedy being a supporter of Chamberlain and part of the appeasement of Hitler. In his mind a reminder of who the Kennedy’s were.

Or, I’m sure to some, it’s the clever backstory to the signal they used. It never made sense to me as a signal.

And it reminds me….I’ve been marinating the last day on something you called out, how the sacking of Dulles and reigning in of the CIA could be the MO for their involvement. How they had to face up to five years more of this and what he could do. I get that. But, at the same time, I don’t. With term limits these presidencies have shelf life. If Kennedy wanted he could have severally weakened the CIA by 1968. If they took it a step further I’m sure they could see us falling so far behind that Soviets in espionage that we are in a bad bad place.

OK, I can respect that. I can respect that an organization that peddles in currencies like paranoia could also suffer from what they peddle.

But, a snapshot specifically of that moment in time on 11-22-63 was one where Kennedy was not in the drivers seat for a guaranteed second term. It’s plausible that election could have gone either way at that point. In that case it’s just as likely you get Goldwater in 14 months and the CIA is able to fully recover.

If not….well….they surely could get him anywhere after.

Maybe I’m just greatly off on this and locked in my own thinking….it’s just where I keep landing when I think through this.

 

[dbldwn711]

Exactly. It was pointedly to Joseph Kennedy being a supporter of Chamberlain and part of the appeasement of Hitler. In his mind a reminder of who the Kennedy’s were.

Or, I’m sure to some, it’s the clever backstory to the signal they used. It never made sense to me as a signal.

And it reminds me….I’ve been marinating the last day on something you called out, how the sacking of Dulles and reigning in of the CIA could be the MO for their involvement. How they had to face up to five years more of this and what he could do. I get that. But, at the same time, I don’t. With term limits these presidencies have shelf life. If Kennedy wanted he could have severally weakened the CIA by 1968. If they took it a step further I’m sure they could see us falling so far behind that Soviets in espionage that we are in a bad bad place.

OK, I can respect that. I can respect that an organization that peddles in currencies like paranoia could also suffer from what they peddle.

But, a snapshot specifically of that moment in time on 11-22-63 was one where Kennedy was not in the drivers seat for a guaranteed second term. It’s plausible that election could have gone either way at that point. In that case it’s just as likely you get Goldwater in 14 months and the CIA is able to fully recover.

If not….well….they surely could get him anywhere after.

Maybe I’m just greatly off on this and locked in my own thinking….it’s just where I keep landing when I think through this.

here’s the thing about motive: it’s only relevant if you have PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to support it. When you read these conspiracy books they all peddle motive (CIA hated Kennedy bc he wanted to break them up, mob hated Kennedy bc he was coming after them, Russians hated Kennedy bc of the blockade, Cubans hated Kennedy bc of the attempts on Castro’s life) but they don’t have PHYSICAL evidence. Instead, they QUESTION the physical evidence that does exist. For example: CIA hated Kennedy and no way that bullet hits bone and is still pristine. Castro hated Kennedy and the head snaps back not forward. That’s not how it works. That’s how you start jumping to conclusions and making assumptions. Motive makes you a SUSPECT. It doesn’t make you the killer. Physical evidence makes you the killer.

Where’s the physical evidence that supports your theory of who’s the killer?

 

[Fish]

Did you retarded Matlocks crack the case yet?

Brenda Lee Johnson or Kalinda Sharma would have.

 

[dbldwn711]

Let me say this about the head movement.

We always make assumptions in life based upon what we think we know. That’s natural. However, our assumptions aren’t always right. For example, if you’ve ever been driving a car and gotten rear ended you would THINK that your body/head would be pushed forward into the steering wheel but that’s not what happens. When you are driving and you get rear ended your head and neck snap BACKWARDS. You get whiplashed. In other words, you don’t “go with the force”. You actually go opposite the force.

Now I’ve never been shot in the head nor am I an expert in getting shot in the head but it’s certainly possible that your head would snap backwards and not forward like everyone is saying. In other words, your assumption of what would happen could easily be wrong.

 

[DraftNerd]

here’s the thing about motive: it’s only relevant if you have PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to support it. When you read these conspiracy books they all peddle motive (CIA hated Kennedy bc he wanted to break them up, mob hated Kennedy bc he was coming after them, Russians hated Kennedy bc of the blockade, Cubans hated Kennedy bc of the attempts on Castro’s life) but they don’t have PHYSICAL evidence. Instead, they QUESTION the physical evidence that does exist. For example: CIA hated Kennedy and no way that bullet hits bone and is still pristine. Castro hated Kennedy and the head snaps back not forward. That’s not how it works. That’s how you start jumping to conclusions and making assumptions. Motive makes you a SUSPECT. It doesn’t make you the killer. Physical evidence makes you the killer.

Where’s the physical evidence that supports your theory of who’s the killer?

Hell, I’m not even fully buying the motive.

 

[dbldwn711]

Hell, I’m not even fully buying the motive.

exactly. You wanna kill the president because he fired you?

I’ll resist the urge to make a political joke here bc I don’t wanna derail this but you get the idea.

 

[DraftNerd]

Let me say this about the head movement.

We always make assumptions in life based upon what we think we know. That’s natural. However, our assumptions aren’t always right. For example, if you’ve ever been driving a car and gotten rear ended you would THINK that your body/head would be pushed forward into the steering wheel but that’s not what happens. When you are driving and you get rear ended your head and neck snap BACKWARDS. You get whiplashed. In other words, you don’t “go with the force”. You actually go opposite the force.

Now I’ve never been shot in the head nor am I an expert in getting shot in the head but it’s certainly possible that your head would snap backwards and not forward like everyone is saying. In other words, your assumption of what would happen could easily be wrong.

The being rear ended also applied to the argument if now the splatter from the head shot goes. It’s a physical law. Whichever the direction that bullet came from the liberated matter from his head doesn’t float over the moving car like a cloud. It’s smaller mass so it quickly decelerates.

More so the body movement. Bodies don’t often move when shot like the do in movies. The force of the bullet sure can twist bodies around, but we’ve learned more since then of the reactions the body does as a response that dictates this.

Back and to the left was never a key that the shot came from the front and right. It’s how his body reacted when his cortex seized from the immediate damage, compounded by the fact that he was locked in concrete from sternum to thigh that dictated that.

For me the proof that the shot came from front was always going to be in the much larger blow out in the back of his skull. But that didn’t exist.

 

[Nosferatu]

When you are driving and you get rear ended your head and neck snap BACKWARDS. You get whiplashed. In other words, you don’t “go with the force”. You actually go opposite the force.

You move that way because of the force but it's not you being hit it's something you're in being hit. Like if you are getting ready to take off in a jet, the force of taking off makes your head go back because of what you are in. Being hit by something directly is different. If someone slaps you in the back of the head your head doesn't go backward it goes forward, the same applies to a bullet.

 

[DraftNerd]

exactly. You wanna kill the president because he fired you?

I’ll resist the urge to make a political joke here bc I don’t wanna derail this but you get the idea.

Good job resisting urges. That would have been a definite de-railing

 

[DraftNerd]

You move that way because of the force but it's not you being hit it's something you're in being hit. Like if you are getting ready to take off in a jet, the force of taking off makes your head go back because of what you are in. Being hit by something directly is different. If someone slaps you in the back of the head your head doesn't go backwards it goes forward, the same applies to a bullet.

That’s fair. So “back and to the left” is proof that he was shot from the front and to the right?

 

[Nosferatu]

That’s fair. So “back and to the left” is proof that he was shot from the front and to the right?

lolzzzz here we go again...

 

[dbldwn711]

@Orlando_Eagles you mentioned that you could easily come off as being anti-conspiracy bc you don’t buy the conspiracy theory’s. I’ve felt that way at times too. In fact, those that do believe in conspiracy theories often lash out at those who don’t by saying stuff like “you just believe whatever the govt/MSM tells you!” At least for me (and I suspect for you also) thats not the case. I’m quite capable of believing that people within our government are capable of doing very unscrupulous things. In fact, I did so for a very long time in this case. No, what I do is I follow the evidence. In fact, that’s what this book did for me in this case. IMO this book isn’t so much a “theory” but rather a book that questions all the other theories. You used the phrase earlier “to the exclusion of all others”. That’s what it does. It looks at the evidence (not emotions and arguments) and says based upon the evidence and to the exclusion of all others heres the only thing you can logically conclude. That’s why I’m constantly searching for NEW evidence bc it’s that NEW evidence that will disprove this book.

I’m still looking but I haven’t found it yet. I’m all ears for it. Trust me, if I ever see it I won’t immediately dismiss it. I don’t have a narrative I’m trying to sell. I won’t make that evidence “fit my narrative”. I’ll look at it openly and objectively.

 

[dbldwn711]

That’s fair. So “back and to the left” is proof that he was shot from the front and to the right?

no, I’m saying it’s NOT evidence of that. I’m saying if he was shot from the back it’s certainly possible that his head would snap backwards much in the same manner that when you are in a car and get hit from the back your head snaps back.

 

[Nosferatu]

no, I’m saying it’s NOT evidence of that. I’m saying if he was shot from the back it’s certainly possible that his head would snap backwards much in the same manner that when you are in a car and get hit from the back your head snaps back.

That's apples and oranges though.

 

[Nosferatu]

Being hit directly by something is not the same as being in something that gets hit.

 

[dbldwn711]

You move that way because of the force but it's not you being hit it's something you're in being hit. Like if you are getting ready to take off in a jet, the force of taking off makes your head go back because of what you are in. Being hit by something directly is different. If someone slaps you in the back of the head your head doesn't go backward it goes forward, the same applies to a bullet.

I understand what you’re saying. If you hit a baseball with a bat the ball will move forward but that’s not exactly the same thing. Here the bullet isn’t simply “hitting” the head. It’s traveling THRU the head. Also, unlike a baseball nerve function/spasming comes into play.

Look, I’m no expert so I’m not gonna try to be one. I’m just saying looks can be deceiving.

 

[dbldwn711]

Being hit directly by something is not the same as being in something that gets hit.

again, I was talking about assumptions. The assumption is that if you get rear-ended your body move forward. That ASSUMPTION is wrong.

I’m not saying the physical property laws of getting rear-ended are the same as getting shot in the head. Likewise, I’m also saying that the physical property laws of hitting a baseball also aren’t the same as getting shot in the head.

 

[Nosferatu]

I understand what you’re saying. If you hit a baseball with a bat the ball will move forward but that’s not exactly the same thing. Here the bullet isn’t simply “hitting” the head. It’s traveling THRU the head. Also, unlike a baseball nerve function/spasming comes into play.

Look, I’m no expert so I’m not gonna try to be one. I’m just saying looks can be deceiving.

Doesn't matter if it goes through the initial reaction will still be to go forward it could snap back but initially it goes forward not backward