4 ms·

Eh, the JFK assassination is more people wanting a conspiracy over the boring explanations rather than an unsolved murder.

coldtea 7y ago
Or is it?
JohnStrangeII 7y ago
I wouldn't say so. The CIA and high ranking military officials certainly hated him and wanted him dead. There was a strong motive and there many inconsistencies in the way the case was handled afterwards. The majority of higher ranking CIA officials really considered JFK a traitor, because he didn't send air support at the bay of pigs (following through with what he had clearly stated all along). There were claims that he had been subverted by the Soviets, was deliberately sabotaging the country, etc. Personally, I remain agnostic but find it fairly credible that Oswald personally met a group of conspirators from the CIA a few days before the shooting and these people encouraged him to do what he did, maybe even made him some false promises about what would happen afterwards. It's also not unlikely that the killing of Oswald himself followed a similar pattern. That's all speculation, but overall reasonable speculation, because of the existing motives. Many conspiracy theories are weak, because they fail to lay out a credible motive. JFK is not one of those cases.
- barking 7y ago
  But can a conspiracy of more than a very few people be kept under wraps for a lifetime? I find it hard to believe that if there really was a conspiracy that nothing concrete has emerged in all these years.
  - dfrage 7y ago
    When the penalty for revealing it would likely be execution for high treason?
  - gcb0 7y ago
    isn't that literally the job description for the cia? for a more realistic view, see the interviews with LAPD people from the recent documentary on Bob Kenedy's assassination in LA. it makes the case pretty clear, and show that people did talk. but that the good media, not wanting to promote conspiracy theories, silenced. The guy was pretty much boasting about his participation for decades and nobody cared.
  - toyg 7y ago
    When everyone involved has been explicitly been trained and selected to work with secrets, in a historical period when such activities are extremely dangerous and brutal, and under the treath of expedite death penalty or assassination... it's not that hard to believe any involved party would keep very silent.
  - C1sc0cat 7y ago
    I though the recent theory that Oswald did shoot at the motorcade but Kennedy was killed by accident caused by a Security service member being startled by one of Oswald shots and accidently discharging had a lot going for it.
- dfrage 7y ago
  While I'm entirely satisfied with the simple Oswald explanation, you are correct to emphasis how utterly terrible JFK's defense and foreign policy was. The severe weakness shown in the Bay of Pigs debacle, an Eisenhower scheme he utterly wrecked by moving the location as well as the last minute denial of air support, directly lead to Khrushchev's nuclear missile adventure in Cuba. Which led to the closest the world has ever gotten to nuclear war, Soviet subs were under orders allowing them to use their nuclear torpedoes if damaged, and one captain decided this was a case but the decision required three officers, one of whom declined. (This ultimately resulted in Khrushchev getting sacked.) There's lots more, but it's also worth mentioning that just a month before he was assassinated, he went along with his Best and Brightests' scheme to depose and inevitably assassinate the President of South Vietnam and his brother, which ruined that nation's officer corps and any trust they had in us, which led directly to our having to replace them with our own forces, and the nightmare that followed. LBJ's prosecution of the war was downright criminal, but at the highest level moral, he acknowledged the "you broke it, you own it" principle. But one could see members of the Deep State deciding that JFK's assassination of an ally President made him fair game for assassination in turn. And for all they knew necessary to save the nation, he'd been reckless all his life, succeeding in starting WWIII given another 1-5 years was entirely possible.
- rightbyte 7y ago
  Palme was also hated by many army officers and security police. However that doesn't imply much.
olivermarks 7y ago
What does 'wanting a conspiracy' mean? When people read the facts of events such as the JFK or Palme assassination and anomolies and inconsistencies become apparent they go looking for answers. The word 'conspiracy' is a lazy way of saying 'don't think' in many cases, despite all the sometimes outlandish ideas these illogical facts tend to spawn...
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
  > What does 'wanting a conspiracy' mean? It means that people become so obsessed with "critical thinking" that they will never be satisfied. Every group telling them to let it go becomes just another brick in the wall of conspiracies surrounding them. Every shred of evidence just invites more questions about who faked it and why. It's interesting to speculate on the motives, although somewhat mood. Some people probably enjoy just the thrill of thinking about these. Quite possibly, we have some circuits that engage in such speculation, and they do serve some purpose: After all, sometimes they really are coming for you. Maybe the ability to associate only with others that share your fantasies today is the real problem, because the trait itself evolved in times where it was kept in check by your immediate peers, whose rolling eyes would at some point get you to shut up. This is rather detrimental for society because we no longer have any trusted sources of truth all sides of an argument agree on. Was the economy improving during Obama? "No, all those statistics are fake!" Is the economy continuing to improve? "No, the new guy is now faking the statistics!" JFK, Area 51, Club 54,... these things have now thankfully passed the threshold of relevancy. But the problem is larger than ever before.
  - olivermarks 7y ago
    By 'problem' do you mean people not accepting the official narrative and having a go at 'critical thinking'? I wouldn't see that as a problem, I'd see that as a free society
    - IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
      Sure, it's a "free society" where everyone gets to prove the usefulness of vaccines for themselves, from first principle, because the medical community is corrupt and cannot be trusted. Where people actually start to believe in a "flat earth", and not just as a parody of conspiracy theories, and fly to New Zealand for their yearly meeting (from both Europe and the US, in opposite directions, go figure). Yeah, that is "freedom", in some sense of the word. But people aren't actually using it to critical think about anything. They see it as license to choose the facts they believe and ignore those that are inconvenient.
sctb 7y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19939929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19939929.
- pedrocr 7y ago
  This is a bit annoying. Just collapsing the subthread would be a better option. Context is not lost and the same objective is served.

coldtea 7y ago

Or is it?

JohnStrangeII 7y ago

I wouldn't say so. The CIA and high ranking military officials certainly hated him and wanted him dead. There was a strong motive and there many inconsistencies in the way the case was handled afterwards. The majority of higher ranking CIA officials really considered JFK a traitor, because he didn't send air support at the bay of pigs (following through with what he had clearly stated all along). There were claims that he had been subverted by the Soviets, was deliberately sabotaging the country, etc. Personally, I remain agnostic but find it fairly credible that Oswald personally met a group of conspirators from the CIA a few days before the shooting and these people encouraged him to do what he did, maybe even made him some false promises about what would happen afterwards. It's also not unlikely that the killing of Oswald himself followed a similar pattern. That's all speculation, but overall reasonable speculation, because of the existing motives. Many conspiracy theories are weak, because they fail to lay out a credible motive. JFK is not one of those cases.

barking 7y ago
But can a conspiracy of more than a very few people be kept under wraps for a lifetime? I find it hard to believe that if there really was a conspiracy that nothing concrete has emerged in all these years.
- dfrage 7y ago
  When the penalty for revealing it would likely be execution for high treason?
- gcb0 7y ago
  isn't that literally the job description for the cia? for a more realistic view, see the interviews with LAPD people from the recent documentary on Bob Kenedy's assassination in LA. it makes the case pretty clear, and show that people did talk. but that the good media, not wanting to promote conspiracy theories, silenced. The guy was pretty much boasting about his participation for decades and nobody cared.
- toyg 7y ago
  When everyone involved has been explicitly been trained and selected to work with secrets, in a historical period when such activities are extremely dangerous and brutal, and under the treath of expedite death penalty or assassination... it's not that hard to believe any involved party would keep very silent.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  I though the recent theory that Oswald did shoot at the motorcade but Kennedy was killed by accident caused by a Security service member being startled by one of Oswald shots and accidently discharging had a lot going for it.
dfrage 7y ago
While I'm entirely satisfied with the simple Oswald explanation, you are correct to emphasis how utterly terrible JFK's defense and foreign policy was. The severe weakness shown in the Bay of Pigs debacle, an Eisenhower scheme he utterly wrecked by moving the location as well as the last minute denial of air support, directly lead to Khrushchev's nuclear missile adventure in Cuba. Which led to the closest the world has ever gotten to nuclear war, Soviet subs were under orders allowing them to use their nuclear torpedoes if damaged, and one captain decided this was a case but the decision required three officers, one of whom declined. (This ultimately resulted in Khrushchev getting sacked.) There's lots more, but it's also worth mentioning that just a month before he was assassinated, he went along with his Best and Brightests' scheme to depose and inevitably assassinate the President of South Vietnam and his brother, which ruined that nation's officer corps and any trust they had in us, which led directly to our having to replace them with our own forces, and the nightmare that followed. LBJ's prosecution of the war was downright criminal, but at the highest level moral, he acknowledged the "you broke it, you own it" principle. But one could see members of the Deep State deciding that JFK's assassination of an ally President made him fair game for assassination in turn. And for all they knew necessary to save the nation, he'd been reckless all his life, succeeding in starting WWIII given another 1-5 years was entirely possible.
rightbyte 7y ago
Palme was also hated by many army officers and security police. However that doesn't imply much.

olivermarks 7y ago

What does 'wanting a conspiracy' mean? When people read the facts of events such as the JFK or Palme assassination and anomolies and inconsistencies become apparent they go looking for answers. The word 'conspiracy' is a lazy way of saying 'don't think' in many cases, despite all the sometimes outlandish ideas these illogical facts tend to spawn...

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
> What does 'wanting a conspiracy' mean? It means that people become so obsessed with "critical thinking" that they will never be satisfied. Every group telling them to let it go becomes just another brick in the wall of conspiracies surrounding them. Every shred of evidence just invites more questions about who faked it and why. It's interesting to speculate on the motives, although somewhat mood. Some people probably enjoy just the thrill of thinking about these. Quite possibly, we have some circuits that engage in such speculation, and they do serve some purpose: After all, sometimes they really are coming for you. Maybe the ability to associate only with others that share your fantasies today is the real problem, because the trait itself evolved in times where it was kept in check by your immediate peers, whose rolling eyes would at some point get you to shut up. This is rather detrimental for society because we no longer have any trusted sources of truth all sides of an argument agree on. Was the economy improving during Obama? "No, all those statistics are fake!" Is the economy continuing to improve? "No, the new guy is now faking the statistics!" JFK, Area 51, Club 54,... these things have now thankfully passed the threshold of relevancy. But the problem is larger than ever before.
- olivermarks 7y ago
  By 'problem' do you mean people not accepting the official narrative and having a go at 'critical thinking'? I wouldn't see that as a problem, I'd see that as a free society
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
    Sure, it's a "free society" where everyone gets to prove the usefulness of vaccines for themselves, from first principle, because the medical community is corrupt and cannot be trusted. Where people actually start to believe in a "flat earth", and not just as a parody of conspiracy theories, and fly to New Zealand for their yearly meeting (from both Europe and the US, in opposite directions, go figure). Yeah, that is "freedom", in some sense of the word. But people aren't actually using it to critical think about anything. They see it as license to choose the facts they believe and ignore those that are inconvenient.

sctb 7y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19939929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19939929.

pedrocr 7y ago
This is a bit annoying. Just collapsing the subthread would be a better option. Context is not lost and the same objective is served.