7 ms·

I used to be passingly interested in the conspiracy part of the JFK assassination until I watched this EXTENSIVE in length and sourced video on the assassinatio

by a2tech 3y ago

I used to be passingly interested in the conspiracy part of the JFK assassination until I watched this EXTENSIVE in length and sourced video on the assassination: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC8tO16xdrY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC8tO16xdrY It's all very logical and straightforward.

Tmpod 3y ago
Recently watched this detailed and well sourced video by LEMMiNO on a particular prespective, might be of interesting for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u7euN1HTuU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u7euN1HTuU
- bni 3y ago
  The production value in this one is amazing
pliesfan97 3y ago
I personally believe it's somewhat possible that there was some CIA involvement in JFK's assassination. I did not watch the entire video, but the part that addresses potential CIA involvement seems to have 2 main flaws IMO: 1. It only addresses the Vietnam War as a potential motive and "debunks" this motive. Geopolitics is complicated, and there are countless other potential motives, especially surrounding Cuba and the CIA's involvement there (Bay of Pigs, etc). The parts of the video I watched (including part 2) did not seem to address this at all. Eliminating one motive does not by any means eliminate the possibility of CIA involvement. 2. The video's creator seems to assume that CIA's involvement would consist of "hiring" Oswald to perform the assassination and that Oswald would have full awareness of the plans, etc. This is not the only scheme in which a conspiracy may have taken place, and in fact seems like a highly unlikely and unsophisticated scheme. It seems much more likely that Oswald was "used" rather than "hired" and that he was either convinced or coerced to shoot Kennedy. This is how murderous intelligence organizations do their dirty work (the CIA is known to have killed people) - via coercion, power, politics, propaganda, and not via direct orders or contracts. Assuming my theory is correct (of which I do not have certainty), Oswald likely had his own motives to wanting to shoot Kennedy, but it required a conspiracy to actually get him to carry through with it. This model of the relationships and dynamics involved seems entirely foreign to the video's creator and is completely unaddressed. In general, discourse around the JFK assassination and potential conspiracies focuses way too much on the shooting itself - ballistic physics, positions of possible shooters, analysis of film. This is a complete distraction from the more important question which is around Lee Harvey Oswald's incredibly suspicious relationships and contacts with known CIA people.
- mulmen 3y ago
  This is what’s fascinating and terrifying about conspiracy theories. You’re clearly an intelligent person who can articulate their thoughts. But none of this is well reasoned. In the face of compelling evidence you propose vague, unsubstantiated alternative theories. This is a bottomless pit. It’s not hard to make up a fantasy to explain reality. But that way lies madness. Reasonable people can disagree and arrive at the truth. But constantly inventing unsubstantiated counter arguments simply delays the inevitable conclusion to the detriment of everyone.
  - irrational 3y ago
    This seems to presuppose the “inevitable conclusion” is true.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - harry8 3y ago
    >But none of this is well reasoned. Conjecture: A is not the culprit because motive xyz does not check out. Reasoning: That doesn't exonerate A, who could have other motives. Without agreeing with it, that looks perfectly well reasoned to me. Compelling evidence exonerating the CIA you say? Well ok, I'll believe that when I see it, just like any other evidence from gravity onward. The CIA's docs haven't been declassified and released.
    - mulmen 3y ago
      The meta argument is the one which is unreasonable. Forming reasonable small arguments is easy. People engage them easily. But because so many can be created so cheaply it’s possible for people’s minds to cloud.
dave_sullivan 3y ago
I suppose it's impossible to prove the specifics of the conspiracy, but that Jack Ruby, a guy running strip clubs for the mafia, takes it upon himself to publically shoot Lee Harvey Oswald kind of proves to me that there was some kind of conspiracy. What other explanation could there possibly be? What Oswald might have said if we were kept alive... no one will ever know. But if there was nothing there, why did Jack Ruby kill him? Temporary insanity, deeply patriotic fan of JFK, or tying up loose ends on orders -- what makes more sense?
- UberFly 3y ago
  Some who knew Ruby theorized that he wanted to be a national hero by killing JFK's killer. Those who knew him said he was fairly emotional and hot-headed too.
  - a2tech 3y ago
    That is essentially what they say in the video.
- hilbert42 3y ago
  "But if there was nothing there, why did Jack Ruby kill him?" I was a teenager living outside the US when I learned about JFK's assassination. It was a Saturday morning where I was and I remember it vividly more from the shock reaction of my parents than from the radio news report (I heard the news first and told them about it). From that moment onwards the news coverage was intense. When Ruby shot Oswald we were struck with a sense of disbelief—even with my naïve sense of US politics, law enforcement, etc. the first things that came to mind were why would the seemingly sleazy Ruby want to shoot Oswald at all, second, how did US law enforcement let it actually happen. Either the US was in more chaos than the news was reporting and it was a free-for-all over there, or that Ruby's ulterior motive was more than just loyalty to the US/JFK. I wasn't alone in thinking this, many were of this opinion and it was the first thing that came to our minds. I'd stress we'd formed that opinion within days if not hours of the news—that's well before any of the conspiracy theories or 'grassy knoll' stories emerged.
- thephyber 3y ago
ignorethefacts 3y ago
[dead]
fsckboy 3y ago
Oswald Acted Alone... you mean lone gunman acted alone? or do you mean nobody else with prior knowledge?
sireat 3y ago
Fascinating video and indeed pretty straightforward. However, the bank robber analogy starting at 26mins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC8tO16xdrY&t=1601s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC8tO16xdrY&t=1601s does not sit quite right. You can't just stick with one theory and keep fitting other facts to that theory forever - there is going to be a breaking point. To keep going with that particular bank robber story - Jake. In the example barring other facts, it is 99.9% probable that Jake indeed is the bank robber. What if instead of finding $9k out of $10k, police only find $5k out of $100k on Jake? What if not only talking to his girlfriend about robbing the bank he also talked about robbing the bank at the bar the previous week? What if there was an amateur theatre troupe at that bar that night? What if one of those actors was also an accomplished make up artist and high speed driver? Okay, the story keeps getting sillier. Even with these new facts the prosecution would still win. Let's add a new fact security cameras at a bar also show Jake, with similar timestamps to the bank's cameras. There are 3 more patrons that are willing to swear it was Jake. An old lady reports that she saw a car drive up at a high speed to Jake's car and leave a package. At that point we have a problem with being so sure on Jake being the guilty one. There is some reasonable doubt now. My point is you can never be 100% sure. All you can do is adjust priors. With JFK as it currently stands we might say 95% chance that Oswald was the lone gunman and 80% that he acted completely alone. We can also say there is a 40% probability there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, there might have been even more than one, but those might have had nothing to do with Oswald.
k12sosse 3y ago
https://archive.org/details/QuantumLeapLeeHarveyOswald https://archive.org/details/QuantumLeapLeeHarveyOswald

by a2tech 3y ago

Tmpod 3y ago

Recently watched this detailed and well sourced video by LEMMiNO on a particular prespective, might be of interesting for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u7euN1HTuU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u7euN1HTuU

bni 3y ago
The production value in this one is amazing

pliesfan97 3y ago

I personally believe it's somewhat possible that there was some CIA involvement in JFK's assassination. I did not watch the entire video, but the part that addresses potential CIA involvement seems to have 2 main flaws IMO: 1. It only addresses the Vietnam War as a potential motive and "debunks" this motive. Geopolitics is complicated, and there are countless other potential motives, especially surrounding Cuba and the CIA's involvement there (Bay of Pigs, etc). The parts of the video I watched (including part 2) did not seem to address this at all. Eliminating one motive does not by any means eliminate the possibility of CIA involvement. 2. The video's creator seems to assume that CIA's involvement would consist of "hiring" Oswald to perform the assassination and that Oswald would have full awareness of the plans, etc. This is not the only scheme in which a conspiracy may have taken place, and in fact seems like a highly unlikely and unsophisticated scheme. It seems much more likely that Oswald was "used" rather than "hired" and that he was either convinced or coerced to shoot Kennedy. This is how murderous intelligence organizations do their dirty work (the CIA is known to have killed people) - via coercion, power, politics, propaganda, and not via direct orders or contracts. Assuming my theory is correct (of which I do not have certainty), Oswald likely had his own motives to wanting to shoot Kennedy, but it required a conspiracy to actually get him to carry through with it. This model of the relationships and dynamics involved seems entirely foreign to the video's creator and is completely unaddressed. In general, discourse around the JFK assassination and potential conspiracies focuses way too much on the shooting itself - ballistic physics, positions of possible shooters, analysis of film. This is a complete distraction from the more important question which is around Lee Harvey Oswald's incredibly suspicious relationships and contacts with known CIA people.

mulmen 3y ago
This is what’s fascinating and terrifying about conspiracy theories. You’re clearly an intelligent person who can articulate their thoughts. But none of this is well reasoned. In the face of compelling evidence you propose vague, unsubstantiated alternative theories. This is a bottomless pit. It’s not hard to make up a fantasy to explain reality. But that way lies madness. Reasonable people can disagree and arrive at the truth. But constantly inventing unsubstantiated counter arguments simply delays the inevitable conclusion to the detriment of everyone.
- irrational 3y ago
  This seems to presuppose the “inevitable conclusion” is true.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- harry8 3y ago
  >But none of this is well reasoned. Conjecture: A is not the culprit because motive xyz does not check out. Reasoning: That doesn't exonerate A, who could have other motives. Without agreeing with it, that looks perfectly well reasoned to me. Compelling evidence exonerating the CIA you say? Well ok, I'll believe that when I see it, just like any other evidence from gravity onward. The CIA's docs haven't been declassified and released.
  - mulmen 3y ago
    The meta argument is the one which is unreasonable. Forming reasonable small arguments is easy. People engage them easily. But because so many can be created so cheaply it’s possible for people’s minds to cloud.

dave_sullivan 3y ago

I suppose it's impossible to prove the specifics of the conspiracy, but that Jack Ruby, a guy running strip clubs for the mafia, takes it upon himself to publically shoot Lee Harvey Oswald kind of proves to me that there was some kind of conspiracy. What other explanation could there possibly be? What Oswald might have said if we were kept alive... no one will ever know. But if there was nothing there, why did Jack Ruby kill him? Temporary insanity, deeply patriotic fan of JFK, or tying up loose ends on orders -- what makes more sense?

UberFly 3y ago
Some who knew Ruby theorized that he wanted to be a national hero by killing JFK's killer. Those who knew him said he was fairly emotional and hot-headed too.
- a2tech 3y ago
  That is essentially what they say in the video.
hilbert42 3y ago
"But if there was nothing there, why did Jack Ruby kill him?" I was a teenager living outside the US when I learned about JFK's assassination. It was a Saturday morning where I was and I remember it vividly more from the shock reaction of my parents than from the radio news report (I heard the news first and told them about it). From that moment onwards the news coverage was intense. When Ruby shot Oswald we were struck with a sense of disbelief—even with my naïve sense of US politics, law enforcement, etc. the first things that came to mind were why would the seemingly sleazy Ruby want to shoot Oswald at all, second, how did US law enforcement let it actually happen. Either the US was in more chaos than the news was reporting and it was a free-for-all over there, or that Ruby's ulterior motive was more than just loyalty to the US/JFK. I wasn't alone in thinking this, many were of this opinion and it was the first thing that came to our minds. I'd stress we'd formed that opinion within days if not hours of the news—that's well before any of the conspiracy theories or 'grassy knoll' stories emerged.
thephyber 3y ago

ignorethefacts 3y ago

[dead]

fsckboy 3y ago

Oswald Acted Alone... you mean lone gunman acted alone? or do you mean nobody else with prior knowledge?

sireat 3y ago

Fascinating video and indeed pretty straightforward. However, the bank robber analogy starting at 26mins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC8tO16xdrY&t=1601s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC8tO16xdrY&t=1601s does not sit quite right. You can't just stick with one theory and keep fitting other facts to that theory forever - there is going to be a breaking point. To keep going with that particular bank robber story - Jake. In the example barring other facts, it is 99.9% probable that Jake indeed is the bank robber. What if instead of finding $9k out of $10k, police only find $5k out of $100k on Jake? What if not only talking to his girlfriend about robbing the bank he also talked about robbing the bank at the bar the previous week? What if there was an amateur theatre troupe at that bar that night? What if one of those actors was also an accomplished make up artist and high speed driver? Okay, the story keeps getting sillier. Even with these new facts the prosecution would still win. Let's add a new fact security cameras at a bar also show Jake, with similar timestamps to the bank's cameras. There are 3 more patrons that are willing to swear it was Jake. An old lady reports that she saw a car drive up at a high speed to Jake's car and leave a package. At that point we have a problem with being so sure on Jake being the guilty one. There is some reasonable doubt now. My point is you can never be 100% sure. All you can do is adjust priors. With JFK as it currently stands we might say 95% chance that Oswald was the lone gunman and 80% that he acted completely alone. We can also say there is a 40% probability there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, there might have been even more than one, but those might have had nothing to do with Oswald.

k12sosse 3y ago

https://archive.org/details/QuantumLeapLeeHarveyOswald https://archive.org/details/QuantumLeapLeeHarveyOswald