Off Topic Messages

John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Tue May 29, 2012 10:54 pm

Image



John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States (1961-1963), (and the youngest person ever to be elected into office) would've turned 95 today.


phpBB [video]

Last edited by TCB-FAN on Tue May 29, 2012 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: John F. Kennedy Turns 95 Today

Tue May 29, 2012 11:01 pm

In the title, you said "Turns."

I was about to tell him Happy Birthday.

Re: John F. Kennedy Turns 95 Today

Tue May 29, 2012 11:04 pm

Rob wrote:In the title, you said "Turns."

I was about to tell him Happy Birthday.



"Ask Not What This Forum Can Do For You......" :mrgreen:

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Tue May 29, 2012 11:46 pm

The last great U.S. President. The first true casualty of the Vietnam War.

America has not been the same country since the changes made on Friday, November 22, 1963.

We may never get back. R.I.P. Jack.

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Wed May 30, 2012 12:41 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:The last great U.S. President. The first true casualty of the Vietnam War.

America has not been the same country since the changes made on Friday, November 22, 1963.

We may never get back. R.I.P. Jack.


So....You didn't think George W. was the last great U. S. President? :smt003 :lol: :shock: :wink:

RIP Mr. Kennedy

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Wed May 30, 2012 1:02 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:The last great U.S. President. The first true casualty of the Vietnam War.

America has not been the same country since the changes made on Friday, November 22, 1963.

We may never get back. R.I.P. Jack.




Hypothetical question : Would America been better off had JFK lived and served 2 full terms as President ?

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Wed May 30, 2012 1:03 am

TCB-FAN wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:The last great U.S. President. The first true casualty of the Vietnam War.

America has not been the same country since the changes made on Friday, November 22, 1963.

We may never get back. R.I.P. Jack.




Hypothetical question : Would America been better off had JFK lived and served 2 full terms as President ?

Yes.

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Wed May 30, 2012 1:19 am

I have this book saved in my Amazon basket. Has anyone read it?....worth getting?

JFK and the unspeakable:Why he died and Why it matters (James W Douglass)

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Wed May 30, 2012 2:49 am

debtd1 wrote:I have this book saved in my Amazon basket. Has anyone read it?....worth getting?

JFK and the unspeakable:Why he died and Why it matters (James W Douglass)

Yes.

I read this book; it is the first mainstream publication in a long while to approach the truth.

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Thu May 31, 2012 8:15 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
debtd1 wrote:I have this book saved in my Amazon basket. Has anyone read it?....worth getting?

JFK and the unspeakable:Why he died and Why it matters (James W Douglass)

Yes.

I read this book; it is the first mainstream publication in a long while to approach the truth.


thanks Doc

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:07 pm

If President Kennedy was not killed in Dallas he would have pulled out of Nam and things would have been different for the better

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Sat Jun 02, 2012 5:54 am

mark wrote:If President Kennedy was not killed in Dallas he would have pulled out of Nam and things would have been different for the better



Historians are divided on whether he would have pulled out of Vietnam.

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:05 am

This says alot
NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM NO. 263


TO:

Secretary of State

Secretary of Defense

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

SUBJECT: South Vietnam

At a meeting on October 5, 1963, the President considered the recommendations contained in the report of Secretary McNamara and General Taylor on their mission to South Vietnam.

The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1-3)* of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.

After discussion of the remaining recommendations of the report, the President approved the instruction to Ambassador Lodge which is set forth in State Department telegram No. 534 to Saigon.

McGeorge Bundy


Copy furnished:

Director of Central Intelligence

Administrator, Agency for International Development

cc: Mr. Bundy
Mr. Forrestal
Mr. Johnson
NSC Files



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[SECTION] 1: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
B. Recommendations.




We recommend that:
1. General Harkins review with Diem the military changes necessary to complete the military campaign in the Northern and Central areas (I, II, and III Corps) by the end of 1964, and in the Delta (IV Corps) by the end of 1965. This review would consider the need for such changes as:
a. A further shift of military emphasis and strength to the Delta (IV Corps).
b. An increase in the military tempo in all corps areas, so that all combat troops are in the field an average of 20 days out of 30 and static missions are ended.
c. Emphasis on "clear and hold operations" instead of terrain sweeps which have little permanent value.
d. The expansion of personnel in combat units to full authorized strength.
e. The training and arming of hamlet militia to an accelerated rate, especially in the Delta.
f. A consolidation of the strategic hamlet program, especially in the Delta, and action to insure that future strategic hamlets are not built until they can be protected, and until civic action programs can be introduced.

2 A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time

3. In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without impairment of the war effort.

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:20 am

Every historian who has debated the subject is aware of that document. It doesn't mean that what was hoped for would have come to fruition. It's not like Johnson had an insatiable desire to be there. A later document (National Security Action Memorandum 273), which was drafted by the Kennedy administration and signed off by the Johnson administration, had the same aspirations. It even refers to the document you cited when it says:

"The objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel remain as stated in the White House statement of October 2, 1963."

So, initially, Johnson was advocating the same as Kennedy. Circumstances changed that. What we don't know is how Kennedy would have reacted to changing circumstances and frankly there is no way that we can know.

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:17 pm

TJ wrote:Every historian who has debated the subject is aware of that document.

"Every"? This is patently untrue.

John Kennedy was the only barrier to full U.S. engagement in Vietnam. After November 22, 1963, that barrier was gone. It didn't matter that he was a company man, there was an agenda that needed to be met.

It is not coincidence Johnson's first meeting of importance as President was on Vietnam, just a few days after the murder.

America has not been the same since John Kennedy was eliminated, and the elites quietly act in the same ruthless manner to this very day.

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:33 pm

Boy, I missed a lot today.

Agree with Doc on both counts. Yes, things would have been better had he lived, and the book mentioned is quite an important book. You need to take some time with it, and really absorb it to understand what he means by "the unspeakable" and how the events of nearly 50 years ago still resonate in significant ways.

Thanks for the topic, and thanks also for the endearing Freudian slip. I wished he had "turned" 47. And 57. And 65. And 75. And 85, and so on..His mother lived 'till 104. He had a chance a good long life.

Always found it odd how when the tragedy happened with his son back in the '90s, commentator after commentator kept saying how it probably wouldn't have happened if Jeckie were alive. But that always struck me as absurd as she had a form of cancer that was in the family. In a sense, she was doomed.
Jack, his father, was not doomed. He was murdered. What if HE had lived should have been the question.

Another great book is the following: http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Politics-Death-Peter-Scott/dp/0520205197/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1338629895&sr=1-1

Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (Paperback) by Peter Dale Scott


One thing both books do is take it beyond the crime itself, and let you see how power worked then, and how it works, on an ongoing basis. None of it is comfortable, but worthwhile.

rjm

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Sat Jun 02, 2012 1:23 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
TJ wrote:Every historian who has debated the subject is aware of that document.

"Every"? This is patently untrue.



It's a very well known document. Any historian who doesn't come across it while doing JFK research should perhaps try a different profession. It serves as an indicator of what might have happened, not an absolute assurance. But perhaps I should have said every historian "currently" looking into JFK.

I'll draw a parallel. In 2009, President Obama announced that Guantanamo would be closed within one year, seemingly making good on a campaign promise. In 2012, it still hasn't closed. If Obama had suffered a similar fate as JFK, people would look back at the period and say that Guantanamo definitely would have closed under his watch and his successor was responsible for it remaining open. In 2009, I'd have been hard pressed to find an Obama supporter who doubted that the closure would happen.

The point is, what we think will happen, based on how we feel about a politician, isn't always what actually happens. Life and politics are more complicated than that. I have no doubt that Kennedy didn't want a ground war though. That's a given. Whether he would have managed to avoid it happening is the unknown.

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:29 am

You draw a parallel between the escalation of the Vietnam War and ... Guantanamo Bay?

Rather than offer specious parallels, if you truly care, find these books and read them, cover to cover. Newman's book is germane to your previous reply, but the others provide much-needed historical context, using expert testimony, clear logic and unassailable facts. You won't suggest foolish parallels ever again.

Rush To Judgment - Mark Lane (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1966)
JFK and Vietnam - John M. Newman (Warner Books, 1992)
Deep Politics and the Death of JFK - Peter Dale Scott (University of California Press, 1993)
Bloody Treason - Noel Twyman (Laurel Publishing, 1997)
Murder In Dealy Plaza - James H. Fetzer, Ph.D. (Catfeet Press, 2000)

A final thought:

One central fact is constantly overlooked in any news report on Kennedy's assassination or its aftermath -- any question of conspiracy was settled as an official truth by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1979:

The scientific evidence available to the committee indicated that it is probable that more than one person was involved in the President's murder. That fact compels acceptance. And it demands a re-examination of all that was thought to be true in the past.

Further, the committee's investigation of Oswald and Ruby showed a variety of relationships that may have matured into an assassination conspiracy. Neither Oswald nor Ruby turned out to be "loners," as they had been painted in the 1964 investigation. Nevertheless, the committee frankly acknowledged that it was unable firmly to identify the other gunman or the nature and extent of the conspiracy.

- HSCA Report, p. 180

Why the majority of Americans today are unaware that the Congress of the United States declared our president's murder a conspiracy more than 30 years ago is disturbing and depressing.

And it is telling that the major media never mentions this report. Ever.

Wondering about Dealey Plaza "bullets" and "angles" and "number of shooters" is all a parlor game, obscuring what people should ask, even today:

Why did JFK get killed? Who might gain from his death? What does it mean today?

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Sun Jun 03, 2012 4:30 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:You draw a parallel between the escalation of the Vietnam War and ... Guantanamo Bay?

Rather than offer specious parallels, if you truly care, find these books and read them, cover to cover. Newman's book is germane to your previous reply, but the others provide much-needed historical context, using expert testimony, clear logic and unassailable facts. You won't suggest foolish parallels ever again.

Rush To Judgment - Mark Lane (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1966)
JFK and Vietnam - John M. Newman (Warner Books, 1992)
Deep Politics and the Death of JFK - Peter Dale Scott (University of California Press, 1993)
Bloody Treason - Noel Twyman (Laurel Publishing, 1997)
Murder In Dealy Plaza - James H. Fetzer, Ph.D. (Catfeet Press, 2000)

A final thought:

One central fact is constantly overlooked in any news report on Kennedy's assassination or its aftermath -- any question of conspiracy was settled as an official truth by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1979:

The scientific evidence available to the committee indicated that it is probable that more than one person was involved in the President's murder. That fact compels acceptance. And it demands a re-examination of all that was thought to be true in the past.

Further, the committee's investigation of Oswald and Ruby showed a variety of relationships that may have matured into an assassination conspiracy. Neither Oswald nor Ruby turned out to be "loners," as they had been painted in the 1964 investigation. Nevertheless, the committee frankly acknowledged that it was unable firmly to identify the other gunman or the nature and extent of the conspiracy.

- HSCA Report, p. 180

Why the majority of Americans today are unaware that the Congress of the United States declared our president's murder a conspiracy more than 30 years ago is disturbing and depressing.

And it is telling that the major media never mentions this report. Ever.

Wondering about Dealey Plaza "bullets" and "angles" and "number of shooters" is all a parlor game, obscuring what people should ask, even today:

Why did JFK get killed? Who might gain from his death? What does it mean today?

You need to read the Harold Weisberg books they are critical read
Yea all you hear this the Warren Report nothing on the HSCA Report

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Sun Jun 03, 2012 6:06 am

mark wrote:You need to read the Harold Weisberg books they are critical read
Yea all you hear this the Warren Report nothing on the HSCA Report

The Harold Weisberg books offer good analysis, but the five I list succinctly cover all aspects of what happened 45 years ago, and provide many revelations regarding the deep political behavior of the U.S.

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Sun Jun 03, 2012 6:41 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:You draw a parallel between the escalation of the Vietnam War and ... Guantanamo Bay?


For the sole reason of quite reasonably highlighting that best intentions are not always met. I wasn't suggesting that the issues were equivalent.

drjohncarpenter wrote:A final thought:

One central fact is constantly overlooked in any news report on Kennedy's assassination or its aftermath -- any question of conspiracy was settled as an official truth by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1979:

The scientific evidence available to the committee indicated that it is probable that more than one person was involved in the President's murder. That fact compels acceptance. And it demands a re-examination of all that was thought to be true in the past.

Further, the committee's investigation of Oswald and Ruby showed a variety of relationships that may have matured into an assassination conspiracy. Neither Oswald nor Ruby turned out to be "loners," as they had been painted in the 1964 investigation. Nevertheless, the committee frankly acknowledged that it was unable firmly to identify the other gunman or the nature and extent of the conspiracy.

- HSCA Report, p. 180

Why the majority of Americans today are unaware that the Congress of the United States declared our president's murder a conspiracy more than 30 years ago is disturbing and depressing.

And it is telling that the major media never mentions this report. Ever.



For the sake of balance, it's also worth noting that the HSCA's conclusion that there was a gunshot from another gunman was based in part on discredited acoustical evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictabelt_ ... F._Kennedy

I think they would have likely suspected a conspiracy without the acoustical evidence, but perhaps not come down on the side of a second gunman. Even with that evidence though, the report is also pretty clear in saying that there was "probably" a conspiracy, but that the extent of it is unclear. To me, saying "probably" falls a little short of declaring an "official truth".

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Sun Jun 03, 2012 2:00 pm

Another recommended read : "Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy" by Jim Marrs (1989)
Very compelling material. It was also #5 New York Times non-fiction paperback bestseller.

Mr. Marrs presents a very indepth study of the circumstances & events surrounding the death of JFK. It is well written and intriguing. Any intelligent, educated, open minded person has to conclude that the truth as told by the government & the Warren Commission is NOT the truth at all. It is very hard to say what exactly happened. We the public will never know the entire truth. But if you read this book with an open mind (that is important) you must conclude that there is definitely more to it & our government is guilty of lying to its people along with many other crimes.

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:28 am

TJ wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:You draw a parallel between the escalation of the Vietnam War and ... Guantanamo Bay?


For the sole reason of quite reasonably highlighting that best intentions are not always met. I wasn't suggesting that the issues were equivalent.

drjohncarpenter wrote:A final thought:

One central fact is constantly overlooked in any news report on Kennedy's assassination or its aftermath -- any question of conspiracy was settled as an official truth by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1979:

The scientific evidence available to the committee indicated that it is probable that more than one person was involved in the President's murder. That fact compels acceptance. And it demands a re-examination of all that was thought to be true in the past.

Further, the committee's investigation of Oswald and Ruby showed a variety of relationships that may have matured into an assassination conspiracy. Neither Oswald nor Ruby turned out to be "loners," as they had been painted in the 1964 investigation. Nevertheless, the committee frankly acknowledged that it was unable firmly to identify the other gunman or the nature and extent of the conspiracy.

- HSCA Report, p. 180

Why the majority of Americans today are unaware that the Congress of the United States declared our president's murder a conspiracy more than 30 years ago is disturbing and depressing.

And it is telling that the major media never mentions this report. Ever.



For the sake of balance, it's also worth noting that the HSCA's conclusion that there was a gunshot from another gunman was based in part on discredited acoustical evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictabelt_ ... F._Kennedy

I think they would have likely suspected a conspiracy without the acoustical evidence, but perhaps not come down on the side of a second gunman. Even with that evidence though, the report is also pretty clear in saying that there was "probably" a conspiracy, but that the extent of it is unclear. To me, saying "probably" falls a little short of declaring an "official truth".


An analysis published in the March 2001 issue of Science & Justice by Dr. Donald B. Thomas used a different radio transmission synchronization to put forth the claim that the National Academy of Sciences panel was in error. Thomas' conclusion, very similar to the HSCA conclusion, was that the gunshot impulses were real to a 96.3% certainty. Thomas presented additional details and support in the November 2001 and September and November 2002 issues

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:51 am

mark wrote:
TJ wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:You draw a parallel between the escalation of the Vietnam War and ... Guantanamo Bay?


For the sole reason of quite reasonably highlighting that best intentions are not always met. I wasn't suggesting that the issues were equivalent.

drjohncarpenter wrote:A final thought:

One central fact is constantly overlooked in any news report on Kennedy's assassination or its aftermath -- any question of conspiracy was settled as an official truth by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1979:

The scientific evidence available to the committee indicated that it is probable that more than one person was involved in the President's murder. That fact compels acceptance. And it demands a re-examination of all that was thought to be true in the past.

Further, the committee's investigation of Oswald and Ruby showed a variety of relationships that may have matured into an assassination conspiracy. Neither Oswald nor Ruby turned out to be "loners," as they had been painted in the 1964 investigation. Nevertheless, the committee frankly acknowledged that it was unable firmly to identify the other gunman or the nature and extent of the conspiracy.

- HSCA Report, p. 180

Why the majority of Americans today are unaware that the Congress of the United States declared our president's murder a conspiracy more than 30 years ago is disturbing and depressing.

And it is telling that the major media never mentions this report. Ever.



For the sake of balance, it's also worth noting that the HSCA's conclusion that there was a gunshot from another gunman was based in part on discredited acoustical evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictabelt_ ... F._Kennedy

I think they would have likely suspected a conspiracy without the acoustical evidence, but perhaps not come down on the side of a second gunman. Even with that evidence though, the report is also pretty clear in saying that there was "probably" a conspiracy, but that the extent of it is unclear. To me, saying "probably" falls a little short of declaring an "official truth".


An analysis published in the March 2001 issue of Science & Justice by Dr. Donald B. Thomas used a different radio transmission synchronization to put forth the claim that the National Academy of Sciences panel was in error. Thomas' conclusion, very similar to the HSCA conclusion, was that the gunshot impulses were real to a 96.3% certainty. Thomas presented additional details and support in the November 2001 and September and November 2002 issues


Yes I know, because that info is in the wiki link that I included in my answer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictabelt_ ... F._Kennedy

But subsequent investigations concluded that Thomas was wrong, as also noted in the wiki link.

That's the trouble with topics like this though - I mean in a broader sense, not this thread. If different so-called experts say different things, determining who has it right becomes problematic. Then there is also the problem of people cherry-picking the interpretations that support their agenda and ignoring the interpretations that don't.

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Mon Jun 04, 2012 6:09 am

I have had a lot of experience with the a 6.5 mm Carcano Model 91/38 i owned one at one time.
tried to do what Oswald did . Mine was just like Oswalds Found out the rifle is a POS