Nightshade wrote:So, that's a lot of people to keep quiet for 40 some years. Plus, even if the purpose was compartmentalized, once the assassination happened, don't you think they'd figure it out?
Look how long it took for people to pay attention enough to know they were wrong about Bush. Much of people's perceptions and understandings come from their own preconceptions of the way things are and it's next to impossible to get them to look at truth, let alone acknowledge it. Alot of people simply dismiss the possibility of a conspiracy and leave it at that.
As to compartmentalization still not stopping people from figuring it out...alot of terrorists don't know who among their peers actually commits terrorist acts. Alot of groups will claim responsibility but in a large number of terrorism acts nobody really knows who's responsible. I guess it also shows just how many terrorist organizations there are out there.
A person (or group of persons) knowing some of the information but not the whole picture is easy to dismiss when it comes to credibilty in a court of law....which is somewhere JFK's assassination would never reach. If someone refuses to connect the dots, then those people will be ignored and forgotten.
There's a HUGE difference between noticing the intent behind a person's behavior and remaining silent about the murder of the leader of the free world. That can't be overstated.
As far as connecting the dots, show me some dots that are grounded in common sense and science. I firmly believe that the government or entities tied to it are fully capable of killing our president, I just don't see anything other than unsubstantiated rumor and crackpot claims to make the case that that's what happened with JFK.
i know a few things about the less excellent side of kennedy's presidency that are usually ignored in all the camelot BS, but that was pretty good stuff, which is probably why it sounds so alien and weird these days, where every other political speech is fear-driven
This thread should be in the void considering how much misinformed garbage is in it.
It's about "The President and the Press", as it's titled.
Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.
Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.
If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.
On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.
It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.
My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.
I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.
This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
Yes, parts of that speech he is referencing the Soviets and these are the parts that everyone on youtube is going "oh gee skull and bones took him outz!1"
I jumped in to tell about a different viewpoint from a book i was in the middle of, and then to say penn and teller are hacks; just as [un]qualified as popular mechanics is to explain 911. I have my suspicions as to why he was killed, but how isn't that relevant when you look at the why..
But since I wasn't there to see it, I'll never know what really happened, until maybe 2050 or whenever it is that the documents are declassified. Of course, by then the public will be so mindless the response will be 'kennewho?'
