Author Topic: JFK  (Read 7090 times)

Offline jambutty

  • The Gok Wan of RAWK. Tripespotting Advocate. Oakley style guru. Hardman St. arl arse, "Ridiculously cool" -Atko- Impending U.S. Civil War Ostrich. Too old to suffer wankers and WUMs on here.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,864
  • June 20, 2009. Still no justice for Neda
JFK
« on: November 22, 2018, 01:01:18 pm »
November 22, 1963.

I was in high school in Brooklyn, NY. The war in Vietnam was in full flow, with all its divergent groups carping at each other.

As the school day drew to a close, there had been murmurings and rumours going about that JFK had been shot in Dallas, but nothing concrete.

When the last class of the day began, an announcement came over the school PA and the principal came on and announced that the president had been shot in Dallas.

He then put on a radio broadcast by Walter Cronkite which gave all the details available at the time.  Classes were all dismissed early and we all filed out stunned.

No crying or panic, we were all too young to appreciate the gravity.

I had seen JFK campaigning in our neighborhood, he had done a convertible tour to throngs of people.  We saw him and Jackie as young vibrant, attractive, modern and touchable, such a contrast to the stodginess of Ike and Nixon.

The next week was death. 

Every tv channel was transfixed. The entire country was in shock (except Texas - they were having celebratory BBQs.  Scumbags even then) we sat glued to our sets watching the train as it brought his body to DC.  Everyone stunned by the grief of this beautiful young woman and her two adorable children.

For days, the crowds filed past his coffin as he lay in state.  My first experience with death.

The gloom permeated everything.  Even after his interment, the Eternal Flame at his grave only tended to promise the continuity of grief, the outrage of the act, the culprits, the Cubans?  The Russians? the aftermath.

The events that shape our lives.
Kill the humourless

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,483
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: JFK
« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2018, 01:22:41 pm »
I was 7. I was too young to know about politics. I just knew it was a shocking event and something in the world had shifted.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline PatriotScouser

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,108
  • I could agree with you but then we’d both be wrong
Re: JFK
« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2018, 02:03:28 pm »
I'm from Boston and my family are all from the New England area so this day always resonates with me.

My Dad was 20 at the time and still remembers vividly to this day the memories of that sad day. He remembers coming home that night with his mother in tears, it was the first time he had seen her cry.

Just like the fellow poster said below they were watching the television all weekend long.

My Mom was 17 and said it was the first time she had seen her dad in tears.

This isn't the thread for it but they both thought at the time and still think to this day that Oswald was the lone gunman, as do I. Although in our family we differ on how we think if he was working alone or with someone before that event took place. Out of respect for JFK I won't say my thoughts on it today.

My parents said that was the day they 'grew up' as people and I think that is right as most people say that was the day the age of innocence was gone in America.

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,483
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: JFK
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2018, 02:08:39 pm »
Out of respect for JFK I won't say my thoughts on it today.

That would be appreciated.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline soxfan

  • inebriated gonad donor (rejected) and Sperm Whale Milker (also rejected). Left-handed, shit-headed, non-fascist recidivist disappointer of women everywhere - on both drier and ranier days......rejects own eyebrows, the vain banana-hammock-wearin' get
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,334
Re: JFK
« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2018, 02:11:27 pm »
I was born & raised in Kennedy's home state of Massachusetts. He was practically God here.

My 21-year old mom was watching the "As The World Turns" soap opera on our black & white TV. I was 11 months old, sitting in her lap, when CBS' Walter Cronkite interrupted the broadcast to tell everyone of the horror. My mother sat there, stunned, tears pouring down her cheeks.

I asked her later what the biggest public news moment of her life was. Pearl Harbor? 9/11? The moon landing? She insisted that it was the day Kennedy was killed. It was an innocent time in the US. The American Dream was alive & well. Camelot was in the White House. And it was shattered in an instant, never to return.

First news at 10:00
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/pDOojsg62O0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/pDOojsg62O0</a> 
« Last Edit: November 22, 2018, 02:29:50 pm by soxfan »
“Do not intermingle with people who act like 'they know it all'. If you do, you will wind up as lost and lonely as they are.”
― Christine Szymanski

Offline No666

  • Married to Macca.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,795
Re: JFK
« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2018, 02:25:21 pm »
I have a vague memory of my mother crying out on the doorstep when the football pool collector told her what had happened. The television was then switched on, though I understood little beyond the adult sadness and the words 'he was a good man.'

Offline MrGrumpy

  • Miserable old man. Does things with Nutella while trying not to think about football.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,015
Re: JFK
« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2018, 03:50:54 pm »
I prefer Newark myself, JFK always seems grubby.
Justice for the 96!

Offline Xabi Gerrard

  • WHERE IS MY VOTE?
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,910
Re: JFK
« Reply #7 on: November 22, 2018, 04:10:04 pm »
My parents said that was the day they 'grew up' as people and I think that is right as most people say that was the day the age of innocence was gone in America.

It was an innocent time in the US.

Sorry for diverging from the theme of the thread but I really think it's important to flag this up. It may have been an innocent time for you and your forebears, but for many Americans it was no such thing - don't forget segregation wasn't even outlawed till the following year.

Again, apologies for not staying on topic but I can't stand this 'end of American innocence' narrative that only applies to straight white Americans being pushed as if its a reflection of what America was really like.

Offline Macphisto80

  • The Picasso of RAWK. But wants to shag Charlie Brooker. Go figure! Wants to hear about bi-curious Shauno's fantasies.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 23,737
Re: JFK
« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2018, 04:19:31 pm »
Sorry for diverging from the theme of the thread but I really think it's important to flag this up. It may have been an innocent time for you and your forebears, but for many Americans it was no such thing - don't forget segregation wasn't even outlawed till the following year.

Again, apologies for not staying on topic but I can't stand this 'end of American innocence' narrative that only applies to straight white Americans being pushed as if its a reflection of what America was really like.
Hmm, not to mention that if you expressed views such as this back then, you'd be branded a "Red" or a commie scumbag.So, not really that much different to today, really. Just the rhetoric and jargon has changed somewhat.

Offline FlashGordon

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 12,734
  • RAWK Cheltenham 2021 Champion Tipster*
Re: JFK
« Reply #9 on: November 22, 2018, 04:42:38 pm »
Hmm, not to mention that if you expressed views such as this back then, you'd be branded a "Red" or a commie scumbag.So, not really that much different to today, really. Just the rhetoric and jargon has changed somewhat.

For a while it did but it's back again, we never learn.
So bloody what? If you watch football to be absolutely miserable then go watch cricket.

Offline The Gulleysucker

  • RAWK's very own spinached up Popeye. Transfer Board Veteran 5 Stars.
  • RAWK Remembers
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,496
  • An Indolent Sybarite
Re: JFK
« Reply #10 on: November 22, 2018, 05:14:13 pm »
I was eight at the time and it was all quite memorable.

Initially there seemed to be some hope that somehow he would survive, the fact he'd been taken to the hospital and that doctors were working to save him.

Of course this was before the Zapruder film was aired so the extent of the damage could only be guessed at from the chaotic blurry black and white footage of the motorcade and I suppose everyone was hopeful that somehow he'd survive and that the shots wouldn't have been fatal ones. Then came the announcement that he was dead.

Even at eight, I realised that something momentous had just happened, he'd been a fixture on TV news for several years, the Cuba crisis, the Berlin wall business and such.

And the only other President that I was aware at the time who'd been assassinated was Lincoln and that was so long ago in history, I mean, that sort of thing just doesn't happen these days..., or so I'd thought up till then.

And his election had seemed such a breath of fresh air, a passing of the baton to the younger generation from Ike who seemed to belong to the Churchill era rather than the modern times of the early 60's.

And he even had what seemed a young glamorous wife (and some little children) instead of some old matron type standing alongside him which all previous Presidents seemed to have.

Of course now we can look back after all the revelations of his private life and perhaps change our minds about our perceptions we had of him then, how wrong we might have been about some things, but nevertheless, the assassination did seem to be the moment not so much of a president dying, but of a dream dying too.

It was never quite the same afterwards.

I don't do polite so fuck yoursalf with your stupid accusations...

Right you fuckwit I will show you why you are talking out of your fat arse...

Mutton Geoff (Obviously a real nice guy)

Offline jambutty

  • The Gok Wan of RAWK. Tripespotting Advocate. Oakley style guru. Hardman St. arl arse, "Ridiculously cool" -Atko- Impending U.S. Civil War Ostrich. Too old to suffer wankers and WUMs on here.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,864
  • June 20, 2009. Still no justice for Neda
Re: JFK
« Reply #11 on: November 22, 2018, 05:39:29 pm »
Perfectly put yet again, Gulley.

For 1000 days we were distracted from the grit, grime, war, and division and into a world of glamour, beauty, family, and perceived well being.

They called it Camelot.

It was far less than that, but it provided and sustained a patina of civility until the Johnson era..
Kill the humourless

Offline Antoine Lavoisier

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 491
  • the torchlight red on sweaty faces
Re: JFK
« Reply #12 on: November 22, 2018, 06:06:42 pm »
No one is perfect, least of all, politicians. But good ones are able to somehow reach deep into the collective consciousness and almost single handedly, pull us up from the dark depths and into the light, where hopes shines brightest.

One cannot reflect on such a man as JFK then, without inevitably making the comparison to Trump, today. I’m not too sure if it says anything significant about the state of society then versus now, but it sure does make you wonder a lot of things.
And in short, I was afraid

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,483
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: JFK
« Reply #13 on: November 22, 2018, 07:59:04 pm »
What it says is that there is no inevitable rise from darkness to light. No guaranteed move from oppression to freedom or from prejudice to acceptance of others.

Trump shows that the poison has not gone away. It has festered since the Civil Way and is being given voice again by Trump and those who feel emboldened by him.

The fight goes on from generation to generation.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/C3UQ_0y4hiE?fs=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/C3UQ_0y4hiE?fs=1</a>
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Antoine Lavoisier

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 491
  • the torchlight red on sweaty faces
Re: JFK
« Reply #14 on: November 22, 2018, 08:10:06 pm »
there is no inevitable rise from darkness to light. No guaranteed move from oppression to freedom or from prejudice to acceptance of others.



A sobering thought, Alan.
And in short, I was afraid

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,483
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: JFK
« Reply #15 on: November 22, 2018, 08:14:15 pm »
A sobering thought, Alan.

It is. But that's why we need to celebrate the victories and those who helped to fight the fight, however imperfect they might be.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline jambutty

  • The Gok Wan of RAWK. Tripespotting Advocate. Oakley style guru. Hardman St. arl arse, "Ridiculously cool" -Atko- Impending U.S. Civil War Ostrich. Too old to suffer wankers and WUMs on here.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,864
  • June 20, 2009. Still no justice for Neda
Re: JFK
« Reply #16 on: November 22, 2018, 11:41:39 pm »
Just watched 13 Days, Costner's treatment of the embargo.

An interesting take.
Kill the humourless

Offline jambutty

  • The Gok Wan of RAWK. Tripespotting Advocate. Oakley style guru. Hardman St. arl arse, "Ridiculously cool" -Atko- Impending U.S. Civil War Ostrich. Too old to suffer wankers and WUMs on here.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,864
  • June 20, 2009. Still no justice for Neda
Re: JFK
« Reply #17 on: November 23, 2018, 09:49:27 am »
Excerpt from JFK's Peace in Our Time Speech:

I have, therefore, chose this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is to rarely perceived - - yet it is the most important topic on earth : world peace.
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace - - the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living -- the kind that enables man and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children - - not merely peace for Americans by peace for all men and women - - not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.
I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all of the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by the wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations unborn.
Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles - - which can only destroy and never create - - is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.


I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war - - and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.
Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament - - and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must re-examine our own attitude - as individuals and as a Nation - - for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward - - by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the Cold War and toward freedom and peace here at home.

Full text and vid here: https://speakola.com/grad/john-f-kennedy-american-university-1963
Kill the humourless

Offline Qston

  • Loves a bit of monkey tennis and especially loves a bit of sausage relief......singularly though #sausage
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 9,297
  • Believer
Re: JFK
« Reply #18 on: November 23, 2018, 10:06:40 am »
Excerpt from JFK's Peace in Our Time Speech:

I have, therefore, chose this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is to rarely perceived - - yet it is the most important topic on earth : world peace.
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace - - the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living -- the kind that enables man and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children - - not merely peace for Americans by peace for all men and women - - not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.
I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all of the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by the wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations unborn.
Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles - - which can only destroy and never create - - is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.


I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war - - and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.
Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament - - and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must re-examine our own attitude - as individuals and as a Nation - - for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward - - by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the Cold War and toward freedom and peace here at home.

Full text and vid here: https://speakola.com/grad/john-f-kennedy-american-university-1963

There is a reason that JFK admired Churchill. They could both use the English language in a way that made it incredibly powerful.
"Just a normal lad from Liverpool whose dream has just come true" Trent June 1st 2019

Offline Phil M

  • YNWA
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 58,982
  • Bravery is believing in yourself" Rafael Benitez
    • I coulda been a contenda.....
Re: JFK
« Reply #19 on: November 23, 2018, 10:46:59 am »
There is a reason that JFK admired Churchill. They could both use the English language in a way that made it incredibly powerful.

He was no Trump though to be fair.
It's true to say that if Shankly had told us to invade Poland we'd be queuing up 10 deep all the way from Anfield to the Pier Head.

Offline Qston

  • Loves a bit of monkey tennis and especially loves a bit of sausage relief......singularly though #sausage
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 9,297
  • Believer
Re: JFK
« Reply #20 on: November 23, 2018, 11:16:00 am »
He was no Trump though to be fair.

Yup. No one can distill a complex argument or espouse a meaningful truth into 280 characters quite like him.
"Just a normal lad from Liverpool whose dream has just come true" Trent June 1st 2019

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,483
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: JFK
« Reply #21 on: November 23, 2018, 11:45:15 am »
Yup. No one can distill a complex argument or espouse a meaningful truth into 280 characters contorted verbal diaorreah quite like him.

Corrected.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline soxfan

  • inebriated gonad donor (rejected) and Sperm Whale Milker (also rejected). Left-handed, shit-headed, non-fascist recidivist disappointer of women everywhere - on both drier and ranier days......rejects own eyebrows, the vain banana-hammock-wearin' get
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,334
Re: JFK
« Reply #22 on: November 23, 2018, 02:26:49 pm »
Sorry for diverging from the theme of the thread but I really think it's important to flag this up. It may have been an innocent time for you and your forebears, but for many Americans it was no such thing - don't forget segregation wasn't even outlawed till the following year.

Again, apologies for not staying on topic but I can't stand this 'end of American innocence' narrative that only applies to straight white Americans being pushed as if its a reflection of what America was really like.
You "can't stand" the innocence narrative, but you are ignoring the fact that for many Americans like mine their life WAS innocent. It WAS "what America was really like" for millions of Americans. I'm not "pushing" it on you. Though I certainly recognize it wasn't that way for others.

In 1963, my young white parents lived in a town that was 99% white, in a US state that was probably 95% white at the time. There was no CNN, no Facebook, no constant barrage of news 24/7 like today or even 20 years ago. They and many other Americans lived in a shielded bubble from most of the terrible things that were going on in less fortunate parts of the country and the world.

My Mom stayed home and took care of the two kids. My dad had a good job. They were able to buy a nice house in a nice small town, and they were involved in their local church activities. There was no racial hatred anywhere nearby, Vietnam was (in 1963) just a distant rumble to them. Their concerns were the mundane, typical ones of keeping their kids healthy & being able to pay their bills each month. Compare what they experienced post-Korean War to 1963, to what happened in the next 10 years -- RFK's killing, Vietnam ramping up, nationwide protests, MLK's killing, Watergate were all to come.

So yes, the Kennedy assassination changed their world. Yes, it "ended the innocence".   
“Do not intermingle with people who act like 'they know it all'. If you do, you will wind up as lost and lonely as they are.”
― Christine Szymanski

Offline Xabi Gerrard

  • WHERE IS MY VOTE?
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,910
Re: JFK
« Reply #23 on: November 23, 2018, 02:53:50 pm »
You "can't stand" the innocence narrative, but you are ignoring the fact that for many Americans like mine their life WAS innocent. It WAS "what America was really like" for millions of Americans. I'm not "pushing" it on you. Though I certainly recognize it wasn't that way for others.

In 1963, my young white parents lived in a town that was 99% white, in a US state that was probably 95% white at the time. There was no CNN, no Facebook, no constant barrage of news 24/7 like today or even 20 years ago. They and many other Americans lived in a shielded bubble from most of the terrible things that were going on in less fortunate parts of the country and the world.

My Mom stayed home and took care of the two kids. My dad had a good job. They were able to buy a nice house in a nice small town, and they were involved in their local church activities. There was no racial hatred anywhere nearby, Vietnam was (in 1963) just a distant rumble to them. Their concerns were the mundane, typical ones of keeping their kids healthy & being able to pay their bills each month. Compare what they experienced post-Korean War to 1963, to what happened in the next 10 years -- RFK's killing, Vietnam ramping up, nationwide protests, MLK's killing, Watergate were all to come.

So yes, the Kennedy assassination changed their world. Yes, it "ended the innocence".   

If you'd originally have said what you did here (to paraphrase you, "for my family and people like us it was an innocent time") then you make a good point. But you didn't, your exact quote was "It was an innocent time in the US". It wasn't. Ask Emmett Till's mum or any other African American in the South whether it was an innocent time in America pre-JFK's assassination. A period of innocence hasn't even begun for them, let alone ended in 1963. Maybe ask Native Americans whether America's innocence ended when JFK was shot too. They'd probably say it ended 471 years before that.

I guess we're on the same page now though - it was an innocent time for some Americans as you've acknowledged. I'm just not a fan of that whitewashed (pun intended) history that gets pushed about it being an innocent time in America full stop (which your original statement seemed to suggest), when it clearly wasn't.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2018, 04:54:02 pm by Xabi Gerrard »

Offline jambutty

  • The Gok Wan of RAWK. Tripespotting Advocate. Oakley style guru. Hardman St. arl arse, "Ridiculously cool" -Atko- Impending U.S. Civil War Ostrich. Too old to suffer wankers and WUMs on here.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,864
  • June 20, 2009. Still no justice for Neda
Re: JFK
« Reply #24 on: November 23, 2018, 05:33:36 pm »


Those times were good enough to unite people of all colours under the banner of rock 'n roll  8).
Kill the humourless

Offline Rob Dylan

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,825
Re: JFK
« Reply #25 on: November 22, 2023, 09:24:21 am »
60th anniversary of the assassination today. Saw this video recently about what happened inside the book depository that day, it's really well done. Does not contain any conspiracy theories!

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/5u7euN1HTuU" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/5u7euN1HTuU</a>


Online Black Bull Nova

  • emo
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 12,943
  • The cheesy side of town
Re: JFK
« Reply #26 on: November 23, 2023, 01:34:00 pm »
I think it was a type of death of innocence for many, not black people, but the majority post war generation that were fed stories about an America that only ever existed as a PR exercise. When you scratch below the surface (and this applies to the Kennedys, Vietnam, Cuba, Central America, Allende, Nixon, Sinatra, possibly even MLK) there was an altogether different story going on which people were not always aware of.


When Kennedy was shot that sort of disney like dream ended and we've spent the last 60 years being drip fed the realities.
aarf, aarf, aarf.

Offline FlashingBlade

  • Organised a piss up in a brewery. Ended up in his pants with a KFC bucket. Future MP. Eats only Fish Heads and Tails. Can't spell 'DOMUM'. Now has no balls.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,851
  • From a Shankly Boy to a Klopp Man
Re: JFK
« Reply #27 on: November 23, 2023, 03:43:06 pm »
I remember it well...I was standing on a grassy knoll minding me own business and this fella hands me a rifle and says " Do us a favour will ya"
« Last Edit: November 23, 2023, 05:17:16 pm by FlashingBlade »

Offline Nobby Reserve

  • Onanistic Charades Champion Of Roundabouts. Euphemistic Gerbil Starver.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,984
  • Do you wanna build a snowman?
Re: JFK
« Reply #28 on: November 23, 2023, 03:48:24 pm »
I remember it well...I was standing on a grassy knoll minding me own business and this fella hands me a rifle and says " Do us a favour will ya"


Ah, there you are!

Can I have my rifle back, please?

A Tory, a worker and an immigrant are sat round a table. There's a plate of 10 biscuits in the middle. The Tory takes 9 then turns to the worker and says "that immigrant is trying to steal your biscuit"

Online oldfordie

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 14,519
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: JFK
« Reply #29 on: November 23, 2023, 04:01:21 pm »
I remember it well.
We will never know for certain. watched many documentary's but will not be watching any more, theres always new unmissable CT evidence popping up, latest one is the cover up over the magic bullet. still doesn't tell you who was behind the shooting.
 I think all the evidence points to the Mafia, Sam Giancana.
Jack Ruby was a absolute Dick Head for shooting Oswald or brought in to sever the link, am going with him being a stupid dick head.
It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it.
“But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn’t.”
               Emily Maitlis

Offline Robinred

  • Wanted for burglary.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,859
  • Red since '64
Re: JFK
« Reply #30 on: November 23, 2023, 04:47:47 pm »
Did anyone else catch the C5 documentary earlier in the week “What happened in the trauma room”, or the re-showing of the 2021 Oliver Stone one ‘re-visiting’ the stuff from his film?

As a long-time decrier of conspiracy theories generally, and having long since believed the Warren Commission report to be accurate, I found myself uncomfortably questioning my former certainties. David Aaranovich’s Voodoo Histories had for me debunked the ‘second gunman’ stuff, so the C5 programme in particular was troubling.
"The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology...as long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth." Mikhail Bakunin

Offline Andy82lfc

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,614
Re: JFK
« Reply #31 on: November 23, 2023, 04:52:42 pm »
Never been one for conspiracies and always find it annoying when this gets lumped into 'conspiracy' territory when other gunmen are mentioned apart from Oswald (I suppose that's what all conspiracists say!). After seeing many what seem to be well documented theories and evidence, it seems almost ridiculous to say there was not another gunman. However the whole argument into who it was etc does become a bit more vague. 

So I suppose what I am asking do people think all of the evidence around the "magic bullet" and witness statements about another gunman etc is all made up bullshit? Because if not how do people still think it was only Oswald?

Offline BER

  • Goat fondler.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,308
  • FLOSS IS BOSS!!
Re: JFK
« Reply #32 on: November 23, 2023, 05:00:05 pm »

Offline FlashingBlade

  • Organised a piss up in a brewery. Ended up in his pants with a KFC bucket. Future MP. Eats only Fish Heads and Tails. Can't spell 'DOMUM'. Now has no balls.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,851
  • From a Shankly Boy to a Klopp Man
Re: JFK
« Reply #33 on: November 23, 2023, 05:19:04 pm »
I like this one just for the comedy of it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/accidental-assassin-jfk-theory-alleges-secret-service-agent-fumbled-gun-flna2d11634276

Have you seen the Seinfeld  piss take of JFK using same actor playing Newman
..brilliant!

Offline Jiminy Cricket

  • Batshit fucker and Chief Yuletide Porcine Voyeur
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,107
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: JFK
« Reply #34 on: November 23, 2023, 06:39:17 pm »
Did anyone else catch the C5 documentary earlier in the week “What happened in the trauma room”, or the re-showing of the 2021 Oliver Stone one ‘re-visiting’ the stuff from his film?

As a long-time decrier of conspiracy theories generally, and having long since believed the Warren Commission report to be accurate, I found myself uncomfortably questioning my former certainties. David Aaranovich’s Voodoo Histories had for me debunked the ‘second gunman’ stuff, so the C5 programme in particular was troubling.
Good book.
would rather have a wank wearing a barb wire glove
If you're chasing thrills, try a bit of auto-asphyxiation with a poppers-soaked orange in your gob.

Offline Rob Dylan

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,825
Re: JFK
« Reply #35 on: November 23, 2023, 10:25:58 pm »
The frustrating thing about this topic is that while the Warren Commission report was flawed and there are some things that haven't been fully explained, there is also so much stuff presented as fact that is actually just unsubstantiated rumour, has already been debunked or is just completely made up, that it's hard to sift through it all to find the stuff which is actually worth investigating.

Did anyone else catch the C5 documentary earlier in the week “What happened in the trauma room”, or the re-showing of the 2021 Oliver Stone one ‘re-visiting’ the stuff from his film?

As a long-time decrier of conspiracy theories generally, and having long since believed the Warren Commission report to be accurate, I found myself uncomfortably questioning my former certainties. David Aaranovich’s Voodoo Histories had for me debunked the ‘second gunman’ stuff, so the C5 programme in particular was troubling.

I haven't watched Oliver Stone's 'JFK Revisited', but if it's just him doubling down on everything that was in the movie then I won't bother. I used to love that film (and still think it's brilliantly made), but unfortunately most of it is nonsense. This is a very old article but it does a good job of explaining just how inaccurate the movie was: https://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/jfk.htm

I also haven't watched the recent documentary about the doctors in the trauma room, but I gather they were talking about the head wounds they saw and this cast some doubt on whether the shot came from the front or the back? I do know that there was some confusion and contradiction in the accounts of people who were there, with people giving differing accounts of the size and location of the wounds they saw, which is understandable. Also I think some of them may not have been experienced in treating / analysing gunshot wounds.

Never been one for conspiracies and always find it annoying when this gets lumped into 'conspiracy' territory when other gunmen are mentioned apart from Oswald (I suppose that's what all conspiracists say!). After seeing many what seem to be well documented theories and evidence, it seems almost ridiculous to say there was not another gunman. However the whole argument into who it was etc does become a bit more vague. 

So I suppose what I am asking do people think all of the evidence around the "magic bullet" and witness statements about another gunman etc is all made up bullshit? Because if not how do people still think it was only Oswald?

I think at some point it was proven that the bullet didn't actually have to be 'magic' in the way that we saw in the movie, and it was perfectly possible for it to have caused the wounds in both Kennedy and Connelly. However something that has cast doubt on this recently is a Secret Service agent called Paul Landis, who said that he found a bullet in the car and put it on Kennedy's stretcher - the official story claimed it was found on Connelly's stretcher, but there could easily have been a mix-up there as apparently the stretchers were next to each other at some point. The problem is, the bullet supposedly on Connelly's stretcher was supposed to be the one which came to rest in Connelly's leg - but Landis said he found this bullet on the back seat. Which could suggest it lodged in Kennedy's  back and then became dislodged. But that would suggest a possible fourth shot (if not necessarily a second shooter). Unless, the first shot didn't actually miss?

These two videos do an excellent job of showing the evidence against Oswald. Interesting couple of points from that first video: when Oswald's wife heard that the shots had come from inside the building where he worked, her first thought was not to worry about his safety, it was to go and check if his rifle was still in the garage where he stored it. Also regarding a second shooter, apparently the area between the book depository and the underpass was known for the way sounds echoed around. Many witnesses thought the shots came from the book depository, others thought they came from the grassy knoll, but only a handful thought they heard shots from both directions - which is not what you'd expect if there were multiple shooters.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/5u7euN1HTuU" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/5u7euN1HTuU</a>

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/PYI4PqtIyE0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/PYI4PqtIyE0</a>

I think all the evidence points to the Mafia, Sam Giancana.
Jack Ruby was a absolute Dick Head for shooting Oswald or brought in to sever the link, am going with him being a stupid dick head.

Clearly the mafia had a motive (and had actually talked about wanting to do it), and clearly Oswald did shoot at JFK - the problem is in finding a clear link between them (other than the tenuous David Ferrie / Guy Bannister one). Oswald didn't seem to need any encouragement to do it, and I haven't seem any evidence that the mafia told him to do it. As for a second shooter who was actually a mafia hitman, it's possible but the evidence just isn't there at the moment, and by now you'd think someone would've said something.


« Last Edit: November 23, 2023, 10:30:53 pm by Rob Dylan »

Offline west_london_red

  • Knows his stuff - pull the udder one! RAWK's Dairy Queen.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 22,048
  • watching me? but whose watching you watching me?
Re: JFK
« Reply #36 on: November 23, 2023, 10:38:07 pm »
Did anyone else catch the C5 documentary earlier in the week “What happened in the trauma room”, or the re-showing of the 2021 Oliver Stone one ‘re-visiting’ the stuff from his film?

As a long-time decrier of conspiracy theories generally, and having long since believed the Warren Commission report to be accurate, I found myself uncomfortably questioning my former certainties. David Aaranovich’s Voodoo Histories had for me debunked the ‘second gunman’ stuff, so the C5 programme in particular was troubling.

Yeah, I saw it and it’s not a story I have ever followed closely so am no expert but it was very hard not to draw the conclusion that there was a second gunman from either the footage or the testimony of numerous doctors who were the first to see and try to save JFK who say he was shot on the front of his head, ie not just from the book depository. If it was one doctor you could argue otherwise, but there must have been 6-8 doctors who were in the ER who said the same thing so it’s hard to argue with that.
Thinking is overrated.
The mind is a tool, it's not meant to be used that much.
Rest, love, observe. Laugh.

Offline Bootle

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,521
  • Prove that we live in a Red and White Kop
Re: JFK
« Reply #37 on: November 24, 2023, 02:26:40 am »
At the risk of appearing a crazy conspiracy theorist, I have been interested in the assassination for quite some time. Other interests - WW2, The Cold War, Communism, Politics and The Mafia- meant JFK was pretty much the sweet spot that coalesced all of those into one single moment/event. I was born in 1974, knew of it as a historical event, I saw the Zapruder film when I was about 12, and never really given it much thought- especially as those that challenged the Warren Report, then and now, were depicted as 'crazies' pretty much.

It was a holiday I went on in 2009 to Cuba that got me looking/thinking about it more. I was reading up about the history of the country, deciding where to visit and stuff like that and ending up reading more about the Bay of Pigs, the Missile Crisis and the embargo. This reading led directly to Kennedy, obviously, and I started reading the crazies books. The main thing I could never understand, what was Oswalds motivation- why would a US Marine defect to the USSR, at the height of the Cold War and claiming to be a Marxist, want to kill a leftish President who was holding off invading an essentially Communist state. On the face of it, Oswald would not have known the efforts JFK and Bobby were secretly making to bump off Castro. Just this, the idea that the US Marines would accommodate someone who was openly communist be in the Marines, leave abruptly, defect, live in the USSR (like other "Defectors" from the US military did around the same time) and then just be allowed, facilitated even, to return. It just didn't make sense.

The sheer amount of questions the whole affair raises, almost at every turn, from the Medical stuff, Oswalds presence and actions in New Orleans/Mexico (if he were there), the mercenary missions that the CIA were funding out of Miami against Cuba, the General Walker shooting, Tippet, Oswalds employment prior to the school book depository, some of the deaths surrounding the assassination (de Mohrenschildt, Rose Cherami), foreknowledge of the plan to assassinate JFK (Joseph Milteer) or the other assassination plots in Miami and Chicago that didn't go ahead in the weeks before Dallas. 

It should be remembered, the Warren Report isn't the final word on the assassination from the US Govt. The House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978, which was set up to investigate JFK and MLK primarily, though the Malcolm X and RFK assassinations also struck me as bad luck, four such events in such a period of time, had this as one of their conclusion:

"The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy".

This sentence in itself wholly discredits the Warren Report and makes another truthful investigation warranted. Especially given the turn in US foreign policy, and politics, from pretty much the second after 12.30pm on the 22nd November 1963. I'm not saying LBJ did it- though he's got a wholly interesting history himself. But it's 'odd' that at least two of the Watergate burglars -Frank Sturgis and E Howard Hunt- have long been associated with killing JFK.

For my money, and I know you've not asked, Oswald was a right-wing loony, probably involved with the John Birch Society, who was selected from the Marines to be a part of Operation Redskin, which was a false defector program that the CIA ran in the late 50s.  Upon the end of that assignment, he was undercover/pretending to be involved in far left groups (Fair Play for Cuba Committee) in order to 'out' Commies. I think there was a CIA false flag operation in Dallas, that Oswald was involved in, essentially to shoot at Kennedy but miss. Triggering, if you pardon the pun, a desire by the US population to overthrown Castro/invade Cuba. Unbeknownst to this group, a second group of far-right paramilitaries, disaffected Bay of Pigs veterans, who knew of this plan due to their CIA connections/Cuba Missions stepped into the footsteps of it and shot for real. Oswald was as surprised as Kennedy when he shot and someone else hit. I think this'd explain his actions afterwards. I think that'd also explain why the US Govt have been so reluctant to reveal what actually happened and why there is such confusion around the case. They were pretending to kill him to cause a war but some of their contractors actually did it.

If you're at all interested in the topic, I'd suggest John Simkin's excellent JFK resource Spartacus Educational website. Have a google about these fella's too, beyond those already mentioned, Gerry Hemming, Lawrence Howard, Loren Hall and Rip Robertson. Some real 'crazy' stuff going on in Florida in the early 60s in relation to clandestine attacks on Cuba by Mercenaries.




Offline Rob Dylan

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,825
Re: JFK
« Reply #38 on: November 24, 2023, 11:06:47 am »
It should be remembered, the Warren Report isn't the final word on the assassination from the US Govt. The House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978, which was set up to investigate JFK and MLK primarily, though the Malcolm X and RFK assassinations also struck me as bad luck, four such events in such a period of time, had this as one of their conclusion:

"The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy".

This sentence in itself wholly discredits the Warren Report and makes another truthful investigation warranted. Especially given the turn in US foreign policy, and politics, from pretty much the second after 12.30pm on the 22nd November 1963. I'm not saying LBJ did it- though he's got a wholly interesting history himself. But it's 'odd' that at least two of the Watergate burglars -Frank Sturgis and E Howard Hunt- have long been associated with killing JFK.

The thing with the HSCA's conclusions is that it was primarily based on acoustic evidence, which has since been largely discredited. Although this is one of the problems with this topic, in that every few years there'll be some new study which apparently discredits some earlier findings, and it's hard to keep track of them or decide which should be treated as credible and which should not. Also I think that we should be careful of concluding that one investigation discredits another just because it supports what we already believe. People dismiss the Warren Commission as it is the official government line, but then support the HSCA and base its credibility on the fact that it's an official investigation - there's a bit of a contradiction there, people are using the 'appeal to authority' in one case but not the other.

Also it's worth noting that despite concluding that a second gunman (and therefore a conspiracy) was probable, the HSCA also supported the 'magic bullet' theory, and concluded that Oswald did fire three shots, two of which hit the President (including the fatal shot), and that if there was a second shooter, they fired once and missed. This kind of undermines the idea that there must have been a second shooter based on the wounds suffered by the President - and also your theory about the President being hit only by a second shooter.

For my money, and I know you've not asked, Oswald was a right-wing loony, probably involved with the John Birch Society, who was selected from the Marines to be a part of Operation Redskin, which was a false defector program that the CIA ran in the late 50s.  Upon the end of that assignment, he was undercover/pretending to be involved in far left groups (Fair Play for Cuba Committee) in order to 'out' Commies. I think there was a CIA false flag operation in Dallas, that Oswald was involved in, essentially to shoot at Kennedy but miss. Triggering, if you pardon the pun, a desire by the US population to overthrown Castro/invade Cuba. Unbeknownst to this group, a second group of far-right paramilitaries, disaffected Bay of Pigs veterans, who knew of this plan due to their CIA connections/Cuba Missions stepped into the footsteps of it and shot for real. Oswald was as surprised as Kennedy when he shot and someone else hit. I think this'd explain his actions afterwards. I think that'd also explain why the US Govt have been so reluctant to reveal what actually happened and why there is such confusion around the case. They were pretending to kill him to cause a war but some of their contractors actually did it.

The thing is, there's virtually no evidence that Oswald was a right-wing loony, but if you watch the second video I posted last night, there is a ton of evidence that he was actually a radical left-winger. For that to be untrue, then so many people over the years would have to be in on the lie - his family, his fellow Marines, the KGB etc etc. In fact there's plenty of evidence that far from pretending to be involved in far left groups, he was doing the opposite - trying to infiltrate far-right groups in order to get information (or make it look like he had information) in order to ingratiate himself with more powerful left-wing people. This is what he did in New Orleans, where he approached Carlos Bringuier (a prominent anti-Castro Cuiban) offering his help. He later used this when he tried to get into Cuba that summer, claiming that he had infiltrated anti-Castro groups and could therefore have useful information. (He hoped he could be similarly useful to the Russians when he moved there, but they decided he had no information they were interested in). So rather than being an elaborate front to make it look like he was pro-Castro, his activities in New Orleans are more likely to have been an effort to impress the Cuban authorities for when he tried to get into the country.

Regarding the shooting itself, the CIA had already tried to assassinate Castro (with Kennedy's support) multiple times, and the Bay of Pigs was obviously a literal invasion of Cuba - so why would they need an assassination attempt on the President before they could try to overthrow Castro, when they'd already tried it multiple times? Also the US government couldn't be seen to officially support the Bay of Pigs invasion, and even after an attempt on the President's life a full-scale invasion would still have been a huge risk, especially so soon after the Cuban Missile Crisis. It would have risked Russian involvement and potential nuclear war all over again...which is exactly the reason why they didn't officially support the Bay of Pigs invasion, or provide air support. Also there's no guarantee that a failed assassination attempt would've caused the US public to demand an invasion, or that the surviving President would've supported it. And finally, if their plan was to frame Oswald as a Communist / Castro supporter (which is how he was portrayed) why did they not then go ahead with pushing for an invasion? If a failed assassination attempt could be enough for the public to demand an invasion, then surely a successful one would definitely be enough.

Regarding Oswald himself, he only got the job in the book depository about a month before the assassination, weeks before the motorcade route had been decided (and even before it had been decided that there would be a motorcade). If he was a CIA agent it's a hell of a coincidence that he started working there at that time - and if it was not a coincidence then his neighbour, her brother, and the boss of the book depository would all have to be working for the CIA as well. Watch the start of that first video I posted for an explanation of how he got the job, it was just mundane chance - in fact the boss of the book depository took on two people at the same time and considered sending Oswald to work in their other building, but in the end decided to send the other new employee there. And also, if the CIA wanted someone to shoot at the President, why would they choose someone who was expected to be at work and therefore might not be free at the key moment? Why not someone who was free to come and go as he pleased and shoot from whatever location was best for him, whenever he chose to? And why would Oswald, if he was a CIA agent, agree to do this, knowing he would be portrayed as a left-wing radical, framed for a fake crime and go to prison for years?

Watching that documentary about Oswald, he was clearly something of a sociopath, neglected as a child and to some extent living in his own world where he was more important than he was in reality. He was not stupid and he had big ideas, but they were delusions of grandeur, ambitions beyond his actual intelligence and abilities. Everything significant he tried to do ended in failure, his personal life was unravelling and it seems like he had become more unstable and desperate. Maybe a few years before he wouldn't have been motivated to kill Kennedy, but as he became more angry, disillusioned and desperate, he just wanted to do something significant, and took the chance when it came along.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2023, 11:13:00 am by Rob Dylan »

Offline Boston always unofficial

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,341
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: JFK
« Reply #39 on: November 24, 2023, 03:48:58 pm »
Don't have a view on the jfk thing but Dr.Who started Nov 23rd 1963,hmmm?