Was Kennedy Killed by Accident?
In a Tank Riot podcast from a while back, they talked about how the widespread access to unmediated information about the Kennedy assassination (in particular, the Zapruder film) led to the rise of a million conspiracy theories. But here’s an interesting one I’d never thought of: that Kennedy was actually just collateral damage, because Oswald’s real target was John Connally: A New (to Me) Theory about the Kennedy Assassination: It Was an Accident.
Via Michael Troller, via Boingboing.
June 17th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
My question is, what would have changed in history if this is true, that Kennedy was collateral damage. He would have been just as dead and Oswald would have still killed him. Would Ruby had killed Oswald if Oswald had said on that first day “I missed, I meant to kill the governor”. Johnson would have still been sworn in and the iconic photo of Jackie standing beside him would have still been taken. What would have changed?
June 17th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Good point shcb,
If you believe that there is no difference then you also must admit that “collatoral damage” has the same long term effects as if the unintended victims were the target.
Anti-war activists have been arguing that point to deaf ears for years.
June 17th, 2011 at 6:34 pm
But he was Gov of Texas and Texas has oil. Collateral damage is okay, as long as there is oil involved.
June 18th, 2011 at 5:40 am
That wasn’t where I was going and I’m not sure how you got there, I guess you’re referring to “he would be just as dead”?
Sure collateral damage has long term effects whether the civilians were the target or not, spend some time down south and you can see it first hand. Terrorism has been used against civilian populations since the beginning of time, that is what laying siege to a city is all about.
Anti war activists haven’t been talking to deaf ears, we hear them, it is just the alternative, surrender, doesn’t fit the non anti war activists vision, so collateral damage is simply a cost of war. We have heard them, and rejected their arguments.
June 18th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
“Sir, the occupiers are surrendering.”
We were not being invaded, you dumbass. An alternative was not to go to war in the first place. The false dichotomy (invade/surrender) you have set up is stupid even by the rather low standards I have set for your gibberish. I guess the ears aren’t deaf, but the heads are quite hollow.
June 18th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Well, bless your heart
June 19th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
I’m not sure where the invasion comment came from, I wasn’t talking about any particular event. Knarly said “for years” so I assume he means war in general. That is usually the way anti war types phrase that argument; “we shouldn’t fight wars because” (fill in the blank). One of the ways to fill that blank is because innocent people get killed. Well, yes they do but when you make the decision to go to war you have exhausted the other options, and innocent people are already being killed and will continue to be killed. It just isn’t a good reason to not go too war.
A few years ago there was a big push to have cops not chase bad guys because innocent folks got hurt or killed sometimes. But you can’t not chase them, if you do everyone would run because the chance of being caught just dropped a whole bunch.
Not going to war because of collateral damage only works in utopia.
June 19th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
shcb,
Keep on churning out those assumptions, misleading analogies, false comparisons and choices. Take just one example: we no longer engage in high speed chases, it`s not necessary these days to chase a car when there are helicopters, cameras, other cops up the road a quarter mile, we`ve figured out that we can still catch the bad guys by other means besides the killing of innocent families in their vehicles in T-bone collisions. Just saying it doesn`t have to be this or that, there are better options than you seem to be capable of imagining.
On another subject, is this trueÉ
`when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. … Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year … “
June 20th, 2011 at 4:02 am
I guess the crooks are just more determined here, they just keep running down here, then you catch them four or five crimes later and the four or five victims of those crimes are pissed. We just catch em when we can. Seems letting them run and run and run and chasing them with a helicopter just makes the police safer, not the civilians.
I’ve heard that statement of the volcano before, it’s probably true if you massage it enough but from what I’ve read it had a cooling effect that even overrode an El Nino and that effect only lasted a year or two. So even if it is a true statement it had the opposite effect. My guess is it put more of a certain greenhouse gas in the air and that true statement has been pared down (or up) to all greenhouse gasses. Alamists do it, why not skeptics. But that is just a guess.
June 22nd, 2011 at 9:36 am
Interesting theory. And, much as I think this might be the first time I’ve ever noticed wwnj being right (correct) about anything, Kennedy is just as dead. A lousy Marine, a lousy shot… or did he intend to do in Kennedy as collateral damage? As in ‘first I’ll get that Guvnr what wronged me and anyone else to make a statement! yeah!’
Certainly resolves the whole motive thing.
Hey I wonder why wwnjs aren’t attacking the lefty US military for their universal healthcare, socialized daycare, retirement benefits and (finally) support for gay rights?
http://kottke.org/11/06/our-lefty-military
This quote made me smile:
Fabulous! ;)