Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

    More often than not, I subscribe to the notion that the simplest explanation is usually correct. Conspiracies are a blast to talk about and discuss, but I give very little credence to most of them.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

      Clearly it was Keith Hernandez
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

        50 years later and there still isn't a conspiracy theory that is supported by concrete evidence. Not one credible suspect outside of Oswald. If this was a government coverup, then it would have logically required a decent amount of people to keep the secret over a 50 year span, yet no one has ever croaked. No one has ever spilled the beans on their deathbed. No one has ever tried to cash in for a massive profit at the end of their life. Keep in mind that some people have literally devoted their lives to trying to prove a conspiracy. Either it's literally the best kept secret in history, or it really was just a simple case of a lone whack job getting lucky. I'm inclined to believe the latter.
        Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-14-2013, 12:46 PM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          50 years later and there still isn't a conspiracy theory that is supported by concrete evidence. Not one credible suspect outside of Oswald. If this was a government coverup, then it would have logically required a decent amount of people to keep the secret over a 50 year span, yet no one has ever croaked. No one has ever spilled the beans on their deathbed. No one has ever tried to cash in for a massive profit at the end of their life. Either it's literally the best kept secret in history, or it really was just a simple case of a lone whack job getting lucky. I'm inclined to believe the latter.
          There is no doubt there is a coverup though. There are government documents that have been released that were heavily redacted and then there are several (hundreds) known documents that the CIA still refuses to release. It's just that nobody knows what is exactly being covered up and/or why.

          Several people have claimed to have info or tried to cash in at the ends of their lives. You don't hear it as much now since so much time has passed and many of them have passed. And many times the claims were contradictory so that creates another layer of skepticism and fog. It very well could be some have lied for fortune or fame, some have lied as part of a disinformation campaign, some have told the truth but only from their limited perspective, some have told the truth but other's lies and disinformation have made them seem not credible, and some have told the truth but never knew the entire story so have variables wrong that made them seem wrong overall.

          The government went out of its way to create a narrative for this event and then buried lots of information that it still refuses to release.

          These days that narrative tends to be the overriding story but many of the compelling reasons that have led to so many conspiracy theories have been forgotten. Oswald's life was a fairly interesting ride from Marine to moving to the USSR to live to returning with a Russian wife, Cuban/Castro sympathizer... Strange contacts.

          And isn't there a laundry list of strange deaths that do surround the witnesses and potential connections to the event?
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

          ------

          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

          -John Wooden

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            50 years later and there still isn't a conspiracy theory that is supported by concrete evidence. Not one credible suspect outside of Oswald. If this was a government coverup, then it would have logically required a decent amount of people to keep the secret over a 50 year span, yet no one has ever croaked. No one has ever spilled the beans on their deathbed. No one has ever tried to cash in for a massive profit at the end of their life. Keep in mind that some people have literally devoted their lives to trying to prove a conspiracy. Either it's literally the best kept secret in history, or it really was just a simple case of a lone whack job getting lucky. I'm inclined to believe the latter.
            That is not true. A high level CIA man made a death bed confession to what happened and who was involved......

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

              Originally posted by Peck View Post
              OlBlu honest question here.

              Who do you think did this? Also do you think LHO was totally out of the loop or was he in on it just not the gunman?

              I ask because in my evolution of ideas towards this I am now open to a conspiracy. BTW I'm being honest here, not a trick.

              I have come to believe that there was a plot. I don't know how many gunmen I believe yet but even if it was just one with superstar shooting (tough to believe I'll agree with you here) I still believe that there were other people in on the plan.
              I believe the CIA was involved or at least a rogue element of it was. E. Howard Hunt made a death bed confession of sorts naming the people involved. We know LHO had a CIA handler (George De Mohrenschildt) who conviently committed suicide just before he was to be interrogated about the assassination. David Atlee Phillips was also associated with Oswald. The acoustic evidence is clear that three shots came from the Texas School Book Depository building but the kill shot came from the grassy knoll. If there were four shots, there was a conspiracy. The government has been covering-up this case for almost 50 years now. Why would you have to do a cover-up to convict a guilty man in the public's eyes? You would have to do one very good one to do that to an innocent man.

              LHO was historically a lousy shot who barely qualified if he did qualify with a firearm (no one failed in those days). The Carcano is a piece of crap weapon and the one owned by LHO was in particularly bad shape. He apprently missed a stationary General Walker from less than 100 feet. The Russians made fun of him because he couldn't hit a rabbit with a shotgun. LHO's weapon was rusty and ill kept. The scope was so far off that a gunsmith had to install shims under it before it could be zeroed in. The bolt action worked so hard that no expert was ever able to come close to duplicating the shooting with LHO's weapon. Some did do it with Carcanos that had been reconditioned to make the bolt work easier. All Carcanos jam and if you exclude the attempts made when the weapon jammed, only a couple were able to duplicate the shots. Kennedy's head jerked violently back and to the left. That is not a reaction you get from a shot from the right rear. My father was a sniper in WWII and when he saw the Zapruder film in slow motion the first time, he immediately said that the killshot had come from in front of Kennedy and to his right (the grassy knoll). My father killed men in WWII and he told me that not one of them ever jerked back toward the high powered rifle he used. I am also a hunter and no deer has ever leapt back at me when I shot it. I have seen numerous films of people being executed. None of them every jerked toward the weapon that shot them. They either went straight down in a heap or fell away from it. However, those poles that people used to tie men to to execute them, if you believe the Warren Report were there to keep the executed prisoner from leaping all over his killer.

              The government wanted a lone assassin because they were afraid WWIII would start if Russia or Cuba was shown to be behind it. LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover never believed in a lone assassin and neither does the rest of the world.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

                A post from another site (about the Sandy Hook hoax video), but sums up my opinion on conspiracys pretty well. I have no problem with questioning the govt, but often those who questions the govt refuse to question the questions. I do not belive we are always told the truth, but I also dont belive we (as humans) are capable of massive coverups that are never leaked, not even 50 years later.

                Anyways, the post

                Sorry you're upset by it.
                The very notion that people would believe this offends my sensibilities as an American deeply. Seeing how the idiots have so many ears ready and willing to believe them makes me angry.

                This is the greratest nation on earth, and we're convinced that we're one step away from Nazi Germany.. no better yet,, we ARE Nazi germany, and the pubhlic is too stupid to know it.

                People who generate these ideas (not you in particular,, you're just opening the discussion here) are in my mind trying their absolute best to create chaos, and subvert this nation.. whether it's for their own craziness, or for profit, or for political reasons.. it's disgusting.

                Beneath contempt. Undeserving of respect.

                As Kilmer said,, they have the right to say what they want. And i have the right to reject it completely for any reason I want.
                If that's ignorant to you, please understand that entertaining this **** is ignorant to me.
                It ignores everything about this nation and the people who inhabit it.. and assigns us to an evil that is disgusting.


                But as usual in conspiracies, the simplest question to ask (which is never asked) is HOW MANY PEOPLE would be needed to make it work?

                "Three people can keep a secret.. if two of them are DEAD." - Benjamin Franklin

                How does it work with HUNDREDS of people involved?
                As long as that question exists, all other "theories" need to be viewed through it.
                Conspiracy nuts never consider anything logical in their "logic".

                ~Bang
                http://www.extremeskins.com/showthre...oax-quot/page4

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

                  Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                  I believe the CIA was involved or at least a rogue element of it was. E. Howard Hunt made a death bed confession of sorts naming the people involved. We know LHO had a CIA handler (George De Mohrenschildt) who conviently committed suicide just before he was to be interrogated about the assassination. David Atlee Phillips was also associated with Oswald. The acoustic evidence is clear that three shots came from the Texas School Book Depository building but the kill shot came from the grassy knoll. If there were four shots, there was a conspiracy. The government has been covering-up this case for almost 50 years now. Why would you have to do a cover-up to convict a guilty man in the public's eyes? You would have to do one very good one to do that to an innocent man.

                  LHO was historically a lousy shot who barely qualified if he did qualify with a firearm (no one failed in those days). The Carcano is a piece of crap weapon and the one owned by LHO was in particularly bad shape. He apprently missed a stationary General Walker from less than 100 feet. The Russians made fun of him because he couldn't hit a rabbit with a shotgun. LHO's weapon was rusty and ill kept. The scope was so far off that a gunsmith had to install shims under it before it could be zeroed in. The bolt action worked so hard that no expert was ever able to come close to duplicating the shooting with LHO's weapon. Some did do it with Carcanos that had been reconditioned to make the bolt work easier. All Carcanos jam and if you exclude the attempts made when the weapon jammed, only a couple were able to duplicate the shots. Kennedy's head jerked violently back and to the left. That is not a reaction you get from a shot from the right rear. My father was a sniper in WWII and when he saw the Zapruder film in slow motion the first time, he immediately said that the killshot had come from in front of Kennedy and to his right (the grassy knoll). My father killed men in WWII and he told me that not one of them ever jerked back toward the high powered rifle he used. I am also a hunter and no deer has ever leapt back at me when I shot it. I have seen numerous films of people being executed. None of them every jerked toward the weapon that shot them. They either went straight down in a heap or fell away from it. However, those poles that people used to tie men to to execute them, if you believe the Warren Report were there to keep the executed prisoner from leaping all over his killer.

                  The government wanted a lone assassin because they were afraid WWIII would start if Russia or Cuba was shown to be behind it. LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover never believed in a lone assassin and neither does the rest of the world.
                  So I understand you think the Government was at least involved in the cover up and perhaps you think that elements of the CIA had a hand in it. Is that your actual theory or is that just what you haven't ruled out?

                  I ask because while I think the government may have had elements involved I am now wondering, in fact am leaning towards, a theory that involves Santo Trafficante Jr. & Sam Giancana with believe it or not an outside tie to Frank Sinatra. No I don't believe that Sinatra was involved in the assassination plot but I do believe that it is possible that he inadvertantly got the ball rolling (through his ties with Joe Kennedy).

                  However if you want to go with the CIA angle (and while it sounds crazy I'm not far off of believing that part now) Trafficante was the man who lost lots of men in that bay of pigs fiasco so he did have connection to the CIA in that capacity.

                  Do you put any stock into these two at all? Also both had connections to LHO through New Orleans Costa Nostra.


                  Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    So I understand you think the Government was at least involved in the cover up and perhaps you think that elements of the CIA had a hand in it. Is that your actual theory or is that just what you haven't ruled out?

                    I ask because while I think the government may have had elements involved I am now wondering, in fact am leaning towards, a theory that involves Santo Trafficante Jr. & Sam Giancana with believe it or not an outside tie to Frank Sinatra. No I don't believe that Sinatra was involved in the assassination plot but I do believe that it is possible that he inadvertantly got the ball rolling (through his ties with Joe Kennedy).

                    However if you want to go with the CIA angle (and while it sounds crazy I'm not far off of believing that part now) Trafficante was the man who lost lots of men in that bay of pigs fiasco so he did have connection to the CIA in that capacity.

                    Do you put any stock into these two at all? Also both had connections to LHO through New Orleans Costa Nostra.
                    I do not believe Sinatra was involved, he was a personal friend of JFK and was devastated by the assassination. The CIA and Mafia issues could go together. Trafficante tried to kill Castro for the CIA more than once. I could see the two being together in the deal. The CIA went to a lot of work to cover-up as much as they could. They could have provided the Mafia with their Patsy..... One set of records that is marked top secret and has not been released is Oswald's tax records. I wonder why that is?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

                      Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                      I do not believe Sinatra was involved, he was a personal friend of JFK and was devastated by the assassination. The CIA and Mafia issues could go together. Trafficante tried to kill Castro for the CIA more than once. I could see the two being together in the deal. The CIA went to a lot of work to cover-up as much as they could. They could have provided the Mafia with their Patsy..... One set of records that is marked top secret and has not been released is Oswald's tax records. I wonder why that is?
                      I don't think Old Blue Eyes was involved directly either. However what I meant was that inadvertanly he actually introduced JFK to Sam Giancana and had them sleeping with the same woman (Judy Campbell) all set up by Frank. My new found belief is that things started to go downhill between the Chicago Mob & JFK after RFK started going after organized crime. I think Giancana felt particularly betrayed because at Sinatra's behest (on behalf of old Joe Kennedy) they allegedly interfered greatly with the Virginia Democratic primary swinging the votes to JFK.

                      I think that is where the ball started rolling with the mob. Now how Trafficante Jr. got involved is another whole long story.

                      Again I had heard these theory's all my life & basically wrote them off as people who just couldn't accept reality. That is until I started looking at the circumstances of the deaths of several of the people that were going to testify about the assination.

                      Now I'm not convinced that this was a lone gunman. I'm not saying LHO didn't do it but I now am more open to believing that he was part of something bigger.

                      That's the real problem though with the entire Kennedy killing, you can go so many different ways and some of them go so far out there that I think most of us resort to default setting of saying "this is to crazy so therefore it had to be LHO".

                      Now I'm not sure.

                      But my new found belief is that the mob was deeply involved if not solely responsible. I know a lot of the big conspiracy guys don't want to believe that the mob could do that and that the government had to be involved in the cleanup. I'm not even saying that is out of the realm of possiblities because the more I looked the more involved the CIA was with the Florida/Lousiana mafia.


                      Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        I don't think Old Blue Eyes was involved directly either. However what I meant was that inadvertanly he actually introduced JFK to Sam Giancana and had them sleeping with the same woman (Judy Campbell) all set up by Frank. My new found belief is that things started to go downhill between the Chicago Mob & JFK after RFK started going after organized crime. I think Giancana felt particularly betrayed because at Sinatra's behest (on behalf of old Joe Kennedy) they allegedly interfered greatly with the Virginia Democratic primary swinging the votes to JFK.

                        I think that is where the ball started rolling with the mob. Now how Trafficante Jr. got involved is another whole long story.

                        Again I had heard these theory's all my life & basically wrote them off as people who just couldn't accept reality. That is until I started looking at the circumstances of the deaths of several of the people that were going to testify about the assination.

                        Now I'm not convinced that this was a lone gunman. I'm not saying LHO didn't do it but I now am more open to believing that he was part of something bigger.

                        That's the real problem though with the entire Kennedy killing, you can go so many different ways and some of them go so far out there that I think most of us resort to default setting of saying "this is to crazy so therefore it had to be LHO".

                        Now I'm not sure.

                        But my new found belief is that the mob was deeply involved if not solely responsible. I know a lot of the big conspiracy guys don't want to believe that the mob could do that and that the government had to be involved in the cleanup. I'm not even saying that is out of the realm of possiblities because the more I looked the more involved the CIA was with the Florida/Lousiana mafia.
                        Giancana's lawyer has always said that he had JFK killed.....

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

                          Hey Peck have you seen the conspiracy theory involving George H.W. Bush?
                          Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                          I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

                            Originally posted by Natston View Post
                            Hey Peck have you seen the conspiracy theory involving George H.W. Bush?
                            I don't know about Peck but I have. Bush became the head of the CIA and their are lots of rumors about him being involved.....

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              50 years later and there still isn't a conspiracy theory that is supported by concrete evidence. Not one credible suspect outside of Oswald. If this was a government coverup, then it would have logically required a decent amount of people to keep the secret over a 50 year span, yet no one has ever croaked. No one has ever spilled the beans on their deathbed. No one has ever tried to cash in for a massive profit at the end of their life. Keep in mind that some people have literally devoted their lives to trying to prove a conspiracy. Either it's literally the best kept secret in history, or it really was just a simple case of a lone whack job getting lucky. I'm inclined to believe the latter.
                              In 1975 Frank Church and his Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities discovered that Judith Campbell had been involved with both Giancana and John F. Kennedy. It emerged that during the 1960 presidential election Campbell took messages from Giancana to Kennedy. Campbell later claimed these messages concerned the plans to murder Fidel Castro. Kennedy also began an affair with Campbell and used her as a courier to carry sealed envelopes to Giancana. He told her they contained "intelligence material" concerning the plot to kill Castro.

                              Giancana was now ordered to appear before Church's committee. However, before he could appear, on 19th June, 1975, Sam Giancana was murdered in his own home. He had a massive wound in the back of the head. He had also been shot six times in a circle around the mouth.

                              According to Peter Dale Scott, in 1976, James ***** Angleton "told an investigator that he knew which mob figures, from the New York and Chicago mafia families, had killed Sam Giancana. He also blamed the Church Committee for causing the death of Giancana and Rosselli, by demanding testimony concerning topics on which the mafia code of silence could not be broken."
                              http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKgiancana.htm
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

                              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                Clearly it was Keith Hernandez
                                I don't know...I've seen some evidence that points to Roger McDowell.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X