Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is one possible reaction to distress, hardly universal. There is no "assured" about traumatic, reactive behavior, it can be anything, even really bizarre or seemingly inappropriate reactions. Did you predict in advance that Jackie, if she was in a motorcade where her husband was suddenly shot in the head, would crawl out into the trunk of the limo? She was conforming to what facts or truth when she did that? According to some accounts, she wasn't doing it to "help the secret service agent into the limo" as was put out as the public explanation, rather she was so shocked and traumatized that she thought that she had to crawl back there and collect the bits of her husband's brains which had spattered on the lid of the trunk.
And you want to take her behavior in this situation as evidence of her knowledge that her husband's assassination was the work of a collective? I find that absurd.
Its comments like these that make me understand the enduring persistence of "conspiracy myths and legends". I can't imagine trying to make a case for a conspiracy out of one word in a sentence. Yet, here it is.
Those of us who have rationally tried to explain why the facts just don't point to a conspiracy have a hopeless task before us. I would venture to say that believing that one word like that is evidence of a conspiracy says more about the person who believes that than the circumstances in question.
the quote by Jackie raises questions about why her first reaction was that there was a "they", and it is not unreasonable to follow that thread in the line of inquiry.
I've presented my nickel ninety-five opinion regarding the belief of LBJ, RFK that there was a conspiracy so let me add Mrs. Kennedy as well.
Everyone and their mother knew that Kennedy had engendered a level of personal animosity not seen before Lincoln or since the present occupant of the White House. So in the era before the rise of presidential assassins motivated by their love of Jody Foster, or Giant Sequoias (see Squeaky Fromme) the assassination of the most important man in the free world HAD to be the result of a powerful conspiracy.
Now flash forward 12 years later and a lone gunman who was a known informant for the FBI tries to shoot a sitting president and no one bats a freaking conspiratorial eye.
That is one possible reaction to distress, hardly universal. There is no "assured" about traumatic, reactive behavior, it can be anything, even really bizarre or seemingly inappropriate reactions. Did you predict in advance that Jackie, if she was in a motorcade where her husband was suddenly shot in the head, would crawl out into the trunk of the limo? She was conforming to what facts or truth when she did that? According to some accounts, she wasn't doing it to "help the secret service agent into the limo" as was put out as the public explanation, rather she was so shocked and traumatized that she thought that she had to crawl back there and collect the bits of her husband's brains which had spattered on the lid of the trunk.
And you want to take her behavior in this situation as evidence of her knowledge that her husband's assassination was the work of a collective? I find that absurd.
I never said nor implied that she "knew" that this specific incident was the work of a known collective. But it very well might have signaled that she was aware that the secret service knew of at least one collective which they thought represented a particular threat. She could very well have been aware, in broad terms, of the kinds of threats that her husband faced, and was probably advised of the kinds of things she ought to be vigilant for as possible threats. Yet, no security personnel (as far as I know) ever acknowledged that there was any particular collective threat that they were aware of.
So Jackie's worlds might have reflected that security was aware of a certain kind of threat, which security personnel denied, and that it why it is a statement that is suspiciously incongruous. I can't imagine security not divulging to the president's family the kinds of threats that they should be vigilant for, in the event they could alert security about unusual obversations. So Jackie had an inkling that a collective threat was in the alert catalog, and responded with that fact in mind, but the security agencies deny that such was the case. If you'd pay attention to what I say, instead of leaping to any possible contrarian conclusion, you would have recognized that many posts ago. And it wouldn't be necessary to laboriously elucidate at greater and greater lengths all these transparent and pedestrian details to you.
So Jackie's worlds might have reflected that security was aware of a certain kind of threat,
Hell, everyone and their mother was aware of the naked hostility that awaited Kennedy in Dallas. If anything the warm welcome that he did receive was far greater than what might have been expected. Adlai Stevensons after being a speaking engagement in Dallas returned to Washington and warned of the hatred he experienced in Dallas. Press Secretary Pierre Salinger, U.S. Attorney H. Barefoot Sanders, all warned Kennedy not to go to Dallas. Jackie would have to have been as dumb as Marylin Monroe pretended to be to not realize the vitriol that was emanating from the Evan Walker, the Hunts and the John Birch Society she would have been exceptionally clueless to the hatred that was coming out of Texas in 1963.
Hell, everyone and their mother was aware of the naked hostility that awaited Kennedy in Dallas. If anything the warm welcome that he did receive was far greater than what might have been expected. Adlai Stevensons after being a speaking engagement in Dallas returned to Washington and warned of the hatred he experienced in Dallas. Press Secretary Pierre Salinger, U.S. Attorney H. Barefoot Sanders, all warned Kennedy not to go to Dallas. Jackie would have to have been as dumb as Marylin Monroe pretended to be to not realize the vitriol that was emanating from the Evan Walker, the Hunts and the John Birch Society she would have been exceptionally clueless to the hatred that was coming out of Texas in 1963.
Precisely - it's not like it was any sort of surprise.
One man stands up and chants: “Kennedy will get his reward in hell. Stevenson is going to die. His heart will stop, stop, stop. And he will burn, burn, burn.”
People begin streaming into the aisles, holding American flags upside down, a tactic they have learned from General Walker to signal a nation in distress or under attack. Halfway through Stevenson’s speech, a group of Walker’s commandos dart behind the stage and pull on a rope. The large banner that reads WELCOME ADLAI flips down to reveal another message in huge letters: UN RED FRONT.
One Stevenson supporter turns to another in disbelief: “This must be what it was like in Munich during the Beer Hall Putsch.”
Eventually, Stevenson manages to finish his speech. He then moves to leave.
Quote:
The group is surrounding Stevenson’s limousine and chanting anti-UN slogans. Larrie Schmidt’s people are among them. They sing “Dixie” and “Onward Christian Soldiers” while a half dozen police officers nervously monitor the situation.
The cops quickly set up a rope line for Stevenson and Marcus to help them reach the waiting limousine. As Stevenson emerges, a buzz goes up and people race toward him, waving their signs and yelling: “COMMUNIST!” and “TRAITOR!”
[Cora] Frederickson suddenly flies toward Stevenson, her sign raised high. Flashbulbs are popping as her placard slams down on Stevenson’s forehead, just missing his eye. The ambassador steps back under the blow.
Yeah, Jackie sure had super-secret inside security information...
And despite your explanation, it is just as I wrote....you have allowed relative thinking to bring you to a point where you are arguing that a murderer who committed the deed on national television, cannot be identified as a criminal.
What sort of criminal justice system would function with an approach like that? Only the most heinous, foulest, most repulsive deed could be classed as criminal, all others excused because they were not quite as bad.
You write these things and then pretend that there would not be unwelcome, impractical consequences in application. You have declared that Ruby is neither hero nor criminal. The first part is easy enough....you don't treat him as a hero. The second part...if he is not a criminal then he gets to gun down a prisoner in lawful custody and no one does anything about it. "Geez, Jack, did you have to shoot him here? Oh well, no criminal action has taken place, so why don't you go home and put that gun away before you hurt someone else?"
Jack Ruby was a criminal in my view. No one should be gunning down a person that is in custody and there was certainly no self defense involved here. You are correct and I definitely agree with your first sentence, too!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
jason
