O/T - This snapshot was taken...

[thekingofclout]

48 years ago today. And the world has never been the same since.

JFKsnapshot.jpg

[barrysloate]

I always wondered what the world would have been like if that day never happened, and how history would have been changed. That's an amazing photo.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I always wondered what the world would have been like if that day never happened, and how history would have been changed. That's an amazing photo.

Just in terms of Presidents, we probably would have gotten Johnson in '68, and with no war he might have lasted two terms - might never have had a President Nixon.

[Scott Garner]

Thanks Jimmy!

I had forgotten that today was the anniversary of the JFK assasination.
My brother in law sent me an e-mail a few days ago which had approximately 30-40 amazing photos. One of them was a pretty graphic morgue photo of JFK after he had been shot. In the 48 years that have passed since this terrible day in world history, I have never even heard of this picture existing.

I could post it, but I'm not sure that others would want to see such a thing...

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by thekingofclout

48 years ago today. And the world has never been the same since.

Attachment 50086

For those that care to know, this exact car that Kennedy rode in when he was assasinated is on display at The Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, MI. I had a chance to look at it a few years back. It sent chills down my spine just thinking about that day....

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I always wondered what the world would have been like if that day never happened, and how history would have been changed. That's an amazing photo.

Read Steven King's brand new novel, "11/22/63."

[Mr. Mitt]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I always wondered what the world would have been like if that day never happened, and how history would have been changed. That's an amazing photo.

Stephen King's new novel, released a few weeks ago, deals with this very question. Not a huge King fan, I liked some of his books more than others, but this one's relatively high on my reading list.

http://www.amazon.com/11-22-63-Steph...1988129&sr=1-1

[Frozen in Time]

What a super photo to have in your collection Jimmy. I can remember that day as if it was yesterday. I was playing basketball when the announcement came over the PA system in the gym. The TV and newspaper coverage during the following days remain etched in my mind.

The world and this country changed that day and have never reached the same
plateau of hope and achievement. JFK was the last that I considered "my president" as opposed to "the president".

[barrysloate]

A lot of people felt that way Craig. I was only 11 when he died but I knew there was something special about him. Americans were so hopeful back then, and look where we are now. It's all so sad.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Just in terms of Presidents, we probably would have gotten Johnson in '68, and with no war he might have lasted two terms - might never have had a President Nixon.

I disagree about Johnson, don't think he would have had a chance, probably RFK or another younger man. And Nixon, although he might actually have won in '60, was done. He couldn't win the governorship of his home state, California, and it took the murder of both Kennedys to make a comeback even plausible. I think RFK would have taken the 1968 election in a landslide--I don't know what historians say about that, but I was 22 and remember the feeling and the momentum his campaign had created. His appeal crossed all boundaries. One of the countless pieces of fascinating trivia about the JFK assassination was the fact that Nixon flew out of Love Field the morning of the 22nd.

Adlai Stevenson said of JFK, "Tomorrow and tomorrow we shall miss him."

[canjond]

I'm partially through 11.23 - good read so far.

[canjond]

Also - a couple signatures...

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

I disagree about Johnson, don't think he would have had a chance, probably RFK or another younger man. And Nixon, although he might actually have won in '60, was done. He couldn't win the governorship of his home state, California, and it took the murder of both Kennedys to make a comeback even plausible. I think RFK would have taken the 1968 election in a landslide--I don't know what historians say about that, but I was 22 and remember the feeling and the momentum his campaign had created. His appeal crossed all boundaries. One of the countless pieces of fascinating trivia about the JFK assassination was the fact that Nixon flew out of Love Field the morning of the 22nd.

Adlai Stevenson said of JFK, "Tomorrow and tomorrow we shall miss him."

Regarding RFK, you have to remember that in '68 Kennedy would have been stepping down, presumably having done a good job, and the nomination probably would have gone to his VP if he wanted it. RFK might not have even tried for the nomination until later - he would have only been 51 in 1976

[barrysloate]

With John and Robert we're dealing with two assassinations, so predicting what might have happened is even more difficult.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Regarding RFK, you have to remember that in '68 Kennedy would have been stepping down, presumably having done a good job, and the nomination probably would have gone to his VP if he wanted it. RFK might not have even tried for the nomination until later - he would have only been 51 in 1976

Good point, and of course events could have created any kind of scenarios by then. But, I don't think either of the Kennedys regarded Johnson as presidential material, on the ticket for political purposes only, and certainly JFK would either have supported his brother actively or removed himself from a contest between Johnson and Bobby for the nomination in '68. Again, circumstances would have dictated, but I don't think Johnson had much national support whereas another Kennedy, following upon a successful presidency of JFK, should have had a leg up on the nomination, I would think.

[David Atkatz]

No national support?

Johnson won by a landslide in '64. And as far as "not being Presidential material," Johnson's domestic policy far outshone Kennedy's. It's too bad he didn't get us out of Vietnam, rather than escalating. Had he done so, he'd be regarded today as one of the great Presidents.

(At the time, of course, I hated LBJ. I was one of the kids in the streets of D.C., chanting "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did ya kill today?")

[Ladder7]

Poignant image Jimmy. I was in kindergarten and they'd sent us home early. I was walking home with the bigger kids. So much confusion and tears. I didn't get it until later, lotsa people get shot in our city. Innocence lost.

[thetruthisoutthere]

That's a day I'll never forget. I was one month short of my 7th birthday and I remember sitting at my desk in school and the teacher telling us what had just happened. I remember all of us crying..........

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

That's a day I'll never forget. I was one month short of my 7th birthday and I remember sitting at my desk in school and the teacher telling us what had just happened. I remember all of us crying..........

Chris,
I had exactly the same experience only I was 6 and it was one day after my birthday. I suspect it was like that everywhere that day.

BTW, growing up in So Cal about 20 minutes from Disneyland, I also remember the school announcing the death of Walt Disney over the intercom in school. There wasn't a dry eye in the school; all the kids cried uncontrollably!! I'll never forget either event...

[RichardSimon]

Is this the guilty man?
I have my doubts and I don't believe we know the entire truth.
I have owned this piece for a long time.
Robert Oswald auctioned off a few pieces he had from his brother, quite a number of years ago in a NYC auction.
I was lucky enough to buy this one, Dallas, Texas 1963 postmark.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

No national support?

Johnson won by a landslide in '64. And as far as "not being Presidential material," Johnson's domestic policy far outshone Kennedy's. It's too bad he didn't get us out of Vietnam, rather than escalating. Had he done so, he'd be regarded today as one of the great Presidents.

(At the time, of course, I hated LBJ. I was one of the kids in the streets of D.C., chanting "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did ya kill today?")

In 1963, nobody, except perhaps Johnson himself, thought he would ever be president. His 1964 landslide, of course, was almost entirely the product of sympathy for JFK and a desire for continuation of his policies. I agree that without the tarnish of Vietnam, Johnson's presidency would have been regarded as a great one. As Buck Turgeson reminded HIS president, "You can't condemn the whole program because of one little slipup!"

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

In 1963, nobody, except perhaps Johnson himself, thought he would ever be president. His 1964 landslide, of course, was almost entirely the product of sympathy for JFK and a desire for continuation of his policies. I agree that without the tarnish of Vietnam, Johnson's presidency would have been regarded as a great one. As Buck Turgeson reminded HIS president, "You can't condemn the whole program because of one little slipup!"

The landslide was also a result of the country's fear of a man with an itchy trigger finger sitting in the White House. Of course this fear was played upon by Johnson in his campaign. The anti Goldwater sentiment in the country was very strong.

[David Atkatz]

Johnson would have certainly been Kennedy's running-mate in '64--for the same reason he was in 1960. (And for the same reason Kennedy went to Texas in November '63.) The Vice President would be just about sure to get the nomination over the Attorney General.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

The landslide was also a result of the country's fear of a man with an itchy trigger finger sitting in the White House. Of course this fear was played upon by Johnson in his campaign. The anti Goldwater sentiment in the country was very strong.

Yes, that, too. Major factor in the size of the victory.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Johnson would have certainly been Kennedy's running-mate in '64--for the same reason he was in 1960. (And for the same reason Kennedy went to Texas in November '63.) The Vice President would be just about sure to get the nomination over the Attorney General.

I don't think so.

[David Atkatz]

Well, we'll never know.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

As Buck Turgeson reminded HIS president, "You can't condemn the whole program because of one little slipup!"

My favorite movie and one of the all time greats.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Is this the guilty man?
I have my doubts and I don't believe we know the entire truth.

There was a good '3-bullet explanation' show on t.v. a couple of nights ago - unlike the normal 'conspiracy' pieces, this one showed that it was likely Oswald actually fired all 3 shots.

To me the question is "who was backing him?" Hard to believe he did it on his own, especially when key potential 'talkers' started dropping like flies immediately. On the other hand, if it was a large entity (political opposition, large corporation(s)), someone ALWAYS talks, and no one did.

I loved the Oliver Stone movie - that guy can really convince you that whatever he films is history, even if it's total b.s.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Well, we'll never know.

Good place to leave it.

As for who was behind it, I vote for the Mob. With Bobby seriously trying to put them out of business (Valachi was singing), JFK eliminating their Cuban gambling by agreeing never to invade, JFK screwing Giancana's mistress (AFTER Sam brought in Illinois for him), Marcella and Traficante everywhere you turn in the story, the CIA-Mafia plot to kill Castro, etc., etc. Then you have the amazing coincidence that Oswald's assassin, Jack Ruby, just happened to be a lifelong mob guy. To me, Ruby's involvement is the key that unlocks the whole thing. I also cannot look at the head shot and believe for a second that shot didn't come from the Grassy Knoll. I don't care what anybody says, my eyes tell me all I need to know about that. I believe the Mob actually succeeded in rubbing out a president and getting away with it. Incredible.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Good place to leave it.

As for who was behind it, I vote for the Mob. With Bobby seriously trying to put them out of business (Valachi was singing), JFK eliminating their Cuban gambling by agreeing never to invade, JFK screwing Giancana's mistress (AFTER Sam brought in Illinois for him), Marcella and Traficante everywhere you turn in the story, the CIA-Mafia plot to kill Castro, etc., etc. Then you have the amazing coincidence that Oswald's assassin, Jack Ruby, just happened to be a lifelong mob guy. To me, Ruby's involvement is the key that unlocks the whole thing. I also cannot look at the head shot and believe for a second that shot didn't come from the Grassy Knoll. I don't care what anybody says, my eyes tell me all I need to know about that. I believe the Mob actually succeeded in rubbing out a president and getting away with it. Incredible.

Watching and re-watching the film, I just don't understand why no one pushed him down after the first contact shot. Everyone sure got down after the final one. You would think it would be standard protocol: someone shoots the big guy, everyone nearby knows to shove him down in case more is on the way.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I always wondered what the world would have been like if that day never happened, and how history would have been changed. That's an amazing photo.

It is reasonable to consider that small things, including the actions of a single person, can change history in a big way. A terrific fairly new book on this by Jeff Greenfield:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/books/01book.html

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

It is reasonable to consider that small things, including the actions of a single person, can change history in a big way. A terrific fairly new book on this by Jeff Greenfield:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/books/01book.html

Mark, that's interesting - I like the fact that he's addressing more realistic 'what if' scenarios than the following example mentioned in the review:

"What if a group of time-traveling white supremacists from South Africa gave Robert E. Lee’s troops AK-47 assault rifles to help the Confederacy win the Civil War?"

[packs]

Very sad day. Loosely related, has anyone else been watching the Vietnam in HD series on the History channel? The average WWII vet saw 10 days of combat during his tour. The average Vietnam Vet saw 240 days of action. Have to wonder if they would have seen any had Kennedy not been killed.

[David Atkatz]

Those numbers are very, very misleading. Days of combat have been averaged over all serving. But in WWII, there were huge numbers of support personnel, who saw no combat. Those who did see combat, though, for the most part, were involved for a long time. Unless, of course, they were killed. Consider the thousands of USAAF flight crew, who were killed after a few missions, or the Marines who were killed storming beaches in the Pacific in their first day or two, thus bringing down the average.

In Vietnam, you were in for a thirteen month tour, after which you came home. In WWII, you were in for the duration; until you were either killed, or the war ended.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Good place to leave it.

I also cannot look at the head shot and believe for a second that shot didn't come from the Grassy Knoll. I don't care what anybody says, my eyes tell me all I need to know about that. I believe the Mob actually succeeded in rubbing out a president and getting away with it. Incredible.

You are absolutely right. There is no question in my mind, either, that the head shot came from the front. It is so blatantly evident in the films from that day. Also, if you read many of the witnesses' testimony given the FBI or directly to the Warren Commission, a large number of people in Dealey Plaza said they heard shots coming from the front as well as behind. Of course, the Warren Commission just dismissed them all as being mistaken. Many, many people described hearing either 3 or 4 shots with 2 of them coming almost instantaneously. Since the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle requires a minimum of a second or two to chamber a round, re-aim, etc., this meant that it couldn't be a single person shooting. The Warren Commission just dismissed them all as being mistaken. Governor Connally said without reservation that he and Kennedy were hit by separate bullets. This would effectively eliminate the 'magic bullet theory.' He was sure of this point. But, again, he was deemed to be mistaken by the geniuses on the Warren Commission.

Sure, sure. WC apologists simply state that eyewitness testimony is so unreliable. I get that. But every single one of these people is wrong? Give me a break.

This stuff drives me absolutely insane!!!!!!!

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

You are absolutely right. There is no question in my mind, either, that the head shot came from the front. It is so blatantly evident in the films from that day. Also, if you read many of the witnesses' testimony given the FBI or directly to the Warren Commission, a large number of people in Dealey Plaza said they heard shots coming from the front as well as behind. Of course, the Warren Commission just dismissed them all as being mistaken. Many, many people described hearing either 3 or 4 shots with 2 of them coming almost instantaneously. Since the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle requires a minimum of a second or two to chamber a round, re-aim, etc., this meant that it couldn't be a single person shooting. The Warren Commission just dismissed them all as being mistaken. Governor Connally said without reservation that he and Kennedy were hit by separate bullets. This would effectively eliminate the 'magic bullet theory.' He was sure of this point. But, again, he was deemed to be mistaken by the geniuses on the Warren Commission.

Sure, sure. WC apologists simply state that eyewitness testimony is so unreliable. I get that. But every single one of these people is wrong? Give me a break.

This stuff drives me absolutely insane!!!!!!!

It is maddening to me, also. Just the spray of bone and brain matter that comes flying off his head at the moment the bullet slams directly into the SIDE of his head looks to me to go either straight up (because it has no place else to go) or behind him. Can't they do Newton's Law on that and figure out where the bullet came from? I know, the limo was also moving--at a blazing 11 miles and hour. I guess the driver never got the memo that if you hear what could possibly be a gun shot, floor that 500CC pedal. This guy actually puts on the brakes at one point during the fusillade, and it's only on the third shot that he gets the Lincoln going. I'm not nearly as interested in the forensics of the case than in who was behind it, but it's all endlessly fascinating to me. Just one of the countless amazing pieces of trivia--it was the most photographed murder in history.

[ocjack]

In 1994, I attended a business conference just outside of Dallas. One afternoon we had some free time so an associate and I decided to drive into Dallas to see the Book Depository and Dealy Plaza. The first thing that strikes you is that it's a relatively small, conpact area. It always seemed so much larger in film footage and news coverage.

The Depository had been turned into a museum. You had to walk through a set of metal detectors to get into the building (yeah, better late than never). The upper floor was re-created to show what the corner looked like in 1963. And the remainder of the floor had video and historical documents. It was an outstanding view down to the street where the motorcade passed.

Afterwards we walked over to the grassy knoll and overpass. I didn't realize it at first, but I was actually looking around on the ground for I don't know what - maybe a bullet casing or some other evidence. I knew it was absurd to think I'd find something, but that's how my memories of that day in 1963 affected me. I was subconsciously trying to solve the mystery.

Historians say we want to believe in a major conspiracy because we refuse to believe someone so inconsequential could have changed the course of history. Sadly, we will probably never really know for sure.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by ocjack

Sadly, we will probably never really know for sure.

After all these years, I'm beginning to think you're right. But to me, there are only two possibilities: Either you believe the million-to-one possibility that Jack Ruby, who never did anything in his life but work for the Mob, and about whom nobody ever produced a single shred of evidence of the slightest interest in national affairs or of any affection whatsoever for the Kennedys, was so moved to silence the only person who could explain why the assassination happened, or you believe that Jack Ruby was ordered to assassinate Oswald to keep him from spilling the beans on a conspiracy. If the latter is true, who would have been in a position to force Ruby to do that, who did he take orders from? And did that person or organization have the motivation to put out such an order? The Mob had so many different reasons to kill JFK, the answer would be simple if he was a more ordinary person. And they kill people all the time, that's what they do, and they're very good at it. But to try to kill a president? That's what people can't get their heads around. But they were desperate in 1963, fighting for their existence at that point, and as Carlos Marcello explained to an undercover FBI informant when asked why they just didn't eliminate Bobby: "If you cut off the tail of a snake, it can still bite you. But if you cut off the head, it's dead." So they had the means, the motivation, and somehow came up with the opportunity. I firmly believe this, they pulled off the Mob Hit Of All Time. Keep showing me all the evidence of what a lone nutjob Oswald was, and I'll keep reminding you that that's the poster boy for someone they could pick up to involve in the assassination, then arrange for him to get caught and take the blame for it. Oswald was never supposed to live out the day of November 22, but he did, so they had to take the desperate chance of having Ruby stalk him all weekend in the police station until he could create the opportunity to silence him once and for all. There is some fascinating film footage of Ruby, not long before he died in 1966, basically confessing to being part of a much larger effort.

[RichardSimon]

Ruby testified, before the Warren Commission, in Texas and begged Earl Warren to bring him back to DC so he could tell the truth in what he felt was a safe place.
Warren ignored the plea.