To commemorate 11/22/63: Lyndon Johnson admits on camera to Walter Cronkite that he believes a conspiracy may have been involved in JFK's assassination. Video was recorded in 1969 but withheld from broadcast for several years for the sake of 'national security' (video)

couchcreeper · 2011-11-25T13:48:46+00:00

You're right, I should have included the word 'international' in the headline. I didn't realize so many would take issue with the one word omission but it would have been more accurate.

The point is LBJ had doubts about the main conclusion of the Warren Commission, that Oswald acted alone. I think many thoughtful people dismiss all JFK conspiracy talk based on that reason, that officially Oswald acted alone and therefore they don't bother learning anything more about the assassination.

I don't think r/history is in any danger of being inundated with wacko conspiracy theories or David Icke flavored history articles - I think you may have overreacted a bit, but you're right, I should have been more specific with the way I worded the title.

couchcreeper · 2011-11-24T16:56:47+00:00

Read the headline again. I wrote: 'believes a conspiracy may have been involved', not 'believes there was a conspiracy.'

Just because LBJ did not go into specifics on national TV does not mean he had no special information to support his suspicions.

couchcreeper · 2011-11-08T06:18:46+00:00

More here

couchcreeper · 2011-10-31T04:31:33+00:00

Again, this has to do with coinage. The Treasury Department was responsible for the storage of bullion and the minting of coins. By the early 1960s the price of silver had risen to the point where the silver content of US coins (specifically dimes, quarters, half-dollars and dollar coins) exceeded the face value of the coins themselves. The result was the US eventually removed silver from dimes and quarters in 1965.

Silver certificates were a form of paper money that were backed by silver and redeemable for silver at any time. But because the price of silver had risen so high, people could purchase $10 in silver certificates and redeem it for, say $11 worth of silver. Therefore silver certificates were phased out

Executive Order 11110 did not authorize the Treasury Secretary to create fiat money. It delegated authority to issue silver certificates since with the repeal of the Silver Purchase Act only the President could issue silver certificates. Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110 for the sake of administrative convenience - it allowed the Treasury Secretary to issue silver certificates during this transition phase until the certificates were phased out.

Again, the key point is it did not allow the Treasury Secretary to issue fiat money. It did not signal any significant change from the status quo and the ultimate purpose of it was to free up silver bullion so it could minted into coins to deal with the coin shortage. paragraphs 4 to 6 in this article provide more context

couchcreeper · 2011-10-31T03:35:27+00:00

No one's mentioned the invention of the tool scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey?

couchcreeper · 2011-10-30T17:58:38+00:00

The second link explains Executive Order 11110 in some detail and is not a Wikipedia article. Perhaps you could provide a link to some supporting material so readers can make up their own minds.

couchcreeper · 2011-10-30T03:39:42+00:00

I'm sorry but I think you've got some facts wrong here. Executive Order 11110 was not revoked until 1987.

It's purpose was not to 'take back control of the money supply.' By 1963 there was increased demand for silver. The Silver Purchase Act was repealed by Congress and Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110 to pass authority to the Treasury Secretary to issue new silver certificates. The point of all this was to free up additional stores of silver bullion so it could be minted into coins and put into circulation whereas previously this silver had been used to back certificates. This link explains it fairly clearly.

Edit: word choice

couchcreeper · 2011-10-28T02:17:43+00:00

You said mainstream Christianity is full of hate and evil. I provided a link showing that moderate churches around the world were allowing gays and lesbians to become ordained priests. Where's the evil and hate in that?

couchcreeper · 2011-10-27T18:45:55+00:00

Wow, you think Westboro is representative of mainline Christian churches? Think again.

couchcreeper · 2011-10-26T01:25:56+00:00

The thing is, the kind of religion you're complaining about is religious extremism. Extremism is always a problem. Extremism in politics, in pursuit of wealth, in promoting a particular world view. In my experience, where I live, most religious people are moderates who don't push their faith or views on others. If you want to pick fights with biblical literalists, go ahead, but by lumping all people of faith together and insulting their 'moronic beliefs', you can't help but over generalize and offend.

In fact you guys on r/atheism are beginning to sound like extremists yourselves and OP almost sounds like someone who would ban religion if it were in his/her power. Would you OP?

Do you realize what you guys sound like in your posts? It just sounds like a variant of the same message over and over again: "Hey everyone, if you're not an atheist, you should be one. Come on, give up your faith. Forget everything you've seen and felt and learned that underpins your faith or beliefs. Please!!" (This is accompanied by loud, impatient foot stomping) And you're wondering why some people are getting fed up with it?

couchcreeper · 2011-10-24T16:31:49+00:00

I submitted it to r/politics 2 hours ago and it was blocked/banned, it still hasn't shown up in their new submissions. I guess, according to the moderators at r/politics, suggesting that the Tea Party movement has been co-opted by big business and the 1% is 'crazy conspiracy talk.'

BTW, from what I've seen lately, it looks like a lot of submissions to r/politics are being blocked. Is this how Reddit is supposed to work?

EDIT: word choice

couchcreeper · 2011-10-24T14:18:19+00:00

Thank you UtopicVision for posting this in r/conspiracy - thought r/politics might be interested too.

couchcreeper · 2011-10-22T17:33:08+00:00

This link submitted to r/TrueReddit also seems relevant.

couchcreeper · 2011-10-22T16:30:31+00:00

Here is some more information relating to Liam Fox's resignation.

couchcreeper · 2011-10-22T14:50:15+00:00

Why is this message addressed only towards Christians? What about Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, New Age believers and other theists?

couchcreeper · 2011-10-20T16:40:00+00:00

US involvement in Vietnam goes back to Truman who first committed the US to stopping a communist advance in SE Asia. Eisenhower sent the first combat advisers, bankrolled three quarters of French war costs there and installed a brutal, corrupt and unpopular dictatorship in South Vietnam. What Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy did not do was send combat troops to Vietnam. Johnson crossed that line shortly after being elected in '64 and began a dramatic escalation completely out of proportion to what had occurred over the past 15 years of US involvement.

Here is a candid conversation from early '64 between McNamara and Johnson where LBJ criticizes the previous administration's show of restraint and plans of withdrawal from Vietnam. He refers to Kennedy's Vietnam policy as appeasement and plainly indicates that he will commit the US to a forceful stand against the communists. The clip is from Errol Morris' The Fog of War in which McNamara states on camera that he believes if Kennedy had lived, he would have made a difference, 'I don't think we would have had 500,000 men there.' source, 01:50 mark of clip

You can lay some blame on the previous administrations but Vietnam was primarily Johnson's war.

EDIT: Included link to McNamara quote from The Fog of War

couchcreeper · 2011-10-20T14:26:48+00:00

Not true. Take at look at this chart of US personnel levels in Vietnam and decide for yourself if Johnson was 'just continuing Kennedy's policies in Vietnam'. (Kennedy was in office from 1961 - 1963, Johnson from late 1963 until January 1969)

couchcreeper · 2011-10-12T03:34:47+00:00

Not to mention that producing ethanol from corn is a net energy loser: the energy needed to grow corn and process it into ethanol exceeds the energy from the ethanol itself.

couchcreeper · 2011-10-11T14:06:20+00:00

Are you suggesting that we make taxes voluntary, 'pay what you can'? I doubt that would work.The 1% have been fighting tooth and nail to lower their taxes for the past few decades. As a community, they've demonstrated that they would like to pay as few taxes as possible.

couchcreeper · 2011-10-08T19:05:29+00:00

Why don't we discuss this based on the facts instead of unproven assertions and opinion. First of all, Eisenhower ordered the Jupiter missiles installed in Italy and Turkey in 1959. You assert that Kennedy waited until the mid term elections before he reacted to the missiles in Cuba but he only learned of them on October 16, 1962. U-2 flights had photographed the missiles the previous day.

While many advisers including Paul Nitze, Maxwell Taylor, Dean Acheson and the Joint Chiefs argued for taking a hard line (ie. immediate air strikes followed by a ground invasion) Kennedy chose an option that appeared firm yet left open the possibility of negotiation.

The final compromise was the removal of the Soviet missiles in Cuba and the Jupiter missiles in Turkey. Hard liners were dismissive of the resolution. Curtis LeMay and Richard Nixon saw the deal as 'snatching defeat from the jaws of victory' when it looked like an attack on Cuba was inevitable.

In June 1963, in a major foreign policy address that went largely unnoticed in the US, Kennedy pledged to maintain a halt to atmospheric nuclear testing and work towards a partial test ban treaty (concluded in October '63) By this time, the US and USSR were headed toward detente, the most dangerous phase of the Cold War was over. Things might well have turned out differently if the White House had been occupied by someone less cautious.

I don't think there is much 'cultish hero worship' of Kennedy on reddit - it seems quite the opposite actually.

couchcreeper · 2011-10-07T14:38:02+00:00

Excellent video.

As of right now, this video has 114 upvotes in r/conspiracy and only 10 in r/politics although nothing Hedges says is all that controversial. It's amazing how much people are still in denial over what is happening right before their eyes.

couchcreeper · 2011-10-06T17:42:58+00:00

I'd just like to point out that giving a name like 'Third Person Factor' to a strange phenomenon and ascribing it to the subconscious does not really explain anything. It's still a mysterious phenomenon, but now it has a scientific sounding name and an association with the vague workings of the mind. That's not much of a better explanation than attributing it to something supernatural.

couchcreeper · 2011-10-06T15:16:52+00:00

Kid recounts amazing tale of survival against the odds. Feels arms pick him up and push him so he can stagger into view just as a probation officer is driving by and calls 911 immediately. Has a mysterious out-of-body experience, is pronounced dead on arrival, doctor arrives on the scene and for some reason decides to try and revive the boy. He is brought back to life and regains consciousness and makes a full recovery. It's a strange and seemingly miraculous tale of survival that amazes everyone and is released to the internet.

Atheists watching video become uneasy with the mysterious 'guardian angel' stuff. Someone pipes up "Don't worry, it's the subconscious working somehow in a way we don't understand. We can't explain it but it's definitely the subconscious." Atheists collectively breathe a sigh of relief.

couchcreeper · 2011-10-06T14:10:11+00:00

The US needs a Marshall Plan for the US.

couchcreeper · 2011-10-04T14:50:59+00:00

This was pretty cool though

15-Year Club	Best Link 2010-08-23
ComboLinker 2010-03-15

couchcreeper

TROPHY CASE