Not horrible......until you get over 50 mph, and it shimmies bad over 80.
Been doing 80 again, Frida?
This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
Not horrible......until you get over 50 mph, and it shimmies bad over 80.
. Nice......8 out of 10!Been doing 80 again, Frida?
. Nice......8 out of 10!
You might also add the death of Marilyn Monroe into this mix. There is a conspiracy theory that she was murdered by the mafia. She apparently had had (or was having) affairs with both John and Bobby Kennedy (both Kennedy brothers were out to break the power of the mafia and also of the FBI). The FBI knew of the affairs and had her phone tapped. The first person to show up at her house after she was dead was Peter Lawford (he was part of the 'Rat Pack' and had ties with the mafia). He made a phone call to someone with in minutes of arriving and all he said was 'She's gone.' and hung up. By killing off a mega star like Marilyn they (mafia or FBI) sent a clear message to the Kennedy brothers that they could do it and get away with it and that the Kennedy brothers could be next, if they didn't stop their pursuit of breaking the mafia and FBI. As history shows (if this theory is correct), they did do it, as both brothers were murdered, and got away with it.The known facts of the case have convinced me it wasn't just a Lone Gunman. My money is on the military-industrial complex, but it could have been the maffia, Cuba, Soviets, or any combination thereof.
It's not so much a conspiracy as an inevitability of history. JFK upset the establishment too much. He would have been stopped one way or the other. This is why WW1 would have happened, one way or the other, stopping Prinzip would not have prevented WW1.
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
The big plothole is of course the effects of a reset button. To know for sure if Oswald was the killer, Jake could have killed Oswald in 1958, gone back to 2011 to see if Kennedy survived or not. If he hadn't, Oswald would not have been the killer, and he would have had to go back to 1958 which would have reset Oswald into life again. That might even have prevented him from becoming a patsy, saving Oswalds life. And then he would have had to wait for the real killers to show up.
This doesn't get mentioned a lot by reviewers, only some boards discuss this like the Guardian and Reddit.
Preventing the attack would have been easy with a modern fake IED, (to spook the Secret Service) that would explode BEFORE Dealy Plaza, at a point where the motor cade could still turn.
But sure, then we wouldn't have a 800 page novel, so I guess that's motivation to ignore the plothole right there.
Don't get me wrong, it's a pretty good novel, even if it was a little saccharine at times. Especially when it came to small towns.
[blockquote]It's noted in the book that Jake couldn't kill Oswald outright until he knew he was acting on his own. If he had killed Oswald early, and he was part of a group, they could have just used another killer.[/blockquote]
Don't see how that changes anything. The reset is still in effect. Plus, King offers us a binary choice: it's either Oswald or a "conspiracy" which King tries to ridicule.
Lets say JFK still gets murdered, then we know that all detective work should look at other people, not Oswald. But King is a bit lazy to fully work out alternatives, perhaps because there is a ton of material on every little move Oswald made, but not on alternatives.
And lots of pills.
Maybe something happened in the edit process. Like the Stand was cut way down.
Well good to be back thought I might make sure it was still hereHi Ash! Good to see you back.
U know it took forever to write that because I am trying all this out with a phoneAlthough JFK was before my time I do know one thing 11/22/63 was a work of fiction not a biography. I am sure Stephen King spent a heck of a lot of time figuring out which way to run with it. Or possibly no time at all because the story wrote itself in his mind and even he was surprised by it. But I think it was a lose lose or win win situation no matter what way he went with it. He could have came to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy with multiple gunman and many would disagree as they will disagree with the lone gunmen. This is one of the principle factors in what makes the JFK assassination so haunting and unforgettable. In my opinion he did I good job of bringing up those feelings because here we are discussising the event again years and years later. My guess is this had a great impact on him and he did his best to capture every angle he could to make us feel something. But at the same time he had to reach a reasonable conclusion. Because JFK did not live. So how could we connect with the story if he did. At the same time throughout the story we are hoping for a savior to 're write history. But we got to be careful because changing history effects the outcome of the future it has to. So with all that said I think the book was written quite well. For literature to combine fact with fiction in an event such as this there will always be unsatisfied readers. It is like you are being forced to face the truth and being asked to let go of reality at the same time.
Posting from a Samsung Galaxy S3 also sucks - I tried it this afternoon for about 30 minutes or so and yes, it is a giant PITA.U know it took forever to write that because I am trying all this out with a phone
I had to finally join the crowd and get a cell phone. Its a pain
Hi! Regarding the plothole your absolutely right but here is my take on it.SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
The big plothole is of course the effects of a reset button. To know for sure if Oswald was the killer, Jake could have killed Oswald in 1958, gone back to 2011 to see if Kennedy survived or not. If he hadn't, Oswald would not have been the killer, and he would have had to go back to 1958 which would have reset Oswald into life again. That might even have prevented him from becoming a patsy, saving Oswalds life. And then he would have had to wait for the real killers to show up.
This doesn't get mentioned a lot by reviewers, only some boards discuss this like the Guardian and Reddit.
Preventing the attack would have been easy with a modern fake IED, (to spook the Secret Service) that would explode BEFORE Dealy Plaza, at a point where the motor cade could still turn.
But sure, then we wouldn't have a 800 page novel, so I guess that's motivation to ignore the plothole right there.
Don't get me wrong, it's a pretty good novel, even if it was a little saccharine at times. Especially when it came to small towns.
[blockquote]It's noted in the book that Jake couldn't kill Oswald outright until he knew he was acting on his own. If he had killed Oswald early, and he was part of a group, they could have just used another killer.[/blockquote]
Don't see how that changes anything. The reset is still in effect. Plus, King offers us a binary choice: it's either Oswald or a "conspiracy" which King tries to ridicule.
Lets say JFK still gets murdered, then we know that all detective work should look at other people, not Oswald. But King is a bit lazy to fully work out alternatives, perhaps because there is a ton of material on every little move Oswald made, but not on alternatives.
That's what I have. My camera is very substandard. Do you like your camera?Posting from a Samsung Galaxy S3 also sucks - I tried it this afternoon for about 30 minutes or so and yes, it is a giant PITA.
Sure - but also the majority of Americans think that the world is only 6,000 years old!!Aside from the plot hole, Kings certainty that it is Oswald is odd for several reasons:
- majorities of Americans think there was some conspiracy and reject the Lone Gunman Theory
- The Magic Bullet Speculation. And yes, I've seen the youtube docus that say seven bullet holes with one bullet is possible. I don't buy it.
- The undamaged bullet on the gurney.
- Oswald was never a skilled shooter, and that MC gun is not a good weapon.
- All the potential witnesses dying mysteriously.
Lesser reasons:
- The New Zeeland thing
- The photoshopped photo
Also, there is the simple fact that big things usually are effected by large powerful groups, not by individuals.
and so on.
- World War 1 would have happened even without the assassination in Sarajevo.
- Hitler would have lost no matter what, because of supply lines and because he was simply outnumbered.
- The civil war was 22 million against 7 million, with most or all of the warindustrial advantages to the North.
The Warren commission seems biased, their goal was to not rock the boat. If they had said: We think sections of the Army/CIA have done this, there'd been a new Civil War.
But saying that a killer is "crazy" is the usual excuse. This is said about Sirhan Sirhan, and about Dylan Roof. Both have or had excellent motives for their assassinations other than "crazy"