Privately he might do it out of pure vengeance at their uselessness in not implicating him in Watergate. Publicly he could use it as a way to salvage his legacy. Frame it as a frame-up orchestrated to prevent him from declassifying JFK assassination documents or launching a new investigation, or something.
What if Nixon had gone on live TV in 1974 and accused the CIA of killing JFK?
- Thread starter Strategos' Risk
- Start date
He had already appointed Gerald Ford, who was on the Warren Commission, as VP in 1973! So he would in effect be saying that his own choice for his successor participated in a cover-up of a conspiracy. Really, the only effect would be make Congress even more determined to impeach and convict him if he didn't resign. (And it would be harder for him to make the comeback as an "elder statesman" he did in OTL.)
Great point but he could say that he was manipulated or blackmailed into doing so if he was that hellbent on simply causing chaos. But yes in the end it would just show his true colors as a hypocrite and a selfish cynic who does not care for the consequences of his actions even more than OTL.
To be fair he was "re-habilitated" to an extent in beltway circles by the time of his death. If he tries this he can kiss that goodbye.
At the least maybe some of the bad things that he did in OTL like normalizing relations with China and part sof the War on Drugs can be reversed by the following administration, since it was, well Nixon who did it, and here Nixion may as well be synonomus with the Devil.
Probably, either by the F.B.I/C.I.A because they blow their cover, or if the conspiracy is just a conspiracy, by some disgruntled hippie or former agent
Last edited:
Unlikely, there was enough institutional inertia behind both to keep them intact.
Here's a thought, maybe with more attention being paid to the CIA and FBI Frank Church gets a massive boost in name recognition and popularity. He could well ride that to a 1976 win.
The real thing that hurt Church in 76 was he was too busy investigating the feds to enter the democratic primary until it was too late. Probably means an earlier church committee though so that could really help him out
This will open a lot of cans of worms. Nixon would be in a worse situation that he already is after Watergate.
When did this forum become a hotbed for QAnon? If you think the CIA killed JFK, I've got a bridge to sell you.
That's the scenario Hale, Validvostok as pointed out by the OP.
In that scenario alternate history conspiracy political thriller, it was mentioned that rogue operatives were responsible for it. The author of HV added the twist that Hale Bogg's disappearance is attributed to that, but in OTL there is no evidence of the JFK assassination connection. Boggs has been declared dead because his body was never found. However in that story, Boggs survives the plane crash and goes into hiding in the Soviet Far East up until December 1991.
I know and like that story. But this thread doesn't talk about ATL history but OTL history. And I'm really concerned to see people unironically thinking JFK got murdered by the "Deep State" because he "would have exposed them" (who is "them" you ask? Pick your guess: Communists, Freemasons, LBJ, or the classic "It's the Jews!!!").
The vast majority of Americans believe there was a conspiracy, so it shouldn't be too surprising that members here wouldn't support the lone gunman explanation.
Poll: Most Believe 'Cover-Up' of JFK Assassination Facts
Poll: A majority of the public believes the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was part of a larger conspiracy, not the act of one individual
www.foxnews.com
Ah right, gotcha there.
So going back, if Nixon decides to go public, it opens a can of worms. A lot of cans in fact. Nobody would trust the federal government at this point.
The Soviets would take advantage of this chaos.
This also reminds me of the assassination of Ninoy Aquino on August 21, 1983. To this day, it has not been solved and the alleged gunman was a fall guy. Fingers were pointed at Ferdinand Marcos Sr., the dictator of the Philippines at that time, but others argue Marcos would not have been stupid because that would cause his downfall, which happened in 1986.The vast majority of Americans believe there was a conspiracy, so it shouldn't be too surprising that members here wouldn't support the lone gunman explanation.
Poll: Most Believe 'Cover-Up' of JFK Assassination Facts
Poll: A majority of the public believes the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was part of a larger conspiracy, not the act of one individual
Another explanation was the gunman was acting on his own but not under the orders of Marcos Sr.
Stuff like these make interesting alternate history conspiracy thrillers.
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
I like how circular it is. People believe there’s a conspiracy theory because lots of people believe there’s a conspiracy, but no one can articulate beyond that. Goes to show why we ban conspiracy theories on this site.The vast majority of Americans believe there was a conspiracy, so it shouldn't be too surprising that members here wouldn't support the lone gunman explanation.
Poll: Most Believe 'Cover-Up' of JFK Assassination Facts
Poll: A majority of the public believes the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was part of a larger conspiracy, not the act of one individual
This was not the old normal. Nixon would not have done this. Also, there's no evidence Nixon believed this. There's a lot of thought in conspiracy circles around Nixon's mentioning the "Bay of Pigs" issue in recordings. Nixon was not trying to uncover a deep state involvement in a massive conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Nixon was trying to uncover evidence JFK screwed up the Bay of Pigs invasion and overall was a screw up in order to undermine Kennedy's legacy for political purposes.
The conspiracy thinking acts of a number of psychological levels. My response won't cover all of them. On one hand, it's a vestigial hold over from the era of Big Good Government. It's the idea that the government is effective and can do anything but taken to a dark, malicious direction. That lingers into today so even people that think government is too incompetent to handle the basic affairs of society and state also think there's a dire cabal of actors and agencies with total power and influence. Essentially, they are too incompetent to fix a pothole but can mind control you and not get caught.
On the other hand, born out of a sense of Big Government to some degree also born out of human needs, it's a matter of placing the world in order and patterns, making it able to be known and therefore making it manageable and to some degree safe. If Kennedy isn't killed by an orchestrated plot that was planned and outlined and where the outcomes were planned and orchestrated, what that means is that the world is impermanence. That means that you and I and the sense of "us" is subject to forces of happenstance, uncertainty and randomness. It means that the tapestry of relationships and consequences is vastly more complex than we can conceive and predict. It means that tapestry is not active, planned and controlled but passive, unplanned and uncontrollable beyond a limited level that can only manage what is within it's power to. It means that chaos only takes one major disruption and can happen at any times. It means we are not masters of fate. We are subject to it. When that is good, it is a happy accident. When it is bad, we are victims. We are the observers, the listeners and the reactors.
There is no man behind the curtain. That's just a breeze blowing because someone forgot to close the window. What happened on November 22, 1963? A man was killed because power and position don't matter to mortality. He was killed by a mentally ill man in his early 20s who grew up in an abusive upbringing and developed a narcissistic need to feel important and provocative to get attention. This was a man who was never loved and wanted to be famous or at least infamous. He developed a righteousness for himself in the form of ideology, which he adopted to feel important. He regarded being provocative as just someone else's problem. And he took his training as a sniper and all his psychology, got in a window at a place he worked because he was going to kill someone (he tried and failed before and he had other targets in mind before Kennedy) and this would be the time and place. And he killed a famous person to be important.
There were many more people like Oswald out there at the time. There still are those types of people today. Some have the chance to do evil. Some do not. It's happenstance in either case. The world is good and bad and we are observers, actors and reactors in it.
The conspiracy thinking acts of a number of psychological levels. My response won't cover all of them. On one hand, it's a vestigial hold over from the era of Big Good Government. It's the idea that the government is effective and can do anything but taken to a dark, malicious direction. That lingers into today so even people that think government is too incompetent to handle the basic affairs of society and state also think there's a dire cabal of actors and agencies with total power and influence. Essentially, they are too incompetent to fix a pothole but can mind control you and not get caught.
On the other hand, born out of a sense of Big Government to some degree also born out of human needs, it's a matter of placing the world in order and patterns, making it able to be known and therefore making it manageable and to some degree safe. If Kennedy isn't killed by an orchestrated plot that was planned and outlined and where the outcomes were planned and orchestrated, what that means is that the world is impermanence. That means that you and I and the sense of "us" is subject to forces of happenstance, uncertainty and randomness. It means that the tapestry of relationships and consequences is vastly more complex than we can conceive and predict. It means that tapestry is not active, planned and controlled but passive, unplanned and uncontrollable beyond a limited level that can only manage what is within it's power to. It means that chaos only takes one major disruption and can happen at any times. It means we are not masters of fate. We are subject to it. When that is good, it is a happy accident. When it is bad, we are victims. We are the observers, the listeners and the reactors.
There is no man behind the curtain. That's just a breeze blowing because someone forgot to close the window. What happened on November 22, 1963? A man was killed because power and position don't matter to mortality. He was killed by a mentally ill man in his early 20s who grew up in an abusive upbringing and developed a narcissistic need to feel important and provocative to get attention. This was a man who was never loved and wanted to be famous or at least infamous. He developed a righteousness for himself in the form of ideology, which he adopted to feel important. He regarded being provocative as just someone else's problem. And he took his training as a sniper and all his psychology, got in a window at a place he worked because he was going to kill someone (he tried and failed before and he had other targets in mind before Kennedy) and this would be the time and place. And he killed a famous person to be important.
There were many more people like Oswald out there at the time. There still are those types of people today. Some have the chance to do evil. Some do not. It's happenstance in either case. The world is good and bad and we are observers, actors and reactors in it.
Last edited:
It doesn't matter whether if he believed in it or not. It's about whether if he would use a Samson option to sabotage all of the agencies around him, to self-destruct on the way out and pursue vengeance against the agency who failed him. The veracity of the theories do not matter, any more if Qanon is true or not.
What matters is in how people respond to them, what are the political consequences, what is the cultural and social fallout from prominent members of society, no less the POTUS, endorsing such conspiracy theories. Like I said in the OP, even if no one believes him, surely it should be sobering to the entire electorate that they somehow elevated a crazy man into the White House? Surely there should be consequences for such an event?
On the flip side, as I said, perhaps he could have blamed it on the FBI. There are some FBI killed JFK theories as well, sure.
What matters is in how people respond to them, what are the political consequences, what is the cultural and social fallout from prominent members of society, no less the POTUS, endorsing such conspiracy theories. Like I said in the OP, even if no one believes him, surely it should be sobering to the entire electorate that they somehow elevated a crazy man into the White House? Surely there should be consequences for such an event?
On the flip side, as I said, perhaps he could have blamed it on the FBI. There are some FBI killed JFK theories as well, sure.