The first JFK myth

What disgusting revisionism.

A caracter assassination of a hero that comes without a stred of evidence to support it.

What piece of shit one needs to be to play that game.





It happens all the time from both sides. Witness the attempt to smear Patton.

What fucking differnce does that make?

Does the fact that revisionism exists on both sides of a debate make the revisionism any less wrong?





Not at all. I just wanted to make it clear that both sides do it and it is wrong in both cases.
 
The Day of Battle: The War in Sicily and Italy, 1943-1944 - Rick Atkinson - Google Books

103409682.jpg





It's a repeat of what has allready been posted or did you not bother to read it. Repeating the exact same thing multiple times is not multiple sources, you do realise that right?

This is a different source. It is from Pulitzer Prize author Rick Atkinson, The Day of Battle: The War in Sicily and Italy, 1943-1944

The first was James Weingartner, Massacre at Biscari: Patton and An American War Crime, The Historian LII

The only 'exact same thing' is from Patton's journal.




He's quoting the exact same source as the first one. Thus nothing new is presented. Many, many history books are written this way. thta's how misinformation becomes fact, no one ever bothers to go back and check the original sources. Just like this person did. he used the same source material as the others did. We DON'T KNOW if the original material is any good.

That is my point.
 
It's a repeat of what has allready been posted or did you not bother to read it. Repeating the exact same thing multiple times is not multiple sources, you do realise that right?

This is a different source. It is from Pulitzer Prize author Rick Atkinson, The Day of Battle: The War in Sicily and Italy, 1943-1944

The first was James Weingartner, Massacre at Biscari: Patton and An American War Crime, The Historian LII

The only 'exact same thing' is from Patton's journal.




He's quoting the exact same source as the first one. Thus nothing new is presented. Many, many history books are written this way. thta's how misinformation becomes fact, no one ever bothers to go back and check the original sources. Just like this person did. he used the same source material as the others did. We DON'T KNOW if the original material is any good.

That is my point.

Again...Patton kept a journal or diary, so his journal entries would and SHOULD be identical in both books. WTF do you want, two different diaries??? You are making no sense.
 
This is a different source. It is from Pulitzer Prize author Rick Atkinson, The Day of Battle: The War in Sicily and Italy, 1943-1944

The first was James Weingartner, Massacre at Biscari: Patton and An American War Crime, The Historian LII

The only 'exact same thing' is from Patton's journal.




He's quoting the exact same source as the first one. Thus nothing new is presented. Many, many history books are written this way. thta's how misinformation becomes fact, no one ever bothers to go back and check the original sources. Just like this person did. he used the same source material as the others did. We DON'T KNOW if the original material is any good.

That is my point.

Again...Patton kept a journal or diary, so his journal entries would and SHOULD be identical in both books. WTF do you want, two different diaries??? You are making no sense.




Yes he did, but there is no further investigation into why the punishments were so lenient. Was there no real evidence? Remember we have several soldiers accused of a heinous crime in Afghanistan (or Iraq I don't recall at the moment)and so far all have been found innocent. So it is common for assertions to be made that have no founding in fact or are impossible to prove.

Over 400 American soldiers were executed during WWII for crimes such as this (or much less) so to claim some major coverup to protect Patton makes no sense at all. Patton was reviled by many so that once again lacks support. Further his extreme care to make sure that the rules of war were being followed is well documented elsewhere and by many sources.

You need to come up with a lot more to support your and the authors contention.
 
Hundreds of Navy heroes survived shipwreck but they only made a movie out of one. JFK became a media star because his father was the former ambassador to England and the Kennedy family had powerful friends in politics, the media and Hollywood.
 
Hundreds of Navy heroes survived shipwreck but they only made a movie out of one. JFK became a media star because his father was the former ambassador to England and the Kennedy family had powerful friends in politics, the media and Hollywood.

And hundreds on Navy heroes didn't become Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America. Just ONE did.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy was the 35th President of the United States of America. He served from January 20, 1961 to November 22, 1963.

The book; PT 109: John F. Kennedy in World War II was published in 1961. The film PT-109 was released June 19, 1963.
 
Last edited:
Hundreds of Navy heroes survived shipwreck but they only made a movie out of one. JFK became a media star because his father was the former ambassador to England and the Kennedy family had powerful friends in politics, the media and Hollywood.

And hundreds on Navy heroes didn't become Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America. Just ONE did.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy was the 35th President of the United States of America. He served from January 20, 1961 to November 22, 1963.

The book; PT 109: John F. Kennedy in World War II was published in 1961. The film PT-109 was released June 19, 1963.

You are right, one did. Not because he was a hero but because his daddy created the money, the influence and covered sonny boy's ass for his entire adult life.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top