General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA short post for the conspiracy naysayers.
You don't believe a word of one, two, or any of the various theories out there. Fine. As a CT believer for the entire fifty years since the occurrence, I could not be happier that you are all so resolute in your opinions. I sincerely mean that. Certainty is a wonderful thing, I must say.
I have only one question: why are you so angry at us for suggesting that which even Lyndon Johnson did when he impugned the Warren Report as it was handed to him ceremonially. Why the vituperation? Why the ridicule? Why the demeaning?
In my humble opinion, and I am humble in this regard at least, it is neither an exercise in intellectualism nor in realpolitik to dismiss an argument out of hand. The statement that there is no credible evidence to the contrary of the Official Version 1.0 is simply a falsehood. There may be contrary evidence, there may be evidence which is shown to be false or misinterpreted, but that it was not 'credible' is not reasonable. In a debate, one may have a civil discussion, and, as the cliche goes, agree to disagree.
I for one am not angry at those who accept the Warren Report as Gospel. I shrug my shoulders and discuss, but I do not hate. I attempt to posit logical arguments and am willing to listen. Most of us are. It is just that when it is reported that Ruby shot Oswald because he did not want Jackie to have to endure the rigors of a trial, well, it just doesn't quite ring true for me. But I'll be pleased to consider that his empathy for the Kennedys overcame his desire to live out his existence outside of a jail cell or a gas chamber.
Anyway, good luck to all of you. May you be so certain and in addition, so absolutely correct about everything else in your, and everyone else's, existence.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
spanone
(135,802 posts)
k & r
Ninga
(8,274 posts)Be able to make sense of everything that has happened politically since......
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)That isn't a perfect method, but it is better than simply saying "gosh how can we ever know anything?"
We know that the CIA went on to do all sorts of assassinations and government overthrows, and most of them were never revealed any more clearly than the JFK story. We know that the whole enterprise of the "black budget government" has gone on to become a vast operation completely out of control. Is there a connection between Snowden and JFK? Most certainly on some level.
We know that several of JFKs political enemies, most notably Nixon and the whole cadre that surrounded GHW Bush, went on to acquire vast amounts of power. Was this a direct result of offing Kennedy? We can't say that, but is it foolish for anybody to assume there are no connections.
And so on...
None of that gets us to a "smoking gun" level of certainty. But it certainly informs us as to how much trust we should put into what appeared from the very first day to be a whitewash job by the Warren Commission.
Only a fool assumes that the darker side of our government is naturally inclined to behave itself.
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,076 posts)... what BlueStreak said.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Excellent post!
Raksha
(7,167 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 23, 2013, 06:39 PM - Edit history (1)
and by asking in each instance, Cui bono? (Who benefits?) And that isn't a matter of conspiracy theory or conjecture, but of historical record. You are correct that Nixon benefited until he overreached himself, and the Bush family as well. But most of all the shadow government, with the CIA at its epicenter, became an even more daunting out-of-control monster than it is now--and it was already out of control 50 years ago, as Eisenhower, Truman and Kennedy all realized.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)I would have to see more evidence that Johnson had a personal involvement, but nobody should be surprised if that were the case. He was ruthless and ambitious enough to do that.
Kennedy had lots of enemies. There were a lot of people in the "dark establishment", if you will, that saw Kennedy as a real threat.
We know for certain that J Edgar Hoover viewed himself as above the President. He had no problem maintaining dossiers on everybody -- and using them if he felt challenged.
We have a very good picture of what the CIA/NSA grew up to be. Did it help them get what they wanted by having politicians believe that if they didn't cooperate they could be end up like JFK?
And that doesn't even scratch the surface of international affairs. Certainly Russia and Cuba could benefit from Kennedy's death.
Motives? Yeah. There were plenty.
It seems the only two actors in this play that DIDN'T have any real motive were Oswald and Ruby -- the exact two people that the Warren Commission fingered for everything. All those people with real motives? Nah. They didn't do anything.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)even though it's known that he hated Kennedy. You are right that we'd need more evidence of his direct involvement, but I wouldn't be surprised either.
Re "Kennedy had lots of enemies. There were a lot of people in the "dark establishment", if you will, that saw Kennedy as a real threat."
They saw Kennedy as a threat for a very good reason: He was an existential threat to the "dark establishment" and they knew it. At the height of the Cold War, JFK was involved in a secret correspondence with Khrushchev that would have ended the Cold War 25 years early, started nuclear disarmament negotiations and put the War Machine out of business.
This has recently been confirmed in an excellent article by his nephew, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. It originally appeared in this month's issue of Rolling Stone and reprinted by Reader Supported News.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/20543-john-f-kennedys-vision-of-peace
It's called "John F. Kennedy's Vision of Peace." Please read it if you haven't already. It's quite long but very much worth the time invested, especially considering the high credibility of the source. In fact, I'm surprised someone hasn't turned it into an OP already. Maybe someone did but somehow I missed it.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)It is amazing to me how many people there are at this site who evidently have no idea of just how dangerously Kennedy was living.
The idea of Oswald doing this with no motive whatsoever is almost silly when there were so many with really intense motives, and some of them had the means and opportunity as well.
Hell, just look at who was on the Warren Commission. Was there a single Kennedy supporter on that entire panel?
Raksha
(7,167 posts)Re "The idea of Oswald doing this with no motive whatsoever is almost silly when there were so many with really intense motives, and some of them had the means and opportunity as well."
That's something the naysayers consistently forget to mention, or forget to think about anyway.
y
Re Hell, just look at who was on the Warren Commission. Was there a single Kennedy supporter on that entire panel?
I honestly don't know one way or the other. I've never thought about it before, but I assume you're saying there weren't any.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)I can't find any single source that digs into the allegiances. One thing that may be really surprising, especially to those who so vocally support the Warren theory of events is that the "commission" per se actually consisted of only 7 members. There was a lot of staff, but the panel was small.
Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the United States (chairman) (1891–1974)
Richard Russell, Jr. (D-Georgia), U.S. Senator, (1897–1971)
John Sherman Cooper (R-Kentucky), U.S. Senator (1901–1991)
Hale Boggs (D-Louisiana), U.S. Representative, House Majority Leader (1914–1973)
Gerald Ford (R-Michigan), U.S. Representative (later 38th President of the United States), House Minority Leader (1913-2006)
Allen Welsh Dulles, former Director of Central Intelligence and head of the Central Intelligence Agency (1893–1969)
John J. McCloy, former President of the World Bank (1895–1989)
I think we can be sure that Dulles would protect the CIA. And I note that the Democrats were both from Southern states. We know that Ford worked to override the autopsy findings of the shoulder wound in order to try to make the "magic bullet" work, so we can put him in the anti-Kennedy camp. I don't know about Warren himself. But everybody else I see on that commission was likely to be quite anti-Kennedy and pro-establishment.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)why do you think Oswald had no motive? I thought that he was very pro-Cuba and pro-USSR and had expressed an interest in defending the Cuban revolution and such.
DiverDave
(4,886 posts)I was really tired last night and just finished it.
A remarkable piece of writing.
I never knew the lengths the cia and mic went to keep the gravy train rolling.
THEY killed him...It WAS a coup de'tat.
And The idiot mouthpiece got to crow that HE destroyed the USSR
When JFK was well on the way to peace without so much misery that we have all the way to today.
The fuckers.
Rex
(65,616 posts)nt.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)As one who has changed her mind within the last 5 years, it makes me uncomfortable to be painted with such a broad brush.
It becomes a "with us or against us" attitude. I'm finding that a lot here now, on DU2013...on a variety of topics.
Please rethink your thought that all of us who believe that Oswald acted alone are somehow "angry" with you. It does not bother me that there are those who still wonder. What does bother me is that label.
Thank you.
arthritisR_US
(7,286 posts)gunman theory are so offended with the label "angry" and yet are so insensitive to the label of "CT'ers and tinfoil hatters" that they broad brush those who do not buy into the Warren Commission 
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)It's respect. Something that both sides appear to lack sometimes.
arthritisR_US
(7,286 posts)below wherein the poster accused the OP of passive aggressiveness and failed to realize the passive aggressiveness of their own post 
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)with that.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
DiverDave
(4,886 posts)and why are there any cops...
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)... who operate with empty assertion and bullying and ad hominem attacks.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)has in mind. I've never seen you insult others who have a different opinion. For what it's worth.
But there is a contingency here, and everywhere, who use every demeaning tactic they can to denigrate those who have doubts about what we have been told.
My position is the opposite of yours. I DID believe the 'lone gunman' theory for a long time until I started to see the huge pushback against even discussing this historical event. The excuses on many forums as to why it needed to be taken out of the mainstream etc. THEN I began to wonder, and to read a little and I learned things I did not know. Most of all it was the intensity of the Deniers to try to stop any discussion, that influenced me the most.
Whenever I get a feeling that someone is trying to silence people, I wonder why and then I start to get interested enough to do some research.
But you are not among those who caused me to rethink my initial acceptance of the 'official story'.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)When someone says, "Shut up and do not question." My ears perk up.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)it's just that for 45 years I couldn't deal emotionally with the implications of the Kennedy assassination. I smelled a great big stinky rat from the moment that Jack Ruby killed Oswald, which I also witnessed on a black-and-white 1960s era TV. I knew from that moment there was much more than met the eye, but as I said I couldn't handle it.
So I stayed on the sidelines and let others speculate and connect the dots. I read the occasional article and DU post about the Kennedy assassination, but I have yet to read a book about it. When I do, it will be the one recommended in RFK Jr.'s recent Rolling Stone article: "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why he Died and Why It Matters" by Jim Douglass.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Anger is actually something I rarely feel. It is a blessing. While the Warren Report might not be 100% accurate, I overall agree with it. Doesn't bother me in the least that you and others don't. Shit, one day you might prove me wrong. That is another thing I don't get angry about. Being proven wrong is nothing but a learning experience.
PCIntern
(25,513 posts)have you read some of the other posts around here lately?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It seems as though there is some animosity towards people on each side of the debate. It really does seem to come from both sides. I don't want that to be made into a blanket statement. It is only from some. It causes even further division. There has been so much vetting done on this topic that people know where they stand. After this long people are pretty entrenched in their beliefs. They simply believe the other side doesn't understand. While I believe the overall outcome of the Warren Report, I fully understand that there is enough information out there to question it. There are some conspiracy theories that aren't way out there. They are understandable. The assassination of a President is huge and the topic should not be scoffed at.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)I too think Osawald acted alone. A lone nut shot the president and was himself killed by a lone nut with a gun. The WC report did contain enough ass covering of other things to give rise to CTs.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)What was the connection there?
http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/10/14/bush-and-the-jfk-hit-part-5-the-mysterious-mr-de-mohrenschildt/
I haven't read de Mohrenschildt's testimony on his association with the assassination but I hope to this weekend.
I'm genuinely interested. I think that too much focus is placed on whether Oswald shot Kennedy and too little on Oswald's associations and behavior. Was he really someone's "patsy" or employee or agent? I don't know that my question has been adequately answered.
I see the assassination of Kennedy as the point at which the US media and people in general (with the exception of a minority of liberals) turned rightward and left the FDR legacy behind.
Johnson was great on civil rights and Medicare among other issues. But he fought an upward and difficult battle to keep up the liberal trend that he inherited from Kennedy (and even Eisenhower).
I think that those who question the official explanations about the Kennedy assassination are trying to understand how a liberal, freedom-loving country became so conservative so rapidly after that event.
How is it possible that eight years after rejecting Nixon and five years after Kennedy's death, the American people elected Nixon and all his corruption and cheating and spying and paranoia? In my opinion, that is the question that troubles those who question the official explanations for the assassination of Kennedy.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Raksha
(7,167 posts)and the longtime connections between his family and the Bush family. I was so impressed that I signed up to receive updates from the website Who, What & Why. I'm on too many email lists already, but that one is truly a class act.
Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)in your opinion, what did overcome Jack Rubys "desire to live out his existence outside of a jail cell or a gas chamber"?
I assume you think it was something clearly rational?
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Ruby had mob connections and was the Cleaner. See Pulp Fiction if you don't know the term.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)would shatter SOME (I didn't say all or most) people's belief that there is order in the world.
When some people come face to face with "If they lied about _____, what else are they lying about?" If they lied about killing JFK, maybe they faked the moon landing, lied about who killed MLK, Malcolm X, John Lennon..., caused 9/11, murdered thousands of the world's citizens for no good reason..... All of this spiraling away so that what the person no longer believes anything the government tells them. So, to maintain the faith in the government and the American Way of Life, certain lies must be told to keep the peace.
People react differently to discovering new truths. Some freak out and others take it all in stride.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)You'd be hard-pressed to find a single adult in this country who does not think the government is lying to them about something.
So, maybe they don't believe because there's no evidence. Or, even more to the point, they understand what evidence is and how it works in relation to propositions. Maybe they understand that the perceived impossibility of one claim (Oswald acted alone) is not evidence of another (there were multiple shooters).
The great part about that, though, is that if you give them verifiable evidence, they change their minds. I've never met a "believer" possessed of such mental agility, that's for sure.
Paladin
(28,246 posts)Fifty years of overheated speculation, blurry photos, deceased sources, second-rate movies, and the absence of any solid proof, turned me into one. Believe what you wish, it makes absolutely no difference to me.
PCIntern
(25,513 posts)and I appreciate the second sentence...
RobinA
(9,886 posts)I was agnostic until I met a rabid CTer. So I asked him to suggest some of the better CT books. I read three and they were the most poorly reasoned excuses for an argument I ever encountered. This was in the early '90s. My reaction was that 30 years later THIS was all they could come up with? I realize that no evidence does not prove that nothing happened, but it just seems to me that if something was going on, chances are something solid would have emerged in the way of evidence.
Paladin
(28,246 posts)
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)It's so much crisper than the evening variety. Like mountain air, or whatever.
PCIntern
(25,513 posts)I mean what I say. I have been angry about other things myself around here. This ain't it. Sorry to disappoint, but name-calling doesn't do it for me, especially from an amateur.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)just radiates genuine bridge-building and peacemaking. I haven't seen anything more sneering here in a good while, actually.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)I believe there is room for those who believe in a conspiracy and those who don't, and I don't resort to calling those I disagree with angry. You then ended your post with what appears to be a rather snarky comment.
You skipped over my post up top, but it is an unfair broadbrush generalization you have made here.
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)You mean because of "Union Thug"? That's a pro-union group on FB and I suppose their embracing the term is snarky, though I'd call it more defiant.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)The prosperity we enjoyed in the late 20th Century was a historical aberration.
It existed mostly because of the labor movement. Another reason for the high standard of living during the late 20th Century was that our government felt the need to prove capitalism superior to the "red menace". At no other time in history were there living standards approaching that level for "ordinary" people.
Expect American living standards to decline rapidly without a strong labor movement. In fact it is happening right before our eyes.
polichick
(37,152 posts)People are afraid of conspiracies because it means there's even more evil than they thought.
RobinA
(9,886 posts)
polichick
(37,152 posts)one of those people who has a visceral and knee-jerk reaction to anything that could be a conspiracy. Never mind that the dots might add up. Never mind what Congressional hearings might point to. Conspiracies are just too scary for you so you hide behind silly emoticons instead of offering an intellectual response.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I go back and forth on this event, which happened before I was born.
I don't get the vituperation from the lone gunman side.
The posters with alternative theories are people I genuinely like and are never nasty, even when I don't agree with them.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)And the dismissal of arguments out of hand? That's a conspiracy theorist thing as well. You know why it is? Because the evidence all says that Oswald did it. That's the rational conclusion that one reaches when one considers that: ballistics show that the bullets that struck Kennedy and Connally were fired from behind; they were fired from Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons. Oswald's rifle that was found with three spent shell casings on the sixth floor of the TSBD. The same TSBD a majority of witnesses in Dealey Plaza heard the shots coming from, and where multiple witnesses saw the rifle in the window. Oswald was the only TSBD employee to leave the building before it was sealed by police. He shot and killed a police officer. He was seen by multiple witnesses fleeing the scene; shell casings and a bullet recovered from the body were matched to his revolver.
The statement that there is no credible evidence to contradict the findings of the Warren Commission is 100% correct. Because there is no credible evidence. There are no other shots. No other shooters. No other weapons. No shots from in front. No shots from the Grassy Knoll. There is conjecture, there is supposition, there is ignorance of physics and acoustics and ballistics and the behaviour of bodies when shot, there is credulity at believing the most patently absurd things (for instance, that JFK's body was altered before his autopsy) and incredulity at the most obvious (that Oswald was actually a decent enough marksman to make what wasn't a very hard shot, at all).
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The only way to keep a conspiracy secret is to have a conspiracy of one.
Every time you add another person to the conspiracy, the likelihood of someone "going public" goes up drastically.
Most of the conspiracy theories around JFK that I'm aware of require lots and lots of people to be involved. It is exceptionally unlikely that every single one of those people kept the conspiracy a secret for 50 years. No "deathbed confessions". Nobody gaining a conscience. Nobody realizing they could make a huge fortune on a book deal.
For example, lots of people who work for the mob have "gone public" or cooperated with authorities. You can't realistically claim that the JFK conspirators are able to threaten people more effectively than the mob.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)The secret war in Indonesia was kept secret. The bogus nature of the Tonkin Gulf incident was kept secret.
Howard Hunt made a deathbed confession. Many JFK witnesses died mysteriously.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Your examples are all things that are publically known. Thus demonstrating that it was not possible to keep them secret.
Thanks for backing up my argument.
Many of them died. Conspiracy theorists added "mysteriously", largely because they did not have access to the medical records of these people.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)After 9/11, the Pentagon claimed initially that no fighters were scrambled to intercept the airliners. Hundreds of military personnel would have known this was not true, but nobody talked.
How many people needed to be "in on" a JFK plot? A dozen?
The death rate for JFK witnesses was statistically anomalous.
Howard Hunt made a deathbed confession.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Some require a small number, most require vast numbers.
And here it is, a whole 12 years later, and you know otherwise. Because somebody talked. You are arguing that 50 years later there is still nobody talking.
Howard Hunt's sons tried to sell a book. Their claims include things that are utterly inaccurate - for example, that Hunt did not make the claims earlier to avoid a perjury charge, when it was well beyond the statute of limitations.
The fact that Hunt's widow came forth to say the sons coached their somewhat incoherent father to confess, right before pushing a book, while making claims that are easily shown to be lies, does not make for a believable deathbed confession.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)The House Committee talked. Members of the investigation have talked. Howard Hunt talked. Any number of people have talked.
If truth is on your side, why is it necessary for you to deny reality?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)That's a rather odd attempt to prove your position true by lying in a thread, where my statements are still there for others to read.
You now claim that the JFK assassination conspirators did not keep their conspiracy a secret. By listing people who were not part of the conspiracy, and someone whose sons were actually doing the talking to score a book deal and who were contradicted by their mother.
And you wonder why people don't spend lots of time debating JFK conspiracy theories with you?
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)I refuted your claims. I'm not interested in debating conspiracy theories. I'm interesting in establishing the facts. You're not.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)funniest post of the day.
Seriously, congrats!
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)
Hope you are enjoying your latest stay here.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)(without driving over a concrete barrier that remains in place to this day.)
Let's see how interested in 'facts' you are this time.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That WAS the route.
Meaning, you're wasting everyone's time with fabricated nonsense.
As we have discussed in the past.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)So, the answer remains the same: From the FUCKING NEWSPAPER FRONT PAGE.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)So how did Oswald manage to make the parade route go past his workplace?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)
stopbush
(24,393 posts)In fact, downtown Dallas was the workplace for a whole lotta people.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)There are very few examples over history of CIA people revealing the conspiracies they had engaged in.
Other theories involve Cuba or the KGB. Again, we wouldn't really expect them to share the details with us, would we?
When you make the decision to become part of a gang, the consequences of snitching can be really severe, particularly when the gang is as ruthless as the CIA or KGB. I person just doesn't get very far if they try to leave the gang.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Why claim something was kept secret which wasn't?
I have read all sorts of things which indicate that the death rate for JFK witnesses was not statistically anomalous.
Or, as Mad Magazine pointed out around 1970 or so, every single witness to the Lincoln assassination was dead, and wasn't THAT suspicious?
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)The point is that no one within the DoD "talked" to contradict the official DoD claims.
It's hardly suspicious that every witness to an 1865 assassination is dead.
William Seger
(10,778 posts)> After 9/11, the Pentagon claimed initially that no fighters were scrambled to intercept the airliners.
You're confused. The 9/11 Commission determined that the Pentagon's initial claims were deceptive, but it wasn't for the reason you're claiming.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html
In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center.
> How many people needed to be "in on" a JFK plot? A dozen?
Which plot? The "grassy knoll shooter" plot requires a huge number of people to be involved in a massive coverup of where the shots "really" came from. Of course, a much less stupid plot would have required fewer.
> The death rate for JFK witnesses was statistically anomalous.
No it isn't
> Howard Hunt made a deathbed confession.
Really? I thought you were a stickler for not accepting unsubstantiated claims as evidence? Or is that only when it's conveeeeeeeeeenient?
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)All I said was that nobody talked.
A coverup does not require a huge number of people to be involved in a plot. It only requires that a huge number of people be confused.
Statistically anomalous nature of JFK witness deaths: http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/tag/executive-action/
Howard Hunt's deathbed confession is on tape.
William Seger
(10,778 posts)> After 9/11, the Pentagon claimed initially that no fighters were scrambled to intercept the airliners.
As I said, that is wrong. Here, I'll bold relevant part of the Post article for you:
In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center.
> A coverup does not require a huge number of people to be involved in a plot. It only requires that a huge number of people be confused.
If you look at what conspiracists claim was done to cover up a grassy knoll shot (at least, those that bother to formulate an actual theory), there is no way it could have been done with "a dozen" people. Many more than that would have needed to at least lie about what they saw or didn't see, not to mention all the ones who faked evidence and/or hid the "real" evidence.
> Statistically anomalous nature of JFK witness deaths: http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/tag/executive-action/
Charnin's analysis has far too many problems to be taken seriously. First, his list of "witnesses" consists mostly of people who were not really witnesses -- "witnesses or associates" as he coyly puts it in his book -- apparently included only because of an assumption they might have known something and they died. Including those and then just making guesses about the total population of such "witnesses and associates" completely invalidates his probability calculation, but second, he uses actuarial numbers for the general population when he should need to use numbers appropriate for the age, gender, socioeconomic status, etc. Third, I see no calculation for testing statistical significance -- not that it matters, given the first two problems, but if those were corrected, a significance calculation would be needed. And fourth, even if those problems were corrected and there really was a statistical anomaly remaining, there is really no justification for claiming that it's more than just a statistical anomaly. Charnin would like to claim that any over the "expected" number must have been homicides to facilitate a coverup, but that conclusion cannot be logically validated by statistics alone.
> Howard Hunt's deathbed confession is on tape.
That's nice, but my comment was, "I thought you were a stickler for not accepting unsubstantiated claims as evidence?" Where is the substantiation? Not a single conspiracy claim that he made has been corroborated.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)All you do is spread confusion.
William Seger
(10,778 posts)You are spreading your own confusion, and (once again) hypocritically accusing someone else of your own behavior.
The San Diego Union Tribune reported on 9/12 that a spokesman for the D.C. Air National Guard said that F-16s were launched from Langley after the Pentagon was hit.
On 9/13, General Richard Myers testified at his Senate confirmation hearing to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/defense/myers_confirmation_091301.html
MYERS: Mr. Chairman, the armed forces did not shoot down any aircraft. When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked. But we never actually had to use force.
LEVIN: Was that order that you just described given before or after the Pentagon was struck? Do you know?
MYERS: That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck.
On 9/15, the Boston Globe reported that Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder, a spokesman for NORAD, had confirmed Gen. Myers' testimony.
However, the day before on 9/14, CBS had reported that unidentified sources were saying that planes were scrambled before that, but they arrived too late. That timeline was shown on the NORAD records released on 9/18, which is apparently the date you are referring to, but your claim that up until then "the Pentagon claimed that no fighters had been scrambled" is simply false.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Raksha
(7,167 posts)which is why we know about them. But that doesn't change the fact that they remained secret for years, including the years when it really counted--immediately after the assassination.
Nice try, but you'll have to do better than that.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Again, the number of people involved depends on which particular conspiracy theory you like. It ranges from dozens to hundreds.
How come absolutely none of them have come forward? If all these other things were leaked, how did this remain secret?
questionseverything
(9,646 posts)Richard Charnin replied to a comment from VinnyDickWad
Vinnie, no one said 218 SUSPECTS. Its 218 MATERIAL WITNESSES. First, you must learn to read and ANALYZE the MATH: 800 witnesses who were called to testify at the Warren Commission, Garrison Trial, Church Senate and HSCA investigations. FIFTY-FIVE of them died from 1964-77. The odds? 1 in TRILLIONS. Go to my website" richardcharnin . com
Raksha
(7,167 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)and he was neck-deep in many of the dirty deeds of the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Howard_Hunt
Posthumous allegations: "deathbed confession" of involvement in JFK Assassination
After Hunt's death, Howard St. John Hunt and David Hunt stated that their father had recorded several claims about himself and others being involved in a conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy.[3][56] Notes and audio recordings were made. In the April 5, 2007 issue of Rolling Stone, Howard St. John Hunt detailed a number of individuals purported to be implicated by his father including Lyndon B. Johnson, Cord Meyer, David Phillips, Frank Sturgis, David Morales, William Harvey, and Lucien Sarti.[3][57] The two sons alleged that their father cut the information from his memoirs to avoid possible perjury charges.[56] According to Hunt's widow and other children, the two sons took advantage of Hunt's loss of lucidity by coaching and exploiting him for financial gain.[56] The Los Angeles Times said they examined the materials offered by the sons to support the story and found them to be "inconclusive".[56] However, the sons do have audio tape of their father's confession, which has been widely circulated on the internet.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And E Howard Hunt's deathbed convession?...or the testimony of LBJ's mistress...and others.
But you don't know about those do you?...and you probably never will because you don't want to see it...and I can't blame you for that, shattering an illusion is so painful.
So I won't post you any links, or evidence to trouble you with.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Somehow, people who doubt the Warren Commission expect the WC to explain every offhand remark that Oswald made in the 12 months prior to the assassination, yet they don't find the need to explain how Oswald's rifle and prints and empty shell casings got to the 6th floor, or how bullets matched to the rifle ended up in the car, etc.
rusty fender
(3,428 posts)why did JFK's brain explode onto the back of the car? Jackie Kennedy scooped up part of JFK's brain when she crawled on top of the rear of the car.
And doctors at Parkland described the bullet hole in JFK's neck as a bullet entrance. The neck entrance hole was made bigger by the tracheatomy that was performed at Parkland.
Also, one of the autopsy doctors, Dr. Pierre Finck, said that the bullet found on the stretcher, the so-called 'magic bullet', could not have caused Connally's wounds "for the reason that there are more grains of metal still in Governor Connally's wrist than there are missing from that bullet. That bullet could not have done it." (The Killing of the President, Robert J. Groden, pg. 128)
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)
That's Zapruder 313, high-contrast. the car was moving. The blood and bone and brain after going up into the air remained stationary relative to the ground while the car moved beneath it.
Doctors at Parkland may have thought the frontal wound was one of entrance, they were mistaken. This was established by the autopsy. This is why we have autopsies. Emergency physicians are not pathologists.
And Finck was mistaken. In the first place? The metal in Connally's wrist is still in Connally's wrist, therefore it hasn't been weighed, therefore "there's too much" is an assertion without evidence. In the second place? John Lattimer conducted an experiment in which metal was extruded from the base of an identical WCC 6.5mm Carcano bullet and sliced into fragments approximating in size and number those removed from and still present in Connally. You know what he found? the total weight ended up being less than two grains. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wound3.txt
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Because the car was moving it made the ejected material go back and to the left, when the shot came from the back and the right...that is so simple I can't understand it.
Just how far can a car move in a fraction of a second?... the time it takes for one exposure on a movie camera.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)the mass will continue in a straight line at the same velocity it was going. The idea of "the car moving under" the brain mass is exactly the opposite of what "simple physics", specifically Newton's first law, tells us. Without than the effect of the bullet, the brain matter would continue moving at the same speed and in the same direction as the car.. An external force had to move it backwards.
You would have to make an argument of the wind blowing that material in the other direction. It seems abundantly clear that the final shot entered from the front. Indeed, it appears to me that JFK was sitting too low in the vehicle for the second shot to have hit his shoulder from behind.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Gravity enters into the picture there. Mass reaches the apex of its upward travel and falls due to gravity and inertia. And the car is moving relative to the matter. No external force required.
And "abundantly clear" on the basis of what, exactly? A shot from in front made brain matter and blood go up and FORWARD, did it? A shot from in front left cratering on the internal table of the REAR of the skull, which is consistent with an entry and not exit wound? And "sitting too low", how? For a shot from a sixth-floor window? It's not like we're talking about a flat trajectory.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)"up" is relative to the spe3ed of the car. When you do jumping jacks on a train, you don't bounce to the back of the train. You continue to move forward with the train, even when you are not in physical contact with the floor of the train.
If you are riding in a car going at 70 MPH and you toss a ball up in the air, it doesn't co crashing through the back window. It just goes straight up and down, RELATIVE to the speed of the car.
Have you ever taken a physics class?
"Simple physics" says that if the bulk of brain matter was behind JFK, then the force had to come from in front of him. The only other explanation would be that although the limo was only going 10 MPH, the brain matter was lofted so high that the wind carried it backwards. That flies in the face of the medical observations that there was a small wound in front and a larger wound in the rear, which indicates entry in the front (when the bullet was intact) and exit in the read (after the bullet fragmented.) THAT, and not the idea of a shot from the read, is most consistent with the facts.
At minimum ant reasonable person in possession of knowledge of "simple physics" would have to conclude it is far more likely the third shot came from the front rather than the rear. That also is consistent with the fact that the interval between the second and third shots (according to the Warren theory -- other theories argue they there was a 4th shot almost simultaneous with the third) is impossibly short for that gun.
This type of bullshit is exactly why so many people have distrusted the Warren report from the very first day. Much of it makes no sense whatsoever, and the authoritarians pushing that theory rely on pseudo-science time after time to explain the highly improbable.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Kennedy's head goes forward at frame 313 when the headshot impacts. Not back. The major spray of blood and tissue is forward, not back. The bullet hole in the back of his skull is a wound of entry, not of exit. Based on these facts, no reasonable person could possibly conclude the headshot came from in front.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)The fact is that his skull and brains ended up BEHIND him, not in front of him. I see nothing of what you are describing in that video. It seems abundantly clear that the shot struck from the front and blew the matter out the back. That is how energy works. Your little theory of how a shot from the rear somehow sent all that matter aloft, and the car drove under it is -- well, far fetched. It is most certainly not the most logical explanation to explain what happened.
Nothing of the sort is indicated in teh video. Mrs. Kennedy immediately launched herself on the trunk in a desperate reaction to grab the matter. There was not time for the car to drive under it. She did that as soon as the impact happened.
Seems perfectly clear to me. You Warren Commission guys are really quite the conspiracy theorists -- taking perfectly clear evidence and twisting it into something that is exactly the opposite. But that is, in fact, how propaganda works.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Zapruder frame 313:
Zapruder frame 313, high contrast:
Zapruder film, slow motion. The headshot comes at the 56-second mark, roughly. You can see the head go FORWARD, then back. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=eqzJQE8LYrQ
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)And the answer to your question is "one foot". If the limo was moving at 12mph at the moment of impact? That's 17.6 feet per second, 0.97 feet in 1/18th of a second (the span of time represented by a single frame of the Zapruder film).
rusty fender
(3,428 posts)a bullet wound entrance from an exit wound.
Are you an emergency room physician? You certainly are very dismissive of their expertise.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)And emergency physicians aren't forensic pathologists. The autopsy concluded that there was an entry wound on the back of Kennedy's head. A skull fragment recovered from the limo showed cratering on the outer surface of the skull consistent with an exit wound. The bullet hole on Kennedy's back was an entry wound. And as to the exit wound in his throat, see here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid5.htm
rusty fender
(3,428 posts)Can tell the difference between an entrance bullet wound and an exit wound.
Not only did some physicians see the gaping wound in the back of JFK's head, but other non-physician witnesses saw the hole in the back of his head.
You should read Robrt Groden's The Killing of the President.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)it means "behind the midline", and the wound in JFK's head was mostly "posterior" in that it was mostly behind the midline. However it wasn't in the back.
stopbush
(24,393 posts)entry and exit wounds 52% of the time.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)News flash. The Warren Commission account was a theory as well. It has as much difficulty with the factual record as most other explanations. It is condescending and disingenuous in the extreme for anybody to begin a discussion by hurling a phrase like "conspiracy theorists", which can only serve to insult and antagonize anybody with an opposing opinion.
Screw everybody who uses the term "conspiracy theorist" that way, especially the ones who then accuse the other side of "vituperation".
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)a conspiracy theorist. And I'd be more than happy to point out the ugliness coming from the comspiracy side but I don't really want to turn this into a callout. (I suppose being called a CIA mole and a dupe is okay, in your book?)
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)is used as an insult, a demagoguery term and the person using it always asserts that his version of events is of course not a conspiracy and not a theory. It is a bullying tactic, plain and simple.
The conspiracy in the case of the Warren theory is the commission itself, which conspired to reach the findings that were pre-determined by J Edgar Hoover. That commission conspired to bury evidence, discredit witnesses, and concoct theories that violate the laws of physics. One has to ask, if the commission was so determined to do such a conspiracy after the fact, why should anybody believe they weren't involved with those who carried out this operation?
They are ALL theories because they are all lacking facts. The question is not which ones are conspiracy theories. They all are. The question is which explanations are most consistent with the available facts.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)The evidence supportsa the findings of the Warren Commission. The findings of the Warren Commission were broadly confirmed by the HSCA. All the evidence points to Oswald. The commission didn't consire to "bury evidence". All the ballistics and forensics says "it was Oswald".
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)It is hard to believe anybody could type that paragraph and seriously mean it.
That is patently absurd. There are all sorts of things that don't add up at all -- things that require really tortured logic to accept the Warren theory of events. For a person to assert that all the evidence points to solitary gunman, no real motive, just crazy I guess, but an amazing marksman, one who can make bullets defy the lays of physics -- that is just preposterous.
It might indeed be that Oswald really did this all by himself for no particular reason. It is not impossible. But that requires a mind-numbing chain of really improbable assumptions.
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)Oswald feeling neglected and hurt by his world found a great opportunity to make himself relevant forever.
Ruby was a drunk who owned a strip bar in which the Mafia turned into a home bar..I’m sure they made Ruby a part
of their family, but they had to know that he was a risk...( always fighting and making scenes at his bar, police called routinely). To entrust this kind of man to quickly dispose of the President’s killer is ridiculous!
The Mafia is a organization of thugs...but the ones who make the important calls are not dumb.
Fredo and Carlos are fictitious characters who will be remembered forever.. I link Jack Ruby was a real life version of these two..
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)That is a contradiction considering that he got the job done. Seems to me that he was quite proficient as a hit man had someone needed one.
He got past all those police officers, despite the fact that many of them knew him well and were familiar with, as you said yourself, his sometimes violent behavior causing the 'police to be called routinely'.
Yet those same police did not throw him out when he stopped by while Oswald, the most important suspect in custody that day, not just on the day he succeeded, but the day before also.
Were any of them fired for this gross incompetence?
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)It also seems that if Ruby had anything at all on the Mafia, he would have been taken out very quickly..
As you guys state frequently, “the mafia is capable of anything”.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)relation to JFK's murder. Maybe you are thinking of someone else.
The Dallas Police did not stop, as you describe him, a person they knew to be violent, while they were holding the most important sustpect possibly ever, from entering what should have been a secure area.
As a result, this country was deprived of a much needed trial which might have answered a whole lot of questions that still need answering.
This was either one of the most gross cases of negligence in law enforcement, or it was something else.
If it was the first, then many of them must have been fired, no?
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)Always appreciate what you bring to the discussions..
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)their lives, or just doesn't like to face reality.
And fyi, you don't have to have any conspiracy theory in mind in order to KNOW that something is very fishy about the 'Official Story'.
I understand you being on the defensive as much as you appear to be. It's difficult being in such a minority wrt to any issue and trying to push your universally rejected viewpoint on those who have reached the conclusions they have based on FACTS.
Still, I don't understand the hysteria of the Deniers over the fact that people just keep on discussing what they want to discuss despite the huge effort to stop them. You can't stop people from discussing whatever they want to discuss. Why not just accept that?
heaven05
(18,124 posts)Last edited Fri Nov 22, 2013, 08:01 PM - Edit history (2)
'pristine bullet' and all. CT'ists are attacked just as much as non Ct'ists. "Most of the vituperation, ridicule and demeaning I've seen comes from CT'ists,sorry". May be true to you but No, untrue to my years of studying that coup of nov 22,63 and the many theories revolving around that dreadful day. But don't get me wrong, you are entitled to your assessment of CT'ists.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Now you've gone a step further and you're actually blaming the intended targets of your smear. What a classy guy you are.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Thank you.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)The CTers can't get their story together long enough to move in any unified direction other than insult anyone who doesn't accept their preferred version.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Other than that, I'm not much invested either way.
Lincoln's assassination was also followed by a period of intense conspiracy theory. It is what it is.
secondvariety
(1,245 posts)Prism
(5,815 posts)Maybe the better phrase is "alternative theories" rather than conspiracy theory. But many people didn't fully accept Booth and his conspirators were solely responsible for the attacks. It must've come from Jefferson Davis. It must have been the Secretary of War who disagreed with Lincoln's policies on Reconstruction. Etc etc.
And many of the questions and historical perspectives were similar. Who benefited from Lincoln's death? How did it change the course of the next fifty years of American history? Isn't it convenient Booth was shot and killed when specific orders were given to take him alive? That sort of thing.
I did a quick google search and found a site with a list of some of the alternative theories. Most of them I'd read about, some of them are new to me.
http://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln74.html
Notice the similarities in concept between what was being said following Lincoln's death and Kennedy's.
DinahMoeHum
(21,783 posts). . .we are "so certain and absolutely correct" and that we "accept the Warren Report as Gospel". Many of us "conspiracy naysayers" don't, I can assure you.
However, many of us who you deem naysayers simply follow the philosophy of what is called
Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is often the most plausible.
Note that I'm saying "often", NOT "always"
Or, as sociology professor Marcelo Truzzi said (mistakenly attributed to the late great Carl Sagan)
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."
— Marcello Truzzi, On the Extraordinary: An Attempt at Clarification, Zetetic Scholar, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 11, 1978
And according to many of us who follow Occam's Razor: Oswald acted alone.
My personal take:
1) Oswald was a "nothingburger" and "wannabe communist" who felt he could be a famous person only by killing a famous person.
2) Jack Ruby was a "nothingburger" who apparently admired JFK and felt he could become a hero and avenge JFK and the nation by killing Oswald.
Just my 2 cents.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Who is more a nobody than a helpless patsy?
DinahMoeHum
(21,783 posts). . .as well as deluded with visions of grandeur.
BTW, he also sucked as a husband and a father.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)DinahMoeHum
(21,783 posts)n/t
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)If he did it, there's nothing paranoid about his claim that he's a patsy. It's a simple lie.
If he didn't do it, there's nothing paranoid about his claim that he's a patsy. It's a perfectly reasonable theory.
Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)But I know enough about the murder to say that he would not have walked had I been on his jury.
And anyone who says they fully know Zimmerman's motivations is fooling aggrandizing themselves.
It's not possible nor necessary (wrt solving crimes) to totally understand the motivations of another human - especially if that human is mentally ill or personality disordered.
stopbush
(24,393 posts)immediately confesses the deed to the police.
That's why we no longer have need for a court system to try murder cases. The murderers always confess once caught. They never claim innocence, as did Oswald.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Revolvers are much dirtier than rifles. That to me raises a reasonable doubt that it was Oswald that shot Tippit.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)Myrina
(12,296 posts)n/t
Johonny
(20,827 posts)desire to want to believe. It is no different than people that make money off 9-11 fantasies, global warming denial, creationism, etc... I think Oliver Stone made an excellent movie on how easy it is to create paranoia and distrust and then make money off that distrust. It has been 50 years and all the conspiracies have is made up loose ends, hype, and theories that are mutual exclusive but are not eliminates because to deny one is to end the profit game. If you want to feed the hype I don't care. On the other hand so day you just wake up and say crap Santa doesn't exist. If you want to pretend Santa exists may you be so certain and in addition, so absolutely correct about everything else in your, and everyone else's, existence because people are making money off your childish unfounded beliefs. Indeed they feed you the paranoia to make money and only to make money. It is commerce to them and your just another one of their mugs. Every creationist, global warming denier thinks the exact same way as you do. Does it make me angry. No, I'm not the one being conned. But I feel bad for the mug.
moondust
(19,966 posts)As CT debunker Vince Bugliosi said just last night on the teevee, people aren't that good at keeping secrets forever. When there is fame and fortune to be had, and an element of guilt gnawing at people, it's a good bet that somebody in the gang is going to crack at some point in that 50 years, whereupon somebody else is going to grab hold of that thread and tug on it until the thing unravels. It hasn't happened.
I personally don't care what anyone chooses to believe, but I think some people have trouble dealing with uncertainty and want things to be settled.
PCIntern
(25,513 posts)many people who were involved or related to those involved or investigated those involved stated that they were and were dismissed. Out of hand. but that's just me...what do I know?
Actually, more than you might think...
moondust
(19,966 posts)first-hand knowledge of the details of the plot that can be verified and corroborated, maybe some letters or other documents laying it out, etc.
Incidentally, there is no profit in a dead CT.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)signed by Osama bin Laden? Oh, right. No such memo. In fact, the FBI Director told the Commonwealth Club in the spring of 2002 that after a thorough search of seized al Qaeda documents, they could not find one piece of paper linking al Qaeda to 9/11.
Response to PCIntern (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)You know why it doesn't matter? Because all of the reconstructions using computer modelling done in the past 30 years plus close analysis of the Zapruder film have shown that it's not a theory but a fact. Connally was seated six inches below and three inches inboard of Kennedy, and turned to his right (there is film and there are photographs that show this clearly). The trajectory from the sixth-floor window to the point where Kennedy was struck goes straight through Connally. Connally's lapel flaps outward for a fraction of a second at frame 224 of the Zapruder film. Which is an obvious reaction to the exit of a bullet, nothing else can explain it.
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)Mention anything you want. Just be prepared for a debate.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)but the the vituperation works both ways. You post is full of it in fact.
You label us as naysayers when in fact many of us have open minds that have not been convinced by the evidence of a conspiracy, so far.
You claim you do not hate and that you are not angry, which suggests that everyone who disagrees with you is. Can you detect the moral superiority you claim here? I can.
You claim we have certainty when you have no real idea of our thought processes. Many of the so called "naysayers" started out as CTers, but changed positions in light of the best evidence. That is the hallmark of a flexible mind; a willingness to change opinions in light of new facts.
I suggest you follow some of these threads as objectively as possible and watch to see which side throws the first ad hominem argument into the discussion. Read the threads and watch how people share their ignorance about the topic. I admit I am bias but it seems to me CT "naysayers" are by far the best informed about the facts of the case and they do not multiply entities needlessly.
People willing to deny the hard science and nearly irrefutable forensic evidence open themselves up for mockery much the same as intelligent design proponents. Are you suggesting we should we keep the kid gloves on for them?
You called the Warren Report "Gospel" and you mention "Official Version 1.0." Sorry, but I cannot help but see those comments as derision of my opinions.
In the case of Ruby, you have apparently not listened to the arguments or the evidence that suggests he was mentally unstable and you are clinging to one single factoid to make your judgement about the entirety of the assassination while mocking those with "certainty" on the matter. That is bordering on hypocrisy IMHO.
I love you doc, you do wonderful things, this post ain't one them however.
PCIntern
(25,513 posts)and btw, if I say that it's Gospel, then that's what it IS if someone adheres to the doctrine. It's not derision...I'm invoking the Holy word because those who question it, and those who question the WC are heretics...and as far as OV 1.0, well, that's what it was, until it was changed by subsequent committee(s). That's a fact, not derision.
When you say that the naysayers are better informed in re: the facts, those are the facts which many, such as you, have chosen to believe. Thus they are facts. I for one don't see many of them as facts: some are reasonable conclusions which I question, others are outright jokes/lies. but that's OK...it's America. It's how things work here.
Ruby was unstable because he was defined post facto as that, because it made everything work. When he wanted to tell more of the story, he was denied permission. That, I believe, is irrefutable because it was part of a transcript. The definition of instability varies considerably.
But again, it's OK with me. As the kids say, "Whatever." I simply posted the OP to say that if this is what you wnat to believe, then fine. I just didn't get the anger part...turning the tables on my way of thinking by saying that we are the angry ones is not really terribly fair given the nature of the majority of the posts. Really...
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)FWIW.
Orrex
(63,185 posts)Until then, no dice!
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Orrex
(63,185 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Orrex
(63,185 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Orrex
(63,185 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)is something that deserves dumb jokes.
Orrex
(63,185 posts)Destroying our democracy? Puh-leeze.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)covering up a conspiracy?
You don't perceive the pervasive cynicism in this country, so strong that most people who could vote don't bother?
You don't make a connection between distrust of government and cynicism?
Orrex
(63,185 posts)If I can zing JFK conspiracy theorists and 9/11 conspiracy theorists in one succinct joke, you'd better believe that I'm going to do it.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)I didn't say the majority was correct. I said the majority is cynical. Your unjustified ridicule only furthers the cynicism.
To fight cynicism, increase transparency. Open up the files now, not in 25 years.
Orrex
(63,185 posts)Now or in 25 years, the truebelievers will reject anything that contradicts their beliefs, even if the The Files are somehow demonstrated to be 100% real and complete.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)You're rehearsing your complete confidence in a document production that hasn't even taken place yet!
That unjustified ridicule in general furthers the cynicism in no way implies that your particular unjustified ridicule effectively furthers the cynicism.
Orrex
(63,185 posts)You criticize me for assuming that these magical documents will exist, which I don't. The more troubling fact is that you've revealed that no revelation would satisfy you. That's the madness of CT thinking; no truth is true enough except the truth that Truthers "know" to be theh truth.
My cynicism is the least of your worries.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Learn to read. "No revelation would satisfy you" is a very convenient meme for those who won't even try to support their claims.
Orrex
(63,185 posts)Contained within the hypothetical was the idea of "real and complete" documentation. That's part of the basic assumption in the thought experiment, but you couldn't handle it, so your first reaction was to ask how we know they're real.
You tell me to learn to read. First, you need to learn to think.
And tell me this: what revelation would satisfy you?
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Thanks for setting that straight. Of course that doesn't change the fact that I didn't predict anything.
Orrex
(63,185 posts)And yet you accuse me of not knowing how to read.
Indeed you didn't predict anything. Nor have you contributed anything.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Orrex
(63,185 posts)And I regret that it took me until 221 to realize it.
Logical
(22,457 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Rather than when it suits you.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You wanted me to DISPROVE the ALLEGED 'formerly molten ingot', etc, despite the person claiming it's authenticity having never had it assayed, never establishing a chain of custody, never submitting any of the other evidence, like 'active thermite' paint chips for independent analysis once one attempt to repro came back negative, etc.
You wanted me to disprove the claim, and rely upon a proven liar, and his alleged, and unverified by any independent source, 'evidence'.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)I suggested that you try to embarrass Dr. Jones by trying to show that he could not substantiate his claims.
Does somebody need to buy you a dictionary?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I don't need to prove him a liar to dismiss the claim. That's why your attempt to place burden of proof is broken.
"Ace Acme (708 posts)
164. A witnesses's testimony is considered evidence in the fact-based community.
Last edited Tue Oct 29, 2013, 04:43 PM - Edit history (1)
Especially when they have photographs and samples.
Dr. Jones said he did a chemical analysis from that 40-pound ingot. Prove him a liar and do me a favor."
"Ace Acme (708 posts)
199. A picture of it exists.
I don't know what it is. Check it out with Dr. Jones. Prove that he lied.
There is a connection between Astaneh's photos, the stalagmite, and the reports of flowing molten steel. They are all witness accounts of melted steel, and they are all unexplained."
You want me to actively prove that Jones is a liar. Jones' claim is unsubstantiated. I need not go to the positive effort of disproving his unsubstantiated claim.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)I didn't ask you to disprove him. I asked you to prove that he lied. There's a difference.
If I ask you prove that there's no celestial teapot orbiting the sun that's one thing.
If I ask you to prove that I can not substantiate my claim that there's a celestial teapot, that's another.
It seems you struggle with basic concepts and then try to make it my fault.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I don't need to prove he's a liar, mistaken, stupid, or anything else. His claims are unsubstantiated. The photo tells us nothing. The 'tests' he conducted prove less than nothing (it is not strictly iron anyway).
There are options that would tend to support his claims that he has not pursued in 12 years. He has other 'evidence' that he flat out refuses to submit for further testing (because it has already been shown to be normal primer chips of paint, nothing more.)
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)You are very confused. Your 'scare quotes' on 'tests" are not justified. You are very confused.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)He hasn't performed it, and he won't. You know full well what that test is.
This is all assuming that chunk of metal wasn't something sitting on someone's desk in the building, prior to the plane impacts, from some other source, like the concrete and steel cores sitting on mine.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Or an evidence locker. Or an assayer's office.
A piece of metal of indeterminate origin, composition, history, and analysis does not substantiate his claims.
Him, claiming it is XYZ does not double-super substantiate it either, since he won't have it assayed.
Last time he claimed something like this, it turned out to be commercial primer paint, and he turtled up and stopped sharing his 'evidence'.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Who says Dr. Jones's samples were commercial primer paint, who replicated those findings, and in what scientific journal were those findings published?
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Something like that.
Great Post !!!
& Rec !!!
DanTex
(20,709 posts)To me this is a historical puzzle -- I wasn't born at the time. And I completely agree that the circumstance, both Oswald's strange life story, the fact that he was killed before he could be fully interrogated, the number of powerful enemies that JFK had, the fact that the CIA and FBI weren't totally forthcoming with the Warren Commission, the fact that members of the Warren Commission were deeply aware that if they found a Cuba or KGB connection they might start WW3, etc., it all points to a conspiracy.
The problem is, there just isn't any evidence to support it. The forensic evidence that it was Oswald and Oswald alone who shot JFK is overwhelming. The supposed evidence linking Oswald to various covert groups is very weak. It may be the case that the single isolated gunman story doesn't ring true to you or to many others, but that is the theory best supported by the evidence, by a long shot. If you look at any event in extreme detail, there are going to be some odd occurrences -- people remember things different ways, some people have things they want to hide, etc.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)in the House Select Committee on Assassinations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations
questionseverything
(9,646 posts)plus 1
polichick
(37,152 posts)DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)Edit: Derp i r math good no.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)They are TERRIFIED that "The Cause" will not be taken seriously.
They don't want things like the environmental movement to be associated with the "tin foil hat stuff".
I'm old enough to remember when Liberals talked about "The Establishment". They feel they have to suck up to and then BECOME The Establishment and feel proud that "advancement" but all they did was let the powers that be corrupt them.
Put it this way,...buncha ex-hippies passing a doobie and one says, "Man,..I think I'm becoming my dad." and the others saying, "Wow. Bummer."
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)A gap of the Gods. Your choice I suppose, at least it isn't proposing policy.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)particularly when it has already been established there was a conspiracy.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives
I.C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...with no hard evidence. And they "believed" there was a second gunman, even tho we know now that if there was, they failed to hit anything.
Where have I been? The real world. I thought maybe you would have something more conclusive than the same tired lines.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)they are not simply harmless opinions. Some CT's can impugn an individual's reputation in a way that is impossible to repair, and that is not fair, without credible evidence to back up the charge.
Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence.
That basic principle doesn't change whether the subject is economics, religion, politics, criminal complaints, or 'conspiracy theories'.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Can you explain that?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Wasn't the parade route published? Something they probably don't do any more.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The map that didn't show the turn was simply too small to illustrate it.
You can't get to Stemmons from Main, without driving over a concrete divider. One that was present all the way back in 63. You HAVE to turn on Houston, and then Elm. Elm is the only way to access it. If you stay on Main, you don't get on Stemmons. (I believe this is the case today, even though the streets have been widened/changed in the 50 years since.)
This was covered extensively in the immediate aftermath. The was no 'change' to the route. It's a misconception.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)This might come as a shock, but Main is well within range of the repository with a rifle anyway. The window works for either fields of fire.
From the building to Main is pretty much the average distance I've shot all the deer I've ever gotten. My deer rifle is actually just as old. (Though, I would argue, of superior make, being a Remington made rifle based on the Mauser action, which the US was sued by Germany for, after WWI, humorously, and for which, we lost the lawsuit.)
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)First of all, its a much further distance. Secondly, shotting at a moving target from the side is much harder than from the rear. Third, if the motorcade had stayed on Main, it would have been travelling faster since it didn't have to slow to make two 90 corners to get on Elm. If Oswald had fired a shot at Kennedy on Main St, he most likely would have missed.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It was a parade, he was meant to be seen, not flash past at on-ramp speeds.
I agree, the angle and distance moderately increases the difficulty, but that is still not a very hard shot. He would have likely used the scope instead of the iron sights. Other than that, there is little reason to assume he would have missed inflicting a lethal hit.
But all of that is moot, since Main cannot be the route. You cannot get from A to the destination, because there is a concrete barrier in the way that at the very least could have messed up the car if you tried to go over it. (Potentially could high-center the car)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)the motorcade would actually follow the only route to accomplish the planned parade route, since he worked in the building, and apparently knew more about the layout of the streets, and physical obstacles, than you do 50 years after the fact, despite easy availability of aerial photos of the site from multiple angles.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It went 'past his workplace' whether it went down Elm or Main, given the reliable range of that rifle.
A route he would know from looking at the cover of the morning newspaper.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)at a place overlooking the parade route. And that Sirhan Sirhan just happened to be employed at the Ambassador Hotel.
What is it about these Kennedy guys that inspires random people in their proximity to shoot them?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)given the Walker attempt prior.
If he was looking to kill Kennedy when he was hired at the book depository, that would be one thing. Highly improbable. If he decided to kill him after learning that the President of the United States would be nearby, that is entirely another thing.
I will not expand the circle of inquiry to unrelated events.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Why did he leave so much evidence of his guilt, and why did he claim he didn't do it?
It's hardly "unrelated" if we have TWO peacenik brothers, both assassinated, and both assassinations blamed on patsies who happened to be employed at places where their victims came to them.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)'Oh the universe is just so engineered to be perfectly within the realm of our requirements for existence, and exhibits fine tuning which implies a designer'.
Bullshit. The universe isn't fine tuned for us, we have a puny shred of boundary between space and molten radioactive stone we can live on, and that's it.
You, and other CT'rs look at the problem from the wrong end. You assume he went to the repository looking for a job in advance planning of killing kennedy, because hey, what are the odds right, that the universe would be so finely tuned as to bring Kennedy within range of a murderous asshole that might take a shot at him?
But that's not the way it works. He went within range of said murderous asshole. End of story. It isn't complex, or improbable. If the president hadn't come by, you can safely assume Oswald keeps taking shots at whatever people HE perceived to be of importance, that he had access to, until he otherwise got caught.
If the president had gone somewhere else, it might have been a different murderous asshole some other time and place. Or perhaps none at all.
There is no indication that anything precipitated this event beyond the fact that they announced that the parade would carry the president nearby. That may have been the only decision point in Oswald leading up to the shooting. Anything beyond that requires the wholesale invention of motive where there is no evidence of any.
As for his inconsistency/responses, you assume rationality where there obviously is none.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)There is plenty of evidence that a lot of people wanted Kennedy dead: Mafia, Military, CIA, Anti-Castro Cubans. Your denial of that fact makes you look foolish and ignorant.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Your streak of invention continues unbroken.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)for killing JFK.
And yet you admit that any number of people wanted him dead.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)"the only decision point in Oswald leading up to the shooting . . . "
"wholesale invention of motive . . . "
That all sounds pretty general to me.
Whenever you guys tell me what I know, I know that what you're saying is not true.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I was talking about Oswald.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Many people may indeed have wanted JFK dead, but it is a fallacy to conclude based on "motive" that those people were involved.
stopbush
(24,393 posts)He left evidence of his guilt because, well, he was guilty.
Why did he claim he was innocent - that's what most murderers claim when they're caught, when they're charged and when they appear in court.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)stopbush
(24,393 posts)He did get away from the scene of his crime, but he was ultimately captured within 1.5 hours.
Oswald was a nut, and not necessarily the smart kind of nut. Why didn't he bring his revolver with him to work that day? Anybody with a bit of brains would bring the revolver in case they needed to shoot their way out of the TSBD. But not Oswald. He took the bus back to his place to pick up his revolver. Then, rather than laying low, he starts walking the streets, encounters and kills Officer Tippett in front of about 10 witnesses (two who saw the entire shooting and others who saw him fleeing the scene, gun in hand, ejecting spent shells as he ran). Even after he successfully fled the TSBD, he had no ability to think of the next step in avoiding capture.
All of which points to the fact that this was a crime of opportunity for Oswald. He really didn't spend a lot of time planning anything but the shooting. And the fact is, the "person" of his target didn't matter. All he was concerned about was that it was somebody famous, and JFK was famous. Earlier, he took a shot at another almost-famous person, Gen Walker.
When you think about it, Oswald's entire life was his lurching from one ill-considered or not-considered situation to the next, and never with any plan or thought for what Step 2 would be after Step 1.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)stopbush
(24,393 posts)Right, because about half of the people living in Dallas back then wrote notes to their wives telling them what to do in case they shot Gen Walker.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Also, Oswald's gun was not capable of penetrating brick.
You're only showing your credulity.
stopbush
(24,393 posts)First off, Oswald's weapon was high-powered. The Nova show recently discussed here had a Cracano rifle shooting into 3 feet of pine boards with the bullet remaining pristine. Boards are a much denser material than bricks, which will disintegrate when struck by a high-velocity bullet.
Second, the letter was never "determined to be of dubious authenticity." That's a total lie from your CT mind.
Third: the note didn't name Walker, but the timing of when the note was written, the circumstances of the attempted killing and Oswald's loathing of Walker provide at least circumstantial evidence of the connection, a connection that - were Oswald not involved - the CTists would be screaming to high heavens proved someone else was involved in a conspiracy.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Pine boards are about 27 pounds per cubic foot. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wood-density-d_40.html#.UpKkZifc3sY
Bricks are 120 pounds per cubic foot. http://www.rfcafe.com/references/general/density-building-materials.htm
There was no date on the note, so how do you know when it was written?
How interesting that you think you justify your low standard of evidence by comparing it to your straw man version of what those stupid and crazy CTers accept as evidence.
stopbush
(24,393 posts)in the test I cited have any problem penetrating a single 3"-wide brick?
I think not.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)bore no resemblance to the one that he gave the investigators.
stopbush
(24,393 posts)Please provide.
Otherwise, this looks like another CTist game of whack-a-mole: you state something is a "fact," I shoot down the "fact," you fail to deal with the fact that your "fact" was just shown to be nonfactual, and instead, toss out another "fact" to divert attention from the fact that your whole list of "facts" is utter bullshit.
Back to your original point: you said a bullet shot from Oswald's rifle wouldn't be able to penetrate the brick on Walker's home. Do you still stand by that statement?
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)stopbush
(24,393 posts)If you have a source, produce it. If your claim isn't important enough to you to back it up with a source, then it's not worth my wasting my time looking for it.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)stopbush
(24,393 posts)You? You've just made a BS statement that you can't back up.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)stopbush
(24,393 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)stopbush
(24,393 posts)of the actual letter Walker supposedly wrote in 1978.
You got a source where one can view that letter?
On edit: never mind. Found it at "peelingthejfkonion."
BTW - Walker's letter doesn't really prove anything, does it?
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)The burden is to cast reasonable doubt on the official explanation justifying reopening the investigation.
To demand proofs before there's even been a complete investigation is irrational.
You don't demand proof on the official side, so how can you demand proof on the dissenting side?
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Saying "go look it up yourself!" is shifting the burden of proof. You make the claim, you back it up. That's how it works.
And there is proof. There is evidence. There is ballistics. There is forensics. There is Oswald's rifle. That be bought and had shipped to his post office box. His handwriting is on the order form. His handwriting is on the money order. His prints are on the rifle. The recovered shell casings match that rifle. Recovered bullet and fragments match that rifle. There is Oswald's revolver. That was in his possession when he was arrested. That was used to kill JD Tippit. Recovered bullet and shell casings match that revolver. Multiple separate independent analyses of the forensic evidence have concluded that the bullets that struck Kennedy and Connally came from behind. From a trajectory that's consistent with their being fired by Lee Oswald, from that sixth-floor window. We know they were fired by Lee Oswald from that sixth-floor window because the recovered bullet and fragments match his rifle. The forensic evidence of autopsy photos and X-rays is conclusive in showing that the shots came from behind. Not from in front. Not from the side. There are witnesses who saw a man fitting Oswald's description in that window, with a rifle. There are witnesses who saw Oswald approach Tippit. Who saw him fleeing the scene. His jacket was found discarded along the escape route. There is all of this, which leads to the conclusion that Oswald killed Kennedy and wounded Connally, that Oswald killed Tippit. I don't see how you can say "you don't demand proof" in the face of so many separate pieces of evidence.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Thanks for being so blatant about it.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)No surprise there.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Right there. Shifting the burden of proof. You'll deny it of course. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4098837
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)The Warren Commission does not meet the standard of proof, and does not triumph over reasonable doubt.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)There is no reasonable doubt involved in Oswald's possession of the rifle that killed Kennedy, and of the revolver that killed Tippit. These are well-established facts.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)If someone rides the subway downtown, anyone who can see the surveillance video can find out he's going to a concert, knows his apartment will be empty for several hours, during which time covert agents can borrow his weapons, commit crimes with them, and then return them to his apartment.
Negative nitrate tests suggest that Oswald did not fire any weapon in the hours before he was arrested.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)But that doesn't actually matter because the nitrate test isn't evidence of anything. See the various links here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4103177
See also here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)It was not positive on the backs of the hands where nitrate from firing of weapons would be found.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Nitrate tests are not evidence of having fired a weapon.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Thanks for making yourself clear.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)but it's irrelevant, because the tests aren't accurate anyway; regardless of the results of those tests, we have Oswald, in possession of the revolver that killed Tippit, at the time of his arrest. We have Oswald's rifle, with his prints, in the sixth floor of the TSBD, with three spent cartidges that match that rifle, with bullets that struck Kennedy and Connally that match that rifle, and no other weapon.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)... and not the backs of the hands showed nitrate.
Nitrates in the palms are consistent with handling a weapon or handling printed materials, but not firing a weapon--and certainly not firing a dirty revolver.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)And ignoring the fact that the nitrate test is not conclusive evidence of anything. However the bullet fragments recovered from the limo, the bullet recovered from Connally's stretcher, and the shell casings in the TSBD, all match Oswald's rifle. Oswald's rifle that Marina told the police was missing from Ruth Paine's garage. Oswald's rifle that was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. Shell casings and a bullet recovered from JD Tippit's body matched to Oswald's revolver. That was in his possession when he was arrested. All of this is evidence that ties him to the shooting of Kennedy and Connally, and of Tippit. Arguing that an inconclusive and discredited test can't show he fired a weapon is ignoring all of the evidence that says he did.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)What's in it for you?
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)I really don't know much about the case. The only book on the subject I ever read was the Warren Commission.
I just wonder what motivates somebody to do the work to understand what's what if they think the government
got it right.
If you start looking into a case and you start finding stuff that looks wrong, that motivates you to keep digging
and try to find what else was wrong and why. If you look into a case and you think it's right, why would you
bother to do any digging at all? (Or maybe you don't. Maybe you just get your talking points from propaganda
websites of dubious integrity.)
stopbush
(24,393 posts)by the HSCA as the bullet that was shot at him by Oswald, as the WC and the FBI never conclusively said the bullet was from Oswald's rifle. They said there was a high probability it was a Carcano bullet, but they wouldn't say that it was definitively a Carcano bullet. And they couldn't positively trace it to Oswald's rifle.
So what exactly was Walker saying in that letter? Was he accusing the HSCA of displaying a fake piece of evidence, as opposed to the evidence taken by the FBI/WC, ie: the evidence that showed a high probability that it was shot from Oswald's rifle?
Testimony here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/walker.txt
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)... disputes the authenticity of the evidence the authorities presented.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Go to google or bing maps. Switch to aerial view. Follow main with your finger. Try and get on Stemmons without driving over a concrete divider.
Then go look at an aerial photo of Dealey Plaza in 1963.
I'll wait.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)route.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Oh--sorry, that was the other lone nut who lured a peacenik Kennedy brother to his place of employment and once again saved the bacon of the Military-Industrial-Congresional-Security-Lobbyist complex.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Chicken/egg.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Flatulo
(5,005 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 23, 2013, 04:21 PM - Edit history (1)
of some 9/11 Truth Squad or other stalking poor Alan Colmes as he tried to walk down the street and then get money from an ATM. Calling him names, accusing him of complicity. Fucking assholes. Where's G. Zimmerman when you need him.
Another 9/11 Truther was corresponding with Richard Gage, making vile anti-semetic comments and not-so-vague threats re: Dr. Jonathan Barnett because the good professor, who was on the FEMA 9/11 team, would not buy into the Truther's fantasies. That particular Truther was, I believe, becoming mentally unhinged.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)... from peddlers of outrageous theories.
Of course, any competent coverup would mount such a campaign to help make media personalities uncomfortable with the subject.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)They'll never admit it, but it boils down to fear. Some people have difficulty with uncertainty and chaos. As best they can they organize the world into tidy systems, and all things are conformed to them. You learn a lot about the mob mentality that infects people, even liberals, when CTs are discussed. I view the auto-derision as a kind of safe, sanctioned prejudice. Liberals would never discriminate against race, gender, sexual orientation... but on idiot moonbat CTers it's open season. They're empowered by the establishment. Their theories and facts are always the right and only theories and facts, and everything is always settled... until it isn't. IMO they strut around sporting biased science and popular opinion as codpieces festooned with ostrich feather plumes. 
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)I don't think so. I'm not really strutting around with anything but an opinion, and I'm also not forcing that opinion on others.
Fear?
No, it's just an opinion about an event that happened before I was born.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Difficulty with uncertainty and chaos? What could be more chaotic than the course of history changing essentially at random by a lone nutcase?
Fear? Fear of what exactly? That the CIA or KGB has done horrible things? Like there's not enough evidence of that already, without wandering into wild conspiracy land?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)I'm surprised you prefer a magic bullet.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I don't believe, for example, that the CIA overthrew Mosaddeq because the CIA is behind every evil act in the world, I believe it because it is extensively documented. If there were evidence either disproving the single bullet theory or supporting the CIA's involvement in the JFK assassination, then I would believe that too.
joanbarnes
(1,722 posts)joanbarnes
(1,722 posts)grantcart
(53,061 posts)You brought up Johnson, fine.
Why do you impugn Ted Kennedy who accepted the basic charges of the Warren Report?
More to the point. Of course it seemed like a conspiracy especially when the assassin gets shot.
Here is the problem with your CT, the headlines scream conspiracy but it is a headline in search of details.
Let's take one little detail. If this is such a great conspiracy (and has been kept intact for 50 years, itself a modern miracle) then why was it that after Oswald left the Book Depository building was there no one to assist in his getaway and he had only $ 13 on him and was looking for either a taxi or a bus to get him out of the area, and then seemingly had no where to go?
Even McVey had a reasonable escape plan.
The entire conspiracy rests on one essential premise: that there be some credible connection between Oswald and Ruby. None has ever been provided. Well known reporters who knew Jack Ruby well before the shooting have all said that Ruby was a gadfly who you could not stop from talking. An incessant gossiper he would tell you everything he knew about every subject. More than one credible source has said that if you were choosing someone to keep secrets Jack Ruby would be the last person alive that you would choose. You also wouldn't choose someone with the colorful conflicted history of Oswald either, but that's another story.
I stand with Teddy, you are free to keep focusing on the headline which screams conspiracy and spend the rest of the time searching for the story that proves it. I just can't wait until you have to do it in CT.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)If Oswald alone did it, why wouldn't he arrange his own escape?
grantcart
(53,061 posts)No actual facts just changing scenarios.
If Oswald is the 'patsy' then how did his fingerprints end up on the rifle.
If he was really a 'patsy' and had no knowledge of the act then why is he 'escaping'? and why does he pull a gun and kill a policeman.
As to why wouldn't he arrange his own escape?
He already attempted the assassination of General Walker and no one tracked him. There is every reason to believe that Oswald thought that he could shoot from that unoccupied floor and that it would be hours before they identified where the shot came from. Oswald remained in the building after the shooting but police quickly identified where the shot came from and came into the building and walked by the employees, including Oswald. It was only after Oswald saw the police enter the building that he left. After they discovered the rifle they asked the management to give them a list of employees that were there in the morning but are no longer there.
They did a quite tally and identify that only one employee, Lee Harvey Oswald, is no longer there and he becomes a person of interest. They put out an all points bulletin with a detailed description of Oswald. Oswald returns to his boarding house and leaves and is walking on the street when Policemen Tippit notices that he matches the description and pulls up in his car to ask him some questions (Tippit obviously is not particularly focused on Oswald as THE shooter but as somebody who fits a general description because he doesn't call for back up and doesn't take out a firearm.) Tippit gets out of his car and Oswald puts 4 bullets into him.
He is seen going into a movie theater, police follow him in and he pulls out a gun and pulls the trigger. The policeman's hand goes between the hammer and the revolver stopping the discharge and saving his life. The gun is the same gun used to kill Tippit.
As he was leaving the theater Oswald screams that he is the victim of police brutality even though he just killed one policeman and tried to kill another.
Now against a mountain of evidence that hangs together quite well we do have Oswald's statement that "I am a patsy".
Oswald wanted to be "known for a thousand years" and he accomplished that.
He would be well pleased that on this day more people are talking about him that President Kennedy. He achieved his goal.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Your first seems to be based on the belief that a patsy's own gun with his own fingerprints would not be planted at the crime scene, and that a real perp would not wipe down the gun before abandoning it at the crime scene.
Your second assumes that a patsy would not know the President was killed, and would not suspect that he was about to be set up for the fall.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)for his movements after the assassination?
Why did he:
1) Leave the building
2) Return to the boarding house
3) Retrieve a revolver
4) Shoot Tippit 4 times (who had not unholstered his revolver)
5) Pull the trigger in the theater
There are areas of confusion and fog but Oswald's movements from the building after the assassination are well documented by dozens of unconnected witnesses and confirmed finally by a public arrest of Oswald in a movie theater where he had the gun that shot Tippit.
You may find this fascinating and intellectually stimulating but for most of us that looked at the facts decades ago the actions screamed conspiracy but when you learn the details it falls apart.
I will stand with Teddy Kennedy who was satisfied with the basic conclusions of the Warren Commission and allow you to continue with the last word.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Those are more unjustified assumptions.
renate
(13,776 posts)If Ruby had been assigned, by plotters using Oswald as a patsy, the task of shooting Oswald to silence him, why on earth wouldn't he have been positioned, say, right outside the door of the 6th floor storeroom as Oswald ran to escape, to shoot him with no witnesses and with practically guaranteed access to him? How could the entire plan to silence Oswald been based on anybody's ability to get close enough to him during a prison transfer, days later, by which time he might have decided to talk about the plot anyway?
The idea of people smart enough to cover their tracks for 50 years deliberately deciding to leave Oswald to roam around Oak Cliff, or anywhere else in Dallas, after carrying out this big involved plot with multiple components just seems extremely unlikely to me.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)who was a soft touch and someone who they could get to talk without any prompting
Dallas reporter Tony Zoppi, who knew Ruby well, claims that one "would have to be crazy" to entrust Ruby with anything as important as a high-level plot to kill Kennedy since he "couldn't keep a secret for five minutes… Jack was one of the most talkative guys you would ever meet. He'd be the worst fellow in the world to be part of a conspiracy, because he just plain talked too much."[75] He and others describe Ruby as the sort who enjoyed being at "the center of attention", trying to make friends with people and being more of a nuisance
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)To fit an agenda. And there are a lot of agendas, so there are a lot of CTs about JFK.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)The very first time I visited Dealy Plaza, I could not believe how small the place was. It looks enormous on film and TV. It is a near equilateral triangle about 400 ft on a side. The Grassy Knoll is the extremely small.
I stood on the sidewalk next to the X spot of the fatal head shot, looked up, and said, "Holy shit, Oswald could have done it all by himself."
After the Sixth Floor Museum was opened, and I stood next to the window where Oswald is supposed to have fired from, that convinced me. I said to myself. "Well LHO did it all by himself, and all those Conspiracy books I have read over the years are so much crap."
I have been shooting guns for over 40 years. For people who have never handled or fired a gun in their life it is easy to accept what other have told them about the Carcano rifle and its ammunition. Yes, the Carcano was a POS rifle compared to that of the other major combatants of WWII, but it was still a powerful weapon. It was perfectly adequate to do what Oswald is accused of doing. I think LHO did it alone, with the Carcano rifle he bought via mail order, but that he used the iron sights for the fatal shot. He might have used the optical sight for the first shot, but I think he realized the scope was off, and used the iron sights for the last two shots. Then again he might have realized the optical sight was off when he tried to shoot Walker and missed, and was just too lazy to take it off the rifle.
If there is anger it is because many of us think the whole JFK CT process has turned into a giant waste of time, effort and energy by a lot of people. Every year we argue the point, rehash the same old arguments, and very few people have their minds changed. Furthermore being accused of all sorts of perfidies by CT does little to persuade those of us who think LHO acted alone. Plus it is flat insulting.
I think the reason so many people are attracted to CT is that they have a hard time accepting the fact that the most powerful man in the world could be killed by a nobody. Despite that the Assassinations of Garfield and McKinley were by lone gunman. You can argue the point of Lincoln. They you have the lone nuts who tried to shoot Ford, twice. Did shoot George Wallace. Did shoot Ronald Reagan. Did murder John Lennon. Now, as to RFK and MLK, I'm still not sure about them.
People have trouble accepting the fact that cataclysmic events can happen without cataclysmic reasons behind them. People have trouble accepting that 9/11 happened because the National Security apparatus of the US totally failed at their duty. People still believe that Pearl Harbor was a LIHOP by FDR. Once again, they can't accept the fact that the National Security apparatus of the US totally failed at their duty.
I think if anything makes me personally upset, is the elevation of JFK to Sainthood by people who really believe that we would have had World Peace if JFK had lived. JFK was a flawed human being. He wasn't a Saint.
I am perfectly willing to accept that JFK was killed as the result of a Conspiracy provided there was clear incontrovertible evidence that stood up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Film evidence never before seen. A confession with corroborating evidence. Something that would be accepted in a Court of Law.
The final question I would ask you, and those who believe as you is that:
"What would it take to prove to you, beyond any doubt, that you would finally accept that LHO was the Lone Assassin?"
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I also believe that it was Oswald acting alone, and my belief has become greater in recent weeks since I've been reading more about the incident due to the 50th anniversary.
As someone familiar with guns and marksmanship, how hard was it actually in your opinion to make those shots? Three shots, within about 7 seconds, at a moving target 50-100 yards, with a bolt-action rifle, shooting from a rest. And under a lot of pressure, although it is reported during the post-assassination Oswald was reportedly calmer than anyone else in the room, so maybe the pressure didn't get to him. I have read conflicting accounts, but since I've shot a rifle maybe twice in my life, I have no personal experience to bring to bear.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)But not in 6 seconds or less, UNLESS he used technique described in number 3.
It would be dependent on how familiar Oswald with the rifle.
(1) He bought the gun in March, so that was 8 months before the assassination. If he dry-fired (practiced working the bolt and pulling the trigger when the rifle was empty) the rifle extensively, which neighbors stated he did, he would have become familiar with the working of the rifle, and how fast he could cycle the bolt. He would have developed a feel for the trigger. The more he dry-fired the rifle, the smoother the action would have become through simple wear fitting of the parts. Even today, with modern manufacturing techniques, people still dry-fire guns to break them in. It is easy, the only thing it costs is time, some "snap-cap" plastic practice cartridges to protect the firing pin or striker, and some lubricant.
(2) How many actual rounds had he fired through the gun, so to actually feel how the rifle recoiled when fired, and how fast he could recover his sight picture. The ammunition was good quality, manufactured in the US by the Western Cartridge Company, reportedly in 1954, so it would have been 9 years old. Unless ammo is exposed to the elements, it is not going to deteriorate. Ammunition can last a hundred years or more, and still work. You can read more about the ammo, and tests done on it here. Since Oswald was cheap, he probably didn't get more than 2 or 3 boxes, which meant at 20 rounds per box, that is a maximum of 60 rounds. Twenty rounds through a rifle would be enough to get a feel for it. Especially if he was slow firing, and taking time between shots. This left him 20-40 rounds.
(3) Even though Oswald was right handed, some have speculated he shot left handed that day so he could cycle the bolt faster, with his dominant right hand. He would have used his right hand to cycle the bolt because the bolt was on the right side. Thus he could have kept his left finger on the trigger, and his eyes on the sights. Which meant his rate of fire would have been faster, and his accuracy would have been better. If he had shot right handed, he would have pulled the trigger with his right trigger finger, moved his hand to cycle the bolt, put his hand back on the stock, finger back on the trigger, reacquired his sight picture and then only been able to pull the trigger again.
(4) I do not think Oswald used the junk optical (telescopic) sight that came with the rifle. I think he used the non-adjustable iron sights as he had been trained in the Marine Corp. See here for what the rifle would have looked like to him, and a description of what shooting a Carcano was like. Note the mounting the of the 'scope to the left of the Note that the iron sights are clearly visible.
(5) Here is what I think happened, based on years of reading and thinking about it. I think Oswald did as I have described in #1-#4.
(6) Oswald would had a clear field of fire because he was 60 feet up. He was aiming for a headshot but he was using the non-adjustable iron sights and he had to compensate by "holding under". See explanation here. This first shot would have been at an extreme down angle because the limousine had just turned the corner. Oswald "held under" too much (too low) with his first shot the and bullet hit Kennedy in the upper back, and went on through and struck Connally.
(7) Oswald compensated for his first bad shot, and held higher, but it was too high. This shot missed both men. It might have gone through the limousine windshield, or went completely over the car, hit the pavement and broke up. But in either case fragments probably hit James Teague.
(8) Oswald realizes his mistake, corrects his sight picture, and fires the fatal shot at a distance of under 300 feet (100 yards). When he fired the fatal shot, Kennedy would have been further down the street, the angle would have been less, and this Oswald would have had an easier shot.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I've done this many times with my US M1917. You don't hold the butt tight to your shoulder the whole time while working the bolt. You counter-rotate the rifle.
Works rather nicely.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)that changed my mind as well. Even in 1960 television/still camera terms, the plaza looks much more panoramic than it actually is. In fact, last year when my brother-in-law and family came down for a visit I had to drive them around 3 times before they actually "saw" what we have seen on television all these years. Standing in the windows adjacent to the one Oswald set up in, it became clear to me that he absolutely could have done it alone.
belltower
(74 posts)including those involving GHWB.
TBF
(32,029 posts)Some authors have spelled out the connecting between the Bush family and Allen Dulles ...
Welcome to DU
WowSeriously
(343 posts)assassination or supply-side wreckonomics, is not a good thing. You don't need certainty to disregard zombie theories. Lack of evidence is sufficient, or evidence to the contrary is sufficient for me.
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)what is contained in the Warren report. I am not a conspiracy fanatic but the circumstances are just too compelling.
Suspected killer had been in the USSR and had a Russian wife. He had been to the Russian embassy in Mexico. He was sympathetic to socialist causes including Cuba.
Jack Ruby was known to be a mobster himself or entangled with the mob.
There is conflicting evidence as to whether there was more than one shooter that day in Dealy Plaza.
The CIA was furious at JFK for not supporting the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
The mob was furious at JFK/RFK for their crackdown on organized crime.
J. Edgar Hoover was no fan of JFK or RFK.
All those facts suggest there is something more than the lone shooter conclusions of the Warren report. I am not saying there was a vast conspiracy but I think there is more to this story than we may ever know. Many, if not all, of those involved are dead now.
Kaleva
(36,290 posts)If folks want to spend time discussing various theories in CS, then more power to them.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)
libodem
(19,288 posts)I can still visualize the inside of our apartment when I think of the day. My dad was resolute in his belief there was no conspiracy. And I admired his intelligence so much. He was a great thinker. If there is such a thing. He wasn't about to be made foolish by buying into anything that would make him look like a 'nut'. He wasn't about to appear irrational or illogical. He didn't want his judgement questioned in other matters.
Not me. I might appear to be a headcase, and have wildly questionable judgement, destroyed my personal credibility, but I always had questions about the single person theory. Yep. Just did. And still do.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)For one, very few who know much about it accept the Warren Commission as gospel and the final word. Most of us have real lives with real concerns and are too concerned with the issues of today and the future to invest emotions like anger into a debate about JFK CT'ers.
One can reasonably question some conclusions of Warren Commission and still believe there is enough conclusive evidence to say JFK assassination was the work of one disturbed lone gunman.
Such a theory is further buttressed by the fact that subsequent assassinations or attempts were carried out by troubled individuals with no connection to a larger plot.
stopbush
(24,393 posts)There is no evidence for your CT.
That's it.
Were you advocating that the earth was 6,000 years old, you'd get the same reaction from those of us living in a fact-based universe. There's no point debating the age of the earth with a person who is willfully ignorant of the evidence, so why debate a person who hasn't a clue as to the mountains of evidence in the JFK case?
To listen to the typical JFK CTist to hear the same tired lies about the murder over and over again. It's clear that most CTists get their info from Oliver Stone's movie, not from the actual evidence in the case.
Rather than CTists like yourself getting pissed off at those of us to whom evidence means something, you might direct your spleen at the CT authors et al who have been lying to you for the past 50 years.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)stopbush
(24,393 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)CFLDem
(2,083 posts)Go ahead, prove me wrong.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Evidence can be proven wrong. If there's no evidence, there's no theory. Sophistic speculations are a waste of time, except to the extent that they motivate people to do actual investigatory work.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)e.
A highly annoying tactic.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)duffyduff
(3,251 posts)I can't believe you guys believe conspiracy shit after all of this time.
Give. It. Up.
dchill
(38,462 posts)In another 25 years, we'll know more.
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)And I don't think people will care any more by then.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Not that a bunch of shit that's blacked out, redacted, or destroyed will shed any new light.
gopiscrap
(23,733 posts)
Warpy
(111,222 posts)Means, motive, opportunity.
Oswald had the means and opportunity. He had no motive. Someone must have supplied him with one.
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)Like Oswald being the only shooter is irrefutable so just agree to that part and then we can have a real discussion about there being a bigger conspiracy behind it, but most CTs I know buy crazy on the whole issue rather than agreeing that some of the ideas are bullshit.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)other than the most basic facts?
President Kennedy was shot in Dallas, TX, on November 22, 1963, at 12:30 PM CST. Beyond that and a few other details, everything is a disagreement. 99% of the time, we aren't even speaking the same damned language.
What do you expect to happen when people who are passionate about widely divergent opinions encounter each other? It's not as though we're lobbing rocks and missiles at each other. We're arguing on the internet. If the worst I get out of it is that someone dismisses my argument out of hand, I'd say I've gotten off pretty light.
A-Schwarzenegger
(15,596 posts)... A child, however, who had no important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, went up to the carriage.
"The Emperor is naked," he said.
"Fool!" his father reprimanded, running after him. "Don't talk nonsense!" He grabbed his child and took him away. But the boy's remark, which had been heard by the bystanders, was repeated over and over again until everyone cried:
"The boy is right! The Emperor is naked! It's true!"
The Emperor realized that the people were right but could not admit to that. He thought it better to continue the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldn't see his clothes was either stupid or incompetent. And he stood stiffly on his carriage, while behind him a page held his imaginary mantle.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)with more aplomb than I have the patience to respond with. I was running up the stairs between lunch hour and next class when the principle announced the shooting, not death, shooting. Yvonne was in front of me and she immediately started crying. The rest of that afternoon was a dreadfully sad blur of emotions from teachers to students. I have been interested in this coup since it happened. There, according to me, is just too much evidence pointing away from the one shooter scenario. But that's just me and 50 years later I'm still sticking to this line of reasoning concerning the assassination of JFK. Good luck to you.
Maybe the truth will slip out one day.
northoftheborder
(7,571 posts)I've heard just recently that some of the Kennedy's share this opinion, and even RFK expressed doubt over the real story before he was killed. (Also 61% of American people have doubts.) I have no theories to defend.
liberalhistorian
(20,814 posts)is that it's still a very emotional issue, even if you didn't actually live through it but especially if you did, and it's very frightening to think that more than one person, indeed, groups or agencies, could have been involved in such a tragic subversion of democracy.
Personally, I do believe that Oswald was the lone gunman, but I am not at all convinced that he acted all on his own. In fact, I'm almost sure that he didn't. Now, as to whether he was acting for the CIA, the Mob, the John Birchers or other assorted RW radical anti-American trash who seemed to gravitate to Dallas and other parts of Texas, I don't know. I'm not sure if we'll ever know, at least not until the government releases a lot of the classified documentation that it's still keeping under wraps. Dallas was such a hotbed of RW hate and radicalism that he may very well have been acting on their behalf.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Silent3
(15,178 posts)...that would be one thing. But typically the tone and attitude of the presentation of CTs, and often the literal words used, show that most vocal CTers are pretty damn certain of their "suggestions", and that their "questions" are merely rhetorical, not honest inquiries.
I'm perfectly willing to admit that at least some suggested CTs are possible, but adamant certainty about them, or even rating many of them as more likely that the reviled "official story", is seldom warranted, and in some cases quite laughable.
RagAss
(13,832 posts)U.S. Marine.
Leaves for Soviet Union.
Lives in Soviet Union and marries there.
Returns to U.S. without being detained - in the middle of the fucking Cold War !
Filmed by the FBI passing out Pro Castro leaflets on a street in New Orleans. - why him?
Takes a shot at right wing General Walker and "oooops I missed" - takes photos of Walker's house too. What assassin does that ??
Appears on television and radio to debate pro-Marxists views. - talk about creating a profile.
Travels to the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico and makes a scene in both places worthy of an Emmy.
Yeh, right - your typical 23 year old nut with a rifle.
The only conspiracy here is that there is no conspiracy.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)but it's not a question of certainty. It's a question of odds and simplicity.
A CT on JFK by now would require a conspiracy of truly ridiculous robustness, one in which no whistleblower, like Snowden re the NSA, ever reveals the deep dark secret at the heart that makes everyone sit up and believe.
That's the simplicity part.
The odds part: given the evidence and the requirement for robustness of the conspiracy given above, the way to bet is that Oswald acted alone. In real life, I partially support myself by trading something called the VIX, an index on stock options. I bet that it will revert to near its average if it moves to one extreme or another. It doesn't always work, but it doesn't have to, it just has to work enough to make me a profit. I don't care if I'm wrong in any one trade, only that all of them taken together work because I've made the odds work in my favor.
Re JFK, it is possible that Oswald was the front for a conspiracy. But given the weight of the evidence, it's not the way to bet. Anything is possible, but not everything is probable, a thing most people don't really understand.
It's possible, if you find a guy with five bullet wounds to his chest, dead, and with a .22 bolt action rifle nearby that you determine to be the weapon that caused those wounds, that he committed suicide. But you wouldn't bet on that, because the odds are not exactly in favor of it.
In this case you have an identified rifle that belonged to a certain person, that person is known to have fired that weapon on that day, and all of the bullets recovered came from that rifle. All of that is enough to make it certain to a degree of certainty that is quite acceptable, that Oswald killed JFK.
The next question is whether there was backup. Given the cheapness of the weapon used, backup wasn't financially needed. His training in the use of the weapon had already been provided by the US military, so no need for training or for the financial means to pay for it was needed. He already had a job on the route to be taken by JFK, so no special arrangements needed to be made to get him to the spot to commit the crime.
So, no pressing need for someone to back him up. Therefore, the simplest explanation is that he acted alone. That might be wrong, but you wouldn't want to bet against it, because the odds are simply not in your favor.
Anything is possible, but not everything is probable
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)PCIntern
(25,513 posts)Because.
BeatleBoot
(7,111 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Not sure why. It just is.
We certainly don't want to pester the government to release the rest of the files they're keeping secret, no sir.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)So there.
Anyway, just explain to me who was impersonating Oswald in the phone calls to the Soviet and Cuban consulates in Mexico City, Why, and why the CIA covered it up.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/biographies/oswald/oswald-the-cia-and-mexico-city/
Seems an odd data point, for a "lone nut", doesn't it?
I don't have a "theory" but I also don't look at the thing and see a neat little story with no odd bits. Hell, on 9-11, I think Osama ordered Hijackers to fly planes into buildings (duh) but I still haven't heard anyone explain the statistically aberrant short selling of airline stocks immediately prior to the event.
I resent the fact that there are things "shhh we shouldn't ask about". And the continual belittlement of people who point out shit like the fact that Oswald's trajectory was nothing if not bizarre- so much so that one would have to be seriously deluded to NOT question whether he had some connection to intelligence agencies- guess what? It doesn't make anyone's case stronger.
The fact that the people trying to shut down discussion have been reduced to, essentailly, "neener neener" arguments only makes them look bad.
DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Anyway, those head crabs cook up tasty with drawn butter.
DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)And I think Barney just fainted.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Very few people would argue that the Warren theory is 100% wrong. Indeed, most of it is probably correct -- as far as it went. But we also know that there were some real problem areas with some of the evidence. Most specifically, 1) the magic bullet, that really couldn't have taken the bizarre path the Commission had to invent in order to keep it to a lone shooter. 2) And the fact that this same magic bullet turned up intact at the hospital, and was not missing the fragments that were still in Conneley's body. 3) It is a really tortured logic to try to prove that the final shot did not enter the front and exit the back of JFK's head. 4) And the timing between the second and third shots seems extremely improbable for the gun in question. There are many other items in question, but those are the the big ones that really require a suspension of disbelief in order to accept the Warren theory as full and complete.
The real problem here is that If any of those 4 items is not plausible -- any one of them -- then we are no longer talking about a lone gunman. And that immediately means that this is a MUCH nastier situation. So the Warren Commission had to fight like crazy to make those 4 points stick, and then lock up crucial evidence for 75 or even 100 years.
If any one of those 4 crucial points is wrong, then the Warren Commission told us only 5% of the whole story.
OwnedByCats
(805 posts)because I love to hear and participate in conjecture. There was a time when if you told me JFK was most likely an inside job (CIA or whoever), I would have been shocked at just the mere thought of it, much less that it happened. However, I'm older now and have seen some pretty messed up things and even I now have questions about official stories because there are always elements in each event that doesn't make sense which puts the whole thing into question. I don't know if any of them are true, but I can understand why any critical thinker would be suspicious and question things.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Now if those who are so gawd damned certain they know what happened could just tell the rest of us what cloud Jesus lives on, we can move on to other things.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)Question authority. This must be done, always.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)"A final characteristic of the paranoid style is related to the quality of its pedantry. One of the impressive things about paranoid literature is the contrast between its fantasied conclusions and the almost touching concern with factuality it invariably shows. It produces heroic strivings for evidence to prove that the unbelievable is the only thing that can be believed. Of course, there are highbrow, lowbrow, and middlebrow paranoids, as there are likely to be in any political tendency. But respectable paranoid literature not only starts from certain moral commitments that can indeed be justified but also carefully and all but obsessively accumulates “evidence.” The difference between this “evidence” and that commonly employed by others is that it seems less a means of entering into normal political controversy than a means of warding off the profane intrusion of the secular political world. The paranoid seems to have little expectation of actually convincing a hostile world, but he can accumulate evidence in order to protect his cherished convictions from it."
Richard Hofstadter "The Paranoid Style in American Politics"
Paranoia. Its as American as apple pie.
PCIntern
(25,513 posts)Amusing. As I asked: why so angry? You just stated that this is a matter of pathology as opposed to rational, reasonable thought and consideration. You once again have shown that my point was well taken. I thank you.
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)Perfect.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 24, 2013, 02:33 PM - Edit history (1)
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)Carry on. Perfect. You are more an example of willful ignorance and an obnoxious internet snert than Hofstadter's paranoid style in American politics.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)
Because I know how you like da' smileys.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)KansDem
(28,498 posts)After 50 years, it still needs to be said...
[font size="1"](And I've added "vituperation" to my everyday vocabulary).[font size="2"]
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)Criminal conspiracies DO exist, even conspiracies to assassinate the President of the United States-- Abraham Lincoln, e.g. -- so I'm not one of those who immediately attacks a CT as 'whacked out' or 'crazy'. Having said that, I do think that the Warren Commission got it MOSTLY right. As they say here, "Even a blind hog finds an acorn, now and then".
By training, I am a lawyer (Drake University Law School, Class of 1982), although I chose to use my degree in both business and government. Law students are required to take a two semester-long classes in Evidence. One of the legal principles of evidence in the Anglo-Saxon system a student is taught is the principle of 'best evidence'. That is to say, the best evidence of a writing, photograph, recording, etc., is the thing itself. Absent the original, the 'best evidence' becomes a certified copy of the original, an un-certified copy of the original, supported by sworn testimony, etc., etc., etc. .
A great many crimes have unanswered questions, at the time of trial. Indeed, even after trial, questions often remain unanswered. The facts that a question or questions remain unanswered does not render it impossible to prove every element of a crime 'beyond a reasonable doubt, and to a moral certainty'. In 2013, what is able to be proven about the murder of President John Kennedy in Dallas TX on November 22, 1963, using the best evidence, is that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, killed the President.
The Warren Commission did the American people a great disservice in that it reached the correct conclusion, but did so in an extremely flawed manner:
1.) There was no 'magic bullet', nor was it 'pristine', by any means. More than anything else, the Warren Commission's conclusion regarding the bullet that struck both President Kennedy and Governor Connally, Jr., has given fuel to the fires of CT's. Relying upon a flawed understanding of where the President and Governor were seated in the limousine, coupled with their grossly inaccurate description of the bullet found on the Governor's stretcher at Parkland Hospital, the Commission gave CT's their "AHA!" evidence. We now know that the Governor was not seated directly in front of the President, but was, rather, seated inboard and to the left of the President, allowing the bullet to align perfectly with the sniper and to produce all 7 wounds. Further, while the bullet recovered from the Governor's stretcher lost little mass, it was both flattened (oblate) and bent-- hardly 'pristine'. A copper-jacketed, military-style bullet, which the 'magic bullet' was, is designed to perform and behave precisely as it behaved that day.
2.) The Commission's second-most egregious error that has fueled the fire of CT's was its inability to clearly explain the movement of President Kennedy's head, following the third and fatal shot. I do not propose to answer the question of "why" they did not do so, but simply submit that they did not adequately do so. The 'backward movement' of the President's head, clearly observable in the Zapruder film, is the result of simple physics and entirely consistent with a gunshot wound to the back of the President's head, the bullet exiting from the right parietal an temporal areas of the cranium. Simply stated, the force of the ejected brain, bone, etc., provided 'thrust' that caused the President's head to move to the rear. Although counter-intuitive, the backward movement of the President's head is absolutely logical, under the law of physics.
I could go on and on in a 'point by point' refutation of various "Then how do you explain _______?", but I won't, since it is not my intention to add to the myriad tomes regarding the Kennedy assassination. My sole purpose has been to acknowledge that there ARE unanswered and, possibly, unanswerable questions regarding President Kennedy's murder, but that does not mean that the 'best evidence' available does NOT prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt, and to a moral certainty' who was and is responsible for his death-- Lee H. Oswald.
Thanks for hearing me out!
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Very well said.
truth2power
(8,219 posts)First of all, let me say that I'm also a CT believer, and I refuse to make excuses for that, here or anywhere else.
I am old enough to remember the day that JFK was murdered, and I've had a very difficult time these past few days. I find myself asking, "Was it really 50 years ago? It seems like yesterday." And I feel profound sorrow because I know, in my heart, that some of those who perpetrated that heinous crime are still walking free.
As to the anger you've observed (as have I), there appears to be a negative correlation between the level of anger expressed and how comfortable one feels with his or her stance. That is, the more anger, the less their certainty.
Furthermore, there are those on this site who seem to revel in ridiculing anyone who questions any of a number of official narratives perpetrated by the Government.
More importantly, their posts seem to have a scripted quality, i.e., terms of ridicule are peppered throughout the post, which is usually lacking in substance, and then there's one word at the end, usually on a separate line, that wraps it all up. Frequently it's a word such as "pathetic".
This tends to engender a visceral reaction in the reader. Who wants to be ridiculed for their point of view? But a little thought will show that it's only an attempt to manipulate with ridicule what one can't support with logic.
Furthermore, I think some of the individuals who engage in this tactic have been TASKED, by person or persons unknown, with keeping a lid on any untoward investigation of the issue.
I don't know about anyone else, but this just encourages me to investigate further.
We should all learn to ignore those who are trying to waste our time with trivialities.
PCIntern
(25,513 posts)I agree.
bobGandolf
(871 posts)Many of the same questions I had, especially regarding the anger, and ridicule.
Boomerproud
(7,949 posts)enough said. Peace and over and out.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)conspiracy IMO. Or plain old fashioned Soviet revenge, which is more likely and more direct than the usual Cuban mess that people bring up.
And it's more likely because of a CIA link. (How easily Oswald got back into the US after defecting.) There was a bit of give and take between the CIA and KGB in those days. Turning a blind eye when it was convenient. On occasion a mission by one would serve a purpose of the other and was allowed.
I'm not saying this is what I believe to be true. Just that
1) Lone gunman doesn't rule out other involvement.
2) Other involvement if present is most likely to have been USSR/KGB since they had motive and the best expertise and Oswald had been theirs. Lastly,
3) If there is a larger CT then it would have to be CIA allowing Oswald reentry into the US so easily by claiming him as one of their own, too. And then turning a blind eye to his activities at the very least. From this point you could go to GHWB.
When it gets to Jack Ruby is when I shrug. He was either an idiot who acted out of anger or he was blackmailed.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Khrushchev and Kennedy were getting to be too cozy for the comfort of the militarists.
marsis
(301 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 30, 2013, 04:40 PM - Edit history (1)
that not only JFK but Bobby Kennedy, John Kennedy Jr., and Paul Wellstone were also victums of nefarious agencies. Possibly, at least to me, Wellstone's death did more to destroy the party than Faux Newts.
Whatever the agency is, they have the means, the motive and the balls to do it, any doubts as to whether it is feasable?
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)The suspicion that Wellstone was assassinated by small plane along with his family is quite supportable, and at times (IIRC) the majority of Minnesotans believed that he had been murdered.
There's a book about it. The top review summarized its points quite succinctly, so I never bothered to read the book.
http://www.amazon.com/American-Assassination-Strange-Senator-Wellstone/dp/0975276301/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1385753171&sr=1-5&keywords=wellstone
marsis
(301 posts)the ramifications are still being felt in the USA by his untimely death, and will be for the foreseeable future.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,829 posts)PCIntern
(25,513 posts)But I won't forgive Lara Logan or CBS. Happy Thanksgiving!