HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Justice for JFK
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:40 AM

Justice for JFK



What Can We Do About JFK's Murder?

It's time to demand accountability from the officials who failed to protect the president -- and then spent decades covering up their mistakes.


by Jefferson Morley
The Atlantic, Nov. 21, 2012

As November 22 comes around again, the memory of John F. Kennedy's assassination seems to be fading in America's collective consciousness, save among aging Baby Boomers like myself. Few people younger than me (I'm 54) have any memory of the day it actually happened. 9/11 has replaced 11/22 as the date stamp of catastrophic angst.

Yet that doesn't mean people have stopped looking for answers. The buzz surrounding the release of Jackie Kennedy's private conversations and Tom Hanks' upcoming Dallas movie shows that the public is still seeking new theories and clues. Two years ago on this site, I tried to answer the question "What Do We Really Know About JFK?" With the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination approaching next year, the time for conspiracy theories has passed and the time for accountability is coming. Now is the time to ask, "What can we do about JFK's assassination?"

For one thing, we can use the Internet. The World Wide Web has birthed many conspiracy theories (most of them easily debunked), but it has also made the historical record of JFK's murder available to millions of people outside of Washington and the federal government for the first time. I have to believe this diffusion of historical knowledge will slowly clarify the JFK story for everybody.

CONTINUED w links...

http://m.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/what-can-we-do-about-jfks-murder/265520/

508 replies, 73618 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 508 replies Author Time Post
Reply Justice for JFK (Original post)
Octafish Nov 2012 OP
zappaman Nov 2012 #1
lonestarnot Nov 2012 #4
stopbush Nov 2012 #8
Politicalboi Nov 2012 #223
Cetacea Nov 2012 #285
Octafish Nov 2012 #19
stopbush Nov 2012 #29
Octafish Nov 2012 #34
stopbush Nov 2012 #50
MrMickeysMom Nov 2012 #76
stopbush Nov 2012 #84
MrMickeysMom Nov 2012 #161
stopbush Nov 2012 #188
Octafish Nov 2012 #243
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #305
zappaman Nov 2012 #313
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #317
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #165
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #181
Caretha Nov 2012 #189
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #235
Ya Basta Nov 2012 #425
stopbush Nov 2012 #429
stopbush Nov 2012 #433
zappaman Nov 2012 #434
stopbush Nov 2012 #436
The Doctor. Nov 2012 #38
BlueCaliDem Nov 2012 #301
jeggus Nov 2012 #39
YoungDemCA Nov 2012 #49
MrMickeysMom Nov 2012 #78
Octafish Nov 2012 #444
EOTE Nov 2012 #337
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #150
RoccoR5955 Nov 2012 #226
colorado_ufo Nov 2012 #40
arthritisR_US Nov 2012 #55
hifiguy Nov 2012 #485
arthritisR_US Nov 2012 #497
Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #158
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #168
stopbush Nov 2012 #193
Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #199
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #220
stopbush Nov 2012 #251
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #253
stopbush Nov 2012 #275
AntiFascist Nov 2012 #377
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #45
arthritisR_US Nov 2012 #58
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #69
arthritisR_US Nov 2012 #117
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #134
zappaman Nov 2012 #136
arthritisR_US Nov 2012 #157
cpwm17 Nov 2012 #231
Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #163
stopbush Nov 2012 #190
Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #192
stopbush Nov 2012 #195
Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #203
Hermes Daughter Nov 2012 #222
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #264
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #279
stopbush Nov 2012 #276
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #281
stopbush Nov 2012 #375
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #396
stopbush Nov 2012 #417
AntiFascist Nov 2012 #486
AntiFascist Nov 2012 #415
NoMoreWarNow Nov 2012 #63
avebury Nov 2012 #77
stopbush Nov 2012 #87
avebury Nov 2012 #93
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #173
Jack Sprat Nov 2012 #112
stopbush Nov 2012 #124
Jack Sprat Nov 2012 #127
stopbush Nov 2012 #196
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #224
stopbush Nov 2012 #263
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #339
FogerRox Nov 2012 #364
stopbush Nov 2012 #380
Octafish Nov 2012 #446
stopbush Nov 2012 #374
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #381
stopbush Nov 2012 #383
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #410
stopbush Nov 2012 #418
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #422
stopbush Nov 2012 #427
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #456
cpwm17 Nov 2012 #406
zappaman Nov 2012 #348
Festivito Nov 2012 #131
Michigan Alum Nov 2012 #378
Phx_Dem Nov 2012 #113
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #61
frogmarch Nov 2012 #86
stopbush Nov 2012 #92
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #140
Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #167
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #175
Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #184
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #194
stopbush Nov 2012 #198
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #206
Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #207
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #191
Hermes Daughter Nov 2012 #219
rbrnmw Nov 2012 #409
Hermes Daughter Nov 2012 #459
Cetacea Nov 2012 #284
billh58 Nov 2012 #330
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #246
frogmarch Nov 2012 #282
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #311
Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #170
lonestarnot Nov 2012 #274
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #359
gstxdem4445ex Nov 2012 #236
hrmjustin Nov 2012 #343
Cirque du So-What Nov 2012 #2
zappaman Nov 2012 #3
stopbush Nov 2012 #9
edbermac Nov 2012 #21
stopbush Nov 2012 #27
Berlum Nov 2012 #33
Iggy Nov 2012 #132
Berlum Nov 2012 #160
Iggy Nov 2012 #270
stopbush Nov 2012 #382
Iggy Nov 2012 #384
stopbush Nov 2012 #389
edbermac Nov 2012 #145
stopbush Nov 2012 #204
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #205
hedgehog Nov 2012 #369
DJ13 Nov 2012 #53
cpwm17 Nov 2012 #233
DJ13 Nov 2012 #237
Octafish Nov 2012 #259
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #268
cpwm17 Nov 2012 #307
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #319
cpwm17 Nov 2012 #368
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #373
cpwm17 Nov 2012 #465
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #479
cpwm17 Nov 2012 #490
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #493
AntiFascist Nov 2012 #420
Octafish Nov 2012 #22
AnotherDreamWeaver Nov 2012 #95
zappaman Nov 2012 #105
stopbush Nov 2012 #125
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #202
bobthedrummer Nov 2012 #5
Octafish Nov 2012 #24
MrMickeysMom Nov 2012 #80
bobthedrummer Nov 2012 #89
CanSocDem Nov 2012 #6
YoungDemCA Nov 2012 #12
Octafish Nov 2012 #48
YoungDemCA Nov 2012 #57
CanSocDem Nov 2012 #99
stopbush Nov 2012 #7
bobthedrummer Nov 2012 #10
stopbush Nov 2012 #14
bobthedrummer Nov 2012 #16
stopbush Nov 2012 #17
bobthedrummer Nov 2012 #18
stopbush Nov 2012 #23
Octafish Nov 2012 #25
stopbush Nov 2012 #30
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #83
stopbush Nov 2012 #97
zappaman Nov 2012 #106
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #118
zappaman Nov 2012 #119
stopbush Nov 2012 #121
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #126
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #357
MrMickeysMom Nov 2012 #171
HangOnKids Nov 2012 #232
bobthedrummer Nov 2012 #32
MadHound Nov 2012 #26
stopbush Nov 2012 #41
Eyes of the World Nov 2012 #103
stopbush Nov 2012 #109
Eyes of the World Nov 2012 #110
stopbush Nov 2012 #123
Eyes of the World Nov 2012 #111
FogerRox Nov 2012 #366
tonybgood Nov 2012 #46
stopbush Nov 2012 #75
Caretha Nov 2012 #208
tonybgood Nov 2012 #291
stopbush Nov 2012 #419
tonybgood Nov 2012 #439
stopbush Nov 2012 #448
Octafish Nov 2012 #461
stopbush Nov 2012 #462
Octafish Nov 2012 #471
hootinholler Nov 2012 #472
tonybgood Nov 2012 #483
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #177
Octafish Nov 2012 #297
stopbush Nov 2012 #11
Octafish Nov 2012 #31
stopbush Nov 2012 #43
Octafish Nov 2012 #52
stopbush Nov 2012 #65
rbrnmw Nov 2012 #489
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #217
stopbush Nov 2012 #254
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #269
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #266
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #172
stopbush Nov 2012 #200
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #212
ananda Nov 2012 #13
stopbush Nov 2012 #15
The Doctor. Nov 2012 #51
stopbush Nov 2012 #59
The Doctor. Nov 2012 #67
stopbush Nov 2012 #73
Octafish Nov 2012 #481
Overseas Nov 2012 #20
Octafish Nov 2012 #398
patrice Nov 2012 #28
Octafish Nov 2012 #400
patrice Nov 2012 #401
Old and In the Way Nov 2012 #35
Octafish Nov 2012 #156
TheMightyFavog Nov 2012 #36
Mc Mike Nov 2012 #405
TheMightyFavog Nov 2012 #416
Tumbulu Nov 2012 #37
stopbush Nov 2012 #100
billh58 Nov 2012 #42
stopbush Nov 2012 #44
The Doctor. Nov 2012 #56
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #91
stopbush Nov 2012 #102
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #187
billh58 Nov 2012 #104
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #122
zappaman Nov 2012 #129
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #142
zappaman Nov 2012 #147
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #152
zappaman Nov 2012 #355
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #362
zappaman Nov 2012 #367
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #372
stopbush Nov 2012 #137
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #141
stopbush Nov 2012 #209
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #214
Caretha Nov 2012 #213
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #218
Caretha Nov 2012 #221
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #225
stopbush Nov 2012 #256
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #85
billh58 Nov 2012 #101
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #128
zappaman Nov 2012 #130
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #146
zappaman Nov 2012 #149
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #151
zappaman Nov 2012 #154
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #159
zappaman Nov 2012 #162
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #183
Caretha Nov 2012 #216
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #431
billh58 Nov 2012 #241
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #250
billh58 Nov 2012 #346
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #349
billh58 Nov 2012 #352
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #363
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #435
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #442
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #447
billh58 Nov 2012 #452
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #328
billh58 Nov 2012 #336
YoungDemCA Nov 2012 #47
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #60
MrMickeysMom Nov 2012 #70
stopbush Nov 2012 #107
MrMickeysMom Nov 2012 #164
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #197
billh58 Nov 2012 #245
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #252
billh58 Nov 2012 #273
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #334
billh58 Nov 2012 #342
stopbush Nov 2012 #260
FlaGranny Nov 2012 #79
Rex Nov 2012 #308
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #54
The Doctor. Nov 2012 #62
NoMoreWarNow Nov 2012 #66
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #96
The Doctor. Nov 2012 #230
Jack Sprat Nov 2012 #133
zappaman Nov 2012 #135
Jack Sprat Nov 2012 #139
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #290
zappaman Nov 2012 #292
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #295
zappaman Nov 2012 #296
Dark n Stormy Knight Nov 2012 #494
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #138
Octafish Nov 2012 #428
Spider Jerusalem Nov 2012 #64
Octafish Nov 2012 #340
Spider Jerusalem Nov 2012 #358
AntiFascist Nov 2012 #460
OldDem2012 Nov 2012 #68
Little Star Nov 2012 #81
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #94
stopbush Nov 2012 #115
zappaman Nov 2012 #116
Octafish Nov 2012 #244
stopbush Nov 2012 #392
Octafish Nov 2012 #399
Octafish Nov 2012 #464
dwp6577 Nov 2012 #71
Octafish Nov 2012 #258
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #314
Octafish Nov 2012 #332
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #350
x2 vancouverite Nov 2012 #72
newspeak Nov 2012 #90
stopbush Nov 2012 #98
AntiFascist Nov 2012 #466
H2O Man Nov 2012 #74
Octafish Nov 2012 #354
H2O Man Nov 2012 #360
Octafish Nov 2012 #371
triplepoint Nov 2012 #82
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #88
dflprincess Nov 2012 #238
hootinholler Nov 2012 #108
stopbush Nov 2012 #265
hootinholler Nov 2012 #280
stopbush Nov 2012 #376
Octafish Nov 2012 #391
stopbush Nov 2012 #430
Octafish Nov 2012 #438
stopbush Nov 2012 #443
Octafish Nov 2012 #445
stopbush Nov 2012 #449
Octafish Nov 2012 #454
stopbush Nov 2012 #463
hootinholler Nov 2012 #470
hootinholler Nov 2012 #395
stopbush Nov 2012 #441
hootinholler Nov 2012 #451
Octafish Nov 2012 #414
Iggy Nov 2012 #114
Octafish Nov 2012 #312
Iggy Nov 2012 #385
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #458
Deep13 Nov 2012 #120
upi402 Nov 2012 #143
Deep13 Nov 2012 #153
Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #169
Deep13 Nov 2012 #182
Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #185
Deep13 Nov 2012 #227
Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #257
Octafish Nov 2012 #390
Deep13 Nov 2012 #411
Octafish Nov 2012 #413
Odin2005 Nov 2012 #144
zappaman Nov 2012 #148
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #298
zappaman Nov 2012 #299
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #302
zappaman Nov 2012 #310
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #320
zappaman Nov 2012 #321
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #324
Octafish Nov 2012 #333
orpupilofnature57 Nov 2012 #155
Octafish Nov 2012 #338
orpupilofnature57 Nov 2012 #347
Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #166
zappaman Nov 2012 #174
MrMickeysMom Nov 2012 #178
Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #186
stopbush Nov 2012 #210
Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #180
zappaman Nov 2012 #176
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #179
AzDar Nov 2012 #201
RagAss Nov 2012 #211
AntiFascist Nov 2012 #424
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #476
RagAss Nov 2012 #487
colsohlibgal Nov 2012 #215
LongTomH Nov 2012 #228
Initech Nov 2012 #229
allrevvedup Nov 2012 #249
ailsagirl Nov 2012 #234
cpwm17 Nov 2012 #262
Peace Patriot Nov 2012 #239
allrevvedup Nov 2012 #247
Peace Patriot Nov 2012 #272
cpwm17 Nov 2012 #318
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #394
Octafish Nov 2012 #397
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #403
allrevvedup Nov 2012 #421
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #432
allrevvedup Nov 2012 #474
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #477
allrevvedup Nov 2012 #491
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #492
allrevvedup Dec 2012 #506
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #507
LongTomH Nov 2012 #351
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #240
stopbush Nov 2012 #267
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #277
zappaman Nov 2012 #287
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #289
stopbush Nov 2012 #379
tex-wyo-dem Nov 2012 #242
Octafish Nov 2012 #387
allrevvedup Nov 2012 #248
Octafish Nov 2012 #386
Manifestor_of_Light Nov 2012 #255
cpwm17 Nov 2012 #309
Octafish Nov 2012 #388
Manifestor_of_Light Nov 2012 #404
davidn3600 Nov 2012 #261
zappaman Nov 2012 #294
craigmatic Nov 2012 #304
laundry_queen Nov 2012 #316
JustAnotherGen Nov 2012 #271
KoKo Nov 2012 #278
Mc Mike Nov 2012 #283
billh58 Nov 2012 #288
OldDem2012 Nov 2012 #325
billh58 Nov 2012 #335
OldDem2012 Nov 2012 #353
billh58 Nov 2012 #356
Mc Mike Nov 2012 #408
Mc Mike Nov 2012 #393
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #293
Octafish Nov 2012 #306
OldDem2012 Nov 2012 #322
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #323
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #327
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #341
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #345
Mc Mike Nov 2012 #402
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #412
Mc Mike Nov 2012 #426
Octafish Nov 2012 #440
Mc Mike Nov 2012 #475
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #315
Mc Mike Nov 2012 #407
MrMickeysMom Nov 2012 #455
Mc Mike Nov 2012 #480
Cetacea Nov 2012 #286
craigmatic Nov 2012 #300
FogerRox Nov 2012 #365
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #303
1444tx Nov 2012 #326
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #329
1444tx Nov 2012 #331
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #361
billh58 Nov 2012 #370
hrmjustin Nov 2012 #344
MrMickeysMom Nov 2012 #453
Judi Lynn Nov 2012 #423
Octafish Nov 2012 #495
DisgustipatedinCA Nov 2012 #437
billh58 Nov 2012 #457
AntiFascist Nov 2012 #468
billh58 Nov 2012 #469
AntiFascist Nov 2012 #473
billh58 Nov 2012 #482
AntiFascist Nov 2012 #484
cpwm17 Nov 2012 #467
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #478
cpwm17 Nov 2012 #488
Octafish Nov 2012 #496
ProudProgressiveNow Nov 2012 #450
MinM Nov 2012 #498
MinM Nov 2012 #499
Octafish Nov 2012 #500
MinM Nov 2012 #501
Octafish Dec 2012 #502
MinM Dec 2012 #503
Berlum Dec 2012 #505
Octafish Jan 2013 #508
LineNew Reply .
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #504

Response to Octafish (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:46 AM

1. A sad anniversary

Amazing how one pissant with a rifle can alter history...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:55 AM

4. One pissant? Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lonestarnot (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:00 AM

8. Yep. One pissant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:33 PM

223. Yes One Pissant

Who had the ability to have the Presidents car unprotected through the motorcade. But Johnson's car had secret service flowing out of his. Just like the Pentagon that wasn't defending us on 9/11. But don't blame anyone, and go shopping, and accept our ONE blurry video as evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #8)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:04 AM

285. Vince! Still hawking your book here?

Fortunately it is gone the way of "Case Closed"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:26 AM

19. The 'pissant' in all likelihood wasn't Oswald.

Dallas Police Officer Marrion Baker and Building Manager Roy Truly saw Lee Harvey Oswald drinking a Coke in the Texas School Book Depository lunchroom less than 90 seconds after the shooting.

More on FAULTY EVIDENCE: PROBLEMS WITH THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #19)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:54 AM

29. Why do you continue to excuse the person who actually killed JFK?

All of the REAL evidence points to Oswald. Yet CTists like yourself are hell bent on exonerating the fucking coward who did the killing.

Shameful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #29)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:04 PM

34. The evidence that points to Oswald was planted before Nov. 22, 1963.

That trail of dots also connects Dallas to Castro, starting in Mexico City.



Your kind reply is most appreciated -- and telling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #34)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:28 PM

50. Right. Someone got a hold of Oswald's rifle and fired a few bullets off

so they'd be able to match the stretcher bullet to Oswald's rifle thru ballistics tests which excluded every other gun in the world from consideration as the murder weapon. As John Canal wrote at alt.assassination.jfk:

Anybody who wants to posit that CE 399 was faked and planted by conspirators needs to supply plausible answers to all of the following questions. Why did the conspirators . . .

1. Plant it in a location where it could easily have been lost?
2. Plant a bullet that was only "slightly" damaged if its role was to have passed through at least the President? Why not shoot up some livestock and get a bullet a bit more mangled?
3. Plant it before it could have been known how many other bullets would be recovered? How could they have known that CE 399 would not be the "one bullet too many" that would blow the whole plot?
4. Plant the bullet so it was found before it was known how much lead was in JFK's neck/upper back? What if a big chunk of lead was found in JFK's neck or upper back, a chunk too big to have come from CE 399?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #50)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:00 PM

76. That's fairly ignorant of you...

I suggest expanding your narrow circle (talk about conspiracy) of research.

I can always tell when I'm talking to an ideologue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #76)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:07 PM

84. And I know a CTist when I see one.

You throw out terms like "research" when you're actually talking about fantasy.

BTW - be honest: have you ever read the Warren Commission Report? And can you answer that simple question without going off on a rant about the WCR being a pack of lies, etc, etc, etc. I'm asking, have you actually read the thing? Yes or no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #84)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 05:46 PM

161. I've never read all 26 volumes....

... and I'm betting neither have you.

That, and $2.50 will buy the right amount of toilet paper I'm betting I'll need for your commentary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #161)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 06:58 PM

188. In fact, I have read all 26 volumes.

I have also read Bugliosi's book which runs, what, 1600 pages or so. I have NOT gone through the entire reference CD-R that comes with the book.

I read both Bugliosi and the WCR because I have a genuine interest in the case, and in learning for myself what the truth of the matter is. For some reason, I don't find it boring to read lots of pages of information on a subject that interests me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #188)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 12:35 AM

243. 'Breach of Trust' by Gerald D. McKnight spells out how the Warren Commission failed the nation.

To learn something new, try: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10182

Unlike many writers on the assassination, Prof. McKnight has no agenda other than the truth.

BTW: Do you read anything that doesn't support the Warren Commission?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #188)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 12:59 PM

305. You "have read all 26 volumes". You seem obsessed.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #305)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 01:18 PM

313. Doesn't seem "obsessed" to me.

Seems like someone who doesn't want to talk about something he hasn't read.
"Informed" about the subject he is discussing is more like it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #313)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 01:38 PM

317. Yea, sure.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #84)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 05:55 PM

165. The history of the US is a history of conspiracy, as history in general is. "Conspiracy

 

theorist" is a phrase of the same sort as "entitlements"; intended to shut down thought and brand certain people & political issues as beyond the pale.

I notice your posts are peppered with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #165)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 06:33 PM

181. Some wit I saw or read long ago said, "You can call me a 'conspiracy theorist' if I

 

can call you a 'coincidence theorist'" (in reference to 9-11 and alternate vs. establishment narratives).

I've always gotten a kick out of that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #181)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:04 PM

189. There is no such thing as a coincidence n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #181)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:50 PM

235. michael parenti quote.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #84)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:43 AM

425. LOL The Warren Commission?

 

You mean the same commission with Allen Dulles former CIA Director who would be a prime suspect after having been recently fired by Kennedy? You cannot have someone on a fact finding commission on who murdered the boss who just recently fired them. Ridiculous.

But it is what it is, and not surprised the WCR discounting of eye wittinesses, the curious change of story by Governor Conley (first he said he saw the President slump, then, after the zapruder film showing the first bullet missed, his story changed to he didn't see the President). Plus the *several* pieces of evidence all indicating a frontal shot to the right temple area. All refuting Oswald as being the shooter or at least a lone shooter.

And how how the f*k do you lose a murdered President's brain? Well because if there was indeed a frontal shot, the brain is the diagram of the shooting. Plus a number of other pieces of evidence raising doubt to the WCR.

The Warren Commission is joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ya Basta (Reply #425)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:20 AM

429. Have you ever read the WCR? I doubt it.

As far as the single shot to JFK's head and where it impacted his skull, does the word "beveling" mean anything to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ya Basta (Reply #425)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:51 AM

433. How Does One Lose A Presiden't Brain??

In the case of JFK's brain, you handed it over to RFK, who most likely disposed of the brain and other autopsy materials himself.

The following is from Volume VII of the HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
ASSASSINATIONS.

---------------------------------------------------------------


PART III. SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF MATERIALS

(114) On April 22, 1965, then Senator Robert F. Kennedy
sent a letter to Dr. Burkley directing him to transfer in person
the autopsy material being kept at the White House to Mrs. Evelyn
Lincoln, the personal secretary of President Kennedy, for
safekeeping at the National Archives. The letter also said that
Mrs. Lincoln was being instructed that the material was not to be
released to anyone without Robert Kennedy's written permission and
approval. This demonstrates Robert Kennedy's firm control over
the disposition of the materials.


(115) In response to this directive, Dr. Burkley notified
the Protective Research Division of Senator Kennedy's request.
Before transferring the material, Bouck, Burkley and other Secret
Service personnel carefully inventoried all the items present.
This was the first official inventory of these materials.

(116) On April 26, 1965, Burkley and Bouck transferred the
materials to Evelyn Lincoln. A letter from Burkley to Lincoln
documenting the exchange included the inventory, which documented
that a stainless steel container 7 by 8 inches in diameter,
containing gross material was transferred. On the last page of
the inventory, Lincoln wrote: "Received, April 26, 1965, in room
409, National Archives, Washington, D.C., from Dr. Burkley and
Robert Bouck." At the time of the transfer, the items now
missing, which are those enumerated under item No. 9 of the
inventory, were allegedly present.

(117) In his testimony before the committee, Bouck stated
that he is quite positive all the autopsy-related material that
came into his possession was given to Mrs. Lincoln at the time of
the 1965 transfer. He also stated that he was uncertain whether
Dr. Burkley had custody of the brain, but that if the brain was
part of the autopsy materials in the custody of the Secret
Service, it was transported to the National Archives.

(118) Dr. Burkley clarified this issue, saying that the
stainless steel container mentioned in the inventory held the
brain and that he saw the bucket in April 1965, when he and Bouck
transferred the autopsy materials to Lincoln.
Since this transfer,
Dr. Burkley maintains that he has had no further knowledge of or
association with these materials.

(126) Mrs. Lincoln stated that within approximately 1
month, Robert F. Kennedy telephoned her and informed her that he
was sending Angela Novello, his personal secretary, to move the
footlocker that Dr. Burkley had transferred. She believed they
wanted the materials moved to another part of the Archives,
presumably where Robert F. Kennedy was storing other materials.
Angela Novello soon came to her office with Herman Kahn, Assistant
Archivist for Presidential Libraries, and one or more of his
deputies, to take the trunk. Lincoln believes she had Novello sign
a receipt for the materials, which was Lincoln's routine practice,
but she is uncertain where it would be today. Lincoln also said
that she gave Novello both keys to the trunk. She added that the
trunk was never opened while it was in her office.

(127) Lincoln had no further direct contact with the
material, but did state that after the assassination of Robert
Kennedy, she began to wonder what happened to it. Consequently,
she contacted Kenneth O'Donnell, former aide to President Kennedy,
to make sure the family was aware of its existence. Mrs. Lincoln
said it was her understanding that Mr. O'Donnell then called
Senator Edward Kennedy, subsequently calling her back to tell her
everything was under control.

(130) While Burke Marshall also maintained that he had no
actual knowledge of the disposition of the materials, he said it
was his speculative opinion that Robert Kennedy obtained and
disposed of these materials himself, without informing anyone
else.
Marshall said Robert Kennedy was concerned that these
materials would be placed on public display in future years in an
institution such as the Smithsonian and wished to dispose of them
to eliminate such a possibility.
Marshall emphasized that he does
not believe anyone other than Robert Kennedy would have known what
happened to the materials and is certain that obtaining or
locating these materials is no longer possible.



Lots more on this at the below link:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/brain.txt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #433)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 12:02 PM

434. That just shows RFK was in on it.

Why not?
Apparently the rest of the world was...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #434)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 12:16 PM

436. Ha! Of course, that's the only logical conclusion that one could draw!

Which means that RFK was expecting that call from J Edgar confirming the death of his brother!

Couple that with the fact that it was Jackie who had the autopsy moved from Walter Reed to Bethesda. You know, so the "good" autopsy team wouldn't get to examine JFK.

It all makes sense now. Jackie and RFK were in the assassination as well!!

But wait, there's more! There's that JFK quote from the morning of the assassination (overheard by Jackie and Ken O'Donnell) where JFK outlines exactly how his own murder will go down: high building, high-powered rifle, and there's nothing anyone could do to stop it.

Jesus! JFK was in on his own murder!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #29)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:09 PM

38. Ummm.... if what he said is true, it's not an 'excuse'.

 

It's an alibi.

The problem is that when we refuse to believe in even the possibility that our own powerful denizens might seek to advance their own agenda through extraordinary means, then there is no possibility that they could be stopped if that was their aim.

Refusing to believe there is a villian in one's house allows those in the house to become villians with impunity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #38)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 12:35 PM

301. + 1000. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #29)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:16 PM

39. There it is..........................................

 

The dismissal by speaking the code word! "CT'rs"! Wow people who buy into the official story. And 911 was pulled off by angry Muslim terrorists of who nine are still alive. Way to go believing known liars in our corporate owned government media military and intelligence. Damn proud of you son. Now go back to sleep!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeggus (Reply #39)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:26 PM

49. Oh, a 9/11 CT'er too?

Next you're gonna being telling us you're a Holocaust denier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #49)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:01 PM

78. logical fallacy...

... permeates that comment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #78)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:09 PM

444. Speaking of logic...

...what the Washington Post wrote on Jan. 6, 1979, regarding the HSCA's conclusions of conspiracy:

Could it have been some other malcontent who Mr. Oswald met casually? Could not as much as three or four societal outcasts with no ties to any one organization have developed in some spontaneous way a common determination to express their alienation in the killing of President Kennedy? It is possible that two persons acting independently attempted to shoot the President at the very same time.

It is odd, the lengths certain circles have to go and contort in order to arrive at the necessary conclusion for business to continue as usual: "Move along, folks. Nothing to see here. The suspect is apprehended and awaiting trial. Er, burial."

Doing that is what you, MrMickeysMom, and I would call "Justice." Unless we work to learn all the facts -- whether they support one contention or another, one theory or another, one suspect or many -- and letting the People examine them, it is not Justice.

PS: Michael Parenti in his 1996 address on The JFK Assassination: Defending the Gangster State spells out the Big Picture.

Text version: http://www.michaelparenti.org/JFKAssassination.html

Audio version (scroll down or word-search "gangster"): http://www.tucradio.org/parenti.html

PS: A belated Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours, MrMickeysMom! I am infinitely grateful for Friends like you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #49)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 03:33 PM

337. Wow, straight to the holocaust remarks.

That's pretty brazen and sick. And fairly ironic considering the large number of people who considered the holocaust to be a conspiracy theory prior to our involvement in WWII.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeggus (Reply #39)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 05:09 PM

150. Who do you believe was responsible for 9-11?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #150)


Response to stopbush (Reply #29)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:16 PM

40. There is one related event that forever muddied the picture:

Oswald's televised murder by mobster Jack Ruby. There was no need for Ruby to do this out of some sort of patriotic "passion"; Oswald was already under arrest. If it WAS "patriotism," and Oswald were somehow acquitted, then Ruby and his connections could have taken Oswald out at that time.

Ruby took out Oswald because he was convinced Oswald would sing like a canary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to colorado_ufo (Reply #40)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:38 PM

55. He had good reason to feel that way, Oswald was already shouting to anyone who would listen that he

was just a patsy...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arthritisR_US (Reply #55)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 04:52 PM

485. Because he was.

Read James Douglass' "JFK and the Unspeakable" and you will learn that there were as many as three people identified or identifying themselves as "Lee Harvey Oswald" running around this country and Mexico in the months before the assassination. The real Oswald, killed by Ruby, was the fall guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #485)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 03:38 PM

497. I have that book and so far I think it is one of the best I have read on the assassination.

Great minds think alike

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to colorado_ufo (Reply #40)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 05:41 PM

158. The notion that Ruby turned Patriot one day in November


is just so bizarre... Can't even fathom why anyone would swallow it...

Then again... The myth of the lone gunman is one of America's favorites, isn't it. Rugged individuals, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #158)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 06:03 PM

168. history is full of heads of state & other political actors who were killed by conspirators,

 

but in the US all our political actors are killed by crazy loners.

we're special that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #158)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:09 PM

193. You would do well to read a book, any book on Jack Ruby.

The man was a huge JFK fan. The man was in no way a mobster except in his own mind. His rationale for killing Oswald was entirely personal and based on the shock he felt over his hero JFK being killed.

BTW - you do know, do you not, that had Oswald's transfer from the Dallas police station come off at the scheduled time that Ruby would have missed the transfer by an hour.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #193)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:17 PM

199. That may very well be the case.


I am also aware that the very first people to implicate Ruby as part of a conspiracy were to good folks at JBS.

So yes, it is entirely possible that Ruby acted on his own (even though an avid conspirationalist may incorporate Ruby's acting alone into the conspiracy). You were responding to the first post I made in this thread in which I may have sounded more convinced than I actually am. I admit that I have nothing more than a simlpe argument from incredulity as far as Ruby is concerned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #193)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:14 PM

220. Another incredible coincidence. How on earth was Ruby lucky enough to

know just when to be there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #220)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 01:48 AM

251. You say you've read the WCR so you know the answer to your question.

And the answer is that he didn't know when to be there. Do the words "Western Union" ring a bell?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #251)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 01:50 AM

253. Do the words House Select Committee ring any bells with you btw?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #253)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:29 AM

275. Some do, some don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #193)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:07 AM

377. Was he a LBJ fan?

There seems to be evidence of a letter where he called LBJ "a Nazi in the worst order". The letter also seems to indicate that he believed Oswald was working for LBJ. In his testimony to Chief Justice Warren he stated:

"All I know is maybe something can be saved. Because right now, I want to tell you this, I am used as a scapegoat, and there is no greater weapon that you can use to create some falsehood about some of the Jewish faith, especially at the terrible heinous crime such as the killing of President Kennedy.

...

All I want is a lie detector test, and you refuse to give it to me.

Because as it stands now--and the truth serum, and any other--Pentothal--how do you pronounce it, whatever it is. And they will not give it to me, because I want to tell the truth.

And then I want to leave this world. But I don't want my people to be blamed for something that is untrue, that they claim has happened."


Could this provide more insight into why he killed Oswald?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #29)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:23 PM

45. Oswald called himself a 'patsy'. What do you think Oswald meant by that term? To me,

 

Oswald was admitting some level of involvement and knowledge but also alleging layers within layers. Now that may be what you'd expect someone caught committing the crime of the century to say, but my ear has always perked up to question why Oswald chose that particular word to refer to himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #45)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:40 PM

58. Pair that with the suspicious tracks they laid down of Oswald's "supposed" trip to Mexico prior to

Nov 22...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arthritisR_US (Reply #58)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:52 PM

69. If only we knew who the 'they' were, eh? - n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #69)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 02:41 PM

117. That has always been the key to it all, a lock

that has yet to be keyed. I think it is sad how those who question the "facts" are so disparaged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arthritisR_US (Reply #117)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 03:34 PM

134. I count myself agnostic on this issue. I know that Vincent Bugliosi, of

 

Helter Skelter fame, published a massive volume whose conclusion is that Oswald acted alone. Lest one doubt Bugliosi's bona fides, he also published a book that called for the prosecution of George W. Bush for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

I have not yet had a chance to look at Bugliosi's book. It's really expensive to buy and I keep forgetting to request it from the Los Angeles Public Library. One of these days, I will probably dive in.

I also understand that Bugliosi's conclusions and his research have drawn criticism from Warren Commission critics. Again, I have not had time to review the Bugliosi critics' work either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #134)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 05:36 PM

157. Thom Hartmann and another chap have a huge

one too, I have it but haven't had a chance to read yet...they draw a different conclusion. I have others I have read but their titles evade me. I don't buy into the Warren commission's conclusions but have no definitive opinion as yet, on the others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arthritisR_US (Reply #157)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:13 PM

231. I heard Thom Hartmann mention his Kennedy book on his radio show

He seemed to not know what was in the book. He indicated that his co-writer did most of the work. I'm not sure if he was distancing himself from the book, or he only put his name on the book for promotional reasons.

Either way, like other similar books, they are written to make an easy buck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #134)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 05:49 PM

163. My beef with Bugliosi is that he repeated his Helter-Skelter schtick with JFK

I respect him, and I find his books well researched and mostly full of convincing arguments.

His book convicts Oswald in the same way that Helter Skelter convicts Manson - I for one was never definitely convinced by it.


A little bit clearer: I think "convergence of indirect evidence" theories are, scientifically speaking, not of much worth. I remain unconvinced when "Conspiracy Theorists" use them, and I remain unconvinced when "Establishment Theorists" (or whatever you wanna call Bugliosi's stance) use them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #163)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:04 PM

190. Did you actually read "Reclaiming History," or are you assuming

it's the same "schtick" as Helter Skelter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #190)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:08 PM

192. I've read it...


... and yes, it seems to me that the same methodology was used in both cases/books. I'm not convinced by either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #192)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:12 PM

195. I'm curious as to what methodology you're talking about.

The book basically lays out the WCR and offers supporting evidence, while using the forensic evidence etc to debunk most of the cherished CTs out there.

I think the methodology you're talking about is usually called a fact-based analysis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #195)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:24 PM

203. I've written about "convergence of evidence" in other posts in this thread.


That would be the methodology I had in mind. I could elaborate futher, but that would be completely of topic and I would struggle against a language barrier as all my training in philosophy of science was in german. The point I am making is not that Bugliosi doesn't present a good case (I have written as much in this very thread), but is rather of a technical nature. As far as I am concerned, these are all moot details as long as the full documentary evidence is not established in this case (something I have written about too, in this very thread, and which represents my preliminary judgement of the case).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #203)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:21 PM

222. Godzilla vs Gamera

stopbush seems to have met more than his/her match in you, Democracyinkind. Insulting to jump to the assumption ythat ou hadn't read Bugliosi, but no harm done. Your knowledge of this is most impressive!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #45)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 06:04 AM

264. In 1979 the House Select Committee concluded that

there was good reason to believe that the murder was committed by two people. They reviewed evidence that was not considered in the Warren Commission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald#House_Select_Committee

In 1979, after a review of the evidence and of prior investigations, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations was preparing to issue a finding that Oswald had acted alone in killing Kennedy. However, late in the Committee's proceedings a Dictabelt was introduced, purportedly recording sounds heard in Dealey Plaza before, during and after the shots were fired. After submitting the Dictabelt to acoustic analysis, the Committee revised its findings to assert a "high probability that two gunmen fired" at Kennedy and that Kennedy "was probably assassinated as the result of a conspiracy." Although the Committee was "unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy," it made a number of further findings regarding the likelihood or unlikelihood that particular groups, named in the findings, were involved.


More questions were raised about the evidence itself, but if Congress has had to re-look at and question the results of the WCR, then it has to be expected that ordinary people will too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #264)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:14 AM

279. I am aware of this but also am (dimly) aware that the supposed Dictabelt evidence

 

Last edited Fri Nov 23, 2012, 03:52 PM - Edit history (2)

has itself been subsequently called into question and its authenticity (?) questioned by independent scientists. (I used the word 'authenticity' b/c I think the scientists question whether the Dictabelt captures the sounds of gunshots or some other noise.)

I would be suspicious from the get-go of any Commission that included Allen Dulles as one of its members. (Arlen Specter and Gerald Ford also caused me to raise my eyebrows, but Dulles really sticks in my craw.)

I count myself agnostic on the question of a conspiracy and have started to read the WCR now to educate myself further and broaden my understanding. Next up, Bugliosi's book from LA Public Library.

Last night, my wife said, "What difference does it make now?" (knowing who was responsible for JFK's murder). I replied, "This thread and others on DU show how deeply the assassination affected people and hurt them. And there's the whole question of making sure to the extent we can that justice has been done." I think my wife was worried that I, in true obsessive-compulsive fashion, was preparing to slip down the rabbit hole

On edit: My wife has just reminded me that a majority of today's Americans were not even born yet when JFK was assassinated and thus do not have this in their consciousness as important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #45)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:37 AM

276. Viewed in isolation, Oswald's calling himself "a patsy" sounds suspicious.

However, anyone knowing the basics of Oswald's background knows that he felt the world was against him. He believed that he was a great man who was going to be famous for something at some point. He felt that he was being used by the powers that be.

For instance, he expected to be greeted as a defecting hero when he went to the USSR. Instead, he was looked on with suspicion and given a drone-like job. He played by what he thought were the rules, yet he didn't get his just reward. Oswald's life is filled with such incidents.

Perhaps Oswald calling himself "a patsy" was just more of the same, ie: the system was using him again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #276)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:35 AM

281. That's an interesting interpretation for sure. I think for me it's the

 

fact that Oswald called himself a 'patsy' combined with the fact of his extra-judicial execution by Ruby that makes me very uneasy. I'll grant you that there are innocent explanations for each of those two facts taken in isolation (as your posts here and elsewhere on the thread suggest), but the combination of the two is what raises my hackles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #281)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:44 AM

375. Read up on Jack Ruby. It might give you more perspective on his killing Oswald.

To me, both the killing of JFK and Oswald were crimes of opportunity. Had JFK's motorcade not gone past the TSBD, Oswald wouldn't have had the opportunity to kill JFK. It did, and he did.

As far as Ruby killing Oswald, there's much to consider. First off, Ruby was very vocal to friends about how distraught he was over JFK's killing. IIRC, he made comments to the effect of "someone oughta kill that guy." His eventual killing of Oswald was premeditated in some respects. But the opportunity to kill Oswald was not premeditated. In other words, Ruby didn't go to the police station with the intent to kill Oswald. He went there because Ruby went to the police station all the time anyway.

Consider that Ruby was only in the vicinity because he had gone to the Western Union office to wire money to a former employee. Consider that he had one of his beloved dogs with him on that trip and left that dog in the car when he went to the police station. Does that sound like the action of a man who is on his way to kill someone? To leave a beloved pet in a car to which he has no intention of returning?

Most of all, Oswald was scheduled to be moved from the police station a full hour before the time that Ruby showed up and killed him. The delay in transfer was partially Oswald's own doing, as he wanted to change into clean clothes. If Ruby was plotting with others to kill Oswald at the police station, why would he not have been there at the scheduled time of Oswald's transfer? Why show up an hour after Oswald was scheduled to have been long gone from the police station? Why - if you are on the way to kill someone - go to a Western Union office to wire money? Wouldn't you worry that you'd end up getting delayed at WU and miss your "appointment" to kill Oswald?

Detective James R. Leavelle - the guy in the white hat in the picture of Oswald being shot - escorted both Oswald and Ruby from police headquarters. Unlike Oswald, Ruby was not handcuffed to Det Leavelle during his transfer. Leavelle reported that Ruby told him that he shot Oswald because he wanted to be a hero. To which Leavelle replied, “You didn't do us any favors by killing Oswald.”

In this case, the innocent (simple?) explanations are the most believable, for no other reason than the fact that if Ruby's killing of Oswald were part of some plot to silence Oswald, he was displaying a rather cavalier attitude towards getting the job done, wouldn't you say?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #375)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 11:52 AM

396. Thanks again for your pretty awesome analysis and interpretation. Definitely gives

 

me something to consider.

As for the 'crimes of opportunities', I am so struck by the amazing chains of coincidences (if you're not a CT-er, that is) that transpired. In the official account of the WCR, Oswald had only begun working at the TSBD about 45 days before the assassination. That just blows my mind, that Oswald just happened to start working at the place barely a month before.

As you note, the chain of coincidences with Ruby are likewise simply amazing (provided again that you're not a CT-er).

Speaking as an (untrained) layperson in psychology, I wonder whether it is these tragic chains of coincidence that help lead so many into conspiracy theorizing. (Someone in this thread actually posted that there is no such thing as coincidence.) To wit, if only one coincidence in the chains is altered by even the tiniest factor, JFK is not assassinated and\or Oswald is not executed before his trial. It really make me want to weep every time I think of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #396)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 11:45 PM

417. One very interesting thing about Oswald that never gets mentioned: he was a fan of JFK.

He appreciated JFK's stand on minorities. Bugliosi goes into some detail on Oswald's feelings about JFK. It's a bit shocking to read if you've never considered it.

What that means is that Oswald killing JFK didn't happen because he held any malice toward JFK. He killed him because who he was (POTUS) would propel Oswald into the fame he always sought. Just as Oswald took a shot a Gen Walker, not because he hated the man, but because Walker had some notoriety, and his being killed would have made the front pages, and that wold have stoked Oswald's ego.

I wouldn't say that Oswald was a fan of JFK on the level that the jerk that killed John Lennon was a fan. But it does help to show that the only motive Oswald had for killing JFK was self aggrandizement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #417)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 05:25 PM

486. Occam's razor suggests...

Oswald was seeking money rather than fame, perhaps as a covert operative:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544

Needless to say I have embraced it as true but feel that Walker, himself, is a window into a world of mirrors.
...

I have reproduced Epstein's collection of the known information about the supporting evidence surrounding the Walker incident. Add to the list that George De Mohrenschildt "commited suicide" after an interview with Epstein that was to be followed by an additional interview the next day. There topic was the Walker assassination attempt.

...

4) J. Walter Moore, a CIA officer working in the CIA's Domestic Contact Division in Dallas, according to De Mohrenschildt. De Mohrenschildt told me that he had reported the Walker assassination attempt and the telltale "Hunter of Fascists" photograph to Moore.

5)Eusebio Azque, the Cuban counsel in Mexico City. Marina testified that Oswald brought photos of the Walker shooting to Mexico to support his request for a visa to go to Cuba. According to witnesses at the consulate, Oswald showed these photographs to Azque, and became involved in a heated argument with him about his bona fides as a Pro-Castro revolutionary." Epstein

I believe the Warren Report is a masterful cover-up of a great deal of information. The beginning of Walker’s testimony becomes a striking example when you open the book on Walkers military "background." Development of Special Forces, Special Operations, Covert War (Greece), etc., etc., etc. and close association with Maxwell Taylor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #375)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 06:55 PM

415. Ruby may have wanted to silence Oswald for other reasons...

he seemed to be concerned that LBJ might twist the JFK assassination into some sort of conspiracy involving a Jewish plot, possibly turning attention away from the real perpetrators?

Notice how history repeats itself. There were those spreading theories after 9-11 postulating a Jewish plot...possibly turning attention away from those who hold a stake in the oil industry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #29)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:45 PM

63. oh puhleeez

 

there is literally a mountain of evidence that you need to ignore to think Oswald did it. Please look at ALL the evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #29)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:01 PM

77. Read "Plausable Denial" by Mark Lane. There is an interesting segway on

the topic of the CIA, Oswald and Mexico City.

I would also recommend watching On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald, a docu-trial that was a mock trial with Vincent Bugiliosi as the prosecutor and Gerry Spence as the defense attorney. There was a real judge, a jury, and the people who testified would have been in a position to testify in a real trial if Oswald had not been killed. I watched it a long time ago and thought that there was plenty of reasonable doubt on Oswald's guilt. I was shocked when the jury found him guilty. It seems easier for people to put the blame on a man who never had a chance to defend himself in court then to think that there could be others involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avebury (Reply #77)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:09 PM

87. That would be the same Mark Lane that the HSCA called a liar, correct?

Hard to believe anyone still cites Mark Lane after he's been proven to be a liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #87)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:22 PM

93. The basis of the book Plausible Denial

was a magazine approaching Mark Lane to handle the appeal of a defamation lawsuit initiated by Howard Hunt and won by Hunt in the initial suit. Lane included information on the original case which, upon reading makes you wonder why on earth Hunt won because he didn't have a valid case. I am not a lawyer but even as I read the background of the first trial I knew that Hunt had no case, unfortunately for the magazine, their lawyer was worse then Hunt's lawyer. Land initially turned down the request and then decided to take it on because he would be able to depose retired and current CIA employees, something that was too good to pass up. He won the appeal on the exact grounds that I figured out when I read the case synopsis. Hunt's own testimony tanked his case.

I have not read much about Mark Lane beyond hearing that he is interested in investigating the Kennedy assassination so I cannot comment on his truthfulness. However, if he was in a public forum where a retired CIA employee made a public statement regarding the fact that the CIA never had any proof that Oswald went to the Russian Embassy in Mexico City (Lane asked for a copy of the tape of the debate) then one would hope that this comment would be verifiable by someone with time and energy to research it as there would have been a roomful of witnesses to said statement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #87)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 06:15 PM

173. because congressment are unimpeachable, right? they never lie. not taking a

 

position one way or the other, but congressmen lie regularly, so why are they the last word on truth?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #29)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 02:33 PM

112. Oswald's rifle.

 

Oswald brought the rifle to the Book Depository. What evidence is there that he was the one firing it? Even if Oswald knew it might be used for the purposes it was, how do we know that he and not someone else was practiced in making those shots?

Why did a nightclub owner named Ruby sacrifice the rest of his life in prison to end the life of an already captured and in custody suspect?

Sorry...none of that works for me. It's never going to wash for most of us. The Warren Commission Report didn't do anything but convince the public that a cover-up took place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Sprat (Reply #112)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 03:06 PM

124. You wrote:

"Even if Oswald knew it might be used for the purposes it was, how do we know that he and not someone else was practiced in making those shots?"

But Oswald WAS practiced in making those shots.

He achieved the rank of Sharpshooter in the USMC, achieving a score of 49 out of 50 shots taken at a target located 200 yards away.

The kill shot to JFK's head was taken at 86 yards from Oswald's position in the TSBD.

The USMC testified at the the WC that the kill shot was "not a difficult shot" for a shooter with Oswald's abilities.

Why suspect someone else when Oswald had the time, the tool and (sadly) the talent to take the shot himself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #124)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 03:19 PM

127. And Oswald was the only sharpshooter in the world?

 

Nobody else had any experience with that weapon?

And why did a nightclub owner with no particular reason suddenly decide to go down to the Dallas Police station and ascertain Oswald didn't have a trial and answer the questions the entire world was wanting to hear?

Be careful. You may be implicating yourself as one of the conspirators. Why else would someone so vociferously inject themself into a conversation they consider silly? How do we know you weren't capable of making those shots?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Sprat (Reply #127)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:15 PM

196. But Ruby had a very particular reason for killing Oswald.

And that reason was because Ruby loved JFK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #124)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:41 PM

224. Doesn't seem he was much of a marksman:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald#House_Select_Committee

Like all Marines, Oswald was trained and tested in shooting, scoring 212 in December 1956 (slightly above the minimum for qualification as a sharpshooter) but in May 1959 scoring only 191 (barely earning the lower designation of marksman)...

Oswald was court-martialed after accidentally shooting himself in the elbow with an unauthorized .22 handgun, then court-martialed again for fighting with a sergeant, named Miguel Rodriguez, who he thought was responsible for his punishment in the shooting matter. He was demoted from private first class to private and briefly imprisoned in the brig. He was later punished for a third incident: while on night-time sentry duty in the Philippines, he inexplicably fired his rifle into the jungle.


Sounds like a very bad shot actually. How many great marksman shoot themselves in the elbow?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #224)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 05:59 AM

263. I'm disappointed in this post from you, as most of your posts have some logic to them.

This one is a sorry attempt to find an excuse for the person who killed JFK.

First off - as far as Oswald making the grade of Sharpshooter in the USMC, the only important fact is that, well, HE MADE THE GRADE. Does it matter whether he made it slightly over the minimum qualifications? Do people who typically earn 94% on their school tests go through life thinking "I was a bare minimum A student?"

The rank of Sharpshooter was a rank bestowed by the USMC for *successfully* scoring above a certain score. Oswald made that score, with a little room to spare. Ergo, the USMC awarded him the rank he earned, based on his shooting ability, not on his haircut or his linguistic skills, but on his shooting ability. Period.

Having read the WCR, you also know that the USMC was questioned as to why Oswald's exit score as a shooter dropped from Sharpshooter to Marksman, and that the speculation offered by the USMC on why that could be was nothing out of the ordinary and entirely logical.

Having read the WCR, you also know that Marina Oswald testified that Lee was taking target practice on occasion with his rifle before he killed JFK. Does it matter what his USMC score was in 1959, when he was practicing his shooting skills in 1963? Do you believe that it would be impossible for a person who had achieved the grade of Sharpshooter to get their skill as a shooter up to snuff through practice shooting four years down the road? I don't. Seems entirely plausible to me.

As far as Oswald accidentally shooting himself in the elbow - that's why they're called accidents. By your standard, any skilled shooter who accidentally shoots themselves is "a very bad shot." By your standard, any race car driver who gets in a fender bender while driving their family car is "a very bad driver." Any football halfback whose job it is to carry a football is "a very bad runner" if they fumble the ball.

Your rhetorical question is really kinda stupid. The answer to "how many great marksmen shoot themselves in the elbow" is, "a lot more than the number of people who are never around weapons who accidentally shoot themselves," because if you're around guns a lot, you have a higher chance of shooting yourself than you do if you're never around guns, no matter how great a marksman you are.

BTW - Oswald wasn't court martialed for shooting himself in the elbow. He was court martialed for having "an unauthorized .22 handgun" in his possession. The shooting in the elbow was simply the accident that revealed he had the unauthorized weapon in his possession. As you point out, Oswald was court martialed twice and punished once while in the USMC, and NONE of those incidents had anything at all to do with his abilities as a Sharpshooter or a Marksman.

I don't understand people like you who seek to downplay the evidence that compelling shows that Oswald had the capability to kill JFK, and had it in spades. Why shield this fucking murderer from the scorn that should rightfully be heaped upon him by implying that he was a bad shot when he was obviously - in the words of the USMC - "an exceptional shot?" You're so busy trying to poo-poo the evidence that proves Oswald was a very good shot that you don't even stop to consider that even an amateur shooter could have possibly made the kill shot that killed JFK. After all, the gun was outfitted with a telescopic site and the target was only 86 yards away. That's not exactly the kind of shot that takes an expert shooter to make in the first place.

Yet you continue to attempt every possible excuse for the guy who murdered JFK. Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #263)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 03:39 PM

339. First of all I have not said that I do not believe Oswald

was the assassin. I pointed out information that is available on his skills as a marksman. The fact is it is not impressive. I now people who are skilled marksmen and one thing most of them acknowledge, that shooting at a moving target is far more difficult than shooting at a stationary target.

Hunters, eg, do not hit every deer they aim at no matter how skilled they are. But they have an opportunity to try again. In Oswald's case he had one chance, there would be no do overs. So looking at his history as a marksman, there are a few possibilities as to why he was so accurate that day.

1) He practiced extensively over the years since he was in the military and he practiced with that kind of scenario in mind.

2) He was just plain lucky that day.

3) He was not the lone shooter as has been alleged.

4) He was there but he was not the shooter.

Too bad he was murdered as so much was lost regarding the information he could have provided. Suspects often deny crimes when they are first interrogated, but over time after spending time in jail, a good interrogator can persuade them to give more info, especially as they are approaching a trial that will determine their future. That opportunity was destroyed by Ruby.

As for expert marksmen shooting themselves by accident, I can't say I know a single person who is even relatively good with firearms who has done that. Safety in the use of firearms is something they also practice very diligently. Not to say an accident can't happen, but it is extremely rare for anyone who is even semi skilled in the use of firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #339)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 08:32 PM

364. Maple trees in front of the Book Depository BUilding

IT was nearly impossible for Oswald to clearly see the Presidents car

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FogerRox (Reply #364)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:45 AM

380. Another stupid lie posing as a "fact"

All one need do is look at the pictures of Dealey Plaza taken at the time. The trees provided no obstruction to the shots taken. In fact, if you read the article at the link I've provided below, you'll find two pictures taken in 2010 from the Xs on Elm Street that mark where the bullets hit JFK. Even today - after 49 years of growing taller - the trees don't obstruct the line of fire from the 6th floor window from whence Oswald took his shots.

Yours is one of the stupider and more-easily dismissed lies in this thread.

"The most striking thing about being in Dealey Plaza for me was how small it is. Perhaps because the assassination itself was bigger than life we expect the geography to match the eventuality, but that is certainly not the case here. Two X's on the street mark where JFK was hit: first in the throat causing his arms to move up and splay out, and second where the bullet found its cranial mark and literally blew his brains out (and, according to one conspiricist there, sent the skull cap flying across the street and onto the adjacent lawn). What is astounding is how close both X's are to the sniper's next in the Book Depository building. Both from the street level looking up and from the window looking down (there is a museum on the sixth floor from which you can gain the perspective of the assassin), it seems clear that Oswald could hardly have missed. Given the fact that he was designated a sharpshooter by the Marines during his time in the service, and the fact that Kennedy's car was traveling less than 10 miles per hour after making the sharp left turn onto Elm street, one is left whispering under one's breath, "Kennedy was a sitting duck." - MIchael Shermer, writting in HuffPo, My Day in Dealey Plaza: Why JFK Was Killed by a Lone Assassin, 12/4/10 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/my-day-in-dealey-plaza-wh_b_796812.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #380)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:21 PM

446. Trees. Leaves. Traffic Sign. Holes.

What's it all mean?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8874&st=30

Another mystery: What's with all the love for the Warren Commission, stopbush?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #339)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:14 AM

374. One of the tragic facts of the JFK shooting is that for all intents and purposes

Oswald was shooting at a stationary target.

The two shots that hit JFK were fired after the limo had turned onto Elm, which positioned JFK's back towards Oswald. JFK remained in that position throughout the period it took for the final two shots to be fired. The limo was traveling at a mere 11mph as it made it's way up Elm. Worse of all, there was IIRC a 3% upgrade on Elm Street itself as it moved towards the Stemmons freeway. This upgrade coupled with the slow speed of the limo combined to give Oswald a target that stayed on the same level for both shots. In other words, JFK appeared thru Oswald's site as an almost stationary target.

As far as Ruby destroying an opportunity to get more info out of Oswald at a later date - that didn't work for Ruby either, who lived 3.5 years past the date that he killed Oswald. Though Ruby intimated others were involved in his killing Oswald, the AP reported that on his death bed, Ruby said he did the killing entirely on his own. Ruby had plenty of time to name names, but he never did.

At this point, you'd do well to give up disparaging Oswald's skills as a Sharpshooter. All you're doing is offering contrived speculation that you hope will somehow cast suspicion on Oswald's skills as a shooter. You have to deal with the fact that the USMC gave Oswald the rating of Sharpshooter YEARS before Oswald killed JFK. It's not like somebody went back and falsified records, though that appears to be what you're trying to do. I'm sorry that the fact that Oswald was rated as a Sharpshooter by the USMC at a time when Oswald was just another new recruit of no notoriety out of thousands of other recruits of no notoriety doesn't fit with your idea that he was a bad shot, but the fact is that he was an exceptional shot. Nobody in the USMC rated Oswald based on what would be his future infamy, so why are you trying to poo-poo the rating that was given him based on your disbelief that he did the shooting? You are, in effect, disparaging every other Marine who was rated as a Sharpshooter during the period that Oswald earned that rating.

Oswald's skill as a shooter is just one of the pieces of evidence that supports the fact that he killed JFK, just as evidence that he was a poor shot would mitigate against it, were there any evidence to that effect. There isn't. Too bad for the CTists that the evidence leans heavily toward damning Oswald, not exonerating him.

As far as Oswald's accidental self-inflicted wound, just because you don't know any skilled shooter who has ever accidentally shot themselves means nothing. Not because people accidentally shoot themselves all the time (they do), but because humans beings are prone to making mistakes all the time in every endeavor in which we engage. Yet you're trying to single out the handling of a gun as some magical endeavor where self-inflicted accidental wounds are rare. Really? Ever heard of Plaxico Burress?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #374)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:54 AM

381. The speculation on his sharp-shooter abilities is all on your side.

I presented the known facts, his military record, also included in the WCR. That's quite a CT you are presenting here that someone who was less than skilled with firearms his ratings almost the lowest he could get, according to his military record, even shooting HIMSELF by accident, to being an incredibly accurate marksman just a few years later. Just how did this miracle occur?

Not because people accidentally shoot themselves all the time (they do), but because humans beings are prone to making mistakes all the time in every endeavor in which we engage.


You sound like you're making excuses for him. He was no good as a marksman while in the military, period. So how did he go from being that bad to being so good he pulled off the crime of the century?


It would serve you better if you could present evidence of how he overcome his less than impressive firearms skills.

As for the limo being almost stationary? How convenient. Or how lucky for the not so great marksman? How could he have possibly known that fate would be so kind to him that day?

You are jumping back and forth from claiming he had improved his skills as a sharpshooter which would explain his ability to hit his target so skillfully, to trying to explain how someone who was not a skilled marksman was able to do it because the target conveniently became almost stationary.

So which is it?

1) An expert marksman who was confident he could accomplish his goal no matter what .... or

2) A not so skilled marksman who got lucky when the limo became almost stationary.

I am not the one who is speculating. I am pointing out known facts. However you appear to be trying to explain away the known facts.

So, was he just lucky or did he become an expert marksman and if so where is the evidence of the training he took to do so?

CTs, speculation, this is what makes people so angry. Those who insist they know all the facts, then launch into all kinds of speculation and excuses to try to avoid looking at the very real problems with their belief that it was a lone gunman and no other scenario is possible.

A lone gunman who couldn't shoot straight according to his military record.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #381)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 05:21 AM

383. Why do you continue to dispute the FACT that attaining the rank of Sharpshooter means something?

Do the Marines typically hand out the title of Sharpshooter to people who, in your words, "couldn't shoot straight according to his military record?" Does the USMC ranking of Sharpshooter denote that you are a shooter with "less than impressive firearms skills," in your words?

This is pathetic. Your latest premise is that Oswald couldn't possibly have been a great shot because he accidentally shot himself. What does one have to do with the other? Absolutely nothing.

As far as your assertion that I am "jumping back and forth from claiming he had improved his skills as a sharpshooter which would explain his ability to hit his target so skillfully, to trying to explain how someone who was not a skilled marksman was able to do it because the target conveniently became almost stationary." There's no jumping back and forth there. Do you have poor comprehension skills?

The fact is that the shots taken at JFK from the TSBD were EASY shots by any measure. You've read the WCR, so you know that the USMC testified that those shots were easy shots. The fact that Oswald was an excellent shot made them even easier. The fact that the limo was crawling along and that the grade of the street kept JFK on an even line of fire made already easy shots hopelessly easier. How easy? Easy enough that he made them even with a possibly misaligned scope. That's how easy. It probably helped Oswald that he had been taking practice fire. Practicing a skill keeps one in better shape, does it not? How else to explain that professional athletes regularly practice skills for which they already have an innate ability?

As far straying to explain away known facts, it is a known fact that Oswald attained the rank of USMC Sharpshooter, It's a fact. In fact, Oswald's USMC score books still exist, proving he was a Sharpshooter. Yet you keep circling back to add more verbiage to you erroneous conceit of a belief that Oswald was a poor shot. At this point, you're not really questioning Oswald's shooting abilities. You're calling into question the ability of the USMC to rate shooters to begin with. What purpose would it have served for the USMC to rate any bad shot as a Marine Sharpshooter? Oh, but in this case, we're talking about Oswald, the guy who you CTists can't bring yourself to believe killed JFK, so you've now moved from bashing Oswald to bashing the Marines. Nice.

You started out with some decent observations. Now, you're off in Republican-think, designing a new reality for yourself that is in direct contradiction to the facts in this case. A place where facts not only don't matter, but where you're allowed to have your own set of facts. Brilliant!

You're digging the hole deeper. Stop digging before you embarrass yourself even more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #383)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:48 PM

410. CT/Rightwinger = 'Anyone who refuses to accept my THEORIES

100% of a historical event which I can be no more certain of than anyone else since like everyone else, I wasn't there. But if someone even wonders if the official account from the WCR might be wrong, and believes that the House Select Committee's report is more logical, then they are a CT and/or A Republican'!


You have no more factual knowledge of what happened that day than anyone else. What you have are theories, CTs, which you base on your reading of what has been made available in the public record.

Why it is so important to you to attack, with smears such as those contained in your comment, to try to stop any discussion of this event, is a mystery to me. You seem way too invested in your THEORIES which is all they are, just like everyone else's, to have a rational conversation with.

I am not particularly invested in whether it was Oswald alone, or whether two or more people decided to kill Kennedy. I also fail to understand the enormous resistance to the THEORY, because it is all THEORY, yours and everyone else's, that it might have been more than one person.

If, as the House Select Committee concluded there is a possibility that more than one person was involved, (HSC = CTs/Rightwingers, no?) what difference would it make? Kennedy is still dead.

Juries engage in speculative theories every day in this country when they are asked to decide the guilt or innocence of suspects based only on whatever evidence the prosecution can present to them over the denials of the suspect. We have thousands of CTs sitting on Juries, making decisions, coming to conclusions, in our judicial system every day.

There was no court trial in this case, that opportunity was killed when Oswald was murdered. Had there been, there would have been 12 CTs trying to figure out if Oswald was lying or not when he said he did not do it.

Yes, Oswald was a sharpshooter by military standards, but on the lowest end of the scale. When the killing was recreated an expert sniper was used, NOT someone of Oswald's skills. Which to a reasonable person doesn't mean Oswald didn't fire from the BD, but it also doesn't prove that there was not a second shooter to ensure success.

Unlike you I claim no actual knowledge of what happened, since I am not privy to the facts and neither are you. We weren't there.

But it does not stretch the imagination by any means to believe that there were people who hated Kennedy and who may have conspired to kill him or to question the chances of a lone gunman with average shooting skills being as successful as he was that day.

I have zero doubt that throughout history every President has had enemies who may have considered killing them, but thankfully most such people never get around to doing it, for one reason or another, although some have.

I have zero doubt that Kennedy had many enemies who it is not hard to imagine, may have conspired to kill him and succeeded.

You otoh seem convinced that only one man had the incentive to commit this crime. The chances of that being true considering the hatred for Kennedy at the time on the right, are beyond unbelievable.

And fyi, before you throw around your 'rightwing' smear again, most rightwingers I have ever encountered believe the WCR, they always believe the Government's official stories, mainly because to believe otherwise means someone on their side might be guilty.

Kennedy was a Democrat. Right Wingers have no incentive to put forth any theory other than 'it was 'commie, lefty, pinko who killed him'. You need to get your smears adjusted to reality before tossing them out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #410)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 12:33 AM

418. You talk as if there are no facts in this case. As if there is no evidence, only speculation.

I find that extremely strange coming from a person who says they have read the WCR, especially when you term my relating evidence that was scientifically tested and is well documented and that more than fulfills what qualifies as evidence in law enforcement and court trials as my "smearing" people.

Your statement that no one who wasn't there can ever know the facts in the case is mind boggling. One doesn't need to have been there to know that fact: a Manicher Carcano rifle was found at the TSBD. No one needs to have been there to know that fact: ownership of the rifle was immediately traced to Oswald. No one needs to have been there to fact: know the specific lot of Western Cartridge Company bullets that were found in the rifle, in the spent shells on the floor of the TSBD, or the stretcher bullet were all purchased by Oswald. One need not have been there to fact: know that Oswald's palm print was found on that MC rifle on the part of the barrel that was covered by the stock when the rifle was assembled. One didn't need to be there to know any of that because it was all discovered through great police work. It was all documented in the WCR. And the WCR still exists for anyone to read, any time they so desire.

Many people weren't "there" when JFK was elected president. Should they doubt he was elected? Or are there enough facts in the case to take JFK's election out of the realm of theory and speculation?

The only thing I am smearing is the abject and willing ignorance of people in this case, the kind of ignorance that one sees on display throughout this thread, ie: like stating that the bubble top was bullet proof, or that Ruby died shortly after killing Oswald, and on and on the merry-go-round of willing ignorance goes.

If one was to read only your posts, one would think that the WCR was utterly devoid of facts and evidence in this case, when the thing is absolutely loaded with evidence. Overwhelming, mind-boggling reams of evidence. The kind of evidence that would have convicted Oswald in a court of law had 90% of it gone missing. The case is just that broadly proven...and air tight.

Yes, Oswald killing JFK is a theory, the same well that gravity or evolution is a theory, which is to say that said theory is a scientifically based and tested theory. Or, as Wiki puts it, "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

The WCR laid out the facts as facts. The WCR laid out speculation as speculation.

As far as HSCA, yes, they reached a different conclusion than the WC. But they based that conclusion on evidence that has since been falsified to the very standards that the lead investigator of the HSCA said it would need to falsified to to discredit the evidence. To continue to say that the HSCA believed that there was a 4th bullet fired makes about as much sense today as believing in limbo because the Catholic Church said it existed for centuries. Well, the Catholic Church finally came out and said limbo didn't exist. They could do that because the RCC is still in existence. The HSCA isn't in existence and hasn't been for decades. What really needs to be done is to reconvene the HSCA and correct their findings based on new evidence and falsification of the evidence they erroneously believed.

As far as anyone else having the incentive to kill JFK, you're right - of course others had the incentive. Many had a helluva lot more incentive than did Oswald. But having an incentive or a desire proves nothing. As Jackie Kennedy herself bemoaned when she heard of Oswald's arrest, "He (JFK) didn't even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights. It had to be some silly little Communist."

Yes, it would have given JFK's death some kind of meaning were he done in by the mob or Castro or the Russians or SPECTRE. That would have provided some balance to offset the gravitas of a sitting president being murdered. That's what drives so many people to not accept what the facts in the case show - that JFK was killed by an insignificant nobody named Lee Harvey Oswald. It just doesn't balance out in our minds.

But life is full of unbalance, like when the shuttle exploded on lift off because it literally blew a gasket (that is what an O Ring is, after all). You know, for want of a nail, etc.

There's evidence in this case. Tons of evidence. I choose to believe the science behind the evidence, if for no other reason that somebody actually had to do some real work gathering and testing that evidence, as opposed to pulling some CT out of one's ass, and believing that said ass-sourced theory resides on the same level as real evidence.

If that's "smearing" people, have at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #418)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:51 AM

422. I did not talk as if there were no facts.

I have acknowledged those facts for which there is absolute proof.

After that, everything is circumstantial. Including many of the findings of the WC.

People have gone to death row based on what looked like incontrovertible facts put before a jury. Only to have those 'facts' proven to have been wrong decades later.

What's interesting is your incredible anger at me for something I never said. I never said 'Oswald had nothing to do with it' did I? What I said was that there is good reason, based on the known facts which I acknowledge, to believe that he did not do it alone.

You haven't answered the question I asked, which was, 'why does it matter so much to you that this might be a possibility'?

All you have done for me, mainly because of your inability to have a rational discussion and simply lay out your reasons for why you came to the conclusions you did, lashing out at anyone who even expresses any doubts at all, is to convince me I need to read an awful more about this crime.

I need to go much further than I have into looking at all that is available such as LBJ's mistress's comments which I never read before, and other witnesses whose testimony was not included in the WCR etc.

I was satisfied to consider that Oswald was there but that he did not act alone, that a whole lot of other people believed that also but like many crimes, investigators may know something, but cannot prove it..

Now I'm thinking that I might have been wrong. Because I see the fierce effort to silence anyone who even hints that the WCR did not answer many of the questions people have and I am wondering why.

I am beginning to like the term CT. From this thread I realize what it means. It means people who think for themselves, who do not blindly accept everything their Government tells them without question. They are the people who have historically facilitated progress away from blind loyalty to any entity and have led the way towards the road to democracy, where the people are equal participants in their government, a long journey which we are still travelling.

But to keep going in the right direction, not to turn back, it is necessary as every great leader who has no fear of the people has said, to never be silent when there are unanswered questions. That is the duty of a citizen.

So go on believing you have all the answers. This thread has made it clear to me that that is far from the truth.

Just a little advice. You catch more flies with honey. You COULD have influenced me and others who have not formed a definite opinion on this case. But you chose to name-call, to be angry, to try to bully people. Maybe you are just passionate about your beliefs, but you will never win any converts until you learn to have respect for other people's right to question and to come to conclusions. You are not the only who has that right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #422)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:58 AM

427. So, your deciding what is true can be influenced by whether the messenger plays nice with you.

Which means it's not the veracity of the information that matters to you, but whether or not you found the way the info was delivered to be acceptable.

Yet, others might be suspect of information that is delivered coated in honey. You know, things like "I won't raise your taxes but I'll still hand out money while balancing the budget." For someone other than you, a down-n-dirty view may be their preference.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you're saying that it's on the messenger to adapt their way of delivering the message to their audience. How does one do that in a forum like DU?

My experience at DU has been that most people can handle the truth. Most people would prefer to learn that Barkey the Dog is indeed dead, rather than being told he was shipped off to the dog farm where he can run free with the other dogs.

Do I really need to start from the position of, "you're right, your Grandma is in heaven, and she's looking down on you with love," if we're heading into a discussion about why I'm an atheist?

As far as bullying people and winning converts, I have no desire to win converts. All I'm doing is providing an evidential counter to the flights of fancy that typically occur in these JFK threads. It's enough work providing the correctives to worry about winning converts. If I come off as being bullying, well, that can happen when you find yourself outnumbered by a factor of 20 as happens whenever this topic comes up. I write one post and it garners 5 or 6 responses. Not because I'm some great writer, but because the views I'm expressing upset the apple cart of received opinion. I make an attempt to respond to as many of the serious posts that come up (like yours), but it's yoeman's work. If I get brash on occasion it's because I'm not taking the time to polish each response like a precious jewel. I'm pumping out counters as quickly and as accurately as I can, because I believe that a fellow DUer deserves a response if they take the time to engage in a conversation via a cogent rejoinder to one of my posts. Drive-by posts? Not so much. I tend to ignore them.

I am passionate about this subject because I am a great admirer of JFK, and it pisses me off to see people with no demonstrated knowledge of the assassination making excuses for that little shit Oswald, aka the pissant who killed him.

It's very difficult to fight the received opinion of the vast majority of people who don't believe the facts in this case, or who more typically have not a clue as to the facts in this case. That difficulty is exacerbated by the fact that 75% of Americans who believe the JFK CTs think that they're in a minority(!), and a minority that is fighting against some evil force in their efforts to get the "truth" out about the assassination. They firmly believe that they're in possession of some hidden truth, when the fact is that they're just going along with the crowd that got their info on the JFK killing from Oliver Stone's fiction. How else to explain the almost verbatim regurgitation of examples of Stone's admitted use of creative license as a film director being stated as fact? Most people are surprised to learn that within a few months after the assassination, the vast majority of Americans believed that a conspiracy lay behind the assassination. They are surprised to learn that most Americans have never believed the WCR (not that they've read it). Even LBJ went to his grave believing the Russians were involved in the killing.

The fact is that the CTists have won! Most Americans believe the CT crapola and always have. They believe it without question and without having done a scintilla of work on their own to determine what's true and what's false. They even believe Stone's film is history, a film that takes myriad contradictory CT theories and weaves them into ONE unholy mess.

I'm not posting to win fans or get applause or to join in the mutual and self-congratulatory CT masturbation that always accompanies threads on this subject. I'm posting because JFK's memory deserves having the CTs challenged, while the coddling of that shit Oswald needs to be shot down tout suite.

You're welcome to your version of the truth. As we used to say in NYC, that and a subway token will get you downtown. If you don't care for my posts, don't read them. It's simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #427)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:31 PM

456. You have a right to your version of the truth.

You don't have a right to insist others accept your version of the truth.

Your distortions of what people have said in this thread alone is all I need to convince me that someone who can so completely misinterpret what people are saying to them in plain words here, do not have the ability to interpret something as complex as the material available on the JFK assassination.

Eg, you acknowledge that a majority of grown up, intelligent people now believe, after reviewing the material that continues to be released over time about this crime, 'that there was more than one shooter'.

Great. But then you slam millions of people as being stupid or ignorant rather than what is much more likely: The theory offered by the WC of the 'lone gunman' and the 'magic bullet' simply hasn't held up over time as more information has come to light.

No, it cannot be that. Those millions of people must be just plain stupid, or CTs or Right Wingers (that made me laugh as I have never met a RWinger who didn't totally support the delicious notion that a 'loony, wacko, lefty, commie, traitor' was responsible all by himself)'

Iow, whether you care or not about sharing what you consider to be facts, the FACT is that you are more likely to cause people to completely doubt your interpretations due to how you choose to communicate with people here.

I guess I had given you credit for being sincere in your attempt to share what you view as the facts. Instead you confess, that is not your goal at all, you simply want to slap down people you don't like because they dared to question the official version of the facts which you chose to accept. How sad!

Yours Respectfully from a newly, self-confessed and proud Conspiracy Theorist now that she understands what it means. Intelligent, thoughtful, independent thinker, seeker of truth, questioning rather than blindly accepting, challenging rather than apathetic, a participant in Democracy rather than a blind follower of authoritarian rule.


I definitely learned a lot in this thread.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #339)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:31 PM

406. Kennedy was moving almost straight away

at slow speed. It wasn't that difficult of a shot. Oswald also completely missed on his first shot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #263)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 05:20 PM

348. A point that isn't mentioned a lot, even by you is...

technically, he was a double-murderer since he killed a police officer that day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #29)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 03:27 PM

131. Why do YOU continue to excuse the person who actually killed JFK?

All of the REAL evidence points to others rather than Oswald. Yet anti-CTists like yourself are hell bent on exonerating the fucking coward who did the killing.

Shameful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #29)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:12 AM

378. Most people believe there was more than just one gunman. Oswald may have been part of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #19)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 02:35 PM

113. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:44 PM

61. So many people cannot accept reality and must see a comspiracy.

 

I think it goes back to the first presidential assassination which was the only presidential assassination to involve a wide conspiracy.

Oswald was a mentally disturbed piece of shit. All it takes is one idiot to alter the course of history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #61)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:07 PM

86. I agree totally.

Oswald was a loose cannon. Before he shot JFK, Oswald shot Major Gen. Ted Walker in a failed assassination attempt.

Oswald killed JFK. Oswald acted alone. No one wanting the president dead would have hired, or been in cahoots with, a nut like Lee Harvey Oswald.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frogmarch (Reply #86)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:16 PM

92. Bingo. But let's face it, conspiracy theories are very compelling to many.


"The paranoid message will give more and more, and then it will give even more. The entertainment resources of the paranoid message are unrivaled. It offers puzzles, drama, passion, heroes, villains, and struggle. If the story-line can be tied to an historical event, especially one that involves romantic characters and unexpected death, then fiction, history, and popular delusion can be joined in the pursuit of profit. The story, moreover, need never end. If evidence appears that refutes the conspiracy, the suppliers of the discrediting material will themselves be accused of being part of the conspiracy. The paranoid explanatory system is a closed one. Only confirmatory evidence is accepted. Contradictions are dismissed as being naive or, more likely, part of the conspiracy itself."

- Political scientist Robert S. Robins and psychiatrist Jerrold M. Post in "Political Paranoia as Cinematic Motif: Stone's 'JFK,'" which was presented at the 1997 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #92)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 04:04 PM

140. The philosopher of science Karl Popper argued that for a hypothesis to be valid, there

 

must exist the possibility of 'falsifiability,' some set of acrtual or potential data whose existence would prove the hypothesis wrong.

Someone who is adamantly convinced that JFK was shot by more than a single lone gunman will be hard-pressed to craft a theory with falsifiability built in. IOW, what evidence were it to exist would prove that LHO acted alone? The conspiracy theorists will be hard pressed to explain their theory in those terms. (One of several major issues that troubles me about the many conspiracy theories.)

Put bluntly, what would it take to convince a conspiracy theorist that LHO acted alone? Is there any set of potential or actual data that will so convince them that their conspiracy theory is wrong? Barring honest answers to those questions, the conspiracy theories must fail the test of logic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #140)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 06:01 PM

167. Luckily, Popper didn't speak the last word as far as the Philosophy of Science is concerned.


And falsifiability is not the benchmark of truth. It is just one of many concurring concepts in philosophy of science, and it only applies to predicitve statements. Non-predictive statemens cannot be falsified, if I remember those college years correctly.

Anyway, from a scientific standpoint, arguing a case where the full documentary basis has not yet been established is simply moot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #167)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 06:17 PM

175. I can see I still need some self-education and I definitely appreciate your

 

annotations.

I referenced Popper merely to point out the relative difficulty of convincing someone who believes in a conspiracy theory that their belief is in error (because there is no data to falsify their belief system).

Just out of curiosity, I take it you do not subscribe to the lone gunman theory? I count myself agnostic on the question, so you'll get no snark from me either way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #175)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 06:44 PM

184. Your comment was apt and to the point.


You have pointed out a problem of (shall I say some) conspiracy theories that is very legit and that should be considered in such discussions. It is true that most (if not all, I still have to think about this further) conspirational accounts of historic events are not falsifiable, and granted, that is a problem. But the the fact that they are not falsifiable is because they are not predictive, and not because there is something inherently wrong with conspiratorial accounts. There is only one conspiracy theory that can be defeated with pure logic - the conspiracy theory of society, and that is what Popper set out to achieve and did achieve in "Die offene Gesellschaft und Ihre Feinde" (again, sorry that I don't know these things in English.... especially since the book was originally written in english)

Anyway, as to your question - I am just as agnostic as you, I guess. There's some parts of the "official story" that I find quite unconvincing, that could be because Oswald didn't act alone or simply because historical reconstructions sometimes just remain unconvincing, no matter how good a job historians do.

My main point about the JFK case is this one: We know that the CIA is sitting on at least 1000+ documents that relate to the case but haven't been made public yet. This is despite the 1992 act. The current guess is that the next batch will come out 2017, but it wouldn't be the first time if it takes allot more time. Scientifically speaking, the casting of definitive judgments in this case is moot until all of those documents are released, since we have no clue what those files are about - they could prove one side, the could be inconclusive, they could be boring, they could contain proof that Oswald acted alone or they could contain proof that Oswald was actually CIA since at least the mid-50's. This is all just speculation, and it will remain so until those documents are made public.

If my post seemed snarky to you, I apologize. I wasn't trying to rebut your post, I just wanted to contribute something in the narrow field on which I feel competent to speak about - and replying to your post seemed a good place to do so. Thank you for your answer and further questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #184)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:09 PM

194. To me, it all comes back to one sentence Oswald uttered while in custody. "I'm a

 

patsy," he said. That statement has always bugged the shit out of me because it suggests (or alleges) a false flag operation of some sort. LHO could have said, "I did it." Or he could have said, "I didn't do it." Instead, he says, "I'm a patsy."

3 possibilities:

A) Oswald acted alone but says he's a "patsy" because he's trying to weasel out of it and lying to cover his ass.

B) Oswald suspects he was 'used' by agents of some other entity but does not know for sure who those agents are nor exactly how he was used.

C) Oswald knows he was 'used' by agents of some other entity (but may not know for sure how he was used).

I'd definitely appreciate your analysis of those 3 possibilities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #194)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:17 PM

198. Answer A is the Occam's Razor answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #198)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:27 PM

206. On the surface, I agree with that (I think), but it still bugs the shit

 

out of me and I can't put my finger on exactly why.

Maybe it's that Occam''s Razor doesn't apply here?? If Oswald honestly suspected he had been set up (without knowing who or how), then answer B would be Occam's Razor, yes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #198)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:33 PM

207. Probability (Occam's Razor) points to A


Which is not to say that, on discovering evidence for either B) or C), Occam's Razor would prevail.
Sometimes the most complex accounts are the truthful ones ( since we are not dealing with exact sciences here, but with social sciences). In this case, of course, there is (as of yet) no case for B) and C) that would trump the stringency of Occam's Razor. Therefore, I agree that A is the most likely given the factual basis that we are operating on. But I do insist that this is speaking of mere probabilities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #167)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:07 PM

191. +100.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #92)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:13 PM

219. stopbush, you are the most interesting part of this thread

Your knowledge of the JFK assassination is astounnding yet your defense of an indefensible position is curious. If the incident in Dallas were a film, it would be laughable. Both Oswald and Ruby were two totally unmotivated characters, mere deus ex-machinas that moved across the face of history to you. I don't know why their innocence and the lone gunman theory is so important to you but, to me, you make no more sense than Oswald or Ruby. What do you stand to gain? And who stood to gain from the assassination?

For others here, I'll list these interviews (one short, one long) with Madeleine Duncan Brown. Is she a wingnut? And how do you dismiss E. Howard Hunt's deathbed confession?





The people who killed JFK -- they -- will never be brought to justice. That doesn't trouble me. What I find more troubling is why, here on this thread, is there someone who cares so passionately NOW that the killers get away with what they did.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hermes Daughter (Reply #219)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:18 PM

409. Madeleine Duncan Brown

was nuts plain and simple there is well documented proof of LBJ's whereabouts the night of 11/21/1963

http://dperry1943.com/browns.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rbrnmw (Reply #409)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:41 PM

459. Thanks

Good research. Between Madeleine Murry O'hair and Madeleine Duncan Brown... you Texans have hit the jackpot I always wondered how she got away with her story all those years. I guess the Byrds never took her seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #92)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:00 AM

284. Isn't it against the rules to diss an extremely large percentage of DU'ers

And all told, the "Oswald acted alone" types appear a bit delusional to most people familiar with the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cetacea (Reply #284)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 03:21 PM

330. An "extremely large

percentage of DU'ers?" Are you talking about the 20 - 30 believers who are participating in this thread, or possibly the few hundred additional DU members who believe there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK which involved the FBI, the CIA, the Dallas Police Department, the Parkland Hospital and the doctors on duty, the Mafia, the Secret Service, Lyndon Johnson, the Warren Commission, and the unknown shadowy figures on the grassy knoll?

Yes, there is widespread interest in the JFK assassination, and several people have made money by perpetuating the controversy. There is NOT, however, a single shred of hard evidence which implicates anyone but Oswald in the murder. There is endless speculation (what about...?) and conjecture (I am convinced that...?) but absolutely no tangible evidence whatsoever that there was a widespread conspiracy involving the agencies and people directly involved.

Believing in the JFK assassination conspiracy does not make those who believe bad people. Those of us who hold different views are mainly relying on the few facts that ARE provable and evident. Until we are presented with proof or evidence to the contrary, we choose to focus on those things that we CAN change or influence.

Peace...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frogmarch (Reply #86)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 01:12 AM

246. Tell that to the House Select Committee

The Warren Commission published their findings in 1964, which btw, stated that they could not 'rule out a conspiracy' but absent evidence of a conspiracy at that time, they concluded it was a lone gunman.

But that is not the last official word on the Kennedy Assassination. In 1979, the House Select Committee met to consider more evidence and their findings contradicted the Lone Gunman theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald#House_Select_Committee

In 1979, after a review of the evidence and of prior investigations, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations was preparing to issue a finding that Oswald had acted alone in killing Kennedy. However, late in the Committee's proceedings a Dictabelt was introduced, purportedly recording sounds heard in Dealey Plaza before, during and after the shots were fired. After submitting the Dictabelt to acoustic analysis, the Committee revised its findings to assert a "high probability that two gunmen fired" at Kennedy and that Kennedy "was probably assassinated as the result of a conspiracy."

Although the Committee was "unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy," it made a number of further findings regarding the likelihood or unlikelihood that particular groups, named in the findings, were involved.


It's just as much a CT to insist that there was only one gunman as to insist that there was not. Clearing the WCR and the HSC's reports differ on that point.

People swore by the WCR's Lone Gunman and Magic Bullet theories until the House Select Committee's findings were released making the WRC's findings the CT. And there are moves to hold more hearings with new evidence so it's possible people will have to revise their opinions once again.

I don't see how anyone can say with certainty what happened that day. I prefer to keep an open mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #246)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:40 AM

282. Steve Barber

Regarding Steve Barber and his analysis of the dictabelt tape:

He was a researcher intrigued by the "acoustic findings" who wanted to study them further. Unable to get a copy of the Dictabelt tape from the National Archives, he eventually managed to listen to it when Gallery Magazine included, in an issue full of conspiracy articles, a recording of the tape....

Playing the flimsy record over and over, Barber noticed something that the House Committee experts had not: the voice of Sheriff Bill Decker saying "hold everything secure" in the exact place where the shots supposedly occured. Yet Decker was known to have said "hold everything secure" about a minute after the real shots in Dealey Plaza. Thus the "shots" discovered by the House Select Committee could not actually be shots.


More: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/acoustic.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #246)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 01:17 PM

311. In addition to the 1979 House Committee, the 1972 House Majority Leader expressed an interest

 

in re-opening an investigation but, by coincidence, he died in a plane crash.

Among other stories that were posted before Hale Boggs' death, there was this one covered by DU:
"Boggs, a conservative Democratic Senator from Louisiana, told his aide that he suspected there was more to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy than the story J Edgar Hoover's FBI had reported."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x283096

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #61)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 06:07 PM

170. Because the logical connection between someone being disturbed


and acting as a longe gunman is sooooooo stringent, right?

Because we all know that undisturbed people always act as parts of a larger group, right?

( A simple deduction from the statement I started with )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #61)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:11 AM

274. And have you been to Dealey Plaza to examine the evidence for your own evaluation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #61)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 07:53 PM

359. "So many people cannot accept [your version of] reality."

I guess we were all not gifted in being able to understand reality like yourself. But I am willing to bet that reality rarely coincides with what the government tells us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:52 PM

236. +1

 

A true tragedy. If only Kennedy had survived...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gstxdem4445ex (Reply #236)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 03:49 PM

343. Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:48 AM

2. Have my doubts that any info will ever be released from official sources

I believe the best chance is a deathbed confession, but time is running out for that possibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cirque du So-What (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:52 AM

3. Chances of a deathbed confession died

When Oswald died.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:01 AM

9. True that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:28 AM

21. Deathbed confession? He was interviewed by the press and denied any involvement.

That's what I never understood, why he wasn't bragging about it if he did it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edbermac (Reply #21)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:51 AM

27. Yes. Because murderers ALWAYS confess to their crimes as soon as they're apprehended.

BTW - Oswald more than confessed to the crimes through the obvious lies he told to his interrogators. Like saying he never owned a rifle. Like saying the backyard pictures of him holding the rifle he owned were faked. Like saying he had been denied legal counsel while in custody. Like saying "I didn't shoot anybody" when 10 eyewitnesses saw him kill Officer Tippett.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #27)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:57 AM

33. ...and Jack Ruby was out for justice, not to shut Oswald up for eternity

ummmm hmmmmmm, StopFoma.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #33)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 03:30 PM

132. Correct, the whole Jack Ruby

 

thing is wayyyyyyy too convenient.

DEAD MEN tell no tales.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggy (Reply #132)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 05:44 PM

160. Was Jack Ruby a mobster, a spook, a mole, or a general right-wing Evil Doer

?id=9584181

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #160)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 06:45 AM

270. Again, Dead Men Tell No Tales

 

Jack Ruby dying shortly after killing Oswald is also wayyy too convenient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggy (Reply #270)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:59 AM

382. Wrong. Jack Ruby died on January 3, 1967, 3 years and 3 months after killing Oswald.

If dead men tell no tales, then live men have plenty of time to tell tales. In Ruby's case, over 3 years that he could have been singing like a canary. Yet he didn't tell any tales. Why?

BTW - do you really consider 3 years and 3 months to be a "short" period of time? If so, how much more time did Ruby need to "tell his tales?" 5 years? 10? 50?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #382)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 06:20 AM

384. Three Years is a Long Period of Time?

 

gimme a break, please.

Last I checked, it's not easy to communicate with someone in prison.

and BTW, mobsters, and people working for them are known for NOT singing:

A day before Kennedy was assassinated, Ruby went to Joe Campisi's restaurant. At the time of the Kennedy assassination, Ruby was close enough to the Campisis to ask them to come see him after he was arrested for shooting Lee Oswald.

In his memoir Bound by Honor: A Mafioso's Story, Bill Bonanno, son of New York Mafia boss Joseph Bonanno, explains that several Mafia families had longstanding ties with the anti-Castro Cubans through the Havana casinos operated by the Mafia before the Cuban Revolution. Many Cuban exiles and Mafia bosses disliked Kennedy, blaming him for the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion. They also disliked his brother, the young and idealistic Attorney General Robert Kennedy, who had conducted an unprecedented legal assault on organized crime.

The Mafia were experts in assassination, and Bonanno reported that he recognized the high degree of involvement of other Mafia families when Ruby killed Oswald, since Bonanno was aware that Ruby was an associate of Chicago mobster Sam Giancana.

Howard P. Willens, third highest official in the Department of Justice and assistant counsel to J. Lee Rankin designed the organizational structure of the Warren Commission, outlined its investigative priorities, and terminated the investigation of Ruby's Cuban related activities. An FBI report states that Willens's father was Tony Accardo's next door neighbor since 1958. Some sources report that in 1946, Tony Accardo allegedly asked Jack Ruby to go with Pat Manno, Romie Nappi and several other Mafia associates down to Texas in order to make sure local sheriff Steve Gutherie was copasetic with the Mafia’s expansion into Dallas.

Four years prior to the assassination of President Kennedy, Ruby went to see a man named Lewis McWillie in Cuba. Ruby considered McWillie, who had previously run illegal gambling establishments in Texas, to be one of his closest friends. At the time Ruby visited him, in August 1959, McWillie was supervising gambling activities at Havana's Tropicana Club. Ruby told the Warren Commission that his August trip to Cuba was merely a social visit at the invitation of McWillie. The House Select Committee on Assassinations would later conclude that Ruby "…most likely was serving as a courier for gambling interests." The committee also found "circumstantial," but not conclusive, evidence that "…Ruby met with Santo Trafficante in Cuba sometime in 1959."


Unfortunately few here are asking the basic question: WHY did Ruby kill Oswald? just for fun?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ruby

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggy (Reply #384)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 11:00 AM

389. Right. If Ruby had made it known that he was ready to name names

it would have been very difficult for the FBI or any other law enforcement agency to speak with him. Why, just locating what prison cell he was being kept in would have been a major undertaking. It wasn't like he was walking around freely in the public square where it would be easy to find him.

The problem with you CTists is that you have to go from one absurdity to another in your attempts to add a shred of credulity to your fantasies. On the other hand, you have mountains of evidence that you just choose to ignore because it's an inconvenient truth to the fantasies you spin.

Childish behavior, actually.

You make a claim that Ruby died shortly after killing Oswald. Obviously, you had no idea of the day he died on. You were just repeating some CT claptrap you heard at some point in your life. When the actual date of Ruby's death is pointed out to you, you haul out some other CT nonsense that has nothing at all to do with Ruby's date of death, as if screaming the claptrap louder covers for your ignorance on the date of death.

Think about it. On the one hand, you assert that Ruby killed Oswald ASAP because it's well known that "dead men tell no tales," so it's imperative to shut up an Oswald with all speed. But on the other hand, there's no rush to knock off Ruby after he kills Oswald. Well, then why did Oswald have to be killed off so quickly? If three years isn't a long time, why would the nefarious conspirators not leave Oswald alive for three years as well? After all, as you point out, it's difficult to speak to people in prison. If that's true for Ruby, why wouldn't it have been true for Oswald?

The convoluted thinking is stunning in its ineptitude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #27)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 04:26 PM

145. Lincoln's assassin did. As did Garfield's and McKinley's.

John Wilkes Booth: Sic semper tyrannis
Charles J. Guiteau: I am a Stalwart of the Stalwarts! I did it and I want to be arrested! Arthur is President now!
Leon Czolgosz: I done my duty.

Even John Lennon's killer admitted guilt when arrested. And there is difference between murder and assassination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edbermac (Reply #145)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:26 PM

204. And all of those assassins walked up to their victim and killed him in front of

witnesses.

Oswald shot from a concealed position then fled the scene.

Comparing Oswald to those others is laughable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #27)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:27 PM

205. well, that last point is a crock.

 

Allegations regarding witness testimony and physical evidence

Only two Commission witnesses were identified as actually having seen the shooting, Helen Markham and Domingo Benavides. Joseph Ball, senior counsel to the Commission, has referred to Markham's testimony as "full of mistakes," and characterized her as an "utter screwball."

Domingo Benavides initially said that he did not think he could identify the assailant and was never asked to view a police lineup, even though he was the person closest to the killing. Benavides later testified that that the killer resembled pictures he had seen of Oswald. Other witnesses were taken to police lineups. However, these lineups have been criticized as flawed in that they consisted of people who looked very different from Oswald. In one case, the lineup was composed of five "young teenagers" and Oswald.

Additionally, certain witnesses who did not appear before the Commission identified an assailant who was not Oswald. Both Acquilla Clemons and Frank Wright witnessed the scene from their respective homes, within one block of the murder. Clemons saw two men near Tippit’s car just before the shooting. After the shooting, she ran outside and saw a man with a gun whom she described as "kind of heavy." He waved to the second man, urging him to "go on". Frank Wright also emerged from his home and observed the scene seconds after the shooting. He described a man standing by Tippit’s body who had on a long coat, and who quickly ran to a car parked nearby and drove away.
Two of the cases were recovered by witness Domingo Benavides and turned over to police officer J.M. Poe. Poe told the FBI that he marked the shells with his own initials, "J.M.P." to identify them. Sergeant Gerald Hill later testified to the Warren Commission that it was he who had ordered police officer Poe to mark the shells. However, Poe's initials were not found on the shells produced by the FBI six months later. Testifying before the Warren Commission, Poe said that although he recalled marking the cases, he "couldn’t swear to it." Poe later told researchers that he was absolutely certain that he had marked the shells. The identification of the cartridge cases at the crime scene raises more questions. Sergeant Gerald Hill examined one of the shells and radioed the police dispatcher, saying: "The shell at the scene indicates that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol." However, Oswald was reportedly arrested carrying a non-automatic .38 Special revolver. The number of cartridge shells found at the crime scene raises further questions for some. Sergeant Gerald Hill, who took possession of Oswald's revolver upon his arrest, reported that the gun's six chambers were fully loaded with unspent cartridges and that Oswald had no ammunition on his person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Tippit#Allegations_regarding_witness_testimony_and_physical_evidence

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edbermac (Reply #21)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:37 PM

369. That has always been my question -

John Wilkes Booth thought of himself as a hero, Charles Guiteau was proud of himself, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_James_A._Garfield) as was Czolgosz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_William_McKinley), yet Oswald denied his part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:35 PM

53. Not yet

G.H.W. Bush is still alive.

He likely knows the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #53)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:37 PM

233. It's pretty low of you to accuse someone of such a serious crime

when they didn't do it.

That is a bad habit of CT'ers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #233)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:19 PM

237. I appologize for saying he's still living

Happy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #233)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:46 AM

259. The poster didn't accuse anyone. I'd like to ask Poppy Bush what he was doing in Dallas on Nov. 22?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #233)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 06:16 AM

268. It's a bad habit to use labels you are told to use by other people

to try to discredit people who absolutely have legitimate questions about this assassination.

It makes you look bad and since there is a small group here all doing the same thing, it looks like they are either all the same person, or they are part of a group who all speak the same way and have the same mission.

So if you want to be taken seriously, and not viewed as part of that discredited group, make your arguments in your own words without using the same old talking points and tactics that have had zero success and never will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #268)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 01:00 PM

307. I'm using my own words

and I'm certainly not part of any group. Not everybody you disagree with is part of a conspiracy.

I believe in the 'Golden Rule." It's what drives my ethics. I wouldn't want anyone to falsely accuse me of committing a crime I didn't do. All nations and all people should follow this rule; plus we all should care about the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #307)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 01:58 PM

319. I believe that too. That is why I do not fling labels such as

CT around at people who are simply asking questions they have a right to ask in order to try to discredit them. That is not honest, it is attaching motives to people that for the most part are not true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #319)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:24 PM

368. CT is the appropriate term

Words and phrases (terms) mean what have been established over time. This is how the term 'CT' is used. No other term is appropriate.

CT'ers have a certain mindset. They often believe that there are powerful forces that control everything, and these forces have sinister motives.

The world isn't black and white, and some things are just not true or even impossible – no matter how much some folks want to believe them.

Your accusing me of being part of this conspiracy proves my point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #368)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:49 AM

373. You are wrong. You do not know the meaning of the phrase.


A Theory is just that, unless someone tries to pass it off as fact. If the theory is about more than one person, it can be called a conspiracy theory. A theory that more than one person might be planning something, or has planned something.

Your mindset appears to be fixed on a wrong usage of the term. You need another word to describe what you are trying to use this phrase to describe. The words you are looking for are: 'Delusional And Paranoid And Fixated'.

But you can't use them on Political Forums without risking having posts hidden. So the CT phrase was adapted to cleverly hide the real words with the intention of insulting people who can actually THINK for themselves and QUESTION.

Apparently you've used it as an insult for so long you thought it actually meant what you thought it meant. 'Insulting' is against the rules here btw.

I believe that each time CT is used to attack someone with now that we are clear on what the intention is, it should be read as an insult and subject to alerting like all other insults.

So, now that we are clear on all this please point out what people on DU are 'delusional'? I prefer to use the correct wording if you don't mind. It's more honest.

I am interested in some examples of these 'delusional' people here on DU. I do not know any and I've been here a while.

CT generally means when it is used in threads like this: 'Someone Who Will Not Accept My View Of The Word Without Question And Therefore I Want Them To Be Silenced!'

And rather than use weasel words or try to hide what I mean with the WRONG words, I call that kind of mindset, 'Authoritarian'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #373)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:10 PM

465. I'm not trying to silence anybody

But any bold claim, such as Kennedy being killed by someone other than Oswald, requires actual evidence. In this incredibly long thread I have seen none presented. A number of CT'ers have played the victim card when pressed for actual evidence. That's classic behavior when pushing bullshit.

Delusional is a strong word, and I'm not going to use it. Ct'ers are just not good at following evidence, and they make poor scientists.

The evidence must be proportional to the claim. Lacking evidence on your side, CT'ers have fabricated many different claims concerning Kennedy's assassination. If there was actual evidence, this would not be the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #465)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 07:42 AM

479. Your use of the term 'CT' removes any credibility you probably hope to

establish. Not because there is anything wrong with the phrase but because those flinging it around think there is. It also demonstrates an inability to think and use one's own words rather the words distributed by those with an agenda in an attempt to silence any questioning at all among the population.

Anyone who uses talking points rather than their own words cannot expect, not among Democrats anyhow, to be taken seriously.

But to use the actual meaning of the word, I am a proud CT. I am proud to be an independent, engaged, non-apathetic, zombie who accepts every story, such as WMDs in Iraq and Mushroom Clouds, and Lone Gunmen, and Magic Bullets told to them by their leaders.

The Right of course believes everything their leaders tell them without question. They are still convinced there were WMDs in Iraq.

Btw, do you think the House Select Committee which concluded in 1979 that there was most likely a second shooter, were CTs also?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #479)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 07:57 PM

490. The world isn't black or white

I think I wrote that earlier. One needs to know when to be skeptical about what, and not follow a particular dogma. Governments don't always lie, or always tell the truth. Evidence needs to stand on its own merits.

Knowing who was pushing the WMD bullshit; and having some knowledge about our media, our history, and the evidence; I knew the Bush administration and the Neocons were full of shit. Pushing bullshit to promote unprovoked wars is business as usual in the US.

I don't know what Kennedy assassination scheme you buy into. There are many. A second shooter, in itself, isn't at all far-fetched. It needs actual evidence to support – none exists. Having a second shooter that was involved in some US Government conspiracy is rather far-fetched, and requires strong evidence. A US Government conspiracy to assassinate a US President, requiring many US Government conspirators, is virtually impossible.

Conducting serious crimes against US citizens, such as assassinating US presidents, is frowned upon by most Americans, and such crimes are difficult or impossible to pull off.

As I wrote above, the House Select Committee results in 1979 were invalid. They used bogus information to support the idea of a second shooter.

CT'ers have a mindset that leaves them vulnerable to believing impossible conspiracy schemes that contradict evidence. CT is a useful term. I don't consider this term a "talking point." That sounds conspiratorial. I have no agenda to silence anybody. That sounds conspiratorial also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #490)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:01 PM

493. No, it's a well known talking point. And the intention is to smear those

who are skeptical of the Government's accounts of major events such as the JFK assassination. It is not a very useful weapon because despite all the attempts to silence people, a majority of people here and around the world do not believe the WC's findings. Most believe there was a second gunman and many credible people have provided enough questions about the official account, which has no more or less credibility than any other theory, that require answers. The WC's findings ARE theories using available evidence to back them up. People who question their conclusions, using the same evidence, are as believable as the WC's, since neither group has any concrete evidence to back up their theories.

What is most remarkable about these discussions is the sheer anger of those who support the WCR. The total intolerance of anyone even suggesting that they have doubts. And then, the use of smears. While the other side simply engages in discussions until the inevitable happens and threads are derailed with personal attacks etc.

But it wasn't always that way. In the early days of Progressive forums, around 2000, I saw some incredibly interesting discussions on this and other such events. Minus the attackers, people were able to discuss and discard opinions in an intelligent way since no person I know who questions the WCR wants false information or conclusions to prevail.

It is a story that will be discussed one hundred years from now. Why this bothers anyone to the point where they engage in personal attacks and angry responses is beyond me. But it only happens on online forums, now on the Left also. It was confined to the Right initially. In RL, people discuss these matters with no problem.

This began on the Left when gate keeper forums like DK, as you said in another post, a very right leaning forum, appeared to get the message from somewhere that certain interests did not want these matters discussed at all. So they banned any discussion of JFK's murder and of Election Fraud.

Ironically all they accomplished by doing so was to raise many questions about their own motives. Some of those questions were answered and what were once just theories about them were verified in some instances. And that is where the phrase 'we are the reality based community' implying that anyone who dared to disagree with them was not, came into use. If one is reality based, they do not have to keep telling people about it. It should be apparent.

Censorship will always create resistance, so in a way their tactics only aroused further interest in these issues. You can't control people's minds, but a few people engaging in the fantasy that they were of some importance, certainly tried. And failed.

I do agree with you about DK. Considering the background of the owner, Military, 'former' Republican, CIA by his own account, it is not surprising that it would be.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #368)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:42 AM

420. The term "CT" became widespread after 9-11...

when most CTers, as you call them, were drawing connections between 9-11 and the Bush administration. Many CTer's on DU implicate the Bush Dynasty in certain historical tragic events involving the government, in fact, that is likely the reason this thread was started by Octafish. Conspiracy theories often associate Prescott Bush with both the "Business Plot" as well as funding and support for the Nazis, George H. W. Bush with the JFK Assassination and culmination of the Shadow Government, George W. Bush with 9-11 and stealing elections, and I'm sure Octafish and others can provide a long list of other crimes. You are simply following in a long line of DUers who consistently argue that there can be no connections between these events and, ultimately, the Bush family, and that each of these events involved a relatively small isolated group or single individual. Therefore, you are on the side of those consistently defending the Bush family, whether you are conscious of this or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cirque du So-What (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:40 AM

22. If there's no nothing to hide, why?

OP author Jefferson Morley, along with a good number of writers and researchers, are working to free the JFK files.

As for deathbed confessions, remember E Howard Hunt?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #22)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:25 PM

95. Hunt was one of the "bums" taken off the train

The crowd followed him and two others off the "grassy knoll" past police saying this is a restricted zone. The crowd made the Dallas Police arrest them, but they were freed and never named, COVERUP....
See Jim Garrison's book "On the Trail of the Assassins"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to zappaman (Reply #105)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 03:09 PM

125. Don't you love how the CTists toss out these "facts" like they're actually, er, facts?

Amazing.

Sheep to the intellectual slaughter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cirque du So-What (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:24 PM

202. i believe there's been a couple of deathbed confessions but they have the same

 

problems as the rest of the evidence. is it true? craziness? disinformation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:55 AM

5. I'm still in the fight, I've got your back Sir. Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours. I'm in GB

with my family and turn 63 tomorrow.
I'm still in the "big" fight brother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobthedrummer (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:46 AM

24. Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours, Good Sir!

Seeing how many people still care gives me hope, bobthedrummer, that, perhaps the warmongers and the money-trumps-peace crowd will be brought to justice.

PS: An early Happy Birthday to you, Good Brother!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobthedrummer (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:03 PM

80. Happy Birthday BtheD!

I got your back AND Octafish!

Happy Thanksgiving to you both!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #80)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:10 PM

89. Thank you MrMickeysMom-we're waiting for the pies to finish and then we're off, this thread is an

informational warzone 49 years old today. Glad to have that Starship Command platform you display in my friendly skies! Happy Thanksgiving.
Bob

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:56 AM

6. My condolences...



...not only for the man and his family, but for the era of civil society that began to disappear on that day.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CanSocDem (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:07 AM

12. "the era of civil society that began to disappear on that day"...what?

Can you please elaborate on this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #12)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:26 PM

48. JFK worked for peace, even with unfriendly governments. Take Cuba...





Kennedy Sought Dialogue with Cuba

INITIATIVE WITH CASTRO ABORTED BY ASSASSINATION,
DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS SHOW


Oval Office Tape Reveals Strategy to hold clandestine Meeting in Havana; Documents record role of ABC News correspondent Lisa Howard as secret intermediary in Rapprochement effort

Washington D.C. - On the 40th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and the eve of the broadcast of a new documentary film on Kennedy and Castro, the National Security Archive today posted an audio tape of the President and his national security advisor, McGeorge Bundy, discussing the possibility of a secret meeting in Havana with Castro. The tape, dated only seventeen days before Kennedy was shot in Dallas, records a briefing from Bundy on Castro's invitation to a U.S. official at the United Nations, William Attwood, to come to Havana for secret talks on improving relations with Washington. The tape captures President Kennedy's approval if official U.S. involvement could be plausibly denied.

The possibility of a meeting in Havana evolved from a shift in the President's thinking on the possibility of what declassified White House records called "an accommodation with Castro" in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Proposals from Bundy's office in the spring of 1963 called for pursuing "the sweet approach…enticing Castro over to us," as a potentially more successful policy than CIA covert efforts to overthrow his regime. Top Secret White House memos record Kennedy's position that "we should start thinking along more flexible lines" and that "the president, himself, is very interested in (the prospect for negotiations)." Castro, too, appeared interested. In a May 1963 ABC News special on Cuba, Castro told correspondent Lisa Howard that he considered a rapprochement with Washington "possible if the United States government wishes it. In that case," he said, "we would be agreed to seek and find a basis" for improved relations.

The untold story of the Kennedy-Castro effort to seek an accommodation is the subject of a new documentary film, KENNEDY AND CASTRO: THE SECRET HISTORY, broadcast on the Discovery/Times cable channel on November 25 at 8pm. The documentary film, which focuses on Ms. Howard's role as a secret intermediary in the effort toward dialogue, was based on an article -- "JFK and Castro: The Secret Quest for Accommodation" -- written by Archive Senior Analyst Peter Kornbluh in the magazine, Cigar Aficionado. Kornbluh served as consulting producer and provided key declassified documents that are highlighted in the film. "The documents show that JFK clearly wanted to change the framework of hostile U.S. relations with Cuba," according to Kornbluh. "His assassination, at the very moment this initiative was coming to fruition, leaves a major 'what if' in the ensuing history of the U.S. conflict with Cuba."

CONTINUED with links, resources...

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB103/index.htm



Contrast with his more, eh, conservative successors, one who uttered "Money trumps peace":



Q: A lot of our allies in Europe do a lot of business with Iran. So I wonder what your thoughts are about how you further tighten the financial pressure on Iran, in particular, if it also means economic pain for a lot of our allies.

BUSH: It's an interesting question. One of the problems, not specifically on this issue, just in general, that - let's put it this way: Money trumps peace, sometimes.

In other words, commercial interests are very powerful interests throughout the world. And part of the issue in convincing people to put sanctions on a specific country is to convince them that it's in the world's interest that they forego their own financial interest.

And that's why sometimes it's tough to get tough economic sanctions on countries, and I'm not making any comment about any particular country, but you touched on a very interesting point.

You know - so, therefore, we're constantly working with nations to convince them that what really matters in the long run is to have the environment so peace can flourish.

In the Iranian case, I firmly believe that, if they were to have a weapon, it would make it difficult for peace to flourish, and therefore I am working with people to make sure that that concern trumps whatever commercial interests may be preventing governments from acting.

I make no specific accusation with that statement. It's a broad statement. But it's an accurate assessment of what sometimes can halt multilateral diplomacy from working.

SOURCE:

George W Bush, press conference, Feb. 14, 2007



Look all around for more examples.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #48)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:40 PM

57. Yeah, I don't think so...

"JFK presidential assassination conspiracy" had a whole new meaning back when he was still in office. Kennedy and his administration loved devising and launching shady plots to assassinate the presidents of other countries. The Cuban Project -- the CIA's many attempts to kill Castro in the most Wile. E. Coyote manner possible -- was launched by Kennedy. Of course, the Kennedy administration only resorted to outright murder after their secret invasion of Cuba failed miserably. So while he deserves a lot of credit for keeping Americans alive through the Cuban Missile Crisis, the fact that Kennedy was openly and regularly trying to straight up murder their president probably helped cause the problem in the first place.

As for Vietnam, on September 2, 1963, John F. Kennedy told Walter Cronkite:

"These people who say we ought to withdraw from Vietnam are wholly wrong, because if we withdrew from Vietnam, the communists would control Vietnam, pretty soon ... all of Southeast Asia would be under control of the communists and ... then India, Burma would be the next target."

Politicians would spend the next decade reciting that exact justification for the war. Kennedy wasn't just pro-Vietnam War -- his administration basically wrote the pro-Vietnam War playbook.


Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_19676_5-ridiculous-cold-war-myths-you-learned-in-history-class_p2.html#ixzz2CySNNXZq


JFK and his advisers were concerned with the “crisis of confidence among Vietnamese people which is eroding popular support for GVN that is vital for victory,” and the “crisis of confidence on the part of the American public and Government,” who also do not see how “our actions are related to our fundamental objective of victory”—JFK’s invariant condition. JFK (and his advisers) recognized that the war was unpopular at home, but regarded such lack of support—as well as GVN initiatives toward political settlement—not as an opportunity for withdrawal, but rather as a problem to be overcome, because it posed a threat to the military victory to which they were committed. The significance of these facts for the thesis under discussion is obvious.


http://www.chomsky.info/letters/200312--.htm


Kennedy's commitment to stay the course was clear to those closest to him. As noted, Arthur Schlesinger shared JFK's perception of the enormous stakes and his optimism that the military escalation had reversed the "aggression" of the indigenous guerrillas in 1962. There is not a word in Schlesinger's chronicle of the Kennedy years (1965, reprinted 1967) that hints of any intention to withdraw without victory. In fact, Schlesinger gives no indication that JFK thought about withdrawal at all. The withdrawal plans receive one sentence in his voluminous text, attributed to McNamara in the context of the debate over pressuring the Diem regime. There is nothing else in this 940-page virtual day-by-day record of the Kennedy Administration by its quasi-official historian. Far more detail had appeared in the press in October-December 1963.

These facts leave only three possible conclusions: (1) the historian was keeping the President's intentions secret; (2) this close JFK confidant had no inkling of his intentions; (3) there were no such intentions.


http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199209--.htm

I guess the myth is easier to buy than the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #57)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:45 PM

99. Civil society...???



That's when political opponents went to the electorate to settle their ideological differences, not to the local hitman or "ratfucker".

After JFK, all of the best progressive voices were silenced either by assassination or the threat of such. It's getting easier.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:58 AM

7. Demand accountability from the officials who failed to protect JFK?

Er, the murder happened 49 years ago today. Just how many of those officials are alive today to hold accountable? Or, is the point to smear the reputations of dead people who can no longer defend themselves?

The Warren Commission Report spared no one in its evaluation of the failure to protect the President, as in this passage from Chapter 8 of its report:

The Commission believes that the facilities and procedures of the Protective Research Section of the Secret Service prior to November 22, 1963, were inadequate. Its efforts appear to have been too largely directed at the "crank" threat. Although the Service recognized that its advance preventive measures must encompass more than these most obvious dangers, it made little effort to identify factors in the activities of an individual or an organized group, other than specific threats, which suggested a source of danger against which timely precautions could be taken
.

And this:

The Commission believes, however, that the FBI took an unduly restrictive view of its responsibilities in preventive intelligence work, prior to the assassination. The Commission appreciates the large volume of cases handled by the FBI (636,371 investigative matters during fiscal year 1963).147 There were no Secret Service criteria which specifically required the referral of Oswald's case to the Secret Service; nor was there any requirement to report the names of defectors. However, there was much material in the hands of the FBI about Oswald: the knowledge of his defection, his arrogance and hostility to the United States, his pro-Castro tendencies, his lies when interrogated by the FBI, his trip to Mexico where he was in contact with Soviet authorities, his presence in the School Book Depository job and its location along the route of the motorcade. All this does seem to amount to enough to have induced an alert agency, such as the FBI, possessed of this information to list Oswald as a potential threat to the safety of the President. This conclusion may be tinged with hindsight, but it stated primarily to direct the thought of those responsible for the future safety of our Presidents to the need for a more imaginative and less narrow interpretation of their responsibilities.

It is the conclusion of the Commission that, even in the absence of Secret Service criteria which specifically required the referral of such a case as Oswald's to the Secret Service, a more alert and carefully considered treatment of the Oswald case by the Bureau might have brought about such a referral. Had such a review been undertaken by the FBI, there might conceivably have been additional investigation of the Oswald case between November 5 and November 22.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #7)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:05 AM

10. There are many people still unaccountable, and the blowback between the FBI and CIA continues.

Then there were the "show" deaths of so many people that critically questioned the "findings" of the Warren Commission-yet there remain many people that could and should speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth regarding the assassination of President Kennedy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobthedrummer (Reply #10)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:09 AM

14. "Show deaths?" Somebody drank the CT kool-ade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:11 AM

16. Play at your own risk then stopbush. "It can't happen here", right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobthedrummer (Reply #16)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:15 AM

17. Who said it can't happen here? It happened with Lincoln, whose assassination WAS the

outcome of a conspiracy. That's what the facts tell us.

In the case of JFK's assassination, the facts tell us otherwise.

You can be a science denier all you want, but it doesn't change the science and evidence in the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #17)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:20 AM

18. A Sinclair Lewis reference, by the way I hang out with molecular epidemiologists and other PhDs-have

a nice day posting...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobthedrummer (Reply #18)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:42 AM

23. Enjoy your day believing you're fighting the good fight against evil.

I see you include a cross icon in your posts. Looks like you're predisposed to believe in make believe. You know, gods, Jesus, conspiracy to kill JFK.

Have fun with that. Don't let reality intrude.

BTW - do those brainiacs you hang out with also believe the JFK CTs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #23)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:49 AM

25. I remember welcoming you to DU, stopbush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #25)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:56 AM

30. I appreciated the welcome.

Someone has to speak up for reason and sanity around here, especially every year around Thanksgiving, when the JFK CTists come out from under the rocks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #30)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:04 PM

83. If you keep repeating those letters 'CTists' it might actually stick to people

who are doing their duty as citizens, asking for answers to questions that were never answered?

I doubt it though. People WILL ask questions, and will keep asking them until they are answered and if they are not, people will wonder why?

The real CTs are the ones we are told to accept without question.

Slapping labels on questioners only raises more questions. If the truth is so obvious, why the anger at those who still question, the need to try to discredit them? The truth should be obvious enough that anyone doubting it should not require these visceral reactions from those who just want to 'beleeeeve'.

Every time I see that now very old label being pulled out and slapped on people who question, it causes me to look more deeply at what prompted that particular reaction. It raises suspicions sometimes that were not already there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #83)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:36 PM

97. I would be willing to bet that neither you nor 90% of the people

on DU who believe "the questions have never been answered" have never read the Warren Commission Report, which did a damn fine job answering the questions. Not every question, but the major questions.

So, have you read the WCR, Sabrina1? Personally, I find the WCR to be a lot more detailed, interesting and compelling than any of the CT books I've ever read on the subject. The CT books are only interesting if we're willing to stipulate that outrageous fantasies are fact. Sort of like the way stipulating that vampires exist makes the Twilight movies seem plausible.

If you've never read the WCR, what's keeping you? It's online for free these days. And it's actually pretty well written as reports go. Fascinating stuff. Not at all dry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #97)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 02:04 PM

106. And if it is too much to read for some

I recommend Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #97)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 02:43 PM

118. You would be wrong.

And like so many others who read the report, several years ago at this point, it raised even more questions.

You should not make assumptions about people you do not know, or make bets so cavalierly. It calls into question how you approach the gathering of facts. Eg, you jumped to a conclusion over something that is fairly trivial and not really all that important. My impression is that if someone is willing to jump to conclusions so quickly about something so relatively innocuous, because it would back their preconceived theories, then it is reasonable to assume they make a habit of doing so.

The correct way to approach the gathering of information, to ensure more accuracy, would be to start by asking a question 'have you ever the read the WCR'?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #118)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 02:44 PM

119. You read it?

Specifically, what parts do you take issue with?
Please point out where they got it wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #118)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 02:54 PM

121. Like when I wrote "So, have you read the WCR, Sabrina1?" in post #97 above?

You still haven't bothered answering my question, even though it was phrased in *exactly* the way that you consider to be "the correct way to approach the gathering of information, to ensure more accuracy." You sort of indicate you've read it, but I'm not clear that you have.

You're welcome to take this opportunity to answer my initial question, which was asked in what you yourself have since defined as "the correct way"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #121)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 03:10 PM

126. You forgot that you answered your own question.

You were 'willing to bet' on your own conclusion. Lucky for you I didn't take you up on that bet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #30)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 07:40 PM

357. "Someone has to speak up for reason and sanity". Are you series? So you self-appointed yourself

to be the savior of "reason and sanity". And then to ridicule those that dont agree with your version of "reason and sanity" by saying that they "come out from under the rocks", is incredible. That certainly isnt open minded. And surprising language from a "politically liberal person" that posts on DU.

I doubt that anyone would take you serious when you claim to be the all knowing speaker for "reason and sanity". And of course ridicule will kill any discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #25)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 06:13 PM

171. Octafish....

Many years.... still they are out there spending a good deal of time trying to stomp it into the ground.

People have a right to know what happened to our democracy and why. It's a matter of pressing on, a task I'm willing to do.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #25)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:14 PM

232. You Should Not Have Been So Kind

Just saying. Happy Thanksgiving Octafish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #23)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:57 AM

32. I have the gift of Faith in Jesus Christ as do many others-you don't "own" my perception space about

that nor any of your other imaginings. You seem like a knee jerk reactionary when it comes to your re visioned history, which has no solid conceptual framework, does it?

Btw, here's more about your "pissant"

Lee Harvey Oswald: an Updated Modern Biography with References (Scribd)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/39479479/The-Kennedy-Assassination-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-an-Updated-Biography-with-References

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #17)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:50 AM

26. You're talking supporting the Warren commission and talking about science?

 



The same report that came up with the magic bullet theory, a theory that defines science in so many ways they've yet to be counted

I suppose that you also disparage the House Select Committee on Assassinations that came to the conclusion that yes, it was indeed a conspiracy that was behind the JFK assassination.

Speaking of drinking Kool Aid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #26)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:16 PM

41. Really? Please tell me how the single bullet theory (ie: magic bullet) defies science.

I'm waiting.

And, yes, I disparage the findings of the HSCA for the simple fact that their conclusion that a 4th shot was fired was based entirely, ENTIRELY on their belief that the dictabelt tape captured the sound of a 4th shot. That evidence was vigorously challenged at the time by the FBI and the National Science Institute, among others.

That "evidence" has since been falsified conclusively, by proving that motorcycle officer HB MCClain was NOT in a position to record the sound of any 4th gunshot, a position that one of the scientists (Weiss) presenting the "4th shot evidence" insisted McClain had to be in to record the shot. When the HSCA asked Weiss about the location of the motorcycle with the open microphone—"Would you consider that to be an essential ingredient in the ultimate conclusion of your analysis?"—Weiss answered, "It is an essential component of it, because, if you do not put the motorcycle in the place that it is —the initial point of where it was receiving the —, and if you do not move it at the velocity at which it is being moved on paper in this re-creation, you do not get a good, tight pattern that compares very well with the observed impulses on the police tape recording."

That evidence that falsifies the 4th shot theory exists in the form of video tapes shot from many angles and by many different people who were in Dealey Plaza that day. In fact, McClain testified to the HSCA that he was not in the position that the "4th shot scientists" said he was in to be able to record the sound of a 4th shot, which had to have been 120 to 130 feet behind JFK's limo. The HSCA chose to not believe his sworn testimony.

But the video evidence proves that McClain was exactly where he said he was when the sound of that 4th shot was supposedly captured on the dictabelt tape, and that was 250 feet behind JFK's limo, just as he testified to the HSCA. Ergo, it was impossible for the open mic on McClain's motorcycle to record the sound of a 4th shot being fired.

Theory falsified, conclusively. Based on the very parameters set up by the scientists making the claim for a 4th shot.

BTW - the HSCA did agree with the Warren Commission that Oswald fired three shots and that two of the shots fired were the shots that killed JFK.

You've got to get with it, MadHound. You're dealing with outdated and laughable CT "information."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #41)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 02:01 PM

103. You are far more passionate about the Magic Bullet

 

then most JFK truther's are about the subject.

It would be against DU rules of me to even suggest that you are a troll trying to stop the search for truth by disrupting any other avenue of discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eyes of the World (Reply #103)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 02:09 PM

109. You can't answer the question, so why bother posting?

It's really a simple request. If the single bullet theory isn't scientifically sound, then the evidence against it must be readily available and easily understandable.

I'm simply asking for the evidence. I thought we were all after the truth here. Suggesting I'm some kind of troll when I've been a DU member since its inception is a cheap shot, especially when that shot is taken by a nube with a whopping 52 DU posts to their credit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #109)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 02:13 PM

110. Do you really want to have a serious conversation?

 



The single bullet theory is nonsense.

What part of it makes sense? How do I disprove nonsense?

What evidence would you accept that proves that someone is trying to sell you something?

You tell me what you will accept and I will get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eyes of the World (Reply #110)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 03:00 PM

123. Sure. I'm up for a serious conversation.

Let's start with the seated positions of JFK and Connelly in the limo at the time the shots were fired.

Would you agree that their bodies were aligned in a way that a bullet fired from the TSBD window would have a trajectory that makes a straight line from the window, through JFK and into Connelly?

Or, do you believe that the single bullet theory requires the bullet to stop and turn sharply to the right in mid air, then back to the left to enter Gov Connelly after exiting JFK (which I would agree is a totally ludicrous and unscientific proposition)?

Awaiting your answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #109)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 02:18 PM

111. Or are you just shouting 'Nothing To See Here" for the fun of it?

 

Suspicious...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #41)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 08:41 PM

366. I see a copy and paste from WIki here.....

Which is fine, bet lets not view it as you being conversant on the topic, so as to be able to write something from memory.

At least link to what you pasted in the comment box.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #17)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:24 PM

46. Science and the evidence of the case?

The one thing for certain in this case is that some of the best evidence of this crime was almost immediately destroyed at Parkland Hospital. Scientific criminal investigation was in it's childhood and most certainly was not followed in this case. The real tragedy is that we may never be able to uncover the definitive truth about what happened and who was responsible. It's pretty obvious to me there is plenty of blame to go around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonybgood (Reply #46)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:59 PM

75. Absolute delusion.

Not true or "certain" by even the most lax standards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #75)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:34 PM

208. Oh Now

You've said some pretty stupid things previously, but that one takes the cake. I just have to use this smiley ->

Just an interested observer of this rehashed story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #75)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:45 AM

291. So cleaning the limo doesn't constitute "certainty" that evidence was destroyed?

How is it delusional that there was physical evidence in the limo when it arrived at Parkland Hospital? How is it delusional to say that cleaning the limo did not destroy physical evidence? It is not evidence of conspiracy, to be sure, but it is evidence that incompetence was demonstrated. To say that loss of physical evidence is not important is "delusion" no matter whether you believe the Warren Commission or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonybgood (Reply #291)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:48 AM

419. Was any evidence recovered from the limo before it was cleaned?

Do you know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #419)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 12:31 PM

439. Yes, the answer is "no"!!! No evidence of any kind was taken from the limo before it was cleaned.

Is there any listing in the Warren Commission report of evidence being taken from the limo at Parkland Hospital? No. The limo was cleaned by the Secret Service before any evidence was collected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonybgood (Reply #439)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:32 PM

448. Then how to explain WC exhibits CE 567, CE 569 and CE 840?

All fragments of the bullet that hit JFK in the head, taken from the front seat of the limo and from under the left jump seat. How about that?

Oh, and far as there being no mention in the WCR of evidence being taken from the limo:

"In addition to the three cartridge cases found in the Texas School Book Depository Building, a nearly whole bullet was found on Governor Connally's stretcher and two bullet fragments were found in the front of the President's car. 2 The two bullet fragments weighed 44.6 and 21.0 grains, respectively. 43 The heavier fragment was a portion of a bullet's nose area, as shown by its rounded contour and the character of the markings it bore. 44 The lighter fragment consisted of bullet's base portion, as shown by its shape and by the presence of a cannelure. 45 The two fragments were both mutilated, and it was not possible to determine from the fragments themselves whether they comprised the base and nose of one bullet or of two separate bullets. 46 However, each had sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis of an identification. 47 Based on a comparison with test bullets fired from the C2766 rifle, the stretcher bullet and both bullet fragments were identified as having been fired from the C2766 rifle. 48 " - WCR, Appendix 10

In addition, a large fragment of JFK's skull was recovered from the limo. An x-ray of this fragment exists.

The HSCA provided a report on how this fragment was recovered from the limo.

Arguing with the JFK CTists - like shooting fish in a barrel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #448)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:48 PM

461. How do you explain the immediate destruction of evidence - the limousine?

Read something the Warren Commission didn't bring up:



Destruction of Records

Cmdr. James Humes, JFK's lead autopsy doctor. Humes signed an affidavit that he had burned "certain preliminary draft notes" from the autopsy, and later admitted that this included the first draft of the autopsy report.

It is impossible to know how much evidence related to the assassination of President Kennedy has been destroyed. Some instances are well-documented; others only inferred or alleged. In other cases, such as the Orleans Parish Grand Jury transcripts, records ordered destroyed were secretly preserved.

It is known that a note from Oswald to the FBI was destroyed, that the first draft of the autopsy report and "certain preliminary draft notes" were burned, and that the Presidential limousine was rebuilt shortly after the assassination. The President's brain itself, along with tissue slides and other medical evidence including autopsy photos, has gone missing. A Presidential recording from the day after the assassination was erased.

How many files were destroyed is unknown. The Department of Defense admitted to a "routine" destruction in 1971 of an Army Intelligence file on Oswald which was never seen by any investigative body. Even during the 1990s, the Secret Service destroyed Protective Service records, among them files on JFK's aborted Chicago trip in early November 1963, rather than let them fall into the hands of the Assassination Records Review Board. There are also some indications that the U.S. Marine Corps launched its own investigation in the aftermath of JFK's assassination, reports from which have never been located.

What file destruction may have been undertaken by the FBI and CIA is not known, though many believe the records of these agencies have been sanitized, particularly regarding the Oswald trip to Mexico City in the fall of 1963. A CIA officer named James Wilcott based in Japan told the HSCA he had disbursed funds for the "Oswald project." No records directly identifying Oswald an an intelligence agent have ever surfaced.

SOURCE:

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Destruction_of_Records



The destruction of evidence demonstrates the investigation was compromised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #461)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:14 PM

462. Blah, blah, blah. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

What happened to the Presidential Limousine that carried President Kennedy on the day he was assassinated?

The limousine that carried the President was searched for evidence after the assassination. It was then cleaned and continued to be used for certain functions. The windshield of the limousine was removed as evidence by the FBI and the Secret Service since it had been hit by the third bullet. The windshield was designated Commission Exhibit (CE) 350 of the Warren Commission and as a Warren Commission Exhibit will remain in the custody of the National Archives and Records Administration. The limousine is currently at the Henry Ford museum in Dearborn Michigan. - from the National Archive FAQ page, "JFK Assassination Record"

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/faqs.html

Robert Frazier (a firearms identification expert working for the FBI who examined much of the ballistics and firearms evidence connected with the assassination of President Kennedy and the murder of Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit.) examined the limo after the shooting and testified before the Warren Commission. He described his search of the limousine for bullet fragments late on the night of the shooting. Two bullet fragments had already been retrieved from the front seat by the Secret Service. Per Frazier:

"There were blood and particles of flesh scattered all over the hood, the windshield, in the front seat and all over the rear floor rugs, the jump seats, and over the rear seat, and down both sides of the side rails or tops of the doors of the car. I examined the car to determine whether or not there were any bullet fragments present in it, embedded in the upholstery of the back of the front seat, or whether there were any impact areas which indicated that bullets or bullet fragments struck the inside of the car.
"

When asked if he felt his search was indeed a thorough examination of all aspects of the interior of the automobile, Frazier said:

"Yes, sir; for our purpose. However, we did not tear out all of the rugs on the floor, for instance. We examined the rugs carefully for holes, for bullet furrows, for fragments. We examined the nap of the rug, in the actual nap of the rug, for fragments and bullet holes. We pulled the rug back as far as we could turn it back and even tore the glue or adhesive material loose around the cracks at the edges of the rug so we could observe the cracks to see whether they had been enlarged, and we examined all of the upholstery covering, on the back of the front seat, on the doors, and in the rear seat compartment, the jump seats, the actual rear seat, the back of the rear seat, and we examined the front seat in a similar manner, and we found no bullet holes or other bullet impact areas, other than the one on the inside of the windshield and the dent inside the windshield chrome."


Frazier's extensive testimony as given before the WC may be found here:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0038b.htm

In David Fisher's book Hard Evidence, Frazier expanded on the WC testimony, providing this rather gross account:

"The President's limousine arrived back in Washington about six o'clock. Around one o'clock the next morning, Cort (Cortland Cunningham) and I started sifting through the blood looking for lead fragments. It was tough; it was very tough...We'd just reach down into the clots of blood and scoop it up in our hands and let it dribble through. Whenever we felt something gritty, we'd clean it up and if it was lead, we'd save it in a pillbox. We didn't really recover a lot of lead."


How about that...and all easily discovered in the WCR.


You wrote: Cmdr. James Humes, JFK's lead autopsy doctor. Humes signed an affidavit that he had burned "certain preliminary draft notes" from the autopsy, and later admitted that this included the first draft of the autopsy report.

But as Humes explained to Jeremy Gunn of the Assassination Records Review Board:

.
In Greenfield Village, there is an old Illinois courthouse where Lincoln used to preside when he was circuit-riding judge. And in that courthouse was a chair that was alleged to be the chair in which Lincoln sat when he was assassinated in Ford's Theater. And the docent, in describing this chair, proudly spoke that here on the back of the chair is the stain of the President's blood. The bullet went through his head. I thought this was the most macabre thing I ever saw in my life. It just made a terrible impression on me.

And when I noticed that these bloodstains were on this document that I had prepared, I said nobody's going to ever get these documents. I'm not going to keep them, and nobody else is ever going to get them.

So I copied them -- and you probably have a copy in my longhand of what I wrote. It's made from the original. And I then burned the original notes in the fireplace of my family room to prevent them from ever falling into the hands of what I consider inappropriate people. And there's been a lot of flak about this, that they're all part of a big conspiracy that I did this because I was involved in I don't know what I was involved . Ludicrous. That is what I did.


Them's the FACTS, and they don't seem to comport with the fantasies you're peddling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #462)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:19 PM

471. No, stopbush. What you won't explain is your allegiance to the Big Lie.

"This will open the whole, the whole Bay of Pigs thing."

Who said that, stopbush? Do you know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #471)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:35 PM

472. He won't be answering in this thread. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #448)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 01:38 PM

483. Let's get something straight;

I did not advance any Conspiracy Theory. I'm not even trying to argue with you. Kennedy wasn't sitting in the front of the limo nor was he sitting in a jump seat. None of the bullet fragments were identified as having hit the president nor could they be confirmed as to whether they were from the first bullet or the third. The back of the limo was cleaned inconsistent with a forensic search for evidence. The only thing that I advaned was that there was plenty of blame to go around before the assassination and with the investigation that followed. Whether individuals conspired to ignore the threat that Oswald might pose or what the nature of his contact with the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City might have been is strictly conjecture.

Your smug attitude about this subject and how your analysis is superior to any other could stand some scrutiny. Your willing to tell me that the Warren Commission got everything right? Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #7)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 06:25 PM

177. And you think that all those acknowledgements prove that this was all just

incompetence? Lol!

I don't think it proves what you think it does. At the very least it is an admission that for whatever reason, the information that was in the hands of the FBI re a threat to JFK was ignored. What it doesn't answer is 'why'. It concludes, without any real evidence, that all these 'mistakes' were merely tragic incompetence.

And apparently they learned nothing from their conclusions since two more assassinations took place just five years later.

Looks like our public officials would have been as safe without our glorified security agencies (and they were glorified back then) as they were with them. That's pretty frightening. That alone raises many questions.

At least that is the CT people who believe there is no need to question, have latched on to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #7)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 12:16 PM

297. Do you have anything to add about the Atlantic article, stopbush?

You've made clear that you endorse the Warren Commission. Great!

Jefferson Morley makes clear that US government agencies and officials charged with protecting and serving JFK exhibited criminal negligence, at the least, for which they were never held to account. Doing so would be important for moving the nation forward, as well as for justice, which is the point of the article and thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:06 AM

11. "It would not be a very difficult job to shoot the president of the United States."

"All you'd have to do is get up in a high building with a high-powered rifle with a telescopic sight, and there's nothing anybody could do."

Those words were spoken by a person in Texas on the morning of the assassination, and were even overheard by a government official. Yet the person who spoke those words was never even interviewed by the police, the CIA or even the Warren Commission.

Makes you wonder why they'd ignore such a thing, doesn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #11)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:57 AM

31. What Joseph Adams Milteer said...



Outlined the official version of Dallas before it happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #31)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:21 PM

43. That has nothing to do with the quote I provided.

Do you know who spoke those words, and spoke them on the morning of the assassination or not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #43)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:34 PM

52. Milteer has everything to do with it. FBI recorded him outline the plot with a high-powered rifle...

...from a high rise building in Miami.

Again, the FBI and Secret Service were warned about a nearly identical plot in Chicago.

BTW: Why don't you contribute something to this thread besides demands and insults, stopbush?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #52)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:46 PM

65. I'm asking if you know who the person was who spoke those words in Texas

the morning of the assassination.

Apparently, you have no idea who spoke those words.

And yet you consider yourself to be an expert in JFK's murder.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Let me know when you give up and I'll be happy to tell you who spoke those words on the morning of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #65)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 06:42 PM

489. President Kennedy said those words sadly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #43)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:59 PM

217. JFK spoke those words. Why do you think they support your

theories? They show he was thinking about the fact that he had enemies and that killing him would not be that difficult. Sadly he was correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #217)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:01 AM

254. Bingo! You are correct.

The reason I tossed JFK's own words into the conversation was 1. to see if any of the CT "experts" babbling on here were aware of the quote, 2. to see what kind of responses I'd get that totally missed the boat, and most important, 3. to hoist the CTists on their own idiotic claims of what counts as evidence in this case.

I'm quite certain that most of the CT believers here took the bait and have been wondering how a person who said such a thing the day of the assassination would have never been interviewed by law enforcement. In fact, when one considers the ct theories that have the SS killing JFK - ie: the guy driving his limo killed him!!! - well, I wouldn't be surprised to hear a CTist claim that JFK's words PROVE that he himself was in on the plot to kill...himself.

As it was, it took 15 hours for anybody to come up with the right answer. You win the prize for that. But not what I expected from so expert a group in the matter of JFK's murder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #254)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 06:23 AM

269. Oh please stop with your games. I posted that information at least

twice already in this thread hours ago. This comment of yours proves that you are not here to have an honest discussion at all but are so angry that anyone might have an opinion different to yours, you want to 'hoist them on their petard'??? How disgusting to view your fellow DUers here that way.

I have not alerted on your posts falsely accusing people of being CTs here so far or of lying, as you did with me. You have already had several of your false accusations shot down already.

Your credibility here is diminishing fast as no one takes a person who admits that their only purpose in participating on DU is to 'get' their fellow DUers seriously. That is what is called 'making DU Suck'!

You clearly have studied this historical event and it would be interesting to have an honest discussion free of the anger you appear to harbor towards anyone who views the evidence and the history differently than you. There is no absolute correct conclusion to this tragedy. YOU do not hold the absolute truth in your hands.

In 1979 even the House Select Committee came to different conclusions than the WCR. Are they ALL CTs too simply because they disagree with you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #43)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 06:10 AM

266. Your quote was attributed to JFK on the morning of the assassination

If true, it means he had fears that he had enemies and that it would be possible for them to arrange for someone to shoot him from a tall building. Seems like a logical conclusion if you knew you had enemies who would like to see you dead. And he had been warned about going to Texas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #11)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 06:14 PM

172. No actually it doesn't. Why do you find it suspicious?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #172)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:21 PM

200. Do you know who spoke those words?

Just curious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #200)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:40 PM

212. Yes, I do know who said it. JFK said it. Makes you wonder why he was

thinking along those lines, what put that thought in his head? On that day? He must have had some fears that his enemies, and he had plenty of them, if they were so inclined, could put such a plan into action. But we'll never know why he was thinking that way, will we?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:09 AM

13. If memory serves..

.. even before he came to Dallas, we all knew that the conversation about protection and a bullet-proof glass dome had taken place in the White House, and that Kennedy had said that he just couldn't separate himself from the people that way and refused to ride under a glass dome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #13)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:11 AM

15. Wrong. The bubble top WAS NOT BULLETPROOF.

It's "facts" like these that ill serve history, and that tarnish the the memory of JFK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #15)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:28 PM

51. It wouldn't have had to be to save him.

 


The more I see these threads, the more I see the devil in the details being dismissed by the 'nothing to see here' crowd.

So, what bearing does the dome conversation have that you have to attack it directly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #51)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:42 PM

59. Amanda was asserting the bubble top was bullet proof. It wasn't. That much is a fact.

That's not to say that the bubble top couldn't have saved the president's life had it been on the limo.

The bubble top was assembled out of six separate plexiglass pieces, attaching into metal strips. A bullet fired could have deflected off one of those metal strips. However, a bullet shot from a high powered rifle would not deflect off the plexiglass itself. The trajectory may have been changed a bit, but it would still pierce the plexiglass and keep on going right into JFK.

Another way the bubble top may have helped was that it could have reflected glare from sunlight, making the easy shot that Oswald took that killed JFK a lot harder if not impossible.

Most of all, many people at the time believed that the bubble top was bullet proof, even though it wasn't. It's possible that Oswald could have been one of those people who believed that, and it might have dissuaded him from shooting at all if he thought that the bubble top would deflect any shots he fired.

Again, I'm just disabusing Amanda of the mistaken idea that the bubble top was bullet proof, which is different than asserting it may have been assassin deterring.

BTW - even some of JFK's Secret Service personnel were under the mistaken impression that the bubble top was bullet proof.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #59)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:48 PM

67. If everyone thinks your bubble is bullet-proof....

 

Doesn't that save them the effort of shooting through it?

Welcome to Game Theory 101.

Fact is, it could have saved him either way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #67)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:57 PM

73. Maybe yes, maybe no.

It could have saved him, or it may not have saved him. Asserting that it actually WAS bulletproof tilts the scale into believing it would have saved him, when the fact is that it only MAY have saved him as it wasn't bulletproof. The saving of JFK's life by using the bubble top would have had nothing to do with it actually being bulletproof, but with other factors.

That's a pretty big distinction, no? You seem to be asserting that if people THOUGHT the bubble top was bullet proof that somehow MADE it bulletproof.

Welcome to the world of JFK CT "facts."

And why assume that its use would have deterred Oswald from shooting? If Oswald was the one person in Dallas who didn't think the bubble top was bullet proof, it wouldn't have deterred him in the least. And that's all it would have taken for him to ignore the bubble top being on the limo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #13)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 09:11 AM

481. A Dallas tee vee station recorded JFK leaving Love Field on Nov. 22, 1963...

Last edited Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:37 AM - Edit history (2)

...it was never shown on national broadcast, for some reason. In the tape, Secret Service Agent Donald Lawton holds up his arms thrice in the classic "What the heck?" gesture. The video indicates SS agent Emory P. Roberts stood up in his car to order Lawton* off the presidential limousine's back bumper, leaving the president unprotected from behind. President Kennedy was murdered a few minutes later.

Video: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/171830/secret_service_jfk /



From Vince Palamara:

An important discovery was made by this correspondent during review of video of the Dallas trip shot by the ABC television affiliate in that city. During the start of the fatal motorcade at Love Field, Secret Service agent Don Lawton begins to jog alongside the presidential limousine. He is immediately called back by his shift leader and commander of the follow-up car detail, Emory P. Roberts.

Lawton's dismay and confusion is made manifest by his unambiguous body language: He throws up his arms several times before, during and after the follow-up car passes him. He was not being allowed to do his job -- and it was not JFK who was ordering the stand-down.

Despite the discovery by this correspondent of three reports to the contrary (two by Roberts) written on November 22, 1963, this newly discovered photographic evidence confirms that frustrated and vocal-in-his-objections Rybka did not enter the follow-up car and was left behind at the airport.

Afterward, in William Manchester's book, Death of a President, we see the "official story" of what happened:

"Kennedy grew weary of seeing bodyguards roosting behind him every time he turned around, and in Tampa on November 18 (1963), just four days before his death, he dryly asked Agent Floyd Boring to 'keep those Ivy League charlatans off the back of the car.' Boring wasn't offended. There had been no animosity in the remark." (1988 Harper & Row/Perennial Library edition, pp. 37-38)

The thing is PRESIDENT KENNEDY NEVER SAID THAT.

SOURCE:

Agents Go On Record

* Previously, the agent in the photo was incorrectly identified as Henry J. Rybka. According to records, he also was ordered to stay off the car and remain at Love Field. Much "chatter" arose over the misidentification.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:26 AM

20. K&R. It would be helpful if they were held accountable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Overseas (Reply #20)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:24 PM

398. With justice re-established, we could move forward...

Until then, all we do is build up something big and ugly on a foundation of bloody sand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:52 AM

28. KICK

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #28)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:20 PM

400. Thanks, patrice! Have you seen this analysis of the Warren Commission?

The Warren Commission's Failed Investigation

http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/failed.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #400)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:21 PM

401. Thank you for this! I have always heard that the WC was window-dressing, but have not seen an

explanation of that fact.

What happened to John Kennedy is really much more important to Americans than has been recognized.

I will read this, excerpt, and share.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:04 PM

35. Happy Thanksgiving, Octafish!

I'll never believe that LHO was anything but a patsy for the people who wanted JFK dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #35)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 05:30 PM

156. Happy Thanksgiving, Never Old and Never in the Way!

You are one of the people who make this a better world by your very presence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:06 PM

36. Ever Science fiction fan knows who the gunman on the grassy knoll...

JFK From an alternate universe where a three smegheads messed with Oswald's shot, and caused the world to go to shit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMightyFavog (Reply #36)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:23 PM

405. Kryten's amphibious tank assault on the V.R. Jane Austen novel lake-side garden party

is burned into my memory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mc Mike (Reply #405)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:57 PM

416. One of the few good things about Series VII

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 12:07 PM

37. Thanks for posting, I want this cleared during my lifetime

I am only beginning to realize now the impact of watching Oswald being shot on live TV as a little kid. It scarred me. What did it do to everyone else? LET ALONE the killing of JFK and RFK and MLK? My goodness, of course they were conspiracies! Who doesn't get that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #37)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:52 PM

100. Read Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" or the Warren Commission Report.

Either one should clear up the whole thing for you.

Worked for me as far as disabusing me of a couple of decades of my believing there was any truth to all the JFK CTs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink