HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » How many here have actual...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:33 PM

 

How many here have actually READ the Warren Report?

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by REP (a host of the General Discussion forum).

I have: twice

I read it in college, and concluded JFK had to have been killed by only Oswald, and he was a lone nut, not working with anyone.

I read it again recently, and with a bit more science behind the belt, and have concluded great portions of it are not consistent with evidence.

For example, only three of Oswald's bullets could have hit Kennedy. The fourth bullet had to be from someone else.

I'm not saying it is a huge reaching conspiracy, I'm not saying that. You might THINK that I'm saying that, and put words into my mouth as the trollis tend to do.

But the Warren Report is at best deliberately leaving out evidence and ignoring other evidence.

Take that to mean what you want...


28 replies, 1649 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 28 replies Author Time Post
Reply How many here have actually READ the Warren Report? (Original post)
Taverner Dec 2012 OP
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #1
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #2
Taverner Dec 2012 #4
gopiscrap Dec 2012 #3
lib2DaBone Dec 2012 #5
Taverner Dec 2012 #6
arthritisR_US Dec 2012 #24
Berlum Dec 2012 #7
Taverner Dec 2012 #12
arthritisR_US Dec 2012 #22
1-Old-Man Dec 2012 #8
LineReply .
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #9
Taverner Dec 2012 #10
LineLineLineReply .
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #11
LineLineLineLineReply .
Taverner Dec 2012 #13
LineLineLineLineLineReply .
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #17
rug Dec 2012 #14
arthritisR_US Dec 2012 #23
Dalai_1 Dec 2012 #15
Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #16
Taverner Dec 2012 #18
democraticinsurgent Dec 2012 #19
Taverner Dec 2012 #20
arthritisR_US Dec 2012 #21
malz Dec 2012 #25
Archae Dec 2012 #26
Still Sensible Dec 2012 #27
REP Jan 2013 #28

Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:38 PM

1. The warren report was shit.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:39 PM

2. The Warren Commission Report was created far too quickly.

They were trying to fill in blanks that would ultimately be answered by the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Because of that, their credibility suffered.

If you think I'm a one-trick-pony regarding this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2083019

To quote John Lennon, "All I want is some truth."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:41 PM

4. The only thing that we know for sure is that there had to be a second gunman

 

Whether they worked in conjunction and why - no idea. And it's just speculation at that point.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:40 PM

3. I read it

and concluded that Nixon and Bush I probably had a lot to do with it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:48 PM

5. Americans will believe anything....they are pretty much mindless...

 

They will believe that JFK was shot from behind by a lone gunman... even when they see film that JFK's head blasted backwards from a shot to the right front.

Americans will believe that WTC #7 fell down in its own perfect footprint.. even though the building was never touched by fire or plane damage?

Americans believe that a man in a cave with a cell phone took down the WTC towers, even though the highest command of military is needed to make NORAD stand down on 911.

Americans never heard of Adolph Hitler blowing up his own Parliment Building.. in order to get public opinion in his favor to start a war.

In short.. most Americans are dumb and dumber...



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lib2DaBone (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:51 PM

6. 9/11 was whiny millionares and their pet government

 

The Millionaire in this case was Osama Bin Laden and the government was the House of Saud.

The House of Saud wanted to remind us who owns us.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:39 PM

24. I disagree with your conclusion. nfm

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:52 PM

7. "You can always trust government. Smirk." - George AWOL Bush (R - Skull & Boner)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:09 PM

12. I don't know - The Bush Administration was WAY to inept to pull that off

 

They couldn't even plant WMDs in Iraq!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:35 PM

22. Oh come on! Shrub was the puppet but those

pulling the strings were far from inept when it came to greed and carnage.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:04 PM

8. I saw a copy on the shelf of the used book store last week and dam near bought it

But I passed

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:05 PM

9. .

 



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:08 PM

10. Have you read it?

 

I'd be willing to bet you haven't

Read it and get back to me

FTR, ALL that we can conclude from the evidence is that there had to be a second gunman,

EVERYTHING else is speculation

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:09 PM

11. .

 



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:10 PM

13. .

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:22 PM

17. .

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:13 PM

14. I still think Mary Surratt was framed.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:36 PM

23. So do I.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:16 PM

15. I did not believe it was accurate from the day it was published n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:19 PM

16. I dont generally go in for conspiracy theories, but the official JFK explanation does not fly.

I think Earl Warren was a good man. I suspect that he was persuaded to peddle the official story because he was convinced doing otherwise might inadvertently trigger WWIII.

Which is not to say I believe the Soviets or Cuba were actually responible for the act.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:23 PM

18. I go for the covering up ineptitude story

 

There was a second gunman, probably by chance, and we'll never know who itis

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:10 PM

19. By chance?

Sorry, but that makes no sense. Two gunman show up independently of each other at the same exact time and both shoot at the president?

The term "conspiracy" has been subjected to the same treatment as "liberal". Folks, it's ok to believe in conspiracies. They happen every single day. All it means is that more than one person worked together to accomplish something illegal.

Clearly JFK was killed by some sort of conspiracy. Due to the massive coverup--including but not limited to dozens of mysterious witness deaths--we may never know the actual facts.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democraticinsurgent (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:13 PM

20. Occam's Razor

 

Which is more likely, that there was a coordinated killing between two individuals, or that they both had the same idea based on security holes?

All we know, in the sense of evidence, is that there had to be two gunmen.

It could be a lot of things - a rogue SS agent who sees an opportunity, a second lone nut, a coordinated strike within a conspiracy....

Qui bono?

The problem is that there were many who benefited from his death.

As per the coverup - this is where it gets interesting. Is the Warren Comission a purposeful omission of the second gunman, or complete ineptitude?

I tend to think that it is possible that it was both.

Conspiracy is a bad choice of words here - not all possibilities involve conspiracies.

Ineptitude was what "caused" 9/11, I think.

We know how well Bush could keep a secret, and how well their plans worked.

Qui Bono?

Who wanted him killed?

And why?

And who was the second shooter?

As bizarre as Oswald's background is, it is not totally improbable that records did not reach people quickly. When Oswald defected to the USSR, the fact that he was a virtual nobody would explain why he could get back into the US without a hitch.

The second and third Oswalds?

Most likely KGB. They know the story behind Oswald in the USSR, why not use the identity?

But that second shooter...

We know there was a second one - and was that second person in contact with Oswald?

This is unknowable at this point.

All the living evidence is dead.

And all of the material evidence is horribly compromised.



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:22 PM

21. "deliberately leaving out evidence and ignoring

other evidence", I would say that's a fair assessment. Reminds me of the 911 Commission's Report...both of these reports left me with that impression.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:43 PM

25. Quite the provocateur, aren't you?

 

Pro-gun, anti-troops, and now this.

I'd say something else, but I'm new here and don't have your "pedigree."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:54 PM

26. The Warren Commission Report was at most incomplete.

They didn't have the ballistics, computer graphics abilities, and other stuff we have today.

All the available *CREDIBLE* evidence points to one guy.
An ultra-leftist radical named Lee Harvey Oswald, who hated Kenddy's guts for picking on Cuba.

He had the gun.
He had the motive.
He had the place where he could shoot from.

He did it.
That's all.

There was no second gunman.

Oliver Stone's "JFK" is 99% bullshit.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:59 PM

27. Read it almost 40 years ago

IMO left many questions.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 12:49 AM

28. Locking

This topic violates the SoP of this Forum.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink