You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #150: There is no point in arguing with me when I am presenting facts [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-04-09 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #146
150. There is no point in arguing with me when I am presenting facts
Edited on Fri Dec-04-09 12:45 AM by stopbush
while you are presenting opinion and conjecture. You're at a distinct disadvantage. One wonders why you continue with a failing strategy.

Why do you denigrate Oswald's attaining the rank of sharpshooter? Everybody knows that there is a rank above sharpshooter (Expert), but that has nothing to do with the fact that Oswald was an excellent shot. He hit targets at 200 yds with 98% accuracy. The kill shot to JFK's head was only 88 yds, and Oswald used a telescopic sight. The USMC testified to the WC that the kill shot to the head was not a difficult shot. As far as his lower Marksman score from 1959, the USMC reps provided their opinions on why his score was lower, and it had nothing to do with him losing his shooting skills. It's all in the WCR - which you won't bother reading.

I really don't give a rat's ass that "the enormous majority of people" believe there was a conspiracy. The enormous majority of Americans believed bush's lies that led us into Iraq. The enormous majority of people believe in god, and the enormous majority of Americans believe we're in the end times and that Jeebus will be returning soon. Like the JFK CTs, there's no evidence to support those beliefs either. The argument from authority is empty, and emptier yet when one feels that they need to help it along by using condescending (and paranoid) phrases like, "conspiracy-deniers (are) either idiots or an extension of the conspiracy,"* while making it clear that you believe that people who don't believe in your fantasies are not to be counted among "the most educated and perceptive."

Pretty childish name calling on your part.

The rest of your post is a mix of your tiresome speculation and bullshit. Who cares what the "Italian manufacturers" found? The WC hired and tested shooters who were able to BETTER Oswald's feat, firing 3 shots with accuracy in as little as 4.6 seconds, while Oswald took 8.5 seconds. They accomplished this using Oswald's own rifle, misaligned scope and all. Tough shit that the Italians couldn't come up with shooters of Oswald's caliber, let alone the WC shooters who were even better than Oswald. Are you really going to base your opinion that Oswald couldn't make those shots on the fact that the Italian manufacturers were so incompetent that they couldn't locate shooters to duplicate Oswald's feat, while the WC had no problem at all finding multiple shooters who could not only match the feat, but better it? Wow! Now that's real CT "insight" at its best! Is that the kind of logic you bring to bear when making your personal financial decisions? I hope not.

I'll pass on your tossing in the diversion about LBJ's girlfriend. It's a BS CT MO that one tires of - the constant throwing of new shit against the wall after the old shit has stunk up the place. Again, just because LBJ made a hearsay-reported threat in no way means he was involved with JFK's killing.

If you want to play the game of who said what before the assassination, there's an even more-damning quote that implicates a different person in the shooting, a quote that was uttered the morning of the assassination. Perhaps you know who said this: "It would not be a very difficult job to shoot the president of the United States. All you'd need 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."

Do you know who said that? Was it Oswald? Ruby? One of the CIA guys? Mafia? The Dallas Police?

Nope. It was JFK himself. He spoke those words to Jackie and Ken O'Donnell at about 10:15 am the day of the shooting.

Based on what you believe passes for evidence, it all becomes clear: JFK himself was involved in the plot to kill JFK! His own words on the day of prove that he had foreknowledge of exactly what was going to happen that day!

I guess you're right. Based on that JFK quote, the plot to kill JFK went all the way to the very top!

*You wrote: "conspiracy-deniers (are) either idiots or an extension of the conspiracy." I leave you with this thought:

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

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.

These guys described you and your fellow paranoids to a tee, and way back in 1997. How's that make ya feel?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC