Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A DUer told me I've wasted five decades of life trying to learn the truth about JFK.

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
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 04:59 PM
Original message
A DUer told me I've wasted five decades of life trying to learn the truth about JFK.
Specifically describing me (in a PM to me -- so, no names, please) as "one who's wasted nearly five decades of his life trying to root out a non-existent conspiracy."

Do you agree? Either way, if you have a moment, please describe why do you hold your opinion?



For me:

The subject still makes news.

The subject still affects our warmongering nation.

The subject still hurts to my core as a Democrat, a citizen of the United States, and as a human being.

It also matters in the most fundamental of ways, from ideology to our current standard of living.

My correspondent added that I failed to consider that there may be another explanation -- Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

He does make an excellent point. Were I unable to consider and hold new information, in order to form a new opinion; I would, indeed, be most illiberal.

As someone interested in truth, no matter how inconvenient it is to any of my previously held positions, new information is always most welcome, however. That's why I come to DU: to learn and to share what I've learned.

Thank you for reading.
Refresh | +15 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
XanaDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. No, I don't
I'm no tinfoil hatter, but something still stinks bad about that whole thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
67. George Herbert Walker Bush told the FBI he was in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963
That should bother more people. Here are related FBI documents on the subject:



In the hour of the death of President John F. Kennedy, Texas oilman George Herbert Walker Bush named a suspect to the FBI in a "confidential" phone call. He then added he was heading for Dallas. Skeptics need not take my word for it, that's what Poppy told the FBI:



Here's a transcript of the text:


TO: SAC, HOUSTON DATE: 11-22-63

FROM: SA GRAHAM W. KITCHEL

SUBJECT: UNKNOWN SUBJECT;
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT
JOHN F. KENNEDY

At 1:45 p.m. Mr. GEORGE H. W. BUSH, President of the Zapata Off-Shore Drilling Company, Houston, Texas, residence 5525 Briar, Houston, telephonically furnished the following information to writer by long distance telephone call from Tyler, Texas.

BUSH stated that he wanted to be kept confidential but wanted to furnish hearsay that he recalled hearing in recent weeks, the day and source unknown. He stated that one JAMES PARROTT has been talking of killing the President when he comes to Houston.

BUSH stated that PARROTT is possibly a student at the University of Houston and is active in political matters in this area. He stated that he felt Mrs. FAWLEY, telephone number SU 2-5239, or ARLINE SMITH, telephone number JA 9-9194 of the Harris County Republican Party Headquarters would be able to furnish additional information regarding the identity of PARROTT.

BUSH stated that he was proceeding to Dallas, Texas, would remain in the Sheraton-Dallas Hotel and return to his residence on 11-23-63. His office telephone number is CA 2-0395.

# # #



So, why was Poppy Bush in Dallas on the day JFK was assassinated?

Here's an FBI document from the same week of the assassination in which FBI Director J Edgar Hoover briefed one "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency."




A transcript of the above:


Date: November 29, 1963

To: Director
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Department of State

From: John Edgar Hoover, Director

Subject: ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
NOVEMBER 22, 1963

Our Miami, Florida, Office on November 23, 1963, advised that the Office of Coordinator of Cuban Affairs in Miami advised that the Department of State feels some misguided anti-Castro group might capitalize on the present situation and undertake an unauthorized raid against Cuba, believing that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy might herald a change in U. S. policy, which is not true.

Our sources and informants familiar with Cuban matters in the Miami area advise that the general feeling in the anti-Castro Cuban community is one of stunned disbelief and, even among those who did not entirely agree with the President's policy concerning Cuba, the feeling is that the President's death represents a great loss not only to the U. S. but to all of Latin America. These sources know of no plans for unauthorized action against Cuba.

An informant who has furnished reliable information in the past and who is close to a small pro-Castro group in Miami has advised that these individuals are afraid that the assassination of the President may result in strong repressive measures being taken against them and, although pro-Castro in their feelings, regret the assassination.

The substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency and Captain William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency on November 23, 1963, by Mr. W. T. Forsyth of this Bureau.

# # #



Something is very wrong. Thank you for noticing, XanaDUer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #67
74. Why should it "bother people", dude?
Is it unusual for people to be driving from Houston to Dallas?

More importantly, with respect to the "George Bush of the CIA" memo, do a search of how many people have that name and research how common "George" and "Bush" are.

After nearly fifty years, one would think you would have developed something more substantial than this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #74
75. The first document has George H. W. Bush
I guess you can do a search and see how many people have that name too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. Thanks for totally missing the point...
Again, my question was why should it bother anyone that he was driving to Dallas that day? Is it unusual to drive to Dallas from Houston?

My point about how common his name is had nothing to do with the first point. Do you think your comprehension difficulties might have something to do with why you think the events of that day are such a puzzle?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #76
81. I was commenting on your second point
I didn't address your first point. Do you think your comprehension difficulties might have something to do with why you think the events of that day are black and white?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #81
84. Then why were you babbling about...
the first document?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #84
86. I'll explain it to you slowly
You said
"More importantly, with respect to the "George Bush of the CIA" memo, do a search of how many people have that name and research how common "George" and "Bush" are."

I've seen you use that tired rebuttal before. And since you said "more importantly" I figured you meant that this point is more important than your first point. So I pointed out to you that since you thought the commonality of the name George Bush was more important than the driving issue, I pointed out to you that the first document has George H W Bush and not just George Bush.

I hope those aren't too many words for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #86
87. Dude...
Edited on Fri Mar-11-11 01:05 PM by SDuderstadt
My points stand.

A) There is nothing unusual about the fact that G.H.W. Bush should be driving from Houston to Dallas on that day.

B) The fact that George and Bush are extremely common names goes in the direction that it could easily be someone other than G.H.W. Bush worked for the CIA at that time.

Nearly fifty years later, you guys have dick in the way of showing someone other than Oswald killed JFK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #74
78. Here's why, sduderstadt: GHW Bush would go on to head the CIA.
Then, he became president.

Then his dim son became president.

None of whom were really worth a shit as president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #78
82. huh?
What part of this makes it suspicious that Bush would visit Dallas? Would it be exculpatory if he hadn't?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #82
91. Try Russ Baker's ''Family of Secrets.''
In an essay written on the occasion of an honor bestowed upon George Herbert Walker Bush, Baker asks:



Unanswered Questions as Obama Anoints George HW Bush With Presidential Medal of Freedom

by: Russ Baker | Who What Why | Op-Ed
Saturday 19 February 2011
TruthOut.org

EXCERPT...

-Can you tell us about your decades-long friendship with George de Mohrenschildt, the man who was in and out of Lee Harvey Oswalds house on almost a daily basis in the year before the Kennedy assassination?

SNIP...

-Why have you never spoken publicly about the documented call you made to the FBI on Nov 22, 1963, in which you identified yourself fully and claimed to have information on a possible suspect in Kennedys death? What was the purpose of that call, in which you mentioned your whereabouts at the time of the call, 1:45pm, as Tyler, Texas, i.e. about 99 miles away but just a short flight on the private plane on which you were traveling? Why did you tell the FBI that you were en route next to Dallas and would stay at the Sheraton there when you had already been at the Sheraton the night before  and right after that call flew to Dallas but only to switch planes and fly back immediately to Houston? Why were you giving the FBI the impression you would be staying in Dallas the night after the assassination instead of letting them know you had stayed there the night before the assassination?

-Why was your own assistant at the home of the man you would finger as a suspect in the shooting, and why did he end up providing the man with an alibi? Was the ultimate purpose of that call not to cause the alleged suspect any permanent harm, but merely to use the call as an excuse to state in government files that you were in a place other than Dallas?

SNIP...

-On the day of the assassination, were you in touch with your friend and Republican running mate Jack Crichton, a military intelligence figure who was connected to figures forcing their way into the pilot car of Kennedys motorcade? The same Crichton who controlled the man who served as the interpreter between Oswalds wife and police and reframed her words so as to implicate Oswald in Kennedys shooting? The same Crichton who was working out of a secret underground communications bunker below the streets of Dallas? The same Crichton whose secret military intelligence unit counted dozens of men who simultaneously held jobs as Dallas police officers? The same Crichton who did secret oil industry intelligence work in the Middle East while you did intelligence related oil industry work via your company, Zapata Offshore?

CONTINUED...

http://www.truth-out.org/russ-baker-unanswered-question...



Regarding Russ Baker's "Family of Secrets: the Bush Dynasty, Americas Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years," Gore Vidal wrote:

One of the most important books of the past ten years."

Now THAT's an honor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #91
93. Except Baker simply makes a number of...
inflammatory accusations without providing a lick of proof.

Yet, you fall for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #91
94. FWIW I'm about to hit the road...
I imagine I'll be mostly offline until sometime on Sunday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 05:58 AM
Response to Reply #91
114. wait, so he was in Tyler, or he wasn't?
Are you positing that Bush was in Dallas for the assassination, flew to Tyler so he could call and say he was in Tyler, then flew back to Dallas in order to fly to Houston? I'm having a hard time following this.

Why would Bush bother to call the FBI just to record in government files that he was in Tyler and was headed to Dallas?*

Why would Bush volunteer -- or why would the FBI request -- information about where he had been? Wouldn't it be a lot more pertinent to record where he expected to be, in case the FBI had follow-up questions?

*Ooh, I have an idea: maybe it was a deliberate decoy, so that conspiracists decades hence could say how suspicious it was that the document existed, and the rest of us could facepalm. I mean, really, can you see how weird this looks to someone who doesn't already agree with you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #78
83. Which is nothing more than...
"found significance", dude. You should study it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #83
89. Try Michael Parenti's ''The JFK Assassination-Defending the Gangster State,'' dude, er, sduderstadt.
The Gangster State

The state is the instrument used in all these societies by the wealthy few to impoverish and maintain control over the many. Aside from performing collective functions necessary for all societies, the state has the particular task of protecting the process of accumulating wealth for the few. Throughout our country's history, people have fought back and sometimes gained a limited degree of self-protective rights: universal suffrage, civil liberties, the right to collective bargaining, the eight-hour day, public education, social security, and some human services. While these democratic gains are frequently violated and prove insufficient as a restraint against state power, their importance should not be denied.

Today in the much vaunted western democracies there exists a great deal of unaccountable state power whose primary function is to maintain the existing politico-economic structure, using surveillance, infiltration, sabotage, judicial harassment, disinformation, trumped-up charges and false arrests, tax harassment, blackmail, and even violence and assassination to make the world safe for those who own it.

There exists a state within the state, known as the national security state, a component of misgovernment centering around top officers in the CIA, DIA, FBI, the Pentagon, and policymakers in the Executive Office of the White House. These elements have proven themselves capable of perpetrating terrible crimes against dissidents at home and abroad. National security state agencies like the CIA, in the service of dominant economic interests, have enlisted the efforts of mobsters, drug traffickers, assassins, and torturers, systematically targeting peasant leaders, intellectuals, journalists, student leaders, clergy, labor union leaders, workers, and community activists in numerous countries. Hundreds of thousands of people have been murdered to prevent social change, to destroy any government or social movement that manifests an unwillingness to reduce its people to economic fodder for the giant corporations that rule the world's economy.

CONTINUED...

The JFK Assassination: Defending the Gangster State

Video of a lecture based on the essay above.

If you get a moment from your busy day, please give them some of your attention, sduderstadt. You may find them interesting, perhaps even enlightening. Best of luck to you!

Thank you for the information about "found significance." Fascinating, but I don't think it applies to assassination of President Kennedy, an even most significant for our current political reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #89
90. Dude...
I have read Parenti's work. I don't find a lot of specific evidentiary value there.

My "found significance" observation does not necessarily apply to the JFK assassination as a whole, but, rather, your belief that it is somehow inculpatory that a Houston oilman drove to Dallas on a particular day. Unless you can show some link between that day and the offices Bush later held, it really does not amount to much, unless you've formed your conclusion first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #67
79. why should it bother more people?
Edited on Fri Mar-11-11 12:52 PM by OnTheOtherHand
So Bush, over an hour after the assassination, called the FBI and told them (inter alia) that he was headed to Dallas. Is it intrinsically suspicious for a Texas oilman to visit Dallas? I cannot tell why you expect people to be impressed by this document.

ETA: eh, I'll leave it. No shame in independently having the same question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LisaM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. Have you ever read the stuff about Dorothy Kilgallon?
Let me just say, it makes me very uneasy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
global1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. Not A Clue As To What This Is About......
Now I'm intrigued. Do you have a link so I can educate myself?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #11
23. Dorothy Kilgallen -- a great reporter.
"That story isn't going to die as long as there's a real reporter alive, and there are a lot of them alive."

She died too young.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sonoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #11
25. It's been around for a long time (link)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
19. As I recall, she was the reporter that stated she had secured information that was going to
allow her to blow the lid off of the JFK assassination, insinuating FBI ties to the occurrence. Unfortunately, she was found dead of a Seconal overdose shortly thereafter, leaving the sources and content of her information to that of speculation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #19
77. Your recollection is quite correct--
at least according to my recollection. :)

There was much speculation about that OD, but apparently he had been heavy into alcohol and drugs, especially in her last few weeks. People claim that she was pretty sloshed during some of her last "What's My Line" appearances.

Even if the OD was accidental, one can wonder whether there was something in particular that was pushing her over the edge of her addictions in those terminal days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #77
80. The Kilgallen story is really not...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
3. Do you really need to ask my opinion?
Well, I'll tell you anyway.

I think TPTB figured they could control Jack through Old Joe. When Joe had his stroke, they lost that control & Jack got off the leash.

Who are and were TPTB? If you were to ask that question in Multiple-Choice format, the correct answer would be "All of the Above."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #3
69. I welcome other's opinions -- even when I don't hold the same.
I value yours, Jackpine Radical. Here's an interview with another person I esteem, John Loftus:



Interview with a Prosecutor

EXCERPT...

Loftus - Joseph Kennedy bought his Nazi stocks from Prescott Bush. The British thought Kennedy was guilty of treason because his code clerk was tried in London as a Nazi agent and convicted.

Buchanan - How do you account for the failure of the media to break this story before the Gazette did?

Loftus - My feeling is that about 15 years ago, when big corporations started taking over media companies that had been privately owned by families or individuals, we ended up with an over-worked but well-intentioned media without the staff or resources, in light of all the corporate cost-cutting that was done, to look into the really big stories. The real enemy is the multinational corporations who are only interested in profits and choose profits over truth.

Buchanan - What can be done about that?

Loftus - We need to educate the media.

Buchanan - Should Prescott Bush, George Herbert Walker and the Harrimans have been tried for treason?

Loftus - Yes, they should have been tried for treason, because they continued to support Hitler after the US entered the war. As a former prosecutor, I could have made that case.

Buchanan - What do you think their true motives were in betraying their country for profit?

Loftus - It was a perfect example of spin, before the term was even invented. Their goal was that no matter which side won the war, their international industrial cartel would survive and prosper. They had a perfect set-up - a bank in New York (UBC), one in Holland (Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart), and one in Germany (August Thyssen Bank). They were prepared for anything that could have happened. They wanted to avoid exactly what happened to Fritz Thyssen after WWI. That was the whole point. He had lost many of his major businesses, and they came up with a better way to prepare for the Second World War.

Buchanan - How did they manage the cover-up after the first seizures in 1942 and continue with their dealings until 1951, when Thyssen died in Argentina?

Loftus - They brought in John Foster Dulles and Sullivan and Cromwell, and his brother Allen in Europe. The Dulles brothers put into effect a cloaking arrangement� that was reflected in the records of Brown Brothers Harriman. There was one account - Brown Brothers Schroeder Rock - that was a cloaking account at Schroeder Bank. The Rock was the Rockefellers.

CONTINUED...



Joseph Kennedy lost his namesake fighting the NAZIs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Drale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
4. If this topic has taken over you life
then yes I think it is waisted time, but if it is just a curiosity that you follow in your spare time, then no I see nothing wrong with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #4
120. It's been a major part of my life -- because it's how the USA got to where we are today.
JFK stood up to the War Party.

Few, if any, presidents since have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
5. Octafish...Why Are You Giving Such An Arrogant Comment A Moment's Worth Of Consideration
Edited on Thu Mar-10-11 05:06 PM by Me.
I know you're a smart guy and I don't even 'know' you and I can't believe you don't know it too. There's something about this you can't let go of. Trust yourself. To do otherwise is beneath you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. right -- an unsolicited PM from someone who buys canned stories whole hog
...isn't really worth being troubled over.

Actually, it means your posts have got under their skin, and they're trying to reassure themselves.

When you look as JFK's assassination as part of the pattern that unfolded in the 60's, the "Oswald acted alone" yarn makes even less sense.

For many on this site, alas, it's not that the truth shall set them free - it's that the truth is a nuisance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. We (You & Me) Are Unanimous In Your Opinion
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
35. The thing is, he's right about one thing.
That I've devoted a lot of time to learning about the subject. My reasons are obvious to my friends and family.

Why a DUer's observation matters to me is that I don't know how much more time I have -- I'm going on 54 in a few weeks. And Corporate McPravda continues to shovel the bull and academia considers all manner of sideshow.

I'm not complaining. It's all been a gift, Me, my Friend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AlabamaLibrul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
6. I do not agree, because I am a "JFK Truther" if you will. If it's not unhealthy obsessive, fine n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:06 PM
Original message
if you don't feel it "wasteful," then i don't. personally, i think spending 5 decades
trying to become a big swinging dick is wasteful, that's what a lot of men do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
raccoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
22. Amen...it's not wasteful if it's meaningful and/or enjoyable to you. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
7. No
Edited on Thu Mar-10-11 05:07 PM by Rex
Sounds like they took something you said personally and lashed out at you for it. I'm sure they just wanted to 'move on' after 9/11 and didn't want any kind of investigation, since they blindly believe whatever the govt says is true and you should never question it.

Had someone kinda do that to me a few years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
8. truth matters.....ALL of it....the coincidence theorists have been proven wrong every time a long
lost file pops up or a court document is disclosed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
KatyMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
9. You do good work Octafish
I seek out your posts, and like another poster said, I don't even know you. Keep it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LadyHawkAZ Donating Member (800 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
12. It's not a waste
To my mind there is generally not such a huge effort at covering up if there's not something under there to cover up.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
13. That is really cool that he met Bono.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Common Sense Party Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #13
26. I was just about to post the same thing. Who knew? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
craigmatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
14. I don't think any of us will know the truth until they release all the records. If they ever do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #14
71. Familiarize yourself with...
Edited on Fri Mar-11-11 11:19 AM by SDuderstadt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #71
122. Familiarize yourself with Jefferson Morley, who showed CIA continues to hide relevant data.
Update on Morley v. CIA, and a more, eh, liberal perspective regarding George Joannides.

For those interested in learning more about why it matters: Oswald and the CIA by Dick Russell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
15. The truth is never a waste of time...
Edited on Thu Mar-10-11 05:13 PM by walldude
and anyone who buys the Lee Harvey Oswald working alone story, well, ignorance is bliss. Follow your heart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Xicano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
17. No I don't agree
Edited on Thu Mar-10-11 05:26 PM by Xicano
Reasons why:

- Un refuted evidence showing Kennedy's body was tampered with while in route from Parkland to Bethesda.
- Photographic evidence of someone in the same room where Oswald was suppose to have been doing the shooting.
- Multiple eye wittinesses contradicting the Warren commission.
- Conflicting statements made from governor Connelly after the Zapruder film came out.
- 100% of the doctors from Parkland describe different head wound than official story.
- Autopsy doctor at Bethesda burned his notes and lost Kennedy's brain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #17
51. Nice parody
statements like "Un refuted evidence showing Kennedy's body was tampered with while in route from Parkland to Bethesda."
and "Photographic evidence of someone in the same room where Oswald was suppose to have been doing the shooting."
and "100% of the doctors from Parkland describe different head wound than official story." are quite funny.
Did you make that up or read it somewhere?
Too funny.
Unless you are serious...then I would like you to point me to this so-called "Un refuted evidence."
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Xicano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 03:35 AM
Response to Reply #51
64. *Sigh*

statements like "Un refuted evidence showing Kennedy's body was tampered with while in route from Parkland to Bethesda."
and "Photographic evidence of someone in the same room where Oswald was suppose to have been doing the shooting."
and "100% of the doctors from Parkland describe different head wound than official story." are quite funny.
Did you make that up or read it somewhere?
Too funny.
Unless you are serious...then I would like you to point me to this so-called "Un refuted evidence."

--zappaman





- Un refuted evidence showing Kennedy's body was tampered with while in route from Parkland to Bethesda.
- Video


- 100% of the doctors from Parkland describe different head wound than official story.
- Video, Video


- Photographic evidence of someone in the same room where Oswald was suppose to have been doing the shooting.
- Video, Video
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #64
68. NIce to see THE ONION still does videos! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Xicano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #68
88. Bwhahaha! That's all you got?
Denial isn't a river in Egypt you know.

LMAO: I thought you would show yourself to be someone incapable of admitting you were wrong when confronted with evidence refuting your opinion.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #88
92. enjoying fantasyland?
"100% of the doctors from Parkland describe different head wound than official story."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/novadocs.htm
I've got lots more if you want it.
Would you also like a definition of 100%?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Xicano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #92
95. So let me get this straight..
YOU know more about what all the doctors attending the President at Parkland hospital witnessed then the doctors themselves? And the link you posted? LMAO Its just someone's webpage. The links I posted show video interviews of these doctors being asked to describe what they witnessed. Now what's more credible? Someone's made up webpage or hearing it come from the mouths of the doctors themselves?

LMAO @ your Onion news posts. You got nothing.


:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
18. I am convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the fatal shots...
...but I am not convinced that he paid for the bullets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
think4yourself Donating Member (422 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
20. Keep going!
There is nothing "wasted" about trying to find truth. Do not let this one person make you question what is your passion. It looks like you have quite a few friends here
who RESPECT you for your interests. And that is worth a hell of a lot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
21. I know who really killed JFK:
It was professor Archibald in the study with the chess board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Lint Head Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
24. I knew someone that has long sense passed away who was a big corporate
rich individual. He was an executive in the entertainment business. He said it was a corporate hit. Big money has always controlled our modern society. A group of fat cats could simply use their collective 'chump change' to get the job done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Exultant Democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
27. I think we will find out, but unfortunatly by "we" I'm talking about people who weren't born yet
when it happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
1776Forever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
28. JFK's campaign touched me in so many ways. I was a young 15 year-old whose Bible Church railed
about him from the pulpit so much that I left the church because of it. I was in the 10th grade when he was shot. I have always thought that LBJ had collaborated with the Hunt's and others to do this. All I need to do is to look at this picture to put the pieces together:

"THE WINK": CONGRESSMAN ALBERT THOMAS KNOWINGLY WINKS AT A SMILING LBJ AFTER THE ASSASSINATION


And this from LBJ's Mistress Madeline Brown, who had no reason to lie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Murchison,_Sr .

In an appearance on the television program A Current Affair, Brown asserted that on November 21, 1963, she was at a gathering at Murchison's home in Dallas that she described as "one of the most significant gatherings in American history." Others at the meeting included guest of honor J. Edgar Hoover, Tolson, oil magnate H. L. Hunt, John J. McCloy, Richard Nixon, George R. Brown, Robert L. Thornton, and others from the Suite 8F Group, a network of right-wing businessmen; at the end the evening Johnson also arrived. According to Brown:

Tension filled the room upon his arrival. The group immediately went behind closed doors. A short time later Lyndon, anxious and red-faced, reappeared. I knew how secretly Lyndon operated. Therefore I said nothing... not even that I was happy to see him. Squeezing my hand so hard, it felt crushed from the pressure, he spoke with a grating whisper, a quiet growl, into my ear, not a love message, but one I'll always remember: "After tomorrow those goddamn Kennedys will never embarrass me again that's no threat that's a promise."<1>

(more at link)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
29. "The subject still hurts to my core..."
feel the same way -- and tears in my eyes at the memory of this injustice --

The subject still hurts to my core as a Democrat, a citizen of the United States, and as a human being.

Thank you for the information you bring to us --

:)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
former9thward Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
30. Spending five decades to learn truths about this country (or the world) is not a waste.
Anyone who has even half a brain would not blindly accept what the TPTB has put before us about the assassination. The full truth may not be found but we should not quit trying. I am strongly in the Mafia hit camp. I was doing some research for a book (not JFK related) and in a library found Jack Ruby's picture on the front page of the Chicago Tribune in the 1930s. He was suspected in a gangster hit of a labor union president of a union the Mafia wanted to take over. Of course the Warren Commission said Ruby killed Oswald "because he was upset at what Jackie was going through." What crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
31. You realize don't you - that's Bono in the hoodie
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
32. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
kickysnana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
33. No you have not wasted your life and this was a watershed moment.
I was 16 in 1967/68 and had to pick a topic for investigation and analysis for an advanced class. My topic was "What would have been different if JFK had lived". I proceeded to my High School library and pulled up citations and analysis. On the third day it hit me that he had been murdered by someone in our government. That was not what I was studying. I avoided conspiracy theories on purpose as biased. I was studying his policy, politics, allies and enemies positions and I just knew.

I lost my faith in half of America that day. It changed the direction of my life and they way I perceive myself and my country.

If someone posts new material I always check it and with a hard nosed lens and we still need to know as it affected everything that followed.

It is not wrong to want the truth and we have never really gotten it on that and several other important events.

We still talk about what happened in Greece, Rome and China thousands of years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
FLPanhandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
34. I agree with the other DU'er.
Just another conspiracy theory. However, people love their pet theories, so it's useless to try and change their minds (whether it's UFO's, 9/11, JFK, moon landing hoax, etc.)

My view to conspiracy fans is: Enjoy your pet theory if it makes you feel special.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #34
41. You are positively reeking of empathy today, eh?
Edited on Thu Mar-10-11 05:43 PM by villager
Enjoyed your pet theory about conspiracies, conveniently conflating them all together, etc...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
former9thward Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #34
50. Any you enjoy buying whatever crap the government tells you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #50
55. Ahhhhh....
the "genetic fallacy".

Of course, everyone knows that only conspiracists are interested in getting at the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Scottybeamer70 Donating Member (844 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
36. I was 30 miles from Dallas
when it happened ( not that it matters ), and no, I will never
believe that Oswald acted alone. Keep up your research!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
37. I've always felt JFK was hit by professionals ...
and Oswald was the fall guy.

JFK threatened the big boys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
38. Why was this moved to the Sept 11 forum....?
Has it now become the all purpose garbage bin for anything that has an unsolved conspiracy component attached? Geebus.....


I was going to say: I don't read every book or article on the subject and probably am not as well-informed as many here on the issue. Nor am I what one might consider a JFK conspiratist follower. But, I am knowledgeable to know the tremendous inconsistencies and gaps in the Warren commission investigation and conclusions.

I would dearly love to know the truth, but don't hold out much hope of getting it in my lifetime. That said, I believe JFK died as a result of a conspiracy. Exactly who among the several possible groups was responsible, I could not say.


Your detractor is probably very young. I can not imagine anyone who remembers that horrid day feeling this way. I was only 5 years old, but it is a very vivid and continuing sad memory for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
39. I just turned 55
and I'm not nearly finished learning what happened on the day our democracy was stolen from us.

Not even close.

And sure, Lee Oswald acted alone just like Saddam had WMD and just like a few rotten apples from West Virginia implemented a world wide torture program, just like Bruce Ivins was in Princeton and Frederick at the same time. Sure. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #39
48. I don't know of a single...
"debunker" here who believes that Saddam had WMD, do you?

Maybe you could research some old threads and report to us with your findings. When you don't find any, what do you think that means vis-a-vis your "thesis".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
40. You know, when a boor like Jesse Ventura gives Vincent Bugliosi a public intellectual spanking on...
this very subject, then I think it's safe to say you haven't wasted a moment of your time on the assassination of JFK. In my humble opinion, the only time you've wasted is trying to find common ground with someone who in all likelihood is currently residing on my Ignore list. In the search for truth, I tend to ignore pathological liars with an aversion to conspiracies that have not been officially announced by the US government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #40
144. I, for one am fascinated by them.
With them being the "pathological liars with an aversion to conspiracies that have not been officially announced by the US government," and in context, considering the modern existence of cyber-magnified puppeteering tools, I suggest the need for the study of 'them' is self evident.

I wish I had the resources to work full time on managed persona detection software and the propagation of ideation across cyberspace.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
42. Not a waste at all
Some people spend time sitting in lawn chairs looking for flying saucers. Others like to go on expeditions to track down Bigfoot.
I say...enjoy your hobby and don't let reality or truth interfere!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Holly_Hobby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
43. Hang in there, I look forward to your posts
If that person thinks that looking at the JFK hit is a waste of time, well, he's hopeless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PCIntern Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
44. The search for the Truth is what propelled me
into the political arena. Keep it up...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
45. Too late to rec. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
46. I vowed the last time you decided to thumb your nose at DU's rules to not enable that kind of
behavior by commenting on the OP in GD - to wait till it was moved to the proper forum to post a reply, which in this case (and 99% of cases, actually) is this one.

Now that the OP is where it should have been posted in the first place - the 9-11 forum - I will give you my opinion, per your stated request.

I think that if you find the study of the events surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy personally rewarding and fulfilling, all the power to you. Even if I agree with your correspondent that looking for conspirators regarding the matter in those studies is a futile exercise, it is your life and time to spend however you wish within the bounds of the law.

Though I have no idea who your correspondent was, I also agree with the statement that you consistently, in these OP's about the matter, work from the assumption that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. Again, it's a free country: believe whatever you wish. It would, I think, help, not hinder, your understanding of that event if you stopped working from the assumption that had JFK lived to see two terms in the White House - and there's not a one of who wish he hadn't lived to see those two terms; it was a horrific crime that tore at the heart of a nation - things would be fundamentally different in this country than they are now. They might, marginally - either for better or worse. Or maybe a combination of both. But Presidents simply don't have that much power in a government constituted as ours is, with Congress writing the laws and appropriating the money, and a Judiciary that serves as a check on the other two branches.

And, what's further, we have made many, many, MANY progressive strides in this culture since 1963. Civil Rights, Women's Rights, Environmental awareness, on and on and on I could go. We are struggling now to rectify the injustices done to people long-oppressed because of the person they happen to love - Gay marriage was unthinkable as even something to be mentioned in 1963, but it is now a justly-recognized RIGHT in several states and will be in all fifty before long, whether the fundy right-wing wants it or not. My point is, we live in a much more tolerant and liberal country than JFK ever witnessed, and we largely got here without his help, quite frankly.

Note: I did NOT say you should stop believing there was a conspiracy - you obviously do, and quite strongly. But I think you might be a little more inclined to approach the subject with a little less rigidity if you did so with the understanding that John Fitzgerald Kennedy was something less than some super-human entity who would have made everything that's wrong with this country right if he'd simply skipped putting Dallas on his itinerary that late fall of 1963. That's simply not how the world works, then or now.

There is my answer to your request for opinions on this matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #46
52. Who Made You Hall Monitor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. We actually drew straws for it...
I'll be the hall monitor next week.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
47. Nope, you didn't waste your time
I have been reading and "researching" for a few decades myself. Sometimes I forget about it for quite a while before I get back into it again. I don't know if we will ever know for sure what happened, but I do know that November 22, 1963 changed America and the world.

It would be nice to be able to look at the "official" story and find no fault in it, but I haven't been able to do that yet. So much has come out since then and trying to fit all the pieces of the puzzle together is no easy task. I got a lot of shit here in the dungeon a few weeks back for posting something that I thought may start a discussion, but the same old yappers came in, tried to think they made me look like a fool and wouldn't "discuss" so I left it alone. I should know better.

Keep researching it, you may eventually come to the conclusion that Oswald acted alone and that will be that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 07:16 PM
Response to Original message
49. I'm on your side...
dude.

I have absolutely no doubt that you will blow the lid off the JFK assassination conspiracy any decade now. Then, at last, you can turn your attention to Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster. In fact, I would not be surprised in the least to find that they are all linked.

Make us proud, Octafish!

P.S. I am still not interested in keeping a journal. I guess you'll just have to use those crack detective skills of yours to keep track of what I am doing. Speaking of which, that wasn't you in that orange '73 Vega failing me the other day, was it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 10:57 PM
Response to Original message
54. There are far worse ways you could have spent five decades.
Voting Republican, for one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-10-11 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. Leave Octafish alone!
He's searching for the "truth".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #56
57. He could be doing something really futile...
..like searching for an intelligent, relevant post from you. He stands a better chance of cracking the JFK case.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #57
58. .
:spray:

C'mon, the dude is an expert on JFK, MLK, RFK, 9-11, forensics, ballistics, weapons, photography, conspiracies and rules of DU. He is also a scientist, physicist, anthropologist, metallurgist, psychologist, historian, psychiatrist, doctor of medicine, research extraordinaire, mega speed reader and is a master debunker of all that needs debunking. Give the poor guy a break.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #58
59. You left out...
6th degree Black Belt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #59
60. I just took it for granted
Actually I thought you may be a ninja trained by Chuck Norris.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #60
61. No, I trained...
him, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 02:43 AM
Response to Reply #59
63. Black belt in what...
Spinning? Distraction? Tongue Fu? Jaw-rate?

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 02:41 AM
Response to Reply #58
62. Oh, I see you two have met before...
:rofl: :thumbsup:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
whatchamacallit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #58
72. LOL! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #56
65. I don't see the need to attack Octafish on this.
I'll happily try to talk him out of his beliefs on JFK, and perhaps I have mocked him personally in the past.

But that solves nothing.

Being a god-forsaken atheist, I think that ultimately all of humankind's endeavors will be futile one way or the other. You could never accuse Octafish of being hypocritical in his beliefs, or for lacking in passion and grit.

Cervantes made Don Quixote a fool and the butt of every joke he could think up, but in the end, he had to admit the Don was a hero. At least Octafish works tirelessly to right a terrible wrong he sees foisted on the body politic. So he's wrong about the JFK assassination; so what? It has nothing to do with his worth as a person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #65
66. I'd be glad to, if...
he'd simply stop attacking me as "defending the lies of the Warren Commission" and claiming "that tells (him) everything (he) needs to know about (me) as a person". A principled person doesn't engage in "psychic foreclosure".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #65
85. I agree with that
It would be nice if, at the end of the day, we could just shake our heads and say, "Wow, I cannot understand why you believe that, but at least you care."

I'm not saying that I know how to get there, especially with the few people whom I'm not sure actually do care. But I have little doubt about Octafish and SDuderstadt. They are, in a sense, worthy adversaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #65
97. My response was as measured as I could make it, given the track record of being accused of being a
paid disruptor, a shill for the "BFEE," an apologist for the corrupt forces that allegedly conspired to murder one American president, one major Civil Rights leader, and one U.S. Senator from New York running for president in 1968. And why? Because I repeatedly insist on actual evidence that stands up to scholarly scrutiny when examined as it pertains to historical events.

And I got to tell you: I'm not much on this sweetness & light & gooey can't-we-all-just-get-along hosannas in the face of those continued smears - you are welcome to keep turning that other cheek. I will not. And am not inclined to listen to sermons on why I should.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #97
98. I understand that Octafish and others thoughtlessly assign bad faith to people on our side
of the debate.

But it seems to me that the OP here was a glimmer of reversing that. I haven't read the entire thread, just the portion down here after it got moved. But kicking someone when they're down isn't advancing your stated goal, no matter how great the provocation in the past.

If Octafish can understand that we are here in good faith, honest Democrats and/or progressives who reject the JFK etc. conspiracy theories, then even if he doesn't change his own mind on the subject, we have gained a brother.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #98
99. That's a question for him...
not for me. Frankly, I have seen no evidence he is so inclined.

I don't know about others, but, I am frankly tired of being accused of acting in bad faith and aiding and abetting a cover-up. If we cannot achieve recognition that there is principled disagreement with JFK assassination conspiracy theory based upon the facts, I don't see the situation changing in the least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #99
100. The situation won't change
because after 47 years, the evidence still points to one person and one person only.
The conspiracy theorists can't even come up with a united theory.
The FBI, the CIA, the russians, the mob, the cubans, Bush, LBJ, big oil, etc.
Hell, Octafish can't even tell you who or how many were involved.
Back to the old "it doesn't look right" or "something seems weird" theories, which aren't theories, but just conjecture.
And all because they can't wrap their head around the fact that such a larger-than-life leader could be killed by an insignificant little putz...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #99
101. Then read the OP.
I see it at the very minimum that Octafish grants that good faith on the other side of the debate exists. Attacking him and attacking him and attacking him doesn't do much to encourage that small flame.

If your main purpose is finding common ground and common sense for Democrats and progressives to come together for common goals, then you'd welcome any glimmer of such a flame. You are all free to keep attacking and attacking and attacking, however.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #101
102. I'd be glad to stop "attacking" when...
Octafish and others agree that there can be principled disagreement on the facts and no longer smear those of us with whom they disagree, in the process accusing us of collaboration with JFK's "killers".

I don't think that's all that much to ask.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. "He does make an excellent point." -- Octafish
That is imputation of good faith, however small.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #103
104. Well, when he can walk the walk, rather than...
merely talk the talk, I'm all ears.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #104
107. Talking the talk is the only way to walk the walk on a message board.
Edited on Fri Mar-11-11 10:15 PM by Bolo Boffin
Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #107
108. It's up to him...
Bolo.

He has a lot of ground to cover.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #108
109. Yeah-huh. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #109
110. With all due respect...
you haven't been around for a while. There's been quite a lot of history in that time.

Your fight isn't with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 05:49 AM
Response to Reply #97
113. FWIW, I thought your post was great
I don't believe in giving serial smearers a free pass.

It's hard to imagine that this forum could ever become a bastion of respectful discussion. What sometimes happens is that little brush fires of respectful discussion break out. That isn't likely if we treat every interchange prima facie as another skirmish in an eternal pitched battle, but it also isn't likely if we don't show the self-respect to be annoyed when people slander us.

From a game-theoretic standpoint, it seems like some version of (in the technical sense) Tit-for-Tat is called for. I always try to be ready to treat people with the same respect they show me. Maybe a little more, because an online environment lends itself to a ratcheting of hostilities. Not a lot more, because there is just no point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
whatchamacallit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
70. I'd say not a waste at all and
Edited on Fri Mar-11-11 11:33 AM by whatchamacallit
the person who said it is obviously an Ignorant Authoritarian Douchebag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #70
73. Define irony...
Conspiracists give me grief when I address people as "dude", claiming it's an "insult", yet say nothing when fellow conspiracists call others an "ignorant authoritarian douchebag" or "an idiot and a troll".

Interesting double standard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #73
96. That's the real problem I have with most CT'ers: they don't think the rules apply to them.
Any rules of standard, decent human behavior, when it comes to validating their narratives, are simply ignored and/or eschewed by the vast majority of them.

I'll say it again: much of Conspiracy Theory rubbish is simply replacement-theology for folks who have lost belief in standard organized religion, yet are still desperate to make sense of a big, bad world they cannot comprehend.

And how do people react when they think you're attacking their religion? You can see the replies in this sub-thread above: they are Exhibit A.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #96
105. The people who seem to get most upset at having their belief system questioned
are those who support the government story. I've often wondered why so many on this board seem to have a vested interest in defending the Warren Commission and appear threatened by anyone who questions it.

If you truly believe any of us who doesn't buy the official story is nuts, why do you even bother to visit the "dungeon"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #105
106. Your post epitomizes precisely the problem I'm pointing out...
"those who support the government story": The JFK assassination is one of the most exhaustively investigated crimes of all times. Do you really think the "government story" is the only information available?

"Defending the Warren Commission": I usually cite John McAdams or Vincent Bugliosi. I don't recall either of them being with the Warren Commission.

"Appear threatened by anyone who questions it": More like frustration because conspiracists summarily reject facts they don't like.

"If you truly believe any of us who doesn't buy the official story is nuts": Nice strawman. Please point to any of us calling any of you, "nuts".

You're not helping.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #105
211. Sheer projection. n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #70
123. Wait...
are you saying that the person who said "I'd say not a waste at all" is an "Ignorant Authoritarian Douchebag"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-11 11:06 PM
Response to Original message
111. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #111
112. How much?
"Any bets that a princely sum of money is being used to defend and polish his image on sites where people want an open discussion about the real crimes of the Bush family?"
Are you implying that there are people on this site trying to defend or polish that idiot's image?
There are plenty of crimes that you can hang on that family.
But, to the topic at hand, there is no evidence that they had anything to do with LHO shooting JFK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #111
115. "Bush family apologist"
Thanks for proving my point, dude.

The inability of conspiracists to acknowledge that there is a principled, legitimate and honest view at odds with their own is what absolutely poisons this debate.

How does it feel to be an Oswald apologist? See how that works? But, we don't adopt those tactics. That's not saying our criticisms aren't harsh, because they are, but, by and large, they are far more focused on facts rather than character assassination (no pun intended).

For example, here's a fact: there have been no less than THREE other investigations besides the Warren Commission, and they have all arrived at the same conclusion - that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed JFK. How many of these investigations do we need, especially before conspiracists will quit accusing us of being "Bush family apologists"? I know that others here see some glimmer of hope in Octafish's OP, however, I note that he stands by while others of you lob smears, such as "idiot and troll", "ignorant, authoritarian douchebag" and "Bush family apologist", and he simply says absolutely nothing about fairmindedness on our behalf.

Given that, do you guys really not understand why you are met with such disdain? Does it provide you some sort of emotional cover to rationalize nearly fifty years of JFK assassination conspiracy theory "scholarship" with ZERO tangible results? Consider, for a moment, that the smears are merely displacement, borne of an inability to explain what could possibly account for nearly five decades of utter failure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #115
116. Do you agree with the other investigation's findings?
Or just the parts that say Oswald shot Kennedy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #116
117. Dude...
Edited on Sat Mar-12-11 11:13 AM by SDuderstadt
the only one that departed in any material way from the Warren Commission was the HSCA, in their finding that JFK was PROBABLY assassinated as a result of a conspiracy based upon "acoustic evidence".

The problem for conspiracists is that the DOJ followed up and had the National Academy of Science investigate further. The acoustic experts engaged by the NAS and other investigations have all arrived at the same conclusion. The "acoustic evidence" showing a fourth shot was not only flawed, the Dallas motorcycle patrol officer upon whom the conclusions were based, has been conclusively shown to have been nowhere near the position assumed by the HSCA.

Your presumption of bias on my part is laughable, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #117
118. Slow down hot rod
I just asked a question. I'm well aware that the acoustic evidence was suspect, but the fact remains that the HSCA found that probability and in effect it means Congress found that possibility. To me, the findings of the acoustic evidence after the fact is no difference than things that were found out after the Warren Commission.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #118
121. Could you translate that for us, dude? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #121
124. If you can't understand those simple words....
...I doubt you can comprehend anything beyond two syllables. So no, I won't

Sometimes I read things that put Oswald front and center to the killing and then I read other things that throw me off. I'm not quite sure of what happened, but I try to open my mind to all possibilities. But then when I look for the people who believe the official story to explain their thoughts, they typically think that anyone asking questions are idiots.

I told you I would read Bugliosi's book, but so far it is him just saying that anyone who doesn't think like him is an idiot. He sounds like a total frickin' moron so far and it is hard to take him seriously. I am trying to read his shit, but Vince is an asshole and does nothing for me.

Trust me, I think there are a lot of things to point to Oswald acting alone, but there has yet to be one person who buys into that that doesn't look like an ass. So it's hard to take the official people seriously. It looks more like they want to just agree with the official statement just to be pains in the ass.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #124
125. I don't believe you are reading Bugliosi's book
I am 600 pages in and you say "I told you I would read Bugliosi's book, but so far it is him just saying that anyone who doesn't think like him is an idiot."
The first 400 pages are an account of the 4 days around the assassination.
It's not until after that he starts to tackle some of the ridiculous theories and the lack of evidence behind them. At times, he can be condescending although it's hard to blame him when theorists not only ignore evidence, but sometimes just make shit up.

What page did you start on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #125
126. I bought it on Kindle
So I don't know what page is which. So I'm guessing that you really aren't reading it because it starts off with him talking about how he did the case against Oswald in the 80s and how he really didn't want to, but he did. He gives a background on his involvement into the Kennedy case, Try again sir, you haven't read any of his book yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #126
127. yes
that's the intro. those pages aren't numbered.
why?
because it's an introduction.
try again.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #127
128. So your saying that I've only read the intro?
And your also saying I haven't read any of the book. Make up your mind. Move on dude, you are just being a pain and not worth any reasonable discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #128
129. you tell me
Edited on Sat Mar-12-11 11:05 PM by zappaman
I'm on page 595 in a long-ass section about LHO.
Obviously, you haven't read very much as seen by your mis-characterization of the material.


ETA: I wish I had it on a kindle since the damn thing is huge, heavy, unwieldy and a pain in the ass to hold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #129
130. I just said I was reading it
I am 1% into it according to Kindle. It is at "Of one thing I'm certain. The commission's conclusions have held up remarkably well against all assaults on their validity". Look, I know you feel the need to join in with the dude and try to discredit me because I am not as well informed about the assassination of JFK as you guys are, but I honestly think there is more to it than what the Warren Commission came up with 46 years ago and that's all I ask.

There is no need to rag on people because they ask questions. The fact that you are reading Bugliosi's book means that you are still looking into it even if it is as someone who believes the official story and wants to back up their beliefs with the facts they seem worthwhile.

I'm not a stupid person. I know that there are people that will disagree with things I think about. But the fact that this forum just keeps going on and on with the for and against is ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing, but there is no need to call each other idiots for not believing in the truths each of us disagree on.

I bet you guys (the ones who disagree with me on the JFK crap) are great guys and we could probably hang out and have a great time as long as we don't discuss this crap, but I know that in the arena of an open forum it can be easy to disagree and get nasty so it is what it is.

I'm not a bad person, I am just someone who has questioned the findings of the Warren Commission and I am one of the 75 plus % that has. Hell, I could be completely wrong, but it is worth the discussion I think.

The truth is, sometimes I think Oswald was completely responsible for shooting the president of the US and then I read something else that changes that belief. And then I read something else that supports it and so on and so on. There's no need to get mean towards each other. Explain why you think what you think and I can do the same and that's it man. It's not that hard to get along

Ok, anyone reading this probably thinks I'm an idiot by now, but we had a recording session here at my studio and they brought me drinks..lol.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #130
131. Great!
Then we can discuss it when we finish it.
But, be forewarned, it's a lonnnnnng book.
And for the record, I always believed in a conspiracy and read dozens of books.
However, this is the first one I've read that actually breaks down what the Warren Commission investigated and I have so far found it to have more actual facts than any books by Lane, Marrs, Lifton or any of the other theorists.
The crime is laid out in detail...something the theorists cannot do.
If you had the hardback, you would also get the CD of footnotes that numbers into the thousands!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #131
132. I will read it
But let me ask you... what do you think of Governor Connally saying he was NOT hit by the first bullet, or Roger Craig who was in the 6th floor depository who saw "Mauser" on the rifle, or Madeleine Duncan Brown's story? Or how about Judyth Vary Baker's story? Or what about James Tague? The list goes on and on about people who throw wrenches into the Warren report. What's the real problem with questioning them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #132
133. Well, for starters...
Connally, Craig and Brown are all dead.

Duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #133
134. So are Kennedy and Oswald
Edited on Sat Mar-12-11 11:47 PM by johnnie
What's your point?

In fact, isn't all the people in the Warren commission?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #134
138. Do you even remember your question?
What's the real problem with questioning them?


Kinda hard to question dead people. Maybe we can have a seance.

Serious question: Did you study subject/verb agreement in English class?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #138
141. Dude...
You are so far out of the realm of being considered worthy of a person to have a serious discussion about anything you should just give it up. You have no real substance to back yourself up, you have a real problem understanding cognitive debate and you don't know the difference between reasonable questioning and biased reasoning. Your inability to understand the fact that people have questions concerning the undeniable facts that under-minded the Warren Commission report is typical.

It's nice that you come here to DU to do your patriotic duty to prevent anyone from thinking beyond the official theories of anything that ever happened in the US, but you don't fool me. But keep on keeping on...it's cute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #141
142. Dude...
How, specifically, is anyone "prevented from thinking beyond the official theories of anything that ever happened in the U.S." (paraphrase)?

This is precisely what I am talking about. Why can't you simply acknowledge there is a legitimate other side to this debate? How does someone expressing a disagreement with you amount to anything being "under-minded" (sic)? Do you think you are being persecuted or something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #142
145. well, the subject/verb thing was kinda cheap
I missed the deleted post, so I actually don't know who threw fuel on this particular fire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #145
146. "Isn't all the people in the Warren Commission"? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #146
147. yes, and I'm not sure the preceding comment came out right, either
I'm guessing that johnnie meant to post something about questioning the conclusions of the Warren Report, not about questioning the dead witnesses. Just a goof. I think we've all had wee-hour posts come out a bit sideways. If we're going to get chippy, I say let's do it over something more interesting -- like bizarro-world accusations that you're paid to post. (But I don't think he has made any of those.)

Just my two cents, feel free to ignore. I like to confuse the hard-core conspiracists by pretending that we actually have individual minds of our own. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #132
135. all those people were questioned so there is no real problem
and all of your questions are answered in the first section(400 pages) of the book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #135
136. Then I will keep on reading
Thank you
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #136
137. Like I said
it's a long read.
I actually just started again after giving it a rest for a couple of months.
It's a real commitment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #137
247. Editing period is one hour, right?
But look below... someone edited their post 1 hour and 36 minutes later. 36 minutes over the limit that I am under.

SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Mar-13-11 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #136
139. Well, if Kindle says that you've read 1%...

Edited on Sun Mar-13-11 03:08 AM by SDuderstadt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #247
248. You've heard of Daylight Saving Time, right? ( n/t )
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #247
249. good job, Inspector Clouseau
Edited on Thu Mar-17-11 07:41 PM by zappaman
except it says posted at 10:32 and edited at 11:08.
Here on Earth that is a 36 minute difference...not "1 hour and 36 minutes later".
:rofl:
No wonder the "truth" about 9/11 hasn't been revealed with guys like you on the case.

EDITED: 1 hour and 16 minutes later...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #249
250. For once
You may be right. Pat yourself on the back.

DST never entered my mind.

Say, yall having fun down here? That was some fast response.
Yall just hanging waiting for stuff to fall down from above, eh?
Bwahahaha
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #247
251. Editing period starts after someone makes a post, right?
But look at this post... someone edited their post 56 minutes before they posted it. Not adhering to the time/space continuum limits that I am under.

oswaldactedalone (284 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov-07-10 01:56 AM
Response to Original message
25. It's one of many salvos

Edited on Sun Nov-07-10 01:00 AM by oswaldactedalone
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #136
139. Well, if Kindle says that you've read 1%...
Edited on Sun Mar-13-11 01:08 AM by SDuderstadt
of the book, that means you have about 1584 pages to go. You might want to pick up the pace if you want to finish it in this decade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #139
140. What's a decafe?
I like caffeine in my coffee so I won't do the decaf thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #130
143. one unfortunate thing
Believe it or not, it's pretty common for people to express really strong and (IMHO) bizarre opinions, and then to say that they were just "asking questions."

It's the sort of behavior that can give asking questions a bad name. I think you'll find that the vast majority of posters here really have no problem with honest questions, per se. Sometimes we may have some trouble recognizing them as such.

Sometimes I think that SDuderstadt is overreacting, but then again, I remember how I felt about the first half-dozen times I tried to explain why the 2004 exit polls didn't provide much evidence that Kerry had won. Some people were so sure they knew otherwise, and that anyone who disagreed with them must be evil, and that somehow they exemplified openmindedness and critical thinking. Some of them said absolutely brutal things about me and close friends; I tried not to respond in kind.

Lots of people really only heard one side of that issue, and to this day they just assume that anyone with a clue knows that Kerry won. They tend to say things that remind me of those earlier fights, and sometimes I jump to the conclusion that they are just hell-bent on trashing anyone who disagrees, when actually they just didn't really know that there could be any possible basis for disagreement.

Part of the problem is that some outright misinformation became widely accepted. For instance, lots of people "learned" that the exit polls had always been "uncannily accurate" until 2004, or maybe until 2000. That simply isn't true. It's pretty useful to know that that simply isn't true. But after the first half dozen flame wars about it, you might say I learned to lose my temper in advance. It has nothing to do with trying to repress questions about voting machines and election results -- and, yes, I get really ticked off when people claim it does.

I do try to refrain from gratuitously pushing other people's buttons, but I'm sure I do it all the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
119. I see nothing wrong with your hobby
as long as it has not skewed your entire life and negatively impacted your family life and relationships with others.

I also hope you have not placed too much of your self esteem and self-image on finding a satisfactory answer before you die - I am certain you will be disappointed. If this is by far and away the most important thing in your live then you will most likely die a "failure". I hope for your sake that your priorities are not that messed up.

Perspective and balance are good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
148. A question
IF there was a conspiracy by high ranking officials, wouldn't the gunman have gotten it right the first time? From what I have seen, there were 3-4 (if not more) shots and only one hitting the target spot on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #148
149. there were only 3 shots
not 3-4(if not more).
where on earth did you get that information?
first shot missed.
second shot entered JFKs throat and hit Connally.
third shot hit him in the head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #149
150. I think you mean....
exited JFK's throat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #150
152. Heh
Edited on Sun Mar-13-11 11:18 PM by johnnie
Funny, I question a conspiracy and I get crap..lol.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #152
212. And see, that's the thing - I don't think you really believe or care whether there was a conspiracy
to kill JFK or not.

Going by your posts and that one OP you posted where your "facts" were thoroughly reduced to pitiful shreds and yet you continued to argue, I don't really perceive that you give much of a fig whether Oswald acted alone, or whether there was a genuine conspiracy involved.

I think you simply enjoy arguing, have found an issue over which people do a good bit of it, and have simply picked a side, facts be damned.

That's why I take the content of absolutely nothing you post seriously anymore.

Of course, that doesn't mean you get a pass on posting historical inaccuracies or phony "facts" - better clarify that now or I'm sure down the road, when your OP's/replies get taken to the cleaners on the facts (again), I'll start hearing about how I shouldn't reply to you because I don't take you seriously (and I don't) in lieu of a substantive rebuttal. Just to be clear.

But every time you see a post of mine replying to yours, johnnie, I want you to imagine a man at a keyboard rolling his eyes as he typed that reply. The visual will be accurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #212
214. You see Skippy..
That's what you get for thinking.

"I want you to imagine a man at a keyboard rolling his eyes as he typed that reply" keep rolling your eyes and I'll get back to you when I give a shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #150
153. yes
blame the Pyrat Rum...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #149
151. Acording to Connally who was there and I doubt you were
He said he heard a shot, turned to his right and then while turning to his left he felt a shot (that's two) then according to the Z-film a shot hit Kennedy in the head (frame 313) and there was also a shot that hit a curb and James Tague got a bit of it in his face (that's 4)

Governor Connally

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q40kO48nrs&feature=rela...

James Tague

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhsgRQNre1M


Zupruder film


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozx4_4DZp38

As a bonus question, they say that JFK lurched forward right before the last shot, or because of the shot to his head. If you notice, the driver turns, (probably instinctively steps on the brakes) everyone (including JFK) moves forward and the shot hits JFK in the head.

And once again my question, if there was a conspiracy and you would think they would get some of the best shooters available, why did the shooter miss the first time (and maybe another time)?



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #151
253. Dude...
the bullet fragment that hit Tague could easily have been either the one that missed the limo (which caused Connally to turn to his right) or from the headshot. Duh.

It's a good thing you don't work in any forensic occupation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #253
254. Probably the one that missed
You need to catch up on some research
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #254
255. Dude...
you just totally missed the point. If it was EITHER shot, that means there were only three shots. Duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #255
256. I didn't miss the point n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #256
257. Dude...
you just contradicted your own claim. Did you notice that?

He said he heard a shot, turned to his right and then while turning to his left he felt a shot (that's two) then according to the Z-film a shot hit Kennedy in the head (frame 313) and there was also a shot that hit a curb and James Tague got a bit of it in his face (that's 4)


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #257
258. Read the fucking thread
"From what I have seen, there were 3-4 (if not more)"

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #258
259. Read the section (your words)...
I provided.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #259
260. Yes I know what I said
It was a part of this thing we adults call a discussion. Look it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #260
261. Dude...
do you stand by what you said or not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #261
262. I'll spell it out for you
Edited on Fri Mar-18-11 01:42 AM by johnnie
I said I think there were 3-4 (or more shot)
That other guy basically said "where did you get that from?"
I showed what I consider 4 shots
You said "dude..blah blah warren commission blah blah 3 shots..blah blah bugliosi...blah blah blah"
I said it was probably the missed shot
And I hope you can remember what was said in the last few minutes after that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #262
263. Dude...
Edited on Fri Mar-18-11 01:49 AM by SDuderstadt
try to follow here.

If it was EITHER the shot that missed the limo or the headshot, that means you counted one shot TWICE. Therefore, it wouldn't be 4 shots...it would be three. Three shots means there was not another shooter and, thus, not a conspiracy unless someone else helped Oswald plan it.

I didn't mention either the WC or Bugliosi in our little interchange. What I pointed out was your abysmal math skills, dude. No one but you is to blame for your lack of clarity when you write.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #263
264. Here is what I said
"He said he heard a shot, turned to his right and then while turning to his left he felt a shot (that's two) then according to the Z-film a shot hit Kennedy in the head (frame 313) and there was also a shot that hit a curb and James Tague got a bit of it in his face (that's 4)"

See the thing that looks like this "4"? That's a number four which is one more than three. It's not my "abysmal math skills", it's yours and your pitiful comprehension skills. All I said is that it was probably the missed shot out of the 4 shots I originally discussed.

I don't think that one bullet hit JFK and Connally. And thanks to that Beyond the magic Bullet crap you were babbling about the other day, I am more sure now than I was before. That is of course if I believe the flap of Connally's jacket is the result of a projectile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #264
265. Dude...
the fact is that you cannot see that you are counting one shot twice to get to four. By your own admission, you think that the fragment that hit Tague came from the shot that missed the limo entirely. That means there were three shots, which matches up with the Warren Commission's findings. If not, where did the "fourth shot" go? Let me answer that for you...you're inventing it to fit with your conclusion. I honestly don't know which is your biggest Achille's Heel...your comprehension problems or your obstinate manner.

Above and beyond that, like others, you cannot answer the very simple question I have posed repeatedly. We know from Connally's surgeon, Dr. Shaw, that Connally's entrance wound was in his back and his initial exit wound was in his chest. Given the relative positions of JFK and Connally in the limo, please explain how that bullet could have hit Connally precisely where it did WITHOUT going through JFK first. Beyond that, please explain why the greatest number of witnesses reported hearing three shots.

Let us know when you blow the lid off this thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #265
266. You're "blowing lids" is getting old
But here is a picture. The bullet missed Kennedy went under his arm and hit Connally in the back.



There were many witnesses who heard 4 or more shots, but that doesn't fit so they are wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #266
267. Dude...
Edited on Fri Mar-18-11 10:17 AM by SDuderstadt
if a shot had "gone under JFK's arm", it would not even have hit Connally. Your ignorance of trajectory analysis is simply stunning. It would also help if you could begin to understand the concept of "convergence of the evidence".

And, I agree that the "blowing the our off this thing" IS getting old, but that's simply because nearly five decades have passed and not a single one of you has been able to do it, however, you are more than welcome to waste another 47 years. Knock yourself out, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #267
268. You have the same problem as your pal Vince
You think anyone who questions what happened that day believes every theory, Oswald wasn't involved and that you (as debunkers) know exactly what happened. And you both are wrong. I'm not trying to blow the lid off of anything as I've said before. I'm not writing a book, building a website, obsessed about this thing as you are, think I am going to change any minds on some forum that is laughed at on DU and about 10 people read and I'm not impressed with your abilities.

I know that you like to play your game down here and that's fine, but it is a waste of my time. There are other forums with much more qualified and knowledgeable "debunkers" than you out there that I could read and post on if I decide. You have earned your title as King of the dungeon so enjoy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #268
269. LOL!
Dude, "Vince" and I are not the ones who have been embarrassing ourselves for 47 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #269
270. That's true
Considering I really don't read too much here I'm guessing you've only been doing it for 10 years or so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-11 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #266
271. Re : Under his arm
Edited on Fri Mar-18-11 11:24 AM by k-robjoe
I think "over his right shoulder" is more likely.

If Kennedy had been positioned 15 cms higher, and more to the right, then Dale Myers would have concluded that this was the exact spot where the bullet must have past on its path from the sixth floor window to the wound in Connallys back.

How a position on top of the Daltex building would give the same result :





Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #151
278. Check out
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #278
279. Thanks k-robjoe!
I'll check it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:33 AM
Response to Original message
154. Question
What did the warren Commission get wrong?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #154
156. They said Oswald, acting alone, killed President Kennedy.
The physical evidence, alone, contradicts that conclusion, including:

1. Wounds in JFK's body

2. Holes in JFK's jacket

3. Magic Bullet



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #156
157. Jesus...
there is nothing magic about CE 399. Please answer the question I've posed that you keep ignoring:

We know from Connally's surgeon, Dr. Shaw, that Connally's entrance wound was in his back and the initial exit wound was in his chest. Given the relative positions of Connally and JFK in the limo, how did the bullet strike Connally precisely where it did WITHOUT first going through JFK? The reason you won't answer that question is because it destroys a central tenet of your conspiracy theory.

Beyond that, you keep offering the same debunked conspiracy theories over and over, as if repetition will somehow overcome the lack of substance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #157
158. Here's the shirt, jacket and the story, sduderstadt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #158
159. Dude...
you have to take into account the position of JFK's body and how the shirt was positioned on his body. That can be ascertained from the Zapruder film. Duh.

And, of course, you won't answer my question because it totally destroys your conspiracy theory. Why can't you even attempt an answer? You say you want information, but the reality is that you only want evidence that doesn't contradict your confirmation bias.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #159
160. shhhhhhh
you are upsetting the fantasy world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #160
161. Not a single conspiracist...
has been able to answer my simple question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #161
162. Simple answer
The bullet missed Kennedy and hit Connally.

The lone nutters like to say that Connally was sitting further inside the limo than Kennedy and they even have fancy animations showing how he was almost in the middle of the limo. But all one needs to do is look at a photo.





It's pretty clear in frame 252 of the Z-film that a bullet could have missed Kennedy and hit Connally. A fact that the Warren Commission was going to publish until the missed shot couldn't be denied.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #162
167. Small problem...
dude.

JFK's back and throat wounds align perfectly with Connally's back and chest wounds and, more importantly, if you project the trajectory backwards, it leads precisely back up to the TSBD 6th floor sniper's nest. See Dale Myers' detailed animated recreation, as featured in "Unsolved History : Beyond the Magic Bullet".

You're grasping at straws, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #167
168. You mean this recreation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #168
171. Yes...
I hope you're not going to try to hand-wave this away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #171
172. So you point to the recreation to back up your point...
And it clearly shows the exit wound in the Kennedy "body" exiting his chest as opposed to his neck and you hand-wave it away?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #172
173. It shows it exiting his throat...
dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #173
174. Sure, the computer animation shows it
But their actual recreation does not. It's much easier to manipulate a computer bullet than a real one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #174
175. WTF are you...
babbling about now, dude?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #175
176. You're so predictable n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #176
177. And you are so clueless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #174
198. Listen to this
"11-22-10 - JFK Assassination Special VIII - Donald A. Adams, Craig Hulet, Tim Miller, G. Paul Chambers"

http://zfirelight.blogspot.com/2010/11/11-22-10-jfk-ass...

Listen to G. Paul Chambers, hour 4, about 4 minutes out.

Kennedy allready having reacted to being hit, before the lapel flap ( Connally ).

For comparison, "Beyond conspiracy" says you can see when Conally is hit, by the lapel flap, 2:30 out :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBXW1-VGmM

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #198
199. 2:56
I didnt notice this before, but if you go 2:56 out in the Beyond conspiracy videoclip, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBXW1-VGmM , you can actually see Kennedys arms in the same frame as you see the lapel flip.

So his arms are up to his throat in the same frame.

It actually seems clear that his right arm is blocking the path that a single bullet would have to have taken.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #199
209. Nonsense. You're chasing phantoms and telling your eyes it sees things that are not there now. n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #199
241. The Beyond Conspiracy clip is silly
Myers shows Kennedy's hands already coming up in frame 224 and you can also notice that Jackie is already starting to turn toward her husband.



And then Myers points out that "something happens between frame 223 and 224" That's when the bullet strikes he says. The Z-film is 18.3 frames per second. So Myers would like us to believe that JFK had already started reacting to the bullet before the bullet passed through him and into Connally, or at least simultaneously.

From Jackie's WC testimony:

Mrs. KENNEDY. No; I was looking this way, to the left, and I heard these terrible noises. You know. And my husband never made any sound. So I turned to the right. And all I remember is seeing my husband, he had this sort of quizzical look on his face, and his hand was up, it must have been his left hand.

Notice her already looking toward her husband at frame 221




So according to the Beyond conspiracy show we are supposed to believe that Jackie heard the sound of the shot and turned toward her husband BEFORE the bullet hit Connally. JFK reacted to the shot BEFORE it hit Connally. The bullet traveling at roughly 2000ft/s (maybe slowed down because it went through Kennedy) and sound traveling at 1128ft/s makes the Beyond conspiracy show seem a bit silly.

And as I pointed out in the video I posted

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjcLtPsOML8&feature=play...

The video clearly shows that the recreation of the shot went through the Kennedy body back and out the chest. The Beyond Conspiracy actual video shows the hole out of the chest.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #241
242. Re : The Beyond Conspiracy clip is silly
You took that post right out of my mouth so to speak. Images and all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #160
165. Still haven't added anything worth reading, zappaman.
Is contributing something worth reading too much to ask of you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #165
180. you are correct
You're links are quite worth reading if you enjoy fantasy fiction.
Add in some unicorns and it would really be something!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #180
205. So, what is wrong with what I linked to? Is it an error of fact or your opinion, zappaman?
There is a big difference. So, please, show me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #159
166. The president's shirt wasn't over his head, as it'd have to be, sduderstadt.
Why do you get so angry when I point out facts that don't agree with your theory? Dude. It's scary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #166
169. That is pure bullshit, dude
This is painstakingly and patiently explained/illustrated in "Unsolved History : Beyond the Magic Bullet", dude. The physical evidence absolutely rebuts your goofy bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #169
178. Painstakingly explained in your mind, sduderstadt, not mine.
Among their many lies, network TV also sold us the need to invade Iraq, twice. Network TV said W won Florida. So, I don't trust them on resolving the Magic Bullet. Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #178
181. Did you check out the video I posted above?
The recreation that is being beaten to death here shows that the bullet exited "Kennedy's" chest, but yet it is ignored because it doesn't back up the "facts".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #181
185. Dude...
Lenscrafters' phone # is 877-753-6727.

Perhaps they can help you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #181
186. If it weren't for the subject, it'd be funny how that works for some minds.
Thank you for the heads-up. Here's what I've been recommending of late:



The JFK Assassination:
Defending the Gangster State


Michael Parenti
(originally published in 1996)

Much of history is a chronicle of immense atrocities. Whenever surplus wealth accumulates in any society, whenever people emerge from a cooperative subsistence economy, some portion of the population will do everything it can to exploit the labor of the rest of the people in as pitiless a manner as possible. This is true whether it be the slaveholders of ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, and the antebellum American South; or the feudal aristocracy of medieval Europe; or the financial moguls of modern capitalist society. Today, throughout much of the capitalist Third World and increasingly in the United States and other industrialized nations, people are being driven into desperation and want, made to work harder for less, when able to find work.

The Gangster State

The state is the instrument used in all these societies by the wealthy few to impoverish and maintain control over the many. Aside from performing collective functions necessary for all societies, the state has the particular task of protecting the process of accumulating wealth for the few. Throughout our country's history, people have fought back and sometimes gained a limited degree of self-protective rights: universal suffrage, civil liberties, the right to collective bargaining, the eight-hour day, public education, social security, and some human services. While these democratic gains are frequently violated and prove insufficient as a restraint against state power, their importance should not be denied.

Today in the much vaunted western democracies there exists a great deal of unaccountable state power whose primary function is to maintain the existing politico-economic structure, using surveillance, infiltration, sabotage, judicial harassment, disinformation, trumped-up charges and false arrests, tax harassment, blackmail, and even violence and assassination to make the world safe for those who own it.

There exists a state within the state, known as the national security state, a component of misgovernment centering around top officers in the CIA, DIA, FBI, the Pentagon, and policymakers in the Executive Office of the White House. These elements have proven themselves capable of perpetrating terrible crimes against dissidents at home and abroad. National security state agencies like the CIA, in the service of dominant economic interests, have enlisted the efforts of mobsters, drug traffickers, assassins, and torturers, systematically targeting peasant leaders, intellectuals, journalists, student leaders, clergy, labor union leaders, workers, and community activists in numerous countries. Hundreds of thousands of people have been murdered to prevent social change, to destroy any government or social movement that manifests an unwillingness to reduce its people to economic fodder for the giant corporations that rule the world's economy.

JFK, the Media Mugging

Occasionally an incident occurs that reveals in an unusually vivid manner the gangster nature of the state. The assassination of President John Kennedy in November 1963 is such an occasion. The dirty truth is that Kennedy was heartily hated by right-wing forces in this country, including many powerful people in the intelligence organizations. He had betrayed the national interest as they defined it, by refusing to go all out against Cuba, making overtures of rapproachment with Castro, and refusing to escalate the ground war in Vietnam. They also saw him as an anti-business liberal who was taking the country down the wrong path. Whether Kennedy really was all that liberal is another matter. What the national security rightists saw him to be was what counted.

CONTINUED...

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



Parenti's does a great presentation of the above. Here's Part 1: The JFK Assassination: The Gangster Nature of the State

Going by what you've written, it's probably old news to you, johnnie. Worth spreading to those who haven't heard of Parenti or studied the assassination of President Kennedy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #186
188. Except that...
the physical evidence shows that Oswald killed JFK.

Parenti can rattle on about the "gangster stateo" all he wants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #188
191. Where do you find the time to follow every single one my posts, sduderstadt?
Is it your hobby? Dude.

You did say you valued your time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #191
193. Dude...
Edited on Tue Mar-15-11 11:28 AM by SDuderstadt
you have multiple posts in which I neither participate nor even pay much attention to. I figure there is no reason to provoke more of your Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Your hyperbole is silly and your cataloging of my past posts is a little creepy, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #193
194. When it comes to the JFK assassination, you're like my shadow, sduderstadt.
GOOGLE it and see: Always there to supply plausibility to the Warren Commission. Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 11:51 AM
Original message
Dude...
you're making my point. Are you really suggesting that there are not two legitimate sides to this debate? That's a logical fallacy known as "psychic foreclosure" and, in your case, it always falls flat on its face.

The problem for you and your goofy bullshit is that every advance in science has had the effect of confirming the findings of the WC. After nearly fifty years of frittering away your time on this matter, you have exactly Dick to show for your efforts. Can we expect a breakthrough soon?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #194
200. (eyes)
I don't know if it's "psychic foreclosure" or what, but it does seem strange that you find it so suspicious that anyone else might care enough to disagree with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #200
201. The "psychic foreclosure" observation...
applies to the accusation of "always there to supply plausibility to the Warren Commission", as if that us somehow suspect in itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #201
203. yeah, I think it quacks like psychic foreclosure
But I haven't read enough of Octafish's posts to have much of an opinion about his motivation, and I'm not planning to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #203
206. Interesting. I've read enough of your posts, ontheotherhand, to know where you're coming from.
So, personally, I'm relieved that I won't be changing your mind on anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #206
207. I'll file that under "sour grapes"
I doubt you have any idea where I'm coming from -- and it isn't as if you did any better at answering my questions than you did at answering SDuderstadt's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #207
213. Right you are, professor.
You may have a PhD, I don't know, but it's easy to see you've still got a lot to learn.

You ever hear of Robert Boettcher?

BTW: I'll get to your answering your questions when I find time. If they're like sduderstadt's, they shouldn't be too hard to figure out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #213
216. Dude...
if my questions aren't "too hard to figure out", you'd be talking about the answer rather than continue deflecting, dude.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 04:06 AM
Response to Reply #213
219. we all have a lot to learn, I thought
The trouble is, I'm not learning anything from you. Your misdirected insults won't change that, and apparently random topic changes won't either. It's mildly interesting to watch, but I would prefer it if you cared enough to make sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 06:46 AM
Response to Reply #219
220. Excellent point, ontheotherhand, right.
You know, from your perspective, I can see how one would think that I change the topic when tag team tactics are employed to derail discussion or deride my character. From my perspective, I'm trying to make a greater point.

Regarding the late Mr. Boettcher, I wanted to introduce the case of a man who investigated Rev. Moon, a financial and political backer of George Herbert Walker Bush, and soon after died from a fall from a parking structure. I didn't think you knew that.

BTW: Where are my "misdirected insults"? Please provide an example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 07:33 AM
Response to Reply #220
222. in real life, I tried to catch your back
And SDuderstadt is probably still snickering at me about it. But at least it illustrates just how hollow your complaints are.

As far as I can figure out, in the world according to Octafish:

If no one challenges your posts, it implies that your arguments can't be refuted.

If one person challenges your posts, it reveals that he is hell-bent on defending the Warren Commission and/or the "BFEE."

If two or more people challenge your posts, that is "tag team tactics... to derail discussion."

I don't really see what "greater point" you are making, beyond heads you win, tails everyone else loses.

Yeah, I admit it: Even assuming for the sake of argument that Boettcher's death four years after his book criticizing Rev. Moon was published is suspicious, the connection to the JFK assassination isn't obvious to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 07:47 AM
Response to Reply #222
224. Right on all points, ontheotherhand.
While four years passed, Mr. Boettcher was one of the few to go public with what he know regarding Moon, his influence on American politics and the rest of it. Without him around, Rev Moon would go on to bigger things.

Yes, I have taken things too personally at times, especially when it comes to the Bush family. So, when someone calls me a liar, I get angry. It's also why I link to all manner of sites, stories, authors, books, etc. so others can learn. That way other DUers can see them for what they are. Unlike the Democratic Kennedy family, which values service, the Bushes use their government service to enrich themselves and their cronies.

PS: Thanks for your kind words with sduderstadt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #224
225. Dude...
Point to a single post in which you have been called a "liar". Take your time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #225
227. Here you go, sduderstadt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #227
229. Dude...
Do you understand the difference between someone saying "I don't believe you" or "you haven't proven your claim" (paraphrases) and someone saying "that's a lie", "you are a liar" or "you are lying"???

No one there or anywhere else has called you a liar or you could point to a specific post. Your persecution complex is simply stunning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #229
231. Here's more, sduderstadt.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Doesn't matter how you couch your words. Dude.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #231
233. "Doesn't matter how you couch your words"
In other words, no one actually called you a liar, did they...

Thought so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #191
210. If you don't want to discuss things on a discussion board, quit posting Octafish. No one is forcing
you to come here and post OP's. On the other hand, if you insist on posting historically inaccurate and factually false OP's & replies, then you should be prepared to be called on them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #210
215. Still waiting for that bibliography of yours, apocalypsehow, it's been a year and a half.
What you wrote above:

"...if you insist on posting historically inaccurate and factually false OP's & replies, then you should be prepared to be called on them.''

Here's my journal. Please show me something "historically inaccurate and factually false." Will I receive your answer with your bibliography?

PS: I notice you don't have a journal, apocalypsehow. Going from what I've seen you post, it's understandable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #215
218. The hold-up on that Biblio business is none other than *you*, Octafish, as you well know:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

But do keep trying to bob, weave, & dodge away from a discussion of the facts - it's what folks without any credible historical evidence or data to back up their assertions always do, and it surprises me not in the slightest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #218
223. You said: '' I've forgotten more about the Kennedy administration than you'll ever know.''
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #223
244. That's obvious to anyone with enabled vision and a web browser, as has been shown repeatedly.
In the meantime, still waiting on that polite, respectful private message, Octafish:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #244
245. Lots of opinion there, apocalypsehow. Unfortunately, there's no information.
Like your "bibliography," it's your opinion. And, no offense, but that's what you say. I'd like to know about the sources you use to form your beliefs.

So, yeah. Don't expect getting a PM from me. Any thing that I have to say to you I'll say in public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #245
246. Then if you are unwilling to take the steps to satisfy your request, you should not expect that
request to be fulfilled.

Here, again, are the criteria to have that request fulfilled:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

"So, yeah. Don't expect getting a PM from me" - Great! I assume that means I won't be hearing anymore about it in future interactions between us, then. :thumbsup:

"Lots of opinion there, apocalypsehow. Unfortunately, there's no information" - Then you haven't read the post very well; try it again, and this time take it slow. In point of fact, the post contained a link to the very information you need to fulfill your oft'-repeated request to me for a Bibliography - a request you frequently make when the facts, per usual, are not going your way in a debate between us and you want to dodge away from the issue(s) under discussion to something else (understandably).

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #178
183. Dude...
study the "fallacy of division".

Selective perception and another stupid argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #158
163. Why can't you answer a simple question...
dude?

You whine that my "constant demands are getting old", but that is part of most debates: the sides get to ask questions of each other. The real reason why you won't answer my question is because you can't, not to mention that it makes your "theory" totally crumble. So, I will continue to ask it at every opportunity. Your continued refusal to even attempt to answer it confirms your confirmation bias.

We know from Connally's surgeon, Dr. Shaw, that Connally's entrance wound was in his back and that his initial exit wound was in his chest. Given what we know of Connally's position relative to JFK in the limo (onboard of JFK and about 6" lower (on a jump seat) than JFK, how could any bullet have hit Connally where it did WITHOUT ity first going through JFK first?

Your inability (and/or reftusal) to answer this is but one more reason why no one should take you or you histrionics seriously, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #163
164. Don't change the facts, sduderstadt. The evidence shows JFK was shot in the back, not the neck.
NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #164
170. Dude...
you keep omitting the trajectory and JFK's physical position and the relative position of his shirt and jacket. You can't simply pick and choose from the physical evidence, dude. The work of Myers and others conclusively prove that CE 399 was anything but a "magic bullet".

Poor! There goes your goofy bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #170
179. Perhaps goofy bullshit to you, sduderstadt, not me.
Bullets fired from a rifle, even a piece of shit rifle like a Mannlicher Carcano, don't behave that way.



They certainly don't look this way (CE 399, bullet furthest left) after causing seven wounds in two individuals. Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #179
182. Do they look like this, my friend?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #182
187. Keep posting, zappaman.
That's the aft view of CE 399. Note the negligible amount of distortion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #187
190. Which looks remarkably similar to...
multiple scientific experiments that replicated the shooting.

No matter how much you reject it, science is your friend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #179
184. More bullshit...
Multiple scientific experiments have produce bullets nearly identical to CE 399, dude. The science is against you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #184
189. Wrong sduderstadt. You can't show me ''Multiple scientific experirments that have produce (sic)...''
... bullets nearly identical to CE 399, dude. The science is against you."

Please show me a picture of even one that matches. I haven't seen it. Have you? You don't even have a link. Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #189
192. One of them (if not more) is...
Edited on Tue Mar-15-11 11:23 AM by SDuderstadt
contained within "Unsolved History : JFK : Beyond the Magic Bullet". I dare you watch it.

Your ignorance of the body of work corroboration the findings of the Warren Commission is no one's fault but your own, however, it is totally predictable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #192
195. A TV show is the best you got, sduderstadt? A TV show?
I'll watch out for it. I certainly don't want to be ignorant. Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #195
196. The Discovery Channel..lol
Maybe they will show it between Cash Cab and Man vs Wild.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #195
197. Too late
Edited on Tue Mar-15-11 11:53 AM by SDuderstadt
Let me make sure I get this straight. You are ridiculing documentaries?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #197
204. You said ''Multiple scientific experiments'' and all you can come up with is a TV show, sduderstadt.
Your exact words: "Multiple scientific experiments have produce bullets nearly identical to CE 399, dude."

So, nothing from you about who were the scientists? What were the experiments? How did they conduct their experiments? Where was their work published? Was it peer-reviewed? How can I learn more about their experiments?

Anything? No. Just a TV show, I mean, "documentary." Dude.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #204
217. Dude...
Edited on Tue Mar-15-11 11:22 PM by SDuderstadt
do the words "at least one" confuse you, dude? Does that signal there's more to come?

Bad news, dude. It's MLB Spring Traing. That means there are Spring Training games. I have expensive tickets for my family and we're out of town. Start with what I provided you first. Rebut it, if you can.

Simple question. Since you're on a self-professed quest for the "truth" of the JFK assassination, wouldn't it stand to reason that you'd be aware of the information from the other side? That is, unless you're just indulging your confirmation bias, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #217
221. A TV show, sduderstadt.
That's what gives you confirmation bias. Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #221
226. Dude...
Do you even understand what a "confirmation bias" is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #226
228. A TV show, sduderstadt.
Is that all the confirmation you need? Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #228
230. Dude...
Edited on Wed Mar-16-11 08:19 AM by SDuderstadt
Where do documentaries usually appear? Start with that one and try to rebut their findings. Merely trying to pre-emptively dismiss it without even watching it makes you look silly. Again, if you're really in a quest for the "truth", wouldn't you read both sides? Wouldn't you place importance on trying to falsify your own "theories"? How many of yours have subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #230
232. A TV show, sduderstadt.
TV and the U.S. news media are notorious for telling one side, since November 22, 1963.

Have you ever heard of "content analysis"? I conducted one examining bias in The New York Times' coverage of the 30th anniversary of the assassination. Fully three-fourths of the paper's space devoted to the subject went to Gerald Posner's "Case Closed."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #232
234. Dude...
it's no one's fault but your own and that of your fellow JFK assassination conspiracists that the media does not take you seriously.

Read EMK's memoir. Even he states that he believes the Warren Commission and he had a far larger stake than you could ever possibly have.

I gotta go, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #232
235. Why don't you just watch the fucking thing, then...
Edited on Wed Mar-16-11 08:51 AM by SDuderstadt
try to refute it, rather than continue with your "pre-emptive strike", dude?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-86736668725711...

If you're really on some quest for the "truth", how are you going to find it without reading both sides?

P.S. There are two separate experiments that attempt to replicate CE 399 within this documentary alone, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #235
237. How do you know I didn't, sduderstadt?
"...two separate experiments that attempt to replicate CE 399 within this documentary alone, dude."

It's a TV show. Where's an article describing the methodology and results? Dude.

PS: Thanks for the link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #237
238. Dude...
Edited on Wed Mar-16-11 09:28 AM by SDuderstadt
because you wave it away as merely being a "TV show". I know you didn't watch it because you can't mount a substantive critique of it. As far as your demands for an article showing the "methodology and results", do you ever demand the same for the goofy bullshit you embrace? Of course not.

Nice double standard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #238
239. It's still a TV show, sduderstadt.
I thought you had to run? Nothing better to do? Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #239
240. Aren't smartphones cool?
In the meantime, since it's just a "TV show", it should be all that much easier to rebut.

Of course, you'd actually have to watch it first. Sounds like you want to talk about ANYTHING other than your inability to rebut the documentary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
155. I imagine anyone who believes with an absolute conviction...
I imagine anyone who believes with an absolute conviction that it happened one way or another is as dogmatic as a Sunday morning televangelist-- simply not dressed as snappy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
202. No, it's not a waste
Edited on Tue Mar-15-11 01:02 PM by spooked911
but the main truth is known and is here:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2010/11/ultimate-t...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #202
208. LOL!
"In all likelihood, a rifle with a special bullet (ice bullet containing shellfish poison was used by the CIA for these purposes) was fired from the Grassy Knoll (or elsewhere) at that time. "
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #208
236. it's not really funny
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #236
243. you're right
There is sadness that someone would actually believe it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
252. After this thread, I changed my mind - he was right. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 01:20 AM
Response to Original message
272. Interesting
LBJ isn't sure the Warren Commission had all the facts, he thinks even the Warren Commission didn't have all the facts and "everybody else", but we have some people right here in the dungeon of DU that knows for sure..lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF4_7_Emzy0
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #272
273. Dude...
As advances in science were made and more facts became available, they invariably supported the Warren Commission's findings. Of course, though, you're forced to cherry-pick outdated history to make it appear that today's state of affairs has not progressed since that time.

What I find odd about your posts is that you pretend to be merely searching for the "truth", when, all the while, you spout silly JFK assassination theory bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #273
274. Good for you
You are finally admitting the the Warren Commission is "outdated history". A little bit of work and you will be able to think for yourself. I'm proud of you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 03:01 AM
Response to Reply #274
276. Of course not a bit of the false premises you concluded with were based on anything actually stated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #274
277. Dude...
deliberately mischaracterizing what I have said is pretty smarmy, but I have come to expect no less from you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #277
284. "deliberately mischaracterizing what I have said is pretty smarmy"
That's rich coming from you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #284
301. Point to anywhere that I have...
mischaracterized, deliberately or otherwise, a single thing you have said.

Take your time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #301
342. Me? no
But here is a link to where you deliberately mischaracterized everyone else.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 02:56 AM
Response to Reply #272
275. Once again, distortion and obfuscation - you are misrepresenting what was said in service of a very
dubious and fact-free cause.

Johnson praises the Warren Commission in this clip - effusively.

Johnson names Oswald by name as the assassin.

What Johnson is hinting about as regards "others" in the context of "international connections" is the Communist Bloc. If you knew a scrap of history beyond the shallow bilge Ocatfish links to you would know this, but never mind: if you read any legitimate, scholarly Johnson biographies, whether it be by Irving Bernstein or Dallek or the (as yet uncompleted) multi-volume masterpiece by Robert Caro, or any number of others, what you learn (L-E-A-R-N) is that LBJ was utterly convinced, as most politicians of his era were on a bi-partisan basis, that the communists were always up to no good, and, that, further, he was vaguely uneasy about Lee Harvey Oswald's multiple connections* to that same Communist Bloc.

Johnson knew that if the American people suspected for a serious second that either the Kremlin or Castro (or both) had been behind the death of President Kennedy, they would demand as a collective body vengeance in the form of war. And the American people would have. He was also quite aware that such a demand would likely have meant the end of the civilized world as we know it, as events would undoubtedly have gone nuclear between the United States and the USSR before it was all said and done.

What you see in September of 1969 with this interview with Walter Cronkite is an LBJ who is blowing off steam about his latent fears along these lines, not stating facts he definitively knows. And even then he insists that CBS keep those musings under wraps till he is dead & gone, for fear that his random musings might provoke WWIII even six years after the event.

We are entering territory, once again & per usual, that is particularly unpleasant for the Conspiracy Theory Religion - and it is a religion - to contemplate: if there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, and LBJ is trotted out to provide verification for it, then the locus of that conspiracy is centered not in the United States, but in the communist world circa 1963. That doesn't fit the CT'er narrative because the CT'er weltanschauung along those lines is that JFK was busy shedding the strictures of the Cold War with a new approach to peace with the communists - "detente" a decade before Nixon & Kissinger actually put it on the U.S. foreign policy map - and that they loved him in Moscow, Havana, Hanoi and Beijing, and the "military-industrial complex" killed him for it. Not a bit of which, of course, is historically true, or, anyway, can be verified with actual data or evidence.

In point of fact, of course, President Kennedy was devoutly hated in all four aforementioned capitals by the respective leaderships of each, and for the best of reasons: he was an unrepentant Cold Warrior on the West's side, and one who relished his role - as see his taunting of the Soviets in his famous Berlin speech in the summer of 1963. That was pure provocation aimed at the Russians, and JFK was proud of every bit of it.

Anyway: this means, of course, that contrary to Garrison/Marrs/Stone et al, that Johnson was being more like the fictional image of JFK that the CT'ers have drawn as their religious narrative of him than JFK ever was himself, by the very act of (if the Commies did, indeed, have a hand in killing President Kennedy), refusing to sacrifice the civilized world in a nuclear exchange over the death of one man, even if that man was the President of the United States; and that (two) we should commence to drawing up Declaration-of-War plans for the U.S. Congress to contemplate if Russia, China, and Cuba don't start "coming clean" about what they "know" regarding the death of the 35th President of the United States.

And the thought of that, of course, is simply absurd...like so much else connected to the CT'er narrative, when one really takes the time to examine it. Well, I take that back: for most thinking persons, a cursory examination is enough to ascertain the absurdity. But the larger point still stands.

*Defected to the Soviet Union; was in contact with many communist organizations in the U.S. after he returned; tried to defect to Cuba via Mexico.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #275
280. +1
and should provide answers for those "just asking questions".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #275
281. Oswald was in the USSR on company business.
Oswald's 201 CIA File

For your bibliography:

Oswald and the CIA by John M. Newman

Spy Saga by Philip H. Melanson
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #281
283. More of your goofy...
bullshit, dude.

I ask again. Is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy that even YOU won't embrace it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #283
288. Why call the facts you don't like ''goofy bullshit,'' sduderstadt?
Does considering new information hurt your sensibilities so much that all you can do is automatically descend to name calling? Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #288
300. Dude...
more of your outright (and petty) false accusations.

Please point to where I have called you a single name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #281
285. wait...the CIA killed JFK?
I thought you said it was the FBI....or LBJ...or the secret service....or Poppy Bush.
Can you make up your mind, my good friend and just tell us how it went down and who did it?
You've spent all this time researching...surely you must know by now, eh?
Please just lay it out for all of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #285
286. Did you ever hear of Philip Melanson before this thread, zappaman?
If so, did you read his book on Oswald and the CIA?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #286
287. Dude...
do you read ANYTHING that contradicts your pre-determined conclusion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #287
289. You must've gotten your accounts mixed up, sduderstadt.
You responded for zappaman. Dude.

As for what I read or don't read, I've read the two books reference.
In fact, both are in my library.

Have you read them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #289
290. Dude...
It's pretty cheesy to accuse me of having two accounts, especially since this is a PUBLIC discussion forum in which ANY member may respond to ANY post.

In the meantime, I have read both books, although, in the long run, there are hundreds of such books, so, no, I won't ever claim to have read all the goofy books you have. In fact, have you ever noticed the substantive contradictions among all such books? What do you think that means?

I am, however, willing to bet that I have read far more JFK assassination conspiracy books than you've read anything that remotely questions your faith-based view that Oswald didn't kill JFK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #290
291. Right you are, sduderstadt.
I didn't edit my post to fix a typo so you wouldn't accuse me of stating something and then changing it.

I don't know or care what you do -- it's all tag team.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #291
292. Dude...
the reason you feel like you are being "tag-teamed" is because people, in general, don't buy your goofy bullshit.

Even Ted Kennedy rejected your goofy bullshit. I stand with JFK's brother, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #292
293. Sure, sduderstadt.
If you say so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #293
294. Dude...
Read EMK's memoir. He accepted the findings of the Warren Commission.That means he rejected your goofy bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #294
296. You must've bought the ''Last Word'' upgrade, huh, sduderstadt?
You've said that before about Ted Kennedy's statement in his memoir. I agree with others who say that was for public consumption. Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #296
299. Dude...
now you are accusing Ted Kennedy of being dishonest? Does your cognitive dissonance ever take a break?

Let me make sure I get this straight. Are you suggesting that EMK actually believed in a conspiracy, but denied it in a memoir published posthumously? Is there no end to your libel of Ted Kennedy? Have you even read his memoir?

Fucking unbelievable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #299
344. Ted Kennedy was dishonest?
A dishonest politician? Dude..you really need to understand that what you learned in grade school was crap. Sorry to tell you but life is all not rosey and delicious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #344
345. Are you smearing...
Ted Kennedy too?

Fucking unbelievable!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #345
346. Get over it
Duuuuuude
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 03:22 AM
Response to Reply #346
347. Get over your smear of EMK?
No fucking way, dude. Your despicable behavior should be highlighted for all to see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #296
302. Obviously, Ted Kennedy was in on it
as well as the secret service, the russians, the CIA, Cuba, Jackie, RFK, big oil, defense contractors, the mob, the FBI, LBJ, Poppy Bush and, most likely, the Good Humor man.
Everyone BUT LHO, right my good friend?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #302
303. Apparently, Octafish does not care...
who he smears in his quest for the "truth".

It's truly swinish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #303
304. 'Swinish' is the word I use to describe people who denigrate others, sduderstadt.
It is not a term I use to denigrate people with whom I disagree. Dude.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #304
306. Dude...
Read more carefully. I didn't call you swinish. I called smearing Ted Kennedy swinish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #306
317. Right you are, sduderstadt.
That would be like me stating that your belief that Oswald was the lone assassin is exactly the same as that held by J Edgar Hoover. Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #317
318. WTF are you...
babbling about now, dude?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #293
295. why can't you just tell us who did it and why?
I've read enough books to know there are many theories.
Even all your cute links espouse different motives and perpetrators.
Why don't you just tell us who did and why?
Or maybe you have no idea?
HINT: Ever hear of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #295
297. Your writings bely that, zappaman.
I'm yet to read even one post from you that provides evidence you have read any of the books referenced in discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #297
298. Dodging the question, my friend?
Guess you don't have the courage of your convictions, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #298
305. Going from your writings on DU, it's clear you don't know the first thing about courage, zappaman.
Then, again, going from what you write: It's clear you really don't much about a lot of things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #305
307. ouch
anything to distract from the fact that after 47 years, you still don't know who did it and why.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #307
309. Nothing better to do today, zappaman?
If you want to know who I think "did it," read James Douglass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #305
308. Says someone who...
smears Ted Kennedy posthumously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #308
310. That's about what I expect from you, sduderstadt.
Low. Low. Low.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #310
311. Dude...
do you deny you smeared Ted Kennedy?

Fucking unbelievable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #311
313. Just because you say something is so, doesn't make it so, sduderstadt.
That's what crazy people do. Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #313
319. Dude...
You said that EMK's statement that he accepted the findings of the Warren Commission was for "public consumption".

Do you honestly deny you accused him of lying? Fucking unbelievable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #319
321. Please post the excerpt from the book for us, sduderstadt.
I'd like to see, exactly, how you twist his words and mine.

It's the least you can do. Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #321
327. Y'know, dude...
You REALLY ought to learn to be careful what you ask for. It'll save you a lot of embarrassment.

From pgs. 211-212 of "True Compass" (which you obviously have not read, despite your smear of EMK):

"Late in 1964, Bobby asked me to review the Warren Commission's newly released report on the assassination because emotionally he could not do it. The commission had been established by President Johnson seven days after Jack was killed in Dallas, and was charged with determining who had shot Jack, and why. Johnson appointed Earl Warren, the former California governor and chief justice, to chair the commission. Its conclusion, made public in an 888-page document released in September, was that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone in killing Jack and wounding the Texas governor John Connally, who was riding in the open limousine with my brother and the wives of both men.

When I reached him by telephone, Warren told me he would be glad to give me a briefing and go over the parts of the report that were particularly contentious and likely to generate the most questions from the press and public. I remember the commission's office as large but spare, about half the size of the attorney general's office. I believe that Warren had one aide, perhaps a law clerk, present at the meeting. I almost certainly brought an aide along with me.

Warren gave me a full briefing, as I'd requested. I asked many questions. The whole process took about four hours. Afterward, I reported to Bobby that I accepted the commission's report and thought he should too.

Bobby agreed readily. He did not want to continue to investigate Jack's death. Earl Warren, moreover, was a strong advocate for the accuracy of the report. He told me quite persuasively that he felt a responsibility to the nation to get it right. He personally made the case to me, showing me its weaknesses and walking me through the thinking of the commission members.

I am well aware that many scholars and others have questioned the findings ever since they were released. There have been hundreds of so-called conspiracy theories. I was satisfied that the Warren Commission got it right: satisfied then, and satisfied now. I'm always reluctant to speak for my brother, but I know how strongly Bobby felt that it was imperative that this inquiry be thorough and accurate. In all my subsequent conversations with him, when all was said and done, I believe that Bobby accepted the Warren Commission fings too."


Note: to save you further embarrassment, I deliberately did not bold or otherwise highlight the parts of the excerpt that show you don't know WTF you are talking about.

Now, I have some questions for you, which I rather doubt you'll answer. In fact, I rather suspect that, right now, you hope this thread dies a quiet death and spares you further embarrassment.

1) Is "be careful what you ask for" starting to have more meaning for you?

2) Why haven't you read "True Compass"?

3) Are you ready to apologize for your false accusation of me and Ted Kennedy?

4) With regard to the question you raise in the OP, how does it feel to have Ted Kennedy posthumously dismiss your 47 year quest for the "truth" and expose your goofy bullshit?

If I were you, I'd lay low for awhile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #327
330. ''If I were you, I'd lay low for awhile'' (sic), sduderstadt.
That's great. What about pages 208-211, 213, 224, 230, 339? Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #330
331. Dude..
Edited on Sat Mar-19-11 05:48 PM by SDuderstadt
the question is whether EMK accepted the Warren Commission's findings and rejected conspiracy theories.

Are you denying that's just what I proved????
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #331
339. Are you ill, sduderstadt?
You keep repeating the same thing over and over. And you're still wrong about what I said and what Sen. Kennedy said. Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #339
340. Dude...
I provided you with EMK's EXACT words.

Your game-playing would be a hoot if it weren't so smarmy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #339
341. wow
no cute little links showing what Teddy said?
guess you got nothing.
par for the course...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #339
389. Octafish, my good friend
wouldn't it be easier to admit you were wrong?
maybe put it in your journal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #330
334. looks to me like Teddy
agreed with the warren commission.
you gonna post anything that contradicts that or just continue the bullshit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #330
335. Dude...
on pg. 339, EMK again confirmed to a group of people that he accepted the Warren Commission report.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just admit that you are dead wrong?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #330
353. Well, well, well....
Edited on Sun Mar-20-11 04:17 PM by SDuderstadt
I believe my prediction has, so far, come true. Most reasonable people, confronted with EMK's actual words, would simply admit precisely what I laid out: Kennedy accepted the conclusions of the Warren Commission and thus, by definition, rejected any and all conspiracy theories. Of course, no one ever accused you of being reasonable, dude.

I rather suspect that you hope YOUR OP will die a quiet death and not very people take notice of your EMK gaffe and smear, dude.

Too funny.

P.S. What do you think those other pages show? Are you suggesting that EMK repudiated his statement?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #330
386. And Octafish continues to...
abandon his own OP.

He must be searching desperately, hoping that EMK recanted his own memoir.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #386
387. but-- but-- but what about page 224?!!
Oh, snap. That doesn't really help his case. If he even has a case.

As for page 230... it's hard to shake the impression that Octafish was reading the index, badly. That page does show up under Kennedy, John F.: assassination of, but that is the extent of its relevance.

It was a bizarre move anyway. Were we supposed to conclude that page 212 was "for public consumption" but the other pages he mentions weren't? Has someone claimed that those pages contain a steganographic message implicating George Bush the elder? WTF?

The truly weird thing is that Octafish could simply have said something like, "I haven't read True Compass and I'm not familiar with Ted Kennedy's thoughts about this issue, but if he endorsed the findings of the Warren Commission, then I respectfully disagree." Even if he secretly suspects that Ted was blowing smoke for some reason, there is no percentage in saying so. My guess is that he viscerally can't believe that anyone who knows and cares about the JFK assassination could actually disagree with him.

But that's alright, that's OK, he has a DU Journal!!! So somehow this must all make sense and demonstrate his superior intellectual honesty. I'm sure it does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #387
388. poor guy
I actually feel bad for him.
It must suck to have every claim refuted.
Oh well, at least he has a journal.
And we know what that means!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #310
314. Hey
You're the one who implied Teddy was lying.
Yeah, it's fun to watch the NCAA's and watch you chase your tail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #314
316. You obviously have a talent for watching television, zappaman.
When you get a moment, try a book. Anything from Melanson or Newman would be a big help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #316
320. Dude...
Are you saying that there is something wrong with watching a documentary on TV?

And, as I have said before, I have read both books you mention and, in fact, I own and have read at least one other book by Newman. BTW, my library contains over 1,000 volumes. However, unlike you, it isn't 100% goofy conspiracist bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #320
324. Send me a bibliography, sduderstadt.
On second thought, no thanks. 1,000 books of yours wouldn't be enough near to an explanation. Dude.

Regarding your television show: How about a link to it or to any bit of the experimental data from it? LOL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #324
328. Your games are getting really tiring, dude...
I am not going to send you a bibliography, nor did I say my entire library is devoted to books about the assassination. Regarding the DOCUMENTARY, I already provided the link to you once, so it's obvious that you never watched it, yet you shoot your mouth off as if you did. The methodology is quite well explained within the documentary, despite your effort to trivialize it and I have AGAIN provided a link to it below.

Hopefully, you'll learn to quit embarrassing yourself, as you did in the interchange about EMK's acceptance of the Warren Commission report.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-86736668725711...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #328
332. Thank you for your link to a TV show, sduderstadt.
For those interested in learning something about what the assassination means, a lecture from Michael Parenti: The Gangster Nature of the State.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #332
333. Funny how you keep trying to...
Edited on Sat Mar-19-11 05:52 PM by SDuderstadt
trivialize it as a "tv show", rather than admit it is a documentary, dude.

Above and beyond that, do you honestly think a lecture by Parenti addresses the question of CE 399?

Nice attempted deflection, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #316
325. Read Melanson
and Marrs and Lane and Lifton and Groden and Russo and Livingstone and Bugliosi.
Probably some others too but not Douglas.
Tell me, my good friend, have you read the Warren Commission Report or Bugliosi's book?
Or do you just read the ones that support whatever cockamamie theory it is you subscribe to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #325
336. So, reading all those works and you still believe Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin, zappaman?
It's interesting what you've retained.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #336
337. yes
every hear the term "convergence of evidence" before this thread, my good friend?
look it up and then apply it to the JFK assassination and see what happens.
By the way, I was at the first conference held in Dallas regarding the JFK assassination back in 1991.
That's where I met and talked/drank all night with Gus Russo and Robert Groden and a few others I don't remember(they were fun).
Where you there?
Back then, I thought there was a conspiracy because, like you, I had never read any books saying it wasn't.
One of the funniest moments was sitting next to Cyril Wecht when Gerald Posner was speaking.
He turned to me and said "Who invited this asshole."
Ahhhh...good times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #337
338. If you say so, zappaman.
Do others you claim where there share the same memories?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #338
381. I asked you a question
have you read the WCR or Bugliosi's book?
were you there at the conference, my good friend?
maybe we met!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #381
390. Why would I want to meet you, zappaman?
It'd be like, "Whaddya know?"

And then, silence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #390
391. Nah, it would be the one place you would fit in!
You know how when you go to parties everyone avoids eye contact and you hear them mutter "here comes that JFK kook again"?
That doesn't happen at the conference.
Everyone is welcome.
I had a guy show me on the diorama how LBJ leapt out of his limo with 2 six-shooters and run across the plaza. He shot JFK and then ran back to his limo.
It must be true cuz this guy kept a journal!!!!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #297
312. "bely"
Edited on Sat Mar-19-11 03:24 PM by SDuderstadt
LOL!

It's "belie", dude. This is almost as funny as your complaint that TLC aired a documentary on TV. Duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #312
315. You seem to derive great pleasure from pointing out a spelling error, sduderstadt.
It's, eh, interesting to read what gives you joy. Dude.

FYI: Belie isn't a word I use much, for good reason.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #315
322. No, dude...
You shouldn't try to use words you haven't mastered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #322
323. Why pretend, sduderstadt? You're exposed. Dude.
Sen. Kennedy refers, directly, to his brother John's assassination more than once in his memoir.

What does he write about the assassination, sduderstadt? Do you know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #323
326. oh me! pick me, my good friend!
Senator Kennedy said he had a full briefing by Earl Warren, the chief justice, on the commissions investigation into the Nov. 22, 1963, shooting in Dallas. He pronounced himself convinced that the Warren Commission got it right and said he was satisfied then, and satisfied now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #323
329. "You're exposed"...
No, you are, dude.

Read post # 327. The joke's on you, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #275
282. I would comment on the whole drawn out reply
But there is little substance in regards to the clip in what you posted.

No, don't listen to what LBJ is saying, I'll tell you what he is actually saying.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #282
349. Not really interested in any comment you might have to make, period. This sums it up:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MrMickeysMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-11 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
343. I see this topic is hot... It's because you're not wasting time...
My interest in who shot JFK stems from the early work of those people like Jim Garrison and Fletcher Prouty, who have revealed advances during the 50 years of research.

Some very solid evidence, which later on was verified by the ARB is right in front of everyone, but over and over again, the 3 card monty distractors and bullies do a lot of harm and continue a lot of misinformation. It's really a shame because there has been a lot of unclassified evidence that vindicates Garrison, who the CIA agreed with.

There are many ways that are clearly show Oswald was not the gunman, but definitely was connected with the CIA. There is acoustic evidence the dispels there being 3 shots. There is video evidence that the shots came from the 6th floor book depository.

I'm one to link a lot of JFK here, and I find it quite interesting that some DUers make it a point to believe the lone nutter theories. I think some people in this forum show how clever they can model the insults to anyone talking about Garrison and Prouty. These folks are great models for a set of grade school bullies, that is.

Look, anyone who has spent the time to read and then follow up with personal interviews on Black Op Radio can check out for themselves the background of any book written by the contemporaries of today's research... anyone who spends any amount of time reading and learning understands that the murder of this president was the biggest lie ever perpetrated on the American people.

Those with a mission to make this history "forgotten" are doomed by people like you and me, Octafish. They are already being proven wrong and they continue to look like fools.

I've got a great picture of a fool for you, but you've probably seen it here already.

Meanwhile, these same fools have WASTED 50 fucking Godamned years playing stupid word games while they could have been seeking WHY JFK was snuffed out with half his brains spewed over the limousine with the resulting backlash on what was to be a MOST progressive nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #343
348. Garrison was a power-abusing fraud with a severe mental illness*, and Prouty was about as credible
as the following claim, and whether you believe it:

"it would not surprise me if this was a 'Secret Team' operation" - That's Prouty, spouting off about the death of Princess Diana.

Laughable stuff

"Some very solid evidence, which later on was verified by the ARB is right in front of everyone" - Nonsense. Let's have that evidence, please, posted here, with verifiable links to credible sources. Hint: "credible" doesn't mean some guy enamored of the amusingly jejune "Black Op Radio" with a blog somewhere.

"It's really a shame because there has been a lot of unclassified evidence that vindicates Garrison, who the CIA agreed with" - False, twice over: first, Garrison has never been vindicated by the available facts or actual evidence as regards his actions in the Clay Shaw trial - indeed, to the contrary, he has rightly been discredited by actual scholars as a man who repeatedly abused his office and the power invested in it to a degree that approached the criminal. He should have been brought up on charges by the DOJ on Federal abuse-of-power complaints. Second, the historical record shows that the CIA never "agreed with" Garrison about anything, or even bothered to comment on him at all. They rightly saw him, I reckon, as a silly demagogue and mentally-ill quack, unworthy of public comment by their bureaucracy. Again, link please, to credible sources stating otherwise. Hint: "credible" doesn't mean some guy enamored of the amusingly jejune "Black Op Radio" with blog somewhere.

"There are many ways that are clearly show Oswald was not the gunman" - False. Demonstrate one.

"but definitely was connected with the CIA" - False. Offer proof, please, using credible sources. Hint: "Black Op Radio" is not considered a credible source by the vast majority of actual historical scholars.

"There is acoustic evidence the (Sic) dispels there being 3 shots" - False. The evidence has been evaluated over the years, and the current scientific consensus is that there were three shots - just like the Warren Commission said.

"Look, anyone who has spent the time to read and then follow up with personal interviews on Black Op Radio can check out for themselves the background of any book written by the contemporaries of today's research... anyone who spends any amount of time reading and learning understands that the murder of this president was the biggest lie ever perpetrated on the American people" - To the contrary: one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated on the American people has been the lie that JFK was assassinated as the result of a conspiracy of any kind: he wasn't. Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, and with malice aforethought, was the sole murderer of the 35th president of the United States. Nevertheless, the conspiracy theory complex is a billion dollar a year industry, and a disgrace to the notion of historical truth. It has attracted any number of frauds, hucksters, and outright lunatics over the years, and they continue to make bank off of a steady supply of P.T. Barnum-type customers, but the community of "Researchers" is pretty much dominated by a group of folks who have abandoned conventional Western religion for a version of conspiracy theory-related theology. It's a curious, fascinating, and ultimately sad, in manifest ways, phenomenon.

"Meanwhile, these same fools have WASTED 50 fucking Godamned (Sic) years" - Classy.



*"One Army doctor concluded he had a "severe and disabling psychoneurosis"
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MrMickeysMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #343
350. I don't think I can edit my "video evidence"....
... and I certainly can't respond to whomever I have on "ignore" (only a few persons, fortunately), but my earlier statement should be corrected to say there is video evidence that the shots DID NOT come from the 6th floor...."

Sorry about that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #350
351. "there is video evidence that the shots DID NOT come from the 6th floor...."
Edited on Sun Mar-20-11 03:06 PM by zappaman
bullshit.

ETA: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #351
354. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #354
355. Dude...
Edited on Sun Mar-20-11 04:48 PM by SDuderstadt
quit being silly. Wait...that might be impossible.

In the meantime, calling "bullshit" is not calling someone a liar. It says, "I don't believe you". Hopefully, one day you'll understand the difference.

Since you seem to magically know who alerts on posts that violate DU rules, could you please tell me who gets my posts deleted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #355
356. What's a "pusts"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #356
357. Take the ending "ts" off and...
it's what your smears of EMK are filled with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #357
358. My smears?
Point to more than one so-called smear I have on here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #358
359. Check the EMK sub-thread....
dude.

P.S. I'm not going to waste all day going back and forth with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #359
360. Ha
I questioned his honesty. That's a lot of smears there duuuuuude. You are so easy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #360
362. Yes, dude...
you "questioned the honesty" of the grieving brother of a murdered U.S. President writing his memoir.

Classy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #362
363. I questioned the honesty of a politician
I'm guessing you are quite young so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and figure that you will learn a thing or two in years to come.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #363
364. Dude...
Your guess is woefully wrong and your despicable smear of EMK shows you for what you are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #363
366. do you have any evidence
of something completely different he said?
and if you did, would it matter since you question his honesty?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #366
370. Would it matter if I did?
It would just be twisted around to say what he "actually" meant when he was saying what he said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #370
372. is that your way of saying you don't
Edited on Sun Mar-20-11 05:33 PM by zappaman
so you're just here to fight?
thanks for clearing that up.
I think Apocalysehow has the right idea regarding you.
Maybe Sdude will stop taking the bait...we'll see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #372
375. Hey, Z-man....
ever heard of the "long con"?

Shhhhhh!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #372
376. You guys would never stop taking the bait
It seems to give you guys some sort of unnatural rise to come in here and defend the truth, justice and the American way..lol.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #370
373. I hereby nominate this post as the winner of...
the unintentionally ironic post of, at least, the decade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #373
377. And I thought this one would have won
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #354
361. yes I am calling bullshit
Edited on Sun Mar-20-11 05:08 PM by zappaman
video evidence?
:rofl:
by the way, what page are you up to with bugliosi's book?
or have you quit and just come here to fight?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #361
365. No, he's come here to....
smear Ted Kennedy.

Fucking unbelievable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #365
368. Yup
I came to DU 8 years ago just for this opportunity to "smear" Ed Kennedy on this thread. Speaking of "Fucking unbelievable".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #368
371. No one's talking about anything but the present....
dude.

What's fucking unbelievable is your lack of reading comprehension.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #371
378. Questioning my "reading comprehension."
Next you'll be saying "what are you babbling about dude?" You're so-called skills are diminishing there sparky.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #378
379. "You're (sic) so-called skills"
Another unintentionally ironic post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #379
380. lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #365
369. nah, apocalypsehow figured him out a while ago
Edited on Sun Mar-20-11 05:19 PM by zappaman
just comes to fight and pretends to "ask questions".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #369
374. And why are you here?
To do your patriotic duty and stand up and speak for the billions of people who really know the truth about everything that is questioned by the handful of nutcases through the years? Or is it to debunk the 10 or so people who come here in the dungeon of the Democratic Underground because you feel the undying need to show what a brilliant debunker that you truly are?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #374
382. nope
just asking for evidence when people spew bullshit.
I would do the same if someone said they had proof Obama wasn't a US citizen.
Just in this thread alone we have heard about "video evidence showing the shot didn't come from the 6th floor", theories that the CIA and/or the russians did it, people saying Ted Kennedy was lying in his memoirs(but can't point to any words that contradict them), and "ice bullets containing cyanide".
You've already said Ted Kennedy was lying, so can you prove it?
No, of course not.
But, you like to fight so fight away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #382
383. .
:boring:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #361
367. I'm at about 5%
After the assassination and the aftermath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MrMickeysMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #351
384. No...
I don't think you understand.

There is no video evidence, unless somehow you've managed to link the reference. Perhaps it's inside the little laughing guy who accompanies your accomplished dissertation of the subject?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #384
385. Yes I understand
your words:
"but my earlier statement should be corrected to say there is video evidence that the shots DID NOT come from the 6th floor...."

please present the video evidence that the shots DID NOT come from the 6th floor.

don't look here :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MrMickeysMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #385
392. What are you laughing about?
There is no video evidence that has EVER been presented that disputes a shot from the opposite way. If you are aware of video evidence that supports there was, perhaps you can share it.

The way some people act like the Kennedy assassination was the result of a lone gunman is ludicrous. It's preferred ignorance. And anyone who prefers to be ignorant about the Kennedy assassination should do their homework.

You and a few of your friends might try that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #392
393. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
MrMickeysMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #393
394. Nice...
You know how to ridicule and repeat the same words I do in a previous post.

Here's a crayon and some paper... write down this Amazon order and ask your ma if she'll buy it for you...

http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Assassination-Records-Revi...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #394
395. The proposition on the table is straightforward: LINK. TO. THE. VIDEO. EVIDENCE. YOU. ASSERT. EXISTS
IN. YOUR. REPLY. ABOVE.

To wit:

"There is video evidence that the shots came from the 6th floor book depository" - and, yes, we understand you meant that there is "video evidence" that the shots didn't come from the sixth floor: everybody gets it, MrMickeysMom, that you made a typo.

Now: link to the evidence backing up the assertion you meant to make, and please cease these tedious dodges away from doing so. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 06:12 AM
Response to Reply #394
396. it isn't as if you're taking the high road
In your preceding comment, you ridiculed everyone in the world who disagrees with your opinion that Oswald wasn't the sole shooter.

Do you actually believe that Ted Kennedy, when he said that he accepted the findings of the Warren Commission, either was lying or was revealing "preferred ignorance" about who shot his brother? Really?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #396
397. Take out of context, much, ontheotherhand?
"In your preceding comment, you ridiculed everyone in the world who disagrees with your opinion that Oswald wasn't the sole shooter."

Where did MrMickeysMom ridicule anyone, let alone "everyone"?

It's clear to me that you know a hell of a lot about the low road.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #397
399. help her out, my good friend
surely, such a scholar of the JFK assassination as yourself has heard of this "video evidence that proves the shots did not come from the 6th floor of the book depository."?
Please link to it and end this nonsense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MrMickeysMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #399
411. The nonsense is in your reply...
... Don't you understand the evidence presented to the Church Committee and ARB conclude serious flaws with timing, auditory evidence when coupled with the "3 shots" and in FACT admitted a 4th shot, "probably" from behind the picket fence.

Are you so absent of logic that you can't say the words, "the Warren Commission and officials at a high level contributed to the FUCKING SERIOUS FLAW?

Are you THAT FUCKING out of touch with evidentiary documents coming from our own government, let alone all the others who have explained in full detail about it on my up-thread post?

Yeeah, stunning and cunning, you are...

Other than your inaccurate description of everything you said, I'll be darned... didn't know you were a good friend of his... Geez... see how liberal some people are around here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #411
416. still waiting
for you to link to the "video evidence that shows the shots did not come from the 6th floor depository."
Why is this so hard to understand?
If there is "video evidence" showing the "shots did not come from the 6th floor depository", why can't you point to the link so we can see this "video evidence"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #397
401. did you read the post?
The way some people act like the Kennedy assassination was the result of a lone gunman is ludicrous. It's preferred ignorance. And anyone who prefers to be ignorant about the Kennedy assassination should do their homework.

If you want to parse "ridicule," be my guest. Given your handwaving about your own posts, my expectations are not high.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MrMickeysMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #401
412. Geez.... do you NOT like being told to do your homework..
.... Sorry if I sound like your ma.... but, if you prefer to live in ignorance of this subject, maybe it's time you listened to someone tell you to "do your homework".


I know you can read, so you're half way there!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #412
414. what basis do you have for presuming my ignorance?
Oh, right. I agree with Ted Kennedy. Shame on me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MrMickeysMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #414
418. See post #414
Enough said
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-23-11 04:58 AM
Response to Reply #418
421. I hope this cleared things up for Octafish, at least
It amazes me how you folks can brag so much about your knowledge of an issue, bring so little of it to a discussion, and think you're strutting your stuff, or whatever it is you think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-11 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #421
424.  What have you brought, ontheotherhand?
Really, besides your opinion? Not one link. Not one quote. Not one source.

It'd be interesting to run a content analysis on these replies to measure what
independent readers understand them to mean.

Here's what you've posted on this thread (hope I didn't miss any):


82. huh?

What part of this makes it suspicious that Bush would visit Dallas? Would it be exculpatory if he hadn't?

94. FWIW I'm about to hit the road...

I imagine I'll be mostly offline until sometime on Sunday.

114. wait, so he was in Tyler, or he wasn't?

Are you positing that Bush was in Dallas for the assassination, flew to Tyler so he could call and say he was in Tyler, then flew back to Dallas in order to fly to Houston? I'm having a hard time following this.

Why would Bush bother to call the FBI just to record in government files that he was in Tyler and was headed to Dallas?*

Why would Bush volunteer -- or why would the FBI request -- information about where he had been? Wouldn't it be a lot more pertinent to record where he expected to be, in case the FBI had follow-up questions?

*Ooh, I have an idea: maybe it was a deliberate decoy, so that conspiracists decades hence could say how suspicious it was that the document existed, and the rest of us could facepalm. I mean, really, can you see how weird this looks to someone who doesn't already agree with you?

79. why should it bother more people?

Edited on Fri Mar-11-11 01:52 PM by OnTheOtherHand
So Bush, over an hour after the assassination, called the FBI and told them (inter alia) that he was headed to Dallas. Is it intrinsically suspicious for a Texas oilman to visit Dallas? I cannot tell why you expect people to be impressed by this document.

ETA: eh, I'll leave it. No shame in independently having the same question.

85. I agree with that

It would be nice if, at the end of the day, we could just shake our heads and say, "Wow, I cannot understand why you believe that, but at least you care."

I'm not saying that I know how to get there, especially with the few people whom I'm not sure actually do care. But I have little doubt about Octafish and SDuderstadt. They are, in a sense, worthy adversaries.

113. FWIW, I thought your post was great

I don't believe in giving serial smearers a free pass.

It's hard to imagine that this forum could ever become a bastion of respectful discussion. What sometimes happens is that little brush fires of respectful discussion break out. That isn't likely if we treat every interchange prima facie as another skirmish in an eternal pitched battle, but it also isn't likely if we don't show the self-respect to be annoyed when people slander us.

From a game-theoretic standpoint, it seems like some version of (in the technical sense) Tit-for-Tat is called for. I always try to be ready to treat people with the same respect they show me. Maybe a little more, because an online environment lends itself to a ratcheting of hostilities. Not a lot more, because there is just no point.

145. well, the subject/verb thing was kinda cheap

I missed the deleted post, so I actually don't know who threw fuel on this particular fire.

147. yes, and I'm not sure the preceding comment came out right, either

I'm guessing that johnnie meant to post something about questioning the conclusions of the Warren Report, not about questioning the dead witnesses. Just a goof. I think we've all had wee-hour posts come out a bit sideways. If we're going to get chippy, I say let's do it over something more interesting -- like bizarro-world accusations that you're paid to post. (But I don't think he has made any of those.)

Just my two cents, feel free to ignore. I like to confuse the hard-core conspiracists by pretending that we actually have individual minds of our own. :)

143. one unfortunate thing

Believe it or not, it's pretty common for people to express really strong and (IMHO) bizarre opinions, and then to say that they were just "asking questions."

It's the sort of behavior that can give asking questions a bad name. I think you'll find that the vast majority of posters here really have no problem with honest questions, per se. Sometimes we may have some trouble recognizing them as such.

Sometimes I think that SDuderstadt is overreacting, but then again, I remember how I felt about the first half-dozen times I tried to explain why the 2004 exit polls didn't provide much evidence that Kerry had won. Some people were so sure they knew otherwise, and that anyone who disagreed with them must be evil, and that somehow they exemplified openmindedness and critical thinking. Some of them said absolutely brutal things about me and close friends; I tried not to respond in kind.

Lots of people really only heard one side of that issue, and to this day they just assume that anyone with a clue knows that Kerry won. They tend to say things that remind me of those earlier fights, and sometimes I jump to the conclusion that they are just hell-bent on trashing anyone who disagrees, when actually they just didn't really know that there could be any possible basis for disagreement.

Part of the problem is that some outright misinformation became widely accepted. For instance, lots of people "learned" that the exit polls had always been "uncannily accurate" until 2004, or maybe until 2000. That simply isn't true. It's pretty useful to know that that simply isn't true. But after the first half dozen flame wars about it, you might say I learned to lose my temper in advance. It has nothing to do with trying to repress questions about voting machines and election results -- and, yes, I get really ticked off when people claim it does.

I do try to refrain from gratuitously pushing other people's buttons, but I'm sure I do it all the time.

200. (eyes)

I don't know if it's "psychic foreclosure" or what, but it does seem strange that you find it so suspicious that anyone else might care enough to disagree with you.

203. yeah, I think it quacks like psychic foreclosure

But I haven't read enough of Octafish's posts to have much of an opinion about his motivation, and I'm not planning to.

207. I'll file that under "sour grapes"

I doubt you have any idea where I'm coming from -- and it isn't as if you did any better at answering my questions than you did at answering SDuderstadt's.

219. we all have a lot to learn, I thought

The trouble is, I'm not learning anything from you. Your misdirected insults won't change that, and apparently random topic changes won't either. It's mildly interesting to watch, but I would prefer it if you cared enough to make sense.

222. in real life, I tried to catch your back

And SDuderstadt is probably still snickering at me about it. But at least it illustrates just how hollow your complaints are.

As far as I can figure out, in the world according to Octafish:

If no one challenges your posts, it implies that your arguments can't be refuted.

If one person challenges your posts, it reveals that he is hell-bent on defending the Warren Commission and/or the "BFEE."

If two or more people challenge your posts, that is "tag team tactics... to derail discussion."

I don't really see what "greater point" you are making, beyond heads you win, tails everyone else loses.

Yeah, I admit it: Even assuming for the sake of argument that Boettcher's death four years after his book criticizing Rev. Moon was published is suspicious, the connection to the JFK assassination isn't obvious to me.

387. but-- but-- but what about page 224?!!

Oh, snap. That doesn't really help his case. If he even has a case.

As for page 230... it's hard to shake the impression that Octafish was reading the index, badly. That page does show up under Kennedy, John F.: assassination of, but that is the extent of its relevance.

It was a bizarre move anyway. Were we supposed to conclude that page 212 was "for public consumption" but the other pages he mentions weren't? Has someone claimed that those pages contain a steganographic message implicating George Bush the elder? WTF?

The truly weird thing is that Octafish could simply have said something like, "I haven't read True Compass and I'm not familiar with Ted Kennedy's thoughts about this issue, but if he endorsed the findings of the Warren Commission, then I respectfully disagree." Even if he secretly suspects that Ted was blowing smoke for some reason, there is no percentage in saying so. My guess is that he viscerally can't believe that anyone who knows and cares about the JFK assassination could actually disagree with him.

But that's alright, that's OK, he has a DU Journal!!! So somehow this must all make sense and demonstrate his superior intellectual honesty. I'm sure it does.

396. it isn't as if you're taking the high road

In your preceding comment, you ridiculed everyone in the world who disagrees with your opinion that Oswald wasn't the sole shooter.

Do you actually believe that Ted Kennedy, when he said that he accepted the findings of the Warren Commission, either was lying or was revealing "preferred ignorance" about who shot his brother? Really?

401. did you read the post?

The way some people act like the Kennedy assassination was the result of a lone gunman is ludicrous. It's preferred ignorance. And anyone who prefers to be ignorant about the Kennedy assassination should do their homework.

If you want to parse "ridicule," be my guest. Given your handwaving about your own posts, my expectations are not high.

414. what basis do you have for presuming my ignorance?

Oh, right. I agree with Ted Kennedy. Shame on me.

421. I hope this cleared things up for Octafish, at least

It amazes me how you folks can brag so much about your knowledge of an issue, bring so little of it to a discussion, and think you're strutting your stuff, or whatever it is you think.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-11 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #424
425. What a petty, smallminded...
post. I am certain that OTOH knows precisely what he posted without you "cataloging" it for him.

Is it really any wonder to you why you are regarded so lightly here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-11 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #425
426. To be regarded lightly by you is a small disappointment, sduderstadt.
Very small. Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-11 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #426
427. Says the guy who smeared...
Ted Kennedy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-11 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #427
429. Only in your mind, sduderstadt.
I'm still open to hear the message you told me about from your friend in the Kennedy family. Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-11 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #429
430. Dude...
Do you honestly deny that you smeared Ted Kennedy??

Fucking unbelievable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-11 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #426
428. Self-deleted...
Edited on Fri Mar-25-11 10:07 AM by SDuderstadt
Accidental dupe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #412
417. maybe one day you can make it halfway there
as it is, we are all still waiting for you to back up your claim of "video evidence that the shots did not come from the 6th floor book depository".
all your cute cartoons aren't helping your claim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MrMickeysMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #417
419. Well... I guess you should do this...
Look at the Zapruder film while listening to the dictaphone evidence that the ARB and Church committee admitted was incongruent with Oswald firing the kill shot.

The best you can say about this is that ONE is NOT congruent in time with the OTHER. Tis true, Virginia... The entire Warren Commission was flawed and even the bias comment on Wikipedia backs this shit up.

So, there you are, zappaman. By the way, your namesake, Frank is probably laughing his ass off somewhere at the nonsense questions some people STILL need to have explained to them.... after all these years.

You can't stand that some people continue to bring this to light. Light bothers some people I guess.

So, pull the shades and listen to a Mothers of Invention CD and chill. You don't have to come to the aid of your little friends anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-23-11 02:33 AM
Response to Reply #419
420. wow. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #350
352. There is? Great! You've just cracked the case! And now I'm sure you're going to post that "video
evidence" in a follow-up reply forthwith, right? With, like, a link to said "video evidence" that backs up your assertion, right? Right? :shrug:

I will be looking forward to it with baited breath! :thumbsup:

Though I think I'll hedge my bets and not actually hold my breath.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #352
398. Besides you and your tag team mates, no one has claimed to have 'cracked the case,' apocalypsehow.
When you repeat that line, it helps create the impression that someone has claimed something that is not so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #398
402. Which is precisely my point...
dude. Nearly five decades of "sleuthing" and you guys have got exactly dick in the way of results...no breakthroughs, no smoking guns...nada.

I gotta hand it to you, dude. Not only have you done more to expose the incompetence of the JFK assassination goofy conspiracy theory bullshit "community" with this OP, you fumbled your EMK smear so badly, you can't even defend it.

Oh, BTW...bad news. Len Osanic has had to cancel the Waikiki circle jerk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #402
404. Waikiki cancelled?!?!?!
What happened?
Couldn't find enough "researchers" to agree on one unified theory?
Let's not forget how many theories and suspects there are out there...they can't all be right, can they?
The best thing to do would be to look at the actual evidence and see where it leads.
Oh, look....it leads right to LHO!
Weird!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #404
406. No one ever accused conspiracists of...
Comprehending the concept of convergence of evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #402
407. This post sums it up precisely. If I *were* a devout "Researcher," I'd cringe every time I saw an OP
or reply from any number of folks on "my" side: I'd brace to be embarrassed by the content of those same OP's or replies with every outing, and the credibility damage they might do to the CT'er aka "Researcher" cause. 99% of the time, I'd be right.

Thankfully, I don't have that problem for obvious reasons. I'm just thankful some of the more prolific "Researchers" hereabouts aren't "Debunkers" instead - we'd be in trouble!

Great post. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MrMickeysMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #402
413. Were you invited?
Edited on Tue Mar-22-11 05:52 PM by MrMickeysMom
... and just who told you it was a "circle jerk"?

Only the true fans keep up with this conference, so thanks for revealing your sorrow over it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #413
415. still waiting
for the "video evidence that proves the shots did not come from the 6th floor book depository".
Your words...so why are you running from them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-24-11 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #402
422. The only one engaging in a circle jerk is you, sduderstadt.
You set up a straw man and argue away with yourself until satisfied. Claim all you want for or against -- it doesn't matter, as long as you "win" your "argument." Go for it.

As for what I've added to what we know, you are correct: probably little new. The thing is, I would like to share information about the assassination of President Kennedy with those who don't know very much about the subject. While that should be the job of the nation's news media and academia, they are compromised.

For those new to the story:



CIA memo: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

CIA Instructions to Media Assets

This document caused quite a stir when it was discovered in 1977. Dated 4/1/67, and marked "DESTROY WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED", this document is a stunning testimony to how concerned the CIA was over investigations into the Kennedy assassination.

CIA Document #1035-960, marked "PSYCH" for presumably Psychological Warfare Operations, in the division "CS", the Clandestine Services, sometimes known as the "dirty tricks" department.



RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:
    a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

    b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing that Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)

4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
    a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)

    b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent--and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.

    c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.

    d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.

    e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.

    f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

    g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)

5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.

SOURCE: http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html



FYI: This is not to say the CIA murdered President Kennedy, sduderstadt. It does not clear the agency or its officers, either. It just is what it is: Something we should know more about. Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-24-11 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #422
423. Dude...
Edited on Thu Mar-24-11 08:56 AM by SDuderstadt
what does this have to do with your smear of Ted Kennedy? Also, could you please point to any strawman argument I presented? Please be specific.

I certainly understand why you're touchy about Len Osanic's (now cancelled) Waikiki circle jerk. I would be too, if I were you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #398
403. That is because the "case" has already definitively been "cracked": Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone
Edited on Tue Mar-22-11 02:06 PM by apocalypsehow
and with malice aforethought, was the sole perpetrator involved in the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy: the facts say so; the available evidence says so; every scrap of reliable data says so.

But let's put aside the sarcastic nature of my post above and deal with your reply as if I took it with the slightest grain of sincerity: wrong, Octafish, per usual. When someone states that there is "available video evidence" that shows the shots did not come from the sixth floor of the TSBD, they are asserting that they have evidence that will go far toward "cracking the case." Or, "re-cracking" it, as the case may be.

MrMickeysMom made such a claim, and has been asked repeatedly to provide linked, verifiable evidence of the same. She has refused. If any false impression was created, it is she who did so. And now she refuses to back said assertion up with proof. If you really have a beef about the matter you should go talk to her about it, not me. :thumbsup:



Edit: typo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #352
400. re: baited breath
It's actually "bated breath". Just saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #400
405. Uninterested in any observation or criticism you might have to make, period. Summed up here:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #405
408. But interested enough to keep posting that link
Instead of ignoring my posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #408
409. Yes, I am quite keen on keeping others up to speed and very aware of *why* I am quite dismissive of
the contents of any reply you make on DU, johnnie: therefore, I relish every opportunity to post that link. Here, I'm going to do it again:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Thanks for the further opportunity to do so. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #409
410. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
431. Octafish, you know the JFK assassination
will trouble me until the day I die. I continue to value your posts on this subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #431
432. The JFK assassination is one of the most...
exhaustively investigated crimes of all times. If you're openminded and want to relieve some of the trouble you're experiencing, watch "Unsolved History : JFK : Beyond the Magic Bullet".

Science provides answers for the doubts many have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #432
433. a tv show?
how drool.
if it's not in a book or on a conspiracy website, how can it be trusted?
Do you have a bibliography or a journal?
TV....pffffht.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #433
434. I see you're doing your...
O.P. impersonation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-30-11 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #434
435. if only
I could make blue words that linked to bullshit sites...
:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-05-12 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #431
436. Thanks, Blue_In_AK!
The United States has become a very different place than what is was before November 22, 1963.

Imagine what we could have accomplished were President Kennedy to have lived?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AlwaysQuestion Donating Member (412 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-05-12 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #436
437. How could I not agree that the JFK is anything but a closed issue
Octafish, the chances of your being right on the mark relative to the JFK travesty is exceedingly high. Anyone who EVER believes "the goods" pushed upon them by any government administration in the absence of an independent, transparent investigation (including all witnesses placed under oath and all physical evidence accounted for) and the results adjudicated by yet another independent body is either a fool or a tool. I mean, the very premise that a government is honest with those over which they have control is at once hysterically funny and false. Same thing with 911, this entire debate could have been put to rest a decade ago but it wasn't. End story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 29th 2014, 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 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