|
|
 March 15, 2011, 11:44:03 PM
|
Newbie
Posts: 1
|
Hi Everybody,
I am a newbie and wanted to introduce myself and get some ideas from people who know more than I do right now.
I realize everyone needs to form their own opinion but I also know opinions are shaped by what you read and I want to enter this fascinating but horribly sad incident with an open mind
That is why I am reading one book anti conspiracy and ordered one that is pro conspiracy.
and would like some thoughts on good books to read on the JFK Assassination. I did some research and read several reviews on books. Although I do not know very much at this point, I am sure there are some really weird and bizarre theories out there. Right now, I want to stay away from them so I can get closer to the truths.
Here are my question:
1)What are a couple of good books that will help me and don't distort facts? Any very good links online that would be helpful?
2)I just ordered "Crossfire" because several sources said it was a good, basic book for a newbie to read before reading anything more heavy duty. Any thoughts on the book?
3)Can you order your own video disc of the actually footage from various photos and the video taken by Zapruder and anything else out there that are is REAL?
4) I am reading currently "Reclaiming History" I read by some historians that although Vincent Bugliosi is a prosecutor and has a biased that there was no conspiracy (so i am reading with that understanding) that the book was still a good read and very detailed and factual on all that happened. Any thoughts on the book ?
5) With all the stuff out there especially the videos on You Tube generally speaking regardless of your pro or con conspiracy what are some warning signs to look for if I am trying to stay away from people distorting the incident?
Thank you
-------------------------
|
|
|
 Reply |
|
|
|
|
March 21, 2011, 03:51:54 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 3791
Well, somebody did it.
|
The most recent sources that have affected my the most and that I feel are the most invaluable are:
(1. ) "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board" by Douglas P. Horne (pub 2010 in five large format paperback volumes.
(2. ) "JFK And the Unspeakable - Why He Died and Why It Matters" by James W. Douglas (pub 2010).
(3. ) "LBJ - The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination" by Phillip F. Nelson (pub 2010).
All three are extensively reviewed on Amazon.com and all three are available at either Amazon.com or Amazon.ca
Well I'm not going to buy the book, just tell us what page the proof is on.
-------------------------
-------------------------
LN; So how did it happen then ?
CT; I don't know, I only know that it didn't happen the way the evidence says.
LN; We should not use evidence in this case ?
CT; Correct.
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
March 21, 2011, 04:08:54 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 5248
|
David
Don't be daft enough to think they might read it .Very Very Very few of them have read what they so terribly defend.
Why do you think they would want to comprehend other ideas. At least this way they are "Keepin it reeeel bro"
Heaven forbid they should read something else to destroy the myth.
Ian
-------------------------
-------------------------
Some things we know we know,the rest we have to find out for ourselves
One of the first things we found out was that the Warren Commission never pursued a conspiracy investigation.
Louis Stokes
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
March 21, 2011, 04:13:47 PM
|
Sr. Member
Posts: 352
|
Welcome, Anthony. Good luck in your search.
It is always difficult to investigate something that has so many strong opinions on both sides. It can be very difficult to establish facts, as many of them are in dispute. You can end up down one rabbit hole after another just trying to establish these facts ... and many people will keep bringing up more and more witnesses and more and more info.
What would be nice is there was a book out there that just summarized the arguments, so we could all have a mental map of the basic terrain. I think Reclaiming History does provide such a mental map, but Bugliosi also makes a compelling LN theory, which doesn't make it useful for what I'm thinking of. Perhaps there's a website or book that does this, but I don't know of one.
My own approach was to try to go to original sources as much as possible, by things that are not filtered through others.
In any case, good luck. I hope you enjoy your investigation and join the discussion soon!
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
March 21, 2011, 04:14:51 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 9143
|
David
Don't be daft enough to think they might read it .Very Very Very few of them have read what they so terribly defend.
Why do you think they would want to comprehend other ideas. At least this way they are "Keepin it reeeel bro"
Heaven forbid they should read something else to destroy the myth.
Ian
Ian, I have read FAR more CT books than I have LN books. The margin is not even close. One thing is certain though, the more CT books I read, and the more I look into their claims, the more I am convinced that it was as the WC said. Most CT books are just a bunch of trash.
-------------------------
-------------------------
Marsh can not even comprehend a simple time stamp. How will he ever comprehend the evidence?
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
March 21, 2011, 04:31:55 PM
|
Sr. Member
Posts: 352
|
It might be helpful in forming that mental map to summarize the essentials of the arguments of LNs and CTers, I say they boil down, in the most general terms, to this:
1. LNers believe two things: That things are pretty much as they appear -- Lee Oswald did the shooting, and any discrepancies must have innocent reasons. LNers may accept a cover-up after the fact, but usually they see this cover-up as designed not to cover up a conspiracy, but to protect other national-security related info or embarrassing or scandalous info unrelated to the JFK shooting.
2. CTers believe that these discrepancies point to something else going on, that these things are signs of a conspiracy, frame-up or cover up after the fact. CTers usually fall into (1) Oswald did the shooting, but was part of a conspiracy, and (2) Oswald was an innocent patsy.
Ultimately, you will have to make a judgment call about which you believe is more likely.
My own search involved asking:
1. Did Oswald do it?
2. Was Oswald acting alone?
3. Can I know either 1 or 2 with the current info available?
We all have different answers to these questions. CTers fall into various categories of their approach -- some believe that if they can disprove a key element of the official WC story, then they'll have the conspiracy proved. Others believe they have solved the conspiracy and have posted their theories in detail.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
March 21, 2011, 05:36:30 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 5248
|
It might be helpful in forming that mental map to summarize the essentials of the arguments of LNs and CTers, I say they boil down, in the most general terms, to this:
1. LNers believe two things: That things are pretty much as they appear -- Lee Oswald did the shooting, and any discrepancies must have innocent reasons. LNers may accept a cover-up after the fact, but usually they see this cover-up as designed not to cover up a conspiracy, but to protect other national-security related info or embarrassing or scandalous info unrelated to the JFK shooting.
2. CTers believe that these discrepancies point to something else going on, that these things are signs of a conspiracy, frame-up or cover up after the fact. CTers usually fall into (1) Oswald did the shooting, but was part of a conspiracy, and (2) Oswald was an innocent patsy.
Ultimately, you will have to make a judgment call about which you believe is more likely.
My own search involved asking:
1. Did Oswald do it?
2. Was Oswald acting alone?
3. Can I know either 1 or 2 with the current info available?
We all have different answers to these questions. CTers fall into various categories of their approach -- some believe that if they can disprove a key element of the official WC story, then they'll have the conspiracy proved. Others believe they have solved the conspiracy and have posted their theories in detail.
Lee I agree with the mapping but this is more fundamental than just a "Belief" difference.Because of the inactivity or complacency of the personnel that make a political party this will continue in the same vein until THAT document is handed over or found or understood. Its like believing in UFO's ,This ones a bit easier to break down Unidentified .I could not recognise the aircraft type Flying flying Object Item unit thingy dooda I lived near an airfield when younger and had a plane spotting mate he could recognise every aircraft in the Observer book of planes by its silhouette Late one Friday we were watching some lights darting about the shape was cigar like with a band of lights .My friend could see it as well as me and could not recognise it . So neither of us could Identify this flying object.That makes it a UFO to me and my friend we were 8 years old then. What do you call it when the authorities cannot identify it?. If I Knew Oswald did it I would'nt Tell anybody .(there is more than 1 interpretation of this) If I Knew Oswald did'nt do it I would get somebody else to tell the story .Maybe Gerald Posner or Big Vince. Ian
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
March 21, 2011, 06:46:25 PM
|
Sr. Member
Posts: 352
|
It might be helpful in forming that mental map to summarize the essentials of the arguments of LNs and CTers, I say they boil down, in the most general terms, to this:
1. LNers believe two things: That things are pretty much as they appear -- Lee Oswald did the shooting, and any discrepancies must have innocent reasons. LNers may accept a cover-up after the fact, but usually they see this cover-up as designed not to cover up a conspiracy, but to protect other national-security related info or embarrassing or scandalous info unrelated to the JFK shooting.
2. CTers believe that these discrepancies point to something else going on, that these things are signs of a conspiracy, frame-up or cover up after the fact. CTers usually fall into (1) Oswald did the shooting, but was part of a conspiracy, and (2) Oswald was an innocent patsy.
Ultimately, you will have to make a judgment call about which you believe is more likely.
My own search involved asking:
1. Did Oswald do it?
2. Was Oswald acting alone?
3. Can I know either 1 or 2 with the current info available?
We all have different answers to these questions. CTers fall into various categories of their approach -- some believe that if they can disprove a key element of the official WC story, then they'll have the conspiracy proved. Others believe they have solved the conspiracy and have posted their theories in detail.
Lee I agree with the mapping but this is more fundamental than just a "Belief" difference.Because of the inactivity or complacency of the personnel that make a political party this will continue in the same vein until THAT document is handed over or found or understood. Its like believing in UFO's ,This ones a bit easier to break down Unidentified .I could not recognise the aircraft type Flying flying Object Item unit thingy dooda I lived near an airfield when younger and had a plane spotting mate he could recognise every aircraft in the Observer book of planes by its silhouette Late one Friday we were watching some lights darting about the shape was cigar like with a band of lights .My friend could see it as well as me and could not recognise it . So neither of us could Identify this flying object.That makes it a UFO to me and my friend we were 8 years old then. What do you call it when the authorities cannot identify it?. If I Knew Oswald did it I would'nt Tell anybody .(there is more than 1 interpretation of this) If I Knew Oswald did'nt do it I would get somebody else to tell the story .Maybe Gerald Posner or Big Vince. Ian I was trying not to start an argument and to be fair to all sides.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
| 0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
|
