A straight line

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: A straight line  (Read 336980 times)

Offline Jack Trojan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 864
Re: A straight line
« Reply #210 on: March 04, 2018, 01:40:54 AM »
Remember they say Oswald never owned that rifle. That's what he said too.

All planted.

So the same rifle they say Oswald never had is in the picture of him with that rifle. And oh yeah, he really truly did bring curtain rods to work that day. The ones never found? The ones he didn't bring with him when he left the building right after the shooting? The ones he absolutely needed to bring to his room. Yeah, those rods.

That's called conspiracy logic. It doesn't have to make sense; it just has to clear Oswald.

Yes, the top CIA agent Oswald who never had a car, never had a phone, never had a house, lived on unemployment checks and apparently went on his top secret missions using a bus.

In cloud cuckoo land that makes sense. Everywhere else it's absurd.

Now apply all that to Oswald being a fake defector singleton agent, sheep dipped as a patsy and it all makes sense to those with freedom of thought.

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6506
Re: A straight line
« Reply #211 on: March 04, 2018, 03:49:37 AM »
Now apply all that to Oswald being a fake defector singleton agent, sheep dipped as a patsy and it all makes sense to those with freedom of thought.

Tell us why anyone would want to entertain fringer theories.

Additionally, if you have proof that anyone else besides the killer knew that there was about to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day, by all means do post it.

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8183
Re: A straight line
« Reply #212 on: March 04, 2018, 02:48:41 PM »
Tell us why anyone would want to entertain fringer theories.

Additionally, if you have proof that anyone else besides the killer knew that there was about to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day, by all means do post it.

Tell us why anyone would want to entertain fringer theories.

This coming from the guy who recently persistently bored us with a "I don't know for sure but he possibly could have" argument is absolutely hilarious.

Do you need to be reminded that the official narrative is also nothing more than a theory?
« Last Edit: March 04, 2018, 03:06:59 PM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2109
Re: A straight line
« Reply #213 on: March 04, 2018, 04:02:37 PM »

Do you need to be reminded that the official narrative is also nothing more than a theory?

So is Newtonian gravity.

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8183
Re: A straight line
« Reply #214 on: March 04, 2018, 04:05:09 PM »

So is Newtonian gravity.


It is?

I wasn't aware there was much doubt and/or discussion about Newton's findings, but then again there still seem to be some people around who believe the earth is flat, so by all means enlighten me, Tim.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2018, 08:06:29 PM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6506
Re: A straight line
« Reply #215 on: March 04, 2018, 04:25:31 PM »
Tell us why anyone would want to entertain fringer theories.

This coming from the guy who recently persistently bored us with a "I don't know for sure but he possibly could have" argument is absolutely hilarious.

Do you need to be reminded that the official narrative is also nothing more than a theory?


Stop twisting what I said
I said probably, not merely 'possibly'
'Possibly' is generic, sitting on the fence
'Probably' implies taking a stance


The WC findings were the results of an investigation, not the results of a trial.

CTers might claim that the truth was covered up... and yet none of you has presented a plausible, coherent counter-narrative, as abundantly demonstrated by nothing but dead silence in the lack of response to my ongoing invitation for anyone to name their own shooter and prove that anyone other than the assassin knew there was to be an attempt to be made on Kennedy that day. Feel free to post to provide those answers.

I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it.
 ;)
« Last Edit: March 04, 2018, 04:40:37 PM by Bill Chapman »

Online Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1872
Re: A straight line
« Reply #216 on: March 04, 2018, 04:37:11 PM »


The WC findings were the results of an investigation, not the results of a trial.

CTers might claim that the truth was covered up... and yet none of you has presented a plausible, coherent counter-narrative, as abundantly demonstrated by nothing but dead silence in the lack of response to my ongoing invitation for anyone to name their own shooter and prove that anyone other than the assassin knew there was to be an attempt to be made on Kennedy that day. Feel free to post to provide those answers.

I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it.
 ;)

It's a combination of the evidence pointing to Oswald as well as the lack of a credible and viable alternative that says to me that Oswald alone killed JFK.

There have been numerous investigations, of course, into the assassination. The conspiracy crowd fixates on the Warren Commission Report and ignores the other investigations that have been done (the HSCA, the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission (granted, this was pretty slipshod), et cetera). This includes those done by news organizations - CBS, ABC, PBS - as well as investigations by private journalists like Tim Weiner on the CIA and other reporters. We can add the works of historians like those by Caro and Dallek to the mix.

Add all of this up and the conspiracy believers have rumors and allegations and "suspicious" behavior but no alternative explanation that is the least bit persuasive.