Touring the Tippit Scene

[Martin Weidmann]

you clearly can't distinguish between your opinion and a fact, it very much explains why you are a LN.

Martin, has it occurred to you that Mr Smith may not believe what he posts?    I've long ago conclude that Mr "Smith" is simply an agent whose is assigned to support the official government created, and approved tale.  And at the same time try to paint all of those who refuse to believe the nonsense of the WR as "Kooks"

You're being to kind on him, Walt, to suggest that he may not believe what he posts. That's giving him way too much credit. I am convinced that he actually believes that whatever his opinion is on something is, in his mind, by definition a fact.

A wiser man would understand that's an untenable position, but not "Richard Smith". The easiest way to demonstrate just how delusional "Richard" is, is that he is completely unable to argue his case and show us why he's right and we're wrong. He never gets beyond outright dismissal, strawman arguments and misrepresentations.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Wow.  So every event in history that occurred in which I was not present is simply my "opinion" no matter how well documented?  There are no words.   Maybe the single dumbest post in the history of this forum or perhaps the entire Internet.  Astounding.

If we quote/cite people who WERE there that's just THEIR opinion too. This is a type of thinking that is from the Dark Ages. Added: Yes, these are eyewitness accounts and they can be wrong; but we corroborate these accounts with additional evidence. An account PLUS additional evidence is all that we have.

In 2002, the historian Robert Dallek was given access by the Kennedy family to JFK's medical records. He discovered the medical regimen that Kennedy went through as president. It was an astonishing array of drugs.

He writes: "[The records] add telling detail to a story of lifelong suffering, revealing that many of the various treatments doctors gave Kennedy, starting when he was a boy, did far more harm than good. In particular, steroid treatments that he may have received as a young man for his intestinal ailments could have compounded—and perhaps even caused—both the Addison's disease and the degenerative back trouble that plagued him later in life. Travell's prescription records also confirm that during his presidency—and in particular during times of stress, such as the Bay of Pigs fiasco, in April of 1961, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, in October of 1962—Kennedy was taking an extraordinary variety of medications: steroids for his Addison's disease; painkillers for his back; anti-spasmodics for his colitis; antibiotics for urinary-tract infections; antihistamines for allergies; and, on at least one occasion, an anti-psychotic (though only for two days) for a severe mood change that Jackie Kennedy believed had been brought on by the antihistamines."

Travell was one of JFK's personal physicians when he was President.

Dallek: "The lifelong health problems of John F. Kennedy constitute one of the best-kept secrets of recent U.S. history—no surprise, because if the extent of those problems had been revealed while he was alive, his presidential ambitions would likely have been dashed."

But he didn't see the drugs given to JFK; he wasn't there. Just because the records indicate they were given to JFK doesn't mean they actually were So all of these records and accounts are just his opinion and speculation. Oy, what a mindset this is.

Full article: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/12/the-medical-ordeals-of-jfk/305572/

[Bill Chapman]

If we quote/cite people who WERE there that's just THEIR opinion too. This is a type of thinking that is from the Dark Ages.

In 2002, the historian Robert Dallek was given access by the Kennedy family to JFK's medical records. He discovered the medical regimen that Kennedy went through as president. It was an astonishing array of drugs.

He writes: "[The records] add telling detail to a story of lifelong suffering, revealing that many of the various treatments doctors gave Kennedy, starting when he was a boy, did far more harm than good. In particular, steroid treatments that he may have received as a young man for his intestinal ailments could have compounded—and perhaps even caused—both the Addison's disease and the degenerative back trouble that plagued him later in life. Travell's prescription records also confirm that during his presidency—and in particular during times of stress, such as the Bay of Pigs fiasco, in April of 1961, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, in October of 1962—Kennedy was taking an extraordinary variety of medications: steroids for his Addison's disease; painkillers for his back; anti-spasmodics for his colitis; antibiotics for urinary-tract infections; antihistamines for allergies; and, on at least one occasion, an anti-psychotic (though only for two days) for a severe mood change that Jackie Kennedy believed had been brought on by the antihistamines."

Travell was one of JFK's personal physicians when he was President.

Dallek: "The lifelong health problems of John F. Kennedy constitute one of the best-kept secrets of recent U.S. history—no surprise, because if the extent of those problems had been revealed while he was alive, his presidential ambitions would likely have been dashed."

But he didn't see the drugs given to JFK; he wasn't there. Just because the records indicate they were given to JFK doesn't mean they actually were So all of these records and accounts are just his opinion and speculation. Oy, what a mindset this is.

Full article: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/12/the-medical-ordeals-of-jfk/305572/

'I don't necessarily agree with everything I say'
-Marshall McLuhan

 

[Bill Chapman]

@CTers:

Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.

Booyah

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Well, yes, as I added to my post: eyewitness accounts CAN be wrong, CAN be (and are) subjective and CAN be unreliable. As in the Rashomon effect.

But all we have is these accounts plus corroborating evidence (if possible). To dismiss everything as being an opinion, as nothing more, renders any discussion of events useless. Where do we take this? Let's empty our libraries of history books. It's all opinion and worthless.

Look at the discussion here: it's an endless rejection of evidence by the Oswald defenders. Every single piece is dismissed. So what's the point? To defend Oswald or to try and muddle through with the evidence and reach some conclusions?

[Martin Weidmann]

Well, yes, as I added to my post: eyewitness accounts CAN be wrong, CAN be (and are) subjective and CAN be unreliable. As in the Rashomon effect.

But all we have is these accounts plus corroborating evidence (if possible). To dismiss everything as being an opinion, as nothing more, renders any discussion of events useless. Where do we take this? Let's empty our libraries of history books. It's all opinion and worthless.

Look at the discussion here: it's an endless rejection of evidence by the Oswald defenders. Every single piece is dismissed. So what's the point? To defend Oswald or to try and muddle through with the evidence and reach some conclusions?

To dismiss everything as being an opinion, as nothing more, renders any discussion of events useless.

Who is dismissing everything as being an opinion?

Let's empty our libraries of history books. It's all opinion and worthless.

Silly dramatics and totally beside the point. History books are there to inform so that people may form their own opinion, in the knowledge that history books are mainly written by the victors and are not always fair and accurate. Whether that opinion is correct or not is another matter, but it is pathetic to call for doing away with source material.

Look at the discussion here: it's an endless rejection of evidence by the Oswald defenders.

A completely dishonest generalization and, speaking for myself, absolutely untrue.
 
What you fail to understand is that another interpretation of the evidence by those who do not blindly accept the official narrative is not the same as "an endless rejection of the evidence". If anybody is rejecting anything, it's the WC defenders who will instantly dismiss everything that does not agree with their opinion. That's why discussion, in most cases, is impossible and very often a waste of time.

Every single piece is dismissed.

I can only speak for myself here, but please show me just one piece of evidence that I have dismissed. Go on then...

[Bill Chapman]

Well, yes, as I added to my post: eyewitness accounts CAN be wrong, CAN be (and are) subjective and CAN be unreliable. As in the Rashomon effect.

But all we have is these accounts plus corroborating evidence (if possible). To dismiss everything as being an opinion, as nothing more, renders any discussion of events useless. Where do we take this? Let's empty our libraries of history books. It's all opinion and worthless.

Look at the discussion here: it's an endless rejection of evidence by the Oswald defenders. Every single piece is dismissed. So what's the point? To defend Oswald or to try and muddle through with the evidence and reach some conclusions?

Excuse me, but Oswald-lovers have every right to choose who to live (and kneel) for.