They taught me how to kill, and I liked it.

[David Von Pein]

The movie “Suddenly” was broadcast recently and I was able to record it. Yesterday I watched it and was impressed with the acting of Frank Sinatra. The title of this thread is a line (paraphrased) from that movie. If I remember correctly, there is a YouTube video available for anyone who might want to watch it.

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/suddenly-1954-movie.html

[Charles Collins]

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/suddenly-1954-movie.html

👍

I need to review where I got the date of the broadcast. If I remember correctly I thought it was October 19 because they had a birthday celebration for LHO just before it according to Priscilla McMillan in her book. It seems unlikely that Bugliosi and McMillan would have different dates specified.

[Martin Weidmann]

What I think is unreal is how many armchair psychoanalysts there are who base their analyses on the assumption that Oswald actually killed people.

Indeed, and then "Richard Smith" actually wants to discuss his biased opinions....

[Richard Smith]

Dealing with what?

Calling you out on bogus claims you couldn't support with actual evidence...

Remember this; "the evidence that shows that Oswald came down the stairs unseen within 75 seconds after the last shot is that it happened" - "Richard Smith"

Btw, I paraphrased.

I made a comment in response to a question that called for conjecture.

Except you didn't present it as conjecture. Arrogantly you presented it as fact.

The same derailing of the topic that you cause in every single thread.  Not just with me but every single person here who has concluded that Oswald was guilty.

Calling out bogus claims that you can't support with evidence isn't derailing the thread. Replying with strawman arguments and idiotic rants instead of entering into a discussion (as you do all the time) does derail threads.

Again, the question by NECESSITY called for conjecture.  It is not necessary to add a disclaimer.  Aa a result, only a fool would suggest the answer was presented as a fact.  If there were any doubt, however, I've explained that you a dozen times.   You have yet to address the topic.  Instead it is just more endless contrarian nonsense to derail the thread.  Everything is dismissed as an "opinion" or "assumption" when it points to Oswald's guilt.  In contrast, you entertain any explanation, no matter how baseless or absurd, that could lend itself to his innocence.  But you are just a neutral arbiter of the case.  LOL. Delusional. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Again, the question by NECESSITY called for conjecture.  It is not necessary to add a disclaimer.  Aa a result, only a fool would suggest the answer was presented as a fact.  If there were any doubt, however, I've explained that you a dozen times.   You have yet to address the topic.  Instead it is just more endless contrarian nonsense to derail the thread.  Everything is dismissed as an "opinion" or "assumption" when it points to Oswald's guilt.  In contrast, you entertain any explanation, no matter how baseless or absurd, that could lend itself to his innocence.  But you are just a neutral arbiter of the case.  LOL. Delusional.

Everything is dismissed as an "opinion" or "assumption" when it points to Oswald's guilt.  In contrast, you entertain any explanation, no matter how baseless or absurd, that could lend itself to his innocence.

You have yet to address the topic.

Why would I waste my time with utter speculation about the state of mind of a man I have never met, know nothing about first hand and who died sixty years ago?

I'm playing devil's advocate and you can't handle it... it's really that simple.

[Richard Smith]

Everything is dismissed as an "opinion" or "assumption" when it points to Oswald's guilt.  In contrast, you entertain any explanation, no matter how baseless or absurd, that could lend itself to his innocence.

You have yet to address the topic.

Why would I waste my time with utter speculation about the state of mind of a man I have never met, know nothing about first hand and who died sixty years ago?

Why? Perhaps because you spend every waking moment on a JFK assassination forum and the "man" in question is the person who was arrested for that crime. That might lend itself to having some interest in the matter.   You really believe that you would have to meet Oswald in person to have any insight into his state of mind?  Otherwise you know nothing about him?  LOL.  What a mind-bending level of contrarian idiocy even from you.  How much first-hand knowledge do historians have of Caesar or Napoleon?  I guess they can know nothing about them.  There are thousands of books and millions of pages written about Oswald.  Many from people who DID have first-hand knowledge.   We have more than enough information to formulate reasoned conjecture on his state of mind.  Your contrarian bull doesn't change that equation one iota.

[Martin Weidmann]

Why? Perhaps because you spend every waking moment on a JFK assassination forum and the "man" in question is the person who was arrested for that crime. That might lend itself to having some interest in the matter.   You really believe that you would have to meet Oswald in person to have any insight into his state of mind?  Otherwise you know nothing about him?  LOL.  What a mind-bending level of contrarian idiocy even from you.  How much first-hand knowledge do historians have of Caesar or Napoleon?  I guess they can know nothing about them.  There are thousands of books and millions of pages written about Oswald.  Many from people who DID have first-hand knowledge.   We have more than enough information to formulate reasoned conjecture on his state of mind.  Your contrarian bull doesn't change that equation one iota.

Perhaps because you spend every waking moment on a JFK assassination forum

No, that's you...

and the "man" in question is the person who was arrested for that crime.

So, what? What does that tell you about his state of mind?

You really believe that you would have to meet Oswald in person to have any insight into his state of mind? 

Because in any other way, you have to rely and base your opinions on the speculative opinions of others.

There are thousands of books and millions of pages written about Oswald.

Indeed and they often conflict with eachother on just about everything in this case, making them worthless to form an "informed" opinion, unless of course you already have a bias.

Many from people who DID have first-hand knowledge.

First hand knowledge about what? Oswald's state of mind? Really.....

We have more than enough information to formulate reasoned conjecture on his state of mind.

That's always the problem with you. You always say you have enough information/evidence to support your own conclusion and every time you fail to deliver that information/evidence.

All you've got is a biased opinion, based on your opinion that Oswald did in fact kill Kennedy.... Just admit it. You are not fooling anybody.

Let me ask you a simple question, you probably won't answer, but here goes; do you think it is possible that your opinion about Oswald's state of mind could be incorrect?