JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Dillon Rankine on September 01, 2018, 11:05:23 AM
-
My money?s on option 2.
-
We won't know every last detail. Some things are unknowable.
What we can say, based on the evidence, is that Saint Patsy murdered two people on 11/22/63 beyond any reasonable doubt.
There are those that will never be convinced that the accumulated evidence is genuine. In essence their position is; the evidence isn't real, therefore the case is unsolvable. It's safe to say they'll never know what happened.
Which is why the debate will go on forever.
-
No.
We?ll never know what happened in the sense that people in general will agree on ?what happened?.
-
No, because the truth would shatter America.
-
I voted 'we already do'...It was a conspiratorial political assassination.
At least we had options besides yes and affirmative.
-
I voted 'we already do'...It was a conspiratorial political assassination.
At least we had options besides yes and affirmative.
If your position is that you already know it was a conspiracy you should be prepared to lay out your conspiracy with a reasonable level of detail including the names of participants and the role they played. Then you need to explain how it is that those details are still 'missing' from the public record despite 55 years of investigation.
-
I selected that 'we already know' to mean that it was LHOo, who was not involved in any conspiracy to assassinate JFK.
-
I selected that 'we already know' to mean that it was LHOo, who was not involved in any conspiracy to assassinate JFK.
Assuming you're right, will we ever know Why an admirer of JFK (according to many who knew LHO) turned against him?
-
I understand there are psychological studies which give some insight to this.
-
Assuming you're right, will we ever know Why an admirer of JFK (according to many who knew LHO) turned against him?
One idea is that he felt let down by JFK when he heard stories of assassination attempts on Castro. There are reports that Oswald has said about killing Eisenhower due to him being a lead capitalist who was exploiting the poor of the US. He admired Castro, and did, it seems, admire Kennedy, but may have turned against him when heard stories of attempts by the US to kill Castro. When he found that the motorcade was passing his place of work this seemed like his chance.
-
One idea is that he felt let down by JFK when he heard stories of assassination attempts on Castro. There are reports that Oswald has said about killing Eisenhower due to him being a lead capitalist who was exploiting the poor of the US. He admired Castro, and did, it seems, admire Kennedy, but may have turned against him when heard stories of attempts by the US to kill Castro. When he found that the motorcade was passing his place of work this seemed like his chance.
A West German geologist, Volkmar Schmidt, was working in the US when he met Oswald in 1963 and discussed politics with him. He said Oswald was "obsessed with anger towards Kennedy" because of Kennedy's policies towards Cuba. He said Oswald was angry over the Bay of Pigs in particular.
Oswald regularly read radical left publications - the Daily Worker and Militant - which reportedly were filled with stories critical of American policy towards Cuba.
So, why would an admitted Marxist like Oswald, an ardent admirer of Castro's who tried to defect to Cuba, "like" an anti-communist, anti-Castro figure like JFK? It doesn't make sense to me.
And for a guy who "liked" JFK Oswald sure seemed to have a complete lack of interest in what happened to Kennedy that day. He leaves the building right after the shooting not inquiring about what happened, he never talks to anyone about what happened, and he's not interested in finding out on radio or TV what happened at all. That's odd behavior for a political person like Oswald who supposedly "liked" the president.
Here is Schmidt's account from the PBS special "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?"
"Lee Harvey Oswald brought up in the conversation with me the fact that he really felt very angry about the support which the Kennedy administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion. It turned out that Lee Harvey Oswald really idealized socialism of Cuba, while he was critical of the socialism in the Soviet Union. And he was just obsessed with his anger towards Kennedy."
And yes, we also have Marina's statement the he "liked" JFK and that they cried together when the Kennedys lost their infant son. And De Mohrenschildt said that Oswald "admired" JFK over his civil rights policies. So one can take either side on this.
Source: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/etc/script.html
-
A West German geologist, Volkmar Schimdt, was working in the US when he met Oswald in 1963 and discussed politics with him. He said Oswald was "obsessed with anger towards Kennedy" because of Kennedy's policies towards Cuba. He said Oswald was angry over the Bay of Pigs in particular.
Oswald regularly read radical left publications - the Daily Worker and Militant - which reportedly were filled with stories critical of American policy towards Cuba.
So, why would an admitted Marxist like Oswald, an ardent admirer of Castro's who tried to defect to Cuba, "like" an anti-communist, anti-Castro figure like JFK? It doesn't make sense to me.
And for a guy who "liked" JFK Oswald sure seemed to have a complete lack of interest in what happened to Kennedy that day. He leaves the building right after the shooting not inquiring about what happened, he never talks to anyone about what happened, and he's not interested in finding out on radio or TV what happened at all. That's odd behavior for a political person like Oswald who supposedly "liked" the president.
Here is Schmidt's account from the PBS special "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?"
"Lee Harvey Oswald brought up in the conversation with me the fact that he really felt very angry about the support which the Kennedy administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion. It turned out that Lee Harvey Oswald really idealized socialism of Cuba, while he was critical of the socialism in the Soviet Union. And he was just obsessed with his anger towards Kennedy."
And yes, we also have Marina's statement the he "liked" JFK and that they cried together when the Kennedys lost their infant son. And De Mohrenschildt said that Oswald "admired" JFK over his civil rights policies. So one can take either side on this.
Source: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/etc/script.html
I think Oswald was a mixed up, angry young man. He may have had a hope that Kennedy would be different, hopes that were dashed leading to a hatred. Its hard to tell.
-
If your position is that you already know it was a conspiracy you should be prepared to lay out your conspiracy with a reasonable level of detail including the names of participants and the role they played. Then you need to explain how it is that those details are still 'missing' from the public record despite 55 years of investigation.
Only those who have the guts to face reality and the truth will know the truth.....
-
Only those who have the guts to face reality and the truth will know the truth.....
From which planet was that sent?
-
From which planet was that sent?
Think about it, Steve...... Perhaps you'll see the light.
-
Huh?
+ 1
-
Gary Mack said it best:
?There may have been a conspiracy but I can?t prove it and neither can anybody else?.
-
Why, because conspiracy books a say so? What Gary was saying is there is no hard nor credible evidence for conspiracy. Lots of evidence however for conspiracy theory as you show.
-
Will we ever know what really happened?
It depends on who the ?we? are.
LNers? Yes. CTers? No.
-
Not much point in surveys like this. It just ends up being yet another thread where people grandstand and pretend to have a level of certainty that doesn't actually exist.
-
Also...people will believe what they want to believe.
I just think there was and still is definitely a cover-up and there never was a genuine investigation.
-
Also...people will believe what they want to believe.
I just think there was and still is definitely a cover-up and there never was a genuine investigation.
"I just think there was and still is definitely a cover-up and there never was a genuine investigation."
I believe you're right....The sham investigation was nothing more than a gathering of the evidence so that evidence could be destroyed or discredited.....
-
We won't know every last detail. Some things are unknowable.
What we can say, based on the evidence, is that Saint Patsy murdered two people on 11/22/63 beyond any reasonable doubt.
There are those that will never be convinced that the accumulated evidence is genuine. In essence their position is; the evidence isn't real, therefore the case is unsolvable. It's safe to say they'll never know what happened.
Which is why the debate will go on forever.
You NEVER use the evidence. When someone uses it you call for its removal. There isn't one piece of evidence that shows LHO shot anyone.
The evidence is genuine and it shows that a conspiracy was involved in the murder of JFK.
The debate will go on forever because people like you deny what the evidence actually shows.
-
I understand there are psychological studies which give some insight to this.
No, there aren't.
-
No, there aren't.
Do you mean there are no psychological studies or none that give insight?
-
You NEVER use the evidence. When someone uses it you call for its removal. There isn't one piece of evidence that shows LHO shot anyone.
The evidence is genuine and it shows that a conspiracy was involved in the murder of JFK.
The debate will go on forever because people like you deny what the evidence actually shows.
Your excuse for evidence is:
-the opinion of 4 PH doctors (the minority) who thought JFK?s throat wound was an entrance
-misunderstanding of what ?occipital-parietal? means
-whatever some crackpot riftsnin their poorly worded CT tome
-thinking that the back of wound would?ve magically stopped and fell out all because one doctor put his finger in it (not a valid method)
-an unrealistic expectancy of perfection in the evidence (in your world, people never make mistakes)
-an uneducated and simplistic view of other complicated scientific issues
-blatant ignorance of all the things you don?t like (PH staff ?recalling? an impossible left temporal wound)
Need I go on? Point is, you?ve got nothing. You have not demonstrated the necessity of two gunmen to have caused all damage incurred during the shooting.
-
Do you mean there are no psychological studies or none that give insight?
None that give insight as LHO was normal.
-
Your excuse for evidence is:
-the opinion of 4 PH doctors (the minority) who thought JFK?s throat wound was an entrance
-misunderstanding of what ?occipital-parietal? means
-whatever some crackpot riftsnin their poorly worded CT tome
-thinking that the back of wound would?ve magically stopped and fell out all because one doctor put his finger in it (not a valid method)
-an unrealistic expectancy of perfection in the evidence (in your world, people never make mistakes)
-an uneducated and simplistic view of other complicated scientific issues
-blatant ignorance of all the things you don?t like (PH staff ?recalling? an impossible left temporal wound)
Need I go on? Point is, you?ve got nothing. You have not demonstrated the necessity of two gunmen to have caused all damage incurred during the shooting.
So you are Howard Gee? Sadly for you the majority of people read the evidence the way I do. I knew that you were a LNer. I was right again.
-
The debate will go on forever because people like you deny what the evidence actually shows.
What year did Benavides die ?
-
None that give insight as LHO was normal.
When did you last speak with him?
-
None that give insight as LHO was normal.
So none that match with what you think is true. How do you know LHO was normal ( as you put it)?
-
Sadly for you the majority of people read the evidence the way I do.
Appeal to the majority. Who cares if the majority read it as you do; that doesn?t make them right. Number isn?t a substitute for knowledge, expertise or qualification. ?The majority of people? believe some of the most laughable things, while less believe the facts of reality (more people believe in angels than in evolution).
Sadly for you the majority of actually educated people don?t read the evidence as you do?and nor could they. They?re either LNers or rational CTs.
I knew that you were a LNer. I was right again.
:D BS:
Define ?LNer? and how I meet the criterion.
-
None that give insight as LHO was normal.
Despite all the studies showing that?s unlikely :D.
Specially all those behavioural neurology papers I cited and you ignored.
-
-an unrealistic expectancy of perfection in the evidence (in your world, people never make mistakes)
I think in your world, anything that doesn't comport with the official narrative is by definition a mistake.
-
I think in your world, anything that doesn't comport with the official narrative is by definition a mistake.
No, I?m just not prepared to make mountains out of molehills because somebody got a date wrong, or had the audacity to not have a photographic memory.
-
Studying Oswald?s history helps one understand this issue. LHO may indeed have admired JFK as a person. However, Oswald was not shooting at JFK, the person. He was shooting at the POTUS and all that position represented in America and the world.
-
Unanswerable question. One of so many in the JFK event.
-
No, I?m just not prepared to make mountains out of molehills because somebody got a date wrong, or had the audacity to not have a photographic memory.
But you are prepared to make "mountains of evidence" out of molehills of assumption and conjecture.
-
Studying Oswald?s history helps one understand this issue. LHO may indeed have admired JFK as a person. However, Oswald was not shooting at JFK, the person. He was shooting at the POTUS and all that position represented in America and the world.
What part of "Oswald's history" leads you to that conclusion?
-
But you are prepared to make "mountains of evidence" out of molehills of assumption and conjecture.
What informs your view of my conduct in that way?
-
What informs your view of my conduct in that way?
Our past interactions where you argue the narrative, not the quality of the evidence.
-
Our past interactions where you argue the narrative, not the quality of the evidence.
I don?t ever remember arguing ?the narrative? over evidence. But I seem to recall you doing something quite similar to this, when you dismissed the neuropsych evidence on faulty terms.
-
I don?t ever remember arguing ?the narrative? over evidence. But I seem to recall you doing something quite similar to this, when you dismissed the neuropsych evidence on faulty terms.
I didn't dismiss the neuropsych evidence on faulty terms. Your application of your neuropsych evidence to Oswald in particular is completely speculative. While interesting, it's not particularly useful in determining the facts surrounding the assassination.
-
Oswald was anti social all of his life. He believed the American government oppressed working people. He believed violence worked and could change the world. Oswald has arguably been one of the most investigated people in history. He was a misfit who didn?t fit in, anywhere. He was typically belittled by all. He wanted to leave his mark. He certainly did that.
-
One photo out of a lifetime. Thanks for proving my point. Have you as a so called researcher actually spoken with people who knew Oswald in some manner or do you simply look at photographs?
-
Oswald was anti social all of his life. He believed the American government oppressed working people. He believed violence worked and could change the world. Oswald has arguably been one of the most investigated people in history. He was a misfit who didn?t fit in, anywhere. He was typically belittled by all. He wanted to leave his mark. He certainly did that.
What is your evidence that Oswald "believed violence worked and could change the world"?
-
Studying Oswald?s history helps one understand this issue. LHO may indeed have admired JFK as a person. However, Oswald was not shooting at JFK, the person. He was shooting at the POTUS and all that position represented in America and the world.
Oswald was not shooting at JFK, the person. He was shooting at the POTUS and all that position represented in America and the world.
HUH?? This is one of the most ridiculous ideas I've ever heard!!.....
-
This is one of the most ridiculous ideas I've ever heard!!.....
One thing I've found out on this forum...just ignore the ridiculous.
-
One thing I've found out on this forum...just ignore the ridiculous.
That's a lot of Ignoring.....About 95%
-
Oswald was not shooting at JFK, the person. He was shooting at the POTUS and all that position represented in America and the world.
HUH?? This is one of the most ridiculous ideas I've ever heard!!.....
Have you heard about the red ring theory ?
-
Whilst I agree that we can never have exhaustive knowledge of any event, if it was properly investigated then we could know to reasonable level.
However the failure of the DPD to properly investigate the scene, witnesses and even keep the prime suspect alive. The deliberate choice by the WC to seek to ensure that the likely correct but very politically expedient answer of a LN shooter was the only conclusion to their material and their deliberate exclusion and minimisation of any information that may have run counter to their politically motivated outcome, has left large gaps in the field.
Once the escape route was determined, every attempt should have been made to ensure that the path was free to be traversed. Exact locations and actions of everyone who may have been in that path should have been determined. Adams, Styles, Garner and Dorman should have been all properly checked to confirm the movements of Adams and Styles through the escape route. Dougherty's location needed to be confirmed. as the admitted closest employee to the crime scene, who was in the vicinity of the escape route. Hine and Reid's testimony should have been sort to be reconciled, because as it stands it is contradictory on a surface level.
However too much time has passed and these key witnesses were not properly questioned and there testimony added to the data grid through which the event can be understood.