JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Bill Chapman on March 18, 2019, 03:34:23 PM
-
Why do some people believe in conspiracy theories?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-some-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories/
Christopher French, a professor of psychology at Goldsmiths, University of London, explains:
Although conspiracy beliefs can occasionally be based on a rational analysis of the evidence, most of the time they are not. As a species, one of our greatest strengths is our ability to find meaningful patterns in the world around us and to make causal inferences. We sometimes, however, see patterns and causal connections that are not there, especially when we feel that events are beyond our control.
The attractiveness of conspiracy theories may arise from a number of cognitive biases that characterize the way we process information. ?Confirmation bias? is the most pervasive cognitive bias and a powerful driver of belief in conspiracies. We all have a natural inclination to give more weight to evidence that supports what we already believe and ignore evidence that contradicts our beliefs. The real-world events that often become the subject of conspiracy theories tend to be intrinsically complex and unclear. Early reports may contain errors, contradictions and ambiguities, and those wishing to find evidence of a cover-up will focus on such inconsistencies to bolster their claims.
Proportionality Bias
Our innate tendency to assume that big events have big causes, may also explain our tendency to accept conspiracies. This is one reason many people were uncomfortable with the idea that President John F. Kennedy was the victim of a deranged lone gunman and found it easier to accept the theory that he was the victim of a large-scale conspiracy.
Projection
People who endorse conspiracy theories may be more likely to engage in conspiratorial behaviors themselves, such as spreading rumors or tending to be suspicious of others' motives. If you would engage in such behavior, it may seem natural that other people would as well, making conspiracies appear more plausible and widespread. Furthermore, people who are strongly inclined toward conspiratorial thinking will be more likely to endorse mutually contradictory theories. For example, if you believe that Osama bin Laden was killed many years before the American government officially announced his death, you are also more likely to believe that he is still alive.
None of the above should indicate that all conspiracy theories are false. Some may indeed turn out to be true. The point is that some individuals may have a tendency to find such theories attractive.
The crux of the matter is that conspiracists are not really sure what the true explanation of an event is. They are simply certain that the official story is a cover-up.
-
1) Conspiracies are more fun. Cable TV has made an industry off of it with UFOs. How long would a show last that confirmed no evidence of UFOs each week? You ultimately need an explanation for why no one can prove the existence of UFOs. And so a conspiracy is the explanation. For whatever unspecified reason, the government is always thwarting UFO discoveries by covering them up! Very convenient for the UFO believers who are given an excuse to avoid having to prove anything.
2) For some folks, it oddly appears to provide comfort that some nefarious entity is in charge of all important events. Nothing is left to chance. Better than acknowledging that a lot of important things happen outside the control of anyone.
3) An opportunity to grind an axe with some person or entity that they have an issue with. The military, government, religious or political groups. Anything evil that happens can be blamed on someone they dislike.
4) Attention. Taking a contrarian stand to the "official" story makes them feel special and provides a sense of being a seeker of justice and truth.
5) True believers/mental cases. A vocal minority of nuts who can't be reasoned with by facts or evidence.
6) There are some legitimate conspiracies. Experience teaches us, however, that they are almost impossible to conceal. Even the dumbest and simplest conspiracies at the highest level typically unravel. Watergate is a great example. A low-level break in that even the President of the United States couldn't cover up using all the tools at his disposal. It highlights how impossible a much more complex and involved conspiracy such as pulling off the assassination of JFK, frame up of Oswald, and cover up of everything else would be.
-
1) Conspiracies are more fun. Cable TV has made an industry off of it with UFOs. How long would a show last that confirmed no evidence of UFOs each week? You ultimately need an explanation for why no one can prove the existence of UFOs. And so a conspiracy is the explanation. For whatever unspecified reason, the government is always thwarting UFO discoveries by covering them up! Very convenient for the UFO believers who are given an excuse to avoid having to prove anything.
2) For some folks, it oddly appears to provide comfort that some nefarious entity is in charge of all important events. Nothing is left to chance. Better than acknowledging that a lot of important things happen outside the control of anyone.
3) An opportunity to grind an axe with some person or entity that they have an issue with. The military, government, religious or political groups. Anything evil that happens can be blamed on someone they dislike.
4) Attention. Taking a contrarian stand to the "official" story makes them feel special and provides a sense of being a seeker of justice and truth.
5) True believers/mental cases. A vocal minority of nuts who can't be reasoned with by facts or evidence.
6) There are some legitimate conspiracies. Experience teaches us, however, that they are almost impossible to conceal. Even the dumbest and simplest conspiracies at the highest level typically unravel. Watergate is a great example. A low-level break in that even the President of the United States couldn't cover up using all the tools at his disposal. It highlights how impossible a much more complex and involved conspiracy such as pulling off the assassination of JFK, frame up of Oswald, and cover up of everything else would be.
You're FOS, Mr "Smith"..... People know when they're being deceived and told lies.... They may not know at the moment, but if the evidence does add up they know that something stinks. Any reasonable person can deduce that the Warren Report is a pack of lies....
-
1) Conspiracies are more fun. Cable TV has made an industry off of it with UFOs. How long would a show last that confirmed no evidence of UFOs each week? You ultimately need an explanation for why no one can prove the existence of UFOs. And so a conspiracy is the explanation. For whatever unspecified reason, the government is always thwarting UFO discoveries by covering them up! Very convenient for the UFO believers who are given an excuse to avoid having to prove anything.
2) For some folks, it oddly appears to provide comfort that some nefarious entity is in charge of all important events. Nothing is left to chance. Better than acknowledging that a lot of important things happen outside the control of anyone.
3) An opportunity to grind an axe with some person or entity that they have an issue with. The military, government, religious or political groups. Anything evil that happens can be blamed on someone they dislike.
4) Attention. Taking a contrarian stand to the "official" story makes them feel special and provides a sense of being a seeker of justice and truth.
5) True believers/mental cases. A vocal minority of nuts who can't be reasoned with by facts or evidence.
6) There are some legitimate conspiracies. Experience teaches us, however, that they are almost impossible to conceal. Even the dumbest and simplest conspiracies at the highest level typically unravel. Watergate is a great example. A low-level break in that even the President of the United States couldn't cover up using all the tools at his disposal. It highlights how impossible a much more complex and involved conspiracy such as pulling off the assassination of JFK, frame up of Oswald, and cover up of everything else would be.
4) Attention. Taking a contrarian stand to the "official" story makes them feel special and provides a sense of being a seeker of justice and truth.
>>> Also known as the 'appeal to rebellion' logical fallacy
-
You're FOS, Mr "Smith"..... People know when they're being deceived and told lies.... They may not know at the moment, but if the evidence does add up they know that something stinks. Any reasonable person can deduce that the Warren Report is a pack of lies....
You're the poster boy for this topic, fool
Thanks for demonstrating that
Time for your nap
-
People know when they're being deceived and told lies....
Of course they do...those that check the facts. Walt...why continually respond to the blather of the Troll Brothers? They enjoy shining you on. It is exciting and fun for them. Anyway this Professor French [what a name for a limey] :D stated..None of the above should indicate that all conspiracy theories are false. Some may indeed turn out to be true.
The JFK assassination was not specified in the article. However, the grand mentor of these trolls..Vincent Bug did basically write in Reclaiming Misery that conspiracy belief is a lot more fun than just hanging the lone assassin.
-
You're FOS, Mr "Smith"..... People know when they're being deceived and told lies.... They may not know at the moment, but if the evidence does add up they know that something stinks. Any reasonable person can deduce that the Warren Report is a pack of lies....
So after 50 plus years we should have conclusive evidence of a conspiracy. Excellent! I await the NY Times report confirming and setting forth the facts. In the meantime, I'll pencil you in as a #5. Every such person believes they know the real facts. There are no greater true believers than the most outlandish conspiracy theorists because reaching such erroneous conclusions is not just a matter of faith but the dismissal of any facts contrary to their beliefs.
-
1) Conspiracies are more fun. Cable TV has made an industry off of it with UFOs. How long would a show last that confirmed no evidence of UFOs each week? You ultimately need an explanation for why no one can prove the existence of UFOs. And so a conspiracy is the explanation. For whatever unspecified reason, the government is always thwarting UFO discoveries by covering them up! Very convenient for the UFO believers who are given an excuse to avoid having to prove anything.
2) For some folks, it oddly appears to provide comfort that some nefarious entity is in charge of all important events. Nothing is left to chance. Better than acknowledging that a lot of important things happen outside the control of anyone.
3) An opportunity to grind an axe with some person or entity that they have an issue with. The military, government, religious or political groups. Anything evil that happens can be blamed on someone they dislike.
4) Attention. Taking a contrarian stand to the "official" story makes them feel special and provides a sense of being a seeker of justice and truth.
5) True believers/mental cases. A vocal minority of nuts who can't be reasoned with by facts or evidence.
6) There are some legitimate conspiracies. Experience teaches us, however, that they are almost impossible to conceal. Even the dumbest and simplest conspiracies at the highest level typically unravel. Watergate is a great example. A low-level break in that even the President of the United States couldn't cover up using all the tools at his disposal. It highlights how impossible a much more complex and involved conspiracy such as pulling off the assassination of JFK, frame up of Oswald, and cover up of everything else would be.
Number 4 applies to most Conspiracy Theorists on this forum... IMHO.
-
(http://wherethepowerlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/forrestal-and-jfk.jpg)
https://www.morgenpost.de/berlin-aktuell/50-jahre-jfk-berlin/article117393868/Schon-zur-Nazi-Zeit-besuchte-John-F-Kennedy-Berlin.html
Forrestal, center foreground, young JFK, right background.
https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1949/10/12/issue.html
(http://jfkforum.com/images/WillcuttsForrestal.jpg)
To this day, there is no satisfactory explanation taking into account all of the actual evidence....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Forrestal#Death
...Death....The official Navy review board, which completed hearings on May 31, waited until October 11, 1949, to release only a brief summary of its findings. The announcement, as reported on page 15 of the October 12 New York Times, stated only that Forrestal had died from his fall from the window. It did not say what might have caused the fall, nor did it make any mention of a bathrobe sash cord that had first been reported as tied around his neck. According to the full report,[30] which was not released by the Department of the Navy until April 2004:...
-
In the meantime, I'll pencil you in as a #5. Every such person believes they know the real facts.
As do you.
-
So after 50 plus years we should have conclusive evidence of a conspiracy. Excellent! I await the NY Times report confirming and setting forth the facts. In the meantime, I'll pencil you in as a #5. Every such person believes they know the real facts. There are no greater true believers than the most outlandish conspiracy theorists because reaching such erroneous conclusions is not just a matter of faith but the dismissal of any facts contrary to their beliefs.
Project Sunshine says hi.....
-
There is an important reason that I touched upon that further explains conspiracy theories. If you entertain baseless fantasies, like a JFK conspiracy or little green men visiting from Mars, you must have an explanation for why you can never prove it. And so there must be a conspiracy to explain away the lack of proof. It is like a seesaw. You can't entertain a baseless fantasy without a corresponding explanation for your inability to provide proof of your theory. So the conspiracy theory is a product of necessity that can be cited to avoid ever proving anything.
-
Of course you are only aware of those conspiracies that have been revealed.....the truly successful ones have not come to light yet. ;D
Therefore your reasoning can only be based subset of all conspiracies.
-
There is an important reason that I touched upon that further explains conspiracy theories. If you entertain baseless fantasies, like a JFK conspiracy or little green men visiting from Mars, you must have an explanation for why you can never prove it. And so there must be a conspiracy to explain away the lack of proof. It is like a seesaw. You can't entertain a baseless fantasy without a corresponding explanation for your inability to provide proof of your theory. So the conspiracy theory is a product of necessity that can be cited to avoid ever proving anything.
Mr "Smith".....Since you've brought up the subject of baseless fantasies....I believe it's important to remind you that your entire case is based on fantastic THEORIES.
One of the theories within the fantastic tale is the THEORY that Lee Oswald dashed past the elevator gates on the sixth floor and hastily dropped the rifle behind a row of boxes at the top of the stairs. There are in fact photos that depict a rifle jammed between boxes of books and it is about THREE feet from the partition on the east side of the stairs. However.... Detective Robert Studebaker drew a map that depicted where the various pieces of evidence ( the spent shells and the carcano) were located when they were discovered. Studebaker's map clearly shows that the rifle was discovered lying on the floor EIGHT FEET from the partition on the east side of the stairs. That's FIVE feet further south than the location of the rifle in the official in situ photos.
Even a elementary school kid can understand that no man could have dashed through that aisle at the top of the stairs and carefully hid the rifle beneath boxes of books that were over FIVE feet away and at least thee foot down ..... But apparently YOU Mr "Smith" do believe that FANTASY ......
Now tell us again about believing in ridiculous fantasies.....
-
Of course you are only aware of those conspiracies that have been revealed.....the truly successful ones have not come to light yet. ;D
Therefore your reasoning can only be based subset of all conspiracies.
The best place to hide something is:....in plain sight. And that's exactly what we have seen in this case....Merely changing the captioning of a photo can deceive the viewer..... The Back Yard Photo ( CE 133A) is a superb example..... That photo was displayed like giant FBI "wanted" poster on the cover of LIFE magazine in February of 1964. It was captioned ... Lee Harvey Oswald with the guns he used to kill President Kennedy and officer J.D. Tippit.
That BY photo was created to convey a lie....The photo depicted Lee Oswald as a heavily armed communist revolutionary.... But just as with a carnival gag photo which might show a person in jail the photo was a FAKE. Because Lee was actually a US government agent, who was attempting to deceive Castro's agents and lead them to believe that Lee Oswald was a true supporter of the revolution. If Lee Oswald had been successful in completing the hoax at General Walkers house in April of 63 the BY photo would have been published with the caption... Lee Harvey Oswald shown with the rifle with which he attempted to shoot Genera Walker
Viewers who saw LIFE magazine with the caption Lee Harvey Oswald with the guns he used to kill President Kennedy and officer J.D. Tippit. were duped into believing they were seeing a true photo of the assassin, because they had been bombarded with lies and false and confusing stories about the murder( it was always referred to the more acceptable "assassination") of President Kennedy. Some alert Americans knew that they were being fed a huge lie but were unable to make themselves heard above the US government approved tale, and when the LIFE magazine burst into the public view they threw up their hands, and cried "Fake".
And they were right, but not in the sense that some nefarious photo altering expert created the photo.....( in fact it is a very amateurish attempt to create a carnival fake) Some researchers tried to prove the BY photo was a fake that had been created to incriminate Lee Oswald. If they had merely changed the caption to the caption that would have accompanied the photo if Lee had been successful at Walker's in April. Lee Harvey Oswald shown with the rifle with which he attempted to shoot Genera Walker They may have realized that it was lee Oswald himself who had created the carnival gag photo.
There are a couple of aspects of the BY photo (CE 133A) that clearly show that the photo was "retouched" ( altered ). The most glaringly obvious is the addition of what appears to be a sling or carry strap to the photo. Apparently Lee added that carrying strap to make the rifle appear a bit more like a guerrilla's rifle....But it is so amateurish that it looks ridiculous..... and yet when most folks view the photo they don't see the obvious...It's hidden in plain sight.
-
There is an important reason that I touched upon that further explains conspiracy theories. If you entertain baseless fantasies, like a JFK conspiracy or little green men visiting from Mars, you must have an explanation for why you can never prove it. And so there must be a conspiracy to explain away the lack of proof. It is like a seesaw. You can't entertain a baseless fantasy without a corresponding explanation for your inability to provide proof of your theory. So the conspiracy theory is a product of necessity that can be cited to avoid ever proving anything.
THEY (the conspirators) are a relatively small group, but powerful and corrupt. They are evil, or at least selfish, acting in their own interest and against the public interest. They have great foresight, patience, and deviousness. Nevertheless, they are not all-powerful or even that smart, really, since WE have figured them out
WE are a small, dedicated group of freedom fighters and freethinkers. We are soldiers, rebels in the fight for good against evil.
YOU are clueless. Why can't you see what's going on here? (Conspiracy theorists place most people in this group.)
THEY have hidden or destroyed all the evidence that would implicate them and have manufactured false evidence that exculpates them.
YOU are close-minded. In fact, you are probably one of THEM.
http://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/conspiracy.html
-
There is an important reason that I touched upon that further explains conspiracy theories. If you entertain baseless fantasies, like a JFK conspiracy or little green men visiting from Mars, you must have an explanation for why you can never prove it.
Why? You don't offer an explanation for why you can never prove your baseless fantasy that Oswald did it.
-
Mr "Smith".....Since you've brought up the subject of baseless fantasies....I believe it's important to remind you that your entire case is based on fantastic THEORIES.
One of the theories within the fantastic tale is the THEORY that Lee Oswald dashed past the elevator gates on the sixth floor and hastily dropped the rifle behind a row of boxes at the top of the stairs. There are in fact photos that depict a rifle jammed between boxes of books and it is about THREE feet from the partition on the east side of the stairs. However.... Detective Robert Studebaker drew a map that depicted where the various pieces of evidence ( the spent shells and the carcano) were located when they were discovered. Studebaker's map clearly shows that the rifle was discovered lying on the floor EIGHT FEET from the partition on the east side of the stairs. That's FIVE feet further south than the location of the rifle in the official in situ photos.
Even a elementary school kid can understand that no man could have dashed through that aisle at the top of the stairs and carefully hid the rifle beneath boxes of books that were over FIVE feet away and at least thee foot down ..... But apparently YOU Mr "Smith" do believe that FANTASY ......
Now tell us again about believing in ridiculous fantasies.....
Your basis for a fantastic conspiracy that involves assassinating the president, framing Oswald, covering up the real assassins, and then murdering Oswald comes down to your subjective opinion that it would be difficult for Oswald to pause long enough to hide his rifle behind some boxes? You can accept all the wild implications of a grand conspiracy but can't believe that Oswald could somehow hide his rifle in this manner? Still have you down as a solid #5.
-
Why? You don't offer an explanation for why you can never prove your baseless fantasy that Oswald did it.
I await (sorta, kinda.. not really) your nomination for a suspect to replace the current placeholder
-
I await (sorta, kinda.. not really) your nomination for a suspect assassin to replace the current placeholder
I await (sorta, kinda.. not really) your justification for "current placeholder".
-
I await (sorta, kinda.. not really) your justification for "current placeholder".
Largely from the conspiracy-monger mindset that all evidence is either faked, planted, or altered.
-
Largely from the conspiracy-monger mindset that all evidence is either faked, planted, or altered.
In other words, no justification at all.
You can't even identify anybody who argues that "all evidence is either faked, planted, or altered".
-
In other words, no justification at all.
You can't even identify anybody who argues that "all evidence is either faked, planted, or altered".
Caprio
Cakebread
Freeman etc
Show us a couple to items that weren't faked planted or altered
-
Caprio
Cakebread
Freeman etc
Feel free to quote any of them (or anybody else) saying that all evidence is either faked, planted, or altered.
-
In other words, no justification at all.
You can't even identify anybody who argues that "all evidence is either faked, planted, or altered".
You lot self-identify. Faked, planted, altered is the lingo commonly used by conspiracy-mongers pushing a coverup agenda
Feel free to point out where any CT has ever identifified even a single piece of evidence as valid.
-
Feel free to quote any of them (or anybody else) saying that all evidence is either faked, planted, or altered.
Go ahead Crapman.... Quote me as saying at anytime, that I said, that all of the evidence is faked planted or altered....
I most certainly do NOT believe that....As a matter of fact if you didn't have your head somewhere other than squarely on your shoulders you'd know that I disagree vociferously with those who believe that all of the Back Yard photos are fakes that were created by the conspirators. I believe that one and possible two of the BY photos are genuine photos that were created by Lee Oswald.... I believe that he created CE 133A as part of the hoax plot to make it appear that Lee Oswald had attempted to shoot General Walker.
Now then... as you were saying Mr Crapman..... Oh BTW... It appears that you're getting your butt kicked....
-
IMO, a much more interesting question is why are LNers so gullible? Are they shills, gamers, or do they just have a strained relationship with truth and logic?
-
You lot self-identify. Faked, planted, altered is the lingo commonly used by conspiracy-mongers pushing a coverup agenda
"you lot" is Chapman-speak for "no, I can't actually cite anybody saying that".
Feel free to point out where any CT has ever identifified even a single piece of evidence as valid.
Identifified?
Walt has already given you one answer.
I think lots of the "so-called" evidence is valid. It just doesn't prove that Oswald shot Kennedy.
-
"you lot" is Chapman-speak for "no, I can't actually cite anybody saying that".
Identifified?
Walt has already given you one answer.
I think lots of the "so-called" evidence is valid. It just doesn't prove that Oswald shot Kennedy.
I think lots of the "so-called" evidence is valid. It just doesn't prove that Oswald shot Kennedy.
Exactly right, but that's something the LNs will never be able to wrap their heads around or even discuss openly, for that matter.
Far easier for them to just paint everybody who doesn't agree with them with the same brush and qualify them as irrational, unreasonable, conspiracy mongers even when they don't even have a conspiracy theory to put forward and just want to examine the validity of the case against Oswald.
-
You lot self-identify. Faked, planted, altered is the lingo commonly used by conspiracy-mongers pushing a coverup agenda
Feel free to point out where any CT has ever identifified even a single piece of evidence as valid. Last Edit: Today at 12:31:18 AM by Bill Chapman
Ever notice that El Chapo edits/re-edits every post that he makes and they still don't make any sense. "identifified" [stutters poor guy]
Here is what I say.... The Oswald did it story was a cover-up plain and simple. That is not a theory. Why do you not grasp that? you lot you all.. in Texas it's ya'll (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
-
Go ahead Crapman.... Quote me as saying at anytime, that I said, that all of the evidence is faked planted or altered....
I most certainly do NOT believe that....As a matter of fact if you didn't have your head somewhere other than squarely on your shoulders you'd know that I disagree vociferously with those who believe that all of the Back Yard photos are fakes that were created by the conspirators. I believe that one and possible two of the BY photos are genuine photos that were created by Lee Oswald.... I believe that he created CE 133A as part of the hoax plot to make it appear that Lee Oswald had attempted to shoot General Walker.
Now then... as you were saying Mr Crapman..... Oh BTW... It appears that you're getting your butt kicked....
'believe that he created CE 133A as part of the hoax plot to make it appear that Lee Oswald had attempted to shoot General Walker.
>>> in other words, you believe that was faked
LOL
-
"you lot" is Chapman-speak for "no, I can't actually cite anybody saying that".
Identifified?
Walt has already given you one answer.
I think lots of the "so-called" evidence is valid. It just doesn't prove that Oswald shot Kennedy.
No citation needed, since my statement is a take on the general CT attitude that a coverup exists; along with the lingo used to express that notion
"So called", huh..
By using quotes, you've already denied it as evidence
-
Ever notice that El Chapo edits/re-edits every post that he makes and they still don't make any sense. "identifified" [stutters poor guy]
Here is what I say.... The Oswald did it story was a cover-up plain and simple. That is not a theory. Why do you not grasp that? you lot you all.. in Texas it's ya'll (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
First of all, do not bold up any words in my posts within my actual post itself. I did not bold up that word.
Secondly, I've seen and used y'all at times, but never your ya'll
Lastly, I edit my posts in real time, on the fly.
Here, get some book learnin' into ya
Seems your home schoolin' just ain't workin' out for ya, Opie
-
'believe that he created CE 133A as part of the hoax plot to make it appear that Lee Oswald had attempted to shoot General Walker.
>>> in other words, you believe that was faked
LOL
So, now you've got Oswald faking photographs?
It's either that or you have a problem understanding English...
-
So, now you've got Oswald faking photographs?
It's either that or you have a problem understanding English...
Crapman can understand simple ideas....particularly if the ideas are presented by an "authority" or a government approved "expert".. That's why he believes the WR .
it was created for simple un -challenging minds.....( drones)
-
'believe that he created CE 133A as part of the hoax plot to make it appear that Lee Oswald had attempted to shoot General Walker.
>>> in other words, you believe that was faked
LOL
In your case LOL...means--- Lying Old Lunatic.
in other words, you believe that was faked
I believe we need to define the word "FAKE" ..... since you don't seem to be able to understand simple English.
fake--- Not genuine a counterfeit ......
And here's what I wrote...."I disagree vociferously with those who believe that all of the Back Yard photos are fakes that were created by the conspirators. I believe that one and possible two of the BY photos are genuine photos that were created by Lee Oswald.... I believe that he created CE 133A as part of the hoax plot to make it appear that Lee Oswald had attempted to shoot General Walker. "
Do you need further elucidation?....
-
No citation needed, since my statement is a take on the general CT attitude that a coverup exists; along with the lingo used to express that notion
You didn't say the attitude was that a coverup exists. You said it was "that all evidence is either faked, planted, or altered." Nice try at moving the goalposts.
"So called", huh..
By using quotes, you've already denied it as evidence
That's correct. Some of the things that for example Bugliosi puts forth as "evidence" is laughable nonsense. Like Oswald not being chatty with the cab driver.
-
Here, get some book learnin' into ya
Seems your home schoolin' just ain't workin' out for ya, Opie
That's a fine video you've identifified!
-
'believe that he created CE 133A as part of the hoax plot to make it appear that Lee Oswald had attempted to shoot General Walker.
>>> in other words, you believe that was faked
LOL
Bloody right CE 133A was "faked" and was not taken by Marina with Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera. The Dallas Police Dept. are up to their eyeballs in this conspiracy from Will Fritz to Roscoe White. If CE 133A was NOT shot with Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera, it suggests that either Marina had nothing to do with it, or she was a lying co-conspirator. Refute that this photo is the smoking gun that implicates the DPD in this conspiracy: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1763.msg46351.html#msg46351 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1763.msg46351.html#msg46351)
Dallas Police Officer Bobby Brown and accomplice(s) likely shot CE 133A with a better quality camera as part of Oswald's sheep-dipping. Brown claimed that under the direction of the Secret Service he created a silhouette cutout of Oswald taken from a negative of CE 133C and superimposed it over a reenactment photo he had taken from Oswald's backyard. The problem is he supposedly used a negative of CE 133C, which was never admitted into evidence and only surfaced 12 years later.
Who knows what Oswald's handlers told him the photos were for. He might have even known he was the designated patsy, however, he must have been reassured that they would help him escape the crime scene and maybe out of the country. Either way, the DPD double-crossed him, which he found out the hard way when they magically converged on him in the theater.
Here is some damning timeline evidence how the Dallas Police Dept faked CE 133A. https://jfkboard.org/category/back-yard-photos/ (https://jfkboard.org/category/back-yard-photos/)
From the BYPs to delivering LHO to Ruby, members of the DPD are without a doubt conspirators in the assassination of JFK. There is no other logical explanation for their actions.
-
Bloody right CE 133A was "faked" and was not taken by Marina with Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera. The Dallas Police Dept. are up to their eyeballs in this conspiracy from Will Fritz to Roscoe White. If CE 133A was NOT shot with Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera, it suggests that either Marina had nothing to do with it, or she was a lying co-conspirator. Refute that this photo is the smoking gun that implicates the DPD in this conspiracy: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1763.msg46351.html#msg46351 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1763.msg46351.html#msg46351)
Dallas Police Officer Bobby Brown and accomplice(s) likely shot CE 133A with a better quality camera as part of Oswald's sheep-dipping. Brown claimed that under the direction of the Secret Service he created a silhouette cutout of Oswald taken from a negative of CE 133C and superimposed it over a reenactment photo he had taken from Oswald's backyard. The problem is he supposedly used a negative of CE 133C, which was never admitted into evidence and only surfaced 12 years later.
Who knows what Oswald's handlers told him the photos were for. He might have even known he was the designated patsy, however, he must have been reassured that they would help him escape the crime scene and maybe out of the country. Either way, the DPD double-crossed him, which he found out the hard way when they magically converged on him in the theater.
Here is some damning timeline evidence how the Dallas Police Dept faked CE 133A. https://jfkboard.org/category/back-yard-photos/ (https://jfkboard.org/category/back-yard-photos/)
From the BYPs to delivering LHO to Ruby, members of the DPD are without a doubt conspirators in the assassination of JFK. There is no other logical explanation for their actions.
Jack....Referring to CE 133A and the De M print....If the DPD created CE 133A ...Then how did Demorhenschildt get a copy of it with Lee's autograph on it?
I believe that the Geneva White print 133c is a fake....created by the DPD. Captain Fritz displayed that photo to Lee Oswald at lunch time Saturday 11/23/63 BEFORE any other BY photo was found in the Paine garage..... Lee told Fritz that the photo was a fake.....
-
Jack....Referring to CE 133A and the De M print....If the DPD created CE 133A ...Then how did Demorhenschildt get a copy of it with Lee's autograph on it?
Well, given that it just magically showed up in DeMohrenschildt's storage warehouse while they were in Haiti, a better question might be why do you think Oswald had anything to do with it?
-
Well, given that it just magically showed up in DeMohrenschildt's storage warehouse while they were in Haiti, a better question might be why do you think Oswald had anything to do with it?
Actually, George DeMohrenschildt thought that it might have been Michael Paine (who apparantly died March 1st) who placed the box containing the BY photo in his storage unit. If true it raises all sorts of questions about that photograph.
First of all, if I remember correctly, Michael Paine has always played down his relationship with DeMohrenschildt, so how did he even end up with access (key?) to his storage unit?
Secondly, Michael Paine has always denied that he knew Oswald had a rifle, but how could he not have known that if he saw/handled the photograph?
Thirdly, why would Oswald "give" DeMohrenschildt a photograph of himself showing him holding a rifle, which he allegedly had told George he had used to shoot at Walker? Was he so stupid that he was handing out photo's that could support an attempted murder charge against him?
And then of course, there was the handwritten text in Russian, which wasn't in Marina's handwriting?..
So, for a photo that was supposedly taken by husband and wife, there seem to be at least three other people possibly involved with at least that one photo. So, what was really going on?
-
Well, given that it just magically showed up in DeMohrenschildt's storage warehouse while they were in Haiti, a better question might be why do you think Oswald had anything to do with it?
I believe that De M was lying about that photo....I believe that Lee autographed it ..."To my Friend George from Lee Oswald 4/ 5 /63" ( actually the date was written as the goofy Europeans write the date) and gave it to Dem before the hoax attempt on Walker.... DeM couldn't reveal how he came to have that photo because if the DPD ( Henry Wade) decided to press an attempted murder charge he would have been forced to reveal that he, and Walker, and Lee had planned the hoax and they were merely trying to get Lee Into Cuba.
-
Jack....Referring to CE 133A and the De M print....If the DPD created CE 133A ...Then how did Demorhenschildt get a copy of it with Lee's autograph on it?
I believe that the Geneva White print 133c is a fake....created by the DPD. Captain Fritz displayed that photo to Lee Oswald at lunch time Saturday 11/23/63 BEFORE any other BY photo was found in the Paine garage..... Lee told Fritz that the photo was a fake.....
Since DeMohrenschildt was LHO's handler he was the go-between for Lee and the DPD and SS. Look into their connections and I'll bet you find some interesting stuff. Also, before it's too late, someone has to question Marina whether the DPD or SS ever came to their house "taking pictures" because she was obviously lying about how many pictures she took. She needs to set the record straight.
-
I believe that De M was lying about that photo....I believe that Lee autographed it ..."To my Friend George from Lee Oswald 4/ 5 /63" ( actually the date was written as the goofy Europeans write the date) and gave it to Dem before the hoax attempt on Walker.... DeM couldn't reveal how he came to have that photo because if the DPD ( Henry Wade) decided to press an attempted murder charge he would have been forced to reveal that he, and Walker, and Lee had planned the hoax and they were merely trying to get Lee Into Cuba.
4/ 5 /63" ( actually the date was written as the goofy Europeans write the date)
Walt, just a question. Why would an American write a date as those "goofy Europeans" write it?
-
4/ 5 /63" ( actually the date was written as the goofy Europeans write the date)
Walt, just a question. Why would an American write a date as those "goofy Europeans" write it?
Actually, American military write dates as 22 Nov 1963 ... 7 Dec 1941 etc.
-
4/ 5 /63" ( actually the date was written as the goofy Europeans write the date)
Walt, just a question. Why would an American write a date as those "goofy Europeans" write it?
The "goofy Europeans " was a friendly jab at my friend Paul Ernst....Not intended to offend....BTW... Where is Paul?
Martin, My apologies.... I did not intend to offend, in the "goofy Europeans" comment....
Why would an American write a date as Europeans write it?
Answer:.... At the time that Lee autographed the photo, ( Friday April 5, 1963) I believe that Lee Oswald and George De M were planning for Lee to fire the bullet through Walker's window that weekend (Saturday 4/6 - Sunday 4/7 1963) and Lee wanted George to have a copy of the photo that he had autographed for his daughter ....Thus he asked George how he wanted the photo autographed and DE M dictated how he wanted Lee to sign the photo... So naturally DeM would have used the European method.....And that's the way Lee wrote it.
-
So, does Bill still believe in the Russia/Trump conspiracy?
Why did Bill believe in a conspiracy theory?
-
I think lots of the "so-called" evidence is valid. It just doesn't prove that Oswald shot Kennedy.
Exactly right, but that's something the LNs will never be able to wrap their heads around or even discuss openly, for that matter.
Far easier for them to just paint everybody who doesn't agree with them with the same brush and qualify them as irrational, unreasonable, conspiracy mongers even when they don't even have a conspiracy theory to put forward and just want to examine the validity of the case against Oswald.
Great. So now you tell us whether the documentation linking Oswald to the rifle is fake or genuine instead of running away and trying to have it both ways. So which is it?
-
Great. So now you tell us whether the documentation linking Oswald to the rifle is fake or genuine instead of running away and trying to have it both ways. So which is it?
Already answered, ?Richard?. It?s a loaded question. Whether it?s genuine or not, it doesn?t unequivocally link Oswald to the rifle.
-
Great. So now you tell us whether the documentation linking Oswald to the rifle is fake or genuine instead of running away and trying to have it both ways. So which is it?
Richard, why does Oswald have to be a lone nut and not a patsy?
-
Already answered, ?Richard?. It?s a loaded question. Whether it?s genuine or not, it doesn?t unequivocally link Oswald to the rifle.
Even if Lee could be unequivocally linked to the carcano.... I'm sure that carcano was not fired that day....It was hidden BEFORE the shooting and only a ignoramus would have tried to shoot the POTUS with such a piece of junk. And Lee was on the first floor at the time of the shooting.
-
You're FOS, Mr "Smith"..... People know when they're being deceived and told lies.... They may not know at the moment, but if the evidence does add up they know that something stinks. Any reasonable person can deduce that the Warren Report is a pack of lies....
So, you?re stating the majority of historians, ballistic experts, forensic pathologists, et al are unreasonable. That?s your argument. Here?s an argument to defend: on 11/22/63 the population of Dallas, Texas was some 700,000 people. Two people were killed in Dallas on that date. POTUS and PO J.D. Tippit. Turns out, only one person owned and possessed the two different murder weapons in both cases to the exclusion of 699,999 other people in Dallas. Yet, you choose to believe Oswald killed nobody that date. That?s nit critical thinking. It is however pure ignorance and bias.
-
So, you?re stating the majority of historians, ballistic experts, forensic pathologists, et al are unreasonable. That?s your argument. Here?s an argument to defend: on 11/22/63 the population of Dallas, Texas was some 700,000 people. Two people were killed in Dallas on that date. POTUS and PO J.D. Tippit. Turns out, only one person owned and possessed the two different murder weapons in both cases to the exclusion of 699,999 other people in Dallas. Yet, you choose to believe Oswald killed nobody that date. That?s nit critical thinking. It is however pure ignorance and bias.
So, the majority of historians, ballistic experts, forensic pathologists, et al are unreasonable. Puppets of the press. Within 90 minutes of the assassination the cops were certain they had their man. That claim was accepted as bonifide without any scrutiny whatsoever. He was a nobody that nobody would know. A perfect patsy.
Two people were killed in Dallas on that date. Are you sure?
Why was Tippit given a singularly/particularly unusual instruction? ---" You will be at large for any emergency that comes in." and then 10-15 minutes later he was dead. Was that directive not substantial enough?
That Tippit supposedly pulled over to question Oswald because he matched the description of a sniper 3 miles away was based on nothing but complete conjecture. So what is 'bias'? Works both ways it seems.
-
So, you?re stating the majority of historians, ballistic experts, forensic pathologists, et al are unreasonable.
Don?t be ridiculous. How would historians, ballistic experts, and forensic pathologists know who killed Kennedy any more than anybody else?
That?s your argument. Here?s an argument to defend: on 11/22/63 the population of Dallas, Texas was some 700,000 people. Two people were killed in Dallas on that date. POTUS and PO J.D. Tippit. Turns out, only one person owned and possessed the two different murder weapons in both cases to the exclusion of 699,999 other people in Dallas. Yet, you choose to believe Oswald killed nobody that date. That?s nit critical thinking. It is however pure ignorance and bias.
That might be a good argument if you could actually demonstrate that Oswald ?owned and possessed the two different murder weapons in both cases?. You can?t even demonstrate that those were the murder weapons, much less who owned and possessed them.
-
So, you?re stating the majority of historians, ballistic experts, forensic pathologists, et al are unreasonable. That?s your argument. Here?s an argument to defend: on 11/22/63 the population of Dallas, Texas was some 700,000 people. Two people were killed in Dallas on that date. POTUS and PO J.D. Tippit. Turns out, only one person owned and possessed the two different murder weapons in both cases to the exclusion of 699,999 other people in Dallas. Yet, you choose to believe Oswald killed nobody that date. That?s nit critical thinking. It is however pure ignorance and bias.
Turns out, only one person owned and possessed the two different murder weapons in both cases to the exclusion of 699,999 other people in Dallas.
Now IF you could only PROVE beyond a shadow of doubt that Lee Oswald "Owned and possessed " the two different weapons and then PROVE beyond a shadow of doubt that they were fired by Lee Oswald on 11/22/63..... You'd have a very good case..... Can you prove any part of your case?
The only evidence that conclusively would link the carcano to the murder of JFK is a pristine bullet which is generally rejected as evidence by discerning and intelligent people.
And the S&W revolver that appeared at the Texas Theater is DEFINITELY not the gun that several eye witnesses saw in the hands of the killer at the Tippit murder scene.
Now please present something CREDIBLE.... I'd really like to believe you, but there is no evidence that will support your contention....
-
Richard, why does Oswald have to be a lone nut and not a patsy?
There is no predetermined outcome here. It is the evidence that dictates the conclusion to be drawn. Just as the evidence dictates that John Wilkes Booth was part of a conspiracy.
-
There is no predetermined outcome here. It is the evidence that dictates the conclusion to be drawn.
In your case it?s your misrepresentation of the evidence that leads to your conclusion.
-
Turns out, only one person owned and possessed the two different murder weapons in both cases to the exclusion of 699,999 other people in Dallas.
Now IF you could only PROVE beyond a shadow of doubt that Lee Oswald "Owned and possessed " the two different weapons and then PROVE beyond a shadow of doubt that they were fired by Lee Oswald on 11/22/63..... You'd have a very good case..... Can you prove any part of your case?
The only evidence that conclusively would link the carcano to the murder of JFK is a pristine bullet which is generally rejected as evidence by discerning and intelligent people.
And the S&W revolver that appeared at the Texas Theater is DEFINITELY not the gun that several eye witnesses saw in the hands of the killer at the Tippit murder scene.
Now please present something CREDIBLE.... I'd really like to believe you, but there is no evidence that will support your contention....
Dirty Harvey
;)
@Newbies:
Dirty Harvey
'Smith, Wesson... and Lee'
Dirty Harry
'Smith, Wesson... and me'
-
Even if Lee could be unequivocally linked to the carcano.... I'm sure that carcano was not fired that day....It was hidden BEFORE the shooting and only a ignoramus would have tried to shoot the POTUS with such a piece of junk. And Lee was on the first floor at the time of the shooting.
I asked those who purport not to take issue with the bulk of the evidence a simple question. Just whether they believe the documentation that links Oswald to the MC rifle is fake or genuine. Nothing more or less. Why is that so difficult to answer? They could say it is genuine but for some unspecified reason don't believe it links Oswald to the rifle. I'm not sure how they square that rationale, though, since if it is genuine then it shows Oswald ordering a rifle from Klein's under an alias associated with him and being sent a specific rifle (the one with same serial number as that found on the 6th floor of the TSBD -- Oswald's place of employment). But that would be an answer even if it makes no apparent sense. Or they could say it is all fake. But dishonest posters contend it is somehow a loaded question to even answer whether they are contending whether the underlying documentation is genuine or fake. Much less support their position. They want to have it both ways. Suggesting the evidence is suspect but never having to own up to the implications. It's laughable in its intellectual dishonesty.
-
I asked those who purport not to take issue with the bulk of the evidence a simple question. Just whether they believe the documentation that links Oswald to the MC rifle is fake or genuine. Nothing more or less. Why is that so difficult to answer? They could say it is genuine but for some unspecified reason don't believe it links Oswald to the rifle. I'm not sure how they square that rationale, though, since if it is genuine then it shows Oswald ordering a rifle from Klein's under an alias associated with him and being sent a specific rifle (the one with same serial number as that found on the 6th floor of the TSBD -- Oswald's place of employment). But that would be an answer even if it makes no apparent sense. Or they could say it is all fake. But dishonest posters contend it is somehow a loaded question to even answer whether they are contending whether the underlying documentation is genuine or fake. Much less support their position. They want to have it both ways. Suggesting the evidence is suspect but never having to own up to the implications. It's laughable in its intellectual dishonesty.
The (literally) loaded answer was the rifle found to be sporting the Oswald print on the barrel portion under the stock, along with shirt fiber found on the butt plate that couldn't be dismissed as being from Oswald's shirt.
Suggesting the evidence is suspect but never having to own up to the implications
>>> It's the conspiracy-monger technique known as JAQing:
Just Asking Questions
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.
The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers) and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).
It should be noted that accusing one's opponent of "just asking questions" is a common derailment tactic and a way of poisoning the well. Asking questions in and of itself is not invalid.
The subjective nature of this charge, and its consequent ripeness for abuse, means that deploying it can be a very inflammatory move. One side may put forward the accusation that the other side is cynically "just asking questions" and believe that they are acting in good faith, and the other side may equally strongly believe that they were asking genuine questions in good faith and the first person is the one acting in bad faith.
-
I asked those who purport not to take issue with the bulk of the evidence a simple question. Just whether they believe the documentation that links Oswald to the MC rifle is fake or genuine.
Why don?t you be intellectually honest and stop referring to it as ?documentation that links Oswald to the rifle??
Nothing more or less. Why is that so difficult to answer? They could say it is genuine but for some unspecified reason don't believe it links Oswald to the rifle. I'm not sure how they square that rationale, though, since if it is genuine then it shows Oswald ordering a rifle from Klein's under an alias associated with him and being sent a specific rifle (the one with same serial number as that found on the 6th floor of the TSBD -- Oswald's place of employment).
That?s the whole point ? it doesn?t show anything of the kind.
This is like me asking you, ?do you believe the evidence showing that you beat your wife is fake or genuine??
If you really want an answer instead of cheap rhetorical posturing, then drop the loaded questions and just ask do you believe that X piece of evidence is fake or genuine?
-
The (literally) loaded answer was the rifle found to be sporting the Oswald print on the barrel portion under the stock, along with shirt fiber found on the butt plate that couldn't be dismissed as being from Oswald's shirt.
I think you mean the partial palm print that turned up a week later on an index card, and fibers that may or may not have come from Oswald?s shirt.
-
I think you mean the partial palm print that turned up a week later on an index card, and fibers that may or may not have come from Oswald?s shirt.
Even worse; it's only an assumption that Oswald wore the same shirt he was arrested in at the TSBD that morning.
-
Even worse; it's only an assumption that Oswald wore the same shirt he was arrested in at the TSBD that morning.
Tim Snickerson says it was. I guess he was there ::) His was the first reply to the thread on the shirt here...
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,771.msg16387.html#msg16387
I believe all the links I found are still working. Have a glance.
Regarding conspiracy theories---The US Democrats still believe [even after the Mueller report] that the Donald Trump campaign conspired with Russia to defeat Hilly.
-
I think you mean the partial palm print that turned up a week later on an index card, and fibres that may or may not have come from Oswald?s shirt.
You think a lot of things, don't you John.. such as how the 'fibers couldn't be dismissed as being from Oswald's shirt' remark somehow differs from your 'fibers that may or may not have come from Oswald's shirt'
A goodly number of these 'couldn't-be-dismissed/may-or-may nots' exist and are worthy of serious consideration, whether detractors like it or not.
In regards the partial, I have no information as to when the investigators decided to check for prints on the rifle in it's broken-down state.
-
The (literally) loaded answer was the rifle found to be sporting the Oswald print on the barrel portion under the stock, along with shirt fiber found on the butt plate that couldn't be dismissed as being from Oswald's shirt.
Suggesting the evidence is suspect but never having to own up to the implications
>>> It's the conspiracy-monger technique known as JAQing:
Just Asking Questions
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.
The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers) and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).
It should be noted that accusing one's opponent of "just asking questions" is a common derailment tactic and a way of poisoning the well. Asking questions in and of itself is not invalid.
The subjective nature of this charge, and its consequent ripeness for abuse, means that deploying it can be a very inflammatory move. One side may put forward the accusation that the other side is cynically "just asking questions" and believe that they are acting in good faith, and the other side may equally strongly believe that they were asking genuine questions in good faith and the first person is the one acting in bad faith.
The (literally) loaded answer was the rifle found to be sporting the Oswald print on the barrel portion under the stock,
Are you really so dumb that you believe that an adult man could deposit an identifiable palm print on a cylindrical tube that is the same diameter as a AA pen light battery?
along with shirt fiber found on the butt plate that couldn't be dismissed as being from Oswald's shirt.
Excellent point to demonstrate that Lee was framed.... The FBI claimed that the tuft of fibers matched the shirt that Lee was wearing when he was dragged from the theater.... BIG PROBLEM!!.... Lee went to his room and changed his clothes after he left the TSBD and before he went to the theater.
-
You think a lot of things, don't you John.. such as how my 'that [fiber] couldn't be dismissed as being from Oswald's shirt' remark somehow differs from your 'fibers that may or may not have come from Oswald's shirt'
A goodly number of these 'couldn't-be-dismissed/may-or-may nots' exist and worthy of consideration whether detractors like it or not.
In regards the partial, I have no information as to when the investigators decided to check for prints on the rifle in it's broken-down state.
You think a lot of things, don't you John
So do you
A goodly number of these 'couldn't-be-dismissed/may-or-may nots' exist and worthy of consideration whether detractors like it or not.
Care to name one?
In regards the partial, I have no information as to when the investigators decided to check for prints on the rifle in it's broken-down state.
Well, the FBI checked with 24 hours after the murder and found no prints
-
You think a lot of things, don't you John.. such as how my 'that [fiber] couldn't be dismissed as being from Oswald's shirt' remark somehow differs from your 'fibers that may or may not have come from Oswald's shirt'
A goodly number of these 'couldn't-be-dismissed/may-or-may nots' exist and worthy of consideration whether detractors like it or not.
In regards the partial, I have no information as to when the investigators decided to check for prints on the rifle in it's broken-down state.
Sounds a whole lot like Dishonest John is alleging that Oswald's prints were planted on the rifle. That is "faked" evidence since he won't apparently ever acknowledge the implications.
-
Sounds a whole lot like Dishonest John is alleging that Oswald's prints were planted on the rifle. That is "faked" evidence since he won't apparently ever acknowledge the implications.
The whole tale about the palm print on the rifle is BS!.... Day thought that a smudge on the foregrip of the carcano might have been a palm print when he first spotted it in the TSBD at about 2:00pm that afternoon... He knew that wood absorbs prints rapidly so he attempted to lift that smudge immediately....And Tom Alyea watched as he lifted the smudge and then placed the cellophane tape on a small (3 X5 index card) ....Day then jotted down the pertinent information ..."off underside of barrel near end of fore grip on rifle c 2766"
Later that night the 3 X5 card was sent along with the reast of the evidence to the FBI ( It's listed on the evidence inventory list) Some folks deny that it is listed on the list for 11/22/63 and delude themselves into believing that the "palm print" ( unidentifiable smudge) wasn't released to the FBI until 11/26/63.
But the list itself is solid evidence that it was created on 11/22/63 .......
-
Citing ... "due to adverse publicity from the press" -charges against Jussie Smollett were dropped. This was a conspiracy of the third kind. There are those who will say that the city of Chicago and the media owes him an apology. Goes to show you...green backs matter. https://www.npr.org/2019/03/26/706857658/prosecutors-drop-all-charges-against-empire-actor-jussie-smollett
-
Sounds a whole lot like Dishonest John is alleging that Oswald's prints were planted on the rifle. That is "faked" evidence since he won't apparently ever acknowledge the implications.
How do you reconcile the FBI examination of the rifle on 11/23/63 and not finding even a trace of a print and Day producing an index card with a print on it a week later?
-
How do you reconcile the FBI examination of the rifle on 11/23/63 and not finding even a trace of a print and Day producing an index card with a print on it a week later?
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#fibers
-
Even worse; it's only an assumption that Oswald wore the same shirt he was arrested in at the TSBD that morning.
Marina testified that she thinks that was the shirt he wore that morning. Bledsoe testified it was the same shirt.
The image of the funny-looking guy not resisting arrest ;) outside the TT shows the same color shirt (lightened by the sunshine)
-
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#fibers
Ah.. the propaganda troll strikes again. Sorry... not interested in fairytales and weak incredible explanations.
-
This is the shirt Mr Oswald wore to work the morning of 11/22/63:
(https://i.imgur.com/kbuUeUO.png)
(Credit: Mr P. Speer! Thumb1: )
-
You think a lot of things, don't you John
So do you
A goodly number of these 'couldn't-be-dismissed/may-or-may nots' exist and worthy of consideration whether detractors like it or not.
Care to name one?
In regards the partial, I have no information as to when the investigators decided to check for prints on the rifle in it's broken-down state.
Well, the FBI checked with 24 hours after the murder and found no prints
Just named the rifle CBD shirt fibers, Sherlock
The partial came off with the lift
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#fibers
-
Marina testified that she thinks that was the shirt he wore that morning. Bledsoe testified it was the same shirt.
The image of the funny-looking guy not resisting arrest ;) outside the TT shows the same color shirt (lightened by the sunshine)
Marina testified that she thinks that was the shirt he wore that morning.
"thinks"?....
Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, would you step over with the interpreter to this desk and point out the different pieces of clothing as we ask you about it, please?
Do you know the shirt that Lee Oswald wore the morning that he left?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember. What else interests you? What do you want?
Marina did not see him leave the house and had no way of knowing which shirt Oswald was wearing.
Bledsoe testified it was the same shirt.
Bledsoe's testimony was all over the place. She was shown the actual shirt at her home before testifying and only "recognized" it due to the hole on the arm. :D
None of the people who worked with Oswald that morningwere able to identify that shirt! And it is common knowledge that eyewitnesses frequently get all sorts of details wrong, yet Bledsoe's convenient testimony is believed without question or corroboration.
-
Ah.. the propaganda troll strikes again. Sorry... not interested in fairytales and weak incredible explanations.
Then why are you a CT...
-
Just named the rifle CBD shirt fibers, Sherlock
The partial came off with the lift
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#fibers
Just named the rifle CBD shirt fibers, Sherlock
Oh I'm sorry, Watson, I thought you were talking about "couldn't-be-dismissed" evidence...
-
Then why are you a CT...
Am I?
So not being convinced by the WC fairytale automatically makes me a CT? Really?
Must be LN "logic"
-
Marina testified that she thinks that was the shirt he wore that morning.
"thinks"?....
Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, would you step over with the interpreter to this desk and point out the different pieces of clothing as we ask you about it, please?
Do you know the shirt that Lee Oswald wore the morning that he left?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember. What else interests you? What do you want?
Marina did not see him leave the house and had no way of knowing which shirt Oswald was wearing.
Bledsoe testified it was the same shirt.
Bledsoe's testimony was all over the place. She was shown the actual shirt at her home before testifying and only "recognized" it due to the hole on the arm. :D
None of the people who worked with Oswald that morningwere able to identify that shirt! And it is common knowledge that eyewitnesses frequently get all sorts of details wrong, yet Bledsoe's convenient testimony is believed without question or corroboration.
A good-sized hole in a sleeve would be arguably more noticeable, and recalled, than the actual shirt itself
Seems Oswald wasn't very noticeable most of that day
The poor drab sap in a drab shirt. Could barely get even what he was carrying noticed
Seems no one hardly noticed him his entire life
They notice him now, huh...
-
Just named the rifle CBD shirt fibers, Sherlock
Oh I'm sorry, Watson, I thought you were talking about "couldn't-be-dismissed" evidence...
Ask Stombaugh
-
A good-sized hole in a sleeve would be arguably more noticeable, and recalled, than the actual shirt itself
Seems Oswald wasn't very noticeable most of that day
The poor drab sap in a drab shirt. Could barely get even what he was carrying noticed
Seems no one hardly noticed him his entire life
And yet when his presence in the front entrance during the Presidential parade is brought up, you cry, 'How come no one noticed him?!' :D
-
Ask Stombaugh
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/68526948/paul-morgan-stombaugh
-
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/68526948/paul-morgan-stombaugh
Anything to avoid actually reading his testimony, huh
G' ahead, tell us what he testified about the shirt fibers found on the rifle
-
And yet when his presence in the front entrance during the Presidential parade is brought up, you cry, 'How come no one noticed him?!' :D
Show testimony that places Oswald out front at any time during the motorcade
-
Anything to avoid actually reading his testimony, huh
G' ahead, tell us what he testified about the shirt fibers found on the rifle
You said: ask Stombaugh
And I have read his testimony. Too bad there was no cross-examination.
-
You think a lot of things, don't you John.. such as how the 'fibers couldn't be dismissed as being from Oswald's shirt' remark somehow differs from your 'fibers that may or may not have come from Oswald's shirt'
A goodly number of these 'couldn't-be-dismissed/may-or-may nots' exist and are worthy of serious consideration, whether detractors like it or not.
I'm not sure what you think the probative value is of this, regardless of how you phrase it.
-
Sounds a whole lot like Dishonest John is alleging that Oswald's prints were planted on the rifle.
No, that's another "Richard Smith" strawman. I'm stating the facts that prints were found near the trigger guard which were useless for identification purposes, and one partial palmprint on an index card that Latona received on November 29th was identified by Latona as Oswald's.
-
The whole tale about the palm print on the rifle is BS!.... Day thought that a smudge on the foregrip of the carcano might have been a palm print when he first spotted it in the TSBD at about 2:00pm that afternoon... He knew that wood absorbs prints rapidly so he attempted to lift that smudge immediately....And Tom Alyea watched as he lifted the smudge and then placed the cellophane tape on a small (3 X5 index card) ....Day then jotted down the pertinent information ..."off underside of barrel near end of fore grip on rifle c 2766"
This is one giant Walt fabrication.
Later that night the 3 X5 card was sent along with the reast of the evidence to the FBI ( It's listed on the evidence inventory list) Some folks deny that it is listed on the list for 11/22/63 and delude themselves into believing that the "palm print" ( unidentifiable smudge) wasn't released to the FBI until 11/26/63.
But the list itself is solid evidence that it was created on 11/22/63 .......
No it isn't. That particular evidence list is undated.
-
Show testimony that places Oswald out front at any time during the motorcade
Don't need to------he's on film! Thumb1:
-
Just named the rifle CBD shirt fibers, Sherlock
You said "goodly number" and when pressed you repeated the single example that you already gave before your goodly number comment.
Conclusion: Chapman thinks one is a goodly number.
The partial came off with the lift
Mr. DAY. It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.
-
You said "goodly number" and when pressed you repeated the single example that you already gave before your goodly number comment.
Conclusion: Chapman thinks one is a goodly number.
Mr. DAY. It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.
Martin clearly said name one. He neatly avoided saying name another one. In that regard, I have high confidence that JAQers feel that the shirt fibers found aboard the rifle do not qualify as being worthy of non-dismissal. You of course will not commit either way.
The Stombaugh CBD information exists whether detractors like it or not.
Not my problem if JAQers don't know which items CBD by Stombaugh
-
Don't need to------he's on film! Thumb1:
Point him out...
-
You know ....Leave it to Chapman to hijack his own thread with silly little tit for tat ludicrous challenges.
This should be called---- Why do many people believe in conspiracies? Saddam Hussein had WMDs right? ::)
Also the thread is supposed to be a poll...what happened there? 1) Oswald did it 2) Maybe Oswald did it 3) perhaps Oswald could have probably done it 4) An idiotic poll.
-
No, that's another "Richard Smith" strawman. I'm stating the facts that prints were found near the trigger guard which were useless for identification purposes, and one partial palmprint on an index card that Latona received on November 29th was identified by Latona as Oswald's.
I'm stating the facts that prints were found near the trigger guard which were useless for identification purposes, and one partial palmprint on an index card that Latona received on November 29th was identified by Latona as Oswald's.
Is this the same index card that was listed as item number 14 on the evidence inventory list that was created for the evidence that was turned over to the FBI at mid-night on 11/ 22/63 ?
I'm sure that you won't dispute the fact that the DPD created a list of all of the evidence that they were releasing to the FBI....just as LBJ had ordered Currt to do, will you John?
-
Martin clearly said name one. He neatly avoided saying name another one.
You clearly said "goodly number".
In that regard, I have high confidence that JAQers feel that the shirt fibers found aboard the rifle do not qualify as being worthy of non-dismissal.
"do not qualify as being worthy of non-dismissal". :D
What kind of silly double-speak is this? You can either prove they came from Oswald or you cannot.
-
Is this the same index card that was listed as item number 14 on the evidence inventory list that was created for the evidence that was turned over to the FBI at mid-night on 11/ 22/63 ?
Loaded question. You don't know that particular list was created for the evidence that was turned over to the FBI at mid-night on 11/22/63. Vince Drain knew nothing about the magic partial palmprint.
-
This is one giant Walt fabrication.
No it isn't. That particular evidence list is undated.
Yes the list is undated....But the list itself provides the date that it was created... Surely you don't believe that the DPD released all of that evidence to the FBI without documentation, do you John?
-
Yes the list is undated....But the list itself provides the date that it was created...
Circular argument. You're trying to say that the magic partial palmprint must have been turned over on 11/22 because it's on that evidence list, and that evidence list must have been made on 11/22 because the magic partial palmprint is on the list.
But the magic partial palmprint was not in the evidence turned over on 11/22.
-
Circular argument. You're trying to say that the magic partial palmprint must have been turned over on 11/22 because it's on that evidence list, and that evidence list must have been made on 11/22 because the magic partial palmprint is on the list.
But the magic partial palmprint was not in the evidence turned over on 11/22.
No John THAT is NOT my point.....( and I've told you before) that the cops didn't know what kind of rifle they had removed from the TSBD when they released it to the FBI...Detective Day listed all of the identifing information that he'd been able to find on that rifle....so he only knew that it was stamped "Made Italy"-- " 6,5 cal."and the serial number c2766 and he listed the information that was stamped on the scope.....he did NOT NOT list the make of the rifle, because he didn't know what it was.... Later ...on Saturday 11 /23/63 They learned that the rifle was called a Mannlicher Carcano , or simply carcano for short....
And not only is there information about the rifle missing on the original sheet there are many other difference between the original sheet that was typed up on the evening of 11/22 and the list that was made from a photocopy of that original list... Like the difference between the number of shells that were found beneath the window....The original list said the only TWO shells were found....
This isn't rocket science.....even an elementary school kid can spot the differences between the original evidence inventory list and the altered list.....
-
No John THAT is NOT my point.....( and I've told you before) that the cops didn't know what kind of rifle they had removed from the TSBD when they released it to the FBI...Detective Day listed all of the identifing information that he'd been able to find on that rifle....so he only knew that it was stamped "Made Italy"-- " 6,5 cal."and the serial number c2766 and he listed the information that was stamped on the scope.....he did NOT NOT list the make of the rifle, because he didn't know what it was.... Later ...on Saturday 11 /23/63 They learned that the rifle was called a Mannlicher Carcano , or simply carcano for short....
And not only is there information about the rifle missing on the original shhet there are many other difference between the original shett that was typed up on the evening of 11/22 and the list that was made from a photocopy of that original list... Like the difference between the number of shells that were founf beneath the window....The original list said the only TWO shells were found....
This isn't rocket science.....even an elementary school kid can spot the differences between the original evidence inventory list and the altered list.....
I'm not sure how the list having been altered is supposed to demonstrate that the "original" list is even an original list, much less that it was typed up on the 22nd.
-
I'm not sure how the list having been altered is supposed to demonstrate that the "original" list is even an original list, much less that it was typed up on the 22nd.
I'm not sure how the list having been altered is supposed to demonstrate that the "original" list is even an original list,
Yes, that seems to be apparent..... But I don't believe that you don't have the reasoning ability of a ten year old.....
Even a ten year old would understand that the DPD would not have released a single piece of evidence unless they documented the fact that they released it to the FBI. Surely you won't argue that point, will you john?
So they must have documented the evidence (and many of the police officers and the FBI acknowledged that the DPD did in fact turn the evidence over to them at midnight 11/22/63.) They photo graphed and listed the evidence.... But they didn't know some of the information that appeared on the list for 11/26/63 so naturally that info was not listed on the original list. Is this too difficult for you Johnny?
-
So they must have documented the evidence (and many of the police officers and the FBI acknowledged that the DPD did in fact turn the evidence over to them at midnight 11/22/63.) They photo graphed and listed the evidence.... But they didn't know some of the information that appeared on the list for 11/26/63 so naturally that info was not listed on the original list. Is this too difficult for you Johnny?
Not difficult at all. You have absolutely no evidence that this particular list existed on 11/22. It's all imagination and fabrication.
-
You know ....Leave it to Chapman to hijack his own thread with silly little tit for tat ludicrous challenges.
This should be called---- Why do many people believe in conspiracies? Saddam Hussein had WMDs right? ::)
Also the thread is supposed to be a poll...what happened there? 1) Oswald did it 2) Maybe Oswald did it 3) perhaps Oswald could have probably done it 4) An idiotic poll.
JAQers/CTers attempt to weaponize single words like 'goodly' in order to deflect. I responded.
Do not misrepresent my 'Probables' poll
My OP is meant for the JFK discussion forum, not the off-topic section. Keep other batshiiittt crazy conspiracy crap to yourself
-
JAQers/CTers attempt to weaponize single words like 'goodly' in order to deflect. I responded.
"weaponize". LOL.
So that's your excuse for misrepresenting evidence?
-
"weaponize". LOL.
So that's your excuse for misrepresenting evidence?
You're JAQing again..
And show us where I 'misrepresented' evidence
-
You're JAQing again..
And show us where I 'misrepresented' evidence
You said "a goodly number of these 'couldn't-be-dismissed/may-or-may nots' exist" but you could only specifically identify ONE.
-
You said "a goodly number of these 'couldn't-be-dismissed/may-or-may nots' exist" but you could only specifically identify ONE.
Indeed... and the one he named didn't qualify as "couldn't be dismissed"....
You're JAQing again..
And show us where I 'misrepresented' evidence
You're JAQing again..
Is this going to be your default reply to any question you don't want or can't answer?
And show us where I 'misrepresented' evidence
Looking through your posting history it's remarkable just how many questions you ask whilst at the same time complaining about others asking you questions?.
-
Do not misrepresent my 'Probables' poll
The part about 'idiotic poll' is accurate. If you post a poll then match it with a topic. There are several other such polls posted in the past. Stop bellyaching when you get called out.
How about...1) Oswald did it 2) Oswald didn't do it...?
-
You're JAQing again..
Can someone translate this slobbering yolk vernacular. What in hell is JAQ?
Looked it up and got this... https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Jaq
Yeah--I don't know about that.
-
Indeed... and the one he named didn't qualify as "couldn't be dismissed"....
You're JAQing again..
Is this going to be your default reply to any question you don't want or can't answer?
And show us where I 'misrepresented' evidence
Looking through your posting history it's remarkable just how many questions you ask whilst at the same time complaining about others asking you questions?.
Tell us where Stombaugh dismissed the rifle shirt fibers
-
Tell us where Stombaugh dismissed the rifle shirt fibers
And yet another question from the JAQ clown....
Who said Stombaugh dismissed the rifle shirt fibers?
Whether you like it or not, Stombaugh couldn't make a 100% positive match and what he did say was merely his opinion which hardly qualifies as something that "couldn't be dismissed". For once try to understand what people are telling you!
-
Can someone translate this slobbering yolk vernacular. What in hell is JAQ?
"Just Asking Questions".
When Chapman stumbles upon a buzz word, he both overuses it and misuses it. Like "bump", and "gaslighting".
-
And yet another question from the JAQ clown....
Who said Stombaugh dismissed the rifle shirt fibers?
Whether you like it or not, Stombaugh couldn't make a 100% positive match and what he did say was merely his opinion which hardly qualifies as something that "couldn't be dismissed". For once try to understand what people are telling you!
Again with the gaslighting
You asked me to name one CBD, not another one
Whether you like it or not, Stombaugh did not dismiss the shirt fibers being from Oswald's shirt
Re JAQing:
You claim you're not a CTer
JAQer fits you perfectly
Shall I demote you to CTer nut-job level
Either one works for me
Your thing about how could Oswald take 25 minutes to cover a 10 minute walk is an example of JAQing, and also an example of your claims that ppl don't answer your questions. I did in fact school you on that particular one.
-
Again with the gaslighting
It seems to me you would do a great many people a big favor by only using expressions you actually understand and know how to apply correctly. Nobody is trying to confuse you or change your mind. You are merely confronted with a factual statement over which for some unexplicable reason you get all defensive about.
You asked me to name one CBD, not another one
Whether you like it or not, Stombaugh did not dismiss the shirt fibers being from Oswald's shirt
No, I asked you to name one that "could not be dismissed" (your words!).... What Stombaugh said about some fibers does not qualify for that category.
You claim you're not a CTer
JAQer fits you perfectly
Wrong again. I am asking for answers and at least halfway sound explanations from people like you who believe and defend the WC fairytale. That's not "just asking questions" as it serves the purpose of better understanding what it is that you and your ilk are actually saying. But that seems to scare the living daylights out of you!
Your thing about how could Oswald take 25 minutes to cover a 10 minute walk is an example of JAQing, and also an example of your claims that ppl don't answer your questions.
Pure BS... that's a valid question for which you have no answer. That's why you dismiss it as "JAQing". In other words, you're trying to take the easy way out as most cowards usually do.
-
"Just Asking Questions" When Chapman stumbles upon a buzz word, he both overuses it and misuses it. Like "bump", and "gaslighting".
So WTF is wrong with asking questions? It could also then stand for- just answering questions- which is something he never does BTW.
-
So WTF is wrong with asking questions? It could also then stand for- just answering questions- which is something he never does BTW.
Nothing. Chapman is confused. "JAQ-ing" is a rhetorical technique whereby somebody makes a claim or an accusation without directly making it, but by phrasing it as a question.
For example, "if Oswald wasn't guilty of anything then why did he leave work in such a hurry?"
It doesn't mean just asking somebody a question.
-
It seems to me you would do a great many people a big favor by only using expressions you actually understand and know how to apply correctly. Nobody is trying to confuse you or change your mind. You are merely confronted with a factual statement over which for some unexplicable reason you get all defensive about.
Pure gaslighting
>>> you would do a great many people a big favor
>>> for some unexplicable reason you get all defensive about.
>>> only using expressions you actually understand and know how to apply correctly
>>> Nobody is trying to confuse you or change your mind
No, I asked you to name one that "could not be dismissed" (your words!).... What Stombaugh said about some fibers does not qualify for that category
>>> According to you. Pretty sure they would be included in the shirts that would have similar fiber characteristics.
Wrong again. I am asking for answers and at least halfway sound explanations from people like you who believe and defend the WC fairytale. That's not "just asking questions" as it serves the purpose of better understanding what it is that you and your ilk are actually saying. But that seems to scare the living daylights out of you!
Pure gaslighting:
>>> from people like you who believe and defend the WC fairytale
>>> But that seems to scare the living daylights out of you
>>> Nonsense. I answered that question. You must be claiming that Oswald wasn't a fugitive. Or that he wasn't seen at the Tippit scene. Hang on to that gem as you wish. I'll go with the Tippit witnesses. And not be at all surprised that an Oswald-as-fugitive would become somewhat more interested in keeping out of sight, rather than stop-watching his movements along-the-way to his destiny.
Pure gaslighting:
>>> you're trying to take the easy way out as most cowards usually do.
-
It seems to me you would do a great many people a big favor by only using expressions you actually understand and know how to apply correctly. Nobody is trying to confuse you or change your mind. You are merely confronted with a factual statement over which for some unexplicable reason you get all defensive about.
Pure gaslighting
>>> you would do a great many people a big favor
>>> for some unexplicable reason you get all defensive about.
>>> only using expressions you actually understand and know how to apply correctly
>>> Nobody is trying to confuse you or change your mind
No, I asked you to name one that "could not be dismissed" (your words!).... What Stombaugh said about some fibers does not qualify for that category
>>> According to you. Pretty sure they would be included in the shirts that would have similar fiber characteristics.
Wrong again. I am asking for answers and at least halfway sound explanations from people like you who believe and defend the WC fairytale. That's not "just asking questions" as it serves the purpose of better understanding what it is that you and your ilk are actually saying. But that seems to scare the living daylights out of you!
Pure gaslighting:
>>> from people like you who believe and defend the WC fairytale
>>> But that seems to scare the living daylights out of you
Pure BS... that's a valid question for which you have no answer. That's why you dismiss it as "JAQing". In other words, you're trying to take the easy way out as most cowards usually do.
>>> Nonsense. I answered that question. You must be claiming that Oswald wasn't a fugitive. Or that he wasn't seen at the Tippit scene. Hang on to that gem as you wish. I'll go with the Tippit witnesses. And not be at all surprised that Oswald-as-fugitive would become somewhat more interested in keeping out-of-sight, rather than stop-watching his movements along-the-way to his destiny.
We have already established that you have no clue about what "projecting" is. We can now safely add that you also do not understand the concept of "gaslighting".
You must be claiming that Oswald wasn't a fugitive. Or that he wasn't seen at the Tippit scene.
Pure strawman?. why "must" I be claiming that?
-
We have already established that you have no clue about what "projecting" is. We can now safely add that you also do not understand the concept of "gaslighting".
Seriously Chapman, stop using terms you don?t understand. It just makes you look more foolish.
-
Seems like some people don't even know what a conspiracy theory is.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1848.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1848.0.html)
I'm sure we would all agree it makes no sense to parrot nonsense.
-
Seriously Chapman, stop using terms you don?t understand. It just makes you look more foolish.
WOW... yet again with the gaslighting
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief.[1][2]
Cite: Wikipedia
-
WOW... yet again with the gaslighting
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief.[1][2]
Cite: Wikipedia
And how does us telling you that you don't understand the concept of "gaslighting" sow seeds of doubts to such extend that you question your own memory, perception and sanity?
-
I usually don't believe in Conspiracies however, they DO happen.
It only requires two or more individuals to create a criminal conspiracy.
The most popular conspiracy theory in America today is the Trump-Russia Collusion Theory. So many smart people have convinced themselves that Donald Trump is Manchurian Candidate.
-
WOW... yet again with the gaslighting
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief.[1][2]
Cite: Wikipedia
Wow!....And here I've been thinking that "gas lighting" was referring to the igniting an anal expulsion......
-
And how does us telling you that you don't understand the concept of "gaslighting" sow seeds of doubts to such extend that you question your own memory, perception and sanity?
And how does us telling you that you don't understand the concept of "gaslighting" sow seeds of doubts to such extend that you question your own memory, perception and sanity?
>>> pure gaslighting from Martin... yet again!
-
I've been thinking that "gas lighting" was referring to the igniting an anal expulsion............
I've been thinking that "gas lighting" was referring to the igniting an anal expulsion......
>>> Better change your gastroenterologist.
Time for you nap, Waldo.
Now, eat your cookie... and don't forget to change your diaper afterwards.
-
And how does us telling you that you don't understand the concept of "gaslighting" sow seeds of doubts to such extend that you question your own memory, perception and sanity?
>>> Pure gaslighting
So, you can't tell us? Got it....
Btw you do understand that you are showing yourself to be a very insecure individual who probably looks under the bed for ghosts before the light goes off
-
So, you can't tell us? Got it....
Btw you do understand that you are showing yourself to be a very insecure individual who probably looks under the bed for ghosts before the light goes off
Btw you do understand that you are showing yourself to be a very insecure individual who probably looks under the bed for ghosts before the light goes off
>>> Oops, you did it again...
-
Btw you do understand that you are showing yourself to be a very insecure individual who probably looks under the bed for ghosts before the light goes off
>>> Oops, you did it again...
By your "standards" I'll do it again;... oh you poor puppy
-
Btw you do understand that you are showing yourself to be a very insecure individual who probably looks under the bed for ghosts before the light goes off
>>> Oops, you did it again...
Apparently it's just fine for you to pretend that Walt is on meds and wearing diapers.
Hypocrite.
-
Apparently it's just fine for you to pretend that Walt is on meds and wearing diapers.
Hypocrite.
Mr Crapman is simply hurting himself by posting that crap.....But he's not smart enough to understand that.
-
By your "standards" I'll do it again;... oh you poor puppy
There you go again; barking up the wrong tree.
Lord Haughty the Attack Dog
Bill Chapman
Hunter of Trolls
-
Mr Crapman is simply hurting himself by posting that crap.....But he's not smart enough to understand that.
:'( :'( :'(
-
:'( :'( :'(
Why in the heck can't anyone get it around their analyzing heads that the little creep did it? Took me long enough. Jeepers. Perhaps he was egged on, but who can say at this point in space and time? He egged himself on, all those voices in his tiny little marxist mind, or what passes for one.
-
Why in the heck can't anyone get it around their analyzing heads that the little creep did it?
All it takes is evidence, rather than assumptions, handwaving, and lame excuses for inconsistencies.
-
Apparently it's just fine for you to pretend that Walt is on meds and wearing diapers.
Hypocrite.
:'(
So you and Waldo are besties again?
Who' da thunk it...
-
Why in the heck can't anyone get it around their analyzing heads that the little creep did it? Took me long enough. Jeepers. Perhaps he was egged on, but who can say at this point in space and time? He egged himself on, all those voices in his tiny little marxist mind, or what passes for one.
Mommy Dearest virtually pulled the trigger.
CTers identify with Oswald... go figure.
-
Mommy Dearest virtually pulled the trigger
Bang Bang, as Iggy would sing. Ozzie's mommy didn't love him, boo-hoo-hoo....... like private pyle in 'full metal jacket'...... uh.......
-
Bang Bang, as Iggy would sing. Ozzie's mommy didn't love him, boo-hoo-hoo....... like private pyle in 'full metal jacket'...... uh.......
Some day, when we're awfully low, when the world is cold, Mr Oblazney will post something of substance on this forum. :)
-
Some day, when we're awfully low, when the world is cold, Mr Oblazney will post something of substance on this forum. :)
Don't hold your breath.... I've yet to see anything of substance posted by Mr O........
-
:'(
So you and Waldo are besties again?
Who' da thunk it...
No, but we both know a hypocrite when we see one.
"gaslighting". :'(
-
Mommy Dearest virtually pulled the trigger.
CTers identify with Oswald... go figure.
Name one.
-
:'(
So you and Waldo are besties again?
Who' da thunk it...
John and I don't always agree....But when it comes to assessing your character we are in complete harmony.... Speaking for myself, It doesn't require a Ph D to understand that you're a few french fries short of having a complete happy meal.....
-
John and I don't always agree....But when it comes to assessing your character we are in complete harmony.... Speaking for myself, It doesn't require a Ph D to understand that you're a few french fries short of having a complete happy meal.....
Time for your nap
And stop trying to eat your soup with a fork
-
Time for your nap
And stop trying to eat your soup with a fork
Says the raging hypocrite who whines about "gaslighting". :'(
-
WOW... yet again with the gaslighting
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief.[1][2]
Cite: Wikipedia
"Cite: Wikipedia" :D :D ??? ???
Ha ha ha! I like it when you're honest. I noticed your favorite source for information is Wikipedia.
It must be a struggle knowing you're from Gary, Indiana and being a product of their public school system.
We now know your education was limited to watching Romper Room and using Wikipedia to find the answers to all your grade school questions
Good for you!
-
"Cite: Wikipedia" :D :D ??? ???
Ha ha ha! I like it when you're honest. I noticed your favorite source for information is Wikipedia.
It must be a struggle knowing you're from Gary, Indiana and being a product of their public school system.
We now know your education was limited to watching Romper Room and using Wikipedia to find the answers to all your grade school questions
Good for you!
They have schools in the USA?
-
They have schools in the USA?
I forgot you live in Haiti.
-
Even Haitians can write a 6 word sentence without having to go back and edit and then re-edit (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
-
Even Haitians can write a 6 word sentence without having to go back and edit and then re-edit (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
I'm in a straight-jacket and I type with my nose.
-
It could be that Duniger Krugerrand thingy whatever ;)
-
Why do people believe in conspiracies? WTF. The CIA has an entire division dedicated to conspiracies, its called the "Covert Operations Division." ANY covert action in a democracy is a conspiracy. This is a BS propaganda post. Lets name a few well documented ones shall we...Iran Contra, Watergate, Stuxnet, the Iraq War, every coup the CIA ever pulled, ALL assassination programs and in the modern day we have Russiagate, the funding of Islamic proxies in the middle east, the NSA spy progrms, need I go on?
Read my cut & paste OP again and note that no one is claiming there are no conspiracies. The point of my thread is that why are some people more susceptible to conspiracy theories than others? For instance do you believe in UFOs, 911 as an inside job, faked moon landings etc?
-
Hughes,
Regarding "Russiagate," you're obviously full of beans and KGB/FSB-SVR/GRU propaganda.
Keep up the good work.
Vladimir Putin loves what you do.
-- MWT :)
Thomas,
Putin would be proud of you. Why? Because you are projecting.
I wonder what Putin will have to say about Ukrainegate.
Thomas, will you offer a view or are you a fan of the Podesta brothers.
BTW do you speak Russian?
-
Thomas,
Putin would be proud of you. Why? Because you are projecting.
I wonder what Putin will have to say about Ukrainegate.
Thomas, will you offer a view or are you a fan of the Podesta brothers. [Huh?]
BTW do you speak Russian?
Dear Whatever Your Name Is,
No, I don't speak Russian, but would it matter if I did?
Regarding your beloved "Ukrainegate," can you rebut, with evidence, anything in this article?
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/donald-trump-fox-news-us-ambassdor-ukraine-masha-yovanovitch?verso=true&fbclid=IwAR00655QOw0g88dvPW9g6T_dvlwbkg-kpzLobr5os2vtmbSes5c-3a84l64
-- MWT :)
-
Why do some people believe in conspiracy theories?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-some-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories/
Christopher French, a professor of psychology at Goldsmiths, University of London, explains:
Although conspiracy beliefs can occasionally be based on a rational analysis of the evidence, most of the time they are not. As a species, one of our greatest strengths is our ability to find meaningful patterns in the world around us and to make causal inferences. We sometimes, however, see patterns and causal connections that are not there, especially when we feel that events are beyond our control.
The attractiveness of conspiracy theories may arise from a number of cognitive biases that characterize the way we process information. ?Confirmation bias? is the most pervasive cognitive bias and a powerful driver of belief in conspiracies. We all have a natural inclination to give more weight to evidence that supports what we already believe and ignore evidence that contradicts our beliefs. The real-world events that often become the subject of conspiracy theories tend to be intrinsically complex and unclear. Early reports may contain errors, contradictions and ambiguities, and those wishing to find evidence of a cover-up will focus on such inconsistencies to bolster their claims.
?Proportionality bias,? our innate tendency to assume that big events have big causes, may also explain our tendency to accept conspiracies. This is one reason many people were uncomfortable with the idea that President John F. Kennedy was the victim of a deranged lone gunman and found it easier to accept the theory that he was the victim of a large-scale conspiracy.
Another relevant cognitive bias is ?projection.? People who endorse conspiracy theories may be more likely to engage in conspiratorial behaviors themselves, such as spreading rumors or tending to be suspicious of others' motives. If you would engage in such behavior, it may seem natural that other people would as well, making conspiracies appear more plausible and widespread. Furthermore, people who are strongly inclined toward conspiratorial thinking will be more likely to endorse mutually contradictory theories. For example, if you believe that Osama bin Laden was killed many years before the American government officially announced his death, you are also more likely to believe that he is still alive.
None of the above should indicate that all conspiracy theories are false. Some may indeed turn out to be true. The point is that some individuals may have a tendency to find such theories attractive. The crux of the matter is that conspiracists are not really sure what the true explanation of an event is?they are simply certain that the ?official story? is a cover-up.
Why do some believe in totally unsupported official theories?
-
Number 4 applies to most Conspiracy Theorists on this forum... IMHO.
So the fact that the WC failed to support any of their claims in regards to the shootings doesn't bother you in the least, huh? The official narrative is NOTHING but a theory too in case you didn't know this.
Why do you support theories with no supporting evidence? What does that say about your psyche?
-
So the fact that the WC failed to support any of their claims in regards to the shootings doesn't bother you in the least, huh? The official narrative is NOTHING but a theory too in case you didn't know this.
Why do you support theories with no supporting evidence? What does that say about your psyche?
The mission of the Warren Commission was to protect J. Edgar Hoover's reputation, to cover up KGB's and DGI's involvement in the assassination (in order prevent "the deaths of 40 million Americans"), and to establish in the public's collective mind that Lee Harvey Oswald did it all by him widdle self, without ... gasp ... having been trained or "programmed" by the KGB during the 2.5 years he lived in the U.S.S.R.
D'oh
-- MWT :)
-
The mission of the Warren Commission was to protect J. Edgar Hoover's reputation, to cover up KGB's and DGI's involvement in the assassination (in order prevent "the deaths of 40 million Americans"), and to establish in the public's collective mind that Lee Harvey Oswald did it all by him widdle self, without ... gasp ... having been trained or "programmed" by the KGB during the 2.5 years he lived in the U.S.S.R.
D'oh
-- MWT :)
No, it wasn't. If you had spent time researching you would know that the WC clashed with JEH on many occasions and tried to trap him in lies that he told. His threats and abuse of power made them back off. JEH's rush to judgment was meant to hide the fact that the conspiracy was a domestic one.
-
No, it wasn't. If you had spent time researching you would know that the WC clashed with JEH on many occasions and tried to trap him in lies that he told. His threats and abuse of power made them back off. JEH's rush to judgment was meant to hide the fact that the conspiracy6 was a domestic one.
Caprio,
LOL
Read Chapter 10 in this fine book from 1994 (if you have the gonads, that is), and bear in mind that I've recently shown that the KGB planted a reverse John Newman-like WW III Virus in Oswald's CIA file on 10/02/63 ...
https://archive.org/stream/WedgeFromPearlHarborTo911HowTheSecretWarBetweenTheFBIAndCIAHasEndangeredNationalSecurity/Wedge+-+From+Pearl+Harbor+to+9%3A11+-+How+the+Secret+War+between+the+FBI+and+CIA+Has+Endangered+National+Security_djvu.txt
-- MWT :)
-
Dear Whatever Your Name Is,
No, I don't speak Russian, but would it matter if I did?
Regarding your beloved "Ukrainegate," can you rebut, with evidence, anything in this article?
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/donald-trump-fox-news-us-ambassdor-ukraine-masha-yovanovitch?verso=true&fbclid=IwAR00655QOw0g88dvPW9g6T_dvlwbkg-kpzLobr5os2vtmbSes5c-3a84l64
-- MWT :)
I already can see what your next source will be, the Huffington Post. Vanity fair means you were raised to be a sissy boy. Thomas, you have to get out of that vacuum. The only problem is you are not smart enough to live without someone else thinking for you. Right good left bad or left good right bad. And you think there is a difference- only makes you a sucker. Maybe you should go back to your favorite media outlet the NYTimes and explain the articles they published after the election that started all this bs only to later admit were false. Suuuuuuuuuuuuure, of course, you forgot. Because that is what gossiping 5th-grade girls do... or in your case evil little sissy boys
-
I already can see what your next source will be, the Huffington Post. Vanity fair means you were raised to be a sissy boy. Thomas, you have to get out of that vacuum. The only problem is you are not smart enough to live without someone else thinking for you. Right good left bad or left good right bad. And you think there is a difference- only makes you a sucker. Maybe you should go back to your favorite media outlet the NYTimes and explain the articles they published after the election that started all this bs only to later admit were false. Suuuuuuuuuuuuure, of course, you forgot. Because that is what gossiping 5th-grade girls do... or in your case evil little sissy boys
Kleinschmidt,
I read all kinds of news sources, as long as they have "High" factual reporting according to mediabiasfactcheck. com.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com
You?
Do you get all the information you need from youtube?
-- MWT :)
PS Started all what bs?
PPS Later proved wrong by whom?
-
Kleinschmidt,
I read all kinds of news sources, as long as they have "High" factual reporting according to mediabiasfactcheck. com.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com
You?
Do you get all the information you need from youtube?
-- MWT :)
PS Started all what bs?
PPS Later proved wrong by whom?
'Peter Kleinschmidt's' typical Internet Troll behaviour reminds me of 'Eddie Haymaker's' typical Internet Troll behaviour. Fast Eddie hasn't posted here in quite some time, at least not as 'Eddie'. I predict that 'Peter' will disappear into the ether as well before too long.
-
Why do some believe in totally unsupported official theories?
Great question Rob.
I raised this very issue in a new thread, and for some reason it got moved or deleted.
I think that they don't really believe it, in this particular case regarding J.F.K's assassination, but because they are of a certain ancestry back round they will support it even knowing it not to be true.
The vast majority of them are W.A.S.P's or White anglo saxon protestants.
Mick O Brien writes
Take all of this for example
Rob Caprio quoted Ross Liddell
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1091
View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Why do some people believe in conspiracy theories?
? Reply #162 on: May 14, 2019, 10:58:42 PM ?
Reply
Quote
Quote from: Ross Lidell on March 18, 2019, 11:53:25 PM
Number 4 applies to most Conspiracy Theorists on this forum... IMHO.
Rob Caprio quotes Ross Lidell
So the fact that the WC failed to support any of their claims in regards to the shootings doesn't bother you in the least, huh? The official narrative is NOTHING but a theory too in case you didn't know this.
Why do you support theories with no supporting evidence? What does that say about your psyche?
Mick O Brien Writes
The answer is simple it is not about his personal psyche, instead it is about his ancestry, and where he originated from.
https://www.houseofnames.com/liddell-family-crest
If you google all of these lners surnames you will find that most of them are of Brit decent and they hated J.F.K for his Irish back round as a rule. Even if they had it from God himself that Oswald was innocent, they would never admit it, or announce it, to be known
-
In the meantime, I'll pencil you in as a #5. Every such person believes they know the real facts.
As do you.
To believe anything that "solves" the cases where the "critics" bring up CONSPIRACY THEORY, it is necessary to SOLVE the case using mathematics.
Mathematics can lie if used incorrectly but if correctly set up, it's hard to argue with ONE million to one odds (for example). For knowledgable people, that should make the correct answers easily identifiable.
-
Great question Rob.
I raised this very issue in a new thread, and for some reason it got moved or deleted.
I think that they don't really believe it, in this particular case regarding J.F.K's assassination, but because they are of a certain ancestry back round they will support it even knowing it not to be true.
The vast majority of them are W.A.S.P's or White anglo saxon protestants.
Mick O Brien writes
Take all of this for example
Rob Caprio quoted Ross Liddell
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1091
View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Why do some people believe in conspiracy theories?
? Reply #162 on: May 14, 2019, 10:58:42 PM ?
Reply
Quote
Quote from: Ross Lidell on March 18, 2019, 11:53:25 PM
Number 4 applies to most Conspiracy Theorists on this forum... IMHO.
Rob Caprio quotes Ross Lidell
So the fact that the WC failed to support any of their claims in regards to the shootings doesn't bother you in the least, huh? The official narrative is NOTHING but a theory too in case you didn't know this.
Why do you support theories with no supporting evidence? What does that say about your psyche?
Mick O Brien Writes
The answer is simple it is not about his personal psyche, instead it is about his ancestry, and where he originated from.
https://www.houseofnames.com/liddell-family-crest
If you google all of these lners surnames you will find that most of them are of Brit decent and they hated J.F.K for his Irish back round as a rule. Even if they had it from God himself that Oswald was innocent, they would never admit it, or announce it, to be known
If you had it from God that Oswald was guilty, you'd exclaim 'WOW, I never realized that the conspiracy went this high!
-
Why do some believe in totally unsupported official theories?
Why do you misrepresent the evidence in order to claim that the evidence is unsupported?
-
If you had it from God that Oswald was guilty, you'd exclaim 'WOW, I never realized that the conspiracy went this high!
As opposed to footage showing Oswald was not where the WC narrative attempts to place him. That is why LNers say seeing is denying. They have an excuse for everything but then again, they know very little about the case. Their mentors are not very good with film- viewing it, altering it, preserving it, and this is all related to lazy incompetent idiots. I am sure you agree. Don't worry I won't tell the others
-
As opposed to footage showing Oswald was not where the WC narrative attempts to place him. That is why LNers say seeing is denying. They have an excuse for everything but then again, they know very little about the case. Their mentors are not very good with film- viewing it, altering it, preserving it, and this is all related to lazy incompetent idiots. I am sure you agree. Don't worry I won't tell the others
Footage? What footage?
-
Footage? What footage?
He's referring to the Wiegman and Darnell footage which he believes shows Oswald standing on the TSBD steps during and shortly after the assassination.
-- MWT :)
-
He's referring to the Wiegman and Darnell footage which he believes shows Oswald standing on the TSBD steps during and shortly after the assassination.
-- MWT :)
Oh...?...that footage. :-\
-
Caprio,
LOL
Read Chapter 10 in this fine book from 1994 (if you have the gonads, that is), and bear in mind that I've recently shown that the KGB planted a reverse John Newman-like WW III Virus in Oswald's CIA file on 10/02/63 ...
https://archive.org/stream/WedgeFromPearlHarborTo911HowTheSecretWarBetweenTheFBIAndCIAHasEndangeredNationalSecurity/Wedge+-+From+Pearl+Harbor+to+9%3A11+-+How+the+Secret+War+between+the+FBI+and+CIA+Has+Endangered+National+Security_djvu.txt
-- MWT :)
I stick with the evidence Graves. Your obsession with Russia is as big a red herring as the WC's LHO did it all alone nonsense. 😄
-
Great question Rob.
I raised this very issue in a new thread, and for some reason it got moved or deleted.
I think that they don't really believe it, in this particular case regarding J.F.K's assassination, but because they are of a certain ancestry back round they will support it even knowing it not to be true.
The vast majority of them are W.A.S.P's or White anglo saxon protestants.
Mick O Brien writes
Take all of this for example
Rob Caprio quoted Ross Liddell
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1091
View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Why do some people believe in conspiracy theories?
? Reply #162 on: May 14, 2019, 10:58:42 PM ?
Reply
Quote
Quote from: Ross Lidell on March 18, 2019, 11:53:25 PM
Number 4 applies to most Conspiracy Theorists on this forum... IMHO.
Rob Caprio quotes Ross Lidell
So the fact that the WC failed to support any of their claims in regards to the shootings doesn't bother you in the least, huh? The official narrative is NOTHING but a theory too in case you didn't know this.
Why do you support theories with no supporting evidence? What does that say about your psyche?
Mick O Brien Writes
The answer is simple it is not about his personal psyche, instead it is about his ancestry, and where he originated from.
https://www.houseofnames.com/liddell-family-crest
If you google all of these lners surnames you will find that most of them are of Brit decent and they hated J.F.K for his Irish back round as a rule. Even if they had it from God himself that Oswald was innocent, they would never admit it, or announce it, to be known
There is a large number of British and Australian LNers these days Michael. In fact, it feels like the LNer operation has moved across the pond.
What is odd about this is that England was one of the first places that declared the official narrative to be false. The times are a changing.
-
If you had it from God that Oswald was guilty, you'd exclaim 'WOW, I never realized that the conspiracy went this high!
The problem with your position is the FACT that you cannot cite one piece of evidence that supports the claim that LHO shot anyone on November 22, 1963. Why is that if he really did it as you incessantly claim?
-
Why do you misrepresent the evidence in order to claim that the evidence is unsupported?
Why do you lie like this? I do not misrepresent the evidence as you claim. I CITE the evidence and put a link to it so others can read it for themselves. You, OTOH, never cite the evidence. You just claim that it shows LHO did it. Why is that if you are honest?
-
I stick with the evidence Graves. Your obsession with Russia is as big a red herring as the WC's LHO did it all alone nonsense. 😄
To the Mexican Police right after the assassination, Cuban Consulate secretary Sylvia Duran (who was only 5' 3.5" herself) described the "Oswald" who had given her a passport-sized photo of real-deal Lee Harvey Oswald as "short" and "blonde" (later clarified as "light blond-haired" in her HSCA testimony), but CIA saw to it that those two words were left out of accounts of her late 1963 interrogations in Mexico City.
In retrospect, why do you suppose that was, given the fact that in 1978 Duran's colleague, Eusebio Azcue, described the same virtual impostor as blond-haired, 35-years old, thin, very thin-faced, blue-eyed, and Prince of Wales suit-wearing?
Answer: Because by using the words "short" and "blonde," Sylvia Duran was partially describing 5' 7", blond-haired, very thin-faced, blue-eyed, 35 year-old under-cover "diplomat" KGB colonel Nikolai Leonov as the guy who had not impersonated Oswald per se, but who had provided her with that photo of Oswald, and who had instructed her and Azcue and Miribal (perhaps under the authority granted him by a "Letter of Introduction" from Castro) on what to do, and who had probably even had a KGB expert forge Oswald's printing and signature on the Cuban Visa application (based on samples of Oswald's writing KGB had obtained during the 2.5 years he had lived in "The Worker's Paradise").
Fwiw, in her HSCA testimony, Duran elaborated a bit by describing the "Oswald" she'd dealt with on 9/27/63 as having been "skinny" (Leonov was very skinny), and "blue or green-eyed" (Leonov was blue-eyed).)
The Kremlin wanted the CIA and FBI to realize (or at least strongly susect) that JFK had been killed by a Khruschev-Castro conspiracy, so that those two intelligence agencies would cover up the Kremlin's and Havana's involvement. Why in the world would CIA and the FBI do that? Answer: In order to prevent ... gasp ... Mutually Assured Destruction, aka Nuclear Armeggedon ... and, for the FBI, a fate even worse than that --the tarnishing of J. Edgar Hoover's reputation!
Ergo (and concomitantly), we have the planting of a WW III virus in Oswald's CIA file on 10/02/63 by KGB triple-agent Ivan Obyedkov (mispelled "Byetkov" in Angleton's June 19, 1975, Church Committee testimony), done in cahoots with an Oswald telephone impersonator (probably ... gasp ... Leonov), over a sure-to-be-tapped-by-CIA Soviet Embassy phone line.
-- MWT :)
PS Along the same vein, why do you suppose CIA pressured U.S. Ambassador-to-Mexico, Thomas C. Mann, to "chill" (i.e., stop blaming Fidel for the assassination) on November 26, 1963?
Answer: See above.
-
.... do you believe in UFOs...?
A case and point in the repetitive use of articulation. It sounds like a religion...Do you believe? Oh yes I saw the light! Balloons, swamp gas, atmospheric reflections, meteors and actual earth made aircraft make up 99.99% of airborne objects that cannot be identified because of their peculiar manifestation yet the term UFO is automatically associated with an alien flying saucer.
-
As opposed to footage showing Oswald was not where the WC narrative attempts to place him. That is why LNers say seeing is denying. They have an excuse for everything but then again, they know very little about the case. Their mentors are not very good with film- viewing it, altering it, preserving it, and this is all related to lazy incompetent idiots. I am sure you agree. Don't worry I won't tell the others
Where did the WC 'attempt' to place Oswald; and show us the footage.
-
A case and point in the repetitive use of articulation. It sounds like a religion...Do you believe? Oh yes I saw the light! Balloons, swamp gas, atmospheric reflections, meteors and actual earth made aircraft make up 99.99% of airborne objects that cannot be identified because of their peculiar manifestation yet the term UFO is automatically associated with an alien flying saucer.
You took my UFO reference out-of-context in order to make me seem a UFO nut.
You're just not good at this..
And if you're going to use idioms, at least get them right:
It's not 'a case and point'... it's 'a case in point'
And at least credit wiki in your little attempt to appear educated.
If you were an LN, John would charge you with plagiarism
-
And at least credit wiki in your little attempt to appear educated.
If you were an LN, John would charge you with plagiarism
What "little attempt" are you referring to here?
-
You took my UFO reference out-of-context in order to make me seem a UFO nut.
What an ultra-sensitive paranoid!
You're just not good at this..
Sez U--- How's that for literary panache?
-
He's referring to the Wiegman and Darnell footage which he believes shows Oswald standing on the TSBD steps during and shortly after the assassination.
-- MWT :)
Was I referring to the Weigman and ........?
Answer: No, you are wrong. Thomas, are you feeling ok?
Does Thomas have an empty oxygen tank?
Answer: Unfortunately Yes, and I shouldn't have to remind you.
-
Was I referring to the Weigman and ........?
Answer: No, you are wrong.
Whatever-Your-Name-Is,
What footage were you referring to, then?
Don't care to say?
Don't remember?
-- MWT :)
-
Whatever-Your-Name-Is,
What footage were you referring to, then?
Don't care to say?
Don't remember?
-- MWT :)
The film your talking about, you do not see Oswald, correct?
-
[In t]he film you're talking about [Wiegman and Couch-Darnell], you do not see Oswald, correct?
You suggested there's "footage [which shows] Oswald was not where the WC narrative attempt[ed] to place him."
IIRC, the "WC narrative" attempted to place Oswald in the sixth floor sniper's nest at the time of the assassination, but you apparently do not believe that's where he was at the time.
The steps were filmed in Weigman at the time of the first shot, and they were filmed in Couch-Darnell about 20 seconds after the final shot. Both films show a person at the top of the steps whom many people believe is Oswald.
You don't, or you do?
What other film or photograph shows a (putative) Oswald in a place where he's not supposed to be, according to the Warren Commission Report?
(Do you mean on 11/22/63, or at any time in his life?)
-- MWT :)
-
You suggested there's "footage [which shows] Oswald was not where the WC narrative attempt[ed] to place him."
IIRC, the "WC narrative" attempted to place Oswald in the sixth floor sniper's nest at the time of the assassination, but you apparently do not believe that's where he was at the time.
The steps were filmed in Weigman at the time of the first shot, and they were filmed in Couch-Darnell about 20 seconds after the final shot. Both films show a person at the top of the steps whom many people believe is Oswald.
You don't, or you do?
What other film or photograph shows a (putative) Oswald in a place where he's not supposed to be, according to the Warren Commission Report?
(Do you mean on 11/22/63, or at any time in his life?)
-- MWT :)
I don't think he's on the step's, so why are you talking about it? Why do you think it's so important?
-
I don't think he's on the step's, so why are you talking about it? Why do you think it's so important?
If you don't think Oswald was on the steps during Wiegman and Couch-Darnell "steps footage," where do you think he was?
In the Domino Room?
In the 2nd Floor Lunch Room?
In the Sniper's Nest?
It's not important??
.......
Why do you feel so important that you think you can make ambiguous "debate-winning" statements that you don't need to clarify for us as you walk away "in victory"?
E.g., "As opposed to footage showing Oswald was not where the WC narrative attempts to place him."
What footage are you referring to above, Whatever-Your-Name-Is?
Don't care to say, because other than possibly Prayer Person in Wiegman and Couch-Darnell, there isn't any (unless, of course, you're a devotee of the Harvey and Lee and ... Gasp ... Two Marguerites Cult), and you're talking about Cubi Point, or some-such place?
-- MWT :)
-
What an ultra-sensitive paranoid!Sez U--- How's that for literary panache?
If you're not attempting to characterize me as an UFO nut, then tell us why you felt compelled to take my use of 'UFO' out-of-context and (for some strange reason) had a need to 'explain' UFO phenomena.
-
If you don't think Oswald was on the steps during Wiegman and Couch-Darnell "steps footage," where do you think he was?
In the Domino Room?
In the 2nd Floor Lunch Room?
In the Sniper's Nest?
It's not important??
.......
Why do you feel so important that you think you can make ambiguous "debate-winning" statements that you don't need to clarify for us as you walk away "in victory"?
E.g., "As opposed to footage showing Oswald was not where the WC narrative attempts to place him."
What footage are you referring to above, Whatever-Your-Name-Is?
Don't care to say, because other than possibly Prayer Person in Wiegman and Couch-Darnell, there isn't any (unless, of course, you're a devotee of the Harvey and Lee and ... Gasp ... Two Marguerites Cult), and you're talking about Cubi Point, or some-such place?
-- MWT :)
You ask where I thought Oswald was if I didn't think he was on the steps?
Answer: The world is a big place. I know one thing, I did not see him on the steps I say that only if the photos were not altered. The point is I don't think he was on the steps, you don't think he was on the steps, others believe he was on the steps. If he was not on the steps it's not a game changer but you think it is by suggesting there was only one place for him to be, the SFW. There is not a human being in the SFW and there is not even a plant or animal in the SFW. I saw a cardboard box, did you think someone was in a box? Tell me, I promise not to laugh.