JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Tom Scully on February 28, 2018, 01:47:30 AM
-
Lifton has stirred this up during the past couple of days. In addition, why are you not concerned to the degree you might choose to be less
resolute in concluding what happened and where guilt lies, given that the Secret Service reported to the WC inability to obtain any
recorded media of the Perry/Clark 22 November afternoon Parkland Hospital press conference or even a transcript of that press
conference and the ARRB revelation of a copy of that transcript addressed to SS chief Rowley and stamped with the date November 25, 1963?
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md41.pdf
(http://jfkforum.com/images/MalcolmPerryTranscriptSSRowley.jpg)
Some of you get bent out of shape when others are accused of being complicit in the Assassination of JFK, but what is the degree of harm,
save for the arrest and prosecution of Clay Shaw, of accusations against individuals, vs. the degree of harm in firmly concluding that Oswald
and presumably Ruby, acted alone, two days apart?
November 24, 1963:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/MalcolmPerry24NovBreslin.jpg)
Link to download entire page image including article excerpt, above.: http://jfkforum.com/images/San_Diego_Union_1963-11-24_7 (1).png (http://jfkforum.com/images/San_Diego_Union_1963-11-24_7 (1).png)
Transcript page of June, 1967 CBS News Special Report:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/MalcolmPerryJune1967CBS.jpg)
Inviolate | Define Inviolate at Dictionary.com
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/inviolate
Inviolate definition, free from violation, injury, desecration, or outrage
vs. transcription in book covering that CBS News Special Report.: (Consider that the book, not the transcript, was the expected public distribution)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/MalcolmPerryCBS1967StephenWhite.jpg)
-
Do I fret about the possibility of the real assassins of JFK getting away with murder? No.
Do I fret about the possibility that Charles Mason was and is crazy but was actually innocent of murders and the real mastermind escaped justice? No.
What harm might CTers be doing?
Destroying people?s belief in Democracy, which is why the Communists have always supported the JFK conspiracy theories. They think it can only help them. Has it? Well, in the battle between the world becoming Democracies or Totalitarian governments, I think Democracies are doing pretty well. There have been some setbacks, but they are doing well. Within five years, for the first time in history, the world?s most populous country will be a Democracy. I think I can see how the trend of history is going.
-
I think you're barking up the wrong tree, this whole debate is pretty much influenced by the CTs and it seems that most CTs nowadays are only interested in being Oswald defence lawyers hence the debate is always centered around Oswald's specific guilt or innocence and when these hardcore fanatics are pressed to divulge a conspirator we are confronted with "we don't have to prove anything, now you prove Oswald was guilty", again, again and again, rinse wash repeat.
I'm sure a lot of Lners like myself would like to explore a possible conspiracy beyond Oswald's clear guilt but as has already been established the modern CTs don't seem interested or perhaps this is the conspirators plan to influence the weak minded, keep the debate away from the conspirators and focus on Oswald so when any topic strays into their possible guilt they gently guide it back on course.
Were Lane and Garrison the original disinfo artists?
JohnM
-
Do I fret about the possibility of the real assassins of JFK getting away with murder? No.
Do I fret about the possibility that Charles Mason was and is crazy but was actually innocent of murders and the real mastermind escaped justice? No.
What harm might CTers be doing?
Destroying people?s belief in Democracy, which is why the Communists have always supported the JFK conspiracy theories. They think it can only help them. Has it? Well, in the battle between the world becoming Democracies or Totalitarian governments, I think Democracies are doing pretty well. There have been some setbacks, but they are doing well. Within five years, for the first time in history, the world?s most populous country will be a Democracy. I think I can see how the trend of history is going.
Joe....who did you claim undermined democracy?
https://books.google.com/books?... (https://books.google.com/books?id=9EnODAAAQBAJ&pg=PT130&lpg=PT130&dq=cameras+were+crowded+into+a+room+to+hear+statements+by+Drs.+Perry+and+William+Kemp+Clark,+chief+neurosurgeon+at+Parkland&source=bl&ots=MJkKjUXkk0&sig=lFMmiphvKvZr_-t7EQvRaphzIyI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiEy7mwxsfZAhVRHqwKHTSADO4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=cameras%20were%20crowded%20into%20a%20room%20to%20hear%20statements%20by%20Drs.%20Perry%20and%20William%20Kemp%20Clark%2C%20chief%20neurosurgeon%20at%20Parkland&f=false)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/MalcolmPerryPressConferenceWCdescription.jpg)
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/perry_m1.htm
March 30, 1964 (https://books.google.com/books?id=wLxFAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA366&lpg=PA366&dq=After+graduation+from+Plano+High+School+in+1947,+I+attended+the+University+of+Texas&source=bl&ots=BFQlZDsZJw&sig=snTLr6IcR6yGqr1qpLe1KVuBXYk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjL2-Tr2sfZAhVEJKwKHTZwDgoQ6AEINjAB#v=onepage&q=testimony%20of%20charles%20james&f=false)
.......
Mr. SPECTER - At about what time did that call come to you, doctor?
Dr. PERRY - I am not real sure about that but probably around 2 o'clock.
Mr. SPECTER - What action, if any, did you take in response to that call?
Dr. PERRY - I put in a page for Dr. Baxter and Dr. McClelland since they were also involved, and went down to the emergency room where I met Mr. Hawkes and Dr. Clark. And from there we went up to classrooms one and two which had been combined into a large press room, and was packed with gentlemen and ladies of the press.
........
Mr. SPECTER - Did you express a professional opinion that that did, in fact, happen or it was a matter of speculation that it could have happened?
Dr. PERRY - I expressed it as a matter of speculation that this was conceivable. But, again, Dr. Clark and I emphasize that we had no way of knowing.
Mr. SPECTER - Have you now recounted as specifically as you can recollect what occurred at that first press conference or is it practical for you to give any further detail to the contents of that press conference?
Dr. PERRY - I do not recall any specific details any further than that--
Representative FORD - Mr. Specter was there ever a recording kept of the questions and answers at that interview, Dr. Perry?
Dr. PERRY - This was one of the things I was mad about, Mr. Ford. There were microphones, and cameras, and the whole bit, as you know, and during the course of it a lot of these hypothetical situations and questions that were asked to us would often be asked by someone on this side and recorded by some one on this, and I don't know who was recorded and whether they were broadcasting it directly. There were tape recorders there and there were television cameras with their microphones. I know there were recordings made but who made them I don't know and, of course, portions of it would be given to this group and questions answered here and, as a result, considerable questions were not answered in their entirety and even some of them that were asked, I am sure were misunderstood. It was bedlam.
Representative FORD - I was thinking, was there an official recording either made by the hospital officials or by the White House people or by any government agency?
Dr. PERRY - Not to my knowledge.
Representative FORD - A true recording of everything that was said, the questions asked, and the answers given?
Dr. PERRY - Not to my knowledge.
Mr. DULLES - Was there any reasonably good account in any of the press of this interview?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir. ......
https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11077&relPageId=2
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-nMmV5OjLON4/Vvc_iUMY7UI/AAAAAAAADZI/E1ZM3qjrPCg4tRSqzMS35R59_tI6uvy0gCCo/s512-Ic42/RowleyParklandTranscriptLost.jpg)
-
Joe....who did you claim undermined democracy?
Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone, among others.
-
Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone, among others.
Dulles, Helmes, etc......or are you just concerned about US democracy?
-
I think you're barking up the wrong tree, this whole debate is pretty much influenced by the CTs and it seems that most CTs nowadays are only interested in being Oswald defence lawyers hence the debate is always centered around Oswald's specific guilt or innocence and when these hardcore fanatics are pressed to divulge a conspirator we are confronted with "we don't have to prove anything, now you prove Oswald was guilty", again, again and again, rinse wash repeat.
I'm sure a lot of Lners like myself would like to explore a possible conspiracy beyond Oswald's clear guilt but as has already been established the modern CTs don't seem interested or perhaps this is the conspirators plan to influence the weak minded, keep the debate away from the conspirators and focus on Oswald so when any topic strays into their possible guilt they gently guide it back on course.
Were Lane and Garrison the original disinfo artists?
It's nobody's fault but their own that the LN faithful have utterly failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Desperate attempts to shift the burden don't change that.
-
Dulles, Helmes, etc......or are you just concerned about US democracy?
I am concerned about all Democracies. And acknowledge that not all enemies of Democracy are CTers. But most are.
-
It's nobody's fault but their own that the LN faithful have utterly failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Desperate attempts to shift the burden don't change that.
It has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. Not all possible doubts. Not beyond all reasonable and reasonable doubts. It?s even possible that there was a conspiracy. But it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that Oswald was guilty and no convincing evidence that others were involved.
-
It has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. Not all possible doubts. Not beyond all reasonable and reasonable doubts.
That's easy to say. Not so easy to actually demonstrate. Unless you just find unsupported conjecture to be "reasonable".
-
What Word Does Dr Malcolm Perry Say, Invalid or Inviolate?......
Considering the consistency of the controversy, why do you think it matters whether, in 1967 Dr. Perry said
invalid or inviolate? Isn't it well documented, (see OP of this thread) that authority worked to muddle (examples: via suppression of the white house transcript 1327-c and electronic and film media as WC report described present at the press conference) the first medical eyewitness assessments of the throat wound?
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/15126-since-november-24-1963-has-jimmy-breslin-been-writing-a-script/
Since November 24, 1963, Has Jimmy Breslin Been Writing A Script
-
Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone, among others.
What's particularly revealing is that the same people who express outrage over the supposed violations of Oswald's rights are big supporters of Jim Garrison and his investigation in New Orleans.
Garrison was, of course, a government official - the New Orleans District Attorney - and his abuses of the rights of people were tenfold more outrageous than anything done to Oswald, real or imagined.
To be fair, a number of conspiracy authors - Lifton for example - are critical of what Garrison did. But the rank and file conspiracy crowd seldom express any criticism of Garrison while at the same time finding violations of Oswald's rights everywhere. Even the WC somehow violated his due process rights.
Let's be blunt: these (not all; just this particular element) are simply Oswald defenders not people interested in determining, as best as we can at this date, what happened that November day in Dallas.
-
Lifton has stirred this up during the past couple of days. In addition, why are you not concerned to the degree you might choose to be less
resolute in concluding what happened and where guilt lies, given that the Secret Service reported to the WC inability to obtain any
recorded media of the Perry/Clark 22 November afternoon Parkland Hospital press conference or even a transcript of that press
conference and the ARRB revelation of a copy of that transcript addressed to SS chief Rowley and stamped with the date November 25, 1963?
Some of you get bent out of shape when others are accused of being complicit in the Assassination of JFK, but what is the degree of harm,
save for the arrest and prosecution of Clay Shaw, of accusations against individuals, vs. the degree of harm in firmly concluding that Oswald
and presumably Ruby, acted alone, two days apart?
November 24, 1963:
It is inconceivable that Oswald was not guilty (ie. of murder).
It is conceivable that Oswald was not acting alone. But there is no evidence that anyone was helping him or putting him up to it. On the available evidence, I would say that it would be highly unlikely.
So why anyone would get upset or concerned about a possibility that has no evidence (yet) to support it, despite 54 years of trying, is difficult to understand.
Our system of justice is based on a simple concept: It is the duty of the state to investigate crimes and bring forward the all relevant evidence. If the evidence is sufficient to identify a person or persons who committed the crime, and if there is a reasonable probability that a properly instructed jury could convict on that evidence, then the state has a duty to prosecute. No prosecutor would be able to identify, let alone prosecute, anyone other than Oswald as being criminally involved in the death of JFK or Officer Tippit.
When events occur, there will usually be evidence that can be discovered. The lack of evidence after a thorough investigation and in the ensuing 54 years of no one has come forward with any evidence (eg. no deathbed confessions of a guilty conscience and a story that fits with the known facts), speaks volumes about the existence (or lack thereof) of other parties to these offences.
The single biggest travesty of justice in this case was the Garrison prosecution, in my view. It shows what happens when suspicion rather than evidence forms the basis for a prosecution.
-
Perhaps there were some paid shills to troll the JFK forums as LNers to help the cause, but my guess is that the vast majority of them are just playing the LNer Game of Trolls. They're more like Trump supporters willing to go down with the ship because they've come this far so WTH do they have to lose? Their dignity? ;)
At any rate, LNers are a classic case of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. They resort to obfuscation and discrediting anyone whose argument contradicts their religious LNer stance. There isn't a single piece of evidence they are willing to accept that suggests Oswald was not a LN, so they resort to calling the CTs kooks, etc., when ironically THEY are in the minority.
Face it, the LN hypothesis is the fringe theory these days and you LNers haven't done a single thing to dispel that notion. Excuses, obfuscation, BS and ad homs do not = evidence let alone prove anything. LNers lose every debate on this forum when they stray from logic and evidence or lack there of and never concede a single point against LNerism. It's untenable, intractable and textbook Dunning-Kruger Effect. Otherwise, you LNers are great! :D
-
Perhaps there were some paid shills to troll the JFK forums as LNers to help the cause, but my guess is that the vast majority of them are just playing the LNer Game of Trolls. They're more like Trump supporters willing to go down with the ship because they've come this far so WTH do they have to lose at this point? Their dignity? ;)
At any rate, LNers are a classic case of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. They resort to obfuscation and discrediting anyone whose argument contradicts their religious LNer stance. There isn't a single piece of evidence they are willing to accept that suggests Oswald was not a LN, so they resort to calling the CTs kooks, etc., when ironically THEY are in the minority.
Face it, the LN hypothesis is the fringe theory these days and you LNers haven't done a single thing to dispel that notion. Excuses, obfuscation, BS and ad homs do not = evidence let alone prove anything. LNers lose every debate on this forum when they stray from logic and evidence or lack there of and never concede a single point against LNerism. It's untenable, intractable and textbook Dunning-Kruger Effect. Otherwise, you LNers are great! :D
This is fascinating in its illogic.
Let's see, Trump and his supporters say the "deep state" has conspired - and are conspiring - to bring his presidency down. As such they insist that elements of the FBI and NSA and CIA are working to expose collusion (faked) between Trump and Russia. And are covering up their actions (using fake intelligence) at the same time.
Meanwhile, the JFK conspiracy crowd believes what? Well, that the FBI and CIA (run, it's James Angleton!!) and NSA and others got together to remove JFK from office. And these elements have been covering up that act for more than half a century. And generations of people in government - presidents and others - have all gone along with the coverup.
But wait, there's more: there were two Oswalds, and two Marguerites, and two caskets, and two shooters, and two Z-films (at least). Witnesses were killed, rifles planted, bullets lost. Everyone from the Vice President to waitresses were involved. Steam fitters and used car salesmen and bus drivers and cab drivers and landladies. On and on and on...an endless number of people.
Right, that's logical.
On the other hand, the Oswald-as-sole-assassin side believes that an angry, radicalized man took his rifle and shot the president. As JFK said, "If someone wants to shoot me from a tall building there's nothing we can do about it." Yeah, Jack, that's what happened.
So which of the two sides - the LNer or the CTers - think like Trump and his merry brand of paranoids?
-
This 'You LNers' and You Cters' is all a bit conspiracy minded innit? Tin foil hat thinking.
-
This is fascinating in its illogic.
Let's see, Trump and his supporters say the "deep state" has conspired - and are conspiring - to bring his presidency down. As such they insist that elements of the FBI and NSA and CIA are working to expose collusion (faked) between Trump and Russia. And are covering up their actions (using fake intelligence) at the same time.
No, Trump supporters don't give a sh*t about conspiracies. They aren't even paying attention. They are rubes that back Trump because..he is orange..because he's GOP..because they ain't jumping ship until the boat's going down. Same as the LNers.
Meanwhile, the JFK conspiracy crowd believes what? Well, that the FBI and CIA (run, it's James Angleton!!) and NSA and others got together to remove JFK from office. And these elements have been covering up that act for more than half a century. And generations of people in government - presidents and others - have all gone along with the coverup.
Nope. Just an ordinary coup d'etat. Do you actually believe the US was incapable of a coup in 63? There were only 3 major players required to pull it off: Dulles, Hoover and Johnson. Nixon called them "animals" and they all had motives to at least comply with a coup. The big question is why you defend them in favor of the improbable idea that Oswald was a lone nut in a perfect storm?
But wait, there's more: there were two Oswalds, and two Marguerites, and two caskets, and two shooters, and two Z-films (at least). Witnesses were killed, rifles planted, bullets lost. Everyone from the Vice President to waitresses were involved. Steam fitters and used car salesmen and bus drivers and cab drivers and landladies. On and on and on...an endless number of people.
There were just as many Oswalds as it took to pull it off. JFK's motorcade was scheduled early Nov to go thru Chicago which ultimately got scrubbed in favor of Nov 22 in Dallas. Thomas Arthur Vallee was the patsy for plan A, Oswald for plan B.
On the other hand, the Oswald-as-sole-assassin side believes that an angry, radicalized man took his rifle and shot the president. As JFK said, "If someone wants to shoot me from a tall building there's nothing we can do about it." Yeah, Jack, that's what happened.
You mean the guy that coincidentally got a job 3 weeks before JFK's motorcade route took a strange right down Elm, delivering JFK to him on a silver platter? And a million other "coincidences" which you LNers conveniently dismiss and/or ignore. Fact is, you don't have a single smoking gun in this case. How could that be if you had the right guy?
So which of the two sides - the LNer or the CTers - think like Trump and his merry brand of paranoids?
Sorry, the Trumptard analogy lands squarely on you LNers. "Conspiracy" is not a dirty word and not all CTers wear tin foil hats, while all LNers have the Dunning-Kruger Effect in common.
-
What's particularly revealing is that the same people who express outrage over the supposed violations of Oswald's rights are big supporters of Jim Garrison and his investigation in New Orleans.
Garrison was, of course, a government official - the New Orleans District Attorney - and his abuses of the rights of people were tenfold more outrageous than anything done to Oswald, real or imagined.
To be fair, a number of conspiracy authors - Lifton for example - are critical of what Garrison did. But the rank and file conspiracy crowd seldom express any criticism of Garrison while at the same time finding violations of Oswald's rights everywhere. Even the WC somehow violated his due process rights.
Let's be blunt: these (not all; just this particular element) are simply Oswald defenders not people interested in determining, as best as we can at this date, what happened that November day in Dallas.
Jim Garrison arrives at the Pearly Gates The first question is obvious.
God replies 'Oswald was the killer, and did it alone'
Garrison exclaims 'WOW, I had no idea the conspiracy went this high!'
-
What's particularly revealing is that the same people who express outrage over the supposed violations of Oswald's rights.....
You think that any violations might not have been established?
-
No, Trump supporters don't give a sh*t about conspiracies. They aren't even paying attention. They are rubes that back Trump because..he is orange..because he's GOP..because they ain't jumping ship until the boat's going down. Same as the LNers.
Nope. Just an ordinary coup d'etat. Do you actually believe the US was incapable of a coup in 63? There were only 3 major players required to pull it off: Dulles, Hoover and Johnson. Nixon called them "animals" and they all had motives to at least comply with a coup. The big question is why you defend them in favor of the improbable idea that Oswald was a lone nut in a perfect storm?
Dulles, Hoover and Johnson are bogeymen. And people would cover-up their conspiracy to murder a POTUS? This just gets better. There's Johnson a few months later having to be talked into running in the 1964 election. Dulles has retired to write crime fiction.
There were just as many Oswalds as it took to pull it off. JFK's motorcade was scheduled early Nov to go thru Chicago which ultimately got scrubbed in favor of Nov 22 in Dallas. Thomas Arthur Vallee was the patsy for plan A, Oswald for plan B.
You mean the guy that coincidentally got a job 3 weeks before JFK's motorcade route took a strange right down Elm, delivering JFK to him on a silver platter?
A target of opportunity that Oswald could not resist. "Strange right" turn? LOL.
And a million other "coincidences" which you LNers conveniently dismiss and/or ignore. Fact is, you don't have a single smoking gun in this case. How could that be if you had the right guy?
What "smoking gun" have you great CT researchers revealed? The "Mauser"? The "smoke" on the knoll? The storm drain inlet? What "solid" evidence.
Sorry, the Trumptard analogy lands squarely on you LNers. "Conspiracy" is not a dirty word and not all CTers wear tin foil hats, while all LNers have the Dunning-Kruger Effect in common.
For CTs, not suffering from Dunning-Kruger seems to mean asking questions that require time-travel to "prove".
-
JFK conspiracist: "We believe the deep state (consisting of just three people; no one else helped them) got rid of the president but no we're not like Trump and his supporters who say the deep state is trying to get rid of the president."
Heck, at least the Trump supporters don't have to come up with two Oswalds and two caskets and curtain rods and altered films and planted rifles and coached waitresses and bus drivers and cab drivers all involved. And then all of this covered up for half a century. Yes, even today it's being covered up. Why? Never mind it jut is.
What's even more remarkable is that the conspiracy crowd believes that the only way all of these powerful groups (as if they could come together anyway) could stop JFK (and it's absurd to think he was a threat to them) was to kill him. The President has a lot of power but it's limited. He can't do whatever he wants (although apparently the current occupant thinks so; but he's an idiot so never mind).
To be sure, there's a group of people in the JFK assassination world that is living in a fantasy place where they believe their interpretation is superior to all others. Such as: two Oswalds with the "other" one never recognized by his family (but, see? they were "in" on it too). You have to be brilliant to come up with that one. Us simple minded people could never think of something like that.
-
Dulles, Hoover and Johnson are bogeymen. And people would cover-up their conspiracy to murder a POTUS? This just gets better. There's Johnson a few months later having to be talked into running in the 1964 election. Dulles has retired to write crime fiction.
A target of opportunity that Oswald could not resist. "Strange right" turn? LOL.
What "smoking gun" have you great CT researchers revealed? The "Mauser"? The "smoke" on the knoll? The storm drain inlet? What "solid" evidence.
For CTs, not suffering from Dunning-Kruger seems to mean asking questions that require time-travel to "prove".
It's fascinating how he says it was "just" Hoover, Dulles and LBJ and then goes on to describe multiple plots in different cities involving, at a minimum, dozens of people (er, so who planted the rifle in the TSBD: Hoover? Dulles? LBJ?)
All of this planned in advance, carried out, covered up and then for half a century covered up by subsequent generations of people (why would someone today cover up for LBJ's treasonous acts?). The WC? A sham. The HSCA? Sham. CIA and FBI documents? Hidden. New investigations? Part of the coverup. Historians like Caro spending decades on LBJ's life? He's a fraud.
But remember, it was just three people.
And he says WE'RE the ones suffering from illusions?
-
JFK conspiracist: "We believe the deep state (consisting of just three people; no one else helped them) got rid of the president but no we're not like Trump and his supporters who say the deep state is trying to get rid of the president."
Heck, at least the Trump supporters don't have to come up with two Oswalds and two caskets and curtain rods and altered films and planted rifles and coached waitresses and bus drivers and cab drivers all involved. And then all of this covered up for half a century. Yes, even today it's being covered up. Why? Never mind it jut is.
What's even more remarkable is that the conspiracy crowd believes that the only way all of these powerful groups (as if they could come together anyway) could stop JFK (and it's absurd to think he was a threat to them) was to kill him. The President has a lot of power but it's limited. He can't do whatever he wants (although apparently the current occupant thinks so; but he's an idiot so never mind).
To be sure, there's a group of people in the JFK assassination world that is living in a fantasy place where they believe their interpretation is superior to all others. Such as: two Oswalds with the "other" one never recognized by his family (but, see? they were "in" on it too). You have to be brilliant to come up with that one. Us simple minded people could never think of something like that.
It's fascinating how he says it was "just" Hoover, Dulles and LBJ and then goes on to describe multiple plots in different cities involving, at a minimum, dozens of people (er, so who planted the rifle in the TSBD: Hoover? Dulles? LBJ?)
All of this planned in advance, carried out, covered up and then for half a century covered up by subsequent generations of people (why would someone today cover up for LBJ's treasonous acts?). The WC? A sham. The HSCA? Sham. CIA and FBI documents? Hidden. New investigations? Part of the coverup. Historians like Caro spending decades on LBJ's life? He's a fraud.
But remember, it was just three people.
And he says WE'RE the ones suffering from illusions?
Amazing... not a shred of nuance anywhere, just over-simplication to somehow make an invalid point.
It's all black and white for this guy.
-
Amazing... not a shred of nuance anywhere, just over-simplication to somehow make an invalid point.
It's all black and white for this guy.
Against claims so muddied & contradictory that after 54 years CTroll Nation cannot possibly form a coherent conspiracy, or even present a prime suspect to replace Oswald.
A mentally-deranged X-Marine poked a rifle out that window and killed Kennedy.
Probably.
;)
-
Against claims so muddied & contradictory after 54 years that makes it impossible for CTroll Nation to form a coherent conspiracy, or even present a prime suspect to replace Oswald.
A mentally-deranged X-Marine poked a rifle out that window and killed Kennedy.
Probably.
;)
But Bill, where's your nuance?
As you point out the inability of the conspiracy crowd to come up with a single reasonable explanation as to what happened is revealing.
Forget about the evidence of Oswald's guilt. What's the counter explanation?
There is none. All we have is people with grudges against the US government, with the CIA or Hoover or the Royal Monarchy (?!) who then use the assassination as an instrument to go after those groups. It's conspiracy first, facts second (if at all).
I do wish that instead of using the assassination for their grievances these people work out their frustrations in life doing something else. But they have too much emotional investment in the event to change.
-
But Bill, where's your nuance?
As you point out the inability of the conspiracy crowd to come up with a single reasonable explanation as to what happened is revealing.
Forget about the evidence of Oswald's guilt. What's the counter explanation?
There is none. All we have is people with grudges against the US government, with the CIA or Hoover or the Royal Monarchy (?!) who then use the assassination as an instrument to go after those groups. It's conspiracy first, facts second (if at all).
I do wish that instead of using the assassination for their grievances these people work out their frustrations in life doing something else. But they have too much emotional investment in the event to change.
Forget about the evidence of Oswald's guilt.
No. Let's not.... let's examine it closely and see if it really supports the LN claim of guilt.
What's the counter explanation?
Why does there have to be a counter explanation? Can you prove Oswald's guilt conclusively or not?
All we have is people with grudges against the US government, with the CIA or Hoover or the Royal Monarchy (?!) who then use the assassination as an instrument to go after those groups.
More and more I see LNs going down the shaky path of claiming that people who do not share their opinion (because that's what it is) are anti-government, wish to destroy democracy and/or are a threat to freedom. It's all BS of course, but, and I could be wrong, I am beginning to get the impression that this paranoid LN belief somehow motivates them into clinging to the lone gun man scenario, because a possible alternative scares the sh*t out of them.
So please be more specific. Who exactly has a grudge against who?
I do wish that instead of using the assassination for their grievances these people work out their frustrations in life doing something else. But they have too much emotional investment in the event to change.
Is this just something you keep telling yourself to somehow validate your own feelings or do you have some actual evidence for these idiotic claims?
A wise man once said that the biggest fool of them all is the one who thinks others are the fools......
-
Against claims so muddied & contradictory after 54 years that makes it impossible for CTroll Nation to form a coherent conspiracy, or even present a prime suspect to replace Oswald.
A mentally-deranged X-Marine poked a rifle out that window and killed Kennedy.
Probably.
;)
Against claims so muddied & contradictory after 54 years that makes it impossible for CTroll Nation to form a coherent conspiracy, or even present a prime suspect to replace Oswald.
I agree. The multitude of opinions and theories amongst the CTs makes it impossible to achieve any kind of united point of view, which btw is exactly why there is no such thing as a CT nation or whatever you want to call it. Your generalizations are simply pathetic.
I also agree that a large part of the CT theories are simply unlikely, stupid, pathetic and/or crazy, but not all of them are. In any event, when you seal the evidence away for many years it is to be expected and inevitable that there will be speculation and some of that will be ideology driven rather than based on fact. Having said that, the CTs don't have the comfort of a prescripted narrative like the LNs do.
Your request for an alternative narrative and/or shooter is just a cheap trick to divert attention away from the weakness of your case against Oswald.
-
Given the significant passage of time, almost everyone associated with this case is dead or soon will be. That would certainly be the case if they were directly involved in the assassination given the CTer claims of roving death squads who killed even those with minor information about the case. So it is no longer a matter of justice to punish the guilty in a trial but one of historical interest to better understand the details of what has happened. That is governed by the totality of evidence in the case. That evidence lends itself to Oswald's guilt. There is no doubt of this beyond fringe individuals such as those who haunt forums like these making a lot of noise. Mainstream historians have put the matter to rest. Oswald is the assassin. The issue of whether there is more to learn about him including any connections to specific groups is a somewhat more open matter based on never being able to disprove the negative with absolute certainty. However, I have seen zero credible evidence to link Oswald to any group. He was frankly a kooky guy. The kind who might decide to assassinate the president when chance dropped the opportunity in his lap. His political nuttiness lends itself to conspiracy theories but also to just being what he was. A murderous nut job. I'm completely open to a conspiracy conclusion if there is evidence presented to support it. I have no bias or self-interest in Oswald's lone guilt. There have been plenty of conspiracies proven in history such as the plot to assassinate Lincoln. I think some CTers believe those who accept Oswald's guilt have a bias against conspiracies per se or undue trust in the government. It is simply not the case. It is the evidence that dictates what conclusion is to be drawn. Cue the usual nuts here to ask for this evidence as though it has not been outlined in greater detail than any criminal case in history. And round and round we will go.
-
Given the significant passage of time, almost everyone associated with this case is dead or soon will be. That would certainly be the case if they were directly involved in the assassination given the CTer claims of roving death squads who killed even those with minor information about the case. So it is no longer a matter of justice to punish the guilty in a trial but one of historical interest to better understand the details of what has happened. That is governed by the totality of evidence in the case. That evidence lends itself to Oswald's guilt. There is no doubt of this beyond fringe individuals such as those who haunt forums like these making a lot of noise. Mainstream historians have put the matter to rest. Oswald is the assassin. The issue of whether there is more to learn about him including any connections to specific groups is a somewhat more open matter based on never being able to disprove the negative with absolute certainty. However, I have seen zero credible evidence to link Oswald to any group. He was frankly a kooky guy. The kind who might decide to assassinate the president when chance dropped the opportunity in his lap. His political nuttiness lends itself to conspiracy theories but also to just being what he was. A murderous nut job. I'm completely open to a conspiracy conclusion if there is evidence presented to support it. I have no bias or self-interest in Oswald's lone guilt. There have been plenty of conspiracies proven in history such as the plot to assassinate Lincoln. I think some CTers believe those who accept Oswald's guilt have a bias against conspiracies per se or undue trust in the government. It is simply not the case. It is the evidence that dictates what conclusion is to be drawn. Cue the usual nuts here to ask for this evidence as though it has not been outlined in greater detail than any criminal case in history. And round and round we will go.
Well said. While I agree with everything you have stated, LNs are not immune from failing to follow evidence.
-
Cue the usual nuts here to ask for this evidence as though it has not been outlined in greater detail than any criminal case in history.
No need to ask any more since you repeatedly failed, and will fail, to deliver.
Right on cue. There is no more evidence that anyone needs to provide of Oswald's guilt. It is the most investigated criminal case in history. The evidence against Oswald has been made available in excruciating detail to the tune of millions of pages, thousands of books, and a multitude of other sources including kook "research." No one person could read it all in ten lifetimes. The basic facts and supporting evidence are well documented and laid out in a multitude of resources and official investigations. What exactly would you like me or anyone else to add to this mountain of information? What you are suggesting is that the world has not satisfied your subjective impossible standard of proof on the topic. That is not a problem reasonable people can or need to sort out. There is no amount of evidence that can dissuade UFO, bigfoot, and ghost believers. There are simply some people in society a few fries short of a happy meal. They are true believers in a falsehood. That doesn't change the facts or evidence one iota, however.
-
Right on cue. There is no more evidence that anyone needs to provide of Oswald's guilt. It is the most investigated criminal case in history. The evidence against Oswald has been made available in excruciating detail to the tune of millions of pages, thousands of books, and a multitude of other sources including kook "research." No one person could read it all in ten lifetimes. The basic facts and supporting evidence are well documented and laid out in a multitude of resources and official investigations. What exactly would you like me or anyone else to add to this mountain of information? What you are suggesting is that the world has not satisfied your subjective impossible standard of proof on the topic. That is not a problem reasonable people can or need to sort out. There is no amount of evidence that can dissuade UFO, bigfoot, and ghost believers. There are simply some people in society a few fries short of a happy meal. They are true believers in a falsehood. That doesn't change the facts or evidence one iota, however.
Bingo.
I like to bring up Caro's work on LBJ. He's a distinguished serious historian and scholar who's spent more than two decades on Johnson's life. And he's found nothing indicating LBJ's involvement in the assassination. Not a thing.
Does the conspiracy crowd accept this? Of course not. Caro is corrupt or he's incompetent. Or both. Even though you know and I know they haven't read his work. Could he be wrong? Of course. But those saying he's wrong have to show us. But they don't. Actually, they can't. Because, for them, LBJ just did it. No proof is needed.
The conspiracy crowd is a religion. Have you ever noticed how ferociously they attack one another if that person doesn't follow the conspiracy catechism? It's like a sect that will not allow reason to enter their worldview.
I used to be a conspiracy believer (SBT, Oswald's defection to the USSR) but, damned, I wasn't this far gone.
-
Right on cue. There is no more evidence that anyone needs to provide of Oswald's guilt. It is the most investigated criminal case in history. The evidence against Oswald has been made available in excruciating detail to the tune of millions of pages, thousands of books, and a multitude of other sources including kook "research." No one person could read it all in ten lifetimes. The basic facts and supporting evidence are well documented and laid out in a multitude of resources and official investigations. What exactly would you like me or anyone else to add to this mountain of information? What you are suggesting is that the world has not satisfied your subjective impossible standard of proof on the topic. That is not a problem reasonable people can or need to sort out. There is no amount of evidence that can dissuade UFO, bigfoot, and ghost believers. There are simply some people in society a few fries short of a happy meal. They are true believers in a falsehood. That doesn't change the facts or evidence one iota, however.
"Right on cue"
Good one
-
Your request for an alternative narrative and/or shooter is just a cheap trick to divert attention away from the weakness of your case against Oswald.
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/1c6943c372187ed186416b895f4eb06c/tenor.gif)
-
Given the significant passage of time, almost everyone associated with this case is dead or soon will be. That would certainly be the case if they were directly involved in the assassination given the CTer claims of roving death squads who killed even those with minor information about the case.
Strawman Smith strikes again.
So it is no longer a matter of justice to punish the guilty in a trial but one of historical interest to better understand the details of what has happened. That is governed by the totality of evidence in the case. That evidence lends itself to Oswald's guilt. There is no doubt of this beyond fringe individuals such as those who haunt forums like these making a lot of noise.
...and he thinks that stating his opinion over and over again somehow makes it true.
Cue the usual nuts here to ask for this evidence as though it has not been outlined in greater detail than any criminal case in history. And round and round we will go.
And you have yet to actually provide any that doesn't crumble under the slightest scrutiny. You just keep restating your conclusions as if that means anything.
-
Does the conspiracy crowd accept this? Of course not. Caro is corrupt or he's incompetent. Or both. Even though you know and I know they haven't read his work. Could he be wrong? Of course. But those saying he's wrong have to show us. But they don't. Actually, they can't. Because, for them, LBJ just did it. No proof is needed.
The only people I've seen questioning Caro's work on this forum are your fellow LNers -- in the thread about whether JFK was going to drop LBJ in '64.
Anytime somebody starts claiming what the "conspiracy crowd" thinks, you can bet a strawman is soon to follow. Why don't you guys ever argue against what actual people write in the actual forum rather than caricatures of your own creation?