JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Gerry Down on April 12, 2022, 08:29:17 PM
-
Sciencealert.com recently published an article about people who don’t want to get vaccinated. That article stated:
When we compared the early life histories of those who were vaccine resistant to those who were not we found many vaccine-resistant adults had histories of adverse experiences during childhood, including abuse, maltreatment, deprivation or neglect, or having an alcoholic parent. These experiences would have made their childhood unpredictable and contributed to a lifelong legacy of mistrust in authorities, as well as seeding the belief that "when the proverbial hits the fan you're on your own".
SOURCE: https://www.sciencealert.com/a-key-detail-in-some-people-s-childhoods-may-lead-to-vaccine-resistance-study-finds
The sentence “a lifelong legacy of mistrust in authorities” got my attention. It made me wonder if adverse circumstances in a childs upbringing could also be responsible for why some people become JFK assassination CTers. Speaking as a LNer myself, my childhood was good thankfully, so I guess I did not develop “a lifelong legacy of mistrust in authorities” as a result.
Could a persons childhood be the key to understanding why some people become a CTer as opposed to a LNer?
-
What kind of childhood trauma causes people to blindly trust the word of authority figures?
-
What kind of childhood trauma causes people to blindly trust the word of authority figures?
Jerry Down the Clown asked: "Could a persons childhood be the key to understanding why some people become a CTer as opposed to a LNer?
This is one of the wackiest theories ever presented on this forum.... Some people who have been raised in brutal and inhuman situations live to become venerated pillars of society.... While a sibling in the same family becomes a serial killer.
I must say Mr Down..... I believe that your post certainly reflects the lack of critical thinking that is soooooo typical of a LNer.
-
Jerry Down the Clown asked: "Could a persons childhood be the key to understanding why some people become a CTer as opposed to a LNer?
This is one of the wackiest theories ever presented on this forum.... Some people who have been raised in brutal and inhuman situations live to become venerated pillars of society.... While a sibling in the same family becomes a serial killer.
I must say Mr Down..... I believe that your post certainly reflects the lack of critical thinking that is soooooo typical of a LNer.
Isn't that a bit of an over reaction, all Gerry did was give a personal anecdote and ask a question based on an article on "sciencealert", a very interesting piece of research.
It's obvious you've just come back to be a negative aggressive arsehole, calm down or Fcuk Off!
JohnM
-
I have heard multiple LN'ers say that in their youth they were CT'ers and then wised up. I have a theory on that.
There a million nutty CT's out there because the JFK case is the most popular 'whodunit' of the last 1/2 century. Everyone is an armchair expert. So when people are very young and naive they tend to just accept all those theories. Then as they grow they see many of those theories did not hold water.
My theory is they become embarrassed by how young and dumb they were and take a very hard shift to the other side. Nobody wants to look like a fool so they become hard core skeptics in order to make sure they are never duped again.
50 years ago the Project Bluebook investigator/astronomer J. Allen Hynek claimed the project was indeed finding objects moving through our atmosphere that we could not identify.
That was a CT and all the "rational" intellectual snobs degraded all who even considered Hynak's words, even though he was a respected scientist before and after Project Bluebook.
Last year the Pentagon admitted in the opening of their report the same facts Hynek said in 1970. So now all the skeptics who dismissed the phenomena are in denial or eating crow. The pendulum swings both way!. A closed mind can bite you in the ass!
-
I have heard multiple LN'ers say that in their youth they were CT'ers and then wised up. I have a theory on that.
There a million nutty CT's out there because the JFK case is the most popular 'whodunit' of the last 1/2 century. Everyone is an armchair expert. So when people are very young and naive they tend to just accept all those theories. Then as they grow they see many of those theories did not hold water.
My theory is they become embarrassed by how young and dumb they were and take a very hard shift to the other side. Nobody wants to look like a fool so they become hard core skeptics in order to make sure they are never duped again.
50 years ago the Project Bluebook investigator/astronomer J. Allen Hynek claimed the project was indeed finding objects moving through our atmosphere that we could not identify.
That was a CT and all the "rational" intellectual snobs degraded all who even considered Hynak's words, even though he was a respected scientist before and after Project Bluebook.
Last year the Pentagon admitted in the opening of their report the same facts Hynek said in 1970. So now all the skeptics who dismissed the phenomena are in denial or eating crow. The pendulum swings both way!. A closed mind can bite you in the ass!
My theory is they become embarrassed by how young and dumb they were and take a very hard shift to the other side. Nobody wants to look like a fool so they become hard core skeptics in order to make sure they are never duped again.
I was a nutty CT and that was based on only initially researching the CT side but like they say a pancake has two sides and it didn't take very long for me to realize that something was up with all this biased and misrepresented conspiracy evidence.
So I started looking at the official side and the supporting scientific evidence and most of the conspiracy theories that originally at face value were somewhat convincing, were just plain wrong.
For instance;
• A bullet lacks the kinetic energy to push a man beyond an inch or two, so the back and to the left was not from a bullet.
• The stereoscopic autopsy photos that I viewed with glasses then eventually made into morphed images prove that the photos are authentic and the head shot came from behind.
• Oswald killed Tippit, why the heck would Oswald kill Tippit if he wasn't desperately on the run.
• Oswald owned the rifle because the alternative of creating a massive paper trail and fake money orders and fake Kleins paperwork and fake photos and fake testimony and fake etc etc is beyond absurd.
So there you go, and you're right nobody likes to look like a fool and when it come to conspiracies what's wrong with being a hard core sceptic because what's out there is ridiculous, like Fake moon landings, Chemtrails, Sandy Hook actors, 9/11, Oklahoma bombing, Trump stuff, Covid vaccines, the list of conspiracy nonsense is exploding as the internet becomes more and more accessible and dumb people suddenly have a platform for their lunacy.
50 years ago the Project Bluebook investigator/astronomer J. Allen Hynek claimed the project was indeed finding objects moving through our atmosphere that we could not identify.
That was a CT and all the "rational" intellectual snobs degraded all who even considered Hynak's words, even though he was a respected scientist before and after Project Bluebook.
Last year the Pentagon admitted in the opening of their report the same facts Hynek said in 1970. So now all the skeptics who dismissed the phenomena are in denial or eating crow. The pendulum swings both way!. A closed mind can bite you in the ass!
If what was caught on film wasn't some film anomaly and was an actual physical object doing insane aerial manoeuvres, the question I ask is what's motivating these pilots of these UFO's to show off in front of US military jets? If I go to an alien planet flying advanced tech, sure I might show off a little but beyond that what's going on? The films although are not very good quality and could easily be faked with travelling mattes and an optical printer! -wink-
And besides, the space distances travelled are very very far and even going lightspeed would take many years and all for what, to show off their latest hotmobile?
JohnM
-
Sciencealert.com recently published an article about people who don’t want to get vaccinated. That article stated:
When we compared the early life histories of those who were vaccine resistant to those who were not we found many vaccine-resistant adults had histories of adverse experiences during childhood, including abuse, maltreatment, deprivation or neglect, or having an alcoholic parent. These experiences would have made their childhood unpredictable and contributed to a lifelong legacy of mistrust in authorities, as well as seeding the belief that "when the proverbial hits the fan you're on your own".
SOURCE: https://www.sciencealert.com/a-key-detail-in-some-people-s-childhoods-may-lead-to-vaccine-resistance-study-finds
The sentence “a lifelong legacy of mistrust in authorities” got my attention. It made me wonder if adverse circumstances in a childs upbringing could also be responsible for why some people become JFK assassination CTers. Speaking as a LNer myself, my childhood was good thankfully, so I guess I did not develop “a lifelong legacy of mistrust in authorities” as a result.
Could a persons childhood be the key to understanding why some people become a CTer as opposed to a LNer?
The way we process information and “look” at the world is certainly impacted by our childhoods... but this is not at all CTer or LNer specific...
The real question for us is how BEST to process information and how BEST to look at the world...
However, good evidence should be compelling to all of us...
But once we “tilt” toward one view, our way of viewing the evidence becomes somewhat “tainted” by that “tilt”...
The best example for me is having two attorneys (and jurors) looking at the very same evidence and testimony... but coming to opposite conclusions...
We all... in every area of life... should stay humble... and continue to question our own conclusions... and even question our own doubts..
It is very, very difficult to be so self-reflective and objective... but it is important to make the effort if we are going to arrive somewhere close to the “truth” and “reality”...
We humans are very complex... and our childhood experiences are only one part in a wide mix of factors that determine how we process information and “look” at the world...
And, of course, in my opinion...
-
Isn't that a bit of an over reaction, all Gerry did was give a personal anecdote and ask a question based on an article on "sciencealert", a very interesting piece of research.
It's obvious you've just come back to be a negative aggressive arsehole, calm down or Fcuk Off!
JohnM
It's obvious you've just come back to be a negative aggressive arsehole,
Negative aggressive arsehole.....
Negative?.... I'm Guilty.... When the subject is the validity of your bible ...The Warren Report.
Aggressive?.... Guilty again.... I fully intend to aggressively attack the BS and lies that you and other LNer's perpetrate...
Arsehole?... That's how some folks would see me.... I won't tolerate your idiotic lies, and you can count on me calling you out with FACTS that expose your nonsense.
For example.... William Whaley swore that his passenger was wearing BLUE workman's type clothes...And you yourself have said that Lee Oswald was wearing a BROWN shirt.... Do you know the difference between Blue and Brown?
If Whaley's passenger was wearing a BLUE jacket as Whaley said he was , and Lee was wearing a BROWN shirt .....Then it's obvious to anybody with a functioning brain that Whaley's passenger was NOT lee Oswald.
-
Gerry Down had a good childhood; so he probably had a good start in life with his first authority figures: Mom & Dad.
-
Gerry Down had a good childhood; so he probably had a good start in life with his first authority figures: Mom & Dad.
I was a good kid so I never got in trouble with authority figures and authority figures consequently never gave me any hassle. Which brings up another point - I wonder if CTers were trouble makers as youngsters, got in trouble in school and with the police etc and consequently grow up with a chip on their shoulder and dislike authority figures in general. It seems like alot of CTers want to believe the worst about authority figures like the government. That would explain why CTers strain so much to absolve Oswald of any wrong-doing despite the overwhelming evidence against him - even willing to overlook the fact he beat his wife regularly and stubbed cigarettes out on her arm.
-
I was a good kid so I never got in trouble with authority figures and authority figures consequently never gave me any hassle. Which brings up another point - I wonder if CTers were trouble makers as youngsters, got in trouble in school and with the police etc and consequently grow up with a chip on their shoulder and dislike authority figures in general. It seems like alot of CTers want to believe the worst about authority figures like the government. That would explain why CTers strain so much to absolve Oswald of any wrong-doing despite the overwhelming evidence against him - even willing to overlook the fact he beat his wife regularly and stubbed cigarettes out on her arm.
It seems like alot of CTers want to believe the worst about authority figures like the government.
Mr Down, why don't you get up and extract your head and see the light. Simply read a few history books that record the histories of many police departments .... Many southern cities had police and Sheriffs departments that were corrupt to the core. I encourage you to read a couple of books that are good entertaining reading..... Starting with Adam's vs Texas , which is a true story about how the Dallas Police framed Randy Adams and sent him to death row. Many of the same cops who framed Lee Oswald were also involved in the framing of Randy Adams.
-
It seems like alot of CTers want to believe the worst about authority figures like the government.
Mr Down, why don't you get up and extract your head and see the light. Simply read a few history books that record the histories of many police departments .... Many southern cities had police and Sheriffs departments that were corrupt to the core. I encourage you to read a couple of books that are good entertaining reading..... Starting with Adam's vs Texas , which is a true story about how the Dallas Police framed Randy Adams and sent him to death row. Many of the same cops who framed Lee Oswald were also involved in the framing of Randy Adams.
The Dallas police didn't frame Randy Adams, the real shooter did. The real shooter, Mr. Harris, made a false statement to the DPD that Adams was the shooter and so misled the DPD. You cant blame the DPD for that. Just goes to show my point. CTers have such suspicion for authority that they start blaming authority bodies for things they are not responsible for.
-
The Dallas police didn't frame Randy Adams, the real shooter did. The real shooter, Mr. Harris, made a false statement to the DPD that Adams was the shooter and so misled the DPD. You cant blame the DPD for that. Just goes to show my point. CTers have such suspicion for authority that they start blaming authority bodies for things they are not responsible for.
Wow! find this very interesting.... We've both read the book, and it's obvious to me that the DPD did not want a "good ol Texas boy" to be found guilty of the crime of murdering a police officer.. even though they knew that Harris was the killer... And they had no compunction about blaming the crime on a "damned Yankee". On the other hand you're perfectly happy to say that the DPD didn't frame Adams....
-
Wow! find this very interesting.... We've both read the book, and it's obvious to me that the DPD did not want a "good ol Texas boy" to be found guilty of the crime of murdering a police officer.. even though they knew that Harris was the killer... And they had no compunction about blaming the crime on a "damned Yankee". On the other hand you're perfectly happy to say that the DPD didn't frame Adams....
I think the issue there was Mr. Harris was a minor and Mr. Adams was the adult. So they assumed the adult was the guilty party. Check out the Wikipedia page on Mr. Adams to get a better idea of the story than that conspiracy book you reference.
-
I think the issue there was Mr. Harris was a minor and Mr. Adams was the adult. So they assumed the adult was the guilty party. Check out the Wikipedia page on Mr. Adams to get a better idea of the story than that conspiracy book you reference.
So they assumed the adult was the guilty party.
Assumed ??.... I was of the opinion that the police were required to INVESTIGATE.....
-
Authority worshippers like you had blast back in the 1930s in Germany.
So not getting in trouble with the police now makes one a Nazi. Lol.
-
Authority worshippers like you had blast back in the 1930s in Germany.
What a stupid offensive comment but I expect no less from you.
Nowhere did Gerry say he "worshipped" Authority, he just seems to have a healthy respect for the well being of his community.
You wankers keep disparaging the Police, but as soon as something goes wrong in your personal lives you're the first one crawling and licking their arses.
JohnM
-
What kind of childhood trauma causes people to blindly trust the word of authority figures?
Out of all the members here, I find you have the most irrational distrust of the Police and Authoritative figures so clearly you are the perfect case study for the questions raised in the OP.
Tell us about your childhood John?
JohnM
-
I was a good kid so I never got in trouble with authority figures and authority figures consequently never gave me any hassle. Which brings up another point - I wonder if CTers were trouble makers as youngsters, got in trouble in school and with the police etc and consequently grow up with a chip on their shoulder and dislike authority figures in general. It seems like alot of CTers want to believe the worst about authority figures like the government. That would explain why CTers strain so much to absolve Oswald of any wrong-doing despite the overwhelming evidence against him - even willing to overlook the fact he beat his wife regularly and stubbed cigarettes out on her arm.
“Overwhelming evidence”. LOL.
-
Out of all the members here, I find you have the most irrational distrust of the Police and Authoritative figures so clearly you are the perfect case study for the questions raised in the OP.
Tell us about your childhood John?
My childhood was just fine, “Mytton”. So much so that I’m not so paranoid that I have to hide behind a fake name.
The idea that cops won’t “hassle” you if you’ve done nothing wrong is naive and comes from a place of unearned privilege. Unless you and Gerry think “driving while Black” is “doing something wrong”. Or taking a jog through the wrong neighborhood.
But whether it comes from a cop or not, a “because I said so” argument is not a good reason to believe something is actually true.
-
My childhood was just fine, “Mytton”. So much so that I’m not so paranoid that I have to hide behind a fake name.
The idea that cops won’t “hassle” you if you’ve done nothing wrong is naive and comes from a place of unearned privilege. Unless you and Gerry think “driving while Black” is “doing something wrong”. Or taking a jog through the wrong neighborhood.
But whether it comes from a cop or not, a “because I said so” argument is not a good reason to believe something is actually true.
Shows that you have a chip on your shoulder about authority - apparently it is ok to resist arrest. Goes back to my opening post about CTers having some kind of undue chip on their shoulder about authority which clouds their judgment when analyzing a case such as the JFK assassination.
-
Shows that you have a chip on your shoulder about authority - apparently it is ok to resist arrest.
It depends. Do you mean actually resisting a lawful arrest or do you mean not doing what a cop feels like ordering you to do?
Because they are both called “resisting arrest”, and the latter is used as an excuse to asphyxiate people or shoot unarmed people in the back.
Goes back to my opening post about CTers having some kind of undue chip on their shoulder about authority which clouds their judgment when analyzing a case such as the JFK assassination.
No, people who aren’t adherents to the “Oswald did it” religion not only are aware of history with regard to police misconduct and coverup, but they also have correctly realized that “cop said so” isn’t a good reason to blindly accept that some claim is true.
-
It depends. Do you mean actually resisting a lawful arrest or do you mean not doing what a cop feels like ordering you to do?
Because they are both called “resisting arrest”, and the latter is used as an excuse to asphyxiate people or shoot unarmed people in the back.
No, people who aren’t adherents to the “Oswald did it” religion not only are aware of history with regard to police misconduct and coverup, but they also have correctly realized that “cop said so” isn’t a good reason to blindly accept that some claim is true.
You seem mixed up in your thought process. Jessie Curry admitted they couldn't put Oswald in the window with a rifle. Though of course that kind of definitive evidence is often not available in murder cases.
-
You seem mixed up in your thought process. Jessie Curry admitted they couldn't put Oswald in the window with a rifle.
I'm not sure why you would think I'm "mixed up" on that point. The "cop said so" gambit is selectively used when it's convenient.
-
My childhood was just fine, “Mytton”. So much so that I’m not so paranoid that I have to hide behind a fake name.
The idea that cops won’t “hassle” you if you’ve done nothing wrong is naive and comes from a place of unearned privilege. Unless you and Gerry think “driving while Black” is “doing something wrong”. Or taking a jog through the wrong neighborhood.
But whether it comes from a cop or not, a “because I said so” argument is not a good reason to believe something is actually true.
My childhood was just fine,
If you say so
“Mytton”.
Whenever you get flustered suddenly my name is encapsulated by quotation marks. Thanks, it makes me feel special.
So much so that I’m not so paranoid that I have to hide behind a fake name.
No you take your paranoia to YouTube with absurd religious videos. :D
The idea that cops won’t “hassle” you if you’ve done nothing wrong is naive and comes from a place of unearned privilege.
If you believe that, why do you continue to live there? Or is it easier being a Coward on a Forum?
Unless you and Gerry think “driving while Black” is “doing something wrong”. Or taking a jog through the wrong neighborhood.
I also hear a lot of stories of American cops doing a lot of nice things for their community.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6p7ffTmB/636065291475624793-park-watch-2.webp)
The 10,000 good things police do each day that you don't often see
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2016/08/12/police-officers-positive-work-crane/88410664/
But whether it comes from a cop or not, a “because I said so” argument is not a good reason to believe something is actually true.
If whatever was said came from me, then you can be assured it was actually true!
JohnM
-
The "cop said so" gambit is selectively used when it's convenient.
And the "All cops must be lying, because some cops are corrupt" is the weakest cop-out of them all.
JohnM
-
Whenever you get flustered suddenly my name is encapsulated by quotation marks. Thanks, it makes me feel special.
No, it’s always in quotation marks.
No you take your paranoia to YouTube with absurd religious videos. :D
Name one paranoid or absurd thing I ever said on YouTube. And I haven’t done any “religious videos”. You can’t represent anything accurately and honestly, can you?
I also hear a lot of stories of American cops doing a lot of nice things for their community.
Yes there are. Does this make the bad ones somehow above reproach?
Unless whatever was said came from me, then you can be assured it was actually true!
You probably think your egotistical rantings are charming or funny or whatever.
-
And the "All cops must be lying, because some cops are corrupt" is the weakest cop-out of them all.
Which I never said and neither did anybody else. So much for everything you say being true.
-
It depends. Do you mean actually resisting a lawful arrest or do you mean not doing what a cop feels like ordering you to do?
Because they are both called “resisting arrest”, and the latter is used as an excuse to asphyxiate people or shoot unarmed people in the back.
No, people who aren’t adherents to the “Oswald did it” religion not only are aware of history with regard to police misconduct and coverup, but they also have correctly realized that “cop said so” isn’t a good reason to blindly accept that some claim is true.
they also have correctly realized that “cop said so” isn’t a good reason to blindly accept that some claim is true.
But John..... The cops said that Lee Harvey Oswald who was a stinkin commie, a cop killer, a wife beater, a liar, and a ne'r do well Ambushed JFK and killed him..... If we don't believe the authorities, WHO are we to believe?? And they presented no other suspect....
-
they also have correctly realized that “cop said so” isn’t a good reason to blindly accept that some claim is true.
But John..... The cops said that Lee Harvey Oswald who was a stinkin commie, a cop killer, a wife beater, a liar, and a ne'r do well Ambushed JFK and killed him..... If we don't believe the authorities, WHO are we to believe?? And they presented no other suspect....
Well Walt,
Oswald did defect to Russia, the very definition of a "stinkin commie"
Oswald did hit his wife.
Oswald was a liar.
And Oswald hated Authority.
And they presented no other suspect....
There was no other suspect, the DP tried to get Frazier the guy who drove Oswald to work to admit to something but there was nothing to admit, it was all Oswald all by himself.
Oswald took a rifle to work and killed the President, that's it, there is nothing else, get used to it!
JohnM
-
Well Walt,
Oswald did defect to Russia, the very definition of a "stinkin commie"
Oswald did hit his wife.
Oswald was a liar.
And Oswald hated Authority.
There was no other suspect, the DP tried to get Frazier the guy who drove Oswald to work to admit to something but there was nothing to admit, it was all Oswald all by himself.
Oswald took a rifle to work and killed the President, that's it, there is nothing else, get used to it!
JohnM
Oswald did defect to Russia, the very definition of a "stinkin commie"
As the old burned out detective Jack Martin told Jim Garrison...."YOU ARE SO NAIVE!"
Only a naive simpleton would believe that Lee Oswald defected to the USSR in 1959.....There is ample evidence that reveals that Lee Oswald who fancied himself to be a budding Super spy was sent the the USSR by the US government.
Oswald did hit his wife.
Marina said that she provoked Lee, and they struck each other during quarrels....
Oswald was a liar.
There are very very few human's who are not liars..... You're probably the pot that chastised the kettle for being black.
And Oswald hated Authority.
Many people lack respect for authority..... Example recall George Floyd?
-
Oswald did defect to Russia, the very definition of a "stinkin commie"
As the old burned out detective Jack Martin told Jim Garrison...."YOU ARE SO NAIVE!"
Only a naive simpleton would believe that Lee Oswald defected to the USSR in 1959.....There is ample evidence that reveals that Lee Oswald who fancied himself to be a budding Super spy was sent the the USSR by the US government.
Oswald did hit his wife.
Marina said that she provoked Lee, and they struck each other during quarrels....
Oswald was a liar.
There are very very few human's who are not liars..... You're probably the pot that chastised the kettle for being black.
And Oswald hated Authority.
Many people lack respect for authority..... Example recall George Floyd?
1. I'd like to see this "ample evidence" that Oswald "didn't defect to Russia". Do you also deny that he said he hated America, which he wrote in a letter to his brother, Robert, and also stated that he hated so much that he said he would never come back to?
2. He did more than strike his wife, though. He put a cigarette out on Marina's arm. How about when he slapped his mom? How about the instance where he pulled a knife on his sister-in-law. And how about the fact that he wanted to hi-jack a plane to Cuba forcing Marina to hold a gun on the pilot. He wanted to do-and did do things that only a deranged minded individual would think about and do.
3. You can speak for yourself, and provide evidence /proof that "There are very few humans who are not liars". That's quite a bold statement on your part to be making.
4. Oswald didn't like anyone. He wouldn't give people who passed him the time of day when they would speak to him, according to some who worked with him.
Oswald didn't stand a chance to have a normal life, having been raised by his mother, being separated from his brother, losing his father through death, and his only other father figure, Edward Eckdal whom he lost because of his mother's behavior.
-
1. I'd like to see this "ample evidence" that Oswald "didn't defect to Russia". Do you also deny that he said he hated America, which he wrote in a letter to his brother, Robert, and also stated that he hated so much that he said he would never come back to?
2. He did more than strike his wife, though. He put a cigarette out on Marina's arm. How about when he slapped his mom? How about the instance where he pulled a knife on his sister-in-law. And how about the fact that he wanted to hi-jack a plane to Cuba forcing Marina to hold a gun on the pilot. He wanted to do-and did do things that only a deranged minded individual would think about and do.
3. You can speak for yourself, and provide evidence /proof that "There are very few humans who are not liars". That's quite a bold statement on your part to be making.
4. Oswald didn't like anyone. He wouldn't give people who passed him the time of day when they would speak to him, according to some who worked with him.
Oswald didn't stand a chance to have a normal life, having been raised by his mother, being separated from his brother, losing his father through death, and his only other father figure, Edward Eckdal whom he lost because of his mother's behavior.
Steve you're too naive to debate....A waste of time. But Lee DID NOT defect to Russia.....Learn the details of his rapid release from the USMC, and his ease at exiting the US entering Russia.
-
Lee gestured at his sister-in-law with a little whittling knife in his hand and she overhyped it because she didn’t like Marguerite and Lee living with them.
-
Lee gestured at his sister-in-law with a little whittling knife in his hand and she overhyped it because she didn’t like Marguerite and Lee living with them.
So Lee made a stabbing motion with a knife towards a defenceless woman who had every right to be scared and for her future safety and she's overhyped it, yet on the other hand you insanely protect everybody's human rights, the hypocrisy on display when it comes to Oswald is actually quite sickening.
JohnM
-
So Lee made a stabbing motion with a knife towards a defenceless woman who had every right to be scared and for her future safety
I don’t know who’s more hysterical and melodramatic — you or Mrs. Pic.
-
Mr. Iacoletti seems to think that whoever is doing the threatening is the good person.
-
I don’t know who’s more hysterical and melodramatic — you or Mrs. Pic.
misogyny noun
mi·sog·y·ny | \ mə-ˈsä-jə-nē \
Definition of misogyny
: hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women
a culture that promotes violence and misogyny
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny#:~:text=Definition%20of%20misogyny,and%20an%20equally%20profound%20misogyny.%E2%80%94
JohnM
-
Mr. Iacoletti seems to think that whoever is doing the threatening is the good person.
Mr. Down seems to think that any negative thing ever said about Oswald throughout his life must be true, because he was guilty.
-
Oswald did defect to Russia, the very definition of a "stinkin commie"
As the old burned out detective Jack Martin told Jim Garrison...."YOU ARE SO NAIVE!"
Only a naive simpleton would believe that Lee Oswald defected to the USSR in 1959.....There is ample evidence that reveals that Lee Oswald who fancied himself to be a budding Super spy was sent the the USSR by the US government.
Oswald did hit his wife.
Marina said that she provoked Lee, and they struck each other during quarrels....
Oswald was a liar.
There are very very few human's who are not liars..... You're probably the pot that chastised the kettle for being black.
And Oswald hated Authority.
Many people lack respect for authority..... Example recall George Floyd?
There is ample evidence that reveals that Lee Oswald who fancied himself to be a budding Super spy was sent the the USSR by the US government.
Ample? The KGB monitored Oswald and found him of no use and no threat. Oswald worked in a factory.
Marina said that she provoked Lee, and they struck each other during quarrels....
You really are Old School. Oswald should have done as Jesus says and turn the other cheek. Amen!
Many people lack respect for authority..... Example recall George Floyd?
Sure that was disgusting, but there are tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousand of cops in America operating under some very difficult conditions, and occasionally one of them will crack and go nuts, but painting the entire Police Force with a wide biased brush is doing the other 99% a great injustice.
JohnM
-
Steve you're too naive to debate....A waste of time. But Lee DID NOT defect to Russia.....Learn the details of his rapid release from the USMC, and his ease at exiting the US entering Russia.
You're too boring and closed minded to debate Walt. I didn't say what I said to start a debate--least of all with you. I said what I said because I'm sick of people defending this loser lunatic who blew the head off John Fitzgerald Kennedy for no reason at all! Live with it!
-
And I’m sick of people slandering a man who they cannot demonstrate “blew the head off John Fitzgerald Kennedy”.
-
The "cop said so" gambit is selectively used when it's convenient.
What happens when it's a black police officer that is the one who does the punching?
-
You're too boring and closed minded to debate Walt. I didn't say what I said to start a debate--least of all with you. I said what I said because I'm sick of people defending this loser lunatic who blew the head off John Fitzgerald Kennedy for no reason at all! Live with it!
I hate it when anybody says Kennedy's head was 'blown off'
Kennedy was still wearing his face, ears etc
But Oswald "blowed up good. He blowed up real good"*
*John Candy SCTV 1970s
-
Ample? The KGB monitored Oswald and found him of no use and no threat. Oswald worked in a factory.
You really are Old School. Oswald should have done as Jesus says and turn the other cheek. Amen!
Sure that was disgusting, but there are tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousand of cops in America operating under some very difficult conditions, and occasionally one of them will crack and go nuts, but painting the entire Police Force with a wide biased brush is doing the other 99% a great injustice.
JohnM
Ample? The KGB monitored Oswald and found him of no use and no threat. Oswald worked in a factory.
Alth0ugh I believe it's a waste of time.( because you're too damned dumb to read history and learn FACTS)... Perhaps you should know that when Lee went to the US embassy in Moscow to renounce his US citizenship, he was well aware that the Russians had planted many bugs ( electronic listening devices) in the walls of the US embassy. When the US embassy was torn down years later hundreds of bugs were discovered hidden in the building. Thus when Lee went to loudly denounce his US citizenship and pledge allegiance to the USSR , he knew the Russians were listening and his words were for their ears.
-
And I’m sick of people slandering a man who they cannot demonstrate “blew the head off John Fitzgerald Kennedy”.
You're sick of people slandering Lee Harvey Oswald?
WAFJ
-
Unjustly accusing a person of murder is slanderous.