Conspiracy Theory Kennedy Assassination - 50 years on
- Thread starter Kellythatsit
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Not claiming any expertise at all
You laid the points of evidence and now you can't answer the questions put to you, but instead completely ignore them
14 points of evidence why Oswald was without doubt , guilty
Does this now mean your 14 points are now not so solid ?
Which is it?
Quick, make up your mind ...
If all you have is just to call bullshit then just leave it at that
Bullshit. I never ignored them. I specificially addressed some, but apparently that wasn't good enough for you.
Not claiming expertise? How come you're quick to lecture people on reading up on the subject or re-reading reports then?
I'll give you a report to read: The Warren Report
I'll give you a book to read: Reclaiming History
I'll give you another book to read: Case Closed
I actually won't be quick making up my mind, certainly not because you think I should. The evidence I've read - stacks of it - satisfies me that Oswald acted alone.
If you'd like to add who you think did it be welcome. Doubt it somehow.
Oh dear
Now we want to get all fired up and aggressive about it
I will reiterate to you again
You posted 14 points to which you said proved Oswald was the lone gunman, did you not?
I posted some questions for you concerning this evidence
You attempted to answer
I again posted problems with your points
You refused to acknowledge that indeed there were questions but bought out the tried and tested old " you tell me what happened then "
Now you get aggressive
If you can't stand to be tested, don't play
Have I once said Oswald was innocent?
Quite the contrary
Have I posted some other facts that warrant a bit of discussion and study
Yes
Are you now having a cry and becoming all keyboard warrior button masher
For some reason you are
If you get upset playing, don't play
This is the most fascinating conspiracy theory I've ever read about and read alot, and is one of the very few conspiracy theorys that I believe have legs
Most notably is that there was clearly obstigation by the secret service, breaches in protocol and mishandling of evidence
The Warren commission had its faults too
The Warren commission claimed Kennedy was hit with the first shot, then Oswald missed with the second and fatally wounded the president with the third.
Its now accepted that Oswald missed with the first shot, due to testimony of passengers of the president saying he had been hit. (something he could not have said because the first shot that actually hit Kennedy passed through his neck) some now believe he was misheard.
If they could stuff up the order of the shots what else did they get wrong.
Now I don't subscribe to any particular conspiracy theory but do believe the Warren commission is not entirely accurate.
Most notably is that there was clearly obstigation by the secret service, breaches in protocol and mishandling of evidence
The Warren commission had its faults too
The Warren commission claimed Kennedy was hit with the first shot, then Oswald missed with the second and fatally wounded the president with the third.
Its now accepted that Oswald missed with the first shot, due to testimony of passengers of the president saying he had been hit. (something he could not have said because the first shot that actually hit Kennedy passed through his neck) some now believe he was misheard.
If they could stuff up the order of the shots what else did they get wrong.
Now I don't subscribe to any particular conspiracy theory but do believe the Warren commission is not entirely accurate.
Actually I'll play any way I want. Especially in a way you don't like.
I gave you 14 pieces of evidence. You attempted to dismiss them ineffectively in I suspect a rather unlettered way. You said Oswald couldn't hit the side of a barn. Do you have evidence for that? Did you provide it? The answer is no and no.
You ignored every point because it doesn't suit your argument. Apparently Oswald getting his .38 was a normal thing to do by your reckoning. The 4 bullets all found in Tippit's body were found to have come from Oswald's gun. Why was that if he didn't do it? Don't bother replying, you'll invent something else no doubt.
Actually you haven't posted any facts. Certainly none worthy of discussion.
Absolutely. I'd love to know how you could get the order of the shots wrong but they managed it. They didn't do anywhere near enough investigating Ruby's potential connections either. They aren't there but it took others to show that.
Again, you posted 14 points as EVIDENCE yet can't back them up
I have never said once that I know what happened that day yet I have posted problems with the official account and your points, neither of which you can answer
Now I don't care if you can't answer at all, just don't get bent out of shape and attack the poster, not just me, because you can't answer
I think you may be just very lazy
There were also the claims that evidence was handed to members of secret service that was never logged or handed over to the FBI, and when the freedom of information order was given to release all unreleased evidence and files not deemed a national security risk was given?
The secret service claimed they had destroyed all such documents, just one week prior.
Personally if I were to wager anything, it would be that the real conspiracy was actually to cover up just how poor the investigation was.
Missing evidence, bullying tactics, lack of co-operation, These are the sort of things that would have heads roll in any criminal investigation let alone the POTUS.
The secret service claimed they had destroyed all such documents, just one week prior.
Personally if I were to wager anything, it would be that the real conspiracy was actually to cover up just how poor the investigation was.
Missing evidence, bullying tactics, lack of co-operation, These are the sort of things that would have heads roll in any criminal investigation let alone the POTUS.
He didn't need to be a great marksmen, it was as good a shot as you could possibly get.
The question surrounds the timing of the shots, most estimates place the shots as little as 5.8 seconds (extremely unlikely Oswald could achieve) 9.0 seconds which is regarded as very do able.
A more recent investigation suggests he May have had somewhere between 11-16 seconds.
So did he have the time to make those shots do you think ?
I honesty cannot say, we simply don't know the timing.
Dan Cooper
Victory Salute
Not many events in history brought the world to a standstill. This one did.
I never said the Warren Commission wasn't flawed; I said I think Oswald was solely responsible. They aren't the same thing.
Anyone who has looked at it acknowledges there were things the Warren Commission could have handled much better.
I respect that you think he was the lone gunman
What's there to back up? They're facts. Are you telling me he wasn't designated a marksman in 1959? Are you telling me he didn't purchase the Carcano rifle? Are you telling me there weren't 3 shell casings near the window? Are you saying there weren't four .38 bullets in Officer Tippit's body, unanimously declared by experts to be from Oswald's gun? Are you saying the recovered fragments from the car didn't match the Carcano rifle?
Looking forward to you disproving those points.
By the way, after "because you can't answer", there should be a full stop to end the sentence. You also forgot it after "back them up", and "neither which you can answer". It's interesting that you accuse me of attacking the poster, yet you've done the same thing. The only thing I've seen that is "very lazy" (your words), is your attention to grammar.
Yes. And it would be tough. But even though he wasn't the world's greatest shot, he was still far better than the normal guy on the street. And remember the first shot missed everything. It took him 3 shots to pull off the objective.
Oh, we are doing grammar checks now?
I'm sorry my fingers don't hit the correct buttons on my phone sometimes, you will pardon my transgresses ( stop)
Again, earlier you posted 14 points, all of which you said proved Oswald did it ( stop)
I went through these and queried them and asked you some questions( stop)
You didn't bother with them and instead got all shitty and aggressive .......
So, if you want to, start by telling me about Mrs Markham and her identification of Oswald or how 4 bullets were retrieved from Tippitts body, from two different manufacturer
Tell me about the eye witnesses at the Tippitt shooting who said there were two gunman and discuss how Oswald suddenly becomes a heavy set curly haired guy.
Tell me about Jack Ruby's interview before he died
In fact, if you want, lets have some discussion on the 21 people who met their maker in the months following the assassination , all of whom were directly involved in the case.
Have some discussion , or continue with the personal stuff
Your choice.
You started it pal. You chose to get personal and called me lazy, so I will get personal back at you.
I actually said there were 14 pieces of evidence. Nothing in and of itself proves anything (unless it was like the footage of Ruby killing Oswald, that was pretty definitive I'd say), but it becomes pretty overwhelming once it all adds up.
I'll address the questions about Markham and "curly haired" guy in the same way, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. We're only just learning this now. Our memories are nowhere near as good as we think they are. So remove all of them - everything. Take out all the witnesses who claimed Oswald did kill Tippit and those who though it was someone else. Or two gunmen. Leave only the hard forensic evidence. What does that tell us?
Who are the 21 people may I ask? I'm presuming Oswald and Ruby are two obvious ones, who are the others?
- Thread starter
- #72
Kind of.
Where it was botched, and where a lot of the CTs seem to let their imaginations run wild is in the initial investigations led by the FBI and the secret service. Particularly the FBI who were supposedly keeping tabs on Oswald since his return from Russia. Ostensibly, how could a man being investigated by the FBI at the time shoot and kill the president of the United States?
Therefore, to try and avoid embarrassment and quash anything coming out about their prior knowledge of the accused assassin they buried files, destroyed notes and denied any association with Oswald.
When this was later discovered it simply added more fuel to the fire. However, all evidence suggests that the cover up was not about manufacturing evidence to build a case against Oswald but rather a case of destroying evidence to distance the FBI from him.
Despite this the investigation conducted by the Dallas police and later on picked up by the FBI was very thorough and stands the test of time. Even now, after 50 years there is not a single theory that competes as an alternative to the conclusions of the Warren Commission. This is despite a billion books postulating this theory or speculating that hypothesis by investigators who have invested their lives trying to crack the case. Trying to find that one thread that ties it all up.
It's just not there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So now eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable?
Of course it is, however those who use it can use it to back their argument
As you have done, as I have done
As for the 21 people dead, I'm not here to do your work for you
I don't mean to be rude, but these names and their connection are very easy to find
If you don't find it curious and interesting, don't look, I'm not in the habit of slamming links down people's throats
As for the personal stuff, I'm not going to to and fro with you, up to you if you feel that's necessary or not
- Thread starter
- #74
Oh dear, the problem isn't laziness it's the fact that it takes a moment to pose a question but it takes time to go back, find the answer, post it, move to the next question, find the answer, post it etc.
A lot of this however can be avoided if the questioner first invests in what the kids are calling Critical Thinking. It is the concept of forming an argument using logic and reason that includes specific processes many on these boards dismiss as unnecessary.
We've had this talk before Glacier my friend.
Let's just look at your first point about the Mauser identification.
First step:
what evidence is there that it actually was a Mauser? 1 witness
What is the evidence that suggests it was a Carcano? Voluminous
Speculate: is it MORE likely that the 1 witness is mistaken OR every piece of evidence suggesting it was not?
Conclusion: it is more likely to be the former the one witness account is likely mistaken.
Therefore the question need not be posed in a debate as the most likely reason has already been answered by your own examination using logic and reason.
You're welcome!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You are a funny bugger at times Kelly, but I still lub ya
For all this evidence you guys speak of, why there is any doubt about the death of JFK I have no idea!!!
Similar threads
