Touring the Tippit Scene

[Martin Weidmann]

Earl Warren lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.

Normal Redlich lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.

John Hart Ely lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.

Lee Rankin lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.

Gerald Ford lied about the assassination in the report: "something" happened to him to make him lie.

I'll stop at five although I could post two dozen names, three dozen names. On and on and on. Supreme Court Justices, civil libertarians, constitutional scholars, solicitor generals, presidents...all men who devoted their lives to the country, to the Constitution, to democracy.

"Something" happened to all of them. Or may have. Or "something something".

Impossible. We're reasoning with people who just make things up. And then they demand we prove their fantasies are wrong.

This is getting boring....

I'll give it one more try; the FBI told the Warren Commission that SA Odum had shown CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright, in April 1964 and that both men couldn't be sure in the identification of the bullet. That was a complete lie. Odum himself denied that he ever had CE399 or had shown it to anybody and Tomlinson testified that he was only asked to identify the bullet once, and that was a couple of weeks after the murder and by SAC Shanklin.

Conclusion; the FBI lied to the Warren Commission but the Commission had no reason to believe or know it was a lie, so they accepted it as valid.

By your idiotic "reasoning" people like Redlich should have known that it was a lie. Are you beginning to understand just how simplistic your way of thinking is?

[Martin Weidmann]

JFK conspiracy believers are just like the Trump conspiracy believers, those who say the election was stolen.

"Something" happened to the voting machines, "something" happened to the ballots, "something" happened to Redlich...."something" "something" "something".....

Unfortunately for you, I'm 100% against Trump and his BS lies. Have been so from day one.

Kinda destroys your entire line of thinking, doesn't it?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

The conspiracy explanation for why Redlich did what he did - allowing the lies of the Warren Commission to be produced and released - is that possibly something happened to make him do this or he didn't realize that he was lied to.

This is exactly like trying to talk with a Trump supporter who says the election was stolen because either something happened to the voting machines or the Republican officials didn't realize the votes were being stuffed by Biden people.

To repeat: Redlich was the main author of the report. He was at the center of the investigation. He conducted some of the investigation himself, he received the information and evidence from others: it all went through him.

There is no evidence he lied. There is no evidence that "something possibly happened" to him. There is no evidence that he didn't know he was lied to. This is all made up, it's all fiction.

In order to defend a conspiracy that has no basis in fact the conspiracist has to promote more conspiracies - all based on supposition and fantasies.

More than fifty years later this is where the conspiracists are. Stuck in fantasy land.

[Martin Weidmann]

The conspiracy explanation for why Redlich did what he did - allowing the lies of the Warren Commission to be produced and released - is that possibly something happened to make him do this or he didn't realize that he was lied to.

This is exactly like trying to talk with a Trump supporter who says the election was stolen because either something happened to the voting machines or the Republican officials didn't realize the votes were being stuffed by Biden people.

To repeat: Redlich was the main author of the report. He was at the center of the investigation. He conducted some of the investigation himself, he received the information and evidence from others: it all went through him.

There is no evidence he lied. There is no evidence that "something possibly happened" to him. There is no evidence that he didn't know he was lied to. This is all made up, it's all fiction.

In order to defend a conspiracy that has no basis in fact the conspiracist has to promote more conspiracies - all based on supposition and fantasies.

More than fifty years later this is where the conspiracists are. Stuck in fantasy land.

Is it that you believe that if you repeat the same BS over and over again it somehow becomes true?

You ignore everything that doesn't agree with your opinion and then claim others are "stuck in fantasy land". Now, that's hilarious and pathetically dumb at the same time. It would be nice if you could stop showing off your ignorance, but I suppose that's asking too much, right?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Many of you conspiracy people - not all but you know who you are - are no different than the Trump fanatics who say the government is illegitimate and who stormed the Capitol today. You say the people who conducted the investigation into the assassination were liars and crooks and frauds. They covered up for the murder of JFK. They essentially allowed a coup to happen. Indeed, they were part of it.

That what's the Trump supporters say about different people. All crooks who stole the country from Trump. Or in your case, stole it from JFK.

Two different groups of people conspired to hijack democracy. It's the same argument.

You say the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was a liar and traitor. A future president was a traitor. Heads of distinguished law schools who taught generations of Americans about the law were traitors. On and on and on; a long list of people you say committed treason.

Wallow in these smears of good people. You two sides deserve each other.

Good riddance. I've got to go help - somehow - this country save itself. Repair itself. Come together. Posting here day after day for years (!!) accusing presidents and Chief Justices and others of treason is what you can spend your lives on.

[Martin Weidmann]

Many of you conspiracy people - not all but you know who you are - are no different than the Trump fanatics who say the government is illegitimate and who stormed the Capitol today. You say the people who conducted the investigation into the assassination were liars and crooks and frauds. They covered up for the murder of JFK. They essentially allowed a coup to happen. Indeed, they were part of it.

That what's the Trump supporters say about different people. All crooks who stole the country from Trump. Or in your case, stole it from JFK.

Two different groups of people conspired to hijack democracy. It's the same argument.

You say the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was a liar and traitor. A future president was a traitor. Heads of distinguished law schools who taught generations of Americans about the law were traitors. On and on and on; a long list of people you say committed treason.

Wallow in these smears of good people. You two sides deserve each other.

Good riddance. I've got to go help - somehow - this country save itself. Repair itself. Come together. Posting here day after day for years (!!) accusing presidents and Chief Justices and others of treason is what you can spend your lives on.

You say the people who conducted the investigation into the assassination were liars and crooks and frauds. They covered up for the murder of JFK. They essentially allowed a coup to happen. Indeed, they were part of it.

Just another strawman, based upon an foolish assumption. The drama queen strikes again...

You say the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was a liar and traitor. A future president was a traitor. Heads of distinguished law schools who taught generations of Americans about the law were traitors. On and on and on; a long list of people you say committed treason.

And there's the second strawman.

I don't know if there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy or not. There could have been one, but the evidence is lacking. However, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to make the case that the WC had only one purpose; to satisfy the people that there had been only one shooter and there are plenty of indications (for those willing to see it - which excludes you) that this entire case was wrapped around the already dead Oswald as a tight blanket. regardless if he did it or not.

Good riddance. I've got to go help - somehow - this country save itself. Repair itself.

Wow... Galbraith to the rescue. This is so funny if it wasn't so sad. You try to "help the country save itself" by calling everybody who disagrees with you anything from idiots to liars and God knows what else. As if that will work..... LOL

Time to get of your high horse and get hit in the head with a reality check. You're not even able to have a normal conversation!

You are more like Trump than you think!

[Richard Smith]

I was just pointing out the logical fallacy of his narrative

It wasn't a logical fallacy. It was an opinion, just like your counter claim

What is a waste of time is your constant contrarian input that adds nothing except to suggest no fact in human history could ever be proven to your satisfaction.

What really is a waste of time is you spouting your pretentious opinions as if they mean something or add something to a pointless discussion.

Another valuable contribution.  What "opinion" do you believe is contained in my post?  That Hoover kept files on presidents including JFK?  Is that my opinion?  That JFK had extramarital affairs, used a laundry list of drugs while president, and lied about his serious medical conditions while running for president.  Is that my opinion or documented fact?  Could all of those have been used to blackmail him?  That seems obvious.  So where are these pretentious "opinions"?  You seem to have a very strange notion of what constitutes an opinion or speculation.  Any fact or logical inference that can be drawn that lends itself to Oswald's guilt appears to be an "opinion" in your contrarian mind.   What is truly hilarious is that after applying this impossible contrarian standard of proof to any fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt, by implication, any validity to your contrarian doubts lends itself to some wildly implausible and entirely baseless alternative that must have happened to explain away the evidence against Oswald that you are disputing.  Amazing.

[Martin Weidmann]

Another valuable contribution.  What "opinion" do you believe is contained in my post?  That Hoover kept files on presidents including JFK?  Is that my opinion?  That JFK had extramarital affairs, used a laundry list of drugs while president, and lied about his serious medical conditions while running for president.  Is that my opinion or documented fact?  Could all of those have been used to blackmail him?  That seems obvious.  So where are these pretentious "opinions"?  You seem to have a very strange notion of what constitutes an opinion or speculation.  Any fact or logical inference that can be drawn that lends itself to Oswald's guilt appears to be an "opinion" in your contrarian mind.   What is truly hilarious is that after applying this impossible contrarian standard of proof to any fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt, by implication, any validity to your contrarian doubts lends itself to some wildly implausible and entirely baseless alternative that must have happened to explain away the evidence against Oswald that you are disputing.  Amazing.

You seem to have a very strange notion of what constitutes an opinion or speculation.  Any fact or logical inference that can be drawn that lends itself to Oswald's guilt appears to be an "opinion" in your contrarian mind.

What you call a "logical inference" is in fact nothing more than an opinion.

What is truly hilarious is that after applying this impossible contrarian standard of proof to any fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt, by implication, any validity to your contrarian doubts lends itself to some wildly implausible and entirely baseless alternative that must have happened to explain away the evidence against Oswald that you are disputing.

You are so full of it. It would be funny if it wasn't so stupid. The case against Oswald, and thus Oswald's guilt, need to be proven by people like you. It's "innocent until proven guilty" not "guilty because Richard Smith thinks he is". When you present a weak and unpersuasive narrative based largely on pure speculation, that you can not even back up with conclusive evidence, having doubts about the veracity and validity of that narrative isn't being contrarian.

You seem to call anybody who does not instantly agree with your opinion a contrarian, much like a prosecutor who fails to persuade a jury complains to a judge that the jury is being contrarian. It's pathetic.

Present a better case, based on actual facts rather than your typical strawman arguments and conjecture, and I'll gladly accept Oswald's guilt, but don't try to put blame on me for your own incompetence and failure to present a coherent case.