Touring the Tippit Scene

[Martin Weidmann]

Well, yes, as I added to my post: eyewitness accounts CAN be wrong, CAN be (and are) subjective and CAN be unreliable. As in the Rashomon effect.

But all we have is these accounts plus corroborating evidence (if possible). To dismiss everything as being an opinion, as nothing more, renders any discussion of events useless. Where do we take this? Let's empty our libraries of history books. It's all opinion and worthless.

Look at the discussion here: it's an endless rejection of evidence by the Oswald defenders. Every single piece is dismissed. So what's the point? To defend Oswald or to try and muddle through with the evidence and reach some conclusions?

You want some cheese with that whine? Maybe it’s irrational to “reach conclusions” on insufficient or inconclusive evidence.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."- Bertrand Russell

[Bill Chapman]

LOL. Russell himself was a fanatic, well at least about the JFK assassination. He sounds pretty sure about himself, despite getting a lot of information wrong. As for me I'm not a fanatic so can clearly see that Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy. Booyah.

http://22november1963.org.uk/bertrand-russell-16-questions-on-the-assassination

[Martin Weidmann]

LOL. Russell himself was a fanatic, well at least about the JFK assassination. He sounds pretty sure about himself, despite getting a lot of information wrong. As for me I'm not a fanatic so can clearly see that Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy. Booyah.

http://22november1963.org.uk/bertrand-russell-16-questions-on-the-assassination

Pathetic, as per usual. In the link you have provided, Russell is asking questions exactly as a wiser man with doubt would do, regardless of your idiotic opinion that he somehow "sounds pretty sure about himself".

You, on the other hand, fit the description of a fool or a fanatic to a tee. You don't ask questions and act like you know it all.

My quote of Russell is 100% correct. Thank you for proving that it is.

[Richard Smith]

If we quote/cite people who WERE there that's just THEIR opinion too. This is a type of thinking that is from the Dark Ages. Added: Yes, these are eyewitness accounts and they can be wrong; but we corroborate these accounts with additional evidence. An account PLUS additional evidence is all that we have.

In 2002, the historian Robert Dallek was given access by the Kennedy family to JFK's medical records. He discovered the medical regimen that Kennedy went through as president. It was an astonishing array of drugs.

He writes: "[The records] add telling detail to a story of lifelong suffering, revealing that many of the various treatments doctors gave Kennedy, starting when he was a boy, did far more harm than good. In particular, steroid treatments that he may have received as a young man for his intestinal ailments could have compounded—and perhaps even caused—both the Addison's disease and the degenerative back trouble that plagued him later in life. Travell's prescription records also confirm that during his presidency—and in particular during times of stress, such as the Bay of Pigs fiasco, in April of 1961, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, in October of 1962—Kennedy was taking an extraordinary variety of medications: steroids for his Addison's disease; painkillers for his back; anti-spasmodics for his colitis; antibiotics for urinary-tract infections; antihistamines for allergies; and, on at least one occasion, an anti-psychotic (though only for two days) for a severe mood change that Jackie Kennedy believed had been brought on by the antihistamines."

Travell was one of JFK's personal physicians when he was President.

Dallek: "The lifelong health problems of John F. Kennedy constitute one of the best-kept secrets of recent U.S. history—no surprise, because if the extent of those problems had been revealed while he was alive, his presidential ambitions would likely have been dashed."

But he didn't see the drugs given to JFK; he wasn't there. Just because the records indicate they were given to JFK doesn't mean they actually were So all of these records and accounts are just his opinion and speculation. Oy, what a mindset this is.

Full article: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/12/the-medical-ordeals-of-jfk/305572/

Yes, it is incredible that anyone would even suggest that it is merely an "opinion" that JFK had serious medical issues and took numerous drugs for those issues.  Facts that are well documented and that no one disputes.  But it provides an insight into the contrarian mind.  They can approach any fact that they do not wish to accept with this kind of loony logic.  And dismiss it or cast doubt on it for that reason.  Then without missing a beat they can imply all manner of facts of that they wish to be true without an iota of evidence.  It is breathtaking in its stupidity.  Compounded by their long winded lectures and insults trying to justify this bizarre line of "reasoning."

[Martin Weidmann]

Yes, it is incredible that anyone would even suggest that it is merely an "opinion" that JFK had serious medical issues and took numerous drugs for those issues.  Facts that are well documented and that no one disputes.  But it provides an insight into the contrarian mind.  They can approach any fact that they do not wish to accept with this kind of loony logic.  And dismiss it or cast doubt on it for that reason.  Then without missing a beat they can imply all manner of facts of that they wish to be true without an iota of evidence.  It is breathtaking in its stupidity.  Compounded by their long winded lectures and insults trying to justify this bizarre line of "reasoning."

And once again is "Richard Smith" misrepresenting my position to make a completely pathetic point.

[Richard Smith]

And once again is "Richard Smith" misrepresenting my position to make a completely pathetic point.

That is just your "opinion."  LOL.

[John Iacoletti]

That is just your "opinion."  LOL.

At least Martin knows the difference between opinion and fact -- something that "Richard" is unable to grasp.

[Bill Chapman]

To dismiss everything as being an opinion, as nothing more, renders any discussion of events useless.

Who is dismissing everything as being an opinion?

Let's empty our libraries of history books. It's all opinion and worthless.

Silly dramatics and totally beside the point. History books are there to inform so that people may form their own opinion, in the knowledge that history books are mainly written by the victors and are not always fair and accurate. Whether that opinion is correct or not is another matter, but it is pathetic to call for doing away with source material.

Look at the discussion here: it's an endless rejection of evidence by the Oswald defenders.

A completely dishonest generalization and, speaking for myself, absolutely untrue.
 
What you fail to understand is that another interpretation of the evidence by those who do not blindly accept the official narrative is not the same as "an endless rejection of the evidence". If anybody is rejecting anything, it's the WC defenders who will instantly dismiss everything that does not agree with their opinion. That's why discussion, in most cases, is impossible and very often a waste of time.

Every single piece is dismissed.

I can only speak for myself here, but please show me just one piece of evidence that I have dismissed. Go on then...

Who the hell has appointed you as the arbiter of what constitutes 'evidence'?