JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Rick Plant on April 12, 2023, 09:06:10 AM
-
Former Texas Congressman Ron Paul said Kennedy was murdered.
RonPaul
Details the Day the 'Coup' Against American Democracy Was Cemented
November 22, 1963: "That was the day Kennedy was murdered by our government. You know, by the CIA."
Watch the clip here: https://twitter.com/i/status/1645946776237768705
-
Lots of people believe things that are not true because it fits their desired narrative. Like "Russian collusion" or that "police officers were murdered on Jan. 6." Some even repeat these false claims long after being debunked. Effectively they want them to be true. Unless Paul has some evidence that no one else has uncovered in the last 60 years, his opinion is worthless.
-
Lots of people believe things that are not true because it fits their desired narrative. Like "Russian collusion" or that "police officers were murdered on Jan. 6." Some even repeat these false claims long after being debunked. Effectively they want them to be true. Unless Paul has some evidence that no one else has uncovered in the last 60 years, his opinion is worthless.
It may never be proven but it's plausible that the JFK assassination was an inside job the same way that it's plausible that the Biden administration had the Nord Stream pipelines sabotaged.
Conspiracy Theories have varying degrees of plausibility. Each one should be considered on a case by case basis. Sometimes CT's are proven to be true. Examples:
- Watergate
- COINTELPRO
- MKULTRA
- The Pentagon Papers
- Iran Contra
-
It may never be proven but it's plausible that the JFK assassination was an inside job the same way that it's plausible that the Biden administration had the Nord Stream pipelines sabotaged.
Conspiracy Theories have varying degrees of plausibility. Each one should be considered on a case by case basis. Sometimes CT's are proven to be true. Examples:
- Watergate
- COINTELPRO
- MKULTRA
- The Pentagon Papers
- Iran Contra
There certainly have been conspiracies in history. Like the conspiracy to kill Lincoln. This isn't just about whether a conspiracy theory is "plausible" but whether the evidence supports the theory. In some instance, like Oswald's guilt there is overwhelming evidence to link him to the crime. Absent a time machine, there couldn't be much more evidence to support his guilt than exists. It is overwhelming. In contrast, there is no credible evidence of the involvement of anyone else after several government investigations and CTers beating the bushes for every detail over the last 60 years. The most investigated criminal act in history. There are certainly some things we can never know with certainty because only Oswald could know, and because he was in the process of committing a crime, he took measures to conceal certain of his acts. But that doesn't cast any doubt on the totality evidence that links him to crime. There is no perfect knowledge of events in human history.
I would also take issue with the contention that it is "plausible" that any of the typical parties (e.g. CIA, FBI, LBJ) would go to the extreme risk of assassinating the President, covering it up, and framing Oswald. And successfully get away with it. All the governmental conspiracies you mention eventually came to light through evidence. Leaks abound in DC. Quite a tall task. It is absurd in my opinion for CTers to suggest that LBJ or the FBI under Hoover was behind this extreme act. Not plausible and more importantly no evidence of such after nearly six decades. In the case of the Russian pipeline, the US government has suppressed the evidence that supports their claim that the Russians blew up the pipeline. In the absence of any such evidence, then we must rely on common sense. And it is indeed "plausible" in that context to surmise that the US or some NATO country was responsible and have lied about it. In fact, Biden promised to "end" the pipeline if Russia invaded Ukraine. So that is certainly plausible.
-
It may never be proven but it's plausible that the JFK assassination was an inside job the same way that it's plausible that the Biden administration had the Nord Stream pipelines sabotaged.
Conspiracy Theories have varying degrees of plausibility. Each one should be considered on a case by case basis. Sometimes CT's are proven to be true. Examples:
- Watergate
- COINTELPRO
- MKULTRA
- The Pentagon Papers
- Iran Contra
All exposed by "the government" or by the media. In this case we're talking about planning the assassination of the president - in secret; everyone consulted went along - carrying it out - in secret, everyone went along - and then covering it up - in secret, everyone including people years/decades later, went along with the coverup. People decades later covered this up? Even today, right now?
Let's take the Nordstream bombing as an example. Imagine that over the next 50+ years the government and media conduct multiple investigations into the bombing. Democrats and Republicans in Congress, several generations of reporters in the media, historians and investigative journalists all investigating this.
Do you think the act would have been kept secret? Why would people in the Pentagon or CIA 50 years from now cover it up? For what purpose? For what benefit? There is none.
What you're claiming happen couldn't happen. Not covered up for half a century by multiple generations of Americans who have no interest in doing so. In fact, the benefit would be not to cover it up but expose it. Imagine the people in the CIA or Pentagon who revealed this? They'd be heroes, celebrated for their act.
If all you can see is "the government" and "the CIA" and "the media" and not see all sorts of people with all sorts of interests and backgrounds then I can understand why one would think "they" did this. But there is no "they", it's not a blob or single entity. It's all sorts of people with various interests. You cannot get generations of people - real human beings - to do what is proposed. Even worse for the proponents, there's no evidence for it.
-
When you step back from this case and the noise from the CTers and contrarians, it is very simple. The evidence links Oswald to the rifle and the rifle to the crime. That evidence derives from multiple different sources and circumstances dating back many months in some cases. No individual or organizations could have concocted or controlled that narrative to bring all this together. Certainly not the same bunglers who couldn't assassinate Castro. There is no credible evidence to this date that links Oswald to any other individual or organization in the commission of this crime. CTers can't even agree on a counternarrative. In fact, there are a multitude of inconsistent theories. This case has devolved into an endless game of whack-a-mole in which CTers go from random point to point contending any real or more often imagined ambiguity suggests a conspiracy by default.
-
When you step back from this case and the noise from the CTers and contrarians, it is very simple. The evidence links Oswald to the rifle and the rifle to the crime. That evidence derives from multiple different sources and circumstances dating back many months in some cases. No individual or organizations could have concocted or controlled that narrative to bring all this together. Certainly not the same bunglers who couldn't assassinate Castro. There is no credible evidence to this date that links Oswald to any other individual or organization in the commission of this crime. CTers can't even agree on a counternarrative. In fact, there are a multitude of inconsistent theories. This case has devolved into an endless game of whack-a-mole in which CTers go from random point to point contending any real or more often imagined ambiguity suggests a conspiracy by default.
Sure, but aren't you Q-tards up to your eyeballs in conspiracy nonsense yourselves? Oh...I get it, Q is just the disinformation branch of the KGB & the CIA. Odd why the JFK assassination is the only conspiracy you MAGATs don't embrace. Especially since it was supposedly carried out by the Deep State. Isn't that your bread and butter? Curious what the link could be between Q and the JFK assassination? My guess is that Q is the tin-foil hat conspiracy disinformation branch of your ultra-secret 4th Reich movement to take over the world thru coups and autocracy. Re JFK, Allen Dulles and George de Mohrenschildt were Nazis. You do the math. But that's just a guess. Am I close?
-
Sure, but aren't you Q-tards up to your eyeballs in conspiracy nonsense yourselves? Oh...I get it, Q is just the disinformation branch of the KGB & the CIA. Odd why the JFK assassination is the only conspiracy you MAGATs don't embrace. Especially since it was supposedly carried out by the Deep State. Isn't that your bread and butter? Curious what the link could be between Q and the JFK assassination? My guess is that Q is the tin-foil hat conspiracy disinformation branch of your ultra-secret 4th Reich movement to take over the world thru coups and autocracy. Re JFK, Allen Dulles and George de Mohrenschildt were Nazis. You do the math. But that's just a guess. Am I close?
I'm not sure what you are rambling about here. Who said anything about "Q"? If I had a conspiracy theory about Q, it would be that it is the creation of leftists to make Trump supporters look insane. There are a few insane people of every political bent but the Q story is mostly leftist mass and social media driven to give the impression that any dissenter to the leftist cause is a lunatic. I've never met or heard of anyone who believes in whatever "Q" is supposed to be. Trump received 75 million or so votes. Of those, there are a handful of such loons. Certainly many less than those on the left who still believe in "russian collusion" and that police officers were killed on Jan. 6.
-
I'm not sure what you are rambling about here. Who said anything about "Q"? If I had a conspiracy theory about Q, it would be that it is the creation of leftists to make Trump supporters look insane. There are a few insane people of every political bent but the Q story is mostly leftist mass and social media driven to give the impression that any dissenter to the leftist cause is a lunatic. I've never met or heard of anyone who believes in whatever "Q" is supposed to be. Trump received 75 million or so votes. Of those, there are a handful of such loons. Certainly many less than those on the left who still believe in "russian collusion" and that police officers were killed on Jan. 6.
If you say so. Heil TrumPutin! (4卐)
-
Former Texas Congressman Ron Paul said Kennedy was murdered.
[...]
I'm unaware of anyone who doesn't believe that JFK wasn't murdered?
If it turns out that JFK wasn't murdered that day, then the conspiracy must be better than we thought. Or Bubba Ho-Tep was a documentary
-
This isn't just about whether a conspiracy theory is "plausible" but whether the evidence supports the theory. In some instance, like Oswald's guilt there is overwhelming evidence to link him to the crime.
A conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination doesn't necessarily exonerate Oswald. If Oswald was a witting participant in the conspiracy, he'd still be guilty. The only way Oswald could've been innocent is if he was framed.
And most objective observers disagree that the evidence conclusively rules out the plausibility of a conspiracy. Even some LN'ers are open to the possibility that the Cubans were involved.
I would also take issue with the contention that it is "plausible" that any of the typical parties (e.g. CIA, FBI, LBJ) would go to the extreme risk of assassinating the President, covering it up, and framing Oswald. And successfully get away with it.
Never underestimate people who crave power. Many of them are sociopaths who feel that the ends justify the means. Plus many of those people hated Kennedy's guts in the early-60s. He had lots of enemies.
And people can be pressured to keep quiet by threatening their careers or reputations. It happens in politics often times in situations that fall far short of political assassinations.
All the governmental conspiracies you mention eventually came to light through evidence.
All those conspiracies that I mentioned were exposed accidentally via whistleblowers or people involved in the conspiracies getting caught reed-handed.
Also worth noting that the CIA and FBI turned their backs on Nixon during Watergate. Unlike the JFK assassination, the CIA and FBI didn't engage in a huge cover-up during Watergate. Instead, they threw Nixon under the bus.
In the JFK assassination, there have been whistleblowers or people who claim to have inside knowledge of conspiracy plots but most of those people either have poor credibility or their stories lack corroboration. But that doesn't mean they lied.
-
All exposed by "the government" or by the media.
That's totally false. All were exposed by whistleblowers, leakers, or people who got caught red-handed.
The news media covered it after the fact and the government admitted to it after the fact.
I can't think of a single scandal on that level that was exposed by the government or the news media.
In this case we're talking about planning the assassination of the president - in secret; everyone consulted went along - carrying it out - in secret, everyone went along - and then covering it up - in secret, everyone including people years/decades later, went along with the coverup. People decades later covered this up? Even today, right now?
The people who have made deathbed confessions have largely been ignored.
The people like RFK, LBJ, and Dr. George Burkley, who suspected that there was a conspiracy but expressed those opinions only in private have been ignored.
There are tons of stories like the above in the JFK assassination.
Careers and political aspirations might've prevented others from coming forward when they couldn't prove that there was a conspiracy. After all, if you come forward with a bold claim like that but don't have rock solid proof, you could nuke your own career and political aspirations. I believe that was RFK's logic in his decision not to express his doubts about the Lone-assassin narrative publicly. He was running for President when he was murdered of course...
Let's take the Nordstream bombing as an example. Imagine that over the next 50+ years the government and media conduct multiple investigations into the bombing. Democrats and Republicans in Congress, several generations of reporters in the media, historians and investigative journalists all investigating this.
Do you think the act would have been kept secret? Why would people in the Pentagon or CIA 50 years from now cover it up? For what purpose? For what benefit? There is none.
Does it benefit the US to admit that we played a role in destroying a major ally's infrastructure? Of course not. And that's why the US will never do it's own investigation. You don't ask questions that you don't want to know the answer to.
As for the Europeans, even they admit that it's probably better not to know "who" did it given the political consequences:
“Is there any interest from the authorities to come out and say who did this? There are strategic reasons for not revealing who did it,” said Jens Wenzel Kristoffersen, a Danish naval commander and military expert at the University of Copenhagen. “As long as they don’t come out with anything substantial, then we are left in the dark on all this — as it should be.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/07/world/europe/nord-stream-pipeline-sabotage-theories.html
Since no country is yet ruled out from having carried out the attack, officials said they were loath to share suspicions that could accidentally anger a friendly government that might have had a hand in bombing Nord Stream.
In the absence of concrete clues, an awkward silence has prevailed.
“It’s like a corpse at a family gathering,” the European diplomat said, reaching for a grim analogy. Everyone can see there’s a body lying there, but pretends things are normal. “It’s better not to know.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/04/03/nord-stream-bombing-yacht-andromeda/
The very same logic applies in the JFK assassination. Some didn't want to know if there was a conspiracy due to the potential consequences. LBJ notably feared a hot war with the Soviets. Others might've feared that JFK's domestic enemies were involved.
So the motives for coverups don't necessarily apply only to those who were involved in the conspiracy. Sometimes there are political motives for others who weren't involved choosing to engage in coverups.
Sometimes you come across as very naive about how politics and power work...
-
Lots of people believe things that are not true because it fits their desired narrative.
Exactly. You are testament to that.
-
A conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination doesn't necessarily exonerate Oswald. If Oswald was a witting participant in the conspiracy, he'd still be guilty. The only way Oswald could've been innocent is if he was framed.
No, he could have been innocent merely by not doing it.
-
No, he could have been innocent merely by not doing it.
Yes, if Oswald was the patsy the conspirators would never have relied on him to use a crap rifle with a misaligned scope to take out the POTUS. No way. The MC was the patsy rifle which was already planted on the 6th floor by the DPD. But Oswald never took a shot or he would have had prints all over the rifle and the boxes and gunshot residue on his face.
The capper is that there wasn't a valid trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD, into JFK's back and out his throat. For that trajectory to work, the 2nd shot would have had to come from the 2nd floor of the DalTex building with the Mauser. I suppose Oswald could have rushed from the DalTex building to the 2nd floor of the TSBD in 90 seconds, with Mauser in tow. So I concede it still could have been Oswald or perhaps Colonel Mustard did it in the Conservatory with a revolver!
-
Yes, if Oswald was the patsy the conspirators would never have relied on him to use a crap rifle with a misaligned scope to take out the POTUS. No way. The MC was the patsy rifle which was already planted on the 6th floor by the DPD. But Oswald never took a shot or he would have had prints all over the rifle and the boxes and gunshot residue on his face.
The capper is that there wasn't a valid trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD, into JFK's back and out his throat. For that trajectory to work, the 2nd shot would have had to come from the 2nd floor of the DalTex building with the Mauser. I suppose Oswald could have rushed from the DalTex building to the 2nd floor of the TSBD in 90 seconds, with Mauser in tow. So I concede it still could have been Oswald or perhaps Colonel Mustard did it in the Conservatory with a revolver!
Why do you keep insisting that the scope was "misaligned" when the condition of that scope at the moment Oswald fired the shots can't be known? Oswald's prints WERE on the rifle. How many criminals are in jail because they left an identifiable print at the crime scene or on the murder weapon? LOL. Baseless claims like there should have been MORE of his prints on the rifle are laughable as a defense. If you are suggesting the print found was the product of fakery to frame Oswald, then why didn't the authorities just claim they found a dozen such prints.
-
Why do you keep insisting that the scope was "misaligned" when the condition of that scope at the moment Oswald fired the shots can't be known? Oswald's prints WERE on the rifle. How many criminals are in jail because they left an identifiable print at the crime scene or on the murder weapon? LOL. Baseless claims like there should have been MORE of his prints on the rifle are laughable as a defense. If you are suggesting the print found was the product of fakery to frame Oswald, then why didn't the authorities just claim they found a dozen such prints.
at the moment Oswald fired the shots
huh? You can prove he fired the shots? Really? That would really settle the 60 years debate. Why don't you get in touch with the media? I'm sure they would be very interested in this information!
Oswald's prints WERE on the rifle
No. The FBI examined the rifle early SaPersonay morning and found no prints at all.
So, why do you keep insisting that Oswald's prints were on the rifle?
If you are suggesting the print found was the product of fakery to frame Oswald, then why didn't the authorities just claim they found a dozen such prints.
Are you really rather foolishly suggesting that because they only "found" one print, it can't be the product of evidence manipulation? Seriously?
-
at the moment Oswald fired the shots
huh? You can prove he fired the shots? Really? That would really settle the 60 years debate. Why don't you get in touch with the media? I'm sure they would be very interested in this information!
Oswald's prints WERE on the rifle
No. The FBI examined the rifle early SaPersonay morning and found no prints at all.
So, why do you keep insisting that Oswald's prints were on the rifle?
If you are suggesting the print found was the product of fakery to frame Oswald, then why didn't the authorities just claim they found a dozen such prints.
Are you really rather foolishly suggesting that because they only "found" one print, it can't be the product of evidence manipulation? Seriously?
Round and round we go. We are told that the FBI was involved in the assassination and/or plot to frame Oswald but then they are cited to claim that his prints were not on the rifle! HA HA HA. If you are going to lie about the evidence and suggest fabrication, at least frame your argument in a consistent way. You also misunderstand the points being made. I was responding to someone who baselessly claimed that the authorities should have found many prints instead of just one on the rifle. One print links Oswald to the rifle. Many criminals are in jail for leaving one print at the crime scene or on the murder weapon. It is baseless and stupid to argue that finding Oswald's print on the murder weapon is actually indicative of his innocence instead of guilt! Even you should be able to understand the astounding absurdity of that viewpoint. It is upside down Alice-in-Wonderland logic. And if the authorities were willing to fabricate evidence and claim to have found Oswald's print, why not just claim they found a dozen on the rifle? Astounding. You should be embarrassed.
-
Round and round we go. We are told that the FBI was involved in the assassination and/or plot to frame Oswald but then they are cited to claim that his prints were not on the rifle! HA HA HA. If you are going to lie about the evidence and suggest fabrication, at least frame your argument in a consistent way. You also misunderstand the points being made. I was responding to someone who baselessly claimed that the authorities should have found many prints instead of just one on the rifle. One print links Oswald to the rifle. Many criminals are in jail for leaving one print at the crime scene or on the murder weapon. It is baseless and stupid to argue that finding Oswald's print on the murder weapon is actually indicative of his innocence instead of guilt! Even you should be able to understand the astounding absurdity of that viewpoint. It is upside down Alice-in-Wonderland logic. And if the authorities were willing to fabricate evidence and claim to have found Oswald's print, why not just claim they found a dozen on the rifle? Astounding. You should be embarrassed.
We are told that the FBI was involved in the assassination and/or plot to frame Oswald but then they are cited to claim that his prints were not on the rifle! HA HA HA.
Can you get even more simplistic than this? Do you think the entire FBI, a massive organisation, would be involved? What a shallow little man you truly are!
If you are going to lie about the evidence
Lying about evidence is actually your department, but I'll play along. What evidence did I lie about?
One print links Oswald to the rifle.
No fool, there is no print that links Oswald to the rifle. All there is, is a print on an evidence card that Lt Day produced days after Oswald's death claiming he lifted it from the rifle. And then you tell me I misunderstand the points being made.... Hilarious!
It is baseless and stupid to argue that finding Oswald's print on the murder weapon is actually indicative of his innocence instead of guilt! Even you should be able to understand the astounding absurdity of that viewpoint.
Yes I do. That's why I never argued anything of the kind. You just made it up.
And if the authorities were willing to fabricate evidence and claim to have found Oswald's print, why not just claim they found a dozen on the rifle?
Because less is more often than not more! But this is the second time you raised this stupid argument and it seems you don't even understand just how stupid it is.
The fact that they did not claim to have found a dozen prints on the rifle but only one doesn't mean that the one print that allegedly was found is authentic.
And btw, in this case, it wasn't the "authorities" who fabricated evidence. At best it was on man (Day) and the "authorities" were more than willing to accept it, no questions asked.
Now, can you prove Oswald fired the shots or was that just another one of your false claims?
-
Round and round we go. We are told that the FBI was involved in the assassination and/or plot to frame Oswald but then they are cited to claim that his prints were not on the rifle! HA HA HA. If you are going to lie about the evidence and suggest fabrication, at least frame your argument in a consistent way. You also misunderstand the points being made. I was responding to someone who baselessly claimed that the authorities should have found many prints instead of just one on the rifle. One print links Oswald to the rifle. Many criminals are in jail for leaving one print at the crime scene or on the murder weapon. It is baseless and stupid to argue that finding Oswald's print on the murder weapon is actually indicative of his innocence instead of guilt! Even you should be able to understand the astounding absurdity of that viewpoint. It is upside down Alice-in-Wonderland logic. And if the authorities were willing to fabricate evidence and claim to have found Oswald's print, why not just claim they found a dozen on the rifle? Astounding. You should be embarrassed.
I should be embarrassed? :D You're the one that loses every argument on this site. You are an endless playlist of lame LNer excuses and a textbook disinformationalist, just like the KGB, who are inexorably linked to the JFK assassination and will perpetuate the LNer myth until everyone involved is dead. Not that I am accusing you of being a propagandist troll, because I doubt anyone would pay you to be one. Being a MAGAT-Q member, I figured disinformation was just your hobby.
Ps. If you actually think that Oswald disassembled the rifle, then placed all its parts, including the misaligned scope, into a bag, then brought it into work and up to the 6th floor, then removed the parts from the bag and reassembled the rifle (using a trusty dime), took 3 shots and then ditched the rifle and only left a partial palm print later found between the stock and the barrel...then you must either be a retard or a disinformationalist troll. Either way, you have an embarrassing hobby.
-
I should be embarrassed? :D You're the one that loses every argument on this site. You are an endless playlist of lame LNer excuses and a textbook disinformationalist, just like the KGB, who are inexorably linked to the JFK assassination and will perpetuate the LNer myth until everyone involved is dead. Not that I am accusing you of being a propagandist troll, because I doubt anyone would pay you to be one. Being a MAGAT-Q member, I figured disinformation was just your hobby.
Ps. If you actually think that Oswald disassembled the rifle, then placed all its parts, including the misaligned scope, into a bag, then brought it into work and up to the 6th floor, then removed the parts from the bag and reassembled the rifle (using a trusty dime), took 3 shots and then ditched the rifle and only left a partial palm print later found between the stock and the barrel...then you must either be a retard or a disinformationalist troll. Either way, you have an embarrassing hobby.
LOL. You can't even keep track of who I'm addressing. That is embarrassing. What is with your fixation with "Q"? No one here has ever raised that except for you.
-
We are told that the FBI was involved in the assassination and/or plot to frame Oswald but then they are cited to claim that his prints were not on the rifle! HA HA HA.
Can you get even more simplistic than this? Do you think the entire FBI, a massive organisation, would be involved? What a shallow little man you truly are!
If you are going to lie about the evidence
Lying about evidence is actually your department, but I'll play along. What evidence did I lie about?
One print links Oswald to the rifle.
No fool, there is no print that links Oswald to the rifle. All there is, is a print on an evidence card that Lt Day produced days after Oswald's death claiming he lifted it from the rifle. And then you tell me I misunderstand the points being made.... Hilarious!
It is baseless and stupid to argue that finding Oswald's print on the murder weapon is actually indicative of his innocence instead of guilt! Even you should be able to understand the astounding absurdity of that viewpoint.
Yes I do. That's why I never argued anything of the kind. You just made it up.
And if the authorities were willing to fabricate evidence and claim to have found Oswald's print, why not just claim they found a dozen on the rifle?
Because less is more often than not more! But this is the second time you raised this stupid argument and it seems you don't even understand just how stupid it is.
The fact that they did not claim to have found a dozen prints on the rifle but only one doesn't mean that the one print that allegedly was found is authentic.
And btw, in this case, it wasn't the "authorities" who fabricated evidence. At best it was on man (Day) and the "authorities" were more than willing to accept it, no questions asked.
Now, can you prove Oswald fired the shots or was that just another one of your false claims?
What an interesting psychological insight into the "logic" of a contrarian. A must read for anyone who wants to understand how someone can be a closet CTer. It's like Inspector Clouseau explaining that he suspects everyone and suspects no one. Very amusing. I particularly like the part where the logical inconsistency of the FBI's inability to confirm the print with otherwise being accused of being involved in the framing of Oswald is explained away as the product of the FBI being a "massive organization." HA HA HA. That level of idiocy doesn't come naturally. It takes a lot of work to achieve. Imagine the narrative that Martin from "Europe" entertains behind this fantasy. He thinks the FBI is involved in framing Oswald for the assassination of the president. When the most important piece of evidence - the rifle - is sent to them, they examine it but say they found none of Oswald's prints. The guy they are framing for the crime! Why? Well, apparently the FBI is too big an organization for the conspirators within the FBI to manage the review of the single most important piece of evidence in the crime! HA HA HA. And on and on it goes with such ad hoc explanations of events that are not only baseless and logically inconsistent but moronic.
-
What an interesting psychological insight into the "logic" of a contrarian. A must read for anyone who wants to understand how someone can be a closet CTer. It's like Inspector Clouseau explaining that he suspects everyone and suspects no one. Very amusing. I particularly like the part where the logical inconsistency of the FBI's inability to confirm the print with otherwise being accused of being involved in the framing of Oswald is explained away as the product of the FBI being a "massive organization." HA HA HA. That level of idiocy doesn't come naturally. It takes a lot of work to achieve. Imagine the narrative that Martin from "Europe" entertains behind this fantasy. He thinks the FBI is involved in framing Oswald for the assassination of the president. When the most important piece of evidence - the rifle - is sent to them, they examine it but say they found none of Oswald's prints. The guy they are framing for the crime! Why? Well, apparently the FBI is too big an organization for the conspirators within the FBI to manage the review of the single most important piece of evidence in the crime! HA HA HA. And on and on it goes with such ad hoc explanations of events that are not only baseless and logically inconsistent but moronic.
Is there anything of relevance in this word salad?
I particularly like the part where the logical inconsistency of the FBI's inability to confirm the print with otherwise being accused of being involved in the framing of Oswald is explained away as the product of the FBI being a "massive organization." HA HA HA.
What a tragic demonstration of total ignorance. You talk about the FBI as if it is one person and not a massive organization. And it is utterly false to claim that the FBI was unable to "confirm the print" (whatever that means), when in fact the FBI lab found no print on the rifle to begin with. How does one confirm a print that isn't there? Also, no sane person would ever claim that the entire FBI would be involved in framing Oswald. A few individuals at key places perhaps, but the bulk of FBI employees just carried out orders without having a clue what the total picture really was. But that goes way over you head, as per usual, right?
Imagine the narrative that Martin from "Europe" entertains behind this fantasy. He thinks the FBI is involved in framing Oswald for the assassination of the president.
That's not my narrative nor do I think that. What it really is, is one of your classic but worthless apagogical arguments.
When the most important piece of evidence - the rifle - is sent to them, they examine it but say they found none of Oswald's prints. The guy they are framing for the crime! Why?
No, they said they found no prints at all on the rifle. Not Oswald's or those of anybody else. And they said it because it was obviously true and there was no way to say anything else simply because when the rifle was examined Oswald was still alive which means the case would go to court. The matter was of course cleaned up after Oswald's death when they blindly accepted the fairytale told to them by Lt Day! Didn't that evidence card come in handy all of a sudden......
-
Imagine the narrative that Martin from "Europe" entertains behind this fantasy. He thinks the FBI is involved in framing Oswald for the assassination of the president.
That's not my narrative nor do I think that. What it really is, is one of your classic but worthless apagogical arguments.
Strawman “Smith” strikes again. He’s apparently too ignorant to be embarrassed.
-
Is there anything of relevance in this word salad?
I particularly like the part where the logical inconsistency of the FBI's inability to confirm the print with otherwise being accused of being involved in the framing of Oswald is explained away as the product of the FBI being a "massive organization." HA HA HA.
What a tragic demonstration of total ignorance. You talk about the FBI as if it is one person and not a massive organization. And it is utterly false to claim that the FBI was unable to "confirm the print" (whatever that means), when in fact the FBI lab found no print on the rifle to begin with. How does one confirm a print that isn't there? Also, no sane person would ever claim that the entire FBI would be involved in framing Oswald. A few individuals at key places perhaps, but the bulk of FBI employees just carried out orders without having a clue what the total picture really was. But that goes way over you head, as per usual, right?
Imagine the narrative that Martin from "Europe" entertains behind this fantasy. He thinks the FBI is involved in framing Oswald for the assassination of the president.
That's not my narrative nor do I think that. What it really is, is one of your classic but worthless apagogical arguments.
When the most important piece of evidence - the rifle - is sent to them, they examine it but say they found none of Oswald's prints. The guy they are framing for the crime! Why?
No, they said they found no prints at all on the rifle. Not Oswald's or those of anybody else. And they said it because it was obviously true and there was no way to say anything else simply because when the rifle was examined Oswald was still alive which means the case would go to court. The matter was of course cleaned up after Oswald's death when they blindly accepted the fairytale told to them by Lt Day! Didn't that evidence card come in handy all of a sudden......
Those poor FBI conspirators. They pulled off the crime of the century but were just too "massive" to pay attention to the most important piece of evidence. No imbecile in history could believe that baseless fantasy. With the US paying for the defense of "Europe" it is disappointing to see that the "European" educational system is so lacking. Your parents must be disappointed. It's quite a coincidence that when the evidence lends itself to Oswald's guilt that is always suspect, but when it lends itself in any baseless manner to his innocence, it must be entertained. But Martin from "Europe" is just a neutral arbiter who doesn't care about Oswald. He is not suggesting a conspiracy. Just that all the evidence is faked. HA HA HA. What a delusional and dishonest nut.
-
Those poor FBI conspirators. They pulled off the crime of the century but were just too "massive" to pay attention to the most important piece of evidence. No imbecile in history could believe that baseless fantasy. With the US paying for the defense of "Europe" it is disappointing to see that the "European" educational system is so lacking. Your parents must be disappointed. It's quite a coincidence that when the evidence lends itself to Oswald's guilt that is always suspect, but when it lends itself in any baseless manner to his innocence, it must be entertained. But Martin from "Europe" is just a neutral arbiter who doesn't care about Oswald. He is not suggesting a conspiracy. Just that all the evidence is faked. HA HA HA. What a delusional and dishonest nut.
So, all you have is an incoherent rant about all sorts of insignificant and utterly false gobbledygook?
No wonder you are a Trump supporter. Did you learn this from your master?
With the US paying for the defense of "Europe" it is disappointing to see that the "European" educational system is so lacking.
What in the world does the defense of Europe have to do with the European educational system, which btw is far better than the US equivalent?
-
So, all you have is an incoherent rant about all sorts of insignificant and utterly false gobbledygook?
No wonder you are a Trump supporter. Did you learn this from your master?
With the US paying for the defense of "Europe" it is disappointing to see that the "European" educational system is so lacking.
What in the world does the defense of Europe have to do with the European educational system, which btw is far better than the US equivalent?
Of course the educational system is better in "Europe" than the US. LOL. That is because the US has paid for the defense of "Europe" for 70 years and counting. Imagine the educational, health care, and other social programs the US would have had if "Europe" had paid for our national defense or at least their own. Instead the US politicians like Ukraine Joe are stupid and corrupt. Unfortunately, you do not seem to have benefitted from these educational advantages. There are exceptions to every rule.
-
Of course the educational system is better in "Europe" than the US. LOL. That is because the US has paid for the defense of "Europe" for 70 years and counting. Imagine the educational, health care, and other social programs the US would have had if "Europe" had paid for our national defense or at least their own. Instead the US politicians like Ukraine Joe are stupid and corrupt. Unfortunately, you do not seem to have benefitted from these educational advantages. There are exceptions to every rule.
Grumpy is whining again...
Imagine the educational, health care, and other social programs the US would have had if "Europe" had paid for our national defense or at least their own.
They would have had exactly the same flawed systems they have today. But you need at least some basic level of intelligence to figure that out!
If you're going to blame anybody for the sad state of affairs in education, health care etc, blame the Republicans, not foreign countries.
-
Grumpy is whining again...
Imagine the educational, health care, and other social programs the US would have had if "Europe" had paid for our national defense or at least their own.
They would have had exactly the same flawed systems they have today. But you need at least some basic level of intelligence to figure that out!
If you're going to blame anybody for the sad state of affairs in education, health care etc, blame the Republicans, not foreign countries.
You might be right for once. With Ukraine Joe and his clown show in charge, the results are always the same no matter how much money is spent. Disaster.
-
Of course the educational system is better in "Europe" than the US. LOL. That is because the US has paid for the defense of "Europe" for 70 years and counting. Imagine the educational, health care, and other social programs the US would have had if "Europe" had paid for our national defense or at least their own. Instead the US politicians like Ukraine Joe are stupid and corrupt. Unfortunately, you do not seem to have benefitted from these educational advantages. There are exceptions to every rule.
That's a particularly idiotic argument (even by "Richard" standards), given that education in the U.S. is overwhelmingly funded at the local level.
-
Somebody forgot to tell Ronald Reagan about the “coup” of America, because he seems to have achieved a coalition of left and right that resulted in 2 overwhelming majority vote victories.
( unless they had the voting machines rigged as far back as the 80’s)
if I had to choose a point where a “ coup” started to gain control, it would be starting at GHW Bush and his announcement of a “New World Order”
Then the next 3 US presidents following GHWB were part of the same “globalist” element , the. “Shadow “ government?
IDK about Trump , he is an enigma. That 666 address of his Trump Tower kind of makes me wonder.
But, then, the number of letters in Ronald Wilson Reagan = 666 and his family residence had a 666 address… so.. uh
Maybe it’s time to move to Switzerland?
-
Lots of people believe things that are not true because it fits their desired narrative. Like "Russian collusion" or that "police officers were murdered on Jan. 6." Some even repeat these false claims long after being debunked. Effectively they want them to be true. Unless Paul has some evidence that no one else has uncovered in the last 60 years, his opinion is worthless.
All LNer's believe things that are not true because it fits their desired narrative...... and they lack the guts and intelligence to face the truth.
-
All LNer's believe things that are not true because it fits their desired narrative...... and they lack the guts and intelligence to face the truth.
Why would anyone "desire" that Oswald be the lone assassin? That is nonsense. There is no narrative behind the lone shooter conclusion. I'm open to the possibility of conspiracies. I believe, for example, that there was a conspiracy to kill Abraham Lincoln because that is what the evidence confirms. There is no such evidence in the JFK assassination. It is the evidence that is determinative of the issue. Subjective narratives are only behind fake conspiracy theories. It is an attempt to graft the world view of some nut onto a real-world event to validate that view.
-
Curious thread title. Of course he was murdered. ::)
-
Why would anyone "desire" that Oswald be the lone assassin? That is nonsense. There is no narrative behind the lone shooter conclusion. I'm open to the possibility of conspiracies. I believe, for example, that there was a conspiracy to kill Abraham Lincoln because that is what the evidence confirms. There is no such evidence in the JFK assassination. It is the evidence that is determinative of the issue. Subjective narratives are only behind fake conspiracy theories. It is an attempt to graft the world view of some nut onto a real-world event to validate that view.
Why would anyone "desire" that Oswald be the lone assassin? That is nonsense.
Sure, it's nonsense. But it's true nevertheless! For some idiotic reason, you and other LNs somehow simply can not handle the possibility of Kennedy being murdered by a conspiracy.
I'm open to the possibility of conspiracies.
Hilarious! You are the least open minded person I know. You simply dismiss all the circumstantial evidence that points to another narrative and then claim there is no evidence of a conspiracy.
There is no such evidence in the JFK assassination.
Utter BS. You just don't want to see it. There is in fact more credible circumstantial evidence pointing in the direction of some sort of a conspiracy then there is pointing at Oswald being the lone gunman,
It is the evidence that is determinative of the issue.
And what evidence would that be? I have been asking you for months to provide the evidence for Oswald being on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and for him coming down the stairs, unnoticed, within 75 seconds after the last shot. You have never been able to produce this critical evidence for one reason only; it doesn't exist. And that's only the beginning of everything you need to make up to get even close to putting an MC rifle in Oswald's hand on 11/22/63.
-
Why would anyone "desire" that Oswald be the lone assassin? That is nonsense.
Sure, it's nonsense. But it's true nevertheless! For some idiotic reason, you and other LNs somehow simply can not handle the possibility of Kennedy being murdered by a conspiracy.
I'm open to the possibility of conspiracies.
Hilarious! You are the least open minded person I know. You simply dismiss all the circumstantial evidence that points to another narrative and then claim there is no evidence of a conspiracy.
There is no such evidence in the JFK assassination.
Utter BS. You just don't want to see it. There is in fact more credible circumstantial evidence pointing in the direction of some sort of a conspiracy then there is pointing at Oswald being the lone gunman,
It is the evidence that is determinative of the issue.
And what evidence would that be? I have been asking you for months to provide the evidence for Oswald being on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and for him coming down the stairs, unnoticed, within 75 seconds after the last shot. You have never been able to produce this critical evidence for one reason only; it doesn't exist. And that's only the beginning of everything you need to make up to get even close to putting an MC rifle in Oswald's hand on 11/22/63.
Again, why would I or anyone else not be able to "handle" a conspiracy to assassinate JFK? This event happened almost 60 years ago. Why would it matter to me whether JFK was assassinated as part of conspiracy? Anyone involved would be long dead or in a nursing home (almost as old as Biden). I've cited a specific and analogous example. I accept that there was a conspiracy to kill President Lincoln. I reach that conclusion based on the evidence. Why can I "handle" that conspiracy conclusion but not one in the JFK assassination? It's laughable to suggest that those who believe Oswald to be the sole party responsible for the assassination reach that conclusion based on some unspecified bias.
-
Again, why would I or anyone else not be able to "handle" a conspiracy to assassinate JFK? This event happened almost 60 years ago. Why would it matter to me whether JFK was assassinated as part of conspiracy? Anyone involved would be long dead or in a nursing home (almost as old as Biden). I've cited a specific and analogous example. I accept that there was a conspiracy to kill President Lincoln. I reach that conclusion based on the evidence. Why can I "handle" that conspiracy conclusion but not one in the JFK assassination? It's laughable to suggest that those who believe Oswald to be the sole party responsible for the assassination reach that conclusion based on some unspecified bias.
Again, why would I or anyone else not be able to "handle" a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?
That's actually a very good question. It has me puzzled for many years, yet time after time LNs clearly demonstrate that they, for some mysterious reason, can't even bring themselves to accepting that there are massive problems, or even one minor problem, with the extremely circumstantial case against Oswald. Instead they fight and lie about every minor detail as if their life depended on it.
Why can I "handle" that conspiracy conclusion but not one in the JFK assassination?
In the Lincoln case there was never any discussion about a sole assassin. Although Wilkes Booth was the only one successful, there were also unsuccessful attempts to kill Secretary of State William H. Seward and Vice President Andrew Johnson. It is beyond question that more than one person was involved, making it unescapably a conspiracy. Things are not nearly so clear and obvious in the Kennedy case.
It's laughable to suggest that those who believe Oswald to be the sole party responsible for the assassination reach that conclusion based on some unspecified bias.
It's actually laughable to even pretend that that isn't the case. There is no way any sane logical thinking person can reach the lone nut conclusion based on what passes for evidence in the Kennedy case. The mere fact that you can't produce evidence you claim exists, combined with the constant misrepresentations and outright lies about the evidence, tells the true story.
-
Again, why would I or anyone else not be able to "handle" a conspiracy to assassinate JFK? This event happened almost 60 years ago. Why would it matter to me whether JFK was assassinated as part of conspiracy? Anyone involved would be long dead or in a nursing home (almost as old as Biden). I've cited a specific and analogous example. I accept that there was a conspiracy to kill President Lincoln. I reach that conclusion based on the evidence. Why can I "handle" that conspiracy conclusion but not one in the JFK assassination? It's laughable to suggest that those who believe Oswald to be the sole party responsible for the assassination reach that conclusion based on some unspecified bias.
why would I or anyone else not be able to "handle" a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?
The conspiracy would of necessity have had to originated at the very highest and most powerful office in he land. (the office of the POTUS) And that reality makes a mockery of all we hold dear. Only gutless fools accept he ridiculous tale that was dumped on he grieving and trusting citizens. We were ignorant .....and trusted that our government would tell us the truth. ( The people ( trusting gutless suckers) must be lead to believe that Oswald was the lone assassin and he had no motive or confederates ....LBJ...11 /23/63 ) Some of us opened our eyes, and saw the truth, but many lack the brains or guts to see that the tale that LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover dumped on us is a gargantuan lie.
-
The question is WHY JFK was murdered and why the method selected was execution by rifle shots at the very end of what would have been a triumphal demonstration of courage in the face of previous warning threats of assassination should JFK dare to visit Dallas Texas in in 1963.
-
Again, why would I or anyone else not be able to "handle" a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?
That's actually a very good question. It has me puzzled for many years, yet time after time LNs clearly demonstrate that they, for some mysterious reason, can't even bring themselves to accepting that there are massive problems, or even one minor problem, with the extremely circumstantial case against Oswald. Instead they fight and lie about every minor detail as if their life depended on it.
Why can I "handle" that conspiracy conclusion but not one in the JFK assassination?
In the Lincoln case there was never any discussion about a sole assassin. Although Wilkes Booth was the only one successful, there were also unsuccessful attempts to kill Secretary of State William H. Seward and Vice President Andrew Johnson. It is beyond question that more than one person was involved, making it unescapably a conspiracy. Things are not nearly so clear and obvious in the Kennedy case.
It's laughable to suggest that those who believe Oswald to be the sole party responsible for the assassination reach that conclusion based on some unspecified bias.
It's actually laughable to even pretend that that isn't the case. There is no way any sane logical thinking person can reach the lone nut conclusion based on what passes for evidence in the Kennedy case. The mere fact that you can't produce evidence you claim exists, combined with the constant misrepresentations and outright lies about the evidence, tells the true story.
Many things are no doubt puzzling to you. It is humorous that you actually support my explanation by noting that a conspiracy in the Lincoln assassination was "obvious." It is obvious only because the evidence confirms that conclusion. Not due to any bias for or against conspiracies. In contrast, a conspiracy in the JFK is not proven because the evidence is lacking. Even after nearly 60 years there is no credible evidence that supports a conspiracy conclusion. Well done! I thought you were a closet CTer but you are actually a closet LNer.
-
Not sure why after 60 years people pretend that it's not plausible that there was a conspiracy.