Conspiracy Theories

Noir Time

07-11-17

Originally Posted by Yoda

Whether or not you're a "bad shot" is relevant to the context. A "bad shot" in the Marines is probably a great shot compared to 99% of the population. The only relevance is whether or not he could plausibly make that shot.

Good point.

Originally Posted by gandalf26

...What it should say is, he qualified just above the minimum for a B grade (ABC or fail being the possible scores), then later barely qualified for a C grade.

So being kind he was in the bottom third of his class, being highly critical you could say he was near bottom of the class.

In comparison one of us, would probably test at the firing range at Z grade!

Just because someone is not the best driver at Formula One racing and is ranked at the bottom of the race drivers, doesn't make that race driver a poor driver, or no more skilled that the average commuter.

I use to go Duck hunting when I was a kid, ducks are really small and I could shoot them a long ways away, flying fast in the sky, and they could be approaching, receding and even on a diagonal path and I could still shoot them. You lead them a bit with the gun. If a goofy kid could do that, I'm sure a Marnie trained shooter could do what Oswald did.

Besides if it's a conspiracy theory why use a 'crummy shot' like some contained Oswald was.

gandalf26

We've gone on holiday by mistake

07-11-17

Originally Posted by Citizen Rules

Good point.

In comparison one of us, would probably test at the firing range at Z grade!

Just because someone is not the best driver at Formula One racing and is ranked at the bottom of the race drivers, doesn't make that race driver a poor driver, or no more skilled that the average commuter.

I use to go Duck hunting when I was a kid, ducks are really small and I could shoot them a long ways away, flying fast in the sky, and they could be approaching, receding and even on a diagonal path and I could still shoot them. You lead them a bit with the gun. If a goofy kid could do that, I'm sure a Marnie trained shooter could do what Oswald did.

Besides if it's a conspiracy theory why use a 'crummy shot' like some contained Oswald was.

Using the Formula One analogy, the elite of Formula One couldn't match his acheivement despite Oswald being a Formula 3 at best driver.

Because on paper Oswald could look like a very competent shooter, but put that under intense scrutiny afterwards and it doesn't hold up.

__________________

Originally Posted by ScarletLion

You are vile.

Yoda

Administrator

07-11-17

Originally Posted by gandalf26

The above states that the elite of the elite marksmen couldn't replicate the "shoot" in multiple attempts

...and there are plenty examples of other people who have. In fact, the first one below is from CBS, same as your source says, so either they did it twice (with different results), or he's wildly misrepresenting the report:

Yoda

Administrator

07-11-17

Originally Posted by gandalf26

Sure, they are not all knowing beings, they have a short list of candidates for a patsy, "hey look at this guy", "Marine check", "qualified as sharpshooter check", "gun club in Russia check", "picture of him with his rifle, check". Then later "oops" seems his shooting record doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

"Fairly useless" fair enough that's a generalisation, Lets use a Golf tour analogy, lets say Oswald plays on the B tour, clearly better at Golf than 99% of the population, he plays on the tour right? he's a pro right? then he goes on and does something in ONE attempt that Tiger Woods and the elite cant match despite multiple attempts.

Geez, this isn't even close to true. Where to begin?

1) These guys aren't the Tiger Woods of shooting. The ones in the video I posted are state troopers and weapons engineers, not Olympians or Marines.

2) It has been matched. Just not every single time, obviously. And that's the important part because, as we've seen with all the witnesses, any time you have dozens of inconsistent results to choose from, the conspiracy theorist can pick whichever one confirms their belief and ignore the others (or, more likely, never hear about them because they never go looking, because they already have what they want).

3) "One attempt" is misleading, because he took three shots. And missed with the first one, I might add. So, just to confirm: in all the months they were planning this, they not only failed to find an accomplished rifleman as a patsy, but the guy they hired to shoot from the grassy knoll missed anyway? Is that what you're going with?

Originally Posted by gandalf26

They can be confident that any commission will cover up the assassination and that's exactly what happened.

This is what it all comes down to, right here: any evidence that can't be debunked just gets swept under the "cover up" rug.

These discussions are inherently ridiculous because the standard of evidence fluctuates. Any random evidence you throw out has to be definitively debunked, at which point it's discarded and a new claim replaces it. But if someone posts something you can't debunk, well, that was just part of the cover-up.

gandalf26

We've gone on holiday by mistake

07-11-17

Originally Posted by Yoda

Some lone-gunman theorists will assert that Oswald's alleged shooting performance was duplicated by several expert marksmen in the CBS rifle test. However, the CBS test did not simulate all of the factors under which Oswald allegedly fired. Furthermore, the four riflemen who managed to score at least two hits out of three shots in less than six seconds failed to do so on their first attempts, yet Oswald would have had ONLY one attempt. And, needless to say, all of these men were experienced, expert riflemen. Seven of the eleven CBS shooters failed to score at least two hits on ANY of their attempts. The best shot in the group, Howard Donahue, took THREE attempts to score at least two hits out of three shots in under six seconds. In addition, the CBS shooters did not use the alleged murder weapon, with its difficult bolt and odd trigger--they used a different Carcano.]

This is what the best of the best had to say replicating a test;

Retired Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock is likewise skeptical of Oswald's alleged shooting feat. Hathcock is a former senior instructor at the U. S. Marine Corps Sniper Instruction School at Quantico, Virginia. He has been described as the most famous American military sniper in history. In Vietnam he was credited with 93 confirmed kills. He now conducts police SWAT team sniper schools across the country. Craig Roberts asked Hathcock about the marksmanship feat attributed to Oswald by the Warren Commission. Hathcock answered that he did not believe Oswald could have done what the Commission said he did. Added Hathcock,
Let me tell you what we did at Quantico. We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don't know how many times we tried it, but we couldn't duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did.]

And to throw a somewhat neutral post out there, it's actually difficult to completely replicate the test;

As mentioned, no rifle test has ever included all of the factors under which Oswald would have fired. What would, therefore, constitute a valid "Oswald" rifle test? What would a test need to include in order to qualify as a genuine simulation of Oswald's alleged shooting feat? Such a test would include the following conditions:
* The riflemen cannot have scored above the level of "Sharpshooter" in the Marines (or in the Army).
* The riflemen must have little target practice during the forty days prior to the test.
* The riflemen must have been known to be somewhat uncoordinated while in the Marines (or in the Army).
* The riflemen cannot have any "practice shots" on the day of the test.
* The riflemen must use the alleged murder weapon itself, or another Carcano with a difficult bolt and an odd trigger pull.
* If a different Carcano is used, it must be established, by expert shooters who fire the rifle just to see how fast it can be operated (with or without minimal accuracy), that the weapon cannot be fired faster than 2.3 seconds per shot.
* The target silhouette must be mounted on a car.
* The car carrying the target must be the same size and shape as Kennedy's limousine.
* There must be a tree that is the same size as the oak tree in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 and that is in the same position in relation to the window and the road on which the target car is moving.
* The riflemen must fire from a window that is open by no more than 15 inches.
* The window from which the riflemen shoot must have two pipes to its left on the inside. These pipes must be positioned so that they inhibit the riflemen from firing markedly to their right. To get an idea of the degree to which the pipes would have inhibited a sharply rightward shot, see Jim Marrs, CROSSFIRE, New York: Carroll and Graf, 1989, seventh photo page, and Robert Groden, THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT, New York: Viking Studio Books, 1993, p. 125; cf. Harrison Livingstone, KILLING THE TRUTH, New York: Carroll and Graf, 1993, second page of second photo set.)
* The riflemen must fire from an elevation of 60 feet.
* The riflemen must score at least two hits out of three shots in less than 6 seconds ON THEIR FIRST ATTEMPT.
* If the riflemen are given 8.4 seconds to fire, then they must so misaim their first shot that they COMPLETELY MISS the target car.
* If the riflemen are given 8.4 seconds to fire, not only must they completely miss the target car with their initial shot, but they must also score at least two hits out of their next two shots ON THEIR FIRST ATTEMPT.
* If the riflemen are given 8.4 seconds to fire, they CANNOT deliberately miss the entire target car with their first shot (or with any shot, for that matter), but must miss the whole car without trying to do so.
* The target car must travel the same speeds that the limousine was traveling, and at the appropriate points, from frames 140-313 of the Zapruder film.
No "Oswald" rifle test has ever included all of these conditions. On this basis alone it can be said that no rifleman, no matter how skilled, has ever duplicated Oswald's supposed shooting feat.
The conditions listed above are entirely factual and will not be disputed by anyone familiar with the assassination. Personally, I would add the following two factors, which, though supported by good evidence, are disputed by lone-gunman theorists:
* The riflemen must have a shield of boxes behind them that allows them no more than 30-32 inches in which to kneel and fire. (Photos of the supposed sniper's nest show that a gunman would have had no more than 30-32 inches in which to kneel.)
* The riflemen must fire two of their shots in no more than 1.5 seconds. (Numerous witnesses, from all over the plaza, said that two of the shots came so closely together that they were almost simultaneous. Some witnesses even said they sounded like a single burst from an automatic rifle.)
In closing, I quote from an internal Warren Commission memo that was written by Commission attorney Wesley Liebeler. Liebeler was commenting on the various rifle tests that were done for the Commission, on the marksmen who took part in them, and on the way in which those tests were being cited as "evidence" that Oswald could have done the shooting:
The fact is that most of the experts were much more proficient with a rifle than Oswald could ever be expected to be, and the record indicates that fact. . . . To put it bluntly, that sort of selection from the record could seriously affect the integrity and credibility of the entire report. . . . [These] conclusions will never be accepted by critical persons anyway.]

gandalf26

We've gone on holiday by mistake

07-11-17

Originally Posted by Yoda

Geez, this isn't even close to true. Where to begin?

1) These guys aren't the Tiger Woods of shooting. The ones in the video I posted are state troopers and weapons engineers, not Olympians or Marines.

2) It has been matched. Just not every single time, obviously. And that's the important part because, as we've seen with all the witnesses, any time you have dozens of inconsistent results to choose from, the conspiracy theorist can pick whichever one confirms their belief and ignore the others (or, more likely, never hear about them because they never go looking, because they already have what they want).

3) "One attempt" is misleading, because he took three shots. And missed with the first one, I might add. So, just to confirm: in all the months they were planning this, they not only failed to find an accomplished rifleman as a patsy, but the guy they hired to shoot from the grassy knoll missed anyway? Is that what you're going with?

1) In my post below yours the "Tiger Woods" of shooting (Carlos Hathcock) discuses the attempts to replicate the shoot, I was never referring to people in the CBS video.

2) It hasn't been matched. The guys in your vid aren't simulating the test, different weapon.

3) One attempt to replicate Oswalds feat of 2/3 shots.

So, just to confirm: in all the months they were planning this, they not only failed to find an accomplished rifleman as a patsy, but the guy they hired to shoot from the grassy knoll missed anyway? Is that what you're going with

They ****ed up, they thought they had an accomplished shooter, or he was the best option, remember he was one of their guys, like a spy unknowingly sent on a suicide mission, they could tell him where to be that day with him being oblivious to what was going to happen. The grassy knoll shot IS the killshot I think, not sure why you think I'm saying they missed.

This is what it all comes down to, right here: any evidence that can't be debunked just gets swept under the "cover up" rug

What evidence in the JFK case cant be debunked?

Sir Toose

Instrument of Pain

07-12-17

By the by, those two latest videos prove my earlier point RE: timing.
Bang cycle Bang cycle Bang - 3 shots similarly timed apart vs the many witnesses (watch Rush to Judgment & the interviews of Roger Craig and other Dallas PD officers on the scene). That rifle can't make a Bang cycle Bang Bang. You need an auto for that or two rifles. That brings up another point RE Roger Craig who was there when they recovered the rifle. He says the rifle had Mauser stamped on the barrel like other Mausers he'd seen. The Carcano was one of two rifles, according to him (well respected Dallas motor cop (and he's not alone in stating this).

Another thing, if the shots came from a coke drinking, breakroom sitting Oswald why didn't he shoot when the motorcade turned onto Houston when it was coming straight at him? Why wait for the difficult shot?

And again RE: Shots/bullets -
A trajectory was done between the 6th floor window and Tague's position by the underpass (first bullet). If that shot came from the book depository it went 22' over the top of the limo in order to hit the curb in front of Tague. Just a bit high - even for a bad marksman.

Last thing for tonight:
Just to inspire further confidence in the Warren Commission Report, take a look at exhibit 237 - a photo of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Last edited by Sir Toose; 07-12-17 at 12:38 AM.

matt72582

Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses

07-12-17

Originally Posted by Sir Toose

I have the Warren Report, so I'll take your word, but that looks less like Oswald and more like Ruby. (but actually doesn't look like either).

The Warren Report is not only inconsistent, but they dedicate a lot of time to things NOTHING related... For example, a janitor who is questioned who work at a night-club (wasn't established if it was Ruby's, I would guess yes)... The guy said it was a rough club. He was pressed on. The janitor said there was some dirty dancing, and that he'd rather not describe it.

"Describe the dance!"

"It's dirty, if you do it right".

(paraphrase).

Or Doc Whithead, a 90-yr old black man who the judge doesn't seem to care for.... Every time he's referred to as "doc" the judge has furrows of worry. So the judge asks "Are you a doctor?" - "No"... "Do you have a medical license?" -- "No"...

"Then why do they call you Doc?"

"It's like when they call you 'Your Honor' -- it don't mean nothing.

Yoda

Administrator

07-12-17

Originally Posted by gandalf26

1) In my post below yours the "Tiger Woods" of shooting (Carlos Hathcock) discuses the attempts to replicate the shoot, I was never referring to people in the CBS video.

The source you quoted referred to CBS' investigation. So either they did two, or the details your source mentioned were way off.

Originally Posted by gandalf26

2) It hasn't been matched. The guys in your vid aren't simulating the test.

Then, once again, the arguments have contradicted each other. You can argue "they can't really replicate the test" or you can argue "other shooters can't do it," but you can't argue both.

Originally Posted by gandalf26

different weapon

The first video explicitly says it's the same kind of gun, unless you mean literally the same weapon (and not just the same model), in which case, see the above bit about contradictory arguments.

Originally Posted by gandalf26

3) One attempt to replicate Oswalds feat of 2/3 shots.

...of which several people in the videos I posted (and others I haven't bothered to) were able to achieve.

The guy took three shots and only one was seemingly on line: the first was a miss and it stands to reason the headshot was a bit of a miss, too, since he'd more likely have been aiming for the midsection.

Originally Posted by gandalf26

He would've known the second he got there. Have you ever seen the grassy knoll? It's not hidden away, it's in plain view. There was absolutely no way anyone would have thought someone could just stand there, take a shot, and get away with it. I've heard a lot of people say they bought into this stuff until they went to the Plaza, and realized how small it is, and how close everything is to each other.

And "they ****ed up" isn't really much of a reason. If you can make them out to be masters of manipulation one second and totally incompetent the next, you've effectively given yourself license to believe whatever you want without evidence. And if you can do that, why can't Oswald suddenly be good or bad at things as the argument requires, too? As I said before, there are clearly inconsistent evidentiary standards here.

Originally Posted by gandalf26

The grassy knoll shot IS the killshot I think, not sure why you think I'm saying they missed.

Because you said you doubted any shots came from the depository.

Originally Posted by gandalf26

What evidence in the JFK case cant be debunked?

The long list of witnesses I mentioned (and sourced) earlier. Almost all of them heard shots come from the depository, some of them were right underneath it or in the depository itself, and we have multiple eyewitnesses who saw a shooter in the window, too.

If someone is willing to believe, contra all that, that no shots came from the depository, then they're basically admitting they don't care about evidence at all.

gandalf26

We've gone on holiday by mistake

07-12-17

The top part of your post is waffle. You can't dispute what Hathcock has to say about the shoot.

Replication of the exact shooting conditions is difficult because Oswald was a poor marksman, so instead they use elite marksmen so can't replicate what Oswald did and nearly universally have doubts that Oswald could do that.

Re Grassy knoll, from memory there is a fence behind which the shot came, no one would have been looking that way when jfk was going past. Was there not a witness who saw a cop there moments before the shot, a witness who later turned up dead. Convenient.

Who ever said they were "masters of manipulation", they came up with a plan, executed it well, and got away with it because the investigation was rigged.

JFK has to be the only conspiracy where these who rigidly defend the official version cone across as deranged as opposed the other way around.

There are polls conducted that show as little as 10-12% of the American public believe the lone gunman theory, for a 20 year period through the 70s to the 90s.

Yoda

Administrator

07-12-17

Originally Posted by gandalf26

The top part of your post is waffle. You can't dispute what Hathcock has to say about the shoot.

Why do I have to rebuff someone's opinion, particularly when there are other, contradictory ones? You've given no reason why this opinion trumps another, except of course that it happens to confirm what you already believed. And I say "already" because I strongly suspect that you discovered this quote after you'd decided there was a conspiracy, right?

Originally Posted by gandalf26

Replication of the exact shooting conditions is difficult because Oswald was a poor marksman, so instead they use elite marksmen so can't replicate what Oswald did and nearly universally have doubts that Oswald could do that.

This. Is. False.. Are you even reading this stuff, or watching these videos? You keep saying "nobody can do it," and I'm literally showing you that's false (and I can show you more), and you simply keep repeating that nobody can do it as if nothing had happened. Hell, even people who doubt the official line (like the guy with the Hickey theory) have done it.

Originally Posted by gandalf26

Re Grassy knoll, from memory there is a fence behind which the shot came, no one would have been looking that way when jfk was going past. Was there not a witness who saw a cop there moments before the shot, a witness who later turned up dead. Convenient.

Source this, please.

I don't think it's a coincidence, by the way, that people peddling conspiracies tend to have such poor sourcing habits. Conspiracies thrive on ambiguity and secondhand embellishments, as has been proven several times in this thread already.

Originally Posted by gandalf26

Who ever said they were "masters of manipulation", they came up with a plan, executed it well, and got away with it because the investigation was rigged.

You did, by suggesting they could, ya' know, rig a Congressional investigation. Have you really thought about how many insane things they would have to do, and how many people they would have to do them to, in order to rig something like that? The fact that "the investigation" is a singular noun does not mean they "just" had to rig that one thing. It contains hundreds of people. It was sprawling, far-reaching, and cited to death. The number of people they would have to have gotten to in order to falsify the details within is staggering.

Originally Posted by gandalf26

JFK has to be the only conspiracy where these who rigidly defend the official version cone across as deranged as opposed the other way around.

I'm sure that's exactly how it looks from inside the conspiracy bubble, yeah.

But really, don't waste your time or mine with flat assertions that boil down to just "I'M RIGHT." They don't add to your argument, and if anything, they undermine it.

Originally Posted by gandalf26

There are polls conducted that show as little as 10-12% of the American public believe the lone gunman theory, for a 20 year period through the 70s to the 90s.

Source, again?

And why stop at the 90s? Could it be that modern technology has largely answered most of the questions raised, both about the "magic" bullet and the source of the kill shot?

Did "they" get to those people, too, by the way?

Yoda

Administrator

07-12-17

That second link at the end is, I think, particularly damning. You can go back and retroactively add it to my response to your "which evidence cannot be debunked?" bit.

Sir Toose

Instrument of Pain

07-12-17

My take:

I think it's possible to probable that shots were fired from the School Book Depository. I cannot say whether or not it was Oswald who fired them.

Now, I'll present a specific challenge:

From The National Archives Findings:

Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy; the second and third shots he fired struck the President; the third shot he fired killed the President.

The first shot, the one that missed, is represented in The Warren Report as having struck the curb in front of James Tague and resulting in a facial laceration.

So far so good.

The Problem:

Look at frame 260 of the Zapruder Film:

The SECOND shot had hit Kennedy (even if I concede it was from the back) and he puts his hands up to his throat. At this point the SECOND bullet (the magic one) had not struck John Connally. Connally said he heard a shot and turned around to see what happened. As he was turning back around he felt himself being shot - listen for yourself:

SO... video evidence and Governor Connally's own statements disprove the magic bullet beyond a shadow of a doubt (not that it's impossible or couldn't happen - but that it didn't happen in this case). Shot 2 and the one that hit Connally were NOT the same shot.

If anyone can explain how 3 bullets can make 4 shots please do so.

Also,

Here's a slowed down version of the Z film:

You can see that Kennedy is hit, Connally turns to see, turns back around as he describes, and then the fatal shot is fired.

Last edited by Sir Toose; 07-12-17 at 06:08 PM.

Yoda

Administrator

07-17-17

Sorry, meant to reply to this earlier. Busy weekend.

Originally Posted by Sir Toose

I think it's possible to probable that shots were fired from the School Book Depository. I cannot say whether or not it was Oswald who fired them.

Fair enough. That part is less definitive, to be sure. The evidence that someone fired from there is pretty overwhelming, though, so when I hear someone say that they don't even believe that much, it tells me that their belief is not the result of a dispassionate look at the evidence, but rather the reflection of a general worldview. I think, for a lot of conspiracy theorists, the questions is not "did this happen?" but "do I trust the powers that be?" And the question of each individual conspiracy is just used as a proxy for that question.

This would explain why you see so many non-sequitur responses about the people that believe the official line: because it's mostly just about signaling that you're not one of those people.

Originally Posted by Sir Toose

Look at frame 260 of the Zapruder Film:

The National Academy of Sciences analyzed that very tape, I believe, and concluded that some of the sounds simply weren't gunshots, assuming I'm understanding you correctly.

That said...I actually don't feel very strongly about most of the specifics. I find it entirely plausible that the Committee is wrong about relatively minor details like the timing of shots, or how they ricocheted, etc. The number of variables involved are astronomical and would be difficult to pin down even today, let alone back then, with mediocre audio and grainy video.

But there are, of course, a world of conclusions between "everything about this was setup" and "the Committee was 100% right." I'm pretty comfortable believing the Committee's conclusions were not right in every detail without feeling obligated to go much further than that. Framing this (and I'm not describing you here) as a false choice between either a total setup or a completely accurate report is stacking the deck for the conspiracy side.

Sir Toose

Instrument of Pain

07-17-17

I was going to quote/argue several points but I think I'll just nutshell it instead because, at the end of the day, we're not that far apart.

I realize that it's not so much the Warren Comm report that I take issue with as it is with people who don't care enough to educate themselves a little (at least enough to be able to see the flaws in the document). I go to Dealy every few years and stand where Zapruder stood and then out in the center of the plaza and up behind the fence. It's always fascinated me (well at least since Geraldo aired the Zapruder film for the first time and it became such a thing of consternation). Without fail I overhear people say things like it doesn't matter now, it happened a long time ago etc.

To me, this assassination, and the coverage thereof, represents the time where government became hyper aware of the power of media (and the burgeoning television audience) and began to use it for the purposes of spinning events.

The Warren Commission had some of the best minds of the time and their only job was to unravel this thing.
I think your comment:

I think, for a lot of conspiracy theorists, the questions is not "did this happen?" but "do I trust the powers that be?"

... hits dead center on one of the many themes I find troubling. If the public can see (without having all of the evidence available) that basic things like the shots don't add up, the story doesn't match witness testimony (even their own experts), important witnesses were not interviewed, protocols for handling evidence were ignored and on and on. Many of these witnesses aren't Joe off the street either - they're Dallas cops, government agents of one sort or another, doctors from the hospital where JFK was taken - it's a long list. With so many glaring inconsistencies it becomes hard to trust the official document especially when the authors won't concede any of those points. That kind of 'shut up and believe it' attitude doesn't serve the people.

I've spent the last 10 years down this rabbit hole, lol. I don't think there's a book I haven't read on the subject or a film or documentary I haven't seen. Most focus on proving one or more points are possible but usually outside of the context of the event in its entirety.

One interesting thing I did was to collect all of the films from the day (Zapruder wasn't the only one with a camera rolling) and then plot those locations on a map of the plaza so I could see angles etc. One of the more recent (90's) theories to come out is that the Zapruder film was doctored during the time it left his hands and ended up at Time Magazine. There's a documentary that shows an interview with the man who was the lab manager at the place where the film was developed. He says the one Geraldo shows is different and points out some weird stuff like cars in the background not matching and the infamous Amoeba Man:

Several witnesses said the limo stopped in the middle of the street and that is why it was necessary for the film to be altered. Certainly there are visible cuts even in the official version. Perhaps some creative zooming and painting can explain the presence of our friend above in the Z film.

Didn't mean to go so long.

I don't think the Warren Commission members are all nefarious men serving the illuminati. I think some had the power to push things through (perhaps even for the sake of expedience) and they made some serious errors and many of those errors are alluded to in their own documents.

I think in general it's become en-vogue to refer to anyone who questions the official story of any major event as a tin foil hatter, no matter how much evidence exists to the contrary.

Maybe most of the folk are right. The world spins, life goes on. For some reason these things bother me enough to dig in.

Now pray no one starts a 9-11 thread.

Yoda

Administrator

07-18-17

Yeah, I dig that, we are pretty close here. I think we're both generally against kneejerk reactions, in other words: either accepting something just because it's the official line on your end, or positing massive conspiracies out of general distrust for authority.

I agree with what you said about how messy it all looks, but I also can't help but notice that everything looks like this when we look at it up close. Every big splashy public trial, or investigation, or whatever, has tons of unanswered questions and weird coincidences. My operating theory is that pretty much every event is like this, but we just don't look at most of them closely enough for it to be obvious. I suspect if we took some boring old convenience story robbery and put it under the same kind of microscope, it would look just as inexplicable.

My general posture on almost every situation like this is: it probably didn't happen exactly the way most people think (or exactly as we're told, because truth is hard), but it probably also didn't happen in some overly dramatic or shocking way that would upend our entire understanding of the event.

Citizen Rules

Noir Time

09-06-17

After reading this thread, I watched 3 really excellent and informative documentaries about different aspects of JFK and the assassination.

The Kennedy Assassination: 24 Hours After
JFK the lost bullet
JFK the definitive guide

I've seen a lot of crap docs on JFK and all of these are top notch.

matt72582

Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses

09-07-17

Originally Posted by Citizen Rules

Any deductions?

Citizen Rules