Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Oswald vs Castro vs KGB vs LBJ vs mob

Oswald vs Castro vs KGB vs LBJ vs mob
Thread Tools
pman68
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Western MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2003, 04:41 PM
 
With the anniversary of the assissination of JFK, there sure have been alot of specials on tv lately. ABC News had, what I thought, was a very objective and sound investigation on the assissination and the different conspiracy theories.

After watching the special, I beleive it's pretty clear that Oswald acted alone AND was the lone gunman. The other theories don't stand up to scrutiny AND don't have any evidence either.

What really surprised me about Oswald, was how much he hated capitalism, what a loner he was, what a good shot he was in the Marines (contrary to what Oliver Stone would have you believe), AND that he tried to assissinate a state official BEFORE he killed JFK.

ABC News 3D animation was also pretty convincing. As well as the testimony from Oslwald's brother. Why do conspiracy nuts turn over every rock, every possible perspective, but don't spend enough time studying Oswald himself ? Seems to me they dismissed him too quickly in all their theories.

First Roswell, now Oswald. What conspiracy theory is next to fall? Bigfoot? UFO's? Nessie? Somewhere Grissom is smiling.
     
Misanthrope
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2003, 04:44 PM
 
Heh, okay.


"Do I need to draw a diagram for you then to tell you that nerdy 16-17 year olds, fat chicks and old men turn my crank then? Will you understand it then or don't you follow still chris." - Landos Mustache
     
wataru
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2003, 05:03 PM
 
Did they discuss the "magic bullet?"

     
RooneyX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2003, 05:03 PM
 
Funny thing, verifiable too. The Oswald in the Marines was 6'1.

The Oswald who came back from Russia was 5'10 and lost much of his American accent.

Superimposed photos of young and older Oswald show his ears changed position.

Weird.
     
::maroma::
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: PDX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2003, 05:35 PM
 
You are all fools. It was me. I shot JFK.

There, I feel much better now.

Oh yeah, one more thing, I'm an alien from the planet X4823.421b. We had a bet going to see what would happen if someone took out JFK. I lost the bet.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2003, 05:41 PM
 
Next you'll be saying we didn't land on the MOON!



greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
pman68  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Western MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2003, 06:01 PM
 
Originally posted by wataru:
Did they discuss the "magic bullet?"

This diagram is INCORRECT. The position of Kennedy and Connally is not accurate. Kennedy was HIGHER and Connelly was 6" farther in the car and was turning around at the time of the fatal shot. Nothing magical about it.

Science rules.
     
CollinG3G4
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2003, 06:31 PM
 
Originally posted by ShortcutToMoncton:
Next you'll be saying we didn't land on the MOON!



greg
Check out the documentary: Dark Side of the Moon
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2003, 07:44 PM
 
There's a previous thread in the political lounge but since this stuff fascinates me I'll chime in. pman is right - Oswald's own story is fascinating enough without bringing loony conspiracy theories into it. Pathetic, but fascinating. I highly recommend Don Delillo's "Libra", a novelized depiction of his life. Much more informative than "JFK", which is thoroughly dishonest and a lousy movie to boot.

And no, there was no magic and the bullet was not pristine.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
     
Misanthrope
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2003, 07:51 PM
 
Mob was involved.

Letter which is located in the Vatican by Swiss Guard explains everything in detail. Duplicate also exists in possession of original writer.

Can't remember who wrote it.


"Do I need to draw a diagram for you then to tell you that nerdy 16-17 year olds, fat chicks and old men turn my crank then? Will you understand it then or don't you follow still chris." - Landos Mustache
     
keekeeree
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Moved from Ohio's first capital to its current capital
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2003, 08:03 PM
 
What I want to know is:



A. Where is this guy's movie?

B. Why is this the only guy ducking?
     
RooneyX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2003, 09:33 PM
 
Another man in a black suit also opened an umbrella just before the shots rang out. It was a sunny day. He closed the umbrella and disappeared when the job was done.

But I bet establishment supporters will make a ridiculous joke now to snuff out further discussion of any valid points. Such as bringing up the moon landing, alien Nazi grail hunters, etc.
     
MacsGalor
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Colorado Springs
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2003, 10:09 PM
 
Originally posted by keekeeree:
What I want to know is:



A. Where is this guy's movie?

B. Why is this the only guy ducking?
Answer to A. I don't know but I have seen it. If I remember correctly the car is behind a sign at the moment of the shot. There is a documentary I think it is called "Who Shot JFK" It is very good it talks about everything. Now just to oppose all of you guys who said it was Oswald alone, there is just too much stuff that doesn't make sense. Watch that movie because my memory is hazy but Oswald was several flights of stairs down "cool and calm" having a soda just moments after the shooting. Also The fact that the window was allowed to be open is a huge factor. The SS would not allow this type of stuff. just check out the movie cuz I can't remember everything. In my opinion there was either two of three gunmen the window the knoll and another building across the street i think it was a office building. Damn my memory stinks I think I need a few more MBs lol
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2003, 10:14 PM
 
I like Seinfeld's Magic Loogie theory myself

Mike

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2003, 10:27 PM
 
Originally posted by RooneyX:
Another man in a black suit also opened an umbrella just before the shots rang out. It was a sunny day. He closed the umbrella and disappeared when the job was done.
No, he was identified and interviewed. The black umbrella was an old political symbol representing appeasement (which Kennedy's father was accused of while serving as Ambassador to Britain), and he opened it in protest of JFK's abandonment of the Bay of Pigs operation. There's no mystery there unless you're looking for one.
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2003, 10:34 PM
 
Originally posted by MacsGalor:
Answer to A. I don't know but I have seen it. If I remember correctly the car is behind a sign at the moment of the shot. There is a documentary I think it is called "Who Shot JFK" It is very good it talks about everything. Now just to oppose all of you guys who said it was Oswald alone, there is just too much stuff that doesn't make sense. Watch that movie because my memory is hazy but Oswald was several flights of stairs down "cool and calm" having a soda just moments after the shooting. Also The fact that the window was allowed to be open is a huge factor. The SS would not allow this type of stuff. just check out the movie cuz I can't remember everything. In my opinion there was either two of three gunmen the window the knoll and another building across the street i think it was a office building. Damn my memory stinks I think I need a few more MBs lol
There were windows open with people leaning out of them all along the route - whoever told you that the Secret Service wouldn't allow it doesn't know what they're talking about. It was quite normal at that time.
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2003, 10:35 PM
 
Originally posted by starman:
I like Seinfeld's Magic Loogie theory myself

Mike
Yeah, that might be my favorite episode.
     
pman68  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Western MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2003, 10:49 PM
 
Originally posted by zigzag:
No, he was identified and interviewed. The black umbrella was an old political symbol representing appeasement (which Kennedy's father was accused of while serving as Ambassador to Britain), and he opened it in protest of JFK's abandonment of the Bay of Pigs operation. There's no mystery there unless you're looking for one.
Every time I hear of some crazy conspiracy ideas, I always remember what Carl Sagan once said, "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof."
     
RooneyX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2003, 10:59 PM
 
Originally posted by zigzag:
No, he was identified and interviewed. The black umbrella was an old political symbol representing appeasement (which Kennedy's father was accused of while serving as Ambassador to Britain), and he opened it in protest of JFK's abandonment of the Bay of Pigs operation. There's no mystery there unless you're looking for one.
First I heard. What was his name and where else cna I find out about this black umbrella movement?

What doesn't make sense to me is this. Oswald was against military action against Cuba. JFK was for dialogue after the Bay of Pigs. So why shoot JFK?

As for Mr. Umbrella Man, he seems to represent the ideas of those who would like to see JFK dead.

And Jack Ruby is your good old American President lover who also happens to be a mafia man. So he shoots Oswald because he loves the President and his country. First time I ever heard of a hood who loves politicians and the fellow countrymen he swindles day by day.
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2003, 11:19 PM
 
Originally posted by RooneyX:
First I heard. What was his name and where else cna I find out about this black umbrella movement?

What doesn't make sense to me is this. Oswald was against military action against Cuba. JFK was for dialogue after the Bay of Pigs. So why shoot JFK?

As for Mr. Umbrella Man, he seems to represent the ideas of those who would like to see JFK dead.

And Jack Ruby is your good old American President lover who also happens to be a mafia man. So he shoots Oswald because he loves the President and his country. First time I ever heard of a hood who loves politicians and the fellow countrymen he swindles day by day.
The link above answers most questions, including details of the Umbrella Man.

What people never stop to ask is: if the Umbrella Man was part of some conspiracy, what was his purpose? Did he have a rifle hidden in his umbrella? No. Was he a signal man? Why would sharpshooters need a man in an umbrella to tell them when to fire? It's absurd. It's fun to speculate about these things but they don't stand up to scrutiny. People second-guess the Warren Report but readily accept everything that conspiracy theorists tell them.

Oswald and Ruby were both mentally unbalanced losers who longed for notoriety. No professional assassins in their right minds would want to associate with them.

History is full of losers who shoot famous people for odd reasons. Squeaky Fromme, John Hinckley, etc. Oswald was no different.
     
RooneyX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2003, 11:31 PM
 
I can understand Ruby and Oswald were unbalanced, if that's what people say about them. I also know many selfish politicians and businessmen are also mentally unbalanced.

As for a signal man, one is necassary to first tell several shooters when they are all in the right position to begin shooting, and also when the job is done.

That is of course if Oswald wasn't a lone gunman. People can conclude yes or no but the actual truth will never be decided upon. It's like trying to point at the right Jack the Ripper suspect. What if the Whitechapel victims were killed by several murderers? Likewise, what if several people with different motives and unconnected took pot shots at JFK?
     
pman68  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Western MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2003, 11:49 PM
 
Originally posted by RooneyX:
That is of course if Oswald wasn't a lone gunman. People can conclude yes or no but the actual truth will never be decided upon. It's like trying to point at the right Jack the Ripper suspect. What if the Whitechapel victims were killed by several murderers? Likewise, what if several people with different motives and unconnected took pot shots at JFK?
But if you examine the EVIDENCE, you CAN conclude who killed JFK, you can find the "actual" truth. Dude, ever watch CSI?
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2003, 12:19 AM
 
The problem is that most people, myself included, start out by reading/watching the conspiracy stuff and never bother to read the Warren Report, so they assume from the start that the conspiracy stuff is credible and the Warren Report isn't. But if you actually read the Warren Report you see that there's a massive amount of evidence that Oswald shot JFK and acted alone. Same for Ruby. Films, photographs, physical evidence, circumstantial evidence, eyewitnesses, etc. Massive. The Warren Report was flawed but its basic conclusions have been corroborated time and time again. On the other hand, after 40 years, there is still zero proof that Oswald or Ruby were part of a conspiracy - there are only theories, most of which contradict each other. I understand the temptation to believe them, but they don't hold up to scrutiny.

It's like the O.J. case, only magnified a million times. If you take a bit of evidence from here and there, add a bit of speculation/distortion, and ignore the other 99% of the evidence, you can create doubt. That's what most of the conspiracy theorists do. In many cases they simply fabricate stuff, as Oliver Stone did. There's money and notoriety in it.

It's fun to speculate about assassination plots but the sad fact is that JFK was shot by a nutcase.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2003, 12:24 AM
 
Originally posted by CollinG3G4:
Check out the documentary: Dark Side of the Moon
Good God. Don't make me start on that piece of shi� they called a documentary.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
RooneyX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2003, 12:59 PM
 
I think in JFKs stuff there's no such thing as non-conspiracy material. Even the Warren Report is a conspiracy theory, just on the other end of the scale.

Both ends of the scale ignore and manipulate evidence, make errors, and lead the reader to believe its version.
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2003, 02:14 PM
 
Originally posted by RooneyX:
I think in JFKs stuff there's no such thing as non-conspiracy material. Even the Warren Report is a conspiracy theory, just on the other end of the scale.

Both ends of the scale ignore and manipulate evidence, make errors, and lead the reader to believe its version.
We can never know everything, but I think you have to consider the weight of the evidence, as you would in a trial. The weight of the evidence supporting Oswald-as-lone-assassin is huge, massive. The weight of the evidence supporting a conspiracy is negligible and in most cases purely conjectural. No one has ever come close to actually proving a conspiracy. Half the people spouting them are bigger nutcases than Oswald himself (e.g. the self-proclaimed Oswald "mistress").

Anyway, I don't expect to convince anyone. I can only say that after 40 years of following the case and getting wrapped up in the conspiracy theories, I've come to the conclusion that the Warren Commission was 99% right. But it's fun to contemplate the alternatives.
     
CollinG3G4
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2003, 02:24 PM
 
Originally posted by ShortcutToMoncton:
Good God. Don't make me start on that piece of shi� they called a documentary.

greg
I believe it was ment to be a joke.

I found it hilarious.
     
Twilly Spree
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2003, 02:38 PM
 
Originally posted by pman68:
Every time I hear of some crazy conspiracy ideas, I always remember what Carl Sagan once said, "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof."
"The skeptics' line, "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof," is justifiable on probabilistic grounds, but the difficulty of determining a priori probabilities is a serious drawback. This may prevent communication with non-skeptics unless they are willing to adopt our strict standards so as to achieve general acceptance. A strict but not "extraordinary" standard of ordinary good science and replicability is risky because most skeptics would not actually believe typical paranormal claims if evidence at that level were provided."

Ed J. Gracely, Ph.D.
     
RooneyX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2003, 03:55 PM
 
Originally posted by zigzag:
We can never know everything, but I think you have to consider the weight of the evidence, as you would in a trial. The weight of the evidence supporting Oswald-as-lone-assassin is huge, massive. The weight of the evidence supporting a conspiracy is negligible and in most cases purely conjectural. No one has ever come close to actually proving a conspiracy. Half the people spouting them are bigger nutcases than Oswald himself (e.g. the self-proclaimed Oswald "mistress").

Anyway, I don't expect to convince anyone. I can only say that after 40 years of following the case and getting wrapped up in the conspiracy theories, I've come to the conclusion that the Warren Commission was 99% right. But it's fun to contemplate the alternatives.
The weight is against Oswald and no doubt with his famous 'patsy' line and connections he knew what was going on. He was most probably part of a multilateral conspiracy in which most people involved didn't know the full story themselves. There are many dubious events prior to and after JFK's death which will never appease people. Oswald's arrest in a theater by dozens of cops just because he didn't pay for a ticket, witness statements, Oswald's life story appearing in papers across the world within hours as if everything had already been researched and concluded, Oswald not having any beef with JFK's policies at the time of the killing, the lack of proper security in Dealy Plaza, Nixon flying out of Dallas prior to it, JFK's own enemies on the Warren Commission, etc.

Controversial figures court controversy and accumulate enemies. This applies to almost everyone surrounding the case.

You also state nobody has come close to proving a conspiracy. Garrison's jury concluded that there was a probable conspiracy but couldn't say who or why. An independent commision set up by the senate in 79 also concluded a conspiracy but again didn't know who or why, although they did finger Oswald as being part of it.
     
Twilly Spree
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2003, 04:03 PM
 
Why did LHO deny killing JFK if he killed for the glory?

There was a conspiracy to kill JFK.
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2003, 06:17 PM
 
Originally posted by RooneyX:
The weight is against Oswald and no doubt with his famous 'patsy' line and connections he knew what was going on. He was most probably part of a multilateral conspiracy in which most people involved didn't know the full story themselves. There are many dubious events prior to and after JFK's death which will never appease people. Oswald's arrest in a theater by dozens of cops just because he didn't pay for a ticket, witness statements, Oswald's life story appearing in papers across the world within hours as if everything had already been researched and concluded, Oswald not having any beef with JFK's policies at the time of the killing, the lack of proper security in Dealy Plaza, Nixon flying out of Dallas prior to it, JFK's own enemies on the Warren Commission, etc.

You also state nobody has come close to proving a conspiracy. Garrison's jury concluded that there was a probable conspiracy but couldn't say who or why. An independent commision set up by the senate in 79 also concluded a conspiracy but again didn't know who or why, although they did finger Oswald as being part of it.
Every one of your points has an explanation but I'll address one for the fun of it: Oswald shot a cop and ran off on foot. The entire town was looking for both a presidential assassin and a cop-killer of his general description. When he ditched into a nearby theater without paying he naturally raised suspicions and they followed up on it. This sort of thing happens every day in police work and I fail to see what's unusual about it unless you're bent on seeing a conspiracy where there is none. Unless of course you think the theater clerk was in on it, which he would have to be.

If the Garrison jury (which took all of 15 minutes to acquit Shaw - enough time to go to the bathroom, pick a foreperson, and call the bailiff) said they thought there was a conspiracy but couldn't say who or why, and the '79 commission (which based its statement on an audio tape that has been completely discredited) also couldn't say who or why, then my statement is correct: No one has come close to proving a conspiracy. Speculating is not proving.

It's amazing how some of the same people who think the government is hopelessly incompetent also think that various governmental agents/agencies (local cops, Secret Service, FBI, CIA, Warren Commission, Nixon, Johnson, etc.), most of which despise each other and never cooperate on anything, plus the doctors and the theater clerk, are capable of pulling off a vast conspiracy to shoot a President in broad daylight, have a vast amount of evidence fudged within a matter of hours, and keep it all concealed for 40 years. The same people think that Oswald, a confirmed nut and pathological liar who had just been arrested for shooting a President and a cop, should be taken at his word!

This makes me rethink the O.J. case - after all, he said he was 100% not guilty (although if I were him, I would've said I was 120% not guilty!).
     
residentEvil
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2003, 06:21 PM
 
as a nut of all this, i read/watch a lot. i'll refrain from my opinions here.

however, i offer up this. a few years back, probably right around the 30th anniversary, i was reading one of my many mags and in the back, had video that shows, without a doubt, who shot JFK. $29.95.

sure, why not. i know it was a joke, but i wanted to see what they wre selling. be it a pr0n video or whatever.

well, it contained a 13 second movie, or so, of the assasanation...

funniest thing i ever saw!!! it was a pretty well done movie editing, probably from a student...showing how the 3 stooges shot JFK. i still have it. the only video tape i still own, and the reason i still have a vcr, just for the tape.

set asside what really happend, the video rocks!
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2003, 06:23 PM
 
Wow, I'd like to see that one.
     
residentEvil
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2003, 06:29 PM
 
i put manything into quicktime, when i had my performa 6400, but you know...never did the video tape.

i did a bunch of camcorder stuff.

i have a powerbook and 17" i mac. guess i could get one of those formac things and get it converted

but yeah, it is funny. even my parents find it funny whom this event was something that was important in their life. people my age (30s) and younger just don't understand how this event effected the entire US.
     
RooneyX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2003, 07:42 PM
 
Originally posted by zigzag:
[B]Every one of your points has an explanation but I'll address one for the fun of it: Oswald shot a cop and ran off on foot. The entire town was looking for both a presidential assassin and a cop-killer of his general description. When he ditched into a nearby theater without paying he naturally raised suspicions and they followed up on it. This sort of thing happens every day in police work and I fail to see what's unusual about it unless you're bent on seeing a conspiracy where there is none. Unless of course you think the theater clerk was in on it, which he would have to be.
]
Again, you make the same excuses and scratch at the surface while ignoring witness statements. This is why there are so many conspiracy theorists and theories, because people like you discredit through sleight of hand rather than a thorough explanation (using words like 'You're more crazy than Oswald if you think there was a conspiracy' is not seen as anything but intimidation to silence those who ask questions).

The guy who shot the police officer. Two witnesses, both don't describe Oswald. One saw two people run from the shooting.

The police officer was shot several miles way from the theater.

Oswald went to a theater, calmly walked in without paying, sat down and watched the movie. In this situation the employees chuck people out of the theater, even asking members of the public to help if necassary. Nothing indicated this man in the the theater had killed a cop a few miles away. The police should have been combing the scene and area where the crime took place but instead they all went after some guy who didn't pay a theater ticket. That's bizarre.

Also, you dodged the articles that popped up about Oswald in newspapers thousands of miles away within hours. They didn't have Email or the internet in those days. But within hours they've got photos and bios which implicate Oswald as the killer even before he's been interviewed. Bizarre.

Just things like that don't make sense no matter how you try to rationalize them. And they are always thoroughly trounced and evaded when the non-skeptic rightwing apologist types answer them.
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2003, 08:06 PM
 
Originally posted by RooneyX:
Again, you make the same excuses and scratch at the surface while ignoring witness statements. This is why there are so many conspiracy theorists and theories, because people like you discredit through sleight of hand rather than a thorough explanation (using words like 'You're more crazy than Oswald if you think there was a conspiracy' is not seen as anything but intimidation to silence those who ask questions).

The guy who shot the police officer. Two witnesses, both don't describe Oswald. One saw two people run from the shooting.

The police officer was shot several miles way from the theater . . .
We're going in circles, which people have been doing for 40 years, so that's not surprising. Believe what you like.

By the way, the theater was less than half a mile from the Tippitt murder. About 6 blocks.
     
RooneyX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2003, 09:07 PM
 
Originally posted by zigzag:

By the way, the theater was less than half a mile from the Tippitt murder. About 6 blocks.
It was in the opposite direction from Oswald's residence to the theater. So within half an hour he's doing a lot of zigzagging and is already the JFK assassin.

Still, you've done the same mistake again. If you're going to counter argue then answer all points. Is that the way a non ticket payer should be arrested when there is nothing to suggest he was the one who shot a cop or the president?
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2003, 10:27 PM
 
Originally posted by RooneyX:
It was in the opposite direction from Oswald's residence to the theater. So within half an hour he's doing a lot of zigzagging and is already the JFK assassin.
The point is that your factual premises are faulty, which is true of most of the conspiracy theories. The theater was not "miles away" from the Tippitt murder.

If I had just killed a President and a cop, I'd be doing a lot of zigzagging myself. I even adopted it as my screen name. Dang - you caught me.

Still, you've done the same mistake again. If you're going to counter argue then answer all points. Is that the way a non ticket payer should be arrested when there is nothing to suggest he was the one who shot a cop or the president?
You keep saying "nothing to suggest." A cop looking for an assassin of Oswald's general description had just been shot by a man of Oswald's general description, who ran off. Blocks away, a man of Oswald's general description snuck into a dark theater, in broad daylight. Someone put 2 and 2 together and called the cops. Turned out to be the guy. End of story, unless you think (a) the witnesses were in on the conspiracy, (b) the cops were also in on the conspiracy and planted a gun that just happened to match the gun that killed Tippitt a short time earlier, and (c) the cops didn't really care about finding Tippitt's real killer. That would be a far more remarkable and unlikely thing than a successful manhunt.

I realize I'm not persuading you of anything, but that's OK. Have fun.
     
RooneyX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2003, 11:10 PM
 
"man of Oswald's general description snuck into a dark theater"

You have a record of the theater manager saying a man of Oswald's appearance entered without paying? First I heard of it. Nobody has mentioned this before.

You also ignored the witnesses who saw Tippet's killer and said it wasn't Oswald. Please, don't ignore and slim in a debate.

I'm also not persuaded of anything. I just don't like it when people pick and choose evidence for their argument whichever conclusion they come to - lone killer or multilateral conspiracy.
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2003, 11:59 PM
 
Originally posted by RooneyX:
"man of Oswald's general description snuck into a dark theater"

You have a record of the theater manager saying a man of Oswald's appearance entered without paying? First I heard of it. Nobody has mentioned this before.

You also ignored the witnesses who saw Tippet's killer and said it wasn't Oswald. Please, don't ignore and slim in a debate.

I'm also not persuaded of anything. I just don't like it when people pick and choose evidence for their argument whichever conclusion they come to - lone killer or multilateral conspiracy.
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100theatre.html
     
RooneyX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2003, 08:20 AM
 
Suppose Oswald was supposed to take the blame from the start, it was his job, that he shot Tippet to raise attention to himself (otherwise why bother?) and then went to the theater where he wasn't supposed to pay for a ticket to raise even more eyebrows? He was the patsy, right?
     
Thilo Ettelt
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: City of Beck's beer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2003, 10:34 AM
 
Originally posted by pman68:
With the anniversary of the assissination of JFK, there sure have been alot of specials on tv lately. ABC News had, what I thought, was a very objective and sound investigation on the assissination and the different conspiracy theories.

After watching the special, I beleive it's pretty clear that Oswald acted alone AND was the lone gunman. The other theories don't stand up to scrutiny AND don't have any evidence either.

What really surprised me about Oswald, was how much he hated capitalism, what a loner he was, what a good shot he was in the Marines (contrary to what Oliver Stone would have you believe), AND that he tried to assissinate a state official BEFORE he killed JFK.

ABC News 3D animation was also pretty convincing. As well as the testimony from Oslwald's brother. Why do conspiracy nuts turn over every rock, every possible perspective, but don't spend enough time studying Oswald himself ? Seems to me they dismissed him too quickly in all their theories.

First Roswell, now Oswald. What conspiracy theory is next to fall? Bigfoot? UFO's? Nessie? Somewhere Grissom is smiling.
How do you explain the shot from the front?


- Thilo
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2003, 02:04 PM
 
Like with every murder the JFK assasination was committed by a person or group of persons that had something essential to gain by it. It is a question of values of course.

Everything has a price in politics. Political assassinations are nothing new. What would be special (but not unique) to the JFK murder is if ONE person planned and executed the act. C�sar was murdered in a conspiracy, Lincoln may have been, there was a plot to kill Hitler, Martin Luther King and Yitzhak Rabin were all killed in a conspiracy or had a plot made against their lives by a group of people (Adolf made it though).

The one murder of a political leader that I know of that was in fact probably thought out and executed by a single person is the assassination of president McKinley

The Warren commission pushed for a McKinley-esque situation. Unfortunately the JFK assassination has little in common with the McKinley assassination. I am convinced that more than one person was behind the JFK assassination. Occam's razor and all that. It is the simplest explanation. Far too many silly things would have had to fall in place for Oswald to have acted alone.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
funkboy
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: North Dakota, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2003, 02:07 PM
 
Originally posted by pman68:
After watching the special, I beleive it's pretty clear that Oswald acted alone AND was the lone gunman. The other theories don't stand up to scrutiny AND don't have any evidence either.
I also caught some of that special, along with the 3D animation - pretty darn interesting.

However, are there not reports from the government that have still not been released because they would effect people who are either still alive or who are still extremely close to the assassination? I forget the name of this report, but I do remember hearing it was supposed to be released around the year 2000, but they pushed back the date further.

Has anyone else heard of this report that the government is not releasing yet, and probably will not for even another 50 years?
     
funkboy
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: North Dakota, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2003, 02:11 PM
 
And by the way, this would be a new thread, but when was Roswell proved to be false? The government issued another story about how it was a weather balloon a couple years ago... but they've changed their story a few times now. Mainly just right around the time of the crash - and there are photos of some weird things left behind by that crash.
     
snct
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Midwest USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2003, 08:06 PM
 
Originally posted by funkboy:
I also caught some of that special, along with the 3D animation - pretty darn interesting.

...
Does anyone have a copy of the 3D animation? It's not freely available on the news site.
--Steve
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2003, 08:20 PM
 
Originally posted by snct:
Does anyone have a copy of the 3D animation? It's not freely available on the news site.
No, but you can buy a copy of the 2-hour special here:

http://www.abcnewsstore.com/store/in...gory_code=HOME

Easily the best broadcast analysis I've seen on the issue along with PBS Frontline's "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?"
     
xi_hyperon
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Behind the dryer, looking for a matching sock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2003, 10:23 AM
 
Originally posted by starman:
I like Seinfeld's Magic Loogie theory myself

Mike
Yes, BUT- what is interesting is that this man



was central to both the loogie theory presentation AND the magic bullet presentation in JFK.

Coincidence? Hmm? I don't think so.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:56 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,