Begins? That has been a major point for the majority of conspiracies since this whole nonsense began.
Why do you quote me about what Oswald said and then bring up a separate issue? This is another reason why I won’t go into a debate about this on this board. I showed why Oswald didn’t fit the profile of a fame seeking assassin, and you go off into something else, using my quote. This is only confusing things.
Posner’s book: Won’t go into it very much, but, I will just say to read Rush to Judgement, then read Case Closed. At that point, it would seem that Posner’s book is dispositive. Then, read Rush to Judgment again. You will see that Posner just wrote a paean to the Warren Report (800 page version), and that very little was ‘solved’.
Oswald missed Walker, a stationary target, at a closer range, ‘with the same rifle’. You will see that Walker wasn’t hit by the bullet, proper, but, by shrapnel, by the bullet hitting the window/sill/ledge. Pretty crap shooting for a marksman/sharpshooter/whatever.
And on and on. As I say, if you are looking for a serious debate, this is the wrong place. One would need a forum where there are penalties for derailing the topic. People resort to this kind of childish, yet effective, behavior because they are too invested in their belief that the government to which they give their young to fight and die, and pay their taxes, and whose flag that they salute, and get teary eyed over, would not cover up something of such great import. They are too invested to allow dissenting opinions.
Where is the ‘shakes head’ smilie?
I’m more than happy to debate it. Just need a suitable forum. If you can think of one, en garde!
You think I’m angry; I’m not. Disgusted? Probably the best description.
You mischaracterize what I write. I was pointing out flaws in the WC lovers’ arguments, not making an apology for CTers. I brought up some points. Most of the information is in the public domain, and quite well documented in the general conspiracy colloquy, either for or against. It would be a waste of my time to look up anything, and give a cite-when the witty ones start their games, all attempts at seriousness are rendered inert. Again, if you have read any of the threads on the subject, including this one, you will find that it doesn’t take long for it to turn into a gallery of would be Woody Allens bringing any serious discussion to ruin.
The ‘tepid shithole’ isn’t the debate, it is the macadams site. “I’m not going to look it up” means “I’m not going to look it up again”, to give a citation, not that I haven’t read anything that conflicts with my belief.
And, btw, it isn’t a worldview. It is my interpretation of the facts of the JFK assassination, nothing more.
This debate, as you will perhaps note, is not going to give anybody a *new *worldview, and any of the old “alternative” ones fail to impress me.
Listen, like everybody else, I would like to be the big noise, who brings the CTers and their house of cards to ruin, with a loud and scornful voice; let everybody marvel at my laser-like reasoning facilities, and let everybody know that I, too, am one of the cognoscenti, who can bring 50 years of CT to ruin. But, there is too much dissonance in the Accepted Version and their haughty, brutal and misleading rebuttals to conspiracy evidences to not give the information a second, and critical, look.
Once again, harry, you spend quite a few words saying nothing beyond “I believe what I believe, so there.”
I can’t think of a single JFK-related post where you gave a solid piece of evidence or pointed to one; your entire argument boils down to “<vague claim>” <handwave> “It’s out there somewhere if you’re not too lazy (or stupid) to look for it.”
At best, you’ll throw in a “I argued that a long time ago and I’m not going to waste my time arguing it again here.”
But then, I’d expect little else from someone who believes:
…because there isn’t, except among the crowd that dismisses the official investigation out of hand and goes on to construct fantasy solutions that have no foundation, no sense and no purpose.
I wish you weren’t so worried about people making jokes. I am interested in a debate with you on this topic, and I assure you that I will respond sincerely to whatever you want to discuss. Lay it on me…
Why is the Macadams site a ‘tepid shithole’? I’ve found it interesting, but I am open to being educated on its flaws. Please elaborate.
I take you at your word that you have analyzed the issue and considered views contrary to your own. Why don’t you explain the flaws in those contrarian arguments.
This is an interesting take on the whole thing, since (in my experience) it is those who believe in a conspiracy who take pride in “knowing” things that the general masses (“sheeple”) don’t see or comprehend. I find that most people who tout a conspiracy believe that they are the ones who are bringing 50 years of conventional wisdom to ruin. To the contrary, its the rest of us (i.e. those who have come to accept that Oswald killed JFK all by himself) who have had to accept that there is no “there” there, and that this is as mundane a murder as a presidential assassination can ever be.
As best as I can tell, this is the only thing of “substance” that you have raised in this debate. So I understand correctly, are you in agreement that Oswald did attempt to shoot Walker?
His shooting proficiency, by the way, was originally at the level of sharpshooter, then reduced to marksmen, per Marine Corps standards (“whatever” is not a classification :D). Neither is at the top of the possible rankings, and neither suggests that he was some sort of expert; rather, he was a competent shooter while in the military.
The murder doesn’t require him to be an expert, though. Remember that he needed 3 shots to successfully kill Kennedy, despite having a direct line of fire, from a raised position at close range. It doesn’t suggest amazing prowess with a rifle, and is consistent with his inability to kill Walker with just one shot.
I hope that you understand that this does not constitute any additional argument.
You’ve constructed an opposition that doesn’t necessarily exist. I am hardly a teary eyed patriot. MKULTRA, Cointelpro, Operation Paperclip, Operation Ajax, Tuskegee Syphilis experiments…I am well aware of lots of examples of US malfeasance, and I have no particular love for my government.
In fact, my first exposure to the Kennedy assassination (the move JFK) had me convinced of a conspiracy. If you had spoken to me about the case 20 years ago, I would have regaled you with my convictions of government involvement. But, my interest in the details of the case led me to continue reading and reviewing evidence, which led to the inevitable conclusion that Oswald acted alone - it’s the only way to account for the evidence.
Conspiracy theorists pick apart little details here and there, but nobody can come up with a comprehensive conspiracy theory that accounts for all of the known facts, doesn’t ignore or twist important details, and comports with reason. It doesn’t take jingoistic myopia to conclude that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, and did so without anybody’s help.
I have read Posner’s book, Bugliosi’s book, and a handful of conspiracy books. Posner’s was clearly the best and was actually very critical of the Warren Report and pointed out many errors. Bugliosli’s was good but I’m not a fan of his writing style.
On Walker, you concede that not only did Oswald shoot at Walker, but that the bullet struck the window ledge. This is most likely why the bullet only went through Walker’s hair. And Oslwald took only one shot at Walker. He fired three at JFK, missing his head twice. So that argument doesn’t work.
I don’t think my responses to you were “childish” in any way. I’m trying to keep this civil and you’re the one who is getting whiney.
Personally, I prefer Gerald Posner’s 20-something year old book Case Closed on this topic (granted, it’s the only one I’ve ever read about the J.F.K. assassination). If you haven’t read it, basically Mr. Posner put information out about L.H.O. - what his interests were, what his life was like leading up to the assassination of the President - and comes to the conclusion that the killing of President Kennedy was the work of Lee Harvery Oswald, and Lee Harvey Oswald, alone. Plenty of people apparently don’t believe that, but that’s the reality that I prefer to cling to in this case.
Was there any realistic chance of Oswald escaping? Because if the assassination was a suicide mission anyway, did the 1960s secret service have a way to prevent assassins with bomb vests? I’m wondering if the favored middle eastern form of attack might actually be a sound, effective strategy.
In the Zapruder film, weren’t many of the crowd members within the kill radius of a bomb vest, near Kennedy’s open topped car?
Within Vincent Bugliosi’s [DEL]doorstop[/DEL] book Reclaiming History is a (roughly)200 page biography of Lee Harvey Oswald. Reading it reveals lots of interesting information about his life, from childhood until death, which reflects that his murder of JFK was not particularly shocking or unexpected. He had a difficult childhood (i.e. no father and a distant mother who frequently tried to peddle him off to others; he moved an inordinate amount of times; he was a truant who usually skipped school while in New York), has a history with rash, violent actions (i.e. he avoided an unwanted transfer during his time in the military by shooting himself to create an injury; he avoided deportation from the USSR by slitting his wrists; spousal abuse sufficiently bad that his wife wasn’t living with him), and he was preoccupied with revolutionary or dramatic acts (i.e. becoming a communist during the height of the cold war, who then defected to the Soviet Union; trying to defect to Cuba; trying to kill General Walker).
I have often thought that this lengthy portion of the book should be optioned into a screenplay. Call it “Oswald” and let it serve as the antidote to the movie “JFK.” After watching a 2 hour depiction of Oswald’s craziness, the murder of Kennedy is sort of a natural conclusion to his existence, and one is hard pressed to believe that he wasn’t a psycho/socio path who had no qualms about shooting the President.
Rush to Judgment, on the other hand, is a farce. I’ve been looking up information online, and it is apparent that its author, Mark Lane, is a charlatan. He’s been a profiteer off the President’s death since the mid 1960’s.
No wonder why Handsomeharry doesn’t want to give specifics, since Lane’s theories are discredited and based on inaccuracies and fabrications. Tell me, Harry, what part of the Rush to Judgment impressed you the most? Was it the “magic bullet theory”, which is predicated on an incorrect seating position of the victims? Is it the “back and to the left” movement of JFK’s head, which is a) not entirely accurate (since it first moved forward) and b) consistent with a shot from the rear? Or is it the cherry-picked witness testimony (which reflects Lane’s dishonesty, as well as his preconceived motive to sow doubt)? Or the “mysterious” tramps (since identified and interviewed) who Lane believes to be CIA men like Howard Hunt?
Please, Harry, do tell. I won’t go all Woody Allen on you. I promise.
And I’ll see you and raise you: harry, post one verifiable fact of any consequence that is at odds with the consensus/Warren Commission conclusions. One fact that contradicts any meaningful part of that conclusion, or seriously grounds an alternative theory.
You’ve got one, right? Just one?
And note that he also whines about MacAdams website, which is notable for multiple pages devoted to debunking Lane and showing where he outright lied and distorted facts and quotes. This is a tactic I’ve noticed from many JFK buffs - they want to void the MacAdams website from the get-go so that they can say that nothing else debunks their hero (despite Bugliosi utterly destroying him in RH).
Sorry HH, but the Internet Intellectual Death Penalty is sparsely applied, and usually reserved for sites such as whale.to and the like. You don’t get to declare it.
Bumping this thread so it remains apparent that Handsome Harry has chosen to run away rather than continue his participation, as he is apparently wont to do.
Harry was asked for just one fact which he believes is at odds with the official story of JFK’s death
Harry’s response has been to completely ignore the thread, hoping it goes away.
This is not the first time he’s done this, either. He pulled the same stunt here on Amateur Barbarian where he also ran away from the debate rather than respond to a direct call to substantiate his position.
It wouldn’t bother me so much, but he has no qualms about stating his belief in a conspiracy. If you don’t want to discuss the topic, then why bring it up?
Or, to quote a wise poster
I don’t see how you cannot understand that the entire point of my post in re: the ‘jokes’ isn’t an objection to jokes-it is the fact that the topics get derailed.
Even that could be forgiven, if not for the fact that the ‘jokes’ are all overused, and, you can often smell the posters that have no idea of any of the facts of the issue, but, they just want to make a noise.
I just checked out that thread…you have mischaracterized my participation in it. Unless I missed something, I answered anything that I, myself posited.
Also, of course, I hope you realize that I can’t be baited by your puny attempts “…ignore the thread, hoping it goes away”. Lame, and sophomoric.
Try again.
But, be adult and stop mischaracterizing what I am about.
I hope you understand that “and on and on” is not in any way meant to be an ‘additional argument’. What on earth makes you think that anybody, even me, would use it as an evidence for anything? There is some serious misthinkage* going on here, and, it isn’t by a CTer. I suspect that you are either deliberately mischaracterizing me, again, or, have a pre-determined pattern that inhibits your reasoning processes.
*(I think I just invented that word, and, I’m rather proud of same.)
Are you and Moriarty in a conspiracy to mischaracterize me??
A. I don’t <handwave>.
B. I never say …“If you’re not too lazy (or stupid)…” This one is totally barbaric, and you should apologize for intimating that I would even imply same. (Not that I wouldn’t insult anybody; just, not in that context.)
But, again: I’m not going to be baited on the subject. I’ll give you all a sample , tho. Since you are so busy looking up my posting history, find the one where somebody started derailing the post where I referenced Mark Lane. Somebody brought in some obscure statement, which I later found, IIRC, was incomplete, and giving a false sense of what had transpired. I tried to reason with him, but, he kept carping on about it. De-railing my point. That type of behavior, in toto, is why I won’t go into the Conspiracy, again, in this forum.
A site with a name like “Washington Decoded” fills me with confidence.
Your calling Lane a profiteer does not constitute an argument. It is ad hominem. (Sorry, AB!) Worse than that, it is irrelevant.
You, uh, still haven’t responded with the “one fact which he believes is at odds with the official story of JFK’s death” that was requested about a week ago. 