Tell it to our resident expert on extraterrestrial politics.
Glad you jumped in to save Czarcasm from the consequences of his own crapulence.
proudfootz, I’m not sure why you persist in ignoring the combined eyewitness testimonies of Clara Oswald, Petronella Osgood, and Kate Stewart (whose credentials ought not be in question. given her background and clearances).
Obviously, you are free to believe whatever you like.
There wasn’t really anything special about Dallas.
The Chicago plot was eerily similar to the scenario we are taught about Dallas.
As for this ‘direct evidence’ you are talking about - do you really think that in order for someone to have fired a gun from any particular spot and get away they’d have to leave something for you? You’ll be lucky if there are footprints and some cigarette butts.
If it was ‘obvious’ that Oswald was the lone nut who shot the President everyone would agree about that, too.
That’s interesting you find it bizarre. There’s really nothing wrong when a person honestly doesn’t know something to forthrightly admit they don’t know.
Not in my case. It’s bizarre that you jump to that conclusion instead of a reasonable one.
I really don’t know where this is coming from - I’m presenting a few facts to a community of people who seem bound and determined to cling to their fringe beliefs.
My arguments are all reality based. If you think otherwise, you are sadly misinformed - or worse - disinformed.
How could I ‘discredit’ a cause in the eyes of a mob that would rather believe in aliens fighting a secret war on Earth rather than accept the possibility that a political murder could happen in the US?
Reality doesn’t stand a chance with you guys.
So you have nothing, then. Beatrice Carroll it is.
I’m not a mob. I’m the only one here who is actually speaking sense. Why are you dodging and weaving to avoid facing the facts?
Might I ask then why you keep bringing up the single element of the HSCA that has been thoroughly discredited while ignored the elements of that very same report that demolish your entire argument?
To repeat:
The very source you claim backs you up undermines, contradicts, and falsifies every single important part of your argument. Yet you ignore this entirely. What conceivable reason can you give for this?
I read that article years ago. Just the picture alone tells you that gun is the one that blew his head off. As far as the article, it is pure garbage the minute he says that it couldn’t happen because it would be a 1 in a million shot. That’s what he’s going with?
I mean when you lead off with the reason of: Accidents don’t get any freakier. Think about it. A stationary marksman aiming a rifle misses with his first shot, but a federal agent in a lurching car just happens to fire at the perfect up-down, left-right angle to hit Kennedy in the head? The writer right there pretty much lose all credibility. I could dig up tons of freakier accidents. Here’s oneand I can find a ton of others via a google search. The fact is it could happen so that reason is not a reason at all.
Then this horrible excuse of a reason: No one claimed to see Hickey discharge his weapon directly at the president. Of course they didn’t, because they are not looking at that car. Add in the fact that the picture in that article clearly shows him holding the AR-15 in plain view means he had the weapon out in plain sight.
The grassy knoll is nothing. Zero.
This one is just beyond stupid and recent events of the FBI clearly show govt agencies will cover up anything: *Hickey’s car had two administration officials inside, and seven other Secret Service agents aboard, counting four on the running boards, while at least two Dallas motorcycle cops rode alongside. Behind them were more cars full of agents and officials. Yet no one was sure that Hickey’s AR-15 was fired in Dealey Plaza? * What a laugher of a weak argument. They all work for the same people, they are all in on covering up the blunder simply because at that time in our history to show that much incompetence would be a really bad idea. People actually think one of those guys would say, ‘oh, oops, it was our guy that stumbled & blew apart the presidents head’??? Heck no the wouldn’t and people near by did hear the gunshots (Oswalds and the single AR-15 shot). Do you remember the secret service busted in Colombia? Denial until busted.
It’s easy to destroy that guy’s article.
I’ve shot one so I know how loud they are. Seeing how no average citizen had ever heard of an AR-15 at that time in history or knew the decibel level, you are not going to get a witness saying ‘man that one gunshot was so much louder than the others, may have been a different gun…even maybe an AR-15.’
This is what gets so dull after a short time in these discussions. There’s little, if any, evidence offered, and the evidence that is offered has usually been debunked.
Then the argument comes down to the Monty Python argument sketch. It becomes pointless.
In my asking about any sort of paper trail, or evidence leading back to the conspirators, be they the Mafia, the Cubans, LBJ, the Russians, or whoever, I’m talking about evidence like Watergate, which I mentioned, and like the Apalachin Meeting of the Mafia in 1957.
My point in bringing that particular meeting up is the fact that the existence of the Mafia had been denied for decades, even though it was real. But because of that meeting (and Joe Valachi’s testimony a few years later), it could no longer be denied. The same should happen if Kennedy were killed via conspiracy, even after all these years.
The bottom line is there is a mountain of evidence pointing to Oswald as the lone gunman, but no credible evidence pointing to any conspiracy. And if there is evidence of a conspiracy, then it should be brought forth, and justice should prevail. But since no one has convinced any DA (edit: Besides Jim Garrison, but he was, let’s be polite–out of order on the matter) or other member or agency of law enforcement that any credible evidence exists, it doesn’t seem as though there is any.
Just how was JFK trying to end the Cold War when he was in the process of escalating Vietnam?
Also, are you aware that Jean Hill was lying and not regarded as a reliable witness by any credible researcher?
Actually, all I have is the facts and reasoned arguments.
While on you side you have a discredited theory that is less popular than Donald Trump.
When are you planning on presenting them?
I’m sorry, but you are mistaken in your belief that the dictabelt findings have been discredited, thoroughly or otherwise. I already provided a link which shows the ‘debunking’ is mere handwaving sophistry.
None of that was in the source I cited. Why do you insist on misrepresenting my argument? Not up to an honest debate?
Rather than engage is this Gish Gallop laundry list of claims, why not try and follow the discussion in a reasoned manner? Or would that be a threat to your peace of mind?
Yes, it does get dull when people such as yourself makes these vague claims about something having been debunked somewhere, some time, by someone.
Yes, there you are, limbless and impotent, shouting about how yours is the majority opinion that doesn’t need defending.
Ask away. Ask for the moon while you’re at it.
You really think I have the power to conduct a raid on CIA headquarters and seize documents? LOL! You have been living under this rock a bit too long.
Good example - the Mafia did exist even before the Apalachin raid or Valachi did his thing. Yet like Hoover, it seems to suit you to live in denial.
Like I said - simple denialism. So predictable and boring, yet you persist!
LOL! No one has convinced anyone that a case could be made - and those who have been convinced must be wrong because you aren’t convinced.
You really are endearing in your determination to cling to the out-dated and discredited theory floated by the Warren Commission that even the Warren Commissioners doubted.
I have done so - try reading my posts where JFK’s policies are discussed, or the acoustics evidence, or shots heard from the so-called ‘Grassy Knoll’.
But if it’s too much trouble to read what’s posted, perhaps you should consider retiring from the thread.
That is a thoroughly discredited canard.
Actually, JFK set in motion his withdrawal plan. Sadly, after his murder, his successor reversed the policy and escalated instead. Result: more murder and mayhem in Southeast Asia and pots of money for the war profiteers. A win/win!
…and you know she was lying because…?
The fact is there were witnesses and police who investigated the location known as the Grassy Knoll, which is indisputable evidence (among the sane) that it was immediately linked to the murder.
Unless you’re suggesting the cops were having a slow day and just poking around the Grassy Knoll out of sheer boredom? LOL!
The Lone Nutter Theory just seems to require its adherents to claim people act in unmotivated, uncredible, and inane actions when better explanations are offered - often by the actors themselves (who now must be liars and fools because… well, just because).
Clearly this is all a distraction to draw attention from the framing of Leon Czolgosz. Everyone knows it was a plot by those opposed to McKinley’s policies to end to American isolationism.
And Roosevelt was a crack shot - where was he on the day? “Out of contact” in the remote Adirondack woods as claimed? A likely story!
I agree that suggesting that the hypothesis is wrong merely because it might be a rare case is rather lazy.
There’s no reliable witness that can put the alleged murder weapon in Oswald’s hands either.
Clearly we will disagree on this.
Anyone familiar with how government agencies seem to respond to crises can be excused for thinking their first instinct is to start with a lie. Then lie to cover up for the lying. Rinse and repeat.
I am not personally persuaded of the ‘mortal error’ thesis, though I have no qualms in considering any hypothesis in the face of this unsolved crime.
Proudfootz, how does your theory incorporate the assassination attempt on General Walker? Actually done by Oswald, someone else, never happened, etc?