Is the Kennedy Assassination a closed case as far as the US Government is concerned?

[Monty]

@tarrel

I thought I remember seeing in the movie that everything will be revealed in 2038 or 2058 because by that time everyone who was alive during the time of the assassination will be dead.

Why would you believe that?

[tarrel]

@Monty

Why would you believe that?

I believe it was mentioned at the end of the movie.

[Monty]

@tarrel

I believe it was mentioned at the end of the movie.

So, what was your purpose in posting that little tidbit of “information”?

[tarrel]

@Monty

So, what was your purpose in posting that little tidbit of “information”?

To say it won’t be a closed case.

[Monty]

@tarrel

To say it won’t be a closed case.

Which brings us back to you must believe that utter bullshit you posted to be true. The case is, of course, closed. The reason it’s closed has already been disclosed in this very thread. Care to try to ferret that out?

[Noel_Prosequi]

Let’s not beat up on tarrel yet - he’s new and may (at least till he demonstrates otherwise) merely be trying to be helpful, albeit naively so.

As to the issue about accidental shooting, I didn’t address it because I was more focussed on dd’s internal logic.

But I understood the accident hypothesis to depend on the idea that LHO’s shots were made, but an earlier one missed, startling the Secret Service officer who supposedly was startled into somehow shooting JFK. Thus one of LHOs hit, and one of the SecService officer. The details are never spelled out because, of course, they have only been speculated into existence.

What are the odds that Kennedy was independently shot by TWO guys at essentially the same moment?

[Jackmannii]

Noel!

What do you think of the idea that JFK was actually drowned in wine?

[drad_dog]

@Noel_Prosequi

Note here the affirmative assertions that there are paradoxical events and that there has never been an explanation. Note further the unspoken assumption that malign attribution of motives, real or imagined, is the same thing as evidence.

Note the game-without-rules pseudo argument that attributes a hypothetical response to a hypothetical argument, and then treats that imagined response as though it somehow supports the original hypothetical. Drad dog’s argument resolves to: IF an accidental bullet hit Kennedy, THEN the evidence that points to one shooter would be wrong.

If.

Note the bizarre proposition that extends the OP to ridiculous lengths (a public menace, no less) then implicitly insists that unless the opponent behaves in a way that conforms to that characterisation, the opponent is inconsistent.

Note here and in the subsequent post a claim to the high emotional ground. I’m cool. Why aren’t you? Because, like, people who are cool are more likely to be, like, right. Of course, an arguer’s emotional state has no bearing on whether they are “right”. This is a standard debating technique seen among fundamentalists, CTers in general, and bad debaters in general - goad and trap the opposition into a debate about side issues, in this case who has lost their cool. It has a superficial appeal to entertainment values, but none at all to intellectual ones.

To adapt some wisdom from Game of Thrones- “Does it suit drad dog to pretend this debate is about who is the most relaxed? Well, we won’t be doing that, then, will we?”

One can understand that people who take the public discussion of history seriously might well be annoyed by someone who adopts the very style of argument (and I use that word quite wrongly) that may well have contributed to the embarrassing numbers of people who will apparently believe nonsense.

Note again the goad to derail the debate.

Note the misrepresentation of drad dog’s argument as “Just Asking Questions”. The clear assertions noted above and the inescapable advancement of the “accidental shooting” hypothesis make it plain that drad dog has an agenda.

When one adds JAQing off to an admission in the quote one above that drad dog isn’t up on the anomalies right now, one is driven inevitably to conclusions that should best be drawn in a different forum.

Since I never had an agenda I have to say: Your response sounds like unhinged reaction formation. Read it yourself and tell me it isn’t conspiracist.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@drad_dog

Since I never had an agenda I have to say: Your response sounds like unhinged reaction formation. Read it yourself and tell me it isn’t conspiracist.

It reads like someone dismantling your tactics in addition to your arguments.

[drad_dog]

@Monty

Noel Prosequi: That was an incredibly accurate dissection of the nonsense presented by dd. You left out one thing though.

Why would there be any excitement among “the officials” before the Prez was shot? The only officials who’d be packing, of course, would be the cops and the Secret Service. dd’s “theory” boils down to: Kennedy was shot by a cop because that cop got excited when that very same cop shot Kennedy.

Hey, I like fiction as much as the next guy, but even fictional stories need to have logic. Otherwise, they’re just stupid. And anyone who persists in perpetuating them as though they’re fact is just embarrassing themselves.

What are you talking about?

The head shot occurred after one or two shots, and Kennedys first physical response.

[drad_dog]

@Mr.Miskatonic

It reads like someone dismantling your tactics in addition to your arguments.

This is not a debate thread. The response was out of proportion with the intent. Mine and this thread. If it’s a debate or a roast it should be elsewhere. Defining it as a debate and autopsying it is a tactic, which would be better used in a debate, which this is not.

If you are ascribing a lot of intent here and getting worked up about it you should probably get some more hobbies.

[Leo_Bloom]

@Jackmannii

Noel!

What do you think of the idea that JFK was actually drowned in wine?

I would think, following precedent, he was first chop’t. Indeed, wasn’t LHO reported to have said “Take that, and that” after the first two shots?

[Robot_Arm]

Not addressed to me, but I can’t resist this link when the subject comes up.

@Jackmannii

What do you think of the idea that JFK was actually drowned in wine?

A tiger got him.

And yes, that’s who you think it is.

[Noel_Prosequi]

@drad_dog

Since I never had an agenda I have to say: Your response sounds like unhinged reaction formation. Read it yourself and tell me it isn’t conspiracist.

This contains two more pseudo arguments calculated to distract rather than enlighten.

The first is an amateur attempt at psychologising why I am said to be wrong without demonstrating first that I am wrong. This is an old debate trick - pretend we are now past the real issue and that the debate has moved on to questions of consequences. “Shall we inhumanely shoot (an accused person) or humanely gas them?”, offered as a distraction from the real debate about whether the accused person is guilty.

The second is to accuse me of being conspiracist, which he hopes I will be goaded into defending.

Nuh. Self evidently dodgy tu quoque arguments fall of their own inanition.

I merely point it out. Others may judge.
And a big call out to Jackmanii, old comrade of battles past.

The 45th anniversary of Jimi’s death was two months ago. Makes you wonder where all the time went? Some wine is in order, I think.

[drad_dog]

@Noel_Prosequi

This contains two more pseudo arguments calculated to distract rather than enlighten.

The first is an amateur attempt at psychologising why I am said to be wrong without demonstrating first that I am wrong. This is an old debate trick - pretend we are now past the real issue and that the debate has moved on to questions of consequences. “Shall we inhumanely shoot (an accused person) or humanely gas them?”, offered as a distraction from the real debate about whether the accused person is guilty.

The second is to accuse me of being conspiracist, which he hopes I will be goaded into defending.

Nuh. Self evidently dodgy tu quoque arguments fall of their own inanition.

I merely point it out. Others may judge.
And a big call out to Jackmanii, old comrade of battles past.

The 45th anniversary of Jimi’s death was two months ago. Makes you wonder where all the time went? Some wine is in order, I think.

Dude, what are you on about? What wrong is being done to you? Are you hearing voices?

[Derleth]

@drad_dog

Dude, what are you on about? What wrong is being done to you? Are you hearing voices?

Jesus, dude. When you’re that deep in a hole, stop digging. The weather in China isn’t that much more appealing.

[Noel_Prosequi]

@drad_dog

Dude, what are you on about? What wrong is being done to you? Are you hearing voices?

You want to argue conspiratorial crap about the JFK assassination.

I have chosen to use your posts to illustrate errors and dubious argument styles that consistently emerge in such assertions.

Now, your argument changes to an insistence that I must demonstrate a personal wrong done to me in order to have standing to challenge you. The unspoken premise is that you can say whatever you like, but that your opponent must demonstrate a personal stake in the issue in order to respond. Nonsense, of course, but a common enough attempt to tinker with the playing field.

And the references to Jimi and wine are private jokes relating to a previous thread involving a discussion with a conspiracist who wanted to assert that Jimi Hendrix was murdered, in case you were puzzled.

[Leo_Bloom]

I didn’t know that the wine wasn’t Malmsey, which by now is public knowledge,

Isn’t it?

[bardos]

Any discussion of the Kennedy assassination is 100% bound to turn into a debate. Add to this that the word “Conspiracy” has apparently been welded to the word “Theory”. Too many insults in this thread for my taste.

I think many interesting facts about the assassination were revealed in the best selling book “The CIA: The Loose Cannon of the 20th Century” written by Fozdick Hirsch in the year 2042.

[Derleth]

@bardos

Any discussion of the Kennedy assassination is 100% bound to turn into a debate.

Certainly hasn’t here.

For the record, a “debate”, as such, occurs when both sides have logic and evidence on their side. When it’s completely one-sided, no debate is actually occurring, despite any attempt to make it appear the point is still debatable.