You prove my point.
If you actually have a point - argue it
If you’ve discovered that you don’t have one - why not admit it, gain some respect from your fellow posters and move on?
I really enjoyed this board until reading this entire thread. Many of you who I have seen make excellent, reasonable, unbiased posts in a great many threads (usually incredibly informative and entertaining as well), are ridiculously condescending and rude here, to the point of abuse. Why do you feel that is necessary?
Actually, as far as GQ goes, hasn’t the OP been answered? Why do you all keep coming back to for more digs at a few posters?
“Noel Prosequi” even managed to label someone as his “opponent” in a GQ thread.
Honestly thought GQ was the one board I could read without this kind of nonsense.
I think I misunderstood this forum. How disappointing.
AmanoJ: People can attempt to factually answer the GQ posted while drilling down to define ‘closed’, for example, but if someone pops in to claim the earth is flat, or posts stuff that is wrong, misleading, disproven etc, then it is fair game to take the thread where it needs to go. Was the OP answered? Sure.
Think like this: The question of the OP was answered, then Fighting Ignorance ensued. I would prefer to see the latter always have an opportunity here… regardless of forum. If ignorance shows up, it should be fought, especially if the OP was done no disservice.
I’m not a moderator… just a long-time member.
.
Oh man, don’t post his name. He’ll come back. On second thought, that might be fun.
Since this is GQ, can you actually list all of the people who you claim to have admitted to the Kennedy assassination, rather than just appending your answer with “to name a few”. I am trying to get a handle on how many people have actually confessed.
Also, can you please provide cites? I ask because I can’t find any direct quotes or sources, beyond hearsay. A reference to a confession in a pro-conspiracy book is hardly definitive. Even Howard Hunt’s “deathbed” confession strikes me as scant; he doesn’t actually say “I killed Kennedy” or even “I was involved in Kennedy’s death.” As best as I can tell, he was incoherently mumbling about being involved with the CIA; it takes a leap of faith to believe that he actually is discussing JFK’s death (“I was a benchwarmer” is hardly a confession).
Finally, given however many people have supposedly “confessed”, how does that reconcile with the facts as we know them? I mean, if 30 people confessed to killing the President, aren’t some of them necessarily lying, given there is no evidence of anywhere near 30 shots fired?
Since some of your concern is directed to me, I’ll take a stab at an answer.
I think the Kennedy assassination is one of those things were all of the questions have been asked and answered a million times. And the same propositions, the magic bullet, an assassin on the grassy knoll, the CIA, carving in to the President’s head on the plane from Dallas for God’s sake - all of them keep coming back with out any thought, research, analysis or even a new take.
So I supposed I could (should?) just ignore the tread and move on. But it’s a frustration that is 50+ years in the making and it’s hard to keep the 
on.
Are you equally disappointed in the Assassination CTers?
I am JFK’s assassin.
[Ref to Moriarty above.]
I’ll try to nominally call back to the OP here.
The issue of there being such an incredibly huge number of alternate theories impedes anyone taking seriously any one alternate theory. Mentioning several of these as justification in re-opening an official investigation hurts rather than helps.
In order to sway someone in a position of power you have to:
A. Show an actual, provable hole of significance in the Warren Report.
B. Show that one, and only one, alternate theory stands out.
Regarding A: The evidence has to be absolutely clearcut. None of this fuzzy picture showing 2, 3, 10 men behind the picket fence or someone claiming to be the babushska lady who clearly isn’t, etc. CT people fail to understand basic concepts of legal requirements for proof.
Regarding B: 52 years later and not a single alternate theory has raised itself above the others. In fact, it’s practically the crab pot metaphor in this regard.
The main goal of CT authors appears to be to come up with a brand new idea, throw some dubious or worse claims around, write a book and make money.
E.g., people have sold books with ridiculous notions: The Zapruder film was a complete fake, JFK faked his death, an agent accidentally fired the kill shot, etc.
Take the first one: What good does making a fake do that is better than not having made it in the first place? How do you keep anyone else from filming at the time which would show the fake is fake and expose a conspiracy? How do you fake something like this either ahead of time, not knowing who was going to be in the background, etc. or afterwards in the brief period of time allowed before multiple copies were made given the tech of the day?
Anyone proposing something like this is either trying to fool people for some reason (e.g., making money) or has left any semblance of logic far, far behind.
Comparing JFK CT people with Birthers is notable. Birthers also have nothing: No eyewitnesses, no documents, etc. They leap thru hoops to explain basic things like birth notices in two newspapers. They fall all over clearly faked birth certificates and videos. (Note: the Republic of Kenya didn’t exist in 1961. If you’re going to fake something, at least get the official name and flag at the time right.)
OTOH, they generally agree on the basics. That Obama’s mother, for some inexplicable reason, went to Kenya while pregnant, had a baby and very soon came back (again, why?). They don’t propose that he was born in Peru, that his real mother was someone else, etc. (Well, not in large enough numbers to care.)
If your alternate theory universe isn’t as well organized as Birthers, you’re in trouble. And the government isn’t going to waste money on a 52 year old, thoroughly hashed out case.
I would be very skeptical of reports of “deathbed confessions” and not just about the Kennedy assassination.
Typically, such reports when they involve controversial subjects (“controversy” could be put in quotes, I suppose) are hearsay, exaggerated or outright fabricated.
Take this one about aliens and Area 51 for example. Others have included the claim that the “father of ADHD” supposedly admitted on his deathbed that ADHD was a fabricated disease (the truth is that he gave an interview 7 months before his death in which he complained about overdiagnosis). Pasteur is alleged to have confessed on his deathbed that he was wrong about the germ theory of disease (this one is outright false).
There is something about people which makes the idea of a “deathbed confession” incredibly believable, though even if you accept such reports, why would you think someone in such a position is necessarily of sound mind?
The whole and entire value of the “deathbed confession” is that you can claim whatever you want and the alleged confessor won’t refute it.
After all, on his deathbed George Washington admitted he was a British spy all along and George III for his part admitted to an abiding fondness for disco. And we’ll get nary a peep of denial from either of those guys. So it must be true. 
“He was starving in some deep mystery,
Like a man who is sure what is true.”
Leonard Cohen
You scare me more than the CT ers. You’re really hungry to assert your righteousness on this issue whether you found someone to argue with you or not. Get mad about something real.
Whether intentionally or inadvertently you’ve done an excellent job of imitating the classic “just asking questions” form of CT True Believer.
And as a newbie here you’re probably unaware of just how often our little corner of the internet hosts one of these folks’ unneighborly visits after they stumble upon us. The first couple dozen times it’s at least a bit entertaining. After the hundredth go-around with folks that are all innuendo and no thought it gets old. Painfully old.
So fairly or unfairly, you’ve struck a community nerve. What happens next is up to you.
You can continue to beat that drum and get barked at. You can leave. Or you can decide pushing folks’ buttons isn’t really why you showed up here and instead join the real party. The one where we get along and have fun talking about damn near anything under the sun with folks from all over the world and every walk of life.
…and that’s real.
Not that you should get mad at it.
It seems to me that if you have been around for a very long time and are that tired of seeing the topic, you would just skip over the thread. But, if you truly felt compelled to post… I would think it would be far easier (and in the spirit of the board) to simply post a link to straight facts, and be done with it, instead of arguing your point of view for post after post while insulting people who disagree.
That is to say… I understand frustration, but isn’t it best left to the other boards to argue and debate about it? Or have I completely missed the point of this board? I’ve not been around here more than a few months.
I’ve barely shown a scintilla of moderate interest here. You are tilting at the wrong windmill. This is a discussion forum but not a debate forum and you can’t be debating when you are not willing to be in the debate.
No. But the second adds no more weight, and if there are 10,000 its just the same as one.
You are thinking like a public servant. What the public servant will do is pick one theory, because 3 is too much work, and pick the thoery that is most easily ruled out, and then rule that out , and then say “having ruled out the best claim, there is no alternative claim”.
then do is rule out the one “best” theory, and then say there is no plausible theory… thats called ‘white wash’ or ‘straw man’.
Basically only giving one theory prevents thinking about how a conspiracy may have gone WRONG… because like, criminals do stupid things. They make mistakes. They get panicky and do the wrong thing… They may purposely do something different to what they were told, in order that there would be no evidence they were told to do it.
Also, if you only present on alternative theory, someone may say “given the small change any one theory is correct, I can discount this one theory!”.
Autopsys are for determing if someone died of poisoning or natural causes…
What say you about his cause of death ? Cyanide poisoning caused his head to explode ? there’s no issue in the bungling, its irrelevant. The bungling occurs because of the cause of death and who it was … city vs state vs fed. etc etc
Very far from true. If there were 10,000 CTs for the JFK assassination (and sometimes one wonders if that isn’t too low), then clearly the overwhelming majority of them are noise.
The issue I was pointing out, is that it would be up to one group of CT folk (not a government official) to come up with something, anything, that rises above the noise. And after 52 years not only have they failed to do that but they have made the noise worse. E.g., that ridiculous claim about death bed confessions.
(I wonder about the thought process that takes my post and turns it around so that the government is the one doing the choosing of the best alternate CT.)
If people can’t get their act together after all these years, they have no act.