Lemur866 called it back in Post 102.
(And I had Clay Shaw, on the grassy knoll, with the candlestick. Damn!)
First thing is, you don’t know or don’t know what would or would not be done and neither do I. One person sited this guy here as a credible source on the SS so I will site him, also.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter05.pdf
It deals with what a cluster fuck occured with the SS with good reasons to be somewhat skeptical of the procedures. If they’ve got this much ‘not regular procedures’ going on, it would be plausible to have them stand down on film when you know the whole thing is going to be intensely examined anyway. Plausible explanations probably would not be hard to construct.
So your implication is Kennedy became vulnerable not through incompetence but maliciousness cleverly disguised as incompetence?
I don’t believe I ever said that I said that my uncle said anything about ‘being cowed’. I believe that was me that presented the possibility of the agents being intimidated.
Not to be too blunt, but you’re now just throwing random stuff at the wall and hoping things will stick. I’m making no claims about myself.
Ignoring the fact that there’s no evidence of anyone but the President asking the SS to move off of the bumper. And ignoring the fact that there’s testimony by the agents in question as to exactly what happened. And ignoring the fact that there’s absolutely no evidence that anyone was threatened or coerced into silence. And ignoring the fact that there’s no evidence that security was compromised beyond what had happened several previous times with this President.
What we’re left is your claim that threatening the families of Secret Service agents, the elite of the elite and sworn to risk their lives for the sake of others, after giving them orders in public, is the surefire way to ensure that no one ever talks about this is simply ludicrous. If the conspirators were able to pull this off then they certainly wouldn’t leave horrendous lose ends like this.
How would you distinguish between the real explanation and a made up one? What evidence, any evidence at all, do you have that the explanations given are not an accurate representation of what happened?
Well, if someone said you said you said your uncle said anything about “being cowed”, I understand you might understand that we’ll understand that you understand that when we said you said your uncle said something, we believe that you believe what your uncle believes.
Clear?
LOL. I can’t imagine how I could have answered MORE directly. I’d go to the FBI, tell them everything I knew, and ask for protection for me and my family.
Furthermore, that’s the ONLY safe choice to make. If someone is willing to kill to get what they want, then they’re certainly willing to LIE to get what they want. That means I can’t trust anything they tell me. They SAY they won’t harm me or my family if I keep quiet, but I know they’re lying murderers so why should I believe them?
No, the only safe course of action for a coward like me is to go to the authorities.
Address the issue. You did a classic straw man shuffle by trying to shade and color what I ‘didn’t say’.
If you’re refering to RJKUgly’s “nice opinion of your own uncle there, by the way,” then I suspect RJKU’s point is:
(1) you’ve strongly implied, if not outright stated, that most Secret Service agents could be cowed into silence with threats;
(2) your uncle is a Secret Service agent. This would suggest that you think your uncle could also be cowed with threats. And if your uncle cannot be cowed, perhaps you could explain what makes him so different from other agents.
If you’re not referring to that comment, then perhaps you could clarify what you are talking about.
The problem is that you didn’t say much of anything. When someone answered in a straightforward manner, you accused them of not answering you. If that’s the case, then the majority of us aren’t getting your question.
Please state, is simple declarative sentences, what issue you would like us to address?
Quick sidenote:
Sometimes when I quote someone I get a message that says, message too short, please lengthen to at least 2 characters.
What does that mean and who do I avoid it?
You can’t have a post that’s entirely quoted material. The minimum post length on this board is 2 characters, and quoted material and tags don’t count toward that minimum.
No, I told a joke satirizing the situation by describing it in absurdist terms.
Anyway, this whole “I never said you said I said…” stuff is pointless and contributes nothing to the discussion of what happened to JFK. As I understand it:
Your uncle says “something fishy!”
You say “my uncle says ‘something fishy!’ and when I look at the film, it’s obvious to me as well that something fishy is occurring and it’s really hard to misinterpret that vid.”
The rest of us say “well, if something fishy is occurring, and it’s supposedly obvious, why didn’t the agents report it after the assassination during the investigation?”
You say “maybe the families of the agents were threatened.”
We say “there’s no evidence of this and it sounds like an ineffective threat against the kinds of people that would become Service agents in the first place.”
Is that a fair summary of who said what?
I’ve noticed before that your quoting of others in your posts is sometimes messed up. You sometimes put your own words within a quote box, so most of us will skip that and just get to the stuff that’s not in a quote box, which means that some of your comments don’t get read by many who are reading this thread.
Anyway, if you don’t have ANY words that are outside quote boxes, you get that error message. It usually indicates your formatting is messed up. After you post, take a look at the formatting to make sure it’s what you want. For example, this post of yours was all messed up.
Perfectly stated, thank you.
As to my uncle, he wasn’t involved in that and had no inside information so there really wasn’t anything he could report. He would be in the same situation as these guys: Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos
Apparently, they didn’t blow any whistles, either.
Now, I’m going to go psychic on you. I predict you will do some kind of “attacking the source” fallacy even though one of your own used this guy as a reference earlier.
How many of these agents were on duty in Dallas that day? Did any of them testify about their suspicions?
I mean, finding Americans who believe there was a conspiracy but have no evidence isn’t really all that hard.
*Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Well, if someone said you said you said your uncle said anything about “being cowed”, I understand you might understand that we’ll understand that you understand that when we said you said your uncle said something, we believe that you believe what your uncle believes.
Clear?*
If you think that is a straightforward question, then I worry for you.
What issue? There never was an issue. I related something to you and told you it stuck in my craw because to me and my uncle it looked suspicious. It still does.
So if you want to address something, how about the source9s0 you use to prove, in your mind, that the Warren Commission’s findings are correct.
You gave it a good try
Thanks, I’ll try to be diligent about that.