That’s kind of what I was thinking. No need to waste everyone’s time. I can waste my own and perhaps come back after some research and announcing I’ve changed my mind. But this board seems to have been over this many times, and to repeat was not my objective. I was actually curious as to how few people out here no longer believe in a CT when it comes to the Kennedy Assassination.
Good Lord. :smack:
I would have never thought to google “jim garrison homosexual conspiracy”, so I’m glad I asked. I’m also interested in why each cite comes from the same source:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimloon5.htm
Each cite has come from mcadams.posc.mu.edu website, which seems like a good website, but I have no idea who these people are. Even so, if Garrison indeed went down that path, he seems to have cracked under the pressure. I can certainly see why people would question not only his motives, but his sanity as well.
This wasn’t something that Garrison came up with in his later years. This was his theory back in the sixties. It formed the basis of his investigation. He targeted Clay Shaw because Shaw was a homosexual.
It wasn’t until years later that Garrison stopped publically claiming it was a gay conspiracy. The conspiracy crowd had moved on to it being a secret government plot and Garrison joined in on that theme. But by then Garrison was no longer a DA; his motivation was to sell books.
Yes, that’s what you want, a fall guy that can’t wait to start saying he was set up.
I feel your pain SFP, really I do. I have read almost every thing I could get my hands on about the event. I used to believe in my heart of hearts that there must be something CT stuff, it’s just to pervasive not to. But in the end it doesn’t come down to belief, it comes down to proofs. Being the naive sort I used to think if I read it in a book it must be true. But corroboration of most of the CT stuff just doesn’t exist except for self referencing each other.
Let’s look at one tiny part. Regarding your soldier’s interview for example. I used to live in Dallas. I’ve spent a good amount of time in the plaza. There is so much echo between those buildings it’s very difficult to tell where any sound is coming from. A soldiers experience on the battlefield would have little, if any relevance to a city-scape environment. Lastly, can you provide a link to that interview?
My point is, just because someone said something and just because it could theoretically be true doesn’t mean it is. It’s not that we are close minded here, it’s just that the facts (when held to a high standard) don’t add up to CT.
By a “high standard”, do you mean you’d want the minutes from the meeting when the Illuminati decided to have him whacked?
As a start, it would be good to have any evidence that the Illuminati even exist. Then we could move on to figuring out if they have meetings and what’s being decided at them.
Ivan, We need some proof, not just some wide conjecture.
I’ve written this to you before, and I’ll do it one more time. By your standard, we can never prove what happen to JFK (or during 9/11) any more than we could prove that I went to work today. There are millions of little things that happened on November 22nd. I don’t know if Oswald burped that day, if if Kennedy wore boxers or briefs. It it just doesn’t matter. And you pick on minor little saplings, and ignore the rest of the forest. We don’t know every step that Oswald took that day. But we know he purchased a rifle, that had his prints on it, that was used to shoot at another man, that was found at his work place, that he carried to work that day. Not be mention the other hundreds of facts that prove what happened.
Show like NOVA and news men like Peter Jennings have recently done news shows coming out that there is no evidence of a CT, and that the Warren Commission got it right. They have access to the evidence, staffers who can research the evidence, and computer modeling and simulation to test the evidence. Peter Jennings would be the most famous newsman in the world if ne could uncover a conspiracy. But he can’t because there is none. As noted by others, this CT had been so debunked over the last 25 years, that for all intents and purposes it’s dead.
Your response? You think if you’re high you might kinda sorta see the driver of Kennedy’s limo with a gun in one frame. Are you frik’n kidding me? Your saying that six of us could be sitting in a van, driving to work, and the driver could shoot someone in the back seat, and no one in the van would know it? Have you ever fired a gun with a silencer? It’ not like in the movies. It still makes a serious sound, just not as loud. Seriously this theory beyond crazy, and drives your credibility from 1% to zero.
Another thing I’ve seen CTs do is take seemingly meaningless “evidence” and turn it into a sinister plot.
Suppose you see a co-worker carrying a bag that he says has curtain rods in it for later installation in his house. Well, you really don’t think anything of it. You are going about your business, getting a cup of coffee, finishing reports, lusting after the girl three cubes over, thinking about what to have for lunch, etc.
Well, this afternoon the Governor (for example) is assassinated, and now the cops want to know every detail about the curtain rods. You weren’t paying attention, so you guess that maybe they were about two feet long. When it turns out, that they were really 30 inches long, and that instead of almost touching the ground, they were really six inches off of the ground, does that mean that you are in on the conspiracy to kill the Governor?
So many theories that the conspiracy authors bring up hang on such mundane points like the above.
The other problem is the law of Conspiracy Parsimony.
That is, if you and I form a conspiracy to accomplish a certain end, the steps we take to further that end should have some sort of relationship to accomplishing that end.
So, suppose you and I find out that the president wants to pull troops out of Vietnam. And we’re unalterably opposed to that, for some reason. So what’s our response? Kill the president, knowing that Johnson is a big warmonger who will escalate the war?
What about all the other levers of power available to us? Kennedy has only 1 year left in his term. All we have to do is get him the fuck out of office then, and get a nice reliable warmonger elected. Shouldn’t be too hard. Or why can’t we call him up at tell him to smarten up if he doesn’t want those pics of him and Marilyn Monroe on the front pages next week. Heck, why did we allow a pussy like Kennedy to be elected in the first place?
If I engage in a conspiracy, I’m going try to accomplish the goals of my conspiracy by the simplest and easiest methods. And if my conspiracy requires a cover story, the best cover story is one that comports most closely to actual events.
So, if I want to destroy the World Trade Center, and my cover story is that planes slammed into the buildings and destroyed them, my real plan should be something on the order of hijacking planes and slamming them into the buildings. If that won’t work, and I need to wire the buildings with explosives, then a different cover story should be chosen, something like, “Terrorists planted explosives in the buildings”.
Similarly, if my cover story is that a lone nut named Oswald shot the president, wouldn’t it be easier to just let that nut Oswald shoot the president in the first place and leave all the other aspects of the plan out? And if my plan requires that the patsy be silenced, wouldn’t it make a lot more sense for him to “commit suicide” in his cell, or be shot “resisting arrest” or “trying to escape”?
I’m just picturing the Illuminati meeting being run by the Illuminated equivalent of Ed Wood. “Don’t you think we need a better cover story?” “No, it’s fine. It’s real. You know, in actuality, Oswald would have to struggle with this problem every day. Trust me, no one’s gonna notice. It’s perfect!”
You joke, but this is what does ALL the CT theories in for me.
It’s been more than 45 years and in that nearly 45 years there’s been no consensus among the wingnuts, no piece of evidence that points in one direction, voiding all the other theories. Hell, there hasn’t even been a consensus theory that links Oswald and Ruby.
All we’re left with is a bunch of nuts screaming that a lone nut with a gun couldn’t be acting alone, that he had to be hired by SOMEBODY.
Wake me up when you can all agree on who.
Multiple shooters conspiracy-- any multiple shooters conspiracy-- what would have to be true, what could not be true?
Multiple shots all have to be coordinated-- can’t have people plinking at the Prez one after another for fifty yards, going down the street. Somebody would notice! So who gives the signal? What kind of signal? Is there a countdown, so all shooters can stand ready, whatever their position and whoever may be in their way? The book depository and other buildings may have a mostly-clear view, but shooters in the motorcade and shooters on the grassy knoll or anyplace else not well elevated will have problems with obstructions. These could be other people, signs, lamp posts, parts of the limo itself, etc. Heck, even elevated shooting platforms like Oswald’s window had only sporadic “clean” shots at Kennedy. How can anyone, anywhere, possibly coordinate these occlusions with the limo’s progress, in real time, for a variety of shooters? Maybe with current technology, a highly detailed sim of Dealy Plaza, and a robust processor. Not in the 60’s, no way, no how.
But the shots HAD to be coordinated. Several audio tapes recorded the sounds, including gunshots, and related them directly to time and to the film footages. We know precisely where and when Kennedy was hit. While there may be some tiny cause for debate about the exact number of shots (3? or 4?) and the elapsed time for all of them (7 or 8 seconds, or 10 or 12 seconds?) there was inarguably only a miniscule temporal window within which all shooting occurred. How could multiple shooters possibly fit their barrage into this moment in time so exactly that their shots overlapped in the audio record? Or if they did not overlap, why was the fusilade of shots not recorded?
And if there were multiple shooters, where did all the bullets go? Grassy knoll shots would have either killed the first lady, or someone in the crowd on the opposite side of the street. They would certainly have fetched up eventually in some building or other. The same issues pertain to the trajectories of bullets fired from all the other CT-favorite sites. The only location that does not have this problem, and for which bullets have actually been found, is above and behind the limo-- which is where Oswald’s window happens to be.
Perhaps there were multiple shooters at the ready, but only one or two (the driver? the motorcycle cop? the grassy knoll shooter? continue the list here…) actually fired, based upon some in-the-field assessment of conditions. Again, this hypothesis requires some level of real time monitoring and some communication ability that surpasses the present day skills of Special Ops forces. There’s no way any ad hoc “conspirators” could pull it off in 1962.
There is just no way to envision a multiple shooters scenario that isn’t completely impossible on relevant physical grounds. Not without providing the characters with. not just conspiratorial designs, but magical abilities.
I agree, but to put on my CT hat, all of that evidence was there, but it was suppressed by sinister forces within the government. You could probably find some shrill who says that she was opposite the grassy knoll, got hit with a bullet, had secret surgery to remove it, and then the Cigarette Smoking Man told her that he would kill her whole family if she told anyone.
Swell, one person in the United States finally gets great healthcare without any insurance hassles and the government orders a coverup:D
Not to worry-- it was a pure poison bullet, no metal parts, like those ice bullets 007 had, so she really just died and never had the surgery. But the Cigarette Smoking Man stole her baby sister, and then…
Uh-- sorry.
Wrong conspiracy.
/backs slowly away/
She got hit by the bullet in the mouth and the fragments distributed themselves among her fillings, through which the CIA has been broadcasting instructions since the sixties.
- The actions, not just body language, are very clear, and you know that.
- It’s not me misinterpreting “ambiguous body language”. You’re making an unfounded assumption that everybody who doesn’t see it as ambiguous like you is wrong. Prove it.
- It’s not “me” that’s interpreting it, it’s my step-uncle, the former secret service agent, body guard to Truman, who is saying it. If you consider yourself to be logical, rational and objective, you would have to give his statements and conclusions some serious consideration. After all, he is an expert in the field and your not. The court has expert witnesses testify all the time, from psychs to forensics to cops, etc.
Not following that logic at all.
Well, the agents who were (granted for the sake of argument) astounded and/or amazed, etc. presumably were also experts in their field and had a far better understanding of the situation (being directly involved in it, after all) than your step-uncle. Did they offer any relevant testimony that you’re aware of?
Your accusation is that some people (I invite you name names if you witness such in this thread) don’t buy the conspiracy angle because they believe the government are saints, which is self-evident nonsense only believable by someone with no sense of critial thinking.
At the same time, you’re postulating an incredibly elaborate coverup involving at least hundreds of people across decades which has left no solid evidence anywhere, which is self-evident nonsense only believable by someone with no sense of critical thinking.
I notice you didn’t address MKULTRA. Here’s a link to all kinds of nasty bad things our government has done: http://www.scribd.com/doc/4001438/US-Experiments-on-Its-Own-Citizen.
Let me do something psychic here: I forsee in the immediate future you will do a post that tries to discredit the source. Attack the messenger instead of address the issue.
I also predict that you will continue your ad hominem attacks that you already started with…“Loons”.