JFK conspiracy... yes or no?

[Bryan_Ekers]

Well, Oswald’s, I guess.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Lemur866

It was 1963, not 2009. We’re lucky to have any film at all. How many other assassinations have been caught live on film?

We have a few attempts on film/tape. Reagan, Pope JP2.

Was Sadat’s killing caught on tape?

[CurtC]

@jakesteele

2. 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.

If everyone sees it the same way, it’s not ambiguous. If everyone doesn’t interpret it the same way, it is ambiguous. Many of us don’t interpret it the way you and your step-uncle do, therefore it’s ambiguous.

QED.

[Mtgman]

@ivan_astikov

Quick question:- How come the Zapruder film is the only footage we have ever seen of this incident? Was he the only person in Dallas who had a movie camera that day?

Quick answer, it’s not.

Zapruder’s film is the most complete movie of the assassination, as it depicts a relatively clear view of the motorcade from a somewhat elevated position. No existent film shows clearly the critical portion of the infamous “grassy knoll” from which many claim shots were fired, and none depict better detail of the presidential limousine than the Zapruder film. However, it is not the only film depicting the presidential limousine on Elm Street. There are films and still photographs taken by at least 32 photographers in Dealey Plaza at or around the time of the shooting,[8] including: F. Mark Bell, Charles Bronson (not the actor with the same name), Malcolm Couch, Elsie Dorman, Robert J. E. Hughes, John Martin, Charles Mentesana, Marie Muchmore, Orville Nix, Patsy Paschall, and Tina Towner, along with an unidentified “Babushka lady.” The films by Orville Nix, Marie Muchmore, and Charles Bronson depict the fatal head shot seen in the Zapruder film, and the films of Bronson and Hughes show the open sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.[9]

On February 19, 2007, a film shot by George Jefferies was released.[10] The color 8 mm film, taken on Main Street in Dallas approximately 90 seconds before the shooting, has the best view of Jackie Kennedy in the motorcade and the positions of the Secret Service agents before the shooting, and also clearly shows that President Kennedy’s suit coat was bunched up around the neckline. This fact would seem to repudiate theories identifying the mismatch between the wound in the President’s back and the holes in his suit and shirt as evidence that more than three shots were fired.

Enjoy,
Steven

[dropzone]

So, unless Charles Bronson’s camera was also a gun, I guess we can eliminate him from the conspiracy, but what about Yul Brynner and Horst Buchholz?

I don’t know if there was a conspiracy or several conspiracies or if any of them were played out in Dealey Plaza, but I am confident that there were plenty people who were not dissatisfied with the outcome.

[jakesteele]

@Little_Nemo

A cousin of my old college roommate married this guy who was in the CIA. And I heard from them that your step-uncle was wrong. That’s enough proof to convince me.

you are intentionally avoiding the question. Again, what is you take on my step-uncles take on the situation on the vid I posted?

What you are doing is an “Argument From Impudence”

Do you not believe what I say? Do you think I am saying that as a cover to not have to state an opinion directly?

[jakesteele]

@Bryan_Ekers

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?

I have no idea f the said anything. Again, my uncle stated that that was not the proper protocol from his experience of having been in the situation of guarding a president.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@jake steele

I have no idea f the said anything. Again, my uncle stated that that was not the proper protocol from his experience of having been in the situation of guarding a president.

Well, even if that’s true, protocols do get broken by supervisors who make judgement calls. What, if anything, does your uncle think it means, though, and on what basis?

[jakesteele]

[

QUOTE=Bryan Ekers;11383123]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.

Let’s see, I did not say people on this thread had said anything of that nature. I said, "One of the rationalizations I hear believers in the Official Story is that, “Our govt. would never do something like that.” That’s you trying to reframe my posts.

I did not make an accusation, I made a statement. I never said the people I referenced said they were saints, rather they have confidence and trust that our govt. would not do anything of that nature. Try asking some staunch conservative Republicans that you know of and see what they response is.

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.

[/QUOTE]

I’m not postulating anything. You are postulating that I am postulating. I related what a qualified individual had said.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@jakesteele

Let’s see, I did not say people on this thread had said anything of that nature. I said, "One of the rationalizations I hear believers in the Official Story is that, “Our govt. would never do something like that.” That’s you trying to reframe my posts.

Well, vaguely-defined groups of people have held a variety of wacky opinions on every subject imaginable, I’m sure, but if nobody in this thread had said anything along those lines, it’s not really something we can discuss in any meaningful way. What does it mean if somebody somewhere believes the U.S. government would never do something like that? I’m sure somebody else somewhere else believes something different. Of what use is the statement?

In other words, why bring such vagueness into this discussion when you’ve got people here willing to discuss, defend and debate issues of fact?

I’m not postulating anything. You are postulating that I am postulating. I related what a qualified individual had said.

Was that all he said - that this was a breach of protocol? Such breaches are commonplace when someone with operational discretion makes a decision for (he feels) the good of the mission. Maybe it works out for the better, maybe it doesn’t. It’s unclear to me what effect, if any, this alleged protocol breach had. Protocol is not itself ironclad, as far as I know. So two agents abruptly had their assignments changed and they were upset. And…?

[dropzone]

FTR: My uncle, by late 1963, was too busy civilianizing (Boeing-izing?) the shit from Roswell to be involved in the JFK assassination. Add him to Charles Bronson, my brother, our babysitter (though she was not under constant surveillance), and myself as the people I’m PRETTY DARNED SURE were not involved.

I’m up to five people of a population of under 200 million.

ETA: My other brothers “claim” to have been at school and my parents “claim” to have been in Cleveland, as if ANYBODY voluntarily goes to high school, much less Cleveland.

[jakesteele]

@Algorithm

Well, when someone actually makes that argument on this board, feel free to respond to it. Until then, stop knocking down the straw man.
I dismissed your counter-point by bringing up the fact that the argument you were responding to had not been made by anyone.
What are you on about? You are pretending I have made an argument you want to respond to, and responding to it. I never said the government is morally above such an act. Cut it out.
Well then, feel free to make an actual argument whenever you like.

What do you think about the statement my uncle made?

[jakesteele]

@Shodan

I don’t have the time to go thru your cite to see if it is at all credible, but let’s assume for the moment that it is.

I don’t think many on the SDMB are arguing that the government, or somebody who worked for the government, or who works for a foundation that gets funding from the government, would never do anything wrong. What we are more interested in is evidence that they did.

The Tuskegee experiment was a terrible thing, in other words, but it is not proof that the CIA killed Kennedy. Or whatever you might be advocating.

Regards,
Shodan

You say, “…interested in evidence that they did.” I don’t know where you got, from the incidences on the link to, "It’s not proof that the CIA killed Kennedy.

I am not advocating anything, I am pointing out that our govt. has shown many times in the past that it has no moral compunction about do nasty bads to its own citizens.

[jakesteele]

@The_Hamster_King

So, again, if the Secret Service agents really were “astounded and amazed” by the gross breach of protocol they were ordered to commit, why didn’t they report such an extraordinary fact to the Warren Commission? Why would they withhold such a useful and important piece of evidence?

I’ve answered this before; I don’t know anything about that. I also stated that if you want to assure someone’s silence threaten to kill their loved ones if they talk. Don’t know that that’s the case but it would work on most people.

[jakesteele]

@CurtC

If everyone sees it the same way, it’s not ambiguous. If everyone doesn’t interpret it the same way, it is ambiguous.

Many of us don’t interpret it the way you and your step-uncle do, therefore it’s ambiguous.

QED.

Who is many of ‘us’?

[FinnAgain]

‘Us’ are much like ‘them’… ‘us’ killed Kennedy.

[jakesteele]

@Bryan_Ekers

Well, even if that’s true, protocols do get broken by supervisors who make judgement calls. What, if anything, does your uncle think it means, though, and on what basis?

Fair question. He thought because it was such a radical departure from standard and necessary protocol that that was very suspicious and that some kind of skullduggery going on. The basis is that is was a startling and radical breach of protocol.

[Jackmannii]

@jakesteele

What do you think about the statement my uncle made?

As asked before - who is your uncle?

Inferences made by anonymous sources whose existence we have no way of verifying are not the stuff of which rational debates are made.

[Cisco]

@jakesteele

What do you think about the statement my uncle made?

Your uncle? I thought he was your step uncle :dubious:.

Hmmmm?

[Algorithm]

@jakesteele

What do you think about the statement my uncle made?

It’s completely irrelevant to any point I was making.