Sure. They would just have to lie on the witness stand. According to Howard Hunt (or, his son) that’s exactly what they did.
Nitpick on the notion of ‘debunked’.
Read a little more closely. Not all of those points have been debunked. I didn’t make points I asked questions. You don’t debunk a question, you answer it.
Though I did start out saying that the JFK assassination is like 9/11 a deep dark black hole. I made no assertion of a belief about any particular conspiracy theory in regards to 9/11 only mentioned that I didn’t want to get too deep into that black hole. You can’t debunk the conspiracy theories. There WAS in FACT a conspiracy, even if it was a conspiracy of Arabs and only Arabs. I don’t think anyone has debunked issues of money laundering through BCCI, or any of that stuff.
As far as the FBI thing and the people not wanting to land, it was my understanding that the FBI had a report BEFORE 9/11, that it was released AFTER 9/11.
If someone has a specific link to the Bin Laden’s flight patterns I’d be interested. I had heard that they were given permission to fly on 9/12, and this is the first time I’ve ever heard that disputed.
As far as the assassinations of Saudi Princes go, I read that in, “House of Bush, House of Saud.”
The term ‘debunked’ is thrown around too cavalierly around here, even if the word is used grammatically incorrectly within the context like it was above.
One of the main reasons I do not delve into conspiracy theories like these is because the truth is not really knowable by someone who isn’t willing to delve through thousands of pages of primary sources. Which I am not willing to do. The secondary sources are all subject to the biases people spun on top of the biases of the primary sources.
Basically, this guy could have a rock solid case about JFK, but because I have no intention of fact checking his sources reading all 1600 pages would be a waste of my time. So to me, it could still go either way. I don’t think a CIA assassination is completely out of the realm of possibility, but that doesn’t mean either that I am convinced it is true.
I am agnostic on both of these issues, essentially. My point was simply that I don’t think outright dismissing counter-arguments is conducive to the flow of truth. Canonizing history is IMO always a mistake.
While admittedly, I am not terribly interested in reading architectural studies of the burn patterns on WTC 7, I would be interested in reading a thread that addresses the money trail and political assassinations of Saudi princes. Any threads on that here?
WTF is that?! It looks like his head came off!
I’m not convinced that Oswald acted alone, but I’m not convinced of anything else, either. And I don’t think there will ever be an explanation that convinces everyone. Physical evidence has deteriorated, people have died, and I think that in recent years, theorists have forgotten that this happened at a time when forensics was basically dusting for fingerprints and matching bullets to gun barrels, and communication was a lot slower. People’s visions of how a conspiracy could have been carried out have far exceeded what was possible in the early 1960s.
Also, what mswas said about primary and secondary source material. I think at this point, you might as well analyze that Dharma/Hanso Foundation website. At least that story will come to an end.
The reason 70% of the people felt it was different than what the Warren report stated was because they were there, or heard the eye-witness reports minutes after the shooting, or saw the shooting live on TV. I was one of those people.
People like Bugliosi find it easy to convince those who had no first-hand knowledge of the event. People like me he will never convince. I saw it, heard it, and it didn’t happen like the Warren report said. The fact that he recommends ridiculing and/or ostrasising people that don’t agree with him tells me he doesn’t know what he is talking about. Just more BS. I wonder what his motive is?
Here’s a story about the new analysis that was just published on the bullet fragments, which calls into doubt the original analysis that supported a single-shooter theory.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/bullet-evidence-challenges-findings-jfk-assassination-13251.html
Of course, we have already established thru neutron analysis that a bullet coming from Oswald’s rifle hit JFK, Connally, and the car. So, come what might, Oswald is still one of the shooters, and, absent any positive evidence, the only shooter.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t have an opinion either way, but proving that there was only one shooter does not automatically mean that that one shooter acted alone, or was not asked to do the deed.
I’ve always favored the theory that there were multiple shooters, but they all missed except for Oswald. 
Which ones: you saw it live on tv, or you were there in Dallas?
Were you there physically, or just in spirit form?
And then it just rolled out onto the gurney at Parkland Memorial.
Was it the one from his Mauser or the one from his Mannlicher-Carcano?
You saw the JFK shooting live? On TV? Even though it wasn’t broadcast by any local or national affiliates? How’d you do that?
You then rushed down to Dealy plaza to personally interview these witnesses?
And you were also there? Then how did you see the shooting on the non-existant TV coverage?
And I’m really shocked that 70% of all American adults living in 2003 were actually at Dealy Plaza, watching the motorcade on non-existant TV coverage, or out there interviewing witnesses. Must be the greatest example of group-acting in history - over 100,000,000 people primed to investigate an assassination mere minutes prior to its occurance. :rolleyes:
Also, the fraction of Americans who directly witnessed the assassination, according to lekatt’s logic, somehow increased from 46% to 70% between 1966 and 2003.
Indeed. two planes flew into two towers, so it’s twice as complex.
Personally, I think the Martians may have been involved because no-one can prove they weren’t.
Who told you the motorcade was not on TV. People were interviewed immediately on the scene by radio correspondents, all of them said there was shooting from two directions, one said three. No, I wasn’t there, but friends of mine were.
I should know better than to post about these things, most of your posts are predictable and go only on what you read years after it happened. The main red flag of doubt was risen by Bugliosi himself. Anytime someone asks you to belittle people and believe only them, if you do, you are a very gullible person and would believe anything. Many years of life experience will wise you up. OK, I’m finished.
Was it or wasn’t it? You originally said “The reason 70% of the people felt it was different than what the Warren report stated was because they were there, or heard the eye-witness reports minutes after the shooting, or saw the shooting live on TV. I was one of those people.” Implying that either you saw it live on Tv, or at least some people did. Who did? What did they see on this TV broadcast that convinced them right then and there that there was more than one gunman?
People who hear gunshots are notoriously bad at pinpointing where the shots came from, especially if there are lots of buildings and echoes, noise and confusion. Heck my parents neighborhood is plagued by a weird popping creaking noise that happens constantly in the dead quiet of night, and we still can’t figure out which direction its coming from.
Was the actual shooting on live television? If so, I have to wonder why the Zapruder film is considered so significant.
If it was on TV, I doubt the Zapruder film would be such a big deal. [Darn, Bryan Ekers beat me to it.]
Maybe all of the people on the radio said two diretions, but most people who were there said the shots came from one direction.
::Rilchiam blinks, reads twice:: Oh, it’s lekatt. Ne’mine.
Seriously, though, this is why I treat all theories with equal skepticism. It’s just been too long, and there were a finite number of people on Dealey Plaza or at Parkland Memorial. It’s frustration with that, methinks, that causes theorists to invent these phantom witnesses.