Ah…because you (claim) to remember those events and what you were doing, anyone who doesn’t is either a liar or is far gone? I’ve seen a lot of ridiculous horseshit here on the 'dope, but this one has got to be close to the prize winner.
For my part: JFK: I was running around in the back yard when I noticed my mother crying. I’m not sure if this is a ‘real’ memory or not (I was around 3), since I’ve been told this story many times I might be remembering the story and not the events. Challenger…not sure, heard it on the news. Don’t remember where I was. Reagan: As I already said, no idea where I was, just remember catching it on the news at some point. Elvis: Remember vaguely hear it on the news but not sure where I was. 9/11: Was at my house in Maryland when a friend called me to tell me there had been some kind of accident (first plane hitting WTC), turned on the TV and saw the second plane hit, live.
The point is that everyone’s memories work differently, and some things have more holds on us than others. I remember some events like they were in crystal, almost like they just happened a few moments ago, while others I don’t remember at all. Oh, I could probably work out where I was when the Challenger exploded, or when Reagan was shot if I worked at it, but off the top of my head I don’t have any idea.
Calling someone a liar because they don’t remember something that you THINK they should remember is seriously silly.
In case you missed it, before we can speculate on GHWB’s reasons for saying he doesn’t remember where he was at the time, the first step is to establish that, indeed, he doesn’t remember.
If that is the only cite you have (the one that tomndebb described as “one long, uncited, fact free harangue”), then please just admit that you got nuthin’.
That article mentions, unsourced, that Bush says he can’t remember where he was when JFK was killed. The very next sentence says that it’s been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that two of the three tramps arrested were Hunt and Sturgis, and we already know how ridiculous that claim is.
There were at least 20 witnesses who heard shots from the grassy knoll. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKassassinationsC.htm You guys tell me they recanted? Fine, for each recantation you can cite, I will look at the circumstances.
Here is Jean Hill saying how she was intimidated:
Now, I am not a grassy knoll fanatic. But when you say that no witnesses heard anything from the grassy knoll and that no witnesses were told to say anything else, that doesn’t follow the facts. The investigation never followed the facts. Within minutes the witnesses were being told to say other things. That is misconduct in an investigation. Jean Hill - The Lady in Red
If you would like to accept the official view of what happens, that is your prerogative. I don’t. The investigation was mishandled, and it is entirely possible in my view that Oswald took actions either with others or at the instigation of others. Oswald had plenty of contacts with the CIA, the Soviets and Cuba. While it is possible that no body else had anything to do with it, I am not so naive as to think that there are people in the CIA, the USSR and Cuba that would try to assassinate a head of state. The people who worked for the CIA back then, including the likes of Hunt and Liddy were evil, ruthless and reckless people. Listen to Liddy on his talk show sometime. He is the sort of evil SOB that would not hesitate to kill anyone if he were paid to do it. While it is entirely debatable whether Liddy was there in Dallas, the CIA had lots of evil guys like him for assassinations, which the CIA did. I obviously think the CIA is the leading candidate as to being behind it, but it could be others. It looks to me like a military style ambush.
Colorful story from Jean Hill. She says she started to run across the street so quickly that a motorcycle cop almost hit her, but photos show her staying in place for over a minute after the shooting. And the guy who took Ms. Hill to the courthouse building is no mystery - it was Jim Featherston, a reporter for the Dallas Times Herald. Here’s his account of that:
You say “official view.” The smart money is on saying “science.” I accept the science involved. In other words, I don’t buy into the conspiracy theories.
You do know that Oswald was in the military, don’t you?
It’s a crazy thought, but maybe it was that Oswald guy? I mean, it could have been space aliens, the Easter Bunny or The Comedian, to be sure, but using Occam’s Razor, it sure seems like Oswald acting by himself goes to the head of the list. Not wanting to rule anything out, mind, but there is all that evidence stuff.
Yes, Oswald did it. But I am not convinced it was investigated at the time as to whether he did it alone.
As for science, science is something repeatable by others. That is not possible here. It is an approximation. There was very little opportunity to ask Oswald, even if he had wanted to talk. Why people like Hill were asked to change their story and why the CIA waited for years to disclose that they even knew Oswald will always be suspicious in my mind. Yes, there are explanations that if accepted are reasonable, but I think those explanations are lies.
Well, the witnesses were tampered with and told to say three shots when they thought they heard as many as six. Oswald had CIA ties, and the CIA said he didn’t. So 15 years later when all the people could say why the lies were told are dead and gone, or still liars, we are supposed to believe them? No. They are liars. We have a botched investigation, 20 eyewitnesses described shots from elsewhere and Oswald, the perfect patsy, a discontent with ties to everyone pulling the trigger. Sorry. I’m not so naive that I think there can’t be political assassinations in this country and that assassins at the CIA wouldn’t have part.
Who says it’s a botched investigation? You? Who says the actual evidence is based on lies? You? What else do you have? Oh, yes. You’re not naive. That’s your case? Somehow, I think that just doesn’t cut it as actual evidence.
Guys, it’s my opinion. Originally, this was a GQ and I was asked for why people like me thought it. So yes, when you tell the witnesses that they were wrong about how many shots they heard, that is a wrong investigation. When your lead suspect is shot to death in front of the nation, that is botched. That’s my opinion. You are not obliged to share it. But if you screw up so bad that you lose a suspect you have in custody, that is botched.
Of course witnesses can be mistaken. I’ve never said otherwise. I’m saying that it is improper to suggest to the witness that they are mistaken when their statement is being taken. You are free to disagree with me on that. I wouldn’t do it.
Nor have I ever said that Oswald did not commit criminal acts. But when you say Oswald was the lead suspect, rather than the only suspect, you are agreeing with me.
It’s not at all clear that the manipulation occurred.
I said “lead suspect” because you said “lead suspect” when describing your generalized case. Oswald killed Kennedy and there is no evidence he had any help.
I’ve seen a lot of ridiculous horseshit here on the 'dope, but this one has got to be close to the prize winner.