General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy believed President Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. [View all]stopbush
(24,396 posts)I provided you with the WCR evidence that proves that they did plan the route of the motorcade, that it was planned well in advance of the day, and that there were no changes to said route once it was planned by the SS. I'm not surprised you didn't know that. It's just another confirmation that you don't really have any interest in exploring the facts in this case, which leads to your lack of knowledge of said facts in the case.
See, this is what I don't get about CTists like yourself. You refuse to read the WCR or an objective book like Reclaiming History, so you're not knowledgeable of the facts in the case. That leads you into all kinds of wild speculation about what happened that day.
Case in point - your posts that imply that the motorcade route was altered at the last minute, and that SS agents were pulled off assignments, etc. The impression you create is that a bunch of crazy stuff happened at the last minute to ensure chaos, enabling "the conspirators" to get a leg up on law enforcement, to drag JFK into some pre-determined kill zone and to strike him down. It all sounds so evil and nefarious, especially when you IGNORE the facts in the case when it comes to the planning of the motorcade route.
Now, were I still sitting in the CT camp, I would go a different way with the evidence presented by the WCR that the motorcade route was planned by the SS, approved by the DPD and that no other law enforcement saw the dangers in the proposed route. I would certainly ignore any idea that the route was changed at the last minute (which is what the liar Jim Garrison proposed), because the evidence proves that is an absolute falsehood. I might center my questions on how far up the chain of command approval of the route went. Did it start and end with the two SS agents assigned to plan the route? Did it go further than that? Did the head of the SS sign off on the route? How abut RFK? Was he informed? Etc.
Those kind of inquiries stem from knowledge of the evidence in the case, not from an ignorance of the evidence.
I don't understand what you gain as a JFK CTist by keeping yourself in the dark when it comes to the actual evidence in the case. Even if you look at this from the base perspective of simply knowing your enemy, one would think you'd want to be as well versed in the conclusions of the WCR in the hope of being able to challenge their conclusions from a perspective of knowledge, rather than ignorance.