General Discussion

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)

133. Sure I do.

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 11:03 AM

Nov 2013

The ballistics, forensics, and everything else? Have withstood all the scrutiny thrown at them by two separate investigations, first the Warren Commission, second the HSCA. The conspiracist claims that the evidence is faked don't withstand scrutiny. The claims that the autopsy photos and X-rays were faked or falsified, for instance, were refuted by the photographic analysis conducted by the HSCA. The claims that Kennedy's body was altered between Parkland and Bethesda to alter the appearance of his wounds? Refuted by the evidence that it was under continous guard the whole way. The claims that the single bullet wounding Connally and Kennedy is "impossible"? Refuted by the HSCA's analysis, and by subsequent analyses. All of the actual evidence has withstood repeated scrutiny. Conspiracy arguments, on the other hand, are all about handwaving, claiming the evidence was faked, making things up out of whole cloth, and focusing on total irrelevancies.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

154 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

My take on JFK Conspiracy Theories and Theorists. [View all] DanTex Nov 2013 OP

If I wanted to discredit a theory, I'd have nutjobs promote it. Scuba Nov 2013 #1

Maybe. But then where are the non-nutjobs? DanTex Nov 2013 #4

Someone once told me to trust in one who seeks the truth, and avoid any who claim to have found it. Scuba Nov 2013 #10

Not me. It is SOP for those convinced of the 'lone gunman' CT. Rex Nov 2013 #15

I've no idea what happened in Dallas that day .... Scuba Nov 2013 #16

That is why I catagorize it as a CT in and by itself. Rex Nov 2013 #21

Please show me why the USSR would want JFK dead. JackRiddler Nov 2013 #58

Oh sure, they just nearly walked into nuclear war Rex Nov 2013 #81

The Kremlin knew JFK was the one... JackRiddler Nov 2013 #82

Well maybe people should say a lone marxist killed the U.S. POTUS. Rex Nov 2013 #86

Other than that he was an intel asset JackRiddler Nov 2013 #89

How do we know he was a fake? Brainwashing Rex Nov 2013 #91

Lather, rinse, repeat. JackRiddler Nov 2013 #93

The Kremlin was the enemy back then, so we are supposed to take their word on it? Rex Nov 2013 #94

Oswald returned from Russia fairly distraught at the Soviet system. stopbush Nov 2013 #103

You have amazing psychic powers. JackRiddler Nov 2013 #106

Sigh... His passport was never taken away because he never returned to the Embassy to officially stopbush Nov 2013 #109

Congratulations for answering JackRiddler Nov 2013 #118

Yes, it's true. Who knows what a person is actually thinking? stopbush Nov 2013 #120

Non-nutjobs don't believe in conspiracy theories. Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #60

what did oswald do in the texas theater before he was arrested tiny elvis Nov 2013 #75

You mean after he ducked in without buying a ticket? Despite having $13 in bills and some change? Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #80

You know that repeating and repeating a blanket statement doesn't make it true, right? GoneFishin Nov 2013 #92

Anything to contradict that? Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #97

They had to fake the evidence to support the lone gunman theory. GoneFishin Nov 2013 #100

No, there are autopsy photos. Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #105

All film including unexposed rolls were confiscated by the FBI from everyone at the autopsy. n/t GoneFishin Nov 2013 #143

No, it wasn't Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #145

This proves your job is not about finding the truth. GoneFishin Nov 2013 #146

This is in the records of the HSCA investigation. It's quite easily confirmed. Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #147

Not very discriminating if you think it supports your preconceived view. GoneFishin Nov 2013 #148

My view is based on the evidence. Not the other way round. Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #149

One of the doctors at Parkland Hospital pangaia Nov 2013 #151

And he's not a forensic pathologist. Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #152

Yeah. But he wasn't "interviewed" so he doesn't count. GoneFishin Nov 2013 #153

Let me try it and see if it works. GoneFishin Nov 2013 #95

you have discarded evidence tiny elvis Nov 2013 #98

Bullets, plural Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #101

Yeah, because no conspiracy ever happened. JackRiddler Nov 2013 #83

If they did they'd be supported by evidence, not contradicted by it. Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #90

Yeah, because a group organized enough to kill the leader of the most powerful country in the GoneFishin Nov 2013 #96

Actually, they left plenty of trail. JackRiddler Nov 2013 #108

Agreed. But people who are constitutionally incapable of acknowledging that rich white guys with GoneFishin Nov 2013 #142

Mantra mantra mantra JackRiddler Nov 2013 #107

Conspiracies that happened: Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #110

Actually, among automotive historians... JackRiddler Nov 2013 #115

"hegemonic position" Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #116

That was fast and slick. JackRiddler Nov 2013 #119

I'd take you seriously if you could supply any evidence that supports your contentions. Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #121

Constant invocations of "evidence" JackRiddler Nov 2013 #126

Evidence... DanTex Nov 2013 #128

Sure I do. Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #133

DU REC! zappaman Nov 2013 #2

I have it, haven't finished it. It's very long. DanTex Nov 2013 #6

What was amazing to me is that I was told by all the books zappaman Nov 2013 #12

There seems to be some truth to the claim that the CIA and FBI weren't fully forthcoming. DanTex Nov 2013 #19

Not just because they like secrecy... zappaman Nov 2013 #20

"CYA had to have been the mandate." JackRiddler Nov 2013 #127

Who said Oswald was not the shooter? I believe he was. That is not the question, that is merely a sabrina 1 Nov 2013 #48

Uh huh. zappaman Nov 2013 #56

What they mostly got wrong was claiming Oswald acted alone according to the opinion of a majority sabrina 1 Nov 2013 #78

Not only do some think Oswald wasn't the shooter.... HooptieWagon Nov 2013 #66

Allow me to disabuse you easily: WinkyDink Nov 2013 #3

Except that conclusion was based on acoustical evidence that everyone knows was false. zappaman Nov 2013 #5

Right, but the acoustic evidence was later refuted. DanTex Nov 2013 #7

Just a little info on why I feel there was/is a cover-up at play zbdent Nov 2013 #8

Oh, didn't you know? Art_from_Ark Nov 2013 #26

If Nixon was talking about being involved in any way in the assassination of Kennedy ... zbdent Nov 2013 #27

Whatever Nixon was talking about during those 18 1/2 minutes, Art_from_Ark Nov 2013 #30

Interesting that you'd mention Nixon. nyquil_man Nov 2013 #74

Watergate also shows how journalism got into the ring better equipped than it was during the Kennedy ancianita Nov 2013 #111

Here's a few quotes from Nixon. roamer65 Nov 2013 #154

More Americans believe that Global Warming is not real than believe the WCR. KurtNYC Nov 2013 #9

I agree that most Americans believe in a conspiracy. DanTex Nov 2013 #13

Studies have shown that people seek out news and information they already agree with KurtNYC Nov 2013 #35

Sure, the majority is usually correct. DanTex Nov 2013 #51

A majority of Americans believe in a guardian angel that watches over them and keeps them safe. zappaman Nov 2013 #14

Are these the ones who doubt the WCR? JackRiddler Nov 2013 #84

Great answer! pacalo Nov 2013 #40

Are these the same Americans who are publicly JackRiddler Nov 2013 #61

Most Americans are completely ignorant of the evidence in the Kennedy assassinaton. Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #63

Here are questions I don't think are answered much upaloopa Nov 2013 #11

Evidence they achieved their ends? JackRiddler Nov 2013 #85

Historians will tell you that history's evidence gets killed and buried all the time, or else we ancianita Nov 2013 #17

You're a denier. I have no patience with people afraid to face the truth. duffyduff Nov 2013 #25

You're right about me, Stone and others being deniers. So be it. The truth will out. ancianita Nov 2013 #29

I didn't mean to imply that anyone who believes in a conspiracy was a nut. DanTex Nov 2013 #31

No harm no foul. However...All overturned evidence in any human arena is relevant. ancianita Nov 2013 #33

Fair Enough. And like I said in the OP, I've been reading about this for only a few weeks. DanTex Nov 2013 #49

No,we can't reject existing evidence. But it's not the whole truth.Thus, disputes that get dismissed ancianita Nov 2013 #68

Tell it, my sibling! JackRiddler Nov 2013 #87

Yup! The forensic evidence is fairly unequivocal. longship Nov 2013 #18

I have compared them with the creationists WRT evolution. duffyduff Nov 2013 #23

Yup! I was a Detroit News paperboy at the time. longship Nov 2013 #28

So who impersonated Oswald in the Mexico City phone call? Warren DeMontague Nov 2013 #88

Mark Lane has done a lot of damage to the country. duffyduff Nov 2013 #22

Oswald.... RagAss Nov 2013 #24

Everything you have said is true. DanTex Nov 2013 #42

True. There is no evidence that he received support in any of the "stops" he had.... RagAss Nov 2013 #65

Everything you said also applies to the Warren Comm Conspiracy Theory BlueStreak Nov 2013 #32

The word "conspiracy" it is in wide use in this situation. DanTex Nov 2013 #34

He sure was the sole shooter...read my post above.... RagAss Nov 2013 #36

Even more reason why it is offensive BlueStreak Nov 2013 #37

I agree with you. The Warren Commission's mission was to come up with "official theory." ancianita Nov 2013 #39

Well, I didn't mean it to be offensive, only descriptive. DanTex Nov 2013 #41

I haven't seen anything I would call balanced BlueStreak Nov 2013 #70

There were no competing investigators to fight the evidence scrubbers of that analog time. There ancianita Nov 2013 #38

And considering that most of the principals are dead BlueStreak Nov 2013 #71

You're right. Vetting takes time, what with all the disinformation bot system at work digitally. ancianita Nov 2013 #72

You have only been looking at the assiassination for two weeks ... former9thward Nov 2013 #43

I don't claim to be an expert, but I have done some reading. DanTex Nov 2013 #47

Mark Lane has a fine history in the Civil Rights movement. former9thward Nov 2013 #54

It's not that just he was a lawyer for People's Temple, it's that he alleged that DanTex Nov 2013 #59

I didn't make the charge. former9thward Nov 2013 #62

Believing in a government conspiracy against the paradise of People's Temple makes a person a nut. DanTex Nov 2013 #64

Where is that Warren quote coming from? former9thward Nov 2013 #67

That Warren passage is in Chapter 20 of the book. DanTex Nov 2013 #69

With your mind frame any author who questions the WC is a nut. former9thward Nov 2013 #130

That's not true at all, and misrepresenting my argument doesn't help your case. DanTex Nov 2013 #131

JFK Conspiracy and the Case of Jim Garrison (1967) duffyduff Nov 2013 #44

Your ignoring Robbins Nov 2013 #144

Last night Newton Minow was on TV frazzled Nov 2013 #45

I wish I had seen it too. zappaman Nov 2013 #46

I just found the video of the interview! frazzled Nov 2013 #53

Bookmarked for later. zappaman Nov 2013 #57

K&R The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #50

This is pretty much exactly how I feel. DanTex Nov 2013 #52

Yes, that leap of faith is akin to religion IMHO. The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #55

I agree completely with your first sentence. However, there is plenty of room on the jerkwad train ScreamingMeemie Nov 2013 #76

I hate the term 'conspiracy theory'. A 'conspiracy guess' does not a theory make. Captain Stern Nov 2013 #73

then there is no good reason not to release all docs, unredacted scheming daemons Nov 2013 #102

Amen. That is something I've never expected to see in my lifetime. ancianita Nov 2013 #104

Maybe. Maybe not. Captain Stern Nov 2013 #132

if the CIA did illegal stuff 50 years ago, so what? scheming daemons Nov 2013 #134

I have spent fifty years following this. JimboBillyBubbaBob Nov 2013 #77

If you were objective about it, then how did you resolve all the inconsistencies? GoneFishin Nov 2013 #99

Honestly, there don't seem to be all that many inconsistencies. DanTex Nov 2013 #129

You accept the Warren Report. Oh well. A lot of your information is wrong though. n/t GoneFishin Nov 2013 #141

then explain the shit with Oswald and Mexico. Warren DeMontague Nov 2013 #79

Oswald went to Mexico City to try and get a visa to go to Cuba. DanTex Nov 2013 #122

And who impersonated him on the phone to the Cuban & Soviet embassies? Why did the CIA cover it up? Warren DeMontague Nov 2013 #137

From what I've read, the impersonation theory has been pretty soundly disproved. DanTex Nov 2013 #138

I think Oswald's story is bizarre, to say the least. Warren DeMontague Nov 2013 #139

I agree completely. Bizarre is putting it mildly. DanTex Nov 2013 #140

Any public deprived of citizens' right to information of public concern is not in any way CT. This ancianita Nov 2013 #112

rev'rent tiny elvis Nov 2013 #114

So The House Committee Was Wrong I Guess colsohlibgal Nov 2013 #113

LBJ, Nixon, Gary Hart, William Cohen... JackRiddler Nov 2013 #117

The HSCA basically agreed with the WC about everything except the audio evidence. DanTex Nov 2013 #124

then releasing all docs, unredacted, should be no issue scheming daemons Nov 2013 #135

I would love to have the docs released. DanTex Nov 2013 #136

Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #123

Well, not me. DanTex Nov 2013 #125

My Big Problem With Conspiracy Theories is This Wolf Frankula Nov 2013 #150