General Discussion

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)

264. You need to demonstrate you understand something of the political climate of the time

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:52 PM

Nov 2013

Did you read that Boston Globe article? Every word of it?

Hopefully you were able to gain some appreciation of what was behind the scenes at the time.

Now think about exactly who was on that commission. Every one of them was appointed by Johnson, and Johnson hated the Kennedys. The most powerful personality and the one with the ability to hide the most information was Alan Dulles, whom Jack Kennedy had fired. The Democratic congressmen were from the South, and they deeply distrusted the Kennedys.

If a person wanted to put together a kangaroo court that was guaranteed to whitewash this, you couldn't come up with a better set of people than Johnson did.

So I really have no use at all for all your silly arguments about "the Commission looked into this" and "the commission determined that". This was the farthest possible thing from an objective panel, and they demonstrated this over and over by their choice of what to pursue and what NOT to pursue.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

373 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Those who demand that everyone "just ACCEPT that Oswald did it"... [View all] Ken Burch Nov 2013 OP

They are still left with one unconfortable fact Warpy Nov 2013 #1

Oswald had a motive. We'll never know what it was. That doesn't negate physical evidence. n/t Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #5

Oswald had a motive, but you can't tell us what it was, and can provide no evidence? Ace Acme Nov 2013 #18

Well, of course he had a motive. He did do it. Something motivated him to do what he did. Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #38

He did it, so he must have had a motive. That's how circular reasoning works. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #41

Having a motive follows from his doing it. Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #42

See what I mean? He had a motive because he did it. He did it because he had a motive. nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #87

2 + 2 = 4. 4 = 2 + 2. Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #93

Arithmetic is trivial. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #95

Ace, I will allow that if establishing he did it means you accepting he did it Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #101

You're trying to make it my fault that you can't prove your case. nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #140

I don't accept you as a judge of what's proven and what's not. n/t Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #150

+1000. And LMFAO. n/t GoneFishin Nov 2013 #171

Nope, that's not how circular reasoning works William Seger Nov 2013 #75

Pop quiz: argument from ignorance. Which is what you thrive on. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #89

As I've said before... William Seger Nov 2013 #99

It must seem peculiar to you, as you never employ it. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #141

Either you were wrong about the meaning of "circular reasoning" ... William Seger Nov 2013 #148

Empty assertions must have worked very well for you over the years, "William" Ace Acme Nov 2013 #323

I believe he probably did do it. But what was his motive? Generally speaking when someone commits a sabrina 1 Nov 2013 #146

Good question, sabrina 1. And one that has never really been answered. Th1onein Nov 2013 #326

This has much more explanatory power than speculation about the unknown. The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #329

Sorry, that's not a motive. Th1onein Nov 2013 #330

An undiagnosed disorder is not the absence of a disorder. The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #331

But it's not evidence. Th1onein Nov 2013 #334

No, I said it NPD can explain motive, not that it was motive. The Midway Rebel Dec 2013 #339

True, and every time I have asked it the response is usually 'he wanted attention, he was a miserabe sabrina 1 Nov 2013 #335

Motive, means, opportunity. JDPriestly Nov 2013 #90

Wrong. Motive never needs to be established in US criminal law. Only intent needs to be established. stopbush Nov 2013 #117

So what's your point? Do you think intent was established? How? nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #142

Um ... blurting out 'wrong' at people and telling them they shouldn't lie ... is kinda rude ... brett_jv Nov 2013 #173

Sorry if I suggested that. Motive is not a necessary element, but a prosecutor JDPriestly Nov 2013 #192

Exactly. And if you ever get a satisfactory answer re: Oswald, the same questions apply to Ruby. BlueStreak Nov 2013 #226

What laws of physics need to be suspended for the WC conclusions to work? stopbush Nov 2013 #248

Newton's first law BlueStreak Nov 2013 #257

Regarding the various probabilitiwes of the theories BlueStreak Nov 2013 #258

But we do have the evidence. Let's start by ignoring what evidence is unknown. The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #261

That's the problem. You assume that suppressed or covered-up evidence never existed. BlueStreak Nov 2013 #262

If. If. If. That is speculation. I won't play if we speculate about unknowns. The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #263

You need to demonstrate you understand something of the political climate of the time BlueStreak Nov 2013 #264

OK, well I cannot and will not produce my academic credentials for you. The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #265

You are missing the point. It is called a cover-up BlueStreak Nov 2013 #267

Oh I see. The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #268

So, let's discuss: stopbush Nov 2013 #269

I agree. When there is a pre-determined set of conclusions, it is not hard to BlueStreak Nov 2013 #272

That's it? That's your contribution to a serious discussion? stopbush Nov 2013 #273

I did. Your note showed that after 40 years BlueStreak Nov 2013 #274

Ever stop to think they wouldn't need to confirm and reconfirm the scientific findings stopbush Nov 2013 #275

Rather simple physics calculations will show that matter can travel both forwards and backwards struggle4progress Nov 2013 #290

I don't know about the math BlueStreak Nov 2013 #294

This is similar, but slow motion: the bullet comes from the left, and struggle4progress Nov 2013 #295

That's not what the author says BlueStreak Nov 2013 #296

It's very hard to see in the second video: I had to watch it with repeated stops struggle4progress Nov 2013 #297

Ridiculous. A-historic and non-scientific. stopbush Dec 2013 #362

Read the link I already provided BlueStreak Dec 2013 #363

Well, at least you admit that you misspoke. That's more than one gets from most CTists. stopbush Dec 2013 #364

This witness clearly felt Specter bullied him and others. The process was set up for that. BlueStreak Dec 2013 #365

Sure - that doctor would be on his face a better witness than some guy on the internet. stopbush Dec 2013 #370

I will never give any credence to a panel that had no adversary system BlueStreak Dec 2013 #371

And yet, you give mega-credence to Oswald's statement that he was a patsy. stopbush Dec 2013 #372

Because he was murdered before the statement could be challenged BlueStreak Dec 2013 #373

Some people on this site would rather believe that truedelphi Nov 2013 #178

What silly people! Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #189

Don't keep going around in circles with him. It's a waste of your time, Raksha Nov 2013 #184

Hello! Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #188

Mary Pinchot Meyer billhicks76 Nov 2013 #186

"I have no time for apologists who think Oswald wasn't a patsy." Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #187

What about all the deaths afterwards? brush Nov 2013 #276

Thank God John Hinkley lived ProudToBeBlueInRhody Nov 2013 #283

yet some people readily buy Ruby's stated motive: "to save Jackie Kennedy another trip to Dallas" KurtNYC Dec 2013 #366

We've had 50 years to figure out a motive. Clearly by now it is clear that since there is no sabrina 1 Nov 2013 #145

The man has been dead for fifty years. Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #151

No it doesn't, but knowing his motive would explain why he did it. His brother is still alive, sabrina 1 Nov 2013 #152

He did speak pandr32 Nov 2013 #183

OJ said he didn't do it, either. n/t Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #185

That is a silly comparison pandr32 Nov 2013 #197

So you admit that it is possible for a guilty person to pretend he or she is innocent? Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #198

A guilty person might claim innocence, but a decompensated jealous nut-job who wants Ace Acme Nov 2013 #287

Yeah... Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #293

Thanks for demonstrating that I left you speechless nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #299

Several years ago they conducted a mock avebury Nov 2013 #333

James DiEugenio says Spence did a terrible job on defense Ace Acme Dec 2013 #341

Well I would have voted not guilty. avebury Dec 2013 #343

Or he did have a motive. Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #9

He worked for the CIA RobertEarl Nov 2013 #45

Bush at the CIA RobertEarl Nov 2013 #51

No, he didn't? Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #71

That's what they told you RobertEarl Nov 2013 #76

Who is "they"? Oswald was extensively investigated. Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #80

He was a patsy RobertEarl Nov 2013 #84

I see, you don't actually care what the conclusions of any investigation were. Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #85

Sure I do RobertEarl Nov 2013 #91

Except there's no evidence of that. Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #96

Well RobertEarl Nov 2013 #98

"an agent of the CIA is never admitted to being an agent." Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2013 #137

+1 DiverDave Nov 2013 #134

+1. GoneFishin Nov 2013 #172

So says Oliver Stone. The evidence in the case says something else. stopbush Nov 2013 #249

Yeah. What do facts know. Stupid, ignorant facts. n/t GoneFishin Nov 2013 #277

Hardly irrelevant Warpy Nov 2013 #69

Not really. Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #72

Can I point out that to this day, we don't know what make and model Oswald used. truedelphi Nov 2013 #179

False. Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #181

Except the Mannlicher-Carcano had its name embossed on it. truedelphi Nov 2013 #203

It was filmed and photographed. It is Oswald's rifle and not a Mauser. Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #206

Again, the gun that was ultimately determined to be "Oswald's gun" was truedelphi Nov 2013 #209

Yes, it did Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #212

This frustrates me Paolo123 Nov 2013 #284

And, why is the government still burying Cha Nov 2013 #50

Bugliosi dedicates 16 pages of *Reclaiming History* to Oswald's motive. stopbush Nov 2013 #54

This message was self-deleted by its author dreamnightwind Nov 2013 #174

Eh... Oye. Agschmid Nov 2013 #2

They are trying to hide the fact that the MIC runs the world Awknid Nov 2013 #3

Trying to hide it, or trying to demonstrate it? Ace Acme Nov 2013 #19

I'll speak for myself, thank you very goddamn much. n/t Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #4

+1 ReRe Nov 2013 #12

You will... MrMickeysMom Nov 2013 #30

Who said you couldn't speak to the powers who think we can't handle the truth? Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #40

We can speak, but we can't be heard. Money swears so loud there's no point. nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #43

The natural result of conspiratorial thinking - political pessimism. n/t Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #47

The natural result of political coverups--political cynicism and despair nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #83

Chill... MrMickeysMom Nov 2013 #44

Couldn't find one post of mine saying anything of the sort. Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #46

Chill... MrMickeysMom Nov 2013 #52

Still can't find a single post of mine where I've said anything of the sort? Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #53

Quit trying to defend yourself and chill MrMickeysMom Nov 2013 #56

A third post with nothing to back up your fucking stupid assertion about me and my motivations. Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #58

I have nothing to say about "your fucking stupid assertions about me"... MrMickeysMom Nov 2013 #59

Keep digging. n/t Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #60

I think you're just lonely tonight... MrMickeysMom Nov 2013 #63

Keep digging. n/t Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #64

No, Bolo, no one's digging... MrMickeysMom Nov 2013 #67

Keep digging. n/t Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #68

people clearly can't handle the truth, hence all the CT's. eqfan592 Nov 2013 #125

If you apply Occam's razor what is the most likely? Kablooie Nov 2013 #6

Well since William of Ockham died in 1347... ElboRuum Nov 2013 #7

Oh I see. The Pythagorean theorem has been superseded by entropic confusion. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #20

He he he...I was thinking it and you said it. Missn-Hitch Nov 2013 #27

Actually, it's been superseded by the whole Gillette vs. Barbasol debate. ElboRuum Nov 2013 #164

Right. It can't be a triangle because two sides are much simpler. nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #165

Two sides are vexing. ElboRuum Nov 2013 #168

If you spent as much time actually consider what Ockham said... Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #39

If you've studied Ockham... Kablooie Nov 2013 #113

The precision of a razor depends on the skill of its user. nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #143

Ah. Sweeney Todd then. Thanks. Kablooie Nov 2013 #147

Well that was a needlessly spiky response to an attempt at humor. ElboRuum Nov 2013 #163

Er, Ruby's cancer wasn't diagnosed until THREE YEARS AFTER HE KILLED OSWALD. stopbush Nov 2013 #57

Here is more info: kentuck Nov 2013 #154

Wow, thanks, some new info for me dreamnightwind Nov 2013 #176

That article is quite misleading, omitting information, providing half-quotes, etc. stopbush Nov 2013 #210

It's a valid statement that is typically true much more often than not, but that does not Egalitarian Thug Nov 2013 #156

Occam's Razor basically says that the simpler theory is simpler. rhett o rick Nov 2013 #161

Actually I'm pretty sure national polling says the opposite - eom dreamnightwind Nov 2013 #177

No. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be grahamhgreen Dec 2013 #352

I would agree if you add "to start your analysis". Occam didnt claim that the simpler rhett o rick Dec 2013 #359

No-one is demanding that, actually Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #8

Yes consider the evidence. zeemike Nov 2013 #11

The Church Committee found no such thing? Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #14

Then why did they say this? zeemike Nov 2013 #32

They said that based on audio evidence that was later disproved. DanTex Nov 2013 #62

Well it don't matter what evidence I present to you zeemike Nov 2013 #78

I'm just repeating the conclusions of HSCA. DanTex Nov 2013 #86

Who told you it was based on the audio evidence alone? zeemike Nov 2013 #100

The HSCA report. DanTex Nov 2013 #103

I know where to find the report... zeemike Nov 2013 #106

I'm not asking you to change my mind. I'm truly interested in the evidence you have. DanTex Nov 2013 #110

Nope I won't bite. zeemike Nov 2013 #127

That's too bad. But not too surprising. DanTex Nov 2013 #128

Well here you go then. zeemike Nov 2013 #129

Really? A funny youtube video? Hopefully you are joking. DanTex Nov 2013 #130

Right here: Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #118

Er, because they made a mistake. stopbush Nov 2013 #66

I am sorry, but your certainty about things is a red flag to me. zeemike Nov 2013 #82

You don't have to sit through something when you can read their reports. stopbush Nov 2013 #92

So that reasoning is as conclusive as DNA now? zeemike Nov 2013 #109

Please link me to where the audio evidence was zeemike Nov 2013 #88

Here's a link to the Natl Academy of Sciences report on the dictabelt evidence. DanTex Nov 2013 #97

So who falsified it? zeemike Nov 2013 #104

It wasn't falsified, it was an error. DanTex Nov 2013 #105

Sigh...."falsifying" means disproving a claim. stopbush Nov 2013 #114

Well we are not talking about scientific theory here zeemike Nov 2013 #124

Sorry, but you're just wrong on this. stopbush Nov 2013 #132

I understand the language. zeemike Nov 2013 #133

Wrong again. I clearly used the language to discuss the scientific aspect of a criminal stopbush Nov 2013 #211

So then zeemike Nov 2013 #213

No, wrong yet again. I was talking about scientific evidence. You changed the context stopbush Nov 2013 #215

I am sorry but this discussion IS about a criminal matter. zeemike Nov 2013 #218

You're consistently wrong because you are not allowing for words to have different meanings stopbush Nov 2013 #220

Well the reason words have different meanings is because they are used in different subjects. zeemike Nov 2013 #222

Would the Dictabelt tape be considered physical evidence? stopbush Nov 2013 #227

Holey shit....you mean impressions left by a needle inscribed on a disk is not a physical thing? zeemike Nov 2013 #229

They're not considered to be physical evidence in a legal sense. They're documentary evidence. stopbush Nov 2013 #231

Wow, you sure are a word wrangler. zeemike Nov 2013 #236

Sadly, you're now displaying the kind of truculence that is typical of JFK CTists. stopbush Nov 2013 #244

And you are displaying arrogance and a condescending demeanor. zeemike Nov 2013 #251

Arrogance? Citing dictionary definitions and facts is arrogance? Insulting you? stopbush Nov 2013 #252

Here ya go: stopbush Nov 2013 #108

That's the HSCA. Not the Church Committee. Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #74

It was a coup d'état 50 years ago today. roamer65 Nov 2013 #10

The pressure to advertise when Oswald was being transferred allowed Ruby to hit him seveneyes Nov 2013 #13

Oswald was moved about an hour later than planned. Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #16

Then Ruby starts to spill the beans a bit on cameras. roamer65 Nov 2013 #17

How many coups d'état have we had in the USA in the past 50 years? stopbush Nov 2013 #253

Another with Bush/Gore 2000. grahamhgreen Dec 2013 #353

Give me a coherent theory, supported by actual evidence -- instead of a big steaming heap struggle4progress Nov 2013 #15

It is sufficient to point out the shortcomings of the official theory Ace Acme Nov 2013 #23

It would be sufficient to create reasonable doubt if LHO were on trial: that is a simple matter struggle4progress Nov 2013 #48

Even if it's LHO's rifle, that doesn't prove he was the shooter. nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #94

The task IMO is to provide a convincing alternative theory struggle4progress Nov 2013 #111

What evidence would you accept that proved Oswald was the shooter? stopbush Nov 2013 #120

You never heard of surgical gloves? How droll. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #166

So, your imaginary shooter who showed up at the TSBD to fire Oswald's rifle stopbush Nov 2013 #216

Any fool can make up a nonsense scenario. It has nothing to do with the fact Ace Acme Nov 2013 #217

Except that we know it was Oswald who brought the gun to the TSBD and did the shooting. stopbush Nov 2013 #219

We don't know anything of the sort. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #221

More bullshit. stopbush Nov 2013 #232

The positive was on his palms, not the back of his hands. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #241

Your citing of the paraffin tests in your previous post is an excellent example stopbush Nov 2013 #243

The meaningless paraffin test was positive. For the palms of the hands. Not the backs. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #279

Okay, let's assume Oswald didn't fire a shot. nyquil_man Nov 2013 #233

Maybe he was truly carrying curtain rods. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #280

Maybe he truly was carrying curtain rods. nyquil_man Nov 2013 #282

Maybe he was ordered to carry curtain rods. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #285

I suppose it's possible. nyquil_man Nov 2013 #286

After the president was killed, LHO would see there was no point in talking about curtain rods. nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #288

No? Even when directly asked about them by Captain Fritz? nyquil_man Nov 2013 #289

Of course any patsy recognizing he was the patsy would react in panic mode nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #291

Of course. Any innocent person being framed will lie about the truth. nyquil_man Nov 2013 #292

A patsy recognizing that he's been manipulated into performing suspicious acts Ace Acme Nov 2013 #298

Yes, like I said, innocent people always lie. nyquil_man Nov 2013 #300

I didn't say innocent people always lie. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #301

Yes, and in his panic mode he would scream "I'm just a patsy" nyquil_man Nov 2013 #302

Yes, in panic mode he'd say "I'm just a patsy". Why would you think otherwise? nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #304

As I've said, I think he would. I also think he'd lie over and over again. nyquil_man Nov 2013 #305

I didn't say he was innocent. I said he may have been a patsy. nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #306

So far, all you've accused Oswald of doing is carrying curtain rods to work. nyquil_man Nov 2013 #307

I didn't say that. There's no point in discussing the issues with someone Ace Acme Nov 2013 #308

The issue I'm discussing is your hypothesis that Oswald was a patsy. nyquil_man Nov 2013 #309

Your assumption that Oswald would have no reason to deny bringing curtain rods Ace Acme Nov 2013 #310

I expect an innocent person being set up to behave in a manner nyquil_man Nov 2013 #311

I'll suppose that you have never been seriously unjustly accused. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #312

And now we have a second hypothesis. nyquil_man Nov 2013 #313

What makes you think LHO wasn't trained in covert ops? Ace Acme Nov 2013 #314

Garbage assumptions? nyquil_man Nov 2013 #315

Garbage assumptions, garbage conclusions. nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #316

Still projecting. nyquil_man Nov 2013 #317

Indeed, you are. You make no sense. TKO! nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #318

That reminds me. Did you contact your representative yet? nt nyquil_man Nov 2013 #319

My representative is bought and paid for by the 1% Ace Acme Nov 2013 #320

Yes, of course. nyquil_man Nov 2013 #321

My Representative's raison d'être is to prove there's no point in trying. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #322

You accept his 'proof' without challenge. nyquil_man Nov 2013 #325

My Representative is Corrupt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #336

Senator Wellstone? Where the hell did that come from? nyquil_man Dec 2013 #340

Re: Wellstone, I guess I got my threads mixed up Ace Acme Dec 2013 #347

So say the creationists. Orsino Nov 2013 #235

You don't think they're just trolls? JVS Nov 2013 #21

Just go back to sleep Cheap_Trick Nov 2013 #22

I don't know what really happened but the Warren Commission is a load of crap. n/t bluetexas Nov 2013 #24

So I assume you read the WCR? zappaman Nov 2013 #28

Exhibit One - The Magic Bullet bluetexas Nov 2013 #36

What was magic about the single bullet? Please explain. stopbush Nov 2013 #77

Magic bullets are what conspiricists propose as an alternative William Seger Nov 2013 #112

It's a fact Oswald acted alone, just as it is a fact the Holocaust happened. duffyduff Nov 2013 #25

You are correct that it doesn"t matter what i think PDJane Nov 2013 #26

We still don't know the truth. Exclamation Point. bluetexas Nov 2013 #29

Wow! It's a fact! Stop the presses! An anonymous internet poster reveals the truth! nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #33

Anyone who thinks there has never been any credible evidence proving Oswald didn't act alone... MrMickeysMom Nov 2013 #35

Of course, first it was as open and shut as the moon landing, SolutionisSolidarity Nov 2013 #37

ending a rant with "period." is the sign of a close-minded asswipe scheming daemons Nov 2013 #49

It's a fact that a conspiracy has not been proven, but that does not prove Oswald acted alone. Martin Eden Nov 2013 #149

Nope. Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #167

Well said cpwm17 Nov 2013 #158

I agree with this post. ^^^ oswaldactedalone Nov 2013 #271

Have at it, by all means. BeatleBoot Nov 2013 #31

The next thing you tell me is that the Gulf of Tonkin was merely a pretext for war. SolutionisSolidarity Nov 2013 #34

And Paul Wellstone YOHABLO Nov 2013 #73

Not to mention a holocaust denier. nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #81

Who demanded? creeksneakers2 Nov 2013 #55

of course no one said anything like that, author's common strawman. grantcart Nov 2013 #175

It's plain that Oswald didn't do it. indivisibleman Nov 2013 #61

Oswald had all sorts of motives. There is now an article at Slate.com The Second Stone Nov 2013 #65

thanks, Mulder dionysus Nov 2013 #70

*IF* ony one person fired the shot, that doesn't mean others won't behind. Incitatus Nov 2013 #79

I not very concerned if people believe Oswald was the sole shooter ZombieHorde Nov 2013 #102

How many seconds did it take for Oswald to make those three shots? cherokeeprogressive Nov 2013 #107

Anywhere from 6 to 11 seconds. stopbush Nov 2013 #115

Almost 24 years nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #169

First post on this JustAnotherGen Nov 2013 #116

This has come full circle back to Richard Hofstadter The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #119

I have always said there is no such thing as "too paranoid," Raksha Nov 2013 #191

They demand we suspend critical thinking CrawlingChaos Nov 2013 #121

Hey, I'm not demanding anything from you. Paladin Nov 2013 #122

No, they are not asking. lonestarnot Nov 2013 #123

Just like we're supposed to accept the inevitability of another Pres. Clinton... polichick Nov 2013 #126

+1 woo me with science Nov 2013 #139

Too bad, because I don't accept the "inevitability" of another Clinton presidency. Raksha Nov 2013 #193

+ A shit load! Enthusiast Dec 2013 #367

They tell us Fredo died because he was a bad swimmer, too. After all, we weren't there, so... valerief Nov 2013 #131

I don't give in to demands. Rex Nov 2013 #135

Who are... 99Forever Nov 2013 #136

I keep hearing Cartman "OBEY MY AUTHORITY" .. TBF Nov 2013 #138

I don't, just as I don't demand frogmarch Nov 2013 #144

It would be interesting to see how many people that do not believe in any conspiracy...? kentuck Nov 2013 #153

As i was only truedelphi Nov 2013 #182

I don't understand why it bothers the so much? notadmblnd Nov 2013 #155

A very good point indeed. n/t Egalitarian Thug Nov 2013 #157

Exactly. They doth protest too much. nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #170

And with too much anger.............nt Enthusiast Dec 2013 #368

i think conspiracy theorists waste their time on bullshit but that is there choice to make La Lioness Priyanka Nov 2013 #159

Lioness, your avatar seems a little ironic in the context of this post. Gidney N Cloyd Nov 2013 #196

its not a conspiracy that wars profit some people. there is nothing even hidden about it. La Lioness Priyanka Nov 2013 #202

The second I saw Oswald being shot it pretty much cemented my feelings that he did not appleannie1 Nov 2013 #160

Until that moment... kentuck Nov 2013 #162

Also mine. Blue_In_AK Nov 2013 #194

I saw it too, and my reaction was the same as yours. Raksha Nov 2013 #195

Listen to the interview of Jack Ruby. roamer65 Nov 2013 #224

Oswald hired by Hoover Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #180

I was quite young when this happened... RoccoR5955 Nov 2013 #190

Take a deep breath XRubicon Nov 2013 #199

Kick! sarcasmo Nov 2013 #200

it was 50 years ago and the principal players Niceguy1 Nov 2013 #201

Funny that birthers use the same stupid logic SpartanDem Nov 2013 #204

Many of us not normally into conspiracy theories - TBF Nov 2013 #207

"They are asking us to believe what we're told and to just get back in line." absquatulatewithme Nov 2013 #205

welcome to DU gopiscrap Nov 2013 #208

problem is, the conclusion ISN'T obvious. Ken Burch Nov 2013 #214

Pervasive hopelessness, cynicism, and apathy benefits the 1%. nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #223

This author does just that: truedelphi Nov 2013 #225

Which is the Warren Commission's case against Oswald is BOGUS. Octafish Nov 2013 #237

Have you watched the new NOVA Cold case special yet? BootinUp Nov 2013 #238

Why, no. Does it ''prove'' the Warren Commission's case? Octafish Nov 2013 #239

It uses modern methods instead of someones best guess in 1963 BootinUp Nov 2013 #240

I'll keep in mind the Koch Brothers fund Nova. Octafish Nov 2013 #242

This crackpot is in the Cold Case JFK documentary too. The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #245

Yeah. They didn't let Josiah Thompson finish what he was saying. Octafish Nov 2013 #246

Is he willing to admit he is not a forensic scientist though? The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #247

Thompson still clinging to discredited acoustic "evidence". Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #255

And? Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #254

Still making apologies for Oswald, the bastard who killed JFK. stopbush Nov 2013 #256

No apology necessary. Even a douche deserves a fair trial. Octafish Nov 2013 #260

I agree with you that Oswald was douche, and that he deserved a fair trial. stopbush Nov 2013 #270

Oh I see, he doesn't deserve a reasonable doubt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #324

You're fucking hilarious. BootinUp Nov 2013 #328

Thanks for sharing nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #337

He deserved to be considered innocent until proven guilty, but that ended when he was killed. stopbush Dec 2013 #338

He was never convicted. The Warren Commission started with the assumption of guilt. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #342

Wrong. The WC started with the mandate to discover the truth, not matter where it led. stopbush Dec 2013 #344

Whatever its stated mandate, the Warren Report started with a hasty FBI report. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #345

You better believe it, Abe! N/t zappaman Dec 2013 #346

Yes, the FBI issued a preliminary report within two weeks of the assassination. stopbush Dec 2013 #348

Post removed Post removed Dec 2013 #349

Not correct. stopbush Dec 2013 #350

You just said that Obama is the same as Bush???? zappaman Dec 2013 #351

Oh for Christ sake, he had the gun and everything. nt Deep13 Nov 2013 #228

He did it, but not alone. Jack Ruby, was the key to the whole conspiracy theory. I beleive he demosincebirth Nov 2013 #230

It was Larry Flynt, on the Grassy Knoll. Warren DeMontague Nov 2013 #234

Well, he most likely did do it. KamaAina Nov 2013 #250

"Don't tell ME to sit down and shut up!" jazzimov Nov 2013 #259

Good observation... MrMickeysMom Nov 2013 #266

For some reason, some DUers can't entertain the idea that the government would lie to the People. Octafish Nov 2013 #278

Gulf of Tonkin was a fabrication also. grahamhgreen Dec 2013 #355

JFK would never have fallen for phony INTEL, after the Bay of Pigs thing. Octafish Dec 2013 #356

They had to get rid of him warrprayer Nov 2013 #281

Oswald did do it lostincalifornia Nov 2013 #303

I see what you did there. Ken Burch Dec 2013 #358

Shhhhh lostincalifornia Dec 2013 #361

1000 times yes. defacto7 Nov 2013 #327

Some. Major Hogwash Nov 2013 #332

Nobody is "demanding you just accept" anything. stopbush Dec 2013 #354

They argue that if you don't find the identity of the real killers then Oswald did it Pitagoras Dec 2013 #357

Oh pshaw. Maybe for some, but to simplify it down to that only is wrong. uppityperson Dec 2013 #360

Most people do not believe the WC findings. Enthusiast Dec 2013 #369