IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 26th December 2020, 10:44 PM   #121
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,959
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
Why would Oswald's alleged co-conspirators wait two whole days to silence him?

Unless, of course, there was no conspiracy. Occam strikes again.
The better question is:

Why not frame Oswald as part of a larger Marxist/Cuban Conspiracy?

Hoover could have rolled up Communist organizations across the country as threats, and LBJ would have been in a better position to make the case to check the Soviet/Red Menace in places like SE Asia and Central/South America.

If the conspiracy was to get the US into Vietnam, and or Cuba while turning the CIA loose then why accurately paint Oswald as the sad-sack dork that he was? How does that advance the secret US agenda?
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2020, 11:11 PM   #122
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,007
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
If they didn't think it would change their basic conclusions, then it isn't a case of laziness, it's a case of parsimony- something I'm aware CTists have a problem with.

And I'm not going to play your game of "what does it look like to you?" I've already explained why, even though it shouldn't need explanation.
From my point of view, a pathologist performing an autopsy should painstakingly note every small defect in the way they would with a living patient. If a living person had a little hole in their right temple going right through the scalp, then there would be a medical record of it, there shouldn't be any real professional saying "it's only a small wound, who cares".
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2020, 11:18 PM   #123
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,007
As of right now, I guess there's no way to argue any further than to look back at the few versions of the cranium photos that have leaked to the public.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...r083_yiLVrNGYK
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2020, 11:22 PM   #124
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,007
What do you suspect that semi-circular white spot is, if not a hole in the scalp? Do you think that's some kind of glare on a piece of matter closer to the foreground?
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2020, 01:10 AM   #125
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,959
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
From my point of view, a pathologist performing an autopsy should painstakingly note every small defect in the way they would with a living patient.
Pathologists only work on the dead.

There is no "defect", just a blob of flesh, or brain, or internal skull matter that you are unfamiliar with. You see what you want to see, they had their fingers inside the President's skull. They didn't miss anything. Bullet holes are obvious in the head.

Quote:
If a living person had a little hole in their right temple going right through the scalp, then there would be a medical record of it, there shouldn't be any real professional saying "it's only a small wound, who cares"
Do you even read what you type?
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2020, 01:12 AM   #126
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,959
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
As of right now, I guess there's no way to argue any further than to look back at the few versions of the cranium photos that have leaked to the public.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...r083_yiLVrNGYK
The problem is the official autopsy photos are full color 35mm prints. These are secondary shots to show the damage from the LONE head-wound.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2020, 06:20 AM   #127
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,025
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
From my point of view, a pathologist performing an autopsy should painstakingly note every small defect in the way they would with a living patient.
This is simply a thinly-veiled attempt at Begging the Question. You've suggested they didn't note every small defect here, and that's on you to prove, not on anyone else to disprove. Don't you remember your bizarre argument here:
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
At the very least:Maybe they did see it, but were too lazy to bother reporting on it because they were under the impression that it didn't change their basic conclusions. Would you at least be open to acknowledging that? What do you call the area around the red circle? Sure looks like a hold in the scalp to me.
As I previously pointed out, you're going to have a hard time establishing they failed to document any bullet holes because the autopsy report even notes decades-old scars, including an appendectomy scar.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
If a living person had a little hole in their right temple going right through the scalp, then there would be a medical record of it, there shouldn't be any real professional saying "it's only a small wound, who cares".
There wasn't any real professional saying anything of the sort. If you disagree, quote the pathologist(s) who said anything of the sort about any of the wounds on the President. You won't be able to because this is only your own suggestion (documented above) you're now attacking, not what any one of the pathologists who performed the autopsy actually said. You're now fully into the shifting the burden of proof logical fallacy arena and fringe reset mode.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 27th December 2020 at 06:33 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2020, 06:24 AM   #128
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,025
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
As of right now, I guess there's no way to argue any further than to look back at the few versions of the cranium photos that have leaked to the public.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...r083_yiLVrNGYK
Exactly. You need to up your game and provide some actual proof, not more of "Well, to my uneducated eye, it looks like this" interpretations of evidence.

As I explained, your arguments go nowhere, and justifiably so, because you don't have any of the necessary background to speak from authority on this. It's all just your uneducated amateur opinion, and I've already told you that's meaningless.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 27th December 2020 at 06:56 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2020, 06:25 AM   #129
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,025
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
What do you suspect that semi-circular white spot is, if not a hole in the scalp? Do you think that's some kind of glare on a piece of matter closer to the foreground?
That's the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. You brought up a photo and tried to make a point that the photo shows a bullet hole in the head that wasn't documented in the record due to the pathologist's incompetence. You've failed both in establishing a bullet hole and in showing any incompetence on the part of the autopsy doctors.

You don't get to try to back up into an argument for that by asking for our opinion.

Make a case for your silly claims the photo shows an additional bullet wound and that the autopsy doctors who had the body in front of them didn't document all of the bullet wounds or admit you can't do either.

Make your additional case that all the forensic pathologists who examined the extant autopsy materials for House Select Committee on Assassination (with over 100,000 autopsies performed in total) somehow likewise overlooked this bullet wound you are suggesting or likewise decided not to mention it in their report in 1978.

Turingtest summed it up perfectly here:
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
Wow, this is a really great example of CTist thinking (and arrogance). Trained pathologists working with the actual body at the time don't see what an amateur sleuth sees in a black-and-white photo almost sixty years later- and it's the pathologists who are incompetent.
Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 27th December 2020 at 06:55 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2020, 08:24 PM   #130
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,959
The assassination is on film. There is no second GSW to the head.

Period.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2021, 08:34 PM   #131
Major Major
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 372
The Future of Freedom Foundation is offering a seminar on the assassination. As you know, Bob, Jacob Hornberger of the FFF has asserted:

"The biggest breakthrough came in the 1990s, when the evidence that the ARRB uncovered established beyond any reasonable doubt that the national-security establishment had performed a fraudulent autopsy on President Kennedy’s body. There is no innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy, and no one — including no one in the mainstream press — has ever been able to come up with one. A fraudulent autopsy can only mean one thing — a cover-up in the assassination itself. Nothing else makes any sense."

https://www.fff.org/2021/02/05/our-u...fk-conference/

The conference, “The National Security State and the Kennedy Assassination.”, will begin on March 3. and consist of an online presentation on each subsequent Wednesday.

Hornberger recommends a list of books for the conference listeners to read beforehand, including his books The Kennedy Autopsy and The Kennedy Autopsy 2 and the ever-popular JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass:

https://www.fff.org/2021/02/09/jfk-conference-homework/

If you think you've decisively refuted such accusations, well you have. In your circle. And they believe that these accusations have been thoroughly established. In their circle. And of course you shut each other off, secure in being correct.

Organized skepticism is unable to assert itself.

Major Major is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2021, 09:19 AM   #132
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,025
Originally Posted by Major Major View Post
The Future of Freedom Foundation is offering a seminar on the assassination. As you know, Bob, Jacob Hornberger of the FFF has asserted:

"The biggest breakthrough came in the 1990s, when the evidence that the ARRB uncovered established beyond any reasonable doubt that the national-security establishment had performed a fraudulent autopsy on President Kennedy’s body. There is no innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy, and no one — including no one in the mainstream press — has ever been able to come up with one. A fraudulent autopsy can only mean one thing — a cover-up in the assassination itself. Nothing else makes any sense."

https://www.fff.org/2021/02/05/our-u...fk-conference/

The conference, “The National Security State and the Kennedy Assassination.”, will begin on March 3. and consist of an online presentation on each subsequent Wednesday.

Hornberger recommends a list of books for the conference listeners to read beforehand, including his books The Kennedy Autopsy and The Kennedy Autopsy 2 and the ever-popular JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass:

https://www.fff.org/2021/02/09/jfk-conference-homework/

If you think you've decisively refuted such accusations, well you have. In your circle. And they believe that these accusations have been thoroughly established. In their circle. And of course you shut each other off, secure in being correct.

Organized skepticism is unable to assert itself.

You're assuming both sides have equal standing. They don't.

Do they explain, for example, why Governor Connally's wounds point to a sniper from above and behind?

Were Connally's wounds altered to conceal evidence of other shooters from other than behind?

Do they explain when and where this was done?

Do they explain why 35-year old contradictory memories (given as testimony to the ARRB) take precedence over the first day evidence collected on the day and evening of the assassination, and take precedence over the autopsy report prepared on the weekend of the assassination?

Just curious.

Hank

And as a total aside, the same website champions the 'blame the USA' argument for the Pearl Harbor attack:
https://www.fff.org/2012/02/16/won-world-war-ii-2/
"Of course, most people now concede that Roosevelt was lying and, in fact, was doing everything he could to thwart the will of the American people by provoking both the Germans and the Japanese into attacking first, thereby trapping Americans into entering the war."

I wouldn't be surprised if they also argue for no planes hitting the WTC*.

______________

*: Close. They blame the USA as the ultimate cause of the attacks.
https://www.fff.org/2012/09/11/911-a...ecurity-state/
Why am I not surprised?
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 11th February 2021 at 10:40 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2021, 12:23 PM   #133
Major Major
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 372
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
You're assuming both sides have equal standing. They don't.

Do they explain, for example, why Governor Connally's wounds point to a sniper from above and behind?

Were Connally's wounds altered to conceal evidence of other shooters from other than behind?

Do they explain when and where this was done?

Do they explain why 35-year old contradictory memories (given as testimony to the ARRB) take precedence over the first day evidence collected on the day and evening of the assassination, and take precedence over the autopsy report prepared on the weekend of the assassination?

Just curious.

Hank
I haven't seen it. You are introducing points and he should answer them. But you have proven this in your circle, and you won't engage them because you disdain him. And meanwhile, in spite of all your efforts, a majority of people still believe there was a conspiracy.

Major Major is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2021, 12:26 PM   #134
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,959
Originally Posted by Major Major View Post
The Future of Freedom Foundation is offering a seminar on the assassination. As you know, Bob, Jacob Hornberger of the FFF has asserted:

"The biggest breakthrough came in the 1990s, when the evidence that the ARRB uncovered established beyond any reasonable doubt that the national-security establishment had performed a fraudulent autopsy on President Kennedy’s body. There is no innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy, and no one — including no one in the mainstream press — has ever been able to come up with one. A fraudulent autopsy can only mean one thing — a cover-up in the assassination itself. Nothing else makes any sense."

https://www.fff.org/2021/02/05/our-u...fk-conference/

The conference, “The National Security State and the Kennedy Assassination.”, will begin on March 3. and consist of an online presentation on each subsequent Wednesday.

Hornberger recommends a list of books for the conference listeners to read beforehand, including his books The Kennedy Autopsy and The Kennedy Autopsy 2 and the ever-popular JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass:

https://www.fff.org/2021/02/09/jfk-conference-homework/

If you think you've decisively refuted such accusations, well you have. In your circle. And they believe that these accusations have been thoroughly established. In their circle. And of course you shut each other off, secure in being correct.

Organized skepticism is unable to assert itself.

Neat.

Reading his dreck, it is clear he has never done any casual - and certainly no serious research into the JFK Assassination. Even his grasp of history sucks:

Quote:
Kennedy had gone to war with the national-establishment over the future direction of the United States. He had declared an end to the Cold War, which was the justification for the national-security establishment in the first place, along with its ever-increasing budgets, influence, and power. He was determined to establish peaceful and friendly relations with the the communist world. Once he won the 1964 election, he intended to pull all U.S. troops out of Vietnam.
Everything in this paragraph is a lie. Not just inaccurate - a bald-faced lie.

JFK enlarged the National Security Establishment at every level. He expanded the US military in a change from Eisenhower's Nuclear Deterrence strategy to one based on Flexible Response. JFK GREW THE CIA, expanding its actions well beyond its charter. JFK spun up US Army and Naval special forces to counter communist insurgencies around the world. He increased the number of US Army special forces advisors in SE Asia, Central and South America.

And no serious historian can claim to know what JFK would have done regarding Vietnam in his second term. What is written above is nothing more than wishful thinking.

The ugliest part of that promo is the author's pathetic attempt to re-shape JFK as a Libertarian. JFK was a Democrat, and a proud Democrat. JFK was a staunch anti-Communist, enough so he brought us to the brin of WWIII to stop it.

Needless to say, someone who screws up basic US history this badly is not someone to trust when it comes to assessing anything beyond the immediate weather conditions, let alone any aspect of the JFK assassination.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2021, 12:41 PM   #135
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,959
Originally Posted by Major Major View Post
I haven't seen it. You are introducing points and he should answer them. But you have proven this in your circle, and you won't engage them because you disdain him. And meanwhile, in spite of all your efforts, a majority of people still believe there was a conspiracy.

Why would we engage with someone who lacks a basic grasp of the facts?

And why should we care how many people are wrong about the JFK Assassination?

You can't fix stupid. You can't polish a turd.

Most people, certainly most Americans don't know the facts of 11/22/1963. The belief in conspiracy is largely group-think, and not based on any facts.

HSienzant and I are happy to entertain any SERIOUS investigation into a conspiracy to kill JFK. In this case, the problem is the claim that the autopsy was staged, or altered, or botched in order to frame Oswald. Not only has this been proven false multiple times since 1963, with the release of the assassination documents from the National Archives it doesn't even make sense.

Those documents show the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and Dallas Police actively searching for co-conspirators in the days following the assassination. Hoover desperately hoped to tie Oswald to Cuba and or the Soviets, and actively pursued that line of investigation through all of 1964.

So why frame a lone shooter when, at any moment investigators could have arrested a getaway driver, or a backup gunman?

This logic fails.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2021, 01:59 PM   #136
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,025
Originally Posted by Major Major View Post
I haven't seen it. You are introducing points and he should answer them. But you have proven this in your circle, and you won't engage them because you disdain him.
Guess again. I engage a lot of people in a lot of places on this subject. Where's his forum on this subject? Can you provide a link? I'd be more than willing to discuss this with him. I do see a big 'DONATE' button, but no forum link.

I'm currently discussing the Tippit killing with one conspiracy enthusiast at alt.assassination.jfk. It's a moderated site, so my most recent post has yet to be approved, but here's my post from yesterday:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assa...m/djG6pVoMBgAJ



Originally Posted by Major Major View Post
And meanwhile, in spite of all your efforts, a majority of people still believe there was a conspiracy.
But what kind of conspiracy? When you look at and slice and dice the data, more people believe Oswald did it alone (about 30%) than a specific conspiracy with either the CIA or the FBI or the Mob or anti-Castro Cubans or pro-Castro Cubans or the Russians or ...

Each of those conspiracy theories have their proponents, but each of them contradict each other and each garner a smaller percentage than 'Oswald alone'. It's only in ignoring the contradictions and lumping them all together as some vague *unspecified* self-contradictory 'conspiracy' that your statement is true.

We're 30 years past the release of the movie JFK (released in 1991). In fact more time has elapsed since that movie to the present (30 years) than elapsed between the assassination (1963) and the movie (28 years). How many people have seen that movie and believe it or been influenced by it? There's nothing factual about the movie except the date of the assassination and one of the victims (I don't recall the movie even mentioning Governor Connally getting shot at all).

We're 57+ years past the assassination proper. This is ancient history to most people alive on the planet today - it happened before they were born, and in some cases, 30 or 40 years before they were born. Why does what they believe matter to anyone? Why should it? The truth isn't up for vote.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 11th February 2021 at 02:52 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2021, 02:27 PM   #137
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 9,088
Originally Posted by Major Major View Post
I haven't seen it. You are introducing points and he should answer them. But you have proven this in your circle, and you won't engage them because you disdain him. And meanwhile, in spite of all your efforts, a majority of people still believe there was a conspiracy.

But, and this is important here, one side is simply wrong.

I'm not even stating which side is wrong, just that in matters of fact one side is right and the other(s) are wrong.

I'm sure there are groups of people who in their own little circles believe that crystals cure illness, or that reiki is effective, or that the Earth is 6000 years old. They may well believe in their own circle that this has been proven to be true, but they are wrong.

In matters of fact, one side has the evidence and one does not, no matter what they may believe. Delusions of grandeur are not evidence.
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

When I give food to the poor they call me a saint, when I ask why the poor have no food they call me a communist - Hélder Câmara
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2021, 02:43 PM   #138
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,025
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
But, and this is important here, one side is simply wrong.

I'm not even stating which side is wrong, just that in matters of fact one side is right and the other(s) are wrong.

I'm sure there are groups of people who in their own little circles believe that crystals cure illness, or that reiki is effective, or that the Earth is 6000 years old. They may well believe in their own circle that this has been proven to be true, but they are wrong.

In matters of fact, one side has the evidence and one does not, no matter what they may believe. Delusions of grandeur are not evidence.
And to expand on this point, both sides agree the evidence all points to Oswald.

Where we disagree is the reason for this. The people on the 'Oswald did it' side of the fence believe the evidence points to Oswald because he was the lone shooter and the evidence points to him because he did it. That's the simplest and the most reasonable accounting. It's true in most cases and there's no reason to assume anything different here - especially in this day and age when mass shootings are far more common.

The people on the conspiracy side of the fence believe all the evidence points to Oswald because it is all fraudulent. So case in point -- the autopsy. They argue the autopsy is fraudulent.

But they also believe the shells were planted at the Sniper's Nest window. They believe the paperwork indicating Oswald purchased a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods via mail order is also fraudulent. They believe the photos of him with the rifle is also fraudulent. They believe the rifle originally found was a Mauser, not Oswald's M-C. They believe someone other than Oswald went to Mexico in September of 1963 posing as Oswald. They believe someone other than Oswald was buried in Oswald's grave. They think there were two Oswald's with two different mothers living apart as early as Oswald's pre-teen years. They believe there were multiple shooters firing from multiple locations (depending on the conspiracy theorist, this is usually anywhere from two to eleven shooters, but the most common is three). They believe Oswald was doubled by nefarious conspirators doing totally innocent things - like taking a test drive. They believe there is a hit squad of killers going around eliminating inconvenient witnesses.

Not all conspiracy theorists believe all of these things. But some believe most or all and a lot more.

Their beliefs can be summed up simply as Anybody But Oswald. It's not a reasonable position to hold, and it's simply not feasible for a conspiracy this massive to hold together for 57+ years.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 11th February 2021 at 02:50 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2021, 02:54 PM   #139
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,025
Originally Posted by Major Major View Post
The Future of Freedom Foundation is offering a seminar on the assassination. As you know, Bob, Jacob Hornberger of the FFF has asserted:
And the most burning question of the day, just who is Bob, and what does he know, and when did he know it?

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2021, 04:08 PM   #140
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 9,088
Personally I like the JFK conspiracy theory put forward in the episode of Red Dwarf Tikka to Ride.

To sum it up, the cast go back in time in order to order a takeaway curry (it makes sense in context) and accidentally knock LHO out of a window and kill him before he can shoot JFK, and with JFK surviving and being found to have affairs the US goverment collapses and the world crumbles. So they go back in time again, kidnap JFK from a different point in time and take him to the site of the shooting, and hide behind the grassy knoll and get JFK to shoot himself.

Obviously not serious, but hilarious.
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

When I give food to the poor they call me a saint, when I ask why the poor have no food they call me a communist - Hélder Câmara
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2021, 02:03 AM   #141
The Common Potato
Critical Thinker
 
The Common Potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: The Scunthorpe Problem
Posts: 410
Quote:
read beforehand, including his books
Shocking!
The Common Potato is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2021, 09:20 AM   #142
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,025
Originally Posted by Major Major View Post
The Future of Freedom Foundation is offering a seminar on the assassination. As you know, Bob, Jacob Hornberger of the FFF has asserted:

"The biggest breakthrough came in the 1990s, when the evidence that the ARRB uncovered established beyond any reasonable doubt that the national-security establishment had performed a fraudulent autopsy on President Kennedy’s body. There is no innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy, and no one — including no one in the mainstream press — has ever been able to come up with one. A fraudulent autopsy can only mean one thing — a cover-up in the assassination itself. Nothing else makes any sense."

https://www.fff.org/2021/02/05/our-u...fk-conference/

The conference, “The National Security State and the Kennedy Assassination.”, will begin on March 3. and consist of an online presentation on each subsequent Wednesday.

Hornberger recommends a list of books for the conference listeners to read beforehand, including his books The Kennedy Autopsy and The Kennedy Autopsy 2 and the ever-popular JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass:

https://www.fff.org/2021/02/09/jfk-conference-homework/

If you think you've decisively refuted such accusations, well you have. In your circle. And they believe that these accusations have been thoroughly established. In their circle. And of course you shut each other off, secure in being correct.

Organized skepticism is unable to assert itself.

Major Major:

It appears you have bailed on the discussion. If that's true, I'm only putting this point out there for the lurkers:

Your argument is that there are two unwavering sides, and we're talking only within our own circles and are only talking past each other.

I know for a fact in my own case that's untrue. You see, from the publication of the earliest critical books on the assassination, I was a conspiracy believer. I read Rush to Judgment by Mark Lane, Whitewash by Harold Weisberg, Six Seconds in Dallas by Josiah Thompson and Accessories After the Fact by Sylvia Meagher in the mid-1960s and was convinced of a conspiracy. I read of lot of other stuff as well by lesser known authors.

It was only when I decided to find the conspirators and started by reading the 26 Warren Commission volumes and the 12 HSCA Volumes of supporting evidence (first doing this every Saturday at a major metropolitan public library -- then shelling out $2500 to The President's Box Bookshop to purchase the 26 Warren Commission volumes (the HSCA volumes cost considerably less from the Government printing office) -- that I began to be convinced otherwise. I can't count how many days I went to work dog-tired from reading and re-reading the testimony until one, two, or three in the morning.

By reading everything - twice - I saw how the sleight of hand by the conspiracy authors was done. I saw behind the curtain. I discovered how they took stuff out of context, how they ignored contrary evidence, and how they used supposition and innuendo in place of facts to fill in the gaps in what they believed happened. I could cite a multitude of examples, but I will cite only two.

Mark Lane entitled Chapter Five of his book Rush to Judgment "Why Oswald Was Wanted", and then proceeds in that chapter to suggest there are a lot of reasons Oswald shouldn't have been wanted. The trick? The chapter title is a straw man argument -- Oswald was NEVER wanted for the assassination. His first and second paragraph sets up the logical fallacy this way:
A description of the suspect in the assassination, matching Lee Harvey Oswald's description was broadcast by the Dallas police just before 12.45 p.m. on November 22, 15 minutes after the shots were fired at President Kennedy.
. . .
Tippit was slain at 1.15 or 1.16 p.m., according to the Commission. Why then did the Dallas police want Oswald at least 30 minutes before Tippit was shot?
He went from "a description of a suspect matching Oswald" to "Oswald was wanted" in the space of two paragraphs. Oswald was never wanted by name prior to his arrest in the theatre for shooting officer Tippit. His question of why Oswald was wanted is a straw man argument. No broadcast went out at 12:45 seeking Oswald. No policeman thought Oswald should be arrested or sought at 12:45pm. All that went out at 12:45pm Dallas time (15 minutes after the assassination) was a generic description of the shooter, as reported by one or more witnesses to the police.

His second paragraph in his fifth chapter, stating Oswald was wanted at 12:45 is a flat-out lie. If you didn't catch his subtle switch of argument, you can actually buy into it. I know I did when I first read his books in the mid-1960s.

The second example is from Jean Davison who wrote the long out of print Oswald's Game. It's a very good book, and I recommend it wholeheartedly. She wrote of when the veil fell from her eyes here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane2.txt

Give it a reading. I'll wait. Go ahead, click on the link. It's a short summation.

Lane, using the ellipses, eliminated everything Ruby said that pointed elsewhere to leave a false impression to his readers that Ruby was begging to expose the conspiracy. Central to this, Lane even omitted the key words from Ruby where Ruby attested: "There was no conspiracy [in Ruby's shooting of Oswald]."

Davison summed it up this way:
I remember feeling outraged when I realized what Lane had done. Evidently, the Warren records were like a vast lumberyard. By picking up a few pieces here and there, and doing some cutting and fitting, any theory could be built for which someone had a blueprint.
All the conspiracy authors do this to argue for a conspiracy. They must. The evidence points to Oswald and points to no conspiracy.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 12th February 2021 at 09:30 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2021, 01:45 PM   #143
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,175
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
Personally I like the JFK conspiracy theory put forward in the episode of Red Dwarf Tikka to Ride.

To sum it up, the cast go back in time in order to order a takeaway curry (it makes sense in context) and accidentally knock LHO out of a window and kill him before he can shoot JFK, and with JFK surviving and being found to have affairs the US goverment collapses and the world crumbles. So they go back in time again, kidnap JFK from a different point in time and take him to the site of the shooting, and hide behind the grassy knoll and get JFK to shoot himself.

Obviously not serious, but hilarious.
My favorite Kennedy Conspiracy Theories, (Fantasies), is 1), that John Kennedy hired Oswald and others to stage a fake Presidential Assassination attempt in order to get rid of Kennedy's wife Jackie, who would be considered "accidental", "collateral" damage resulting from a failed assassination attempt on himself. Kennedy would have done this in order to Marry Marilyn Monroe. Of course this plan went horribly wrong?!

2), Jackie Kennedy, tired of her husband's endless affairs and his actually amazingly awful love making, hires Oswald and others to off her douchebag husband. Once it was done Jackie then arranges for Jack Ruby to help clean up loose ends by offing Oswald.

3), In a variation of No. 1 Oswald is indeed hired by Kennedy to off Jackie, but Oswald decides at the last minute that Kennedy doesn't deserve an awesome woman like Jackie and blows Kennedy's brains out instead.

Of course these "theories" are nuts but not much nuttier than a lot of the Kennedy Conspiracy insanity. (See JFK the film.)

Last edited by Pacal; 12th February 2021 at 01:47 PM.
Pacal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2021, 02:11 PM   #144
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,959
I'll say this again: I'm happy to entertain any CT which leaves Oswald as the lone shooter. The forensics is clear - he made both shots, and it was his rifle.

The big hurtle is linking Oswald to anyone else in Dallas. He didn't have more than three friends, not counting his wife. He didn't socialize except when visiting his wife.

His rooming house had a curfew - but he had a ground-floor room. While it is possible he could have slipped in and out of his window the issue remains of proving that he did. There are no reliable witnesses who can place Oswald anywhere else in Dallas with other people. The only time he's seen at night was in the days leading up to JFK's visit where he went to a paring garage which overlooked the parade route, and asked about getting a job there. Later he asked about being a bellhop at a hotel which overlooked the parade route. Literally the only times Oswald is seen out of the house at night he is looking for locations to shoot at the motorcade. But each time he is alone.

In the end, Oswald remains the lone gunman.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2021, 02:31 PM   #145
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,025
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
I'll say this again: I'm happy to entertain any CT which leaves Oswald as the lone shooter. The forensics is clear - he made both shots, and it was his rifle.

The big hurtle is linking Oswald to anyone else in Dallas. He didn't have more than three friends, not counting his wife. He didn't socialize except when visiting his wife.

His rooming house had a curfew - but he had a ground-floor room. While it is possible he could have slipped in and out of his window the issue remains of proving that he did. There are no reliable witnesses who can place Oswald anywhere else in Dallas with other people. The only time he's seen at night was in the days leading up to JFK's visit where he went to a paring garage which overlooked the parade route, and asked about getting a job there. Later he asked about being a bellhop at a hotel which overlooked the parade route. Literally the only times Oswald is seen out of the house at night he is looking for locations to shoot at the motorcade. But each time he is alone.

In the end, Oswald remains the lone gunman.
The second biggest problem with Oswald as a co-conspirator (first is his lack of friends and acquaintances to conspire with, as you point out) - is the fact that he never received any calls at the rooming house. How does one coordinate a conspiracy with a co-conspirator who can't be reached? Oswald received one call at the rooming house. It was from Ruth Paine at the behest of Marina Oswald. She asked for Lee Oswald, but was told there was no one at the rooming house by that name (Oswald had registered at the rooming house as O.H.Lee but failed to tell Marina that).

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2021, 03:36 PM   #146
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,370
The thing about conspiracy theories like those involving the JFK assassination, or 9/11, or QAnon, etc. is that they manufacture controversy and confusion when there actually isn’t any. The idea is planting the “ultimately, we can’t know either way - who’s to say?” narrative and undermining the basics of critical thinking, because conspiracy theorists aren’t actually interested in the truth - they’re interested in what’s politically convenient. In other words, propaganda.

In all of these instances, there is no actual controversy that hasn’t been introduced and promoted by conspiracy theorists (which makes said “controversy” inherently suspect). We do know that Oswald was the lone gunman who killed JFK. We do know that al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. We do know that QAnon is a bunch of malarkey (to quote the new President of the United States). There is no debate to be had. No mystery. The truth is out there.

Facts are stubborn things - but then again, so are conspiratorial narratives.

Last edited by Allen773; 12th February 2021 at 03:38 PM.
Allen773 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2021, 04:20 PM   #147
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,370
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
JFK enlarged the National Security Establishment at every level. He expanded the US military in a change from Eisenhower's Nuclear Deterrence strategy to one based on Flexible Response. JFK GREW THE CIA, expanding its actions well beyond its charter. JFK spun up US Army and Naval special forces to counter communist insurgencies around the world. He increased the number of US Army special forces advisors in SE Asia, Central and South America.
But Axxman, Allen Dulles was fired, anti-Castro exiles felt betrayed, and the Mafia were mad at the Kennedys. And Oliver Stone made a major Hollywood film with Eisenhower’s Farewell Address at the beginning. Per conspiracy theories, that alone is enough to prove that The Deep State(TM) did it.

Last edited by Allen773; 12th February 2021 at 04:24 PM.
Allen773 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2021, 09:01 PM   #148
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,959
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
The second biggest problem with Oswald as a co-conspirator (first is his lack of friends and acquaintances to conspire with, as you point out) - is the fact that he never received any calls at the rooming house. How does one coordinate a conspiracy with a co-conspirator who can't be reached? Oswald received one call at the rooming house. It was from Ruth Paine at the behest of Marina Oswald. She asked for Lee Oswald, but was told there was no one at the rooming house by that name (Oswald had registered at the rooming house as O.H.Lee but failed to tell Marina that).

Hank
Exactly.

And his actions are those of a man who made his mind up last-minute. Sure, he scouted other locations, but it seems that he just decided that since the President was going to drive right under the TSBD he figured "Why not?". He had no way to know if the bubble-top would be on, and he wouldn't have known that there would be no Secret Service agents posted to the rear of the limo. So many things had to line up just right to give Oswald the one chance he got.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2021, 09:11 PM   #149
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,959
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
The thing about conspiracy theories like those involving the JFK assassination, or 9/11, or QAnon, etc. is that they manufacture controversy and confusion when there actually isn’t any. The idea is planting the “ultimately, we can’t know either way - who’s to say?” narrative and undermining the basics of critical thinking, because conspiracy theorists aren’t actually interested in the truth - they’re interested in what’s politically convenient. In other words, propaganda.

In all of these instances, there is no actual controversy that hasn’t been introduced and promoted by conspiracy theorists (which makes said “controversy” inherently suspect). We do know that Oswald was the lone gunman who killed JFK. We do know that al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. We do know that QAnon is a bunch of malarkey (to quote the new President of the United States). There is no debate to be had. No mystery. The truth is out there.

Facts are stubborn things - but then again, so are conspiratorial narratives.
The whole point of a Conspiracy Theory is to frame the theorist's personal bogey man/men. To do that the actual perpetrators must be innocent. This is why the list of suspects who are alleged to have conspired to kill JFK is so long and diverse. If you hate LBJ - he did it. If you hate the CIA- they did it. If you hate Hoover - he did it. If you hate Castro - he did it. If you hate Hunt Oil, the KKK, anti-Castro Cubans, or Mossad then they obviously must be behind it.

Mark Lane was hired by Oswald's mother, and his job was to muddy the waters, which he did. His claim that the Warren Commission rushed to judgement is hilarious because he was the one who rushed them.

The other issue was that so many people refused to believe that a nobody like Oswald could kill a man like JFK, so it must have been someone else, or he was part of a larger conspiracy. You see this with 911 Truthers. You see this with people who think the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. No matter how many investigations, no matter WHO does the investigations, it is not enough for those to surrender logic to embrace foolishness.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2021, 01:49 AM   #150
The Common Potato
Critical Thinker
 
The Common Potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: The Scunthorpe Problem
Posts: 410
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
The whole point of a Conspiracy Theory is to frame the theorist's personal bogey man/men.

I read Quassim Cassam's Conspiracy Theories a week or two ago. Although I think he overegged it, that was the point he was making in his short book.
The Common Potato is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2021, 09:58 AM   #151
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,474
Is there anyone presently still alive who was considered to be part of the conspiracy by the horde of CTers?
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2021, 12:36 PM   #152
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,959
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Is there anyone presently still alive who was considered to be part of the conspiracy by the horde of CTers?
Raul Castro

Ruth Paine

A few of his Secret Service detail.

Buell Wesley Frazier.

Probably a few more. The big names are long gone.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2021, 03:08 PM   #153
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Embedded and embattled, reporting from Mississippi
Posts: 4,735
Marina Oswald is still alive; she'll be 80 this July. CTists have a pretty fluid idea of what it takes to consider somebody in on it- I'm sure at least a few think she was.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2021, 10:40 PM   #154
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,474
Ah, I'm surprise that anyone from that time is still alive - and would have been important enough to be involved. Thanks
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2021, 04:58 AM   #155
KDLarsen
Illuminator
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,397
Re: the autopsy, my impression was that RFK was attempting to move it along at a pace, as he didn't want any embarrasing details about JFK's actual physical state to leak out. They had already broken protocol in the first place, pissing off the local Dallas county coroner in the process, by taking the body away from the state.

Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Ah, I'm surprise that anyone from that time is still alive - and would have been important enough to be involved. Thanks
Marina was only 22 at the time, and Oswald was 24.

It's a funny thing really, it's "only" been 57 years and a bit, so even someone in their thirties at the time would stand a good chance of still being alive.

Last edited by KDLarsen; 14th February 2021 at 05:01 AM.
KDLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2021, 07:49 AM   #156
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,600
Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post
Re: the autopsy, my impression was that RFK was attempting to move it along at a pace, as he didn't want any embarrasing details about JFK's actual physical state to leak out. They had already broken protocol in the first place, pissing off the local Dallas county coroner in the process, by taking the body away from the state.


Marina was only 22 at the time, and Oswald was 24.

It's a funny thing really, it's "only" been 57 years and a bit, so even someone in their thirties at the time would stand a good chance of still being alive.
My brother and I were watching TV when we got a phone call from the local gossip. She said, "Kennedy has been shot". I said, "No he hasn't. It's not on TV". and then it was.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2021, 10:47 AM   #157
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,474
Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post
Re: the autopsy, my impression was that RFK was attempting to move it along at a pace, as he didn't want any embarrasing details about JFK's actual physical state to leak out. They had already broken protocol in the first place, pissing off the local Dallas county coroner in the process, by taking the body away from the state.


Marina was only 22 at the time, and Oswald was 24.

It's a funny thing really, it's "only" been 57 years and a bit, so even someone in their thirties at the time would stand a good chance of still being alive.
Yes it seems like it was much longer ago. I was nine at the time - we were let out of school and went home. My mother was crying as my Dad had called and said he might not be home tonight as he was part of Intel community at the time. He was at The U.S. Army Intelligence School at Holabird in Baltimore teaching a class on Soviet patrolling methods. At that time it wasn't known if it had been a Soviet plot.

Last edited by Hans; 14th February 2021 at 10:48 AM.
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2021, 12:04 PM   #158
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,600
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
My brother and I were watching TV when we got a phone call from the local gossip. She said, "Kennedy has been shot". I said, "No he hasn't. It's not on TV". and then it was.
I got started thinking, is this memory true? Why would we be home of Friday? There's no one left in my family to ask but I would have been 12 and he 9 and both going to the local public school. We probably went home for lunch (I have no memories of taking lunch to school or eating there). I can visualize the scene with the TV in the middle of the room and my bro along side me.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2021, 12:51 PM   #159
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,959
Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post
Re: the autopsy, my impression was that RFK was attempting to move it along at a pace, as he didn't want any embarrasing details about JFK's actual physical state to leak out. They had already broken protocol in the first place, pissing off the local Dallas county coroner in the process, by taking the body away from the state.


Marina was only 22 at the time, and Oswald was 24.

It's a funny thing really, it's "only" been 57 years and a bit, so even someone in their thirties at the time would stand a good chance of still being alive.
You must understand that the true 500lb Gorilla in this story is Jackie Kennedy. Jackie didn't want the autopsy done in Parkland because as far as she was concerned the entire city of Dallas had just murdered her husband. It was Jackie who chose Bethesda because JFK was a US Navy veteran. It was Jackie who insisted that the autopsy be done ASAP so that the body be prepared to lie in state, and to be interred within three days per JFK's Catholic beliefs, ceremonies, and traditions.

Nobody, even JFK, EVER TOLD JACKIE "NO".

Nobody.

The Texas trip was Jackie's first public appearance since her miscarriage. The entire Kennedy staff would have broken arms to make her comfortable.

And sure as hell no one was going to tell her no after her husband was murdered.

This is how it was.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2021, 09:54 AM   #160
Major Major
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 372
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Major Major:

It appears you have bailed on the discussion. If that's true, I'm only putting this point out there for the lurkers:

Your argument is that there are two unwavering sides, and we're talking only within our own circles and are only talking past each other.
If I've "bailed" it's because you don't get the point. You have assembled the detail why from your point of view you are right. And Hornberger has assembled the detail from his point of view that he is right. You put it forth to your circle. He puts it forth to his. You consider that you have decisively made your case. He considers he has decisively made his case.

And meanwhile, the majority of people seem to think, "gee, there must be something to that."

It all dates back to Jackie Kennedy. She couldn't believe that a lone nut Marxist could have done it all by himself, not in that city full of right-wing anti-Kennedy hate. And that fit so well with the opinions of the Kennedy people that they took it up. (For more on this see Camelot and the Cultural Revolution by James Piereson.)

Meanwhile the Soviets discovered that oh govno, this was a man who had defected to them (and whom they were glad to be rid of), we had better deflect the focus. So they too publicized conspiracies. Not in coordination or cooperation or association with the Kennedy people, but they were pushing it too. (For the beginning of this read Operation SOLO by John Barron, wherein he describes how utterly consternated the Soviets were by all this.)

So conspiracy, pushed by two different groups, each for their own purpose, was founded. Then it got picked up by those, not of either group, but with their own purposes, and since there was no point in just reiterating one person's book something new was always added. Jim Garrison was neither a KGB asset not a Kennedy supporter, just a guy with a failing reputation trying to find something to grab the headlines. And so on.


And they don't have to show how you are wrong. They say that you are wrong. The next level up. No need to confront the evidence.
Major Major is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:36 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.