So Oswald would have had to....

[johnnie]

Wait until Bonnie Ray Williams leaves the 6th floor at 12:15 to 12:20
Build the "sniper's nest" with only leaving one print on one box
Stack the boxes for the rifle "rest" without any prints
Pull the un-assembled rifle out of a paper bag
Assemble the rifle with only leaving one palm print on the underside of the stock
Load a half of a clip
Zero in a crappy scope
Get off three shot with two hitting the mark
Wipe any prints off the rifle
Hide the rifle
Get down four flights of stairs without anyone (Vicky Adams) seeing him
And be calm and cool when Officer Baker sees him on the second floor 90 seconds after the shooting. 10-15 minutes after Bonnie Ray leaves the 6th floor.

Just thought I would throw this out here.

[BeFree]

1. Great Planning?

But then, why didn't he plan on getting out of town?

[johnnie]

2. He wanted to see a movie first

That's what any assassin would do.

[SDuderstadt]

3. Read Vincent Bugliosi's book...

"Reclaiming History" and, especially, read Johnny Brewer's affidavit. Oswald did not duck into the Texas Theater because he "wanted to watch a movie".

There are answers to all your questions.

[johnnie]

4. Brewer seen him go into the theater

Personally I think Oswald was there to meet someone.

And as for Bugliosi, no thanks. He is also the one that chose to believe a bunch of acid soaked spaced out hippies about the so-called "Helter Skelter" and didn't want to cop to the real reason that chump Manson wanted everyone to kill for him.

[SDuderstadt]

5. Ah, the "genetic fallacy"...

if Oswald was there to meet someone, why didn't he go there directly?

Your summary rejection of Bugliosi's book belies your closed-mindedness, dude.

[johnnie]

6. And your rejection of facts makes you look to be a joke

Seriously, you are an expert on every conspiracy that has ever been considered. I'll read Bugliosi's book one of these days, but I never really considered him a serious researcher on anything. He is just someone who became famous for putting away a guy who was obviously a whack job.

[SDuderstadt]

7. And what "facts" are those...

dude?

You guys have had nearly fifty years to blow the lid off this thing. Can we expect a breakthrough soon?

[johnnie]

8. The lid will never be "blown off"

As long as they got suckers like you.

Facts:
The president was running late to get to the Trade mart. If Oswald was there to kill JFK he would have had to be in place by 12:25 at least. Bonnie Ray Williams ate up on the 6th floor until 12:15-12:20. Unless Oswald knew the president was 5 minutes late he would have thought he had to be in place by 12:25 to shoot. So he had less than 5 minutes to do all I said in my OP.

[SDuderstadt]

9. Dude...

read Bugliosi's book. He blows all your silly claims away.

The evidence against Oswald is overwhelming.

[johnnie]

10. Ok, I'll read it

As long as you read this

http://www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_review.html

[SDuderstadt]

11. Dude...

What do you THINK CTKA will say? BTW, I've read it.

In the meantime, if CTKA is so expert on the JFK assassination, why can't they solve this case?

Hint: Oswald did it.

[johnnie]

12. I doubt you read it

Once again, you seem to be an expert on everything associated with any conspiracy that has ever existed. I downloaded the Bugliosi book on my Kindle just a few minutes ago and I'll read it. I'm sure that is much more than you ever given a chance to anything but the "official story" about JFK, RFK, 9-11 and any other issue that has been questioned here. I've read your posts for the last few years and I have always seen you just go against anything that goes against anything that isn't the "official story" of anything in question. I don't know if you are paid to do this, just like to play devil's advocate or are just pretty naive, but for some reason I have a feeling you have a stack of "official" deeds to a lot of swamp land in Florida and own the Brooklyn bridge a few times over.

Hint: get one.

[SDuderstadt]

13. Dude...

I own and have read no less than twenty JFK assassination conspiracy theory books from Marrs to Lane to Talbot to Garrison, so please don't presume to lecture me about my reading habits.

It's also a violation of DU rules to even question whether I am somehow a "paid poster", so I will ask you politely to refrain from such smarmy tactics, dude. As far as automatically defending anything, I base my beliefs on the facts. You should try it.

[MrMickeysMom]

15. ...

:rofl:

[apocalypsehow]

29. There's something laughable going on in this thread alright, but it isn't SDuderstadt's posts. n/t

[Nathan_Hale]

16. What did you make...

...of Gregory Douglas' 'Regicide?'

[SDuderstadt]

17. I don't recall saying that...

I ever read it, do you?

[Nathan_Hale]

18. Oh!

Sorry....I presumed you were well read on this subject. My bad. If you haven't read the translation of the KGB report in 'Regicide,' you're missing something.

[SDuderstadt]

19. Dude...

I said I own and have read @ 20 JFK assassination conspiracy theory books. Why you would interpret that to mean I have read all or even most of the hundreds of such books is apparently known only to you.

I did, however, read the Wikipedia entry which states that researchers on both sides doubt the authenticity of both Douglas' book and the "document" contained within. What a surprise.

Serious question: is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy that even YOU won't embrace it?

[Nathan_Hale]

20. Hah.....

...and most of them are crap. Deliberately CIA-funded misinformation. You've wasted a lot of time.

Oooohh....Wiki...now that's an authority!

And...what's WIKI got? Self-edited "DOUBTS."

No one has ever been able to stick Douglas with a forgery.

[SDuderstadt]

21. Well...

it seems that you and Douglas have blown the lid off the JFK assassination. Maybe you should inform the rest of your fellow conspiracists. They don't seem to have gotten the memo, dude.

Perhaps some good might come of this and we will no longer have to endure you guys chattering endlessly amongst yourselves!

[Nathan_Hale]

22. You're....

welcome! That information was supplied for YOUR edification. After all, all of us already know that Oswald didn't do it.

"I'm a patsy!"
"I'm a patsy!"
"I'm a patsy!"
"I'm a patsy!"
"I'm a patsy!"
"I'm a patsy!"
"I'm a patsy!"
"I'm a patsy!"
"I'm a patsy!"
"I'm a patsy!"
"I'm a patsy!"

[SDuderstadt]

23. Conspiracist "logic"

LHO could not have murdered JFK because he uttered "I'm a patsy", despite the mountains of physical evidence against him.

Too funny.

[apocalypsehow]

30. False. Here are the actual facts: Bonnie Ray Williams was gone from the 6th floor by 12:05 pm.

Here's a helpful link to some more helpful information for your intellectual edification:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=308942&mesg_id=309056

[MrMickeysMom]

14. Bugliosi's book conveniently leaves out what doesn't work...

... in his narrow mind.

It's painfully long, full of omissions and horribly referenced. No wonder the usual suspects here are telling you it's the one to read.
The Church comittee was critical of the FBI's investigation and said the Warren conclusions were suspect, so guess what? Bugliosi barely covers the Church Committee in this otherwise over-written piece of shit book.

Don't take my word for it, read it (borrow it to save the wasted money, though).

[BeFree]

24. Y'know, Mom

If it as simple as what a few claim: "Oswald alone" then why did they have such a full-blown Warren Commission?

And why have there been so many other follow up official reports?

If it was so simple, then why are we still talking about it?

Why? Because a crime has been covered up, is the simple explanation.
And because the goofy explanation of 'Oswald alone' is, well, goofy bullshit.

[zappaman]

25. Heh

So, you don't think the government should have had a commission to look into the assassination of a president?
I'm sure you've read the WC report or at least Bugliosi's book, right?
Woof.

[apocalypsehow]

31. You are right to tell that poster to not take your word for it because your "word" leaves much to be

desired when it comes to the actual content of Bugliosi's masterpiece on the subject.

"it's painfully long" - I found it delightfully in-depth. I have a feeling "painfully long" = "contains irrefutable facts that ruin the conspiracy theory narrative - all 1,854 of them."


"full of omissions" - LOL! It's "full" of something it's missing...is that, like, possible? :shrug:

Dog have mercy. :rofl:

In point of fact, this book is the scholarly gold standard for future works on that actual history of the assassination of President Kennedy, and will find itself on historian's (actual historians, that is) bookshelves a thousand years from now, long after the last bit of conspiracy theory rubbish has been consigned to the dustbin of time, like the theory of alchemy or demonology.

"and horribly referenced"

Uhhhh...how, exactly? :shrug:

I begin to question your claims to having read this work....

[zappaman]

32. By "horribly referenced"

Do you mean the 100's of pages of footnotes that show where every bit of information comes from?
:rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

33. It's actually....

thousands of pages.

[zappaman]

34. Thought so

but didn't have it in front of me.
Wanted to make sure I didn't make any false claims!

[johnnie]

65. Already wasted my money

But I'll trudge through it. My favorite part so far is him saying he went into this book with an open mind and few pages later he writes that when he did the trial back in the 80s he spent over a 100 hours a week for 6 months to prove Oswald was guilty.

[zappaman]

66. yes

he started researching in the mid 80's.
good reading comprehension!

[SDuderstadt]

68. And?

He was the prosecution in the TV trial. Duh.

How does that show that he doesn't have an open mind? Jesus, dude.

[PufPuf23]

26. "real reason that chump Manson wanted everyone to kill for him"

What do you think the "real" reason and why was Manson a chump?

The only Bugliosi book I've read is Helter Skelter and I also read (and still have) Sander's The Family but it has been 15 or so years since reading.

The idea that Oswald was at the theatre to meet someone intrigues speculation. Oswald's statement as "a patsy" and subsequent murder intrigues as well. Could they be connected as a failed earlier "hit" on Oswald?

[johnnie]

67. Manson thought he killed this black guy he thought was in the Black Panthers

He shot him, but didn't kill him. He then thought the Black Panthers were going to come after him so he sent Bobby Beausoleil to Gary Hinman's house because he thought he had a load of money that he had inherited and Manson wanted the money to get out of town or move deeper into the desert. Long story short, Beausoleil killed Hinman so manson wanted them to make the crime scene look like it was the Black panters that did it. That's why there was a "paw" print on the wall done with Beausoleil's palm.

Beausoleil got busted with Hinman's truck and Manson was afraid that he would tell the cops that Manson was behind the murder so Manson sent out his drugged up family members to do the first murders to make it look like it was the same people who did the Hinman murders so Beausoleil would be let go.

That's just the short story, but it was mainly because Manson thought he would be going back to prison for killing the guy he didn't kill and it snowballed. I'm sure he did preach his Helter Skelter stuff, but I don't think that's why all those people were killed. Manson was afraid of going to prison so he got everyone to do his dirty work for him.

[k-robjoe]

27. Documentary

JFK documentary, created by Pulitzer prize winning journalist Jack Anderson, in the mid eighties :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDbodTKnTjc

The parts that seemed most interesting to me :

53 minutes out : About Rose Cheramie

1 hour out : Witness Malcolm Summers

1 hour 3 minutes out : Headshot analysis

[apocalypsehow]

28. Bonnie Ray Williams left the 6th floor at 12:05 pm, not "12:15 to 12:20," so right off the bat your

OP contains a factual error.

And, alas, those errors just continue to truck on unabated till pretty much the end:

"Build the "sniper's nest" with only leaving one print on one box
Stack the boxes for the rifle "rest" without any prints"

Fact: a new plywood floor was being laid on the sixth floor of the Depository that day, and the workers had already pushed most of the boxes on that side of the building over in the general area of the snipers nest so they could have working room. Constructing a barrier made out of the boxes was relatively easy for the sole assassin of President Kennedy - Lee Harvey Oswald - because most of the work had (inadvertently) already been done for him.

"Assemble the rifle with (Sic) only leaving one palm print on the underside of the stock"

Fact: an FBI agent was able to assemble the rifle the first time he tried in less than six minutes - using nothing to assist him as a tool but his hands and a single dime. With a screwdriver, he was able to replicate this feat in under two minutes.

"Load a half of a clip
Zero in a crappy scope
Get off three shot with two hitting the mark
Wipe any prints off the rifle
Hide the rifle"

Putting aside the factually incorrect claims that he spent any amount of time wiping his rifle down to obliterate prints or that the Carcano's mounted scope was particularly "crappy," repeated demonstrations have shown that all of this could be done in under a minute. It's irrelevant in any event, since your time-line is already thrown off as your claim regarding the time he arrived on the sixth floor has been shown above to be factually false.

The actual sequence, then, should look like this:

Take aim through the rifle's scope.
Assassinate President Kennedy.
Drop the rifle between a pile of boxes near the rear staircase just before fleeing the sixth floor.
Race down the stairs till he hears someone running up from below, whereupon he darts into the second floor lunchroom in order to evade whoever was coming up the stairs.*

"Get down four flights of stairs without anyone (Vicky Adams) seeing him"

Fact: Victoria Adams did not leave the fourth floor until at least five minutes after the third shot was fired.

"And be calm and cool when Officer Baker sees him on the second floor"

Fact: what Officer Baker actually said was that "he did not change his expression one bit." But even if he did fit some definition of yours that meets the criteria of "calm and cool," so what? How does his demeanor change one iota the mountain of evidence that points to him as the sole assassin of President Kennedy? I'll answer for you: it doesn't.

"10-15 minutes after Bonnie Ray leaves the 6th floor"

This has already been refuted as factually incorrect above.

Thanks for "throwing this out there": now that you have been given the actual facts about what you tossed out onto our humble little sub-forum table, I'm sure you will want to thank me, among the other DU posters who have corrected you here, for showing you the errors manifest in it. In that spirit, I will accept your thanks and appreciation for setting you straight on these matters in advance.

:thumbsup: :toast: :pals: :beer: :hi:



*That someone turned out to be Dallas police officer Marrion Baker and building manager Roy Truly.

[johnnie]

35. From the Warren report

Mr. WILLIAMS. It was after I had left the sixth floor, after I had eaten the chicken sandwich. I finished the chicken sandwich maybe 10 or 15 minutes after 12.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/williams.htm


No need to address your other points because your timeline is off according to the Warren report.

As an added bonus from Vickie Adams


Mr. BELIN - How long do you think it was between the time the shots were fired and the time you left the window to start toward the stairway?
Miss ADAMS - Between 15 and 30 seconds, estimated, approximately.

[zappaman]

36. and...

Mr. BALL. Well, now, when you talked to the FBI on the 23d day of November, you said that you went up to the sixth floor about 12 noon with your lunch, and you stayed only about 3 minutes, and seeing no one you came down to the fifth floor, using the stairs at the west end of the building. Now, do you think you stayed longer than 3 minutes up there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I am sure I stayed longer than 3 minutes.
Mr. BALL. Do you remember telling the FBI you only stayed 3 minutes up there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not remember telling them I only stayed 3 minutes.
Mr. BALL. And then on this 14th of January 1964, when you talked to Carter and Griffin, they reported that you told them you went down to the fifth floor around 12:05 p.m., and that around 12:30 p.m. you were watching the Presidential parade. Now, do you remember telling them you went down there about 12:05 p.m.?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I remember telling the fellows that--they asked me first, they said, "How long did it take you to finish the sandwich?" I said, "Maybe 5 to 10 minutes, maybe 15 minutes." Just like I said here. I don't remember saying for a definite answer that it was 5 minutes.
Mr. BALL. Well, is it fair to say that you do not remember the exact time now?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.

[johnnie]

38. So that means it could have been 5-10-15 minutes

Sorry, I thought you had proof that it was 12:05 when he left. Of course you will take the 5 minutes.

[apocalypsehow]

41. No, it means when the events were freshest in his memory he told the FBI it was 12:05. That

constitutes the "best evidence" in the case, and is therefore the more reliable estimate. He goes on to tell the Warren Commission that he doesn't remember after they point back to that previous statement.

"Sorry, I thought you had proof that it was 12:05 when he left"

I do have proof - his statement to the FBI. Where is your proof to the contrary?

It doesn't exist.

Please try again.

[apocalypsehow]

48. Funny how great minds think alike - you beat me to it by a minute so the beer's on me this time!

:beer: :toast:

[apocalypsehow]

37. And when reminded by the Warren Commission that he had first told the FBI it was 12:05, he promptly

recanted and confessed he didn't remember the time. Here, let me help you:

"Mr. BALL. And then on this 14th of January 1964, when you talked to Carter and Griffin, they reported that you told them you went down to the fifth floor around 12:05 p.m., and that around 12:30 p.m. you were watching the Presidential parade. Now, do you remember telling them you went down there about 12:05 p.m.?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I remember telling the fellows that--they asked me first, they said, "How long did it take you to finish the sandwich?" I said, "Maybe 5 to 10 minutes, maybe 15 minutes." Just like I said here. I don't remember saying for a definite answer that it was 5 minutes.
Mr. BALL. Well, is it fair to say that you do not remember the exact time now?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You do remember, though, that you ate your lunch and drank your pop, your Doctor Pepper, before you came down?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir."*

Further, he goes on to corroborate that he "was there a while before it came around"*** on the fifth floor - not the sixth floor - before the motorcade arrived in Dealey Plaza:

"Mr. BALL. Were you there any length of time before the Presidential parade came by?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, sir, on the fifth floor?
Mr. BALL. On the fifth floor, yes, with your two friends, Norman and Jarman.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I was there a while before it came around.**

Please try again.

"No need to address your other points because"

The actual answer is: because you do not have the facts with which to refute them.

*All emphases added

**Ditto

***On edit: "a great deal of time" was my paraphrase of Williams precise quote that he was "there a while before it came around." Though they mean substantially the same thing, I have edited the post to reflect the precise quote, as opposed to the nearly identical-in-meaning paraphrase.

[johnnie]

39. "a great deal of time"

"Mr. BALL. Were you there any length of time before the Presidential parade came by?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, sir, on the fifth floor?
Mr. BALL. On the fifth floor, yes, with your two friends, Norman and Jarman.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I was there a while before it came around.**

Don't see him say a "great deal of time".

[apocalypsehow]

42. "I was there a while before it came around" is the exact quote, and despite your parsing "a great

deal of time" is a pretty accurate paraphrase.

Now we're into the semantics game - a sure sign that you've run out of facts and now want to nitpick minutiae.

Risible stuff.

[johnnie]

44. It's not an accurate paraphrasing at all

A "great deal of time" and "a while" are not even close. I would never use those two phrases to mean the same thing.

[apocalypsehow]

47. It is quite accurate, but the paraphrase has been dropped and the precise quote inserted, the phony

issue taken off the table.

You can get back to addressing the actual facts of the matter any time now.

The problem is, you haven't got any. That's why you want to argue semantics.

[apocalypsehow]

40. And an added debunking for Vickie Adams: she claimed that when she arrived on the first floor, she

ran into William Shelley and Billy Lovelady. Both confirmed that they did not return to the Depository building for at least five minutes after the shooting.

Please try again.

[johnnie]

43. Barry Ernest found Adams after many years and has a book out about it

She claimed she never mentioned those two in her testimony. She also had a few other things she said they didn't get right. It is an e-book and fairly cheap and worth a read.

[apocalypsehow]

45. Except, she did. Best you let this one go and move on: you've lost this round to the facts. n/t.

[johnnie]

49. Because the Warren Commision said she did

Typical. Don't even want to see what she had to say about what she encountered with the WC. I am even willing to read Bugliosi's book to see what he has to say which is obviously more than you will do.

I'll stop with you now. And no, not because you win..lol.

[zappaman]

50. Funny

You linked to the WTC transcipt because you thought it proved your point.
But, when the transcript of another witness shows you were wrong, you run away.
:rofl:

[johnnie]

52. Nope

I don't believe the WC was complete bullshit. The final report is questionable, but not the 26 volumes of testimony. I'm saying that there is a few discrepancies in the 1,000s upon 1,000s of words and that was one.

Nice try though, you can pick up your little laughing dude there.


And I'm not running away. But when people talk to me like I'm a moron and they post little guys laughing in the replies..I don't really take what they have to say as being worth my time.

[apocalypsehow]

54. This nails it. n/t.

[apocalypsehow]

53. Now, this is where your argument is hoist on its own petard. Up-thread you act as if WC testimony is

irrefutable, indeed sacrosanct, when it comes to the testimony of Bonnie Ray Williams:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=308942&mesg_id=309069

and here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=308942&mesg_id=309069


Now, all of a sudden its "typical" that we accept Warren Commission testimony - which means you don't.

Which is it? :shrug:



Answer: it's whatever you find convenient by cherry-picking to bolster your case.

[johnnie]

55. Read what I posted above

[apocalypsehow]

57. What you posted above simply confirms my point: you cherry-pick data/quotes/evidence you LIKE from

the transcripts, and simply reject everything that doesn't conform with your narrative.

But thanks for confirming my point...

By the way, what happened to "I'll stop with you now"...:shrug:



:eyes:

[johnnie]

59. Oh, I thought you were the other poster

Ok, I cherry pick. You win.

[apocalypsehow]

62. "I'll stop with you now" ... "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" ... n/t.

[zappaman]

46. oops

Miss ADAMS - And from our vantage point we were able to see what the President's wife was wearing, the roses in the car, and things that would attract men's attention. Then we heard---then we were obstructed from the view.
Mr. BELIN - By what?
Miss ADAMS - A tree. and we heard a shot, and it was a pause, and then a second shot, and then a third shot.
It sounded like a firecracker or a cannon at a football game, it seemed as if it came from the right below rather than from the left above. Possibly because of the report. And after the third shot, following that, the third shot, I went to the back of the building down the back stairs, and encountered Bill Shelley and Bill Lovelady on the first floor on the way out to the Houston Street dock.

[johnnie]

51. I'll type this again slowly

She claimed she never mentioned those two in her testimony.


Sort of like this:

Mr. LOVELADY - I saw a girl but I wouldn't swear to it it's Vickie.
Mr. BALL - Who is Vickie?
Mr. LOVELADY - The girl that works for Scott, Foresman.
Mr. BALL - What is her full name?
Mr. LOVELADY - I wouldn't know.
Mr. BALL - Vickie Adams?
Mr. LOVELADY - I believe so.


No one mentions Vickie before Lovelady says her name.

[apocalypsehow]

56. You need to do something more "slowly" alrighty - like read sentences. Take this one:

"I went to the back of the building down the back stairs, and encountered Bill Shelley and Bill Lovelady on the first floor on the way out to the Houston Street dock"

[johnnie]

58. Ok, not worth my time

I said that in this guy's book she claimed she never said that. She said she didn't remember seeing them and wondered how it was put in there. Of course she could be not telling the truth. It was just something she said recently. She also had a few other things she said was wrong about her testimony after she read it. I see comprehension isn't your strong suit.

[apocalypsehow]

60. "Ok, not worth my time" - So you keep claiming, but every time I look up there's another reply from

you to me. :shrug:

That's a funny old thing that keeps happening, huh?


"I see comprehension isn't your strong suit"

You do wound me, sir....:eyes:

What that translates to is: I've been bested on the facts, so now I'll just insult the literacy of my opponent.

Laughable stuff.

[johnnie]

61. As I said above

I got you confused with the other guy. Naw, not bested in facts.

[apocalypsehow]

63. Yes, quite bested in the arena of the facts. And not all that keen to live up to vows like "I'll

stop with you now," either....

Ho-kay: when? :shrug:

( :rofl: )

[zappaman]

64. I can read and comprehend just fine

like this:
"I went to the back of the building down the back stairs, and encountered Bill Shelley and Bill Lovelady on the first floor on the way out to the Houston Street dock"

it completely contradicts your claim.
so, now tell us how some of the WC testimony is okay and which ones aren't, since only you seem to know.
oh, and...
:rofl:

[johnnie]

69. To clarify something

There were Warren Commission hearings (testimonies) and a final report. The testimonies were published in a 26 volume set and then the final report was published in its own volume. When a person refers to the testimony of someone from the Warren Commission, it is not the same as supporting the final report.

I have no clue what happened on that day, but I like to research it because there is a lot to read and think about and to me it's a better hobby than watching "Lost" or "24" on Netflix.

It is typical for the people who believe what the handful of men who participated in the Warren Commission concluded to say "Read the Warren Commission report" or now "Read Bugliosi's book" because most of them have never read the 26 volumes of records and it is easier to let other people do the research for them.

I posted the OP because I thought a discussion would start but I should know better. I really have nothing to prove, I just thought I wanted to talk about it because I don't talk to too many people about this shit because most people don't give a crap about it..lol.

I guess I could join one of those JFK forums, but some of those people are a little too obsessed with it all. And then you get the people who believe the official report and they drone on and on about how the people who are still "researching" it have no idea what they are talking about. Which is one thing I'll never understand about those people...why do they care if others are discussing "conspiracies"? So what if people want to discuss it, you already know the truth so just move on and let the nut cases waste their time on theories.

[apocalypsehow]

70. Nah, what really happened is you got taken to town on the facts, and are now trying to backpedal

from the inevitable credibility "fallout" of such a complete take-down as your OP was subjected to.

"I have no clue what happened on that day"

This much at least, as has been shown, is absolutely true.

"so just move on and let the nut cases waste their time on theories"

Which translates to: "I should be allowed to post whatever fact-free horseshit about the Kennedy assassination I want without question."

That's not how it works on discussion boards, johnnie. You might as well get used to it.

[johnnie]

73. .

:boring: <--look, I can post cutsie little people too!

[apocalypsehow]

75. And that about sums the intellectual rigor with which you have supported your claims up, and quite

nicely, at that.

Every other instance of posting "cutsie people" in this thread had been in the context of a whole lot of supporting credible evidence, so the comparison is weak at best.

But all of this is academic, in any event. We have entered that stage of discussion known as "Last Wordism": that is the stage where, having been decisively dealt serious reverses and outright defeats when it comes to the actual facts regarding any given subject, the poster on the losing end of that equation takes up the tact of pretending as if whoever manages to post last "wins."

This is what we have here. Textbook.

[OnTheOtherHand]

71. really, really weak

What a lot of us believe is that it is possible to read multiple sources and then, often, to form a considered opinion about who seems to be right about what (and where it is impossible to tell). Notice, for instance, that SDuderstadt didn't just tell you to read Bugliosi; he directed you to specific evidence. Do you really have a problem with that? Seriously, did you want a "discussion" where no one cited evidence?

Maybe so. After all, your OP made a bunch of factual claims without an iota of support. I'm not saying that all of it is wrong. Studying the JFK assassination sure isn't my hobby, and I'm not going to take the time to read over 20 conspiracist books, as SDuderstadt did, just so conspiracists can punk me anyway. But I sure haven't seen anything here to make me think that you've studied this issue more seriously than the people who stepped up to rebut you.

[johnnie]

72. I had to say a few times that one witness claimed she never said what the WC published

I said it a few times and those two posters basically said "so what".

I don't mind discussing things but, :rofl: doesn't seem like much of a discussion.

I was only saying in the above post that there is a difference between the Warren Report and testimony from the Warren Commission.

I'm not saying I studied the issues more, just that I happened to see something else. The rebuttals I got in here were typical of the anti-conspiracy crowd and I was only trying to say that other information has come out in the last few years.

You can read and interpret the thread any way you like, but I know what I was trying to say and I can't help that they disregard what I'm saying. Saying 100 times that I "cherry pick" the Warren report doesn't make it so. That's why I wanted to make it clear that I consider the Warren Report one thing and the 26 volumes of testimony another.


And BTW, where did SDuderstadt direct me to anything?

[OnTheOtherHand]

74. well, y'know...

first of all, I certainly agree that there's a difference between the Warren Commission testimony and the Warren Report. I don't think that's the issue here.

Now, with due respect to Mr. Ernest, being told to pay $3 for an e-book in order to catch a glimpse of evidence that changes everything seems a bit like one of those sketchy midway attractions. According to the Amazon.com blurb, Adams was "quickly discredited, humiliated, and eventually branded a liar." Umm, possibly so, but not in the Warren Report. The Amazon blurb goes on to say:

And so, knowing the truth of what she had done and now fearing for her life because of it, she went into hiding and became willing to die with that private knowledge.* Intrigued by what little was available about Miss Adams, the author went in search of her. It took him 35 years to eventually find this elusive witness.

* It would have been a lot more private if the Warren Report hadn't spent most of a page on the subject. --OTOH

So, Victoria Adams decides her life is at risk (from whom, exactly?) and goes into hiding (I hope her enemies aren't in high places...), this guy spends decades trying to track her down, eventually he succeeds, she tells him that the Warren Commission falsified her deposition all those many years ago, then she dies of cancer, and a few years later he comes out with a book about it. Great. And you wonder why someone might dismiss all that out of hand? Surely it is far from the self-evident fact that your OP implies.

SDuderstadt directed you to something in post #3.

[johnnie]

76. Fair enough

Thanks.