129 replies to this topic

[regi]

Look, you're gonna have to decide what evidence is credible and what isn't.

Doctors who tended to Kennedy weren't concerned with analyzing wounds; they're only objective was to attempt to save his life!
Did the doctors you refer to see the x-rays of Kennedy's skull? No, they saw brains and blood.
The wounds were indeed examined by the pathogists at autop.
In fact, Humes was stumped that there was no bullet still in the body. He and another path. probed the wound to the back in an attempt to trace the path of the bullet and they were unsuccessful.  Humes' concluded at the time that the bullet must have dislodged itself during efforts in the ER.!
He also didn't know that the wound to the throat was anything more than the site of the trach.! He didn't know that it was an entrance or exit!
Sounds crazy, but I can tell you that such things do occur.

Motive...forget it. Motive means nothing. Motive isn't evidence, and if you start with that you'll surely lead to the wrong conclusion.
You must start with the evidence, but first you need to know what the evidence actually is. If you continue to consult the sources you have, then I assure you, you'll keep on the same track...with many many questions, and no answers, and it will never end. Perpetual oblivion.

Only one thing occurred that day, and there are countless theories. That alone should tell you that there's a lot of B.S. out there.
It's up to you to decide what sources to believe.
Conspiracy theorists pick and choose what suits their particular theory. If a doc doesn't support their theory, then the doc must have been altered. You see, it can never end if that's the approach you take.
You must start with a credible source, otherwise, it's useless.

[Left-Field]

regi, on 23 July 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

Conspiracy theorists pick and choose what suits their particular theory.

Some do, but not all. Regardless, those who believe the government's version of events do the same exact thing.

If information is available that doesn't fall in line with the government's theory (and if you're being honest, you will recognize that the government's claims as to what happened really aren't established as anything more than a theory) than those who don't believe there was a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy will simply dismiss that information.

Personally, I'm willing to look at all the information available - whether it stands in contrast to my beliefs or not - and make a decision about how reliable and likely it is.

I see no reason why people on both sides of the argument shouldn't be willing to do the same.

regi, on 23 July 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

You see, it can never end if that's the approach you take.

That may be true, but simply because a definitive conclusion may not be capable of being reached doesn't mean one should exclude all the information available that dictates Oswald did not act alone.

I will yet again state the fact that the United States House Select Committee On Assassinations concluded in 1978 that "Kennedy was very likely assassinated as the result of a conspiracy."

Henceforth, Oswald DID NOT act alone.

And yet you have the gumption to state only conspiracy theorists "pick and choose what fits their particular theory."

regi, on 23 July 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

You must start with a credible source, otherwise, it's useless.

I agree. And as everyone should know the government is far from being a reliable source on much of anything - especially in regards to the JFK assassination.

Edited by Angel Left Wing, 23 July 2012 - 05:29 PM.

[regi]

Angel Left Wing, this back and forth isn't getting anywhere, and I don't want to waste any more of our time.

[Left-Field]

regi, on 23 July 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

Angel Left Wing, this back and forth isn't getting anywhere, and I don't want to waste any more of our time.

I'm surprised you've remained in the conversation as long as you have to begin with considering your earlier comments that you are fed up with JFK conspiracy theories and have neither the patience nor the energy to spend discussing the issue.

When you refuse to accept any information, regardless of how credible it is, that stands in contrast to the government's theory that Oswald acted alone then it is of little wonder as to why you get so frustrated with those that bring these pieces of information up.

You've decided the government's theory is correct and no amount of credible information suggesting their theory isn't true is going to change your mind. At this point I think the government could come forward and state it was a conspiracy and you still wouldn't change your mind (oh wait, that's already happened with the U.S. House Select Committee On Assassinations having concluded in 1978 that the Kennedy assassination was "very likely" a conspiracy).

Edited by Angel Left Wing, 23 July 2012 - 08:24 PM.

[TheMacGuffin]

Angel Left Wing, on 23 July 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

I'm surprised you've remained in the conversation as long as you have to begin with considering your earlier comments that you are fed up with JFK conspiracy theories and have neither the patience nor the energy to spend discussing the issue.

When you refuse to accept any information, regardless of how credible it is, that stands in contrast to the government's theory that Oswald acted alone then it is of little wonder as to why you get so frustrated with those that bring these pieces of information up.

You've decided the government's theory is correct and no amount of credible information suggesting their theory isn't true is going to change your mind. At this point I think the government could come forward and state it was a conspiracy and you still wouldn't change your mind (oh wait, that's already happened with the U.S. House Select Committee On Assassinations having concluded in 1978 that the Kennedy assassination was "very likely" a conspiracy).

The official or Warren Commission version of the assassination has been systematically demolished since the 1960s, ever since the Magic Bullet theory was discredited and so many witnesses as well as ALL the doctors in Dallas reported that JFK was hit from the back and front at the same time.  That just leaves more bullets and assassins than the official theory can accommodate.

Even the investigators for the House Committee also knew that the FBI and CIA were stonewalling them, and that so many leads had never been followed up or investigated.  There are too many of these even to list.  

Why was George H.W. Bush in Dallas in the day of the assassination, for example?  Why did he send a letter to the FBI warning of an assassination threat in Houston, and then go to Miami to talk with the anti-Castro Cubans right after the assassination?  All coincidences, I'm sure.

Why did a document surface much later stating that Oswald had had CIA training in 1957, and that later he was an FBI informant when he returned to the U.S.?  That makes him sound a little more complicated than the official version would have us believe.  Why did Richard Helms keep lying blatantly about all this for decades?

Why was Richard Nixon really in Dallas on the day of the assassination, and then unable to remember where he was when he heard the news of JFK's death?  He gave several different versions of that story.  And what about the document that emerged later showing that Nixon may have known Jack Ruby as early as 1947, when he was still a first-term member of Congress?

Yes, there are indeed a lot of questions here, but few answers.

[regi]

Angel Left Wing, I'm surprised that I've remained in this conversation after all the personal insults.
First, you were suspicious of me (imagine you suspicious!) of why I deleted most of your post. That must mean to you that I'm sneaky.
Upon reviewing the thread, you told me that...
I don't care to investigate the truth,
I accept lower standards.
I don't realize what I state.
I have poor decision making.
I don't want to know the truth.
I refuse information.
And you insinuate that I'm not reasonable and logical.

When you do agree, you do your best to find exception.

You state your opinion as fact...that the government never proved Oswald guilty.

The kicker...your latest contradiction in that I believe what the government tells me. If the government has told me that it was "very likely" a conspiracy, and I obviously don't believe that, then what does that tell you?

[Left-Field]

regi, on 24 July 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

Angel Left Wing, I'm surprised that I've remained in this conversation after all the personal insults.

I have not personally insulted anyone. If you feel I have use the "report" button and the moderators will handle it.

regi, on 24 July 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

First, you were suspicious of me (imagine you suspicious!) of why I deleted most of your post. That must mean to you that I'm sneaky.

You're claims above are nothing more than incorrect assumptions. I wasn't suspicious of you then nor am I suspicious of you now. The same can be said for any thoughts of you being "sneaky." If I felt either of those things about you I would come right out and state it (as I have done with my other thoughts concerning your beliefs on the JFK assassination).

I believe you didn't quote anything more of what I said because it made points which stood in contrast to the government's theory about what occurred regarding the assassination of President Kennedy and you didn't feel like addressing them (which seems like a logical belief for me to reach considering earlier statements from you that you are "fed up" with the JFK assassination conspiracy theories and have neither the time nor the energy to partake in such discussion).

I also pointed out the fact to you that you accept lesser standards from the government in accepting thier theory that Oswald acted alone.

You claim this isn't true, yet your comments and beliefs prove otherwise.

In fact, when I asked about this (that the government declares their theory on the JFK assassination as "official" and then that's what is to be accepted as truth) your response to me was "Yeah."

You then later expanded upon that answer by stating "Yes, like it or not, that's the way it works."

regi, on 24 July 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

Upon reviewing the thread, you told me that...
I don't care to investigate the truth,
I accept lower standards.
I don't realize what I state.
I have poor decision making.
I don't want to know the truth.
I refuse information.
And you insinuate that I'm not reasonable and logical.

And when it comes to your beliefs about the JFK assassination (at least the ones presented in this thread) I stand by all those statements.

As mentioned above, your own comments within this thread demostrate that you accept lower standards from the government when it comes to believing their theory that Oswald acted alone in assassinating President Kennedy. They have never proven this and there is no evidence which clearly points a finger in his direction, yet you believe it because the government tells you that is what happened.

You still believe it despite the fact, which I have mentioned numerous times, the United States House Select Committee On Assassinations concluded in 1978 that the assassination of President Kennedy was "very likely" the result of a conspiracy.

You brush their conslusion off based on your feelings that they came to that belief based on nothing more that speculaion. Yet at the same time you believe the government's conclusion that Oswald acted alone despite the fact they reached that conclusion based on nothing more than speculation themselves.

With that being the case, whether you are aware of it or not, you have shown that you accept lower standards from the government when accepting their theory that Oswald acted alone. Not only have you shown you accept these lower standards, but you have stated yourself that the process of the government declaring their theory as official and it then being commonly accepted as true is simply "how it works" whether I (or anyone else who doesn't accept the government's story) like it or not.

With evereything I stated above being true (and found within this thread) it falls in line that yes,

1.) You don't care to investigate the truth (regarding the JFK assassination)
2.) You accept lower standards from the government (in regards to the JFK assassination)
3.) You don't realize things you have stated (or perhaps you worded them in ways that don't accurately translate your beliefs)
4.) You display poor decision making regarding the JFK assassination (as evidenced by accepting that "that's the way it is" when it comes to believing the government's theory that Oswald acted alone)
5.) You don't want to know the truth (again, evidenced by your statement that "that's the way it is" regarding the government's theory on the JFK assassination being accepted as true simply because it comes from the government)
6.) You refuse information (again, evidenced by believing and accepting as true only the information that either comes directly from the government or falls in line with their story regarding JFK's assassination)
7.) You display traits of being unreasonable and illlogical when it comes to discussing the assassination of JFK (this is again evidenced by the fact you won't accept any information that stands in controst to the government's theory that Oswald acted alone as even standing a chance of possibly being true)

regi, on 24 July 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

When you do agree, you do your best to find exception.

I'd have to reread the thread to see what we have agreed on (I really don't recall agreeing on anything). Nonetheless, if I find exception that would seem to indicate that we don't really agree on whatever point(s) you may be referring to.

Either way, I do not purposely find exception with anything for the sake of finding exception. If I do so it is because I try to consider all the information in existence about something and then come to a conslusion as to whether or not it is worthy of consideration as being truthful and accurate.

regi, on 24 July 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

You state your opinion as fact...that the government never proved Oswald guilty.

Your statement above implies that you believe it is a fact that the government has proven Oswald guilty of participating in, and acting alone, in the assassination of President Kennedy.

Please present to me the evidence that proves that is, indeed, a fact.

The thing is you can't provide that information because it simply doesn't exist (although by all means, please do so if you believe you can).

With that being the case my claim that the government never proved Oswald acted alone is, indeed, a fact. If it isn't please provide to me (or direct me to) the evidence which proves Oswald acted alone

regi, on 24 July 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

The kicker...your latest contradiction in that I believe what the government tells me. If the government has told me that it was "very likely" a conspiracy, and I obviously don't believe that, then what does that tell you?

It tells me that you gobbled up the initial story which stood in existence for roughly 15-years before the United States House Select Committee On Assassinations issued any conclusion on their beliefs regarding the assassination of President Kennedy.

It tells me that since the Warren Commission Report was, and still is, regarded as the "official" investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy that you are far more inclined to believe it's conclusions about the assassination than you are to believe what the U.S. House Select Committee On Assassinations has to say about it 15-years later.

The conclusions reached by the U.S. House Select Committee are not acknowledged as "official" nor is the conslusion they reached commonly known by people who don't look much into the assassination of President Kennedy. You rarely hear mention of the committee's conclusion, yet the Warren Commission and the government's belief that Oswald acted alone is mentioned consistently whenever the media discusses the assassination of President Kennedy.

I have little doubt that if the government's theory in 1963 was that Oswald didn't shoot President Kennedy and / or that he didn't act alone you (and the large majority of people) would believe those things wholeheartedly because it would have come directly from the government.

And afterall, you have told us yourself within this thread that whether you "like it or not, that's the way it works."

Edited by Angel Left Wing, 24 July 2012 - 05:25 PM.

[regi]

If there are those who believe that a record is wrong, then they have to present evidence to show that it's wrong.
If those who generate a report- any report- continue to stand by their conclusion, then that's what has to occur.
I don't believe that has ever occurred; I don't believe that there's ever been any evidence presented to show that the conclusion of the original report was wrong, and that there was "probably" a conspiracy.

[Left-Field]

regi, on 25 July 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

If there are those who believe that a record is wrong, then they have to present evidence to show that it's wrong.

Um, so basically you are back to your verbiage of "like it or not, that's the way it is."

At this point, I really don't know if you're aware of what your statement above implies.

That being the case I shall inform you that whether you realize it or not, you are telling people that since the government produced a "record" which states Oswald acted alone in assassinating President Kennedy it is to therefore be accepted as truth unless it can be proven that Oswald didn't act alone and / or didn't fire the shot that killed Kennedy.

You are telling us that it doesn't matter that there is no evidence proving Oswald acted alone or killed Kennedy. All that matters is that the government put down on paper that he did these things and there has been nothing defintive showing he did not do what they claim he did.

Basically, the government could have made "record" that aliens from space were responsible for killing Kennedy, and if they (the government) had done so - and it couldn't be definitively proven that aliens weren't responsible - that record of events should be accepted as truth.

That is not only stupid and ridiculous, it is also childish.

And in case you aren't aware, it is the same exact thing people accuse "conspiracy theorists" of doing every time they present a belief that doesn't fall in line with the "official" version of events on any given conspiracy.

Your quoted statement above only further evidences the fact that you believe the government's theory that Oswald acted alone in assassinating President Kennedy simply because it has been stated by the government. Using your logic it doesn't matter that there is no evidence proving Oswald acted alone, it only matters that the government told us he did.

regi, on 25 July 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

If those who generate a report - any report - continue to stand by their conclusion, then that's what has to occur.

Is this really how you go about accepting things as truthful and factual? Does this apply to reports generated by any person or organization, or does it only apply to reports generated by the government, people, and organizations that you personally respect and place trust in?

If it only applies to groups and individuals you personally trust, then I guess it is your world and we just live in it.

Guess what, UFO-ologists have generated reports which they have stood by for years stating aliens exist and have visited planet Earth for centuries. Using your logic (or lack thereof I should say) everyone should accept those beliefs as true because the report has been generated and those who produced it have continued to stand by it.

That being the case, clearly it must be true - unless, of course, someone can prove to us that aliens have not now, nor have they ever, visited planet Earth.

regi, on 25 July 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

I don't believe that has ever occurred; I don't believe that there's ever been any evidence presented to show that the conclusion of the original report was wrong, and that there was "probably" a conspiracy.

Any person with any degree of reasonable sense and logic would realize that a lack of evidence proving "Oswald didn't do it" does not somehow equate to "Oswald did do it."

Now, with all that said, there is evidence which indicates that at the very least Oswald did not act alone.

How do we know this?

Because the wounds to Kennedy's forehead and neck were entry wounds and as we all know Oswald was certainly not in position to fire any shots at Kennedy from an angle that would strike him in the front of any part of his body.

And since you didn't do so last time, I'll ask again: Can you present to me any evidence that proves Oswald shot Kennedy and acted alone?

If not - and taking into account your quoted statements above - are you conceding that there is no evidence proving Oswald shot Kennedy and acted alone?

Edited by Angel Left Wing, 25 July 2012 - 03:49 PM.

[regi]

It doesn't matter to me who generates a report.

The reason I believe that the conclusion of the original report in this case is correct is because I agree that that's what the evidence shows, not because that's what the government told me, and so I have to accept it.

[Left-Field]

regi, on 25 July 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

It doesn't matter to me who generates a report.

So you believe aliens have visited Earth in the past and still do in the present because UFO-ologists have made records stating such things and have stood by those records ever since?

(Using the logic you gave in your previous post it'd be logical for one to conclude your answer to my above question would be "yes")

regi, on 25 July 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

The reason I believe that the conclusion of the original report in this case is correct is because I agree that that's what the evidence shows, not because that's what the government told me, and so I have to accept it.

Then why are you stating that once a record of something is made it is to be recognized as truth as long as the people who made that record stand by it throughout their lifetime?

Given your statement about generated records, you are telling yourself that by default you have no choice but to believe the government's theory on the JFK assassination whether you actually believe it or not.

At this point, you are literally fooling yourself.

By the way, do you have any evidence you can produce which proves Oswald shot Kennedy and that he carried out this attack on his own?

[regi]

I believe the original conclusion stands as the truth because the evidence shows it to be the truth.

[Left-Field]

regi, on 25 July 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

I believe the original conclusion stands as the truth because the evidence shows it to be the truth.

That would be the evidence that you are unable to provide proving Oswald shot Kennedy and acted alone, right?

I think at this point you are well aware of the fallacies within your statements and have now resorted to talking in circles rather than partaking in actual discussion, answering questions, and asking those of your own.

And since you refuse to even acknowledge the question asking you to provide the evidence that proves Oswald shot Kennedy and acted alone I'm left to conclude that you realize it simply doesn't exist.

[TheMacGuffin]

regi, on 25 July 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

If there are those who believe that a record is wrong, then they have to present evidence to show that it's wrong.
If those who generate a report- any report- continue to stand by their conclusion, then that's what has to occur.
I don't believe that has ever occurred; I don't believe that there's ever been any evidence presented to show that the conclusion of the original report was wrong, and that there was "probably" a conspiracy.

So much evidence has been presented that the Warren Commission was wrong, that it is completely discredited.  As far as I'm concerned, they are the ones who have to prove their case now, and without ignoring or suppressing all the new evidence that has been found since 1964.

[TheMacGuffin]

And I'm the first to say that it's incredible that the president of the U.S. would be allowed to ride around a big city in an open convertible.  Nowadays he couldn't do anything like that, and everywhere he would be guarded heavily by police, the Secret Service and the military.  No one just gets to walk in and see the president or any other high official these days without being cleared and screened.  

Perhaps those were more "innocent" times back then, but by 1963 there had already been three presidents assassinated and many more attempts.  Some of these were just crazy people with guns, and others were conspiracies, but either way, JFK's security that day looks very lax to me.

I mean, President Andrew Jackson confronted a certifiably crazy guy who thought he was King Richard IIII, and both of his guns misfired.  That was back in 1835.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 02 August 2012 - 08:35 PM.