129 replies to this topic

[booNyzarC]

Angel Left Wing, on 17 July 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

I've never heard of him before (and haven't watched the video yet). Why is it that you question his accuracy on such things?

I guess that you haven't subjected yourself to any of his views on 911 then.  If you're ever looking for a way to cause you to shake your head in amazement at stupidity, then I suggest you look up some of his stuff on that subject.

Angel Left Wing, on 17 July 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

Is there any proponent of any conspiracy theory that you do, or would, not think negatively of?

I haven't yet encountered a conspiracy theory that is substantiated.  As for proponents of such theories, I have a great deal of respect for many of them, others I don't necessarily have an opinion one way or the other, some I think are complete lunatics, some simply idiotic, and every other range or degree between each of those descriptors.

Angel Left Wing, on 17 July 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

Also, in regards to the JFK assassination, do you believe the government's version of events? If not, do you believe the government played a role in the cover-up and / or in planning and carrying out the assassination itself?

I haven't seen any convincing reasons to doubt that the official version of events is blatantly incorrect.  As with all investigations, there may be a handful of inconsistencies and areas of ambiguity, but that doesn't mean the core conclusions are invalid.

[JonathanVonErich]

No conspiracy !? But...but what about the Badge Man !? Think about the Badge Man for Christ's sake. The Coke Bott....i mean Badge Man.

[FLOMBIE]

TheMacGuffin, on 18 July 2012 - 06:25 AM, said:

No, the weapons and bullets were fatal enough, but they just weren't the ones that the official investigations claimed.  Tippett was killed with an automatic yet the official investigations claimed it was a revolver.  They also had three different rifles that they asserted the Oswald had used, or at least they had pictures of them, but none of them were fired at JFK.  It is very likely that the actual weapons used were Mauser's with silencers.

For hiding the muzzle fire?

[Left-Field]

regi, on 18 July 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

I don't know if it's because I'm a lifelong Texan, but if there are any conspiracy theories that I'm absolutely sick-to-death of, it's those surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy.

Oswald was a nut-job who turned cold-blooded murderer, and yes, I believe he acted alone.

Since that's the official record, then it's up to those who don't believe it to disprove it, and half a century later, they have not.

Really, that's how it works?   

The government tells us the "official" version of things and then it is up to the people to disprove that version of events. And if we can't do so, well then, obviously the government's version is the truth.

No wonder the government gets away with doing whatever the hell it wants.

How about this - how 'bout the government needs to prove their version of events just like anybody else before it becomes established as fact? They haven't done so with the JFK assassination (or a number of other crimes that have taken place).

And by the way, the government itself pretty much disproved the "official" version when the United States House Select Committee On Assassinations concluded in 1978 that "Kennedy was very likely assassinated as the result of a conspiracy."

[booNyzarC]

Speaking of conspiracy theories, I wonder why this is in the True Crime section of the forum in the first place.  Wouldn't the Conspiracy section be more appropriate?

[JonathanVonErich]

booNyzarC, on 18 July 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

Speaking of conspiracy theories, I wonder why this is in the True Crime section of the forum in the first place.  Wouldn't the Conspiracy section be more appropriate?

I guess the Conspiracy section is sick of threads about the JFK conspiracy and decided to boycott this thread.

Seriously how many threads were created about this topic in the 10 years of UM ?? 500 ?? I agree that it's a fascinating, important topic, but sometimes too much is too much....

[Left-Field]

Probably because the assassination of JFK is a true crime - it covers both this and the conspiracy section.

As for the topic itself, there really aren't that many (if any) current / recent threads discussing the topic.

I fail to understand why people bemoan certain topics being discussed more than once considering the fact many members haven't partaken in the discussion simply because they hadn't noticed a previous thread on it, or they are simply a new member who wasn't around at the time the topic was previously discussed.

[TheMacGuffin]

regi, on 18 July 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

I don't know if it's because I'm a lifelong Texan, but if there are any conspiracy theories that I'm absolutely sick-to-death of, it's those surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy.
Oswald was a nut-job who turned cold-blooded murderer, and yes, I believe he acted alone.
Since that's the official record, then it's up to those who don't believe it to disprove it, and half a century later, they have not.

I'd say the exact opposite.  With all the evidence we have now, it's up to the other side to prove that Oswald acted alone.

[JonathanVonErich]

Angel Left Wing, on 18 July 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

I fail to understand why people bemoan certain topics being discussed more than once considering the fact many members haven't partaken in the discussion simply because they hadn't noticed a previous thread on it, or they are simply a new member who wasn't around at the time the topic was previously discussed.

Personally I don't care if a certain topic is being discussed on numerous  different threads, I have no problems with that. The murder of JFK sure deserves to be discussed over and over again. It's the most important unsolved murder case in history.

[Left-Field]

booNyzarC, on 18 July 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

I guess that you haven't subjected yourself to any of his views on 911 then.  If you're ever looking for a way to cause you to shake your head in amazement at stupidity, then I suggest you look up some of his stuff on that subject.

Like I said, I've never heard of him before, whether it be positive or negative commentary about him. For that reason I was wondering why you personally take issue with him.

Also, simply because you may dismiss his thoughts about 9/11, it doesn't mean his thoughts on other topics should be quickly dismissed, although I understand the reasoning behind taking that approach.

booNyzarC, on 18 July 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

I haven't yet encountered a conspiracy theory that is substantiated.

Could you provide your thoughts on this one then?

I can't help but notice that no one has made a serious attempt (or any attempt really) to debunk the information presented within that topic and I can't help but wonder why that is so.

booNyzarC, on 18 July 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

As for proponents of such theories, I have a great deal of respect for many of them, others I don't necessarily have an opinion one way or the other, some I think are complete lunatics, some simply idiotic, and every other range or degree between each of those descriptors.

Fair enough. The same can be said about the range of people who tend to believe most, if not all, conspiracies are nonsense.

booNyzarC, on 18 July 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

I haven't seen any convincing reasons to doubt that the official version of events is blatantly incorrect.  As with all investigations, there may be a handful of inconsistencies and areas of ambiguity, but that doesn't mean the core conclusions are invalid.

What do you make of the fact that doctors who operated on Kennedy have stated that the wounds he suffered were clearly entry wounds to the front of his neck and forehead?

What about the fact that these same physicians have also stated, based on autopsy photos, that the wounds to Kennedy's head and neck were clearly tampered with after his body was taken from the hospital?

Also, how do you explain the fact a police officer witnessed Oswald located on the fourth floor of the depository calmy drinking a Coke within roughly a minute of the President having been shot?

If Oswald really did shoot the President from the sixth floor of the depository, it would've been nearly impossible for him to run down two flights of stairs so quickly, have himself a soda, and not show any signs of being perplexed or out of breath.

It also seems like an odd course of actions for the man who supposedly just assassinated the President to remain in the building rather than distance himself from the crime scene as quickly as possible.

Edited by Angel Left Wing, 18 July 2012 - 05:07 PM.

[JonathanVonErich]

I've seen The Men Who Killed Kennedy at least 10 times ( I bought the DVD ), and there's no doubt in my mind that there was a Conspiracy to kill JFK. No doubt.

However I feel like Oswald was involved in the Conspiracy. I doubt that he fired a shot and I believe he was a scapegoat, however I do believe Oswald was aware that the President was going to be killed on that day.

About Lucien Sarti: I doubt he was the guy who fired the fatal shot. Sarti was a professional killer, but I doubt he would have taken such huge risks to kill the president of the United States, to me this scenario is hard to believe.

Just my 2 cents.

[TheMacGuffin]

booNyzarC, on 18 July 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

Speaking of conspiracy theories, I wonder why this is in the True Crime section of the forum in the first place.  Wouldn't the Conspiracy section be more appropriate?

Well, some crimes were indeed committed since people were killed, but the main questions are who did it, how was it done, and why was it done.

[regi]

Angel Left Wing, on 18 July 2012 - 04:25 PM, said:

Really, that's how it works?   

Yeah.

[Left-Field]

regi, on 18 July 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

Yeah.

Gee... I wonder why you deleted the rest of the post.

Anyways, you obviously don't care to investigate the truth about things and are willing to accept as fact whatever the goverment tells you to believe even when they don't meet the same standards of proof you require from others to proove their beliefs.

[Left-Field]

JonathanVonErich, on 18 July 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

I've seen The Men Who Killed Kennedy at least 10 times (I bought the DVD), and there's no doubt in my mind that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. No doubt.

I've never seen that film, but I read a book or two on the topic and a number of articles about it on the internet. In doing so I find it nearly impossible for anyone that has done even a small amount of research into the JFK assassination to come away with a legitimate and reasonable belief that there wasn't a conspiracy.

In my opinion people who cling to that belief lack logic, will believe everything the government tells them to believe, fear the truth, simply don't care, or possess some combination of those things (amongst others) as a means of arriving at their conclusion.

JonathanVonErich, on 18 July 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

However I feel like Oswald was involved in the conspiracy. I doubt that he fired a shot and I believe he was a scapegoat, however, I do believe Oswald was aware that the President was going to be killed on that day.

I don't doubt that Oswald was involved in the conspiracy somehow either, but I don't believe he fired the shot that killed the president. I tend to think he didn't fire any weapons that day.