Discussion:
Lone30%, Mafia13%,Govt13%, CIA7%, Fidel5%,KKK5%, LBJ3%
Add Reply
BOZ
2018-05-01 21:35:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
Ace Kefford
2018-05-03 02:22:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
Ace Kefford
2018-05-04 01:53:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
Re: O. Stone I should have wrote "all of the above conspirators" since
obviously he doesn't go for Lone.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-04 01:55:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
.001% Refused to answer.
BOZ
2018-05-04 12:59:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
FUNNIEST THING I HAVE READ IN WEEKS.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-05 01:45:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
FUNNIEST THING I HAVE READ IN WEEKS.
So you have nothing but contempt for public opinion.
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-05-06 01:12:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
FUNNIEST THING I HAVE READ IN WEEKS.
So you have nothing but contempt for public opinion.
Trump's approval ratings are over 50%.

That should keep you quiet for about 30 seconds.

Thirty glorious seconds.
John McAdams
2018-05-06 01:20:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 5 May 2018 21:12:49 -0400, "Steve M. Galbraith"
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
FUNNIEST THING I HAVE READ IN WEEKS.
So you have nothing but contempt for public opinion.
Trump's approval ratings are over 50%.
That should keep you quiet for about 30 seconds.
Thirty glorious seconds.
Given moderation delay, you will have more than that. :-)

But not 50%

More like 44%.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

However, Trump's numbers have been on an uptrend.

Apparently, people have noticed that there is no evidence at all of
Russian collusion.

As for all Trump's faults (which are substantial), a good economy and
some *possible* success in foreign policy has been noticed.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
bigdog
2018-05-06 19:40:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 5 May 2018 21:12:49 -0400, "Steve M. Galbraith"
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
FUNNIEST THING I HAVE READ IN WEEKS.
So you have nothing but contempt for public opinion.
Trump's approval ratings are over 50%.
That should keep you quiet for about 30 seconds.
Thirty glorious seconds.
Given moderation delay, you will have more than that. :-)
But not 50%
More like 44%.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
However, Trump's numbers have been on an uptrend.
Apparently, people have noticed that there is no evidence at all of
Russian collusion.
As for all Trump's faults (which are substantial), a good economy and
some *possible* success in foreign policy has been noticed.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
If Trump brokers a deal that results in a peace treaty finally being
signed or even more boldly, a reunification of Korea, watch his poll
numbers soar. The Democrats have the wind at their backs right now heading
into the midterms but political winds can shift and sometimes rather
dramatically. The anti-Trump sentiment is not as strong now as it was
earlier this year and come November, the Democrats might be wishing they
could have held the election in February. I can see control of the House
going either way but the most important battle is going to be in the
Senate. They are the ones that must approve judicial appointments and
there is a good chance Trump is going to be in position to appoint at
least one and maybe several more SCOTUS justices. If the Dems take
control, he will probably be forced to appoint moderates but if the GOP
keeps control he can nominate whom he likes and they will likely be
approved. Since the Dems have far more seats in play, it's going to be
hard for them to pick up the two seats they need. I just read an article
that says according to Arizona law, if McCain cashes his chips before
June, a special election for his replacement must be held this year. If he
hangs on until June, the governor can appoint a replacement to serve until
the 2020 election. I might send him a get well card. I wouldn't be too
upset if Thomas and Kennedy chose to retire at the end of the current
session, just in case. That way Trump could get their replacements
approved before the election. Breyer and Ginsburg will likely hold out for
Democrat President if they can.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-07 16:23:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by John McAdams
On 5 May 2018 21:12:49 -0400, "Steve M. Galbraith"
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
FUNNIEST THING I HAVE READ IN WEEKS.
So you have nothing but contempt for public opinion.
Trump's approval ratings are over 50%.
That should keep you quiet for about 30 seconds.
Thirty glorious seconds.
Given moderation delay, you will have more than that. :-)
But not 50%
More like 44%.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
However, Trump's numbers have been on an uptrend.
Apparently, people have noticed that there is no evidence at all of
Russian collusion.
As for all Trump's faults (which are substantial), a good economy and
some *possible* success in foreign policy has been noticed.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
If Trump brokers a deal that results in a peace treaty finally being
signed or even more boldly, a reunification of Korea, watch his poll
numbers soar. The Democrats have the wind at their backs right now heading
I have no problem with that. I'm all for peace.
I was even happy that the Mafia stopped their wars.
Post by bigdog
into the midterms but political winds can shift and sometimes rather
dramatically. The anti-Trump sentiment is not as strong now as it was
Just wait until he opens his mouth again.
Post by bigdog
earlier this year and come November, the Democrats might be wishing they
could have held the election in February. I can see control of the House
going either way but the most important battle is going to be in the
Senate. They are the ones that must approve judicial appointments and
there is a good chance Trump is going to be in position to appoint at
least one and maybe several more SCOTUS justices. If the Dems take
control, he will probably be forced to appoint moderates but if the GOP
keeps control he can nominate whom he likes and they will likely be
approved. Since the Dems have far more seats in play, it's going to be
hard for them to pick up the two seats they need. I just read an article
that says according to Arizona law, if McCain cashes his chips before
June, a special election for his replacement must be held this year. If he
hangs on until June, the governor can appoint a replacement to serve until
the 2020 election. I might send him a get well card. I wouldn't be too
upset if Thomas and Kennedy chose to retire at the end of the current
session, just in case. That way Trump could get their replacements
approved before the election. Breyer and Ginsburg will likely hold out for
Democrat President if they can.
Jeez, why do you even need a government? Just run the country by Tweets.
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-05-06 23:30:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 5 May 2018 21:12:49 -0400, "Steve M. Galbraith"
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
FUNNIEST THING I HAVE READ IN WEEKS.
So you have nothing but contempt for public opinion.
Trump's approval ratings are over 50%.
That should keep you quiet for about 30 seconds.
Thirty glorious seconds.
Given moderation delay, you will have more than that. :-)
But not 50%
More like 44%.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
However, Trump's numbers have been on an uptrend.
Apparently, people have noticed that there is no evidence at all of
Russian collusion.
As for all Trump's faults (which are substantial), a good economy and
some *possible* success in foreign policy has been noticed.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I briefly saw mention of a Rasmussen tracking poll - which tends to favor
Republicans - that had him at 51% on Friday.

Here it is:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_may04

Is he "less awful" than what a Hillary Clinton Administration would have
been like. Yes, hell yes. But that's a low bar.

The illiberal left is just, well, insane with this identity politics and
SJW orthodoxy.

The silence is soothing though.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-08 17:25:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by John McAdams
On 5 May 2018 21:12:49 -0400, "Steve M. Galbraith"
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
FUNNIEST THING I HAVE READ IN WEEKS.
So you have nothing but contempt for public opinion.
Trump's approval ratings are over 50%.
That should keep you quiet for about 30 seconds.
Thirty glorious seconds.
May the 4th be with you.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by John McAdams
Given moderation delay, you will have more than that. :-)
But not 50%
More like 44%.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
However, Trump's numbers have been on an uptrend.
Apparently, people have noticed that there is no evidence at all of
Russian collusion.
Well, that's just like saying that Nixon himself didn't physically break
into the Watergate Hotel.

They have people to do these things for them.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by John McAdams
As for all Trump's faults (which are substantial), a good economy and
some *possible* success in foreign policy has been noticed.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I briefly saw mention of a Rasmussen tracking poll - which tends to favor
Republicans - that had him at 51% on Friday.
As we said before, some polls are biased.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_may04
Is he "less awful" than what a Hillary Clinton Administration would have
been like. Yes, hell yes. But that's a low bar.
The illiberal left is just, well, insane with this identity politics and
SJW orthodoxy.
The silence is soothing though.
I'M BACKKK!!!
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-06 23:52:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 5 May 2018 21:12:49 -0400, "Steve M. Galbraith"
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
FUNNIEST THING I HAVE READ IN WEEKS.
So you have nothing but contempt for public opinion.
Trump's approval ratings are over 50%.
That should keep you quiet for about 30 seconds.
Thirty glorious seconds.
Given moderation delay, you will have more than that. :-)
But not 50%
More like 44%.
I don't mind when Trump supporters lie about his approval ratings.
Maybe for a couple of hours it was actually at 49%.
Close enough for a Trump supporter.
But as always I point out that they are selective about what to cheer
about. WHen the stock market goes up 10 points they cheer. When the
stock market goes down 1000 points, silence.
If unemployment goes down to under 4% they credit Trump.
They can't remember the last time unemployment was under 4%.
They refuse to remember who was President in 2000 and would never credit
him.

And as usual Trump supporters will only cherry pick the one point they
like best. They won't compare averages or dlctuctuations.
Post by John McAdams
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
However, Trump's numbers have been on an uptrend.
Apparently, people have noticed that there is no evidence at all of
Russian collusion.
As for all Trump's faults (which are substantial), a good economy and
some *possible* success in foreign policy has been noticed.
Poor baby.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-06 23:53:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
FUNNIEST THING I HAVE READ IN WEEKS.
So you have nothing but contempt for public opinion.
Trump's approval ratings are over 50%.
Fake News
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
That should keep you quiet for about 30 seconds.
Thirty glorious seconds.
Too late.
OHLeeRedux
2018-05-06 19:03:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
FUNNIEST THING I HAVE READ IN WEEKS.
So you have nothing but contempt for public opinion.
Replace the word "public" with "Anthony Marsh's" and you have it exactly
right.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-07 16:22:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
FUNNIEST THING I HAVE READ IN WEEKS.
So you have nothing but contempt for public opinion.
Replace the word "public" with "Anthony Marsh's" and you have it exactly
right.
Do try to keep up, boy. He just admitted it.
BOZ
2018-05-06 19:04:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
FUNNIEST THING I HAVE READ IN WEEKS.
So you have nothing but contempt for public opinion.
Yes, I have nothing but contempt for public opinion. Do you want to make
something out of it?
bigdog
2018-05-06 01:06:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
Must have been a hell of a planning session.
d***@gmail.com
2018-05-04 00:24:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In a poll, "some kind of conspiracy" (lumping them all together) is always
going to be greater than the Lone Gunman Theory. But, if you break them
down separately, the theory that has the most adherents is the Lone Gunman
Theory.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-06 00:33:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
In a poll, "some kind of conspiracy" (lumping them all together) is always
going to be greater than the Lone Gunman Theory. But, if you break them
down separately, the theory that has the most adherents is the Lone Gunman
Theory.
Brlliant. So how many lone nut theories can you lump together? You are so
desperate that you will call a minority opinion the majority.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
BOZ
2018-05-06 19:17:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
In a poll, "some kind of conspiracy" (lumping them all together) is always
going to be greater than the Lone Gunman Theory. But, if you break them
down separately, the theory that has the most adherents is the Lone Gunman
Theory.
Brlliant. So how many lone nut theories can you lump together? You are so
desperate that you will call a minority opinion the majority.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Oswald did it alone is not a theory. It's a fact. Do some research.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-07 16:14:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
In a poll, "some kind of conspiracy" (lumping them all together) is always
going to be greater than the Lone Gunman Theory. But, if you break them
down separately, the theory that has the most adherents is the Lone Gunman
Theory.
Brlliant. So how many lone nut theories can you lump together? You are so
desperate that you will call a minority opinion the majority.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Oswald did it alone is not a theory. It's a fact. Do some research.
We were talking about the SBT. That means Single-Bullet THEORY.
Maybe you weren't around then, but the FBI solved the case with Oswald
as the lone shooter without needing the crutch of no damn stinkin SBT!
Only weak minds need a SBT.
d***@gmail.com
2018-05-08 23:52:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Brlliant. So how many lone nut theories can you lump together? You are so
desperate that you will call a minority opinion the majority.
If you define "the majority" as over 50%, then NOBODY holds the
"majority". My point was this: If you parse each of the various theories
into categories, the Lone Gunman Theory is the largest - and, by a wide
margin. Plus, think of all the conspiracy theories that believe Oswald was
the 6th floor gunman yet STILL believe in a conspiracy.

So, if there was a poll that only asked if Lee Harvey Oswald was the 6th
floor gunman without addressing whether he had any help or whether there
were additional gunman, I'm guessing it WOULD be in the majority (i.e.
over 50%).

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
BOZ
2018-05-09 23:10:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Brlliant. So how many lone nut theories can you lump together? You are so
desperate that you will call a minority opinion the majority.
If you define "the majority" as over 50%, then NOBODY holds the
"majority". My point was this: If you parse each of the various theories
into categories, the Lone Gunman Theory is the largest - and, by a wide
margin. Plus, think of all the conspiracy theories that believe Oswald was
the 6th floor gunman yet STILL believe in a conspiracy.
So, if there was a poll that only asked if Lee Harvey Oswald was the 6th
floor gunman without addressing whether he had any help or whether there
were additional gunman, I'm guessing it WOULD be in the majority (i.e.
over 50%).
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Your logic makes sense. That is what frightens Marsh.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-10 18:48:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Brlliant. So how many lone nut theories can you lump together? You are so
desperate that you will call a minority opinion the majority.
If you define "the majority" as over 50%, then NOBODY holds the
"majority". My point was this: If you parse each of the various theories
into categories, the Lone Gunman Theory is the largest - and, by a wide
margin. Plus, think of all the conspiracy theories that believe Oswald was
the 6th floor gunman yet STILL believe in a conspiracy.
The vast majority of humans has always believed that it was a
conspiracy. I guess that leaves you out. So you are jealous.
Post by d***@gmail.com
So, if there was a poll that only asked if Lee Harvey Oswald was the 6th
floor gunman without addressing whether he had any help or whether there
were additional gunman, I'm guessing it WOULD be in the majority (i.e.
over 50%).
WTF? Go ahead, make up your own silly poll. And then imagine your own
made up results.

For the record I am sure that there must be a handful of people on this
planet who believe that it was a conspiracy AND Oswald was part of that
conspiracy.

Are you one?
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-10 18:49:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Brlliant. So how many lone nut theories can you lump together? You are so
desperate that you will call a minority opinion the majority.
If you define "the majority" as over 50%, then NOBODY holds the
"majority". My point was this: If you parse each of the various theories
into categories, the Lone Gunman Theory is the largest - and, by a wide
margin. Plus, think of all the conspiracy theories that believe Oswald was
the 6th floor gunman yet STILL believe in a conspiracy.
So, if there was a poll that only asked if Lee Harvey Oswald was the 6th
floor gunman without addressing whether he had any help or whether there
were additional gunman, I'm guessing it WOULD be in the majority (i.e.
over 50%).
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Why don't you do some actual research and find exactly that poll that
makes you happy. Even if you admit that possibility you would never admit
that you believe it. You don't want any conspiracy at all, ever. Just call
it an accident or something.
d***@gmail.com
2018-05-13 00:01:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why don't you do some actual research and find exactly that poll that
makes you happy. Even if you admit that possibility you would never admit
that you believe it. You don't want any conspiracy at all, ever. Just call
it an accident or something.
Polls on the Kennedy assassination don't interest me; because, as I've
said many times before, most people who are polled are asked to express an
opinion on a subject which they are not even qualified to have an opinion.
You might as well be asking 1st graders about their opinions on Global
Warming. Consequently, most polls on the assassination reflect the pop
culture belief that there WAS "some kind" of conspiracy. The Kennedy
assassination has become a metaphor for conspiracy thinking.

My personal (and admittedly unscientific) experience when this topic comes
up with somebody - they usually say something very close to this, "I don't
know. It just seems hard to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did it all by
himself." And that's about as deep as their "conspiracy" goes. They
tacitly acknowledge that Oswald WAS a shooter but they can't really put
together any cogent argument about WHO helped him, WHY they helped him,
and in what WAY they helped him.

Robert Dallek (author of "An Unfinished Life") may have said it best: "I
know that millions and millions of people in this country believe there
was a conspiracy. People want to believe that the world is not that random
- that things are not that chaotic - that something larger, bigger was at
stake here. Because, I think it's very difficult for them to accept the
idea that someone as inconsequential as Oswald could have killed someone
as consequential as Kennedy."

And then there's William Manchester's (author of "Death of a President")
insightful explanation: "To use an odd metaphor - if you put six-million
murdered Jews on one side of the scale and the Nazi regime on the other,
you have a rough balance - greatest crimes, greatest criminals. But if you
put the murdered president on one side of the scale and that wretched waif
Oswald on the other, it doesn't balance. You want to add some weight to
Oswald. It would invest the president's death with meaning. Kennedy would
have died for something. A conspiracy would do the job nicely."

Jackie Kennedy may have said it most accurately a succinctly, "He didn't
even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights. It had to be
some silly little Communist."

Why would I care what a person thinks about the Kennedy assassination if,
for example, they cannot even recall in which city the assassination
occurred? Or, if asked what Jackie Kennedy was wearing that day, they
would answer, "How should I know?"

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
bigdog
2018-05-14 03:37:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why don't you do some actual research and find exactly that poll that
makes you happy. Even if you admit that possibility you would never admit
that you believe it. You don't want any conspiracy at all, ever. Just call
it an accident or something.
Polls on the Kennedy assassination don't interest me; because, as I've
said many times before, most people who are polled are asked to express an
opinion on a subject which they are not even qualified to have an opinion.
You might as well be asking 1st graders about their opinions on Global
Warming. Consequently, most polls on the assassination reflect the pop
culture belief that there WAS "some kind" of conspiracy. The Kennedy
assassination has become a metaphor for conspiracy thinking.
My personal (and admittedly unscientific) experience when this topic comes
up with somebody - they usually say something very close to this, "I don't
know. It just seems hard to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did it all by
himself." And that's about as deep as their "conspiracy" goes. They
tacitly acknowledge that Oswald WAS a shooter but they can't really put
together any cogent argument about WHO helped him, WHY they helped him,
and in what WAY they helped him.
Robert Dallek (author of "An Unfinished Life") may have said it best: "I
know that millions and millions of people in this country believe there
was a conspiracy. People want to believe that the world is not that random
- that things are not that chaotic - that something larger, bigger was at
stake here. Because, I think it's very difficult for them to accept the
idea that someone as inconsequential as Oswald could have killed someone
as consequential as Kennedy."
And then there's William Manchester's (author of "Death of a President")
insightful explanation: "To use an odd metaphor - if you put six-million
murdered Jews on one side of the scale and the Nazi regime on the other,
you have a rough balance - greatest crimes, greatest criminals. But if you
put the murdered president on one side of the scale and that wretched waif
Oswald on the other, it doesn't balance. You want to add some weight to
Oswald. It would invest the president's death with meaning. Kennedy would
have died for something. A conspiracy would do the job nicely."
Jackie Kennedy may have said it most accurately a succinctly, "He didn't
even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights. It had to be
some silly little Communist."
Why would I care what a person thinks about the Kennedy assassination if,
for example, they cannot even recall in which city the assassination
occurred? Or, if asked what Jackie Kennedy was wearing that day, they
would answer, "How should I know?"
Very well said. Most Americans don't even know the most rudimentary
details of the assassination. Jay Leno used to do a bit call Jaywalking
All-Stars in which he would walk the streets of LA and ask random people
elementary questions about American history or current events. It was mind
boggling how many people couldn't answer questions that most of us had
learned by the time we were in fifth grade. It was both comical and a
little sad. I would bet that if you did a similar exercise and asked
people the same sort of elementary questions about the JFK assassination,
you would find a similar level of ignorance among the general population.
As you said some people wouldn't know what city the assassination was in
or what Jackie was wearing. If they didn't know even that much, forget
about identifying key figures such as Roy Truly, Marrion Baker, Howard
Brennan, J.D. Tippit, Ruth Paine, Clint Hill, Roy Kellerman, Lee Bowers or
Mary Moorman, just to rattle a few names off the top of my head.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-15 13:08:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why don't you do some actual research and find exactly that poll that
makes you happy. Even if you admit that possibility you would never admit
that you believe it. You don't want any conspiracy at all, ever. Just call
it an accident or something.
Polls on the Kennedy assassination don't interest me; because, as I've
said many times before, most people who are polled are asked to express an
opinion on a subject which they are not even qualified to have an opinion.
You might as well be asking 1st graders about their opinions on Global
Warming. Consequently, most polls on the assassination reflect the pop
culture belief that there WAS "some kind" of conspiracy. The Kennedy
assassination has become a metaphor for conspiracy thinking.
My personal (and admittedly unscientific) experience when this topic comes
up with somebody - they usually say something very close to this, "I don't
know. It just seems hard to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did it all by
himself." And that's about as deep as their "conspiracy" goes. They
tacitly acknowledge that Oswald WAS a shooter but they can't really put
together any cogent argument about WHO helped him, WHY they helped him,
and in what WAY they helped him.
Robert Dallek (author of "An Unfinished Life") may have said it best: "I
know that millions and millions of people in this country believe there
was a conspiracy. People want to believe that the world is not that random
- that things are not that chaotic - that something larger, bigger was at
stake here. Because, I think it's very difficult for them to accept the
idea that someone as inconsequential as Oswald could have killed someone
as consequential as Kennedy."
And then there's William Manchester's (author of "Death of a President")
insightful explanation: "To use an odd metaphor - if you put six-million
murdered Jews on one side of the scale and the Nazi regime on the other,
you have a rough balance - greatest crimes, greatest criminals. But if you
put the murdered president on one side of the scale and that wretched waif
Oswald on the other, it doesn't balance. You want to add some weight to
Oswald. It would invest the president's death with meaning. Kennedy would
have died for something. A conspiracy would do the job nicely."
Jackie Kennedy may have said it most accurately a succinctly, "He didn't
even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights. It had to be
some silly little Communist."
Why would I care what a person thinks about the Kennedy assassination if,
for example, they cannot even recall in which city the assassination
occurred? Or, if asked what Jackie Kennedy was wearing that day, they
would answer, "How should I know?"
Very well said. Most Americans don't even know the most rudimentary
details of the assassination. Jay Leno used to do a bit call Jaywalking
All-Stars in which he would walk the streets of LA and ask random people
elementary questions about American history or current events. It was mind
boggling how many people couldn't answer questions that most of us had
learned by the time we were in fifth grade. It was both comical and a
Excuse me? You just described the Trump base. We knew that already.
Post by bigdog
little sad. I would bet that if you did a similar exercise and asked
people the same sort of elementary questions about the JFK assassination,
A poll does not try to test people's knowledge, only their opinions.
Post by bigdog
you would find a similar level of ignorance among the general population.
As you said some people wouldn't know what city the assassination was in
or what Jackie was wearing. If they didn't know even that much, forget
about identifying key figures such as Roy Truly, Marrion Baker, Howard
Brennan, J.D. Tippit, Ruth Paine, Clint Hill, Roy Kellerman, Lee Bowers or
Mary Moorman, just to rattle a few names off the top of my head.
YOU can't answer my questions about the JFK assassination. You prove
your own point.
OHLeeRedux
2018-05-16 02:27:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why don't you do some actual research and find exactly that poll that
makes you happy. Even if you admit that possibility you would never admit
that you believe it. You don't want any conspiracy at all, ever. Just call
it an accident or something.
Polls on the Kennedy assassination don't interest me; because, as I've
said many times before, most people who are polled are asked to express an
opinion on a subject which they are not even qualified to have an opinion.
You might as well be asking 1st graders about their opinions on Global
Warming. Consequently, most polls on the assassination reflect the pop
culture belief that there WAS "some kind" of conspiracy. The Kennedy
assassination has become a metaphor for conspiracy thinking.
My personal (and admittedly unscientific) experience when this topic comes
up with somebody - they usually say something very close to this, "I don't
know. It just seems hard to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did it all by
himself." And that's about as deep as their "conspiracy" goes. They
tacitly acknowledge that Oswald WAS a shooter but they can't really put
together any cogent argument about WHO helped him, WHY they helped him,
and in what WAY they helped him.
Robert Dallek (author of "An Unfinished Life") may have said it best: "I
know that millions and millions of people in this country believe there
was a conspiracy. People want to believe that the world is not that random
- that things are not that chaotic - that something larger, bigger was at
stake here. Because, I think it's very difficult for them to accept the
idea that someone as inconsequential as Oswald could have killed someone
as consequential as Kennedy."
And then there's William Manchester's (author of "Death of a President")
insightful explanation: "To use an odd metaphor - if you put six-million
murdered Jews on one side of the scale and the Nazi regime on the other,
you have a rough balance - greatest crimes, greatest criminals. But if you
put the murdered president on one side of the scale and that wretched waif
Oswald on the other, it doesn't balance. You want to add some weight to
Oswald. It would invest the president's death with meaning. Kennedy would
have died for something. A conspiracy would do the job nicely."
Jackie Kennedy may have said it most accurately a succinctly, "He didn't
even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights. It had to be
some silly little Communist."
Why would I care what a person thinks about the Kennedy assassination if,
for example, they cannot even recall in which city the assassination
occurred? Or, if asked what Jackie Kennedy was wearing that day, they
would answer, "How should I know?"
Very well said. Most Americans don't even know the most rudimentary
details of the assassination. Jay Leno used to do a bit call Jaywalking
All-Stars in which he would walk the streets of LA and ask random people
elementary questions about American history or current events. It was mind
boggling how many people couldn't answer questions that most of us had
learned by the time we were in fifth grade. It was both comical and a
Excuse me? You just described the Trump base. We knew that already.
Yes, you people in the Trump base have the pulse of the nation, Anthony
"Trump Man" Marsh.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
little sad. I would bet that if you did a similar exercise and asked
people the same sort of elementary questions about the JFK assassination,
A poll does not try to test people's knowledge, only their opinions.
And that ridiculous statement shows us not to take anything you say
seriously, Anthony "All Talk No Action" Marsh.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
you would find a similar level of ignorance among the general population.
As you said some people wouldn't know what city the assassination was in
or what Jackie was wearing. If they didn't know even that much, forget
about identifying key figures such as Roy Truly, Marrion Baker, Howard
Brennan, J.D. Tippit, Ruth Paine, Clint Hill, Roy Kellerman, Lee Bowers or
Mary Moorman, just to rattle a few names off the top of my head.
YOU can't answer my questions about the JFK assassination. You prove
your own point.
Yes, the poster proved his point. Good of you to admit it, Anthony "Lost
and Confused" Marsh.
BOZ
2018-05-17 02:01:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why don't you do some actual research and find exactly that poll that
makes you happy. Even if you admit that possibility you would never admit
that you believe it. You don't want any conspiracy at all, ever. Just call
it an accident or something.
Polls on the Kennedy assassination don't interest me; because, as I've
said many times before, most people who are polled are asked to express an
opinion on a subject which they are not even qualified to have an opinion.
You might as well be asking 1st graders about their opinions on Global
Warming. Consequently, most polls on the assassination reflect the pop
culture belief that there WAS "some kind" of conspiracy. The Kennedy
assassination has become a metaphor for conspiracy thinking.
My personal (and admittedly unscientific) experience when this topic comes
up with somebody - they usually say something very close to this, "I don't
know. It just seems hard to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did it all by
himself." And that's about as deep as their "conspiracy" goes. They
tacitly acknowledge that Oswald WAS a shooter but they can't really put
together any cogent argument about WHO helped him, WHY they helped him,
and in what WAY they helped him.
Robert Dallek (author of "An Unfinished Life") may have said it best: "I
know that millions and millions of people in this country believe there
was a conspiracy. People want to believe that the world is not that random
- that things are not that chaotic - that something larger, bigger was at
stake here. Because, I think it's very difficult for them to accept the
idea that someone as inconsequential as Oswald could have killed someone
as consequential as Kennedy."
And then there's William Manchester's (author of "Death of a President")
insightful explanation: "To use an odd metaphor - if you put six-million
murdered Jews on one side of the scale and the Nazi regime on the other,
you have a rough balance - greatest crimes, greatest criminals. But if you
put the murdered president on one side of the scale and that wretched waif
Oswald on the other, it doesn't balance. You want to add some weight to
Oswald. It would invest the president's death with meaning. Kennedy would
have died for something. A conspiracy would do the job nicely."
Jackie Kennedy may have said it most accurately a succinctly, "He didn't
even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights. It had to be
some silly little Communist."
Why would I care what a person thinks about the Kennedy assassination if,
for example, they cannot even recall in which city the assassination
occurred? Or, if asked what Jackie Kennedy was wearing that day, they
would answer, "How should I know?"
Very well said. Most Americans don't even know the most rudimentary
details of the assassination. Jay Leno used to do a bit call Jaywalking
All-Stars in which he would walk the streets of LA and ask random people
elementary questions about American history or current events. It was mind
boggling how many people couldn't answer questions that most of us had
learned by the time we were in fifth grade. It was both comical and a
Excuse me? You just described the Trump base. We knew that already.
Post by bigdog
little sad. I would bet that if you did a similar exercise and asked
people the same sort of elementary questions about the JFK assassination,
A poll does not try to test people's knowledge, only their opinions.
Post by bigdog
you would find a similar level of ignorance among the general population.
As you said some people wouldn't know what city the assassination was in
or what Jackie was wearing. If they didn't know even that much, forget
about identifying key figures such as Roy Truly, Marrion Baker, Howard
Brennan, J.D. Tippit, Ruth Paine, Clint Hill, Roy Kellerman, Lee Bowers or
Mary Moorman, just to rattle a few names off the top of my head.
YOU can't answer my questions about the JFK assassination. You prove
your own point.
YOU REMIND OF ALI AFTER HE FOUGHT LARRY HOLMES.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-14 15:13:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why don't you do some actual research and find exactly that poll that
makes you happy. Even if you admit that possibility you would never admit
that you believe it. You don't want any conspiracy at all, ever. Just call
it an accident or something.
Polls on the Kennedy assassination don't interest me; because, as I've
said many times before, most people who are polled are asked to express an
opinion on a subject which they are not even qualified to have an opinion.
You might as well be asking 1st graders about their opinions on Global
Warming. Consequently, most polls on the assassination reflect the pop
culture belief that there WAS "some kind" of conspiracy. The Kennedy
assassination has become a metaphor for conspiracy thinking.
My personal (and admittedly unscientific) experience when this topic comes
up with somebody - they usually say something very close to this, "I don't
know. It just seems hard to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did it all by
himself." And that's about as deep as their "conspiracy" goes. They
tacitly acknowledge that Oswald WAS a shooter but they can't really put
together any cogent argument about WHO helped him, WHY they helped him,
and in what WAY they helped him.
I don't know which person you are describing. I think you are projecting
your beliefs onto anyone you come into contact with.
If someone says it was a conspiracy, YOU interpret that as meaning that
Oswald was working for someone else.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Robert Dallek (author of "An Unfinished Life") may have said it best: "I
know that millions and millions of people in this country believe there
was a conspiracy. People want to believe that the world is not that random
- that things are not that chaotic - that something larger, bigger was at
stake here. Because, I think it's very difficult for them to accept the
idea that someone as inconsequential as Oswald could have killed someone
as consequential as Kennedy."
Straight from the CIA guidebook.
Post by d***@gmail.com
And then there's William Manchester's (author of "Death of a President")
insightful explanation: "To use an odd metaphor - if you put six-million
murdered Jews on one side of the scale and the Nazi regime on the other,
you have a rough balance - greatest crimes, greatest criminals. But if you
put the murdered president on one side of the scale and that wretched waif
Oswald on the other, it doesn't balance. You want to add some weight to
Oswald. It would invest the president's death with meaning. Kennedy would
have died for something. A conspiracy would do the job nicely."
Childish logic. Just deal with the evidence. The physical evidence alone
proves conspiracy. Maybe not who was part of the conspiracy.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Jackie Kennedy may have said it most accurately a succinctly, "He didn't
even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights. It had to be
some silly little Communist."
Why would I care what a person thinks about the Kennedy assassination if,
for example, they cannot even recall in which city the assassination
You're one to talk. You know so little of the evidence.
Post by d***@gmail.com
occurred? Or, if asked what Jackie Kennedy was wearing that day, they
would answer, "How should I know?"
Indeed, why should anyone care what irrelevancies you dredge up to
deflect from the Truth? What brand of shoes was JFK wearing? What would
that possibly have to do with where the shots came from?
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
d***@gmail.com
2018-05-15 03:12:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
My personal (and admittedly unscientific) experience when this topic comes
up with somebody - they usually say something very close to this, "I don't
know. It just seems hard to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did it all by
himself." And that's about as deep as their "conspiracy" goes. They
tacitly acknowledge that Oswald WAS a shooter but they can't really put
together any cogent argument about WHO helped him, WHY they helped him,
and in what WAY they helped him.
I don't know which person you are describing. I think you are projecting
your beliefs onto anyone you come into contact with.
You have never stumbled into a casual conversation with somebody about the
Kennedy assassination outside of newsgroups and internet exchanges? I
think we all have. That's what I'm describing. I'm talking about the
average guy on the street, a neighbor, a co-worker, somebody I might meet
at a party - not a researcher or kooks like us who collect information
about the assassination (much of it amounting to nothing more than trivia)
like 10-yr-old boys used to collect Pokemon cards.

You say, "I don't know which person you are describing" - what the hell
kind of statement is that? Hell, Tony, I don't have all the names of
everybody with whom I've had a discussion on the Kennedy assassination on
an Excel spreadsheet, in alphabetical order with the date of the
discussion, length of discussion, and a summary of topics covered. I think
you understood my point perfectly well but cannot help yourself from being
snarky when you don't like the essence of somebody's point.

I understand what people are saying to me when they express their view on
the assassination. I'm not "projecting" my beliefs when somebody says, "I
just don't think Oswald could have done it all by himself." That's THEIR
statement! It tells me two things: 1) They believe that there was "some
kind" of conspiracy and 2) They accept that Oswald was the shooter, if
only one of many.
Post by Anthony Marsh
If someone says it was a conspiracy, YOU interpret that as meaning that
Oswald was working for someone else.
I don't interpret it that way at all. Here's what I said that you seem to
have ignored: "They tacitly acknowledge that Oswald WAS a shooter but they
can't really put together any cogent argument about WHO helped him, WHY
they helped him, and in what WAY they helped him." What I'm saying is that
they seldom tell me what they mean by "I don't think Oswald did it by
himself." When I ask them to elaborate, they usually have nothing to say.
They usually just shrug their shoulders and repeat something like, "It
just seems like one person couldn't do it by himself." And that's about as
far as the discussion gets. They don't know enough about the assassination
to even have much of a discussion and I usually don't waste my time trying
to make the case that there WAS no conspiracy.

Yet, every once in a while I'll run into somebody who really doesn't know
much about the assassination yet has a keen interest in it - which is kind
of odd to me because, it would seem, if they were that interested they
would have educated themself a bit. They often ask me a lot of questions
and I WILL engage these type of people.

My interest in this case has morphed over the past decade. I'm no longer
all that interested in the assassination itself. I'm confident what
happened. It's no mystery to me. I don't delude myself into thinking that
one day you'll logon on to this network and have an epiphany and declare,
"You guys have convinced me! Your arguments have been so compelling that I
am now forced to accept that there is no credible evidence of a conspiracy
in the Kennedy assassination. Thanks helping me see the light. I have no
idea why it took me so long to come to this understanding."

What FASCINATES me now is this pathology of conspiracy thinking that
doesn't seem to have any educational/intellectual boundaries. Stupid
people have always believed stupid things. That's not interesting. It's
when normally intelligent people believe stupid things - that's
interesting because, more and more, I'm observing how this phenomenon has
infiltrated people's political worldviews and plays some role in the
growing political divides in this country. Think about it - we have a
president who thinks Alex Jones (InfoWars host) is an insightful and
prescient thinker who deserves an audience.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Robert Dallek (author of "An Unfinished Life") may have said it best: "I
know that millions and millions of people in this country believe there
was a conspiracy. People want to believe that the world is not that random
- that things are not that chaotic - that something larger, bigger was at
stake here. Because, I think it's very difficult for them to accept the
idea that someone as inconsequential as Oswald could have killed someone
as consequential as Kennedy."
Straight from the CIA guidebook.
Are you saying Robert Dallek is a CIA disinformation agent? It seems to me that he's really just making a statement about a common aspect of basic human psychology.

You see it as a script out of a "CIA guidebook". That would be funny if you were joking. Sadly, you're not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
And then there's William Manchester's (author of "Death of a President")
insightful explanation: "To use an odd metaphor - if you put six-million
murdered Jews on one side of the scale and the Nazi regime on the other,
you have a rough balance - greatest crimes, greatest criminals. But if you
put the murdered president on one side of the scale and that wretched waif
Oswald on the other, it doesn't balance. You want to add some weight to
Oswald. It would invest the president's death with meaning. Kennedy would
have died for something. A conspiracy would do the job nicely."
Childish logic. Just deal with the evidence. The physical evidence alone
proves conspiracy. Maybe not who was part of the conspiracy.
Yeah, that's what everybody seems to say about William Manchester - an individual prone to "childish logic". I'll bet he got that a lot. Pfft!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-17 02:00:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
My personal (and admittedly unscientific) experience when this topic comes
up with somebody - they usually say something very close to this, "I don't
know. It just seems hard to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did it all by
himself." And that's about as deep as their "conspiracy" goes. They
tacitly acknowledge that Oswald WAS a shooter but they can't really put
together any cogent argument about WHO helped him, WHY they helped him,
and in what WAY they helped him.
I don't know which person you are describing. I think you are projecting
your beliefs onto anyone you come into contact with.
You have never stumbled into a casual conversation with somebody about the
Kennedy assassination outside of newsgroups and internet exchanges? I
think we all have. That's what I'm describing. I'm talking about the
What about the average kook you run into at a JFK conference. Each has to
have a unique theory that no one ever heard of before. How about the sabot
theory? I shared a room with him. And he gave me a couple of samples.
Post by d***@gmail.com
average guy on the street, a neighbor, a co-worker, somebody I might meet
at a party - not a researcher or kooks like us who collect information
about the assassination (much of it amounting to nothing more than trivia)
like 10-yr-old boys used to collect Pokemon cards.
You say, "I don't know which person you are describing" - what the hell
kind of statement is that? Hell, Tony, I don't have all the names of
everybody with whom I've had a discussion on the Kennedy assassination on
an Excel spreadsheet, in alphabetical order with the date of the
discussion, length of discussion, and a summary of topics covered. I think
you understood my point perfectly well but cannot help yourself from being
snarky when you don't like the essence of somebody's point.
Don't you keep all the brochures from all the conferences?
Post by d***@gmail.com
I understand what people are saying to me when they express their view on
the assassination. I'm not "projecting" my beliefs when somebody says, "I
just don't think Oswald could have done it all by himself." That's THEIR
statement! It tells me two things: 1) They believe that there was "some
kind" of conspiracy and 2) They accept that Oswald was the shooter, if
only one of many.
Sure, but how many people tell you that Oswald was the only shooter AND
part of a conspiracy? Just Larry?
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
If someone says it was a conspiracy, YOU interpret that as meaning that
Oswald was working for someone else.
I don't interpret it that way at all. Here's what I said that you seem to
have ignored: "They tacitly acknowledge that Oswald WAS a shooter but they
can't really put together any cogent argument about WHO helped him, WHY
they helped him, and in what WAY they helped him." What I'm saying is that
they seldom tell me what they mean by "I don't think Oswald did it by
himself." When I ask them to elaborate, they usually have nothing to say.
They usually just shrug their shoulders and repeat something like, "It
just seems like one person couldn't do it by himself." And that's about as
But a hardline WC defender could explain how Oswald could shoot JFK in
the forehead from the front with no help from anybody else.
Post by d***@gmail.com
far as the discussion gets. They don't know enough about the assassination
to even have much of a discussion and I usually don't waste my time trying
to make the case that there WAS no conspiracy.
Yet, every once in a while I'll run into somebody who really doesn't know
much about the assassination yet has a keen interest in it - which is kind
of odd to me because, it would seem, if they were that interested they
would have educated themself a bit. They often ask me a lot of questions
and I WILL engage these type of people.
My interest in this case has morphed over the past decade. I'm no longer
all that interested in the assassination itself. I'm confident what
happened. It's no mystery to me. I don't delude myself into thinking that
one day you'll logon on to this network and have an epiphany and declare,
"You guys have convinced me! Your arguments have been so compelling that I
am now forced to accept that there is no credible evidence of a conspiracy
in the Kennedy assassination. Thanks helping me see the light. I have no
idea why it took me so long to come to this understanding."
Not in our lifetimes.
Post by d***@gmail.com
What FASCINATES me now is this pathology of conspiracy thinking that
doesn't seem to have any educational/intellectual boundaries. Stupid
people have always believed stupid things. That's not interesting. It's
when normally intelligent people believe stupid things - that's
interesting because, more and more, I'm observing how this phenomenon has
infiltrated people's political worldviews and plays some role in the
growing political divides in this country. Think about it - we have a
president who thinks Alex Jones (InfoWars host) is an insightful and
prescient thinker who deserves an audience.
Why not play your Trump card and blame it all on the Liberals?
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Robert Dallek (author of "An Unfinished Life") may have said it best: "I
know that millions and millions of people in this country believe there
was a conspiracy. People want to believe that the world is not that random
- that things are not that chaotic - that something larger, bigger was at
stake here. Because, I think it's very difficult for them to accept the
idea that someone as inconsequential as Oswald could have killed someone
as consequential as Kennedy."
Straight from the CIA guidebook.
Are you saying Robert Dallek is a CIA disinformation agent? It seems to me that he's really just making a statement about a common aspect of basic human psychology.
No, silly. Just that he abides by it.
Post by d***@gmail.com
You see it as a script out of a "CIA guidebook". That would be funny if you were joking. Sadly, you're not.
I uploaded the document for you.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
And then there's William Manchester's (author of "Death of a President")
insightful explanation: "To use an odd metaphor - if you put six-million
murdered Jews on one side of the scale and the Nazi regime on the other,
you have a rough balance - greatest crimes, greatest criminals. But if you
put the murdered president on one side of the scale and that wretched waif
Oswald on the other, it doesn't balance. You want to add some weight to
Oswald. It would invest the president's death with meaning. Kennedy would
have died for something. A conspiracy would do the job nicely."
Childish logic. Just deal with the evidence. The physical evidence alone
proves conspiracy. Maybe not who was part of the conspiracy.
Yeah, that's what everybody seems to say about William Manchester - an individual prone to "childish logic". I'll bet he got that a lot. Pfft!
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
d***@gmail.com
2018-05-21 02:47:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Don't you keep all the brochures from all the conferences?
I've never attended any of those conferences.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
I understand what people are saying to me when they express their view on
the assassination. I'm not "projecting" my beliefs when somebody says, "I
just don't think Oswald could have done it all by himself." That's THEIR
statement! It tells me two things: 1) They believe that there was "some
kind" of conspiracy and 2) They accept that Oswald was the shooter, if
only one of many.
Sure, but how many people tell you that Oswald was the only shooter AND
part of a conspiracy? Just Larry?
What MOST people say (not just "Larry") is that they do not believe that
Oswald did it alone. To me, that means that they accept that Oswald "did
it" - but they think he must have had some kind of help. Whether that
"help" came in the form of other shooters or some kind of logistical
support, they usually don't say; because, as I've said, their thinking on
this matter doesn't go any further. Their view is very shallow. They don't
have a specific conspiracy in mind although, when asked, they WILL say
that they think there must have been "some kind" of conspiracy.

You are trying to characterize this as some kind of minority or aberrant
view of the assassination. You're wrong. It's actually quite common. I
think you know it is, too.

Like I said, if there was a poll question that factored out the TYPE of
conspiracy out of the equation and ONLY asked: Do you believe that Lee
Harvey Oswald fired a rifle at the presidential motorcade from the Texas
School Book Depository on November 22, 1963 ... I am extremely confident
that it would encompass about 75% of the people, probably MORE.
Post by Anthony Marsh
But a hardline WC defender could explain how Oswald could shoot JFK in
the forehead from the front with no help from anybody else.
Huh? There is no medical evidence that Kennedy was shot in the forehead.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
"You guys have convinced me! Your arguments have been so compelling that I
am now forced to accept that there is no credible evidence of a conspiracy
in the Kennedy assassination. Thanks helping me see the light. I have no
idea why it took me so long to come to this understanding."
Not in our lifetimes.
What a cop out! Basically, you're saying, "I'm right and you guys are
wrong! But it won't be proven until we're all dead." That sounds like an
argument you can't lose. It's interesting that you seem to know the
timeline of this revelation. I'm not as certain as you about what the
final historical record will be on the Kennedy assassination, but I DO
know that, after over half-a-century, no conspiracy was found. I think
that's pretty good evidence that we don't need ANOTHER half-a-century to
the "truth" to come out.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Loading...