|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 13, 2011 23:13:03 GMT -4
gillianren i don't know anything about anything i know a little about a lot This is Vogon poetry.  |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 13, 2011 23:50:46 GMT -4
gillianren i don't know anything about anything i know a little about a lot This is Vogon poetry. No, thisLunarOrbit Administrator it has to do with actually connecting with the other "i don't know anything about anything" this would be spiritual in nature, in so many words, that you would have realization that there is no other. If I don't know myself there fore i also don't know the other then self. "i know a little about a lot" is that my curiosity drives me to continue to solve the puzzles, it takes me in unpredictable directions, so no concentration on one area. is Vogon poetry. The other was merely contradictory and nonsensical. |
|
|
|
Post by redneckr0nin on Dec 14, 2011 0:07:22 GMT -4
redneckr0nin i don't know where you got the impression that Executive Action or EVIDENCE OF REVISION was "my" movies. i was just asking if in your investigations of JFK assassination did you include this film or this documentary? and or if the death bed confession of e howard hunt was included in your evaluation of evidence. have i voiced any opinion as to what i think about the assassination of JFK? You seem to have already decided to assume what my opinion is concerning the assassination of JFK, if your that quick to assume what reality is maybe research is not for you. i am wondering how you can possibly have an opinion on materials you apparently have not actually evaluated? I guess you asked for it right. Simply put because of the direction of the "documentry" being made and further more that a fictional movie being brought as evidence to a scientific debate is borderline insane. Not for the fact that you actually did that but you obviously don't have a clue to how badly that ruins your credibility with anyone of remote intelligence or that possesses problem solving skills. I see you removed the link from your signature but that was another factor in how I came to outrageous opinion you had a invested interest in that movie being viewed. Further more the content within that movie just by the overview I can tell is about misdirection. You see this is not my virginal experience with a conspiracy theory. In fact I'm quite broken in to the A typical arguments brought to the table. I am also marginally surprised you never added Oliver Stones JFK in your list of arguments. Because honestly that would have bore more weight than some 1970 b list movie and some d-list documentry that I've never heard of that was also made more of a point to include MKUltra and other non realitive subjects to the table. I have read the declassified reports on MkUltra... Have you? I have read the Warren Commision reports.. Have you? I have read the investigative Rockefeller reports... Have you? I have read the HSCA reports for all the good they did.. Have you? Although the following is included in your documentry but what they have to do with JFK are as follows. I studied Rfk assassination and truly if their was a plot to kill a Kennedy this would be the one to die first. He pissed off Johnson, Hoover, organized crime bosses, was far more pro active in civil rights and the movement of, was not as loved as his brother, did not have a dark underside that those who may want to control a Kennedy they could blackmail John not Bobby. Black ops were at the discretion of the president not some independent fly by night mercenaries. Martin Luther King was not personally tied with JFK like he was with Bobby. Bobby posed the real threat of bringing civil rights to the modern time. The Mafia with all the flipped informants and tapped hang outs, clubs, houses and other places of interest regarding the Italian orginized crime syndicate not ONCE has the JFK death been brought up. And now the nail in the coffin... After your documentry was made a forensic analysis of film Zapruder shot was made and using forensic animation as well as sound recordings and detailed accounts were factored in. This is EXACTLY what a investigation or trial against a potential defendant would involve. Not only does it nail Oswald to the wall it makes a case beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was guilty and solely as such in the act of murdering the president. This investigation was called JFK: beyond conspiracy and it was aired and endorsed by ABC a much more reputable journalistic source than a paranoid man that is broke and will only go by a assumed name of "Terrance Raymond". That to me screams paranoid and in a financial crisis gives him motive to make more of something than it is. He supposedly has connections to Nixon and Watergate and MkUltra which would make him being the Nixon supporter a advocate to Kennedy. His involvement in Watergate means his morals and standards are obviously flawed. As Watergate is still on my and many others mind the largest source of embarrassment to the Us federal government in its history. If Nixon didn't resign he would be impeached.. That is almost certain. Furthermore to try and blame the mind control techniques of MkUltra on this is laughable. For if you investigated the actual success of the mind control or planted subliminal thoughts within that study you would know they were at the very most minimal at best. Since the main chemicals thought to alter a mans conscious and sub-conscious thoughts and to implant ideals were sodium pentathol and LSD. The former being a horrific motivator to do anything but ramble the latter nothing but energy to chase the butterflies or taste the music of which I have first hand knowledge wouldn't make you do anything you didn't want to, in fact most things you did want to you did very poorly. So that being in the largest Wal Nut shell I can find to squeeze all the points and my credentials in when dealing with this conspiracy. Bottom line people don't want to believe a man of overwhelming influence and progressive thinking such as JFK could be killed solely by a man of such inconsequence and realitive inadequacy such as Oswald. But guess what he did and was killed by and the most modern techniques of forensic investigation on the sources and information we have prove it to have happened no other way but. Or you can put your faith in a assumed name that lives in hiding and was in financial crisis at the moment of production and this relative and figurative nobody... That happens to cash in on his credentials but only they don't actually apply to the debate at hand. Sound familiar anyone??.... Like a certain journalistic moon hoax believer that was not even working for NASA at the time of the Apollo missions? You see I don't expect you to know who I'm talking about but I'm sure the majority of the members here will know who it is exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 14, 2011 0:41:57 GMT -4
Personally, I think Iran-Contra was more embarrassing than Watergate. I mean, everyone knew how self-serving Nixon was, and Watergate was basically all about Nixon. But Iran-Contra was in many ways going counter to the beliefs our government is supposed to hold dear. Then again, I think just about the entire Bush the Younger administration was more embarrassing than Watergate, but I know your mileage may vary on that one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Dec 14, 2011 3:43:35 GMT -4
Personally, I think Iran-Contra was more embarrassing than Watergate. I mean, everyone knew how self-serving Nixon was, and Watergate was basically all about Nixon. But Iran-Contra was in many ways going counter to the beliefs our government is supposed to hold dear. Then again, I think just about the entire Bush the Younger administration was more embarrassing than Watergate, but I know your mileage may vary on that one. For clarity I refer to the 1st 4 years as the "Cheney/Rumsfeld administration." After the reelection they pretty much left him hanging out to dry, so I call those 4 years his administration. |
|
|
|
Post by redneckr0nin on Dec 14, 2011 3:45:53 GMT -4
Terrance Raymond ? what would we gain to debate the evidence? If this was a conspiracy, wouldn't the conspirators have covered their tracks as much as possible? To get away with this crime they would have to control the evidence. maybe find a pristine bullet on a stretcher or invent a magic bullet theory to account for multiple gun wounds, or find forensic doctors that testify that the head jerks backward when shot from the rear, murder the witnesses and make sure that the patsy is portrayed as a madman and doesn't live to be found out. Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives 3.The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. who had the motive? who gained from the action? who got the money? who could cover it up? not Oswald Think on this, what a coincidence it was for Oswald to move to Dallas just in time to get a job at the school book depository that happens to over look the very street where JFK's caravan had to slow down to maneuver, which then helped to assure a kill shot. And here is Oswald a madman with a fairly unreliable rifle with no motive to kill JFK other then he was a madman. So he kills the president and doesn't even want to take credit for it? interesting quote from Executive Action - 1973 "in Europe heads of state always die at the hands of conspirators, our presidents are killed by madmen. The pattern is remarkably consistent" it is seems true enough interesting article www.rense.com/general76/hunt.htmHunt's Deathbed Confession Reveals JFK Killers Yes Terrance Raymond.. The source behind the film you endorce. That is a assumed name because he is too paranoid to confess his real name. Why Oswald did what he did we will never know. Frankly I couldn't care, but the facts and research point to him and only him being the shooter. Now whether Castro, or the CIA , or whoever brainwashed him, set him up or whatever you believe the fact still remaining is this. Oswald shot Kennedy. What do we have regardless of who or what motivated Oswald to do this? A dead president long before his time. What will we always have regarding this? A dead president long before his time. You can speculate about who or what if anything motivated him to do so, but the title and topic of this thread is Oswald being the sole assassin of Kennedy. Not only is this the obvious answer then, but using evolved techniques of investigation it is the proven outcome and answer to the question" Who shot JFK?". |
|
|
|
Post by redneckr0nin on Dec 14, 2011 3:50:36 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 14, 2011 4:12:00 GMT -4
Actually, we've got a pretty good idea why Oswald did it. The fact is, Oswald spent much of his life like a conspiracist. He wanted attention, and no one ever gave him as much as he thought he should get. He decided that being a Communist would get him attention. He defected to the Soviet Union to get attention. And when they didn't give him enough, he came back to the US. Marina didn't give him enough attention. He, not unlike Czolgosz and Guiteau before him, also wasn't exactly Mr. Mental Health 1963.
The fact is, only one Presidential assassination out of the four successful ones was shown factually to have been the product of a conspiracy. I've just finished reading a book about James A. Garfield, Charles Guiteau, and Alexander Graham Bell. And people think Oswald was nuts--Guiteau had him beat solid. Guiteau was told by God to kill Garfield for the benefit of the Republican Party. (Proving that loony Christian Republicans aren't a new phenomenon, I suppose.) And there's absolutely no doubt that Guiteau did it, either, unless you accept his defense that the doctors actually did it. Which wasn't a bad one, given that Garfield probably would have lived if he hadn't been treated.
But you know what? All forensic doctors who really know what they're talking about agree that heads jerk backwards under the circumstances in which Kennedy was shot, and it only takes a tiny, tiny amount of knowledge of physics and anatomy to understand why. You can learn about it in five minutes, but conspiracists never bother. The "magic bullet" shot has been replicated. You can watch it done, but conspiracists never bother. The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was so successful that it was produced and used for over fifty years, but conspiracists don't even bother to take the two seconds to look that up on Wikipedia. They just parrot people who didn't take the time to actually talk to people who know anything about firearms.
The fact is, you're asking the wrong questions. While an investigation may start with motive, only an idiot ends it there, because motive by itself is meaningless. As I've said many times, I have a theoretical motive to kill my mother. If she dies, I'll inherit a third of her estate. (Probably; I don't know about her current will.) However, I would never be put on trial for it, because there's no case against me. For starters, she isn't dead. But even if she were, you would have to do a lot more than just show I had a motive. You'd have to show that I was in California at the time. You'd have to show that I was capable of inflicting the lethal wound, whatever that was. You'd have to examine all the physical evidence, and my motive simply wouldn't be enough.
In order to pretend that Oswald's successful assassination of Kennedy is suspicious, you would have to ignore the fact that he had already tried to kill a convenient target. Which he had. Yes, Kennedy's death relies on the coincidence that Oswald worked somewhere on the motorcade route. But he had the job before the Dallas trip was planned, much less the motorcade route set. So why couldn't they have picked somewhere else, someone else, some other trip? Why pick Oswald out of all the world as a patsy?
Oh, and Abraham Lincoln's death? The result of a conspiracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 14, 2011 4:16:54 GMT -4
Thank you, I have read it. You, however, have apparently not read your own links. And that acoustic evidence has been discredited several times by several people. Therefore: The conclusion fails because the basis of it is undermined. Again I ask: why do you take the findings here as gosel and ignore the many other investigations and analyses that disagree with it? |
|
|
|
Post by redneckr0nin on Dec 14, 2011 4:33:18 GMT -4
Actually, we've got a pretty good idea why Oswald did it. The fact is, Oswald spent much of his life like a conspiracist. He wanted attention, and no one ever gave him as much as he thought he should get. He decided that being a Communist would get him attention. He defected to the Soviet Union to get attention. And when they didn't give him enough, he came back to the US. Marina didn't give him enough attention. He, not unlike Czolgosz and Guiteau before him, also wasn't exactly Mr. Mental Health 1963. The fact is, only one Presidential assassination out of the four successful ones was shown factually to have been the product of a conspiracy. I've just finished reading a book about James A. Garfield, Charles Guiteau, and Alexander Graham Bell. And people think Oswald was nuts--Guiteau had him beat solid. Guiteau was told by God to kill Garfield for the benefit of the Republican Party. (Proving that loony Christian Republicans aren't a new phenomenon, I suppose.) And there's absolutely no doubt that Guiteau did it, either, unless you accept his defense that the doctors actually did it. Which wasn't a bad one, given that Garfield probably would have lived if he hadn't been treated. But you know what? All forensic doctors who really know what they're talking about agree that heads jerk backwards under the circumstances in which Kennedy was shot, and it only takes a tiny, tiny amount of knowledge of physics and anatomy to understand why. You can learn about it in five minutes, but conspiracists never bother. The "magic bullet" shot has been replicated. You can watch it done, but conspiracists never bother. The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was so successful that it was produced and used for over fifty years, but conspiracists don't even bother to take the two seconds to look that up on Wikipedia. They just parrot people who didn't take the time to actually talk to people who know anything about firearms. The fact is, you're asking the wrong questions. While an investigation may start with motive, only an idiot ends it there, because motive by itself is meaningless. As I've said many times, I have a theoretical motive to kill my mother. If she dies, I'll inherit a third of her estate. (Probably; I don't know about her current will.) However, I would never be put on trial for it, because there's no case against me. For starters, she isn't dead. But even if she were, you would have to do a lot more than just show I had a motive. You'd have to show that I was in California at the time. You'd have to show that I was capable of inflicting the lethal wound, whatever that was. You'd have to examine all the physical evidence, and my motive simply wouldn't be enough. In order to pretend that Oswald's successful assassination of Kennedy is suspicious, you would have to ignore the fact that he had already tried to kill a convenient target. Which he had. Yes, Kennedy's death relies on the coincidence that Oswald worked somewhere on the motorcade route. But he had the job before the Dallas trip was planned, much less the motorcade route set. So why couldn't they have picked somewhere else, someone else, some other trip? Why pick Oswald out of all the world as a patsy? Oh, and Abraham Lincoln's death? The result of a conspiracy. Thank you I have never really bothered looking into Oswalds motivation behind it. I knew he was a communist sympathizer and made trips to communist countries. Never this in depth. Thank you ma'am I appreciate the knowledge quite a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 14, 2011 8:03:15 GMT -4
This is Vogon poetry. No, thisLunarOrbit Administrator it has to do with actually connecting with the other "i don't know anything about anything" this would be spiritual in nature, in so many words, that you would have realization that there is no other. If I don't know myself there fore i also don't know the other then self. "i know a little about a lot" is that my curiosity drives me to continue to solve the puzzles, it takes me in unpredictable directions, so no concentration on one area. is Vogon poetry. The other was merely contradictory and nonsensical. I stand corrected. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 14, 2011 15:44:23 GMT -4
Thank you I have never really bothered looking into Oswalds motivation behind it. I knew he was a communist sympathizer and made trips to communist countries. Never this in depth. Thank you ma'am I appreciate the knowledge quite a bit. You're quite welcome. I am not a scientist. I am not much of a photographer. I am not an engineer. I am not an expert in most of the fields discussed around here. I am well versed in psychology and history. I have this belief that History gives assassins, at least in the US, the fate they deserve. Booth thought he would be the American Brutus, and in a way, that's true--both were reviled for their crime. (As Stephen Sondheim put it in Assassins, "But traitors just get jeers and boos/Not visits to their graves/And Lincoln, who got mixed reviews/Because of you, John, now gets only raves.") And Oswald wanted attention; History's curse upon him was that no one thinks he was important enough to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Dec 14, 2011 16:06:11 GMT -4
Plenty of people and groups, including Oswald. It made him (in)famous. who gained from the action? That's the same question. What money? Oswald bought a rifle and ammo. who could cover it up? not Oswald Only relevant if there was a cover up. Means, motive, and opportunity, Oswald had them all. But that only points to him. What nails is it is the vast amount of evidence that shows he did it and the absence of any credible evidence that he didn't. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 14, 2011 17:21:52 GMT -4
Is anyone else as grateful as I am that conspiracists don't, in general, conduct actual police investigations? Their lack of regard for physical evidence and obsession with motive? Their conviction that a lack of evidence is merely evidence of a cover-up? Terrifying.
|
|
|
|
Post by hal on Dec 14, 2011 17:27:57 GMT -4
Is anyone else as grateful as I am that conspiracists don't, in general, conduct actual police investigations? Their lack of regard for physical evidence and obsession with motive? Their conviction that a lack of evidence is merely evidence of a cover-up? Terrifying. Although certainly not the only relevant example in history, read Solzhenitsyn (esp. Gulag Archipelago) for terrifying depictions of this exact scenario. |
|
