JFK Assassin's Rifle

[QXSOUP]

[B Strong]

Yup...what?

Snowden claims the uk does this. That's what the article says.

What does it have to do with this thread?

Nothing, other than a talking point to support delusions of grandeur on the part of the CTist universe - they're such a danger to a group of individuals killing with impunity all over the planet for the last 50 years that the evil doers use henchmen to mock them on internet forums.

Beats hell out of admitting that they are only one step away from believing in the tooth fairy and admitting that their world view is based on watching TV and movies rather than experience out in the world.

[B Strong]

Only the Truth is Funny:

Two conspiracy theorists on the way to visit the 9/11 Museum get in an auto accident and are killed.

As they are standing at the pearly gates Saint Peter informs them both that Oswald did in fact shoot Kennedy; man has landed on the moon; and the World Trade Center towers were taken down by 19 Muslim terrorists.

One conspiracy advocate whispers to the other, "I told you! it goes all the way to the top!"

[bonusweb]

Yup...what?

Snowden claims the uk does this. That's what the article says.

What does it have to do with this thread?

It mean we should not give any special weight to the naysayers, especially when it looks like there following a formula and using tactics. One I notice is to wear people out on forums, until the thread dies. Saying no it ain't, to each comment isn't exactly constructive. Look at the comment its in the UK, "what does that have to with this thread?"

Playing stupid insults others reading this forum. But I guess if it works on 10% the i suppose they consider it win. If I have to actually take time to explain "what it has to do with this thread is part of wearing out, running out the clock thread. "

I'm sure you have all been at parties and people pull this filibustering. One other tactic even if you prove you point is they reverse it on you say well ok "well ok, what are you going to about it"

I can be aware, but if am surrounded by flock if sheep, its not going to much good.

I don't pretend to know everything about what happened that day. I can only see that to official truth is clearly a coverup. There was coup that day, just like any banana republic. Mind you it was not a utopia before that. There have always been power struggles, even in the US. Usually however, they don't resort to assassination.

Human history is full of this type if intrigue. Absence of this behavior would be considered abnormal. My point is maybe you can't stop it but when people try spin their yarns, about we only need to look at the official story, and shut down debate, we need to see it for what it is. Especially when they may have been trained as in the Snowden documents show and be on the clock getting paid for write here on forums.

[Kappy]

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/2...-media-online/

I cannot tell a lie: it's me. Mind you, I've started to like the loonies around here, but... a job's a job.

[Kappy]

What I love about this thread is the number of times I saw someone post something like, "I don't really know anything and have no proof otherwise... but I feel like there's a conspiracy." And that isn't an exaggeration.

It's just plum full of awesomeness.

For instance:

My view is that Oswald did get the throat shot on JFK. But there is the fact that a lot of people said they did hear a shot from the grassy knoll. I do give some credence for the second gunman theory.

[Citadelgrad87]

It mean we should not give any special weight to the naysayers, especially when it looks like there following a formula and using tactics. One I notice is to wear people out on forums, until the thread dies. Saying no it ain't, to each comment isn't exactly constructive. Look at the comment its in the UK, "what does that have to with this thread?"

Playing stupid insults others reading this forum. But I guess if it works on 10% the i suppose they consider it win. If I have to actually take time to explain "what it has to do with this thread is part of wearing out, running out the clock thread. "

I'm sure you have all been at parties and people pull this filibustering. One other tactic even if you prove you point is they reverse it on you say well ok "well ok, what are you going to about it"

I can be aware, but if am surrounded by flock if sheep, its not going to much good.

I don't pretend to know everything about what happened that day. I can only see that to official truth is clearly a coverup. There was coup that day, just like any banana republic. Mind you it was not a utopia before that. There have always been power struggles, even in the US. Usually however, they don't resort to assassination.

Human history is full of this type if intrigue. Absence of this behavior would be considered abnormal. My point is maybe you can't stop it but when people try spin their yarns, about we only need to look at the official story, and shut down debate, we need to see it for what it is. Especially when they may have been trained as in the Snowden documents show and be on the clock getting paid for write here on forums.

Except that Is self serving claptrap draped over a framework of " I guess".

I am very well informed on this subject. I am specific, and cite to evidence backing up what I say. It's nothing at all like me saying "nope" to run out the clock.

There is a widespread acceptance of garbage like "Ruby was in the mob" and "hundreds of yard shot" that have been repeated in this thread.

I counter with facts, like it was an 88 yard shot,and Ruby was not only not in the mob, he was a big mouth and a cop groupie. The timing of the murder of Oswald is not open to interpretation, Ruby was absolutely 300 feet away standing in line at western union to send rent money to a dancer four MINUTES before he pulled the trigger. That fact is inconvenient, but that's still a fact.

There was no coup, that's garbage slopped out by guys like Oliver Stone, but there's no evidence to support it.

I don't say believe the official story, I say read everything you can find, that's what I did. But after you do that, you're stuck with the facts, and there are none supporting any other conclusion.

You're deliberately twisting that to pretend I'm telling people to buy the governments story. I don't, and I do t care who's story it it's, the evidence supports it.

You're also deliberately lying about anyone trying to shut down debate. You won't ENGAGE in debate, you and gem simply do drive by back slapping crap, neither of you has the stones to say what you think happened and why. Because you cannot defend it.

Look at your admission above: you don't know much about what happened, but you're CERTAIN a coup happened, and you're certain the official story is a coverup.


Here's a show stopper, why do you think that, please be specific. Let's have the debate you claim I am trying to shut down.


You decided what yo believes you didn't arrive at a conclusion the way rational people do, and that's why you're emotional about it, because you want to keep thinking the same way and don't want to be bothered with the facts.

[Kappy]

Except that Is self serving claptrap draped over a framework of " I guess".

I am very well informed on this subject. I am specific, and cite to evidence backing up what I say. It's nothing at all like me saying "nope" to run out the clock.

There is a widespread acceptance of garbage like "Ruby was in the mob" and "hundreds of yard shot" that have been repeated in this thread.

I counter with facts, like it was an 88 yard shot,and Ruby was not only not in the mob, he was a big mouth and a cop groupie. The timing of the murder of Oswald is not open to interpretation, Ruby was absolutely 300 feet away standing in line at western union to send rent money to a dancer four MINUTES before he pulled the trigger. That fact is inconvenient, but that's still a fact.

There was no coup, that's garbage slopped out by guys like Oliver Stone, but there's no evidence to support it.

I don't say believe the official story, I say read everything you can find, that's what I did. But after you do that, you're stuck with the facts, and there are none supporting any other conclusion.

You're deliberately twisting that to pretend I'm telling people to buy the governments story. I don't, and I do t care who's story it it's, the evidence supports it.

You're also deliberately lying about anyone trying to shut down debate. You won't ENGAGE in debate, you and gem simply do drive by back slapping crap, neither of you has the stones to say what you think happened and why. Because you cannot defend it.

Look at your admission above: you don't know much about what happened, but you're CERTAIN a coup happened, and you're certain the official story is a coverup.


Here's a show stopper, why do you think that, please be specific. Let's have the debate you claim I am trying to shut down.


You decided what yo believes you didn't arrive at a conclusion the way rational people do, and that's why you're emotional about it, because you want to keep thinking the same way and don't want to be bothered with the facts.

Using a bunch of logic and facts... sounds questionable.

/sniff sniff...

You smell like a government plant.

YOUR LOGIC STANDS NO CHANCE AGAINST OUR EMOTION AND YEARNING FOR THINGS TO BE MORE COMPLICATED THAN THEY ARE!

[Gem1950]

It mean we should not give any special weight to the naysayers, especially when it looks like there following a formula and using tactics. One I notice is to wear people out on forums, until the thread dies. Saying no it ain't, to each comment isn't exactly constructive. Look at the comment its in the UK, "what does that have to with this thread?"

Playing stupid insults others reading this forum. But I guess if it works on 10% the i suppose they consider it win. If I have to actually take time to explain "what it has to do with this thread is part of wearing out, running out the clock thread. "

I'm sure you have all been at parties and people pull this filibustering. One other tactic even if you prove you point is they reverse it on you say well ok "well ok, what are you going to about it"

I can be aware, but if am surrounded by flock if sheep, its not going to much good.

I don't pretend to know everything about what happened that day. I can only see that to official truth is clearly a coverup. There was coup that day, just like any banana republic. Mind you it was not a utopia before that. There have always been power struggles, even in the US. Usually however, they don't resort to assassination.

Human history is full of this type if intrigue. Absence of this behavior would be considered abnormal. My point is maybe you can't stop it but when people try spin their yarns, about we only need to look at the official story, and shut down debate, we need to see it for what it is. Especially when they may have been trained as in the Snowden documents show and be on the clock getting paid for write here on forums.

You are absolutely correct. These same pro government conspiracy actors come out to defend (prop up) the official 9/11 story with the same attitude and argumentation. It is so obvious I'm almost embarrassed for them.

[Helmut Shmacher Space Chimp]

Oh nice touch guys. No really..... :....God what did IO say about keeping it civil... hm..??

[dfletcher]

I can be aware, but if am surrounded by flock if sheep, its not going to much good.

I don't pretend to know everything about what happened that day. I can only see that to official truth is clearly a coverup. There was coup that day, just like any banana republic. Mind you it was not a utopia before that. There have always been power struggles, even in the US. Usually however, they don't resort to assassination.

Human history is full of this type if intrigue. Absence of this behavior would be considered abnormal. My point is maybe you can't stop it but when people try spin their yarns, about we only need to look at the official story, and shut down debate, we need to see it for what it is. Especially when they may have been trained as in the Snowden documents show and be on the clock getting paid for write here on forums.

Is there any post by anyone suggesting you ought to look at only the official version? Has anyone suggested you not read whatever it is you prefer? There are hundreds of pro-consipracy books out there -read as much as you like. I did.

Then discuss facts and evidence.

You've already decided what you believe. Fine. But you go a step further and because you can not argue facts you toss about nefarious comments, suggest people are on a payroll. Sure, I and other 10K posters have been hanging out here for 5 or 6 years just waiting for this subject to pop up. Why I've even contributed $$$ and join NRA to fool everyone. Because the folks who post here on this subject are so influential, so tapped into the secret US power structure ....

You reference "shutting down debate" but we're on the 5th page of discussion. The only deficiency I see on the issue of debate is - you folks presented nothing to contribute to a debate.

Now, you folks will continue with the pot shots, you'll do the raised eyebrow routine. But nothing else.

[Citadelgrad87]

You are absolutely correct. These same pro government conspiracy actors come out to defend (prop up) the official 9/11 story with the same attitude and argumentation. It is so obvious I'm almost embarrassed for them.

He is ABSOLUTELY incorrect for the reasons I took the time to set forth.

Have some courage of conviction and address the points.

[bonusweb]

I counter with facts, like it was an 88 yard shot,and Ruby was not only not in the mob, he was a big mouth and a cop groupie. The timing of the murder of Oswald is not open to interpretation, Ruby was absolutely 300 feet away standing in line at western union to send rent money to a dancer four MINUTES before he pulled the trigger..

More like police informant, would you call huggy bear from starsky and hutch a cop groupie? He certainly did hang around them a lot.
As to official reports on JFK, there were many and they had different results. All these investigations are just to cover their asses. I know were should always blindly trust politicians because they are known for always being honest and certainly they have never been manipulative.

Anytime they get in trouble just roll out the old conspiracy theory.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/benghazi-conspiracy-theorists-come-unglued

Benghazi conspiracy theorists come unglued

Remember any question about the the gulf of tonkin incident , was considered a conspiracy theory. Care to argue about that one? Did the Vietnamese attact US ships?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

[Citadelgrad87]

More like police informant, would you call huggy bear from starsky and hutch a cop groupie? He certainly did hang around them a lot.
As to official reports on JFK, there were many and they had different results. All these investigations are just to cover their asses. I know were should always blindly trust politicians because they are known for always being honest and certainly they have never been manipulative.

Anytime they get in trouble just roll out the old conspiracy theory.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/benghazi-conspiracy-theorists-come-unglued

Benghazi conspiracy theorists come unglued

Remember any question about the the gulf of tonkin incident , was considered a conspiracy theory. Care to argue about that one? Did the Vietnamese attact US ships?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

No, let's stay on point. Your assertion is this was a conspiracy. I asked you to state specifics. You leapt to the gulf of Tonkin, which is proof of nothing relevant.

Much like the 9/11 troofers, who, when asked for proof of their claptrap, they parrot operation Northwoods incessantly. Northwoods was a study, not an operation in any sense of the word. It is proof only that the government studied the issue of faking a terrorist attack to sway public opinion. The proposals and study took place in the 1960s. It is not evidence, proof, or even relevant to whether the government did or failed to do anything 40 years later.

It might be relevant to the question "does the government have the capacity or will to do something like this?"

It is utterly and completely irrelevant to the question "do you have any proof the government did anything on a separate occasion?"

It is exactly parallel to a person accused of burglary without any evidence to support the charge. The sole evidence is that this person committed a different crime 20 years earlier.

Nobody rational would convict based on that showing, but that's what conspiracists do when they say things like gulf of Tonkin when we are talking about JFK.

If anyone was asserting that the government simply is incapable of ever acting in this way, that would be relevant. But it's a red herring, because nobody is saying that. We are saying there is abundant evidence that Oswald acted alone. No matter what the government might have done, there's a ton of evidence Oswald acted alone. Saying the government is capable of acting in an evil, secret manner doesn't change that. You KNOW about the gulf of Tonkin incident because when anyone acts, including the government, it leaves evidence. You have none despite 50 years of frantic digging.

I will presume you're out of ammo at this point.

Curious, you're the one who fails to deliver after that canned speech you gave about stifling debate. Like every conspiracist I've encountered, particularly gem, you cannot engage in any meaningful discussion of the facts of the incidents in question, and you're all over the map. Standard fare when you've decided to believe with your heart and put the brain on the shelf.

And Ruby was absolutely a cop groupie. He hung around the station, constantly gave cops drink tickets, and wanted them around the clubs he ran. He was nothing like the fictional Huggie Bear, he was a groupie in every sense of the word. He wasn't an informant because he did t know anything, he had no connection to organized crime.

[B Strong]

It mean we should not give any special weight to the naysayers, especially when it looks like there following a formula and using tactics. One I notice is to wear people out on forums, until the thread dies. Saying no it ain't, to each comment isn't exactly constructive. Look at the comment its in the UK, "what does that have to with this thread?"

Playing stupid insults others reading this forum. But I guess if it works on 10% the i suppose they consider it win. If I have to actually take time to explain "what it has to do with this thread is part of wearing out, running out the clock thread. "

I'm sure you have all been at parties and people pull this filibustering. One other tactic even if you prove you point is they reverse it on you say well ok "well ok, what are you going to about it"

I can be aware, but if am surrounded by flock if sheep, its not going to much good.

I don't pretend to know everything about what happened that day. I can only see that to official truth is clearly a coverup. There was coup that day, just like any banana republic. Mind you it was not a utopia before that. There have always been power struggles, even in the US. Usually however, they don't resort to assassination.

Human history is full of this type if intrigue. Absence of this behavior would be considered abnormal. My point is maybe you can't stop it but when people try spin their yarns, about we only need to look at the official story, and shut down debate, we need to see it for what it is. Especially when they may have been trained as in the Snowden documents show and be on the clock getting paid for write here on forums.

It's generally referred to as the rules of evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_evidence

CT'ers don't understand it and are unable to provide evidence that meets the standards for consideration within the legal system - for example, the all time CT'er favorite "He signed a notarized affidavit!" - since they can't even begin to prove their theory in court, they're pretty much limited to selling books, working the rubes and posting on 'net forums accusing folks educated in the subject matter of being part of the conspiracy that's holding them down from their rightful place as Heros of The Republic.