The Coup D'etat of November 1963

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

We don't know. It could be either. I just grew tired decades ago of being told I have to believe one or the other with no concrete proof either way, or else I'm a stupid person who is a sucker for the official party line.

You see, the people here aren't trying to prove that Bubblehead is wrong for looking at that possibility, just that he's wrong for accepting blindly and then claiming that his "detractors" are doing the same and insisting that we're all dupes.

I used to be one of the people duped by the official line, I don't accept anything blindly.Just angers me to see so many willing to trust an entity(the government) that is not at all trustworthy.Citizens who hold faith in government remind me of an abused woman who stays with her abuser no matter what, and supports him no matter what.

The disinformation campaign has worked to a degree, it has muddied the waters enough t have 40% of american people believing the official story.Like Kevin costner said in JFK(as Jim Garrison) , government claims can prove the magic bullet etc with fancy physics.True, but theoretical physics can prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff with it's tail tied to a daisy. Used your own judgement and some common sense.The Zapruder film is what pushed me away from believing the official story, as it did many American's after the saw it, which is a reason it was kept from the public for so long.

The disinformation campaign to discredit people was wide ranging, much as is done today if someone stands up.Snowden is a great example, did a patriotic thing but the government and many in the media(on the government's take) tried to portray him as a traitor, most American's did not see him as that, but far too many do.This is how in this era they manage to make the good guys seem like the bad guys, they know there are a large part of the population who trust the officials, blindly in many cases.How people can watch that film and not see what 60% of americans see, I have no idea.

I trust my own judgement, based on what I see, the evidence there is, and the words of those who were there, and common sense.Usually when people have something to hide, they make things complicated and muddy the waters, hoping the truth gets lost in there.Age old tactic of the government, they have done it many times, most recent with obamacare.

[TarJak]

Cool story bro...

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

I used to be one of the people duped by the official line, I don't accept anything blindly.

Yet you are absolutely 100% convinced that there was a conspiracy. You have abandoned all impartiality, and can't discuss this rationally at all, and you can't examine or entertain the slightest possibility that you might be wrong. That is not true for me or for most of the people you're arguing with here.

Just angers me to see so many willing to trust an entity(the government) that is not at all trustworthy.Citizens who hold faith in government remind me of an abused woman who stays with her abuser no matter what, and supports him no matter what.

That may apply to a large portion of the population, and even to some of the people you talk to in your life. Are you saying it applies to the majority here? Are you saying it applies to me? Are you saying that not one of the people disagreeing with you here is capable of making his own observations? If not, then you need to look at all the options and discuss things less passionately and more rationally. If so, then you need to apologize to people for saying they insulted you, for if you see us that way then you insult a large number of individuals by lumping us together as a group; a group which you say is blindly following the government, which is patently not true.

The disinformation campaign has worked to a degree, it has muddied the waters enough t have 40% of american people believing the official story.

We're not talking about 40% of the American people. We're talking about Tarjak, August, Privateer, Steelhead, Dread Knot, Bilge Rat, Vienna, and Myself. Are you saying we (at least the Americans on that list) are all dupes blindly following the Government Line? If so, then you insult us. If not, then quit talking about people who mean nothing to any of us and stick with the point.

Like Kevin costner said in JFK(as Jim Garrison) , government claims can prove the magic bullet etc with fancy physics.

I've already shown you that it only takes a slight change in their positions and suddenly your "magic bullet" is travelling in a straight line. You didn't answer then, and I'm wondering if you'll ever take that bit of evidence and show that it's wrong. I have consistently addressed each of your points and shown that there are other possible answers, and reasonable ones. You have consistently avoided answering those points and gone right back to your derisive generic dismissals of anything that doesn't fit your personal take on the subject.

True, but theoretical physics can prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff with it's tail tied to a daisy.

Which is a nice diversion into the derisive dismissal I just mentioned. Are you capable of having a reasonable discussion without resorting to insult? The physics here aren't theoretical at all. The bullet was not magic, and no one but the conspiracy theorists are claiming it was. Just look again at the picture I posted.

Used your own judgement and some common sense.

Are you saying I'm not? Again, don't be accusing anyone else of insulting you when you resort to demeaning tactics like that. I say I've been using my own judgement all along. I don't believe the government, and I don't believe you. I don't know the answers, but you have failed time and again to prove your case. Tell me again why I should listen to you?

The Zapruder film is what pushed me away from believing the official story, as it did many American's after the saw it, which is a reason it was kept from the public for so long.

The Zapruder film was released almost immediately. What was withheld were the few crucial frames. The reason is most likely that they were considered far too graphic for public consumption.

The disinformation campaign to discredit people was wide ranging

I've read most of the testimony. A great many of those witnesses deserve to be discredited. Some do not, but many of their statements disagree with the others.

, much as is done today if someone stands up.Snowden is a great example, did a patriotic thing but the government and many in the media(on the government's take) tried to portray him as a traitor, most American's did not see him as that, but far too many do.This is how in this era they manage to make the good guys seem like the bad guys, they know there are a large part of the population who trust the officials, blindly in many cases.

Would you please stop wandering into other, off-topic discussions? You're trying to prove by example, and you're not doing a very good job of it. Stick to the real points.

How people can watch that film and not see what 60% of americans see, I have no idea.

And yet several people here have watched the film repeatedly over the last few days, and come to completely different conclusions than you have. How do you know you're not the one who is mistaken? Appealing to "60% of Americans" is appealing to the authority of the majority. The majority is often wrong, and saying that the majority is right or the minority is right is not a point at all. Opinion means nothing, only facts. You like to take that line of argument far too much.

I trust my own judgement, based on what I see, the evidence there is, and the words of those who were there, and common sense.

As do I. The difference is that you firmly believe that your judgement is the correct one and anyone who disagrees must be a dupe of the authorities, or just plain stupid. My point, as I've tried to tell you many times, is that you don't "know" any more than I do. You believe you do know, to the point of absolute insistence, and anyone who doesn't agree with you needs to be dismissed and insulted. You don't listen to anyone else's points, especially mine, and you come back again and again with the same claims, many of which have been shown to be explainable in a different context. You don't seem to care about getting at the truth, you are convinced you already have it. As I've said before, if you think you know anything you have removed all possibility of learning anything new. If you "know" you are right, you remove all possibility of ever finding out that you might be wrong.

Usually when people have something to hide, they make things complicated and muddy the waters, hoping the truth gets lost in there.Age old tactic of the government, they have done it many times, most recent with obamacare.

And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

And again you try to prove one thing by bringing up another. It proves nothing, and it makes you look desperate.

[TarJak]

Desperate for attention IMO. It borders on trolling, stating the same old thing whilst refusing to consider any arguments to the contrary.

[Armistead]

I don't hold either is true, but I find a hard time believing Oswald acted alone.

One thing, for a man about to kill the President, seemed he hardly thought out his escape plan.

What I find amazing is the shot. A person would have to be nervous, his life is at stake in a place he would be lucky to escape from. That was some amazing shooting under the circumstances. Possible yes, probable...no.

Was he shot in the throat from the front, possible from the autopsy reports. Then the headshot...

Dr. Charles Crenshaw, surgeon at Parkland Hospital: The headwound was difficult to see when he was laying on the back of his head. However, afterwards when they moved his face towards the left, one could see the large, right rear parietal, occipital, blasted out hole, the size of my fist, which is 2 and a half inches in diameter. The brain, cerebreal portion had been flurred out and also there was the cerebrellum hanging out from that wound. It was clearly an exit wound from the right rear, behind the ear. A right occipital area hole, the size of my fist.""

The thing that is bothersome is too many strange factors, including the number of witnesses that died within the first 3 years. Different Drs. with different opinions....

We may never know, because it was done so it would always be a conspiracy.

I can't say who is to blame, but I don't believe Oswald was alone in this. However, I don't think it's a large govt. plan if one at all.

[Admiral Halsey]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the fact the Oswald had already botched one assassination attempt that would have been easier to pull off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_W...nation_attempt

Don't know why people forget his attempt on Edwin Walker's life.

[Sailor Steve]

I came across it in my research for this thread. I didn't think it important so I didn't mention it.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by TarJak

Desperate for attention IMO. It borders on trolling, stating the same old thing whilst refusing to consider any arguments to the contrary.

I have considered the others many times as mentioned, used to believe the official line, but no longer and yes, can not see how anyone still believes the garbage fed by the government.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

I have considered the others many times as mentioned, used to believe the official line, but no longer and yes, can not see how anyone still believes the garbage fed by the government.

So you continue to accuse those who disagree with you of not having the ability to look at the evidence and come to a different conclusion on their own? It's not about believing the government, it's about making up our own minds. When are you going to figure that out?

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

I have considered the others many times as mentioned, used to believe the official line, but no longer and yes, can not see how anyone still believes the garbage fed by the government.

And Donohue's theory certainly does not follow the government line, garbage or otherwise. You're yet to show any hard facts relating to your theory that would stand up to scrutiny and yet your only defence for it is, that contrary evidence, (from the same source as some of yours), must have been falsified in some way.

Your theory doesn't hold water and you therefore merely dismiss everyone else as sheep blindly following a so called government lie. The theory I suggest is the most plausible from the evidence that I've looked at, including countless disproven conspiracy theories, is a long way off the government line, so doesn't fit your bleating defence.

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by TarJak

And Donohue's theory certainly does not follow the government line, garbage or otherwise. You're yet to show any hard facts relating to your theory that would stand up to scrutiny and yet your only defence for it is, that contrary evidence, (from the same source as some of yours), must have been falsified in some way.

That's the beauty of Donahue's theory. Essentially, when seen from outside a conspiracy to cover up an assassination is indistinguishable from a conspiracy to cover up a security screw-up.

But as I stated earlier, that's the problem too. It's too banal for the conspiracy industry. It's not a overlordy, shadowy plot you can pin on various institutions that you dislike ad infintium and never really have to prove.

So, I present a headline from The Onion to please all conspiracy theorists. Makes about as much sense as any of them do alone.

[TarJak]

Fro those with an interest in the medical evidence: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/medical.htm

Clear and concise explanations of most of the bunkum that conspiracy theorists put up as "evidence". Of course most of this follows the government line of shots coming from behind of which we are accused of sheepishly following by the OP.

Just for you Bubbles a few pictures from Zapruder (Frame 335), that might put you straight on a few of your "facts":


I see the back of the presidents head intact and a gaping wound on the upper right side of his head. What do you see?

On the subject of the head being shocked backward by a bullet entering the front of his skull, here is what the two frames before and after impact of the head shot; Frames 309 to 313:


If that is backward movement, then I'll happily eat crow. His head does rock back after this, but well after impact.

What did the Parkland doctors say when they saw the autopsy reports, photos and x-rays?: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/novadocs.htm

What did Cmdr Dr. James J. Humes say when interviewed by Dan Rather about the autopsy in 1967?:

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by TarJak

If that is backward movement, then I'll happily eat crow. His head does rock back after this, but well after impact.

When you say well after impact, could Jackie had to do something with his head rocking back. Not the bullet but the first lady panicking

[August]

Originally Posted by Betonov

When you say well after impact, could Jackie had to do something with his head rocking back. Not the bullet but the first lady panicking

Or/also the fact that the Limo driver floored the accelerator.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by August

Or/also the fact that the Limo driver floored the accelerator.

Even more plausable