Oswald did it, Conspiracy theorists in denial and cannot accept it

Motive is irrelevant especially when people like you are trying the measure the QUNTITY of motive. as in : " this guy had more than that guy"

No one said that fame was the primary motive of Oswald although it may have been secondary.

The fact is not EVIDENCE links Cord Meyer or Hoaward Hunt to the assassination in any way shape or form but the evidence DOES prove Oswald did it.

Once again many many many people had motive. Every president makes enemies.

 

Standard operating procedure for truth debunkers is ridicule. Nice work, Soupnazi.

Ridicule of Conspiracy Theories Focuses On Diffusing Criticism of the Powerful

 

She is a normal person who believes what many do without any supporting evidence.

HEr claims prove nothing consistent or not.

 

There is plenty of evidence that those events were obvious conspiracies.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations

Have you read the 9/11 commission report? The 9/11 Commission concluded that it was a conspiracy.

Do you know what a conspiracy is?

 

You did no such thing, none of the sources you likned to provided evidence that operation mockingbird allows or empowers the CIA to control information in the media.

The fact is that at BEST the cia can let some information out to accomoplish and end such as dis information.

The CIA in no way stops or controls the infromation others put out and every link you posted does NOT state any evidence to the contrary and that is why there was nothing to address.

 

The claims provided are facts which proves she was a nut.

THAT IS EVIDENCE.
It is not only far fetched for Ruby to be injected with cancer it is absolutely absurd.

Yes Ruby did make these claims but he was simply out of his mind and wrong.

This is FACT because injecting cancer into another persons body does NOTHING.

One cannot get cancer that way as any person who paid attention in high school biology KNOWS.

Don't believe me just ask a doctor.

BTW Judith Baker was not OSwalds mistress.

He never had a mistress.

 

Notice what is said though.

A. LHO fired all 3 shots that hit the President.
B. Acoustical evidence shows there was a second gunman.
C. Because of Acoustical evidence, there appears to have been a conspiracy.

Most important, within a few years the acoustical evidence had been entirely discredited. So after the sound recordings were studied scientifically with more advanced equipment, B and C were tossed out, leaving only A.

Lee Harvey Oswald fired all 3 shots, all of which hit the President in the rear.

End of story.

I think I would give more credence to Woody Harrelson's dad being the killer then she was Lee Harvey Oswald's mistress.

 

someday you will learn the difference between a "criminal conspiracy" and a "conspiracy theory"

hint: they are not the same thing.

- - - Updated - - -

you mean like accusing someone of not understanding English and asking if they wear hearing aids?

that kind of ridicule?

Truther hypocrisy is clear.
[MENTION=64100]Brother Jonathan[/MENTION]

 

Using caps lock for emphasis just tells me that you're not a very rational person, yet you want to force people to listen to you. I can claim the Sun doesn't exist too, but the difference is that I understand it wastes everybody's time.

I'm not going to waste any more time talking to people trying to derail the thread by claiming black is white. If you just made that statement because of lack of knowledge then read this:-

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/physical.html

You provided nothing to support your completely false statements, and that is because they are completely false.

 

The difference is that the former is a real legal term used to describe illegal conspiracies, and the latter is a phrase which the Bush Administration simply invented to describe the people pointing out that their conspiracy theory contradicts the laws of physics. The American population were encouraged to make a false association between these people and insanity, and the bridge was the phrase "conspiracy theorist". The American population were also encouraged to make a false association between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, and the bridge in that instance was al Qaeda.

There is absolutely no evidence which supports the government's account of 9/11, a literal mountain of evidence which contradicts it, and the only tool being used to defend this story is the total straw man that everybody who dares point out its obvious falsity is insane.

The arguments used by people like you are literally the most stupid and demonstrably false I have ever encountered in my entire period of life upon Earth. You are like some kind of twisted religious cult, who refuses to listen to science or reason. The laws of science disprove the official conspiracy theory, so anything you say after that is automatically going to be stupid by default.

 

I get it. Confessions mean nothing to you. And "hard evidence" is impossible to plant. I've already listed all the baloney of your claims. I'm not going to do it again. I even posted a link of Marina Oswald and how she has changed her mind over the years and fears for her life. But you just dismiss everything anyone says. This person is a nut, that person is a nut, everybody is a nut! You are the one who refuses to look at anything that doesn't comply with the official theory.

 

No one here has claimed that Hunt was a gunman. Even he didn't say that. But he was on the sidelines waiting to act if they needed him. And there's plenty of evidence that links the mob. You just refuse to look at it.

 

Nut count:

Lee Harvey Oswald
RFK
E. Howard Hunt
David Morales
Jack Ruby
Judyth Vary Baker
Mary Pinchot Meyer
Jim Garrison
Colonel Prouty
All the doctors at Parkland
Oswald's mortician
60-70% of the American population
Many more of the population around the world

I know I'm forgetting more so I'll keep adding as we go.

 

I've listened to some radio broadcasts and to many television network stations and they all have concluded that JFK's assasination was a conspiracy and that it was planned out by the Soviet union as well as Fidel Castro. Of course, every politician has enemies of their kind. But the Soviet Union at that time was at Cold War with the United States. Of course they wanted to influence the whole world with communism and with capitalism. But Fidel Castro and the Soviet Union had planned out hiring a hitman to assasinate JFK because the Soviet Union thought by doing so American would weaken itself and leave the Soviet Union alone and do its own thing. Not saying it is my own theory, just heard it off of NPR and CNN.

 

What we have here is reading comprehension problems and the creation of a straw man. If you noticed, or cared to pay attention, I never said the C.I.A. 'controlled' the media or journalists. That's your misrepresentation. The language I used was 'influence'. Do you need an explanation in the differences between influence (my word) and control (your word)?

For clarity, here's my statement in which you created a straw man: "I provided undefeatable sources for the C.I.A.s influence with the media, journalists and Operation Mockingbird."

Emphasis mine.

 

JFK had a lot of enemies. Oswald wasn't one of them.

 

ho da FUUK do you know that Brotha Jon? you seem to know a helluva lot about Oswald and what was going on inside his head.

 

you haven't listed ANY EVIDENCE or facts to prove to me a darn thing, just like your other conspiracy theorist friends who have failed to prove anything in 50 years!

all you have are second hand accounts of what a shady David Morales, after he died, and a so called 'confession' from a senile Hunt who was suffering from dementia and dying. I mean, this is just pathetic

 

well, yes, and this list pales in comparison to the never ending list of people you claim were in a conspiracy, even the chief justice of the supreme court!

Jim Garrison was laughable and it was a disgrace that Oliver Stone made a movie based on that idiot. He was such a fraud that by the end of the clay shaw trial he lost all credibility and was publicly ashamed. He had no evidence and at one point claimed there were like 15 gunmen! as one guy commented during an interview 'it's surprising Kennedy even made it to the hospital in one piece with so many gunmen'

then you have Mark Lane who was in the limelight through all of this, changing his stories and ridiculing himself..

The doctors at Parkland were no nutcases, they just weren't that credible as they weren't there to perform an autopsy but rather tried to save a life. Dr. Perry made claims that neck wound looked like an entry wound but then later said 'Well, i didn't even check the back cause i was focusing on saving his life' how credible was he? Dr. Jenkins claimed he thought he saw a wound on the left side but then then changed his story. Dr. Carrrico admitted that the body was never even turned over to be thoroughly examined and later stated: 'We never saw, and did not look for, a posterior wound' and 'there is nothing in the pictures and drawings that is incompatible with the injury as i remember it' after been shown the autopsy photos. Dr. McClelland claimed he saw a wound in the back of the head but also replied 'No' when asked if he had observed a gunshot on JFK's back and admitted JFK was never turned around so they could thoroughly analyze the wounds. Dr. Akin stated 'I could not see the back of the President's head as such, and posterior neck was obscured with blood'

as you can see, these statements are not credible and fuzzy, plus some even stated that the autopsy photos seemes accurate. Notice all of them admit they didn't turn president over or spent much time thoroughly analyzing the wounds; they all reiterate that they were primarily focused on saving his life. You guys still use this as 'STRONGE EVIDENCE' yet you discredit the actual autopsy!

Pinchot Meyer - a drug user

Hunt - made a so called 'confession' on his deathbed and senile

David Morales - a hell of a shady CIA operative (there is stuff written on how much this guy could be trusted) and you are using second hand accounts about stuff he said.. please

 

Do you know what PROBABLY means?

You consistently use a surgical tool to remove such words which you do not like.

Yes I am very familiar with the HSCA's work and their conclusion of a PROBABLE conspiracy is base don one and only one piece of evidence.

Without this evidence which was produced only days before they adjourned they concluded that there was no evidence of a conspiracy.

The conclusion you posted above was the second conclusion.

Unfortonately the evidence was proven false after the commitee disbanded.

This evidence was the dictaphone recording from the Dallas PD of a motorcycle officers shoulder mic which was stuck in the transmit position. No shots are heard anywhere on the recording so three audio technicians claimed they could ID spikes in the static noise as shots.Then they destroyed their own credibility by stating that the officer HAD to be located in a two meter circle near the corner of Houston and Elm street.

Only after the committee disbanded was it proven by photographs taken in Dealey plaza that the officer was no where near that circle but instead was still on main street before the shots were fired. SO by their own standards the experts who provided the evidence of a probaple conspiracy debunked the evidence.

Furthermore it was sometime later that it was discovered that the recording was not made in dealey plaza at all but at Parkland hospital.

Once again remember this evidence was the ONLY evidence that the committee based their conclusion on and it is proven false therefore so is the conclusion of a probable conspiracy

 

YEs I did state facts which are completely true and backed up by sources superior to yours.

The facts documented by many investigations such as the warren commission are what I am quoting and you cannot trefute them hence your running away

 

This is what it always boils down to with people like you. You're literally given pages worth of evidence, and on the very rare occasions when you acknowledge that you have been given it, you work your way down the list telling us how we can ignore what that person said because they smoked pot once, or what that person said because he once lied to his gym teacher about being sick.

It's quite pathetic really, the way you cling to discredited arguments and refuse to accept the evidence which discredits them. The poster you responded to gave you a long list of names, and you responded (typically) with a mythical reference to the straw man argument that, if the official story is false, it somehow means there must be three million people involved.

Obviously, your argument is completely false and stupid.

 

wrong.

Oswald hated the USA and how we dealt with the USSR and other Communist states.

JFK was the head of the USA.

 

Right. Jim Garrison being ashamed by the public has nothing to do with the higher ups making sure that happened whether there was any truth to his case or not.

So it requires a complete flip of a person's body to notice if there is a fist sized hole in the back of the head? It takes turning them over to notice that the cerebellum fell out during the trecheotomy? And you call me ridiculous.

 

i think reading my response you quietly and secretly admit to yourself 'this guy has torn me a new hole' but you will insist.

Let me be clear in that i don't think these doctors were frauds or conspiracy theorists, i think they were all sane and reasonable people. The issue here is that their statements are fuzzy, inconsistent and for good reason - they were there not to perform an autopsy but rather try and save his life. There were about 4-5 of them and they don't all agree on what they saw and more impoirtantly, pretty much all of them agree that they didn't spend too much time thoroughly analyzing all the wounds; most claim they weren't focused on this and didn't even bother.

unlike the doctors, Jim Garrison was a fraud, he had ZERO evidence on Clay Shaw and by the end of the trial, everyone saw through him and he lost all credibility... exposed as a fraud. Mark Lane jumped on his bandwagon as-well, a fraud befriending a fraud.