Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?

[Michael Tee]

<<So, apparently according to Tee's logic....Fact is the sun rises in the east & sets in the west.  Application of Tee's logic to that fact, undoubtedly a conclusion of a master nefarious neo-Conservative plan, with obvious capitalistic intentions for big oil & big business buddies of Bush>>

No, my logic applied to those facts  would conclude that the sun moves across the earth from east to west and then sinks under it at night and reappears in the morning.  With a few more facts at hand, in addition to the ones you provided, "my" logic - - which apparently is the logic of the entire sane and civilized world - - would probably come to more sophisticated conclusions.  The "logic" of conservatives and reactionaries has always come to other conclusions, but those are not my problem.

Apparently you didn't follow my recommendations about the turkey brains, but I hope nevertheless you had a pleasant Thanksgiving even though your reasoning abilities will remain what they always were.

[sirs]

  The "logic" of conservatives and reactionaries has always come to other conclusions, but those are not my problem.

No, your "logic" concludes what you want it to conclude, regardless of the actual facts.  Case in point, your conspiratorial ramblings regarding the U.S. getting what it wants when it wants, and assisinates its own political and civil leaders, when it wants.  All without the benefit of 1 shred of proof.  Just a mountan load of "Tee-logic" accusatory innuendo, sprinkled with a generous portion of rationalization.   But I did have some good Thanksgiving eats, thank you very much.  I hope this day provides better for yourself.

[Brassmask]

That's 1 opinion.  Amazing how the most likely and simple scenario of Oswald taking the fatal shot just can't be accepted.  It just can't....because, well, you know how evil those RW neo-conservatives are

Who said anything about rightwing neo-conservatives eing involved in JFK's murder?  If you have a link to someone saying that, I'd like to read it.

As for Oswald, the simple mechanics of the shooting could not have been performed by Oswald.  He was a poor shot when he was in the military.  If you believe the Oswald scenario, then you have to believe that he fired two shots in less time than it takes to re-cycle the rifle they alleged he used.  Simply impossible.  In order to believe the Oswald scenario, you have to put your head up your ass and hope no one points out facts to you.

That seems to be a modus operandi for you. 

If you do, however, believe the Oswald scenario, then could you explain how he got from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom without being seen by the two women on the stairs?  And why would he buy a coke and show a reporter where a phone was on the way out of the building?  Did he want to get caught?

You are so willing to take the word of the government.  Why is that?

[sirs]

Who said anything about rightwing neo-conservatives eing involved in JFK's murder?  If you have a link to someone saying that, I'd like to read it.

My apologies.  I simply assumed anything bad that occurs in this country, was undoubtedly a result of a far RW master plan, with the Bush family ususally somehow being connected to it, in some form or fashion.

As for Oswald, the simple mechanics of the shooting could not have been performed by Oswald.  He was a poor shot when he was in the military.  If you believe the Oswald scenario, then you have to believe that he fired two shots in less time than it takes to re-cycle the rifle they alleged he used.  Simply impossible. 

You ignore that I've never said I believe in the single shooter theory.  What i said is it's perfectly reasonable and logisitically plausible for Oswald to have taken the fatal shot.  You don't have to be a bonified expert.  I've heard of folks getting shot in the head purely by accident.  It simply helps to know how to use a rifle, which Oswald did, with a scope, which Oswald had, and an open target, which Oswald also had

You are so willing to take the word of the government.  Why is that?

What makes you think I've ever said such?  I'm simply saying that some "inconsistencies" don't amount to absolute proof of the contrary.  Simple as that

[Amianthus]

As for Oswald, the simple mechanics of the shooting could not have been performed by Oswald.  He was a poor shot when he was in the military.  If you believe the Oswald scenario, then you have to believe that he fired two shots in less time than it takes to re-cycle the rifle they alleged he used.  Simply impossible.  In order to believe the Oswald scenario, you have to put your head up your ass and hope no one points out facts to you.

Oswald qualified to be a sharpshooter, scoring 212 out of 250 on his quals. How long does it take to recycle the rifle?

[Michael Tee]

<<Case in point, your conspiratorial ramblings regarding the U.S. getting what it wants when it wants . . . >>

I'm really not sure what you're referring to here.  The U.S. doesn't always get what it wants - - their man Chiang lost China, their man Thieu lost Viet Nam, their man the Shah of Iran lost Iran and their man Chalabi has lost Iraq.  The People's Liberation Army kicked their ass out of North Korea, the Viet Cong kicked their ass out of Viet Nam, and the Islamic Resistance is in the course of kicking their ass out of Iraq.  I don't think I ever said, let alone "conspiratorially rambled," that the U.S. gets what it wants when it wants.  Usually, when people stand up to the bully and fight back, the bully will run like a whipped dog.  More and more, the U.S. is getting, not what it wants, but what it deserves.

<< . . . and assisinates its own political and civil leaders, when it wants.  >>

Yes, I did argue that the circumstantial evidence seems to point in that direction.

<<All without the benefit of 1 shred of proof. >>

Well, I've pointed to the evidence more than once - - the growing popular unrest, the rioting in the streets, the hunger among some Americans for a new direction, the views of the assassination victims, their influence on the masses, the same "official story" of a "lone nut" gunman in each case, the strange failure of any "lone nut" gunman to assassinate any of the architects or promoters of the war, the failures of the Warren Commission, the presence of powder burns on RFK's neck despite the distance that separated him from the assassin - - the list of facts goes on and on.  Of course in sirs' warped and fanatical views, not ONE of those facts is a shred of evidence and no logic at all connects them to a coherent and internally consistent narrative of a political assassination or right-wing conspiracy.

<< Just a mountan load of "Tee-logic" accusatory innuendo . . .>

Well, I thank you for suggesting that I am the inventor of logic and common sense, but I can't accept.  The logic I use is the logic of any sane and normal individual (obviously this does not include right-wing wingnuts like yourself) which I have outlined in some detail for you.  If you wish to avail yourself of it, fine.  If you wish to deny common sense and logic and instead interpret the facts as some kind of enormous one-in-many-trillions coincidence, that is also fine.  I did not really expect anything more intelligent or sensible from you.

<< sprinkled with a generous portion of rationalization.>>

Rationalization.  You really do love that word don't you?  Somehow you have come to believe that it is the trump card that will prove you right when all your other arguments have failed.  Well, newsflash, sirs:  all your other arguments HAVE failed and guess what?  "Rationalization" won't do it for you either.

[Religious Dick]

As for Oswald, the simple mechanics of the shooting could not have been performed by Oswald.  He was a poor shot when he was in the military.  If you believe the Oswald scenario, then you have to believe that he fired two shots in less time than it takes to re-cycle the rifle they alleged he used.  Simply impossible.  In order to believe the Oswald scenario, you have to put your head up your ass and hope no one points out facts to you.

That seems to be a modus operandi for you. 

If you do, however, believe the Oswald scenario, then could you explain how he got from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom without being seen by the two women on the stairs?  And why would he buy a coke and show a reporter where a phone was on the way out of the building?  Did he want to get caught?

You are so willing to take the word of the government.  Why is that?

The problem with this conspiracy theory is that the critics are in the same position as the creationists are vis a vis evolution: sure, you can make (sometimes valid) criticisms of the accepted theory, but at the end of the day the there's still no evidence in support of your theory.

I was a Kennedy assassination buff for decades, and I've probably read every significant work on the subject available. And here is my conclusion: while the Warren Report is indeed flawed, and leaves a number of matters unexplained, it still offers the best explanation of the facts based on the available evidence. And here is the available evidence: a.) you have Oswald placed on the 6th floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository at the appropriate time. b.) you have evidence establishing Oswald was the owner of the weapon from which the shots were fired. c.) no ammunition other than that fired from Oswald's rifle has been recovered from the murder scene to date. d.) You have an autopsy which indicates Kennedy was shot from a position accessable from Oswald's vantage point.

Yes, the autopsy could be faked, alternate ammunition could have been recovered and destroyed, witnesses might be lying or mistaken. The problem is that, to date, no hard evidence has surfaced indicating that to be the case. You have a theory like David Lifton's "Best Evidence", which presents a plausible explanation for what might have happened, but there's no supporting evidence indicating that such a scenario did happen.

Even the Warren Commisson acknowledged that they couldn't rule out a conspiracy. They simply stated they found no evidence to support one.

Whether or not there was a conspiracy involved, until contrary evidence emerges, I'm prepared to accept that Oswald was indeed the assassin, based on the physical evidence available. I accept the government explaination for the simple reason that no one has yet offered a better one. When they do, and they can back it up with hard evidence, I'm prepared to change my position.

[Brassmask]

I accept the government explaination for the simple reason that no one has yet offered a better one. When they do, and they can back it up with hard evidence, I'm prepared to change my position.

No offence but that's the most ridiculous reason to believe in the Oswald scenario.

[Amianthus]

No offence but that's the most ridiculous reason to believe in the Oswald scenario.

You haven't answered my question about how long it would take Oswald to cycle his rifle. I can cycle my clip fed bolt action rifle in under a second, so three shots in 2 seconds is highly likely.

[Michael Tee]

<<You have a theory like David Lifton's "Best Evidence", which presents a plausible explanation for what might have happened, but there's no supporting evidence indicating that such a scenario did happen. >>

That's not true.  Lifton has quite a bit of evidence in his book, admittedly circumstantial, which does support a high-level conspiracy and cover-up and has never to my knowledge been refuted.  This included the evidence of the naval technician carrying the X-ray plates from the autopsy to or from the lab at the same time as the hearse, carrying what was said to be the body of the President was just pulling up to the hospital.

[Religious Dick]

<<You have a theory like David Lifton's "Best Evidence", which presents a plausible explanation for what might have happened, but there's no supporting evidence indicating that such a scenario did happen. >>

That's not true.  Lifton has quite a bit of evidence in his book, admittedly circumstantial, which does support a high-level conspiracy and cover-up and has never to my knowledge been refuted.  This included the evidence of the naval technician carrying the X-ray plates from the autopsy to or from the lab at the same time as the hearse, carrying what was said to be the body of the President was just pulling up to the hospital.

Well, therein lies your problem. What you're talking about is eye-witness evidence, which is notoriously unreliable, and in this case, not only do the witnesses disagree, but Lifton didn't interview them until many years after the actual event. You're always going to have witnesses that remember things differently, or confuse various events. I can't rule out that some funny business occurred, but there's no physical evidence to support that. If you're going to rely on the actual artifacts of evidence to tell the tale, you're again left with a gun, some bullet remnants and an autopsy, all of which support Oswald being the assassin. In absence of equally compelling evidence in support of an alternate conclusion, I have to believe that the Warren Commission, while sloppy on the details, got the larger picture substantially right.

[Brassmask]

No offence but that's the most ridiculous reason to believe in the Oswald scenario.

You haven't answered my question about how long it would take Oswald to cycle his rifle. I can cycle my clip fed bolt action rifle in under a second, so three shots in 2 seconds is highly likely.

Dude, the two shots that hit Kennedy in the head were so simultaneous so as to be nearly undiscernible as two shots.  There is no way one man could do that with some kind of automatic weapon.

You talking about kid stuff.  We're talking about reality over here.

[sirs]

Dude, the two shots that hit Kennedy in the head were so simultaneous so as to be nearly undiscernible as two shots.  There is no way one man could do that with some kind of automatic weapon.  You talking about kid stuff.  We're talking about reality over here.

and reality in this case demonstrates someone here who has no idea how a rifle can be handled.  And it would have been much easier had it been "an automatic weapon".  In this instance hwever, we are talking about a bolt-action rifle.  And yes, it can be cycled within the time frame of Kennedy being shot twice, as the shots that hit him were clearing NOT "simulataneous".  Even the Zapruder film makes that transparently clear from when the 1st shot hit him followed by when the 2nd fatal one did.

[sirs]

<<Case in point, your conspiratorial ramblings regarding the U.S. getting what it wants when it wants . . . >>

More and more, the U.S. is getting, not what it wants, but what it deserves.

Nice backtracking. 

<< . . . and assisinates its own political and civil leaders, when it wants.  >>

Yes, I did argue that the circumstantial evidence seems to point in that direction.

While actual FACTS point in other more reality based directions

<<All without the benefit of 1 shred of proof. >>

Well, I've pointed to the evidence more than once - - the growing popular unrest, the rioting in the streets, the hunger among some Americans for a new direction, the views of the assassination victims, their influence on the masses, the same "official story" of a "lone nut" gunman in each case, the strange failure of any "lone nut" gunman to assassinate any of the architects or promoters of the war, the failures of the Warren Commission, the presence of powder burns on RFK's neck despite the distance that separated him from the assassin - - the list of facts goes on and on.  

It's kinda fun watching Tee dig these abyss-like holes.  Yea, "popular unrest" is sure proof positive   

<< Just a mountan load of "Tee-logic" accusatory innuendo . . .>

Well, I thank you for suggesting that I am the inventor of logic and common sense, but I can't accept.  

As well you shouldn't.  Smart move

[Brassmask]

Dude, the two shots that hit Kennedy in the head were so simultaneous so as to be nearly undiscernible as two shots.  There is no way one man could do that with some kind of automatic weapon.  You talking about kid stuff.  We're talking about reality over here.

and reality in this case demonstrates someone here who has no idea how a rifle can be handled.  And it would have been much easier had it been "an automatic weapon".  In this instance, we are talking about a bolt-action rifle.  and yes, it can be cycled within the time frame of Kennedy being shot twice, as the shots that hit him were clearing NOT "simulataneous"  Even the Zapruder film makes that transparently clear from when the 1st shot him followed by when the 2nd fatal one did.

Ok, you have no idea what I'm talking about.  So A) Go fuck yourself.

Secondly, you think I'm talking about the two shots being the one that went through Kennedy throat and then through Connoly all those times and then the other shot being the one that killed Kennedy by hitting him in the head.  That is NOT what I'm saying.  Sure, that would be easy.  Even Oswald with his crappy gun with the faulty sight that had to be repaired before the tests could be run with the rifle could have done that (maybe).

The fact is that Kennedy and Connolly were hit by different shots and Kennedy was actually hit in the head TWICE.  Once from the rear and once from the front.  The shots were nearly simultaneous.  It is barely perceptable in the Zapruder film.

Looking at frames Z313 and Z314, you can detect the slightest of movement of Kennedy's head to the front before his head is knock towards the back and left.  That is if you believe that the Zapruder film that people have been watching for years and years has not been tampered with.

I don't.

The Zapruder film is full of jump cuts and bizarre movements.  Most notable is the way Connolly's hat flips around as the emerge from behind the sign and when the Connoly's simply fold in half and the blurring of the SS agent's face in the right front seat.

Witnesses state that the care "nearly stopped" or "came to a stop".

No serious reader of assassination study and research believes for a second that Oswald ever even fired a weapon that day, let alone killed Kennedy.  No one who puts any real thought into considers the Warren Commission anything but a half-assed look at the basics of the case with no real consideration of what the truth is.

How could they with Hoover leaking the FBI report the week before they got started?