Discussion in 'Campfire Chat - General Discussions' started by jessgettysburg1863, Sep 4, 2012.
Ok, ok Dugger. No harm. Enjoy your evening
Here's what happened. The police and the building super go running up the stairs,after the shooting. They encounter Oswald in the lunchroom. Within 20 minutes the building is cordoned off and the employees are questioned by the police. The super notices that Oswald,whom he saw, is,now,missing. The super then checks his records and gives the police Oswald's address. Oswald would have been convicted on the mountain of circumstanial evidence against him.
I'm sure none of us have the time nor the inclination to go through "the mountains of evidence" but I think there are many who question the evidence and still find nagging discrepancies in the official reports.
According to this, the testimony of many of Oswald's African American co-workers that would have given him an alibi was discounted.
Yes...tks. We must be accurate.
Poor man. I only notice because it's a family name.
If you want to reach the correct conclusion,you have to go through the facts/evidence. The Warren Report is only 366 pages and the pertinent points are highlighted. Easy reading. Mary Farrell,your link, has an agenda. You can easily see that in her writing to wit "the official mythology",etc.
And we were all simply gobsmacked by the wealth of corroborative evidence presented in your specious summation:
Lol. You should be. I have studied this subject a long time.
Apparently from looking at the facts she feels she has reason to conclude that it is an "official mythology." I wouldn't call that having an agenda. If the facts don't add up then the official version IS a myth.
btw, what makes you so sure the official version doesn't have an agenda?
No, don't tell me, you've read the Warren Report, all 366 pages. What else would anyone need to know.
For those who have a year to kill, here is a link to the Warren Report.
It is the most perplexing case in recent history, I don't doubt the Oswald was the primary shooter, after reading the Warren Report, I have more question then answers. Was LBJ involved? Not in my opinion. Was the mob involved? Perhaps.
Was the whole thing carried out by Oswald by himself, I want to say yes, but my gut says no.
The evidence was just to convenient. The perfect dupe.
Jack Ruby, another easy excuse in the greatest tragedy ever played out in plain sight, Shakespeare could not have dreamed up such a frenetic three play opera.
The greatest illusionist know the art of the misdirection, the bigger the audience the easier it is to capture the mind. I seldom buy into conspiracies, so far I have not heard any theory's that make sense. But neither does the official storyline.
Well said! You've touched on just about everything I would have liked to have said.
I too am skeptical of both the official reports and many of the conspiracy theories. I feel that each conspiracy theory follows a different clue that leads to another cul de sac in an ever more complicated and expanding labyrinth. It's as if each clue is just a red herring in a larger mystery, and I think that's what fascinates people, and also irks because there seem to be no end to the questions.
Yes. I was interested in the subject and I studied the subject. You?
Can't say I have studied as much as you.
For one, I have not read all 366 pages of the Warren Report.
I don't know the book but I've pretty much avoided conspiracy theories because they all sounded as nutty as the one you described. Clearly, he was shot from the back. We see that now, but there were the days when no one saw those gastly frames, so conspiracy theories abounded.
And yet, there is something that remains unexplained. I'm just following my gut on this. I'm not going to be devastated if I'm proven wrong. I'll be grateful. It'll save me the bother of thinking about it.
Well that's an honest answer. Thanks.
Modesty ain't your strong suit huh?
Sorry,it's just my style. We're direct,down,here + I had a mentor from New York City. It's not my fault. Lol.
No need to be sorry, just understand that there are others who have studied historical events as much or even more then you have, and they are under no obligation to agree with you. Doesn't mean anyone is right, it just means we disagree.
Lest anyone think that FZ11 and I are truly at each others throat due to our disagreement about the events, don't. We Texans can be an ornery bunch, and that might needlessly alarm the more genteel sorts.
Separate names with a comma.