"When will you know that the official story is false, as the Warren Commission is... and as Warren admitted in private, he'd been asked to keep public opinion re-assured." - Christopher Hitchens
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYmyMJ0H6DQ
Jump to around 28:30
Not often I can disagree with Chris Hitchins, but the JFK assassination is clearly something he needed to know more about......a man of vast intellect - one of our foremost and brilliant minds......but clearly not when it comes to the JFK case....
He probably looks at it from a political viewpoint and does not know much about the shooting because a smart cookie like Hitch would figure out the obvious - that there was one assassin and he was in the 6th floor window and his two shots that struck did so some 5+ seconds apart.
(05-06-2017, 03:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]Ben Holmes Wrote:"When will you know that the official story is false, as the Warren Commission is... and as Warren admitted in private, he'd been asked to keep public opinion re-assured." - Christopher Hitchens
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYmyMJ0H6DQ
Jump to around 28:30
Not often I can disagree with Chris Hitchins, but the JFK assassination is clearly something he needed to know more about......a man of vast intellect - one of our foremost and brilliant minds......but clearly not when it comes to the JFK case....
He probably looks at it from a political viewpoint and does not know much about the shooting because a smart cookie like Hitch would figure out the obvious - that there was one assassin and he was in the 6th floor window and his two shots that struck did so some 5+ seconds apart.
Tut tut tut, Patrick... you dealt not at all with Hitchen's statement about what Chief Warren had said.
Speculation will never replace the evidence, you'll can't simply presume that if someone were more conversant with the evidence that they'd suddenly accept the Warren Commission's view. That's provably false. There are
many critics who are highly knowledgeable on the case evidence, yet fail to slavishly follow the Warren Commission as so many believers do.
I don't pay much attention to the Warren Commion other than witness testimony. All the good stuff is much more recent - you know Myers and all the TV docs that support the lone gunman theory.......who needs the Warren Commission, we have Bugliosi, Posner, Ayton, Majerus et al......
More to Oswald perhaps than meets the eye....Mexico City .....more to that I am sure, but Oswald may have been thinking about assassinating someone - and had influnces....then his opportunistic chance came NO EARLIER than Tuesday Nov 19th 1963.....and his decision was made on the night of No 21st .....
I suspect he even had doubts about going through with it until even as late as an hour before - probably had images of his kids in his head and doubts......one wonders even if he had Connally in mind initially.....?
Then he took his chance and sadly pulled it off......just like all the other young dissinfranchised young men with guns that have littered recent history....no conspiracies.....
It really is very very simple.
And there will be very little if not anything at all that will support your views in the Oct 2017 releases.
(05-07-2017, 06:42 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]Ben Holmes Wrote:Tut tut tut, Patrick... you dealt not at all with Hitchen's statement about what Chief Warren had said.
Speculation will never replace the evidence, you'll can't simply presume that if someone were more conversant with the evidence that they'd suddenly accept the Warren Commission's view. That's provably false. There are many critics who are highly knowledgeable on the case evidence, yet fail to slavishly follow the Warren Commission as so many believers do.
I don't pay much attention to the Warren Commion other than witness testimony. All the good stuff is much more recent - you know Myers and all the TV docs that support the lone gunman theory.......who needs the Warren Commission, we have Bugliosi, Posner, Ayton, Majerus et al......
Didn't address what I stated at all.
Nor is it true that you "pay attention" to the eyewitness testimony - I've frequently challenged believers to name the witnesses whom they believe completely in their 1963-1964 statements & testimony, and
I never get an answer!
I won't this time either.
That fact tells the true tale.
(05-07-2017, 06:42 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]More to Oswald perhaps than meets the eye....Mexico City .....more to that I am sure, but Oswald may have been thinking about assassinating someone - and had influnces....then his opportunistic chance came NO EARLIER than Tuesday Nov 19th 1963.....and his decision was made on the night of No 21st .....
I suspect he even had doubts about going through with it until even as late as an hour before - probably had images of his kids in his head and doubts......one wonders even if he had Connally in mind initially.....?
Then he took his chance and sadly pulled it off......just like all the other young dissinfranchised young men with guns that have littered recent history....no conspiracies.....
It really is very very simple.
You clearly paid no attention at all to my assertion that speculation will never replace evidence. As President Reagan would say:
There you go again...
(05-07-2017, 06:42 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]And there will be very little if not anything at all that will support your views in the Oct 2017 releases.
I'm sure that's your prayer every night. But historically, each time there's been new releases of information, it's not gone well for your faith.
I am an atheist Ben, I don't pray.
Have you ever responded to an "adversary" in a non combatitive way...?
It seems you simply want to argue over the JFK case and criticise...your motive is surely not the historical truth, but the way you want it to be.
Oswald fired two shots and killed JFK, he may have missed with an early shot. Simple.
Pip Pip.
Patrick C Wrote:Ben Holmes Wrote: (05-09-2017, 06:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]And there will be very little if not anything at all that will support your views in the Oct 2017 releases.
I'm sure that's your prayer every night. But historically, each time there's been new releases of information, it's not gone well for your faith.
I am an atheist Ben, I don't pray.
Perhaps you don't "pray" in the Biblical sense - but there's no doubt in my mind that believers are worried about what might be released in Oct. 2017.
There's NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that your faith would have been better served had the Warren Commission not released the 26 volumes, the Clark Panel never met, the HSCA and ARRB never met...
The more evidence that's been released, the tougher it's been to remain true to the party line.
(05-09-2017, 06:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]Have you ever responded to an "adversary" in a non combatitive way...?
It seems you simply want to argue over the JFK case and criticise...your motive is surely not the historical truth, but the way you want it to be.
If my motive were
NOT historical truth, what explains the fact that there's no question on the JFK evidence I'm not willing and able to address - and precisely the opposite is true for believers?
(05-09-2017, 06:35 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ]Oswald fired two shots and killed JFK, he may have missed with an early shot. Simple.
Pip Pip.
The evidence fails to show this. (Which clearly shows why you're afraid of the evidence...)