I think a large part of the trouble is that the US government are like the international boy who cried wolf, they spend so much time denying their involvement in things like the Iran-contra affair, small wars in Latin America etc. that when they say "We had no involvement in this assassination", not every one believes them.
The fact is we may never find out the truth unfortunately, and if there was something to hide then that suits any perpetrators.
I think a large part of the trouble is that the US government are like the international boy who cried wolf
Yes, but to be fair they get accused of being involved in absolutely everything.
hard to explain that given how isolationist they are and how they rarely do anything outside their own borders and never get caught doing it either
It not like they are spying on us all now is it...
No bullets travelled in anything other than a straight line (until they hit something that deflected them), that's another film myth. People most probably heard gunshots from the grassy knoll because of the way sound travels and is reflected off buildings. It's very hard if not impossible for a human ear to find the direction of a gunshot in a built up area.
And as for key witness statements being contradictory, well, doh, yeah. It's a very well known and very very well documented failing of humans. Indeed, one famous experiment had a University/College class taken down the bar/pub for lunch were a murder was staged. When questioned afterwards the majority of students identified the wrong perpetrator.
As with everything else in life, and as I've said before in this thread (and others), if there is no concrete peer reviewed court admissible evidence to support something, you can safely dismiss it.
Ok, so not knowing much about all of this and being part of the generation that was seemingly put on the wrong path by the JFK film, what about Jack Ruby? That whole thing's still pretty suspicious, hey? I mean as in silencing LHO before he could stand trial...
No, it was John someone, not Jeff Kay 🙄
what about a car engine on a busy road? 😉It's very hard if not impossible for a human ear to find the direction of a gunshot in a built up area.
The weirdest thing for me, about the whole thing, was Carol Kirkwood presenting the weather from the JFK memorial (Runnymede) this morning.
"And now here's Carol with the weather...from the JFK memorial"
😐
what about a car engine on a busy road?
Continuous noise, you can track it.
Jack Ruby? That whole thing's still pretty suspicious, hey?
I've heard Ruby was a small time wannabe who hung around the cops trying to get himself some influence, he loved JFK with a passion, and thought he could become a hero by shooting Oswald. In my limited experience of people that doesn't sound implausible.
For the record, I've not seen the movie you all speak of.
It's not where I've seen the evidence for these things, only books and websites.
What a goody two shoes toe-the-line rhetoric.As with everything else in life, and as I've said before in this thread (and others), if there is no concrete peer reviewed court admissible evidence to support something, you can safely dismiss it.
It's been exposed that paid-for trolls exist to maintain the official authority line on forums if anyone's dare questioning it. I'm not saying that's you but if those really are your thoughts, heck, why not get paid for it?
That statement would only be true in an ideal world where bent coppers, judges, secret societies and a bought & paid for media don't exist. Unfortunately they do.
Hillsborough is a good example.
And in the real world, Jack Rubenstein worked for Meyer Lansky, the big mafia crime lord of his day who had connections to Lyndon Johnson.I've heard Ruby was a small time wannabe who hung around the cops trying to get himself some influence, he loved JFK with a passion, and thought he could become a hero by shooting Oswald. In my limited experience of people that doesn't sound implausible.
Oswald wasn't going to go quietly. He said he was innocent and was just a patsy. That's why he had to be silenced, and that's where the gopher Ruby came in. It worked well in keeping the truth supressed.
What a goody two shoes toe-the-line rhetoric.
What a frankly bonkers thing to say to someone who asks for reliable evidence
It's been exposed that paid-for trolls exist to maintain the official authority line on forums if anyone's dare questioning it.
Trolling the internet to discredit loons and get paid for it - Awesome where do i apply?
Hillsborough is a good example
Except we have the proof of that cover up
yes they have happened but you have to prove each one not point out that sometimes they happen
+1 that sounds like a cracking job.Trolling the internet to discredit loons and get paid for it - Awesome where do i apply?
Citing paid trolls is a prime example of conspiracists sounding completely bonkers,
.
.
.
not least because WTF would any government pay someone to do it when there's plenty of rational people around who will pick holes in the more outrageous theories for free!
It's been exposed that paid-for trolls exist to maintain the official authority line on forums if anyone's dare questioning it.
Has it ? Where ?
...Jack Rubenstein
Why not use the name, literally, everyone else uses ? Jack Ruby.
Did you use "rubestein" rather than "ruby" to make it sound like you had some sort of superior knowledge about this subject ?
A little tip for you, if you are going to do that in future, his first name was actually Jacob, not Jack.
🙂
Well played the glover
This is going to get funny, I can feel it in my bones. 😀
What a goody two shoes toe-the-line rhetoric.
That's not what I've been called by some posters on the religion threads where I've pointed the exact same thing out! 😆 You obviously haven't chanced across my postings much, I don't DO toeing the line. 😉
Oswald wasn't going to go quietly. He said he was innocent and was just a patsy.
He said he was innocent??? Well now you tell me! Well that's him off the hook then. 🙄
Lots of people in the street below who pointed up at him at the depository window shouting 'there's the shooter' (or words to that effect) disagree. Sure, they could be mistaken, but coupled with all the other evidence.
