Skip to main content

View Diary: John Kennedy smiled at me. Five minutes later, he was dead. (176 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  At least you acknowledge that, often, what started (0+ / 0-)

    … out as "conspiracy theory" turned out to be true.

    Iran/Contra, COINTELPRO, civilian tests of BW agents, just to name a few
    That's way more than many who pooh-pooh everything as CT are able to do.

    And as for EVIDENCE (hey, my caps lock key works too), a lot always depends on precisely who has arrogated to themselves the right to decree for everyone what is, or is not considered EVIDENCE.

    The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war. ♥ ♥ ♥ Forget Neo — The One is Minori Urakawa

    by lotlizard on Sun Nov 17, 2013 at 07:20:49 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I always acknowledge things that are true (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kpardue

      All it takes is evidence and data.

      Iran/Contra had it.

      "The CIA killed Kennedy!!!" doesn't.

      And as for EVIDENCE (hey, my caps lock key works too), a lot always depends on precisely who has arrogated to themselves the right to decree for everyone what is, or is not considered EVIDENCE.
      So you don't know what "evidence" is . . . ?

      Or are we once again back to the "they" planted/faked/altered the evidence thingie . . . .

      If someone else fired a shot that hit one of the people in the car, then there's a bullet or fragments of it somewhere.  Show them to me.

      If someone other than Oswald hit someone in the car, then there's a wound somewhere that didn't come from above and behind.  Let's see it.

      If the FBI or the CIA or the NSA or the space aliens plotted the assassinationb, then there were PEOPLE involved in that plotting, just as there were with Iran/Contra and COINTELPRO.  Show us.  Where are these people, and why, unlike all the other conspiracies that we know about, has not one of them come forward to spill the beans. With Iran/Contra, with COINTELPRO and ewven with the CIA-Mafia attempts to kill Castro, people who were involved have told us exactly and precisely who discussed what with who, in what hotel room onb what date. Yet on the presumed JFK plot we have . . .  nothing. Crickets. Silence.

      Billy Ockham tells me that's because nothing happened. If you want to claim otherwise, then it's up to you to show it. And you can't.

      Even your vaunted House Committee could find zero evidence that there were more than two hits, one of which hit both Kennedy and Connally and the other of which hit Kennedy from above and behind. None.  Zip.  Zero.  Zilch.  nada.  Not a shred.  The ONLY evidence they offered of a conspiracy was ONE acoustical analysis of an audio tape----which was immediately rejected by other independent analyses done after the committee issued its report.

      There's no "there" there.  (shrug)

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Sun Nov 17, 2013 at 07:31:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  See, this is why I can't take you seriously. (0+ / 0-)
        the space aliens plotted the assassination
        You are trying way too hard to portray anyone who does not share your 100% epistemological certainty that the Warren Commission's Oswald-alone theory is true, as some kind of a kook.

        Where could such a strong emotional drive for absolute certainty be coming from?

        Why not at least respect the possibility that a reasonable person (such as a member of Congress in the 1970s — much closer to first-hand evidence than any of us can possibly be today) need not take the Warren Commission's Oswald-alone theory as gospel truth?

        JFK was a Democrat and a liberal. This is a Democratic site. The John Birch Society hated JFK then and the same kind of people hate us now. We share a common enemy.

        Why is it so hard for you to, as Wikipedia's guidelines for editors would put it, assume good faith?

        The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war. ♥ ♥ ♥ Forget Neo — The One is Minori Urakawa

        by lotlizard on Sun Nov 17, 2013 at 07:52:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  see, this is why I can't take YOU seriously (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kpardue
          Where could such a strong emotional drive for absolute certainty be coming from?
          It is called "science".  It's basic tenet is that "evidence matters".  You have none.  Till you do, you have . . . well . . . nothing.  (shrug)

          We keep saying we are "reality-based".  Alas, as this entire comment section shows, too many of us are not. And yes, people who are not reality-based, are kooks. That is the definition of "kook". When the RWNJs argue that FEMA wants to put us into concentration camps, that is being a kook.  And when LWNJs argue that the fascist CIA killed Kennedy, that is being a kook. No difference.

          JFK was a Democrat and a liberal. This is a Democratic site. The John Birch Society hated JFK then and the same kind of people hate us now. We share a common enemy.
          That is an ideological agenda. It has stuff-all to do with anything. Whether the Birchers hated JFK doesn't have a bleeding thing to do with whether there was a conspiracy---EXCEPT to those with an ideological agenda.
          Why not at least respect the possibility that a reasonable person (such as a member of Congress in the 1970s — much closer to first-hand evidence than any of us can possibly be today) need not take the Warren Commission's Oswald-alone theory as gospel truth?
          Because (1) there's not a shred of evidence for that possibility, (2) there's not a shred of evidence for that possibility, and (3) there's not a shred of evidence for possibility.

          Coincidentally, that's why I also reject 9-11 Truthers. If you or anyone else would argue that I should "be open to the possibility that Dubya was behind 9-11 because we are Democrats and Dubya hated us and we hate him", I'd laugh at you just as hard. When anyone starts arguing at that level, then it is no longer an argument over evidence---it is an ideological argument, and those are not amenable to evidence.

          Evidence matters.  Evidence is the ONLY thing that matters.  And you have zero.  (shrug)

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Sun Nov 17, 2013 at 08:05:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're fighting with the mirror. (0+ / 0-)

            Everyone can see how this thread unfolded.

            I simply said that I accept the conclusions of a report of Congress and you come out guns blazing.

            Sure I respect that report, that committee, and its members — not the least because that was an era where Congress had enough integrity, patience, and investigative acumen to expose Watergate and bring down Nixon.

            The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war. ♥ ♥ ♥ Forget Neo — The One is Minori Urakawa

            by lotlizard on Sun Nov 17, 2013 at 08:26:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  and I (0+ / 0-)
              I simply said that I accept the conclusions of a report of Congress
              simply pointed out the irony of your accepting a report from the same government that is supposed to have carried out and covered up the assassination. I find that rather humorous.

              Particularly since the earlier report that you reject was ALSO a report of Congress.

              Watergate, btw, is a great example.  We know about Watergate because of EVIDENCE---mostly evidence presented by the very people who were involved in all the illegalities. (Ditto for COINTELPRO, and Iran/Contra.)

              Why is it I can't see anything similar in the JFK case?

              In the end, reality always wins.

              by Lenny Flank on Sun Nov 17, 2013 at 08:34:03 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site