• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VIII

JTF

Graduate Poster
J
Joined
Dec 8, 2012
Messages
1,518
This is a continuation from Part VII. As is usual the split point is arbitrary and participants are free to quote from, and refer and respond to, posts in earlier threads in the series.
Posted By: Agatha




Speaking of Oliver Stone, he appears to have gotten a second wind in regards to the JFK Case. In the past 10 months, he has given several interviews where he regurgitates the same debunked nonsense he put forth in both his 1991 film and his subsequent speaking tour. Stone also remains hypersensitive to any critiques of his flawed research and/or conclusions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JTF said:
Speaking of Oliver Stone, he appears to have gotten a second wind in regards to the JFK Case. In the past 10 months, he has given several interviews where he regurgitates the same debunked nonsense he put forth in both his 1991 film and his subsequent speaking tour. Stone also remains hypersensitive to any critiques of his flawed research and/or conclusions.
Click to expand...

That's no shock.

I'm surprised he hasn't gone in Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut" direction with his movies.
 
No Other said:
Those same people think this forum is objective and willing to discuss positions without ignoring opposing viewpoints.
Click to expand...

It's not about ignoring opposing viewpoints, it's about separating the facts from speculation and lies. The problem with the world of JFK-CTs is that they've become dogmatic fantasies that serve as a foundation for a world view that believes there is a conspiracy behind everything.

In this fantasy world the facts are irrelevant due to the thesis that says, "If the government lied about X,Y.& Z then it must also have lied about A,B, & C". This thinking handicaps the believers in CT from the beginning sending them down multiple rabbit holes at once searching for a more acceptable version of the truth that is in alignment with their own.
 
No Other said:
Those same people think this forum is objective and willing to discuss positions without ignoring opposing viewpoints.
Click to expand...

I'd love if you could debate without ignoring opposing viewpoints.

When do you intend to start?

Here's just five examples over a period of a few days when you were a more active poster here of you raising an issue just to drop it after the actual facts of the case were posted (I could cite several dozen more) :

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11195201&postcount=733

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11195278&postcount=734

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11203733&postcount=741

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11203942&postcount=742

And of course, there's this memorable one where you tried to lecture me on the different between a magazine housing and a trigger guard, not understanding what Oswald's Mannlicher Carcano even looked like, apparently:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11206276&postcount=747

Do you think we forgot about your prior arguments that you never supported with evidence and went nowhere? And ignored the opposing viewpoints?

I summarized where we ended up here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11225373&postcount=768
Originally Posted by No Other
I have made comments and you and others have not been successful in rebutting them...
Click to expand...


Originally Posted by HSienzant
Did I overlook one?

Most of your comments have been rebutted by me - with, in many cases, detailed citations and quotations from the evidence. I'm still awaiting your responses to those rebuttal arguments.
Click to expand...

Hank
 
No Other said:
Those same people think this forum is objective and willing to discuss positions without ignoring opposing viewpoints.
Click to expand...

You would be correct if the opposing viewpoints were based on hard evidence and facts. You don't provide either, but substitute CT beliefs tainted with nothing but conjecture.
 
Let me ask a question then as nothing is happening.

Besides the possibility of the Cuban inspiration that we beat to death are there any other details or points that remains obscure but might have influenced or 'directed' Oswald in his course of action?

What was the best theory on who the umbrella man was?
 
Hans said:
Let me ask a question then as nothing is happening.

Besides the possibility of the Cuban inspiration that we beat to death are there any other details or points that remains obscure but might have influenced or 'directed' Oswald in his course of action?

What was the best theory on who the umbrella man was?
Click to expand...

Louis Witt. He was found by the HSCA investigation in 1978 and testified before Congress.

His testimony is here:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/html/HSCA_Vol4_0217a.htm

He was needling the President about his father's policies toward Hitler when Joseph Kennedy was Ambassador to England. The whole Neville Chamberlain / umbrella association.

John McAdams has an article here with some details about Witt:
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/organ3.htm
And some more here:
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm

And here's a conspiracy theorist actually being reasonable about the Umbrella Man:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoZWb9gqv0

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Louis Witt. He was found by the HSCA investigation in 1978 and testified before Congress.

His testimony is here:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/html/HSCA_Vol4_0217a.htm

He was needling the President about his father's policies toward Hitler when Joseph Kennedy was Ambassador to England. The whole Neville Chamberlain / umbrella association.

John McAdams has an article here with some details about Witt:
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/organ3.htm
And some more here:
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm

And here's a conspiracy theorist actually being reasonable about the Umbrella Man:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoZWb9gqv0

Hank
Click to expand...

God!! Do conspiracy nut jobs have no originality!? In the past year I have read in conspiracy books and on line all sorts of crap about "Umbrella Man" which I could not take seriously in the slightest. And here I find out this was dealt with more than 40 years ago!!!!

Talk about pressing the reset button!!!!!
 
:blush:
HSienzant said:
Louis Witt. He was found by the HSCA investigation in 1978 and testified before Congress.

His testimony is here:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/html/HSCA_Vol4_0217a.htm

He was needling the President about his father's policies toward Hitler when Joseph Kennedy was Ambassador to England. The whole Neville Chamberlain / umbrella association.

John McAdams has an article here with some details about Witt:
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/organ3.htm
And some more here:
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm

And here's a conspiracy theorist actually being reasonable about the Umbrella Man:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoZWb9gqv0

Hank
Click to expand...

For an alternative theory, watch Netflix' "The Umbrella Academy". Not a bad show. (For those not familiar, it is pure fiction of a science fiction/superhero genre, but I thought it was cute that they managed to incorporate one very famous umbrella into their show.)

Sorry. I haven't popped into a Kenneday assassination thread in ages. Glad to see nothing has changed.
 
Pacal said:
God!! Do conspiracy nut jobs have no originality!? In the past year I have read in conspiracy books and on line all sorts of crap about "Umbrella Man" which I could not take seriously in the slightest. And here I find out this was dealt with more than 40 years ago!!!!

Talk about pressing the reset button!!!!!
Click to expand...

Fringe reset is the greatest strategy they have along with never throwing away anything no matter how stupid.
 
HSienzant said:
Louis Witt. He was found by the HSCA investigation in 1978 and testified before Congress.

His testimony is here:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/html/HSCA_Vol4_0217a.htm

He was needling the President about his father's policies toward Hitler when Joseph Kennedy was Ambassador to England. The whole Neville Chamberlain / umbrella association.

John McAdams has an article here with some details about Witt:
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/organ3.htm
And some more here:
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm

And here's a conspiracy theorist actually being reasonable about the Umbrella Man:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoZWb9gqv0

Hank
Click to expand...

Thanks

Ah, yes I remember it faintly now. I stopped reading JFK stuff once the book Case Closed came out. I stop by on occasion to watch the Bedlam.
 
Pacal said:
God!! Do conspiracy nut jobs have no originality!?
Click to expand...

Pretty much none. They constantly deal with statements taken out of context or misunderstandings of the evidence (deliberate or otherwise) from many of the original authors back in the mid-1960s. If you watched the last video in my prior email, you'll note that the umbrella man issue was first raised in 1967 in Josiah Thompson's book SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS. It was resolved in 1978 by the HSCA. That's pretty much standard fare, as most all of the conspiracy claims raised by the original generation of critics have been exposed as erroneous.

But if they didn't recycle these claims, they wouldn't have much to discuss.

There is an occasional outlier theory advanced, like Robert Morningstar's Tippit's autopsy photos were substituted for JFKs, or Bob Harris' theory that there was a shot at Zapruder frame 285, but even both of those theories are at least 20 years old now.

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
Pretty much none. They constantly deal with statements taken out of context or misunderstandings of the evidence (deliberate or otherwise) from many of the original authors back in the mid-1960s. If you watched the last video in my prior email, you'll note that the umbrella man issue was first raised in 1967 in Josiah Thompson's book SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS. It was resolved in 1978 by the HSCA. That's pretty much standard fare, as most all of the conspiracy claims raised by the original generation of critics have been exposed as erroneous.

But if they didn't recycle these claims, they wouldn't have much to discuss.

There is an occasional outlier theory advanced, like Robert Morningstar's Tippit's autopsy photos were substituted for JFKs, or Bob Harris' theory that there was a shot at Zapruder frame 285, but even both of those theories are at least 20 years old now.

Hank
Click to expand...

In fairness I have never read any CT book, but while reviewing the video this morning, I can't find anything in frame 285 that would suggest a shot. Would anyone enlighten me on what was possibly observed allegedly.
 
bknight said:
In fairness I have never read any CT book, but while reviewing the video this morning, I can't find anything in frame 285 that would suggest a shot. Would anyone enlighten me on what was possibly observed allegedly.
Click to expand...

Bob shows up here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279669&page=42

IIRC, he claims 4 shots from 2 shooters or two shooters fired simultaneously to make it appear as one hit, or something like that.

Here Bob talks about 285:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10738540&postcount=1723

Jay explains Bob:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10781713#post10781713
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom