CINTHIA WALDEN SAID:
For years I too believed that there had to be more than the simplistic reality that an inconsequential person like Lee Oswald could have [single-handedly] changed the course of our Nation's History. I had diligently sought out information to support my mis-informed opinion regarding the Kennedy assassination. Every time I thought I had found a smoking gun, I found that when taken in proper context, there was no conspiracy whatsoever. It was as simple as accepting the facts that had been provided from the very beginning of the sad ordeal.
If John Hinckley Jr. had been been successful in his attempt to assassinate President Reagan, there would have been a similar reaction to his heinous crime. Society is not willing to accept the simple fact that anyone so insignificant might be the sole source for a crime of such catastrophic proportions.
Whether it be the Twin Towers, the War in Iraq or an assassination of a great Leader, there will always be someone who is compelled to twist the facts in order to sensationalize the scenario.
President Kennedy was shot and killed by Lee Oswald. The evidence supports that fact and the rest is nothing more than unsubstantiated speculation in an attempt to rewrite and sensationalize History.
"TLR" SAID:
Thank you for the psychoanalysis (straight from every mainstream media TV special we've ever seen), but if you really have studied this subject honestly and objectively, you would know better.
If you are more comfortable believing official stories (that includes 9/11 and the Iraq War and many others), it says a great deal about the level of denial you are practicing. I personally would find it much easier (psychologically) to just believe whatever the government and media tell us.
It is very difficult and frightening to examine events and realize that we are being lied to regularly by the major institutions of our society. Google "Terror Management Theory" and ask yourself how much you have invested in believing in the "system" to keep your own fears under control.
CINTHIA WALDEN SAID:
The facts are relevant regardless of who expresses them.
By all means, please produce substantiated proof to the synopsis that you have been attempting to prove. At this juncture you hold no more credibility than those you ridicule and criticize. They however have provided ballistic data to support the facts and all people like you do is spin hypothetical narratives that prove nothing. Provide some definitive factual data. Until you do so, the only thing you "prove" is that the empty barrel makes the most noise!
"TLR" SAID:
The problem is, you are relying on the government's so-called "facts." Anyone who has really studied the subject knows that every bit of evidence in this case is in serious dispute, and the chains of possession are unreliable or non-existent. For example, CE399 is almost certainly not the bullet found at Parkland, but was likely produced by the FBI after firing the Carcano into a water tank.
"TLR" ALSO SAID:
I was kind of expecting the photos to be "corrected" once the LNers began hitting the Library with emails.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Brilliant retort! So now the JFK Library is part of the cover-up too, eh?
There seems to be no limit to the number of people who are willing to lie and subvert the truth relating to John Kennedy's death.
Right, conspiracy theorists?
[To understand my comment above more thoroughly, CLICK HERE.]
PETER WALL SAID:
Look gang, the king of the Lone Nut Theorists has arrived.
I'm not sure if we're expected to be honoured, or frightened.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Better still, Pete, just pretend I'm part of the non-stop cover-up and conspiracy too. That way you won't disappoint lil' ol' me.
PETER WALL SAID:
I don't think that, Dave.
You have a strong opinion about the case, just as I do. We're just on different sides of the debate. But your "defense" of the LN argument via the same stereotypical labels is getting a bit tiresome.
Time to freshen up the act a bit.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Any suggestions, Peter?
PETER WALL SAID:
Just one for now:
Try not to lump everyone who disagrees with you into one broad sweeping category (and I'll try and do the same).
I'm on the conspiracy side of the argument, insofar as I don't believe the "Oswald was the sole assassin" canard.
That said, I also don't believe the likes of Judyth Vary Baker, James Files, or Chauncey Holt. My opinion of the "man in the TSBD doorway" in the famous Altgens photo is that it is Billy Lovelady (as the WC stated) and not Oswald. I've also always had strong doubts about Beverly Oliver's claim of being the "Babushka Lady" in the Z film.
Basically, my point is that not everyone who criticizes the official WC LN version of events belongs to the "tinfoil hat wearer's club" and/or immediately believes every single "Oswald didn't do it" story that pops up, plausible or otherwise.
Thoughts?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I agree with your last post, Peter.
In fact, I have even apologized to various "CTers" [Conspiracy Theorists] in the past for "lumping" them into certain "kooky" categories relating to the JFK case. (Many CTers do deserve to be "lumped", however. No doubt about that. But not all of them.)
I said this to Robert "Z285" Harris in 2006.....
"I do have a tendency to "lump" in that regard and place all CTers in the same kooky basket many times. It's a habit hard to break. Sorry about that."
-- DVP; April 30, 2006
PETER WALL SAID:
I appreciate your comment.
This being a complex topic (made far more complex than necessary over the years by the sincere and sinister alike), it's often difficult to maintain complete objectivity at all times (been there).
Onward and upward?
CINTHIA WALDEN SAID:
It's comical that some positively claim to know what didn't happen but then provide nothing more than unprovable babble about what "might" have happened. Funny how accusing those who were involved as "lying" is somehow considered relevant proof to support the "conspiracy" theory. Very comical indeed!
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh how true, Cinthia. I completely agree. (And hello.)
I've had some recent exchanges with conspiracy believers who enjoy scolding me for having the outlandish audacity to actually say (out loud!) that Lee Harvey Oswald was a GUILTY double-murderer, with those conspiracy theorists [CTers] being upset with me because they insist that Mr. Oswald should always be considered "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" (which, of course, they know can never happen since Jack Ruby intervened on 11/24/63; except for the "mock trials" that have occurred on a few occasions since the assassination).
So I then turn the tables on those conspiracists and point out the "pot/kettle" nature of their thinking -- i.e., those CTers seem to have no qualms at all when it comes to claiming that so-and-so at the Dallas Police Department or D.A. Henry Wade or J. Edgar Hoover or Gerald Ford or Clay Shaw or Guy Banister or the whole CIA was **GUILTY** of something relating to JFK's demise.
So it's a double standard being exhibited by some CTers. They berate me for pronouncing Lee Oswald guilty (which the evidence shows him to be 10 times over, of course), but I guess I'm not supposed to blink an eye when some CTers accuse dozens of "innocent until proven guilty" people of being positively GUILTY of various crimes and unsavory acts (including "covering up" the facts) associated with John Kennedy's murder.
And in Clay Shaw's instance, he DID have his day in court in 1969--and the jury voted NOT GUILTY. But does that little "legal" fact stop many CTers from still accusing Mr. Shaw of plotting to murder the President? No, of course it doesn't.
Irony at its finest....isn't it?
David Von Pein
January 11, 2015
