251–260 of 403 posts
It would be interesting to analyze a collection of user-defined user-level customization filters, as some sort of zeitgeist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Landis' behaviour strikes me as being very peculiar. Shouldn't he have attempted to preserve evidence on the bullet rather than simply putting it into his pocket?
I am also skeptical of Landis, but what do you mean about preserving evidence? It's a bullet. It just was next to an explosion that cleared it most most evidence. Then the barrel rifling altered the metal. That would not be harmed by picking it up. Then it went through jfk. Okay, we already know his DNA is on it. The real question is why are you picking up random things from a crime scene and then putting them down i…
At this point the effects of the JFK assassination are so far back in history that new knowledge of possibly real and alternative sequences of events should have little impact on society as it is now. Let’s say it was orchestrated by political enemies—what effect would this have on things today? The state of US government is so dramatically different from back then. This kind of discussion is really only interesting…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The magic bullet took a straight trajectory through Kennedy and Connolly. Modern theory is that they weren't seated in a straight line and Connolly was turned. Oswald could definitely have made the shots. He was a trained Marine marksman. There have been multiple tests showing that it is possible to make the shots. Kennedy had a small entry in back of the head. The explosion on top and side of head was not the entry…
But you can see from video evidence that they were sat aligned and Connolly was not turned. If you are in the room, you might be able to make the shots - although the FBI failed to, and Oswald was a lousy shot - but my main problem is that he could not have moved through the building as needed without being seen by some people, and not by others who did. The photos of Kennedy do not show a small wound in the back of…
This documentary I watched recently is long, but it puts all the eyewitness testimony of Oswald in the depository building into one big spacial timeline [1]. There are some inconsistencies (like you would expect when aggregating a bunch of eyewitness testimony from fallible humans) but there's nothing there that made me think there was something nefarious going on. Anything specific you had in mind?
As far as the autopsy photos go, I know the photo you're referring to, and you're misinterpreting it.
Here are some medical illustrations [still kinda graphic, but not photographs] of the part that "exploded out" [2] and what the actual hole in the back of his head looked like when you held that part back in place [3]:
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AlKUJHXYxQ&t=260s [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AlKUJHXYxQ&t=260s [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HSCA-JFK-head-7-125.jpg [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JFK_posterior_head_wound....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I think the suspicious stuff about the JFK assassination is not the shot itself, but..." ...who ordered the murder. Shooter is the least important factor considering how many enemies JFK had in the establishment. It is too easy to blackmail someone in performing the murder. Especially if you have friends in the CIA.
The hit was ordered by Sam Giancana, the Chicago mafia boss. Jack Ruby was his lackey. From wikipedia: Ruby was known to have been acquainted with both the police and the Mafia. The HSCA said that Ruby had known Chicago mobster Sam Giancana (1908–1975) and Joseph Campisi (1918–1990) since 1947, and had been seen with them on many occasions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The family member is RFK Jr., right? RFK Jr. simultaneously believes that his father and uncle were killed by the intelligence state, and that they ought to be providing him protection, and that they want to kill him. I find his opinions pretty confusing on this matter
The secret service is under the DHS, not the CIA or FBI, which have been the organizations criticized by RFK, and JFK for that matter. The DHS didn't even exist back then, the SS was absorbed into it some time after it was created in 2002. Regardless, one can want the usual protections given and needed and also hold the belief that some agencies are too powerful and corrupt and need to be broken up. (like breaking up…
He's currently receiving the standard amount of protection from the secret service for a primary candidate at this stage (none).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am reminded of an incident relayed to me by an office worker in the early 2000s. A colleague had left the building at lunchtime and had been witness to some kind of shooting incident where robbers or gang members on motorcycles had opened fire on someone or something else - I don’t think it was ever discovered what the target or cause was. This was in South America, so not a wholly unusual scenario. But the debrief…
Is it an issue with forming memory, or did the person experience ten minutes worth of 11 seconds?
I assume you were also aiming at a point of absurdity, because I don't want to imagine that you'd like to lenghten your perceived lifespan i.e. by being tortured...
Even if Landis is being honest to the best of his ability, this account seems suspect for one simple reason: human memory is incredibly unreliable even in routine cases. Considering the stress and trauma around witnessing and being so close to an awful event like that, as well as the amount of time that has passed, I don't see how we can consider this story to be even remotely reliable. He may truly remember these ev…
The JFK assassination has been such a recurrent theme for so long that I reckon I might have memories of it, even though it happened decades before I was born.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I doubt that many people under age 70 remember that personally. I think OP's point is that personal remembrance, direct knowledge/witness, or subject matter expertise is not a requirement when it comes to defending one's strongly invested world view. Instead of looking at evidence, people start with a vague belief about the world and then draw the lines between everything that happens and that world view. For examp…
The thing about the shadowy elite is that it's non-falsifiable. We can certainly have a discussion, but it's outside the realm of logic, because there's no possible evidence that could disprove it. That doesn't make it true or false, but it does make it useless to discuss in the terms of logic, and trying will just lead to frustration. What would we do differently if the shadowy elite was behind JFK's death? What wou…
It's science that doesn't have anything to say about unfalsifiable situations (metaphysics, negative statements, etc).
We've really left the realm of empiricism, not logic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This kind of discussion is really only interesting from a historical perspective. It doesn’t really have any bearing on modern politics or society. This is completely untrue. Some of his family members suspect he was murdered by the US intelligence agencies for planning to curb their power. Given the intelligence agencies have even more power now than back then, and are still not held accountable for their actions,…
The family member is RFK Jr., right? RFK Jr. simultaneously believes that his father and uncle were killed by the intelligence state, and that they ought to be providing him protection, and that they want to kill him. I find his opinions pretty confusing on this matter
That being said, dude is either non-serious or damaged to the point I wouldn't let him run Bluth's Original Frozen Banana stand, and he wants to be President?
The U.S. tried that already recently (more than once if we're being honest), electing a non-serious and damaged human raised in a family where ambition was treasured over f*cking hugs. I'm not sure if anyone else is paying attention, but that went very very very wrong.
Why don't we stop putting people like this into power just to assuage our own insecurities? Wouldn't it be a better investment to try and find a way to change the culture to encourage mental health from the beginning of life rather than devolve our society due to late-life insecurity and low-information voters?
