Fuck Bill Hicks...Bush was a fundamentalist Christian. That's bullshit. The Bushes are a part of the Bohemian Grove. Satanists. Do your fucking homework and burn in the lake of fire.
If there is such a place as hell for non believers and Bill Hicks is there and I die then I wanna be in hell with Bill Hicks and George Carlin so that way I can be in heaven.
Through his jokes, you can also see his genuine annoyance to the amazing stupidity of creationists! I so wish he were alive today.....so much fucked up shit has happened since his passing, he would have so much comedic material to work with!!!
@wagooairlines It would be crazy because it would be the truth. The worst thing we can imagine would be relayed by Bill...but it would be the worst thing we could imagine...
In other words, we're all thinking it, he just says it. He was more in touch with humanity than most living people that I know.
He made us laugh, but we weren't laughing at anything but our own delusions.
It's not broadcast in the mainstream media, because the mainstream media isn't objective, it's controlled by the same parties who share a very narrow ideological perspective and omit from mentioning anything that doesn't fit within that limited framework. The news is very different if you get it from other sources than the spoon fed mainstream - read Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent.
He was struck in the back of the head, not the front. In the Zapruder film you do not see him get shot from the front. They performed an actual recreation with a sharpshooter from the book depository and he was able to get the three shots off on a target at JFK's position and speed. Bill Hicks just ran his mouth and people ate it up.
@steveconn So you never saw the photo of the man on a the grassy knoll pointing a rifle then huh. Yes, theres actually a photo of it. My jaw dropped when I saw it. You also didn't see the video of about 50 people running to the grassy knoll and pointing. Or all the witnesses who saw a puff of smoke. E Howard Hunt's deathbed confession? Oswald was known as a terrible shot, testimony from his Marine Corps buddies. Are you just going to ignore those things?
@Stillwater900 Yes, they were pointing at Kennedy being shot. The photo of the shooter on the grassy knoll is about as blurry as shots of Bigfoot and just as convincing. Magic deathbed confessions are always a joke. Oswald actually had a very good shot record and attempted an assasination attempt on General Walker in '61. Kennedy was not going to pull out of Vietnam- in fact he was just starting to move in troops -so there was no motive to kill him other than the usual Cubans/Mafia/LBJ fantasies
@steveconn No, they're pointing AT the knoll, and theres about 40 people running there. Kennedy was literally weeks away from signing legislation to END THE FED, and "shatter the CIA into a million pieces," I bet you didn't know that. Are you going to ignore the 50 people that saw two men on the grassy knoll? And who says deathbed confessions are always a joke?? Why on earth would they be??
@Stillwater900 Because they're unprovable - the person is by then dead and can't back it up! Talk that Kennedy was going to break up the CIA or any government agency is total horseshit; just anything for people desperate to believe the government killed him. He was going to step up our presence in Vietnam and was a hawk going back to Harvard. Please name the fifty people who saw two men on the grassy knoll. All the names please.
@steveconn "Shatter the CIA into a million pieces" is a direct quote, didn't you know that? He was weeks away from signing Executive Order 11110, which would have taken almost all the Fed's power away, this stuff is common knowledge dude. Seven people witnesses a puff of smoke from the grassy knoll and anywhere from 51 to 65 people said they saw a man firing from there. His head just could not have gone back and to the left from a shot from BEHIND, its against the laws of physics.
@Stillwater900 Yes, Jack Kennedy was a socialist pioneer who was going to rearrange the entire government and give it back to the people, and that's why they killed him; the puff of smoke is from the doobie that conspiracists smoke to think up this ridiculous shit. Maybe it wasn't 65 people - maybe it was 200, 300 people. No names needed, just keep adding to the number. A shot that ricocheted off Gov. Conneley in the front seat could indeed make JFK move that way.
@steveconn Wait, he moved back and to the left from the shot that blew his brain out, Oswald couldn't have fired two shots at the same time. Do you have a response for that? A few of them even did video interviews, but I know you wouldn't watch them if I gave you the links. They all say the same thing, a man in a railroad uniform shot a rifle and gave it to a man in a police uniform.
@steveconn Think about this, this is the official explanation; The bullet enters his back, exits upwards, waits in midair 1.6 seconds, turns right into Connallys body, enters down, turns 16 degrees, goes into his wrist, and is found on sitting on the stretcher later in PRISTINE condition. Literally, thats what they want us to believe.. Do you have an explanation for that?
@Stillwater900 That's the Oliver Stone reduction of the Warren Commision report; the reality is that the bullet went through the Governor's body and hit Kennedy. The rest is blurry conspiracy theory. Even RFK was accused of having a part in the killing. Pathetic.
@steveconn ??? Shot from behind, the head would have been blown forward, not back and to the left. And the exit wound would be from on face, not the back of his head.
@Stillwater900 You can't get around those things. And you're not listening to what I said, the shot that blew his brains out knocked him BACK, not FORWARD. Conservation of momentum says he couldnt have been shot from behind. Are you having trouble visualizing that? If I shoot you in the back of the head, your head will move forward, in the direction the bullet travels, it will never move BACKWARDS towards the gun
@steveconn Uhh, dude, the Depository is directly behind the motorcade, the official story is that he was shot from behind, didn't you know that? I'll PM you a link to the view
@steveconn Can't PM you. Google it, there are lots of photos of the view. Its almost EXACTLY behind the motorcade, yet his head was blown BACKWARDS and the exit wound is in the BACK of his head.
@steveconn United States House Select Committee on Assassinations found in 1979: "The Committee investigated until 1978, and in 1979 issued its final report, concluding that President John F. Kennedy was very likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy." Names have been named before and are available online. I've got other things to do than convince you, but I hope I've made you curious. Take care
@Stillwater900 Gerald Posner's book "Case Closed" and Vincent Bugliosi ("Helter Skelter")'s recent 1000 page book on the assasination: both confirm without doubt Oswald as single shooter. End of story.
@steveconn I'm not asking you to take my opinion, merely to do some more research for the sake of objectivity. When one only knows one side of a case, one knows little of that.
@steveconn Wow, from your argument you would think these two authors are the only two to have ever studied the case; your powers of rhetoric are astounding.
@fasteddiejs Since they're only two who didn't bring up Disney-level 'Cubans/Mafia/RFK/LBJ/Sam Giancana jealous over JFK screwing his mistress' explanations for the assasination and just examined the actual evidence, yup, for some reason I go with them.
@steveconn I'm not interested in the wider circumstances of the case, like yourself i'm interested in the evidence, and there is simply not enough evidence to say, that beyond reasonable doubt, Lee Oswald was the lone assassin. The Assassination Records Review Board declassified a number files of files pertaining to the JFK case that completely flouts the official conclusions. Don't take my word for it, look at the primary sources, not fictionalised accounts whether they support conspiracy ornot
@fasteddiejs Then let's see the news headlines with the names of the people who shot him from the grassy knoll. Until then, it's all pointless speculation.
@steveconn - E. Howard Hunt was named in a court case as being on the grassy knoll that day.
Post magazine carried a picture of Oswald watching the parade. Kennedy's head went TOWARDS the book depository, not away. Oswald had nothing to do with it.
@therealnightwriter Alot of people were on the knoll. The rest is horseshit. Oswald had attempted assasination of a government figure before, and The Zapruder film even shows Kennedy's head moving away from the depository.
@steveconn It's not pointless speculation at all. The president of the United States was brutally murdered in, as of yet, unexplained circumstances. The official conclusions are inconsistent and in places totally fabricated to support the lone gunman theory. The incongruity of the autopsy evidence, and how that contradicts with the eye-witness testimony of the treating physicians at Parkland Memorial Hospital. That on its own is enough to clear Lee Oswald of the crime.
@steveconn So there are a number of wacky theories out there in the literature?So what?The fact remains Oswald was shot by a very well connected man-mafia connections,CIA connections, arms runner, links with anti-castro cells in New Orleans, he was working for Nixon in '47-and then that man decides on the cuff of the moment to murder the alleged assassin as he's being transfered from city to county police,and who then screams conspiracy during his trial, how can you not think this is suspicious?
@fasteddiejs Yes, because everyone knows JFK was pro-Castro, especially when he tried to have him assasinated in the Bay Of Pigs operation, so it makes sense an anti-Castro man would want JFK dead. And you can just bundle up CIA/Mafia/arms-runner into any shadowy conspiracy you please. It's alot of fun, anyway...
@steveconn I think you need to do some reading and lots of it. Kennedy inherited the Bag of Pigs operation from Eisenhower's CIA campaign to arm a guerilla army of Cuban exiles. For want of brevity I can't go into the CIA and its history here, and the events leading up to the Bay of Pigs invasion, but suffice to say the CIA is by its very nature covert, secretive and relatively autonomous. We can speculate all we want, make theories here make them there,but to ignore Ruby'sconnections is asinine
@steveconn And as I have repeatedly said the evidence on it's own is enough to say beyond reasonable doubt that Oswald could not have acted alone, whether he was implicated or not. Fact. End of. The man is innocent before being proven guilty, and his guilt has by no means been established, quite the contrary
@steveconn To look scoff at those as "conspiracy theorists" just because they look at the evidence (or lack of it), and this overwhelmingly supports conspiracy ie not just Oswald if him at all, is frighteningly ignorant. Coups are not unusual, in fact a peruse over 20th century history shows how alarmingly frequent they are. To think a coup d'etat is not possible on American soil, is arrogant, profoundly conceited and deeply, deeply ignorant of history.
@fasteddiejs But WHY would they want to stage a coup? The theory that Kennedy was anti-Vietnam is horseshit; he was in fact a gung-ho hawk, hadn't learned anything from French involvement there and was sending advisors down to gear up for greater troop involvement. He wasn't pro-Castro, as the Bay of Pigs made obvious. He wasn't going to break up any of the intelligence agencies. All he basically was doing was dragging his heels on Civil Rights legislation and banging mistresses. What a threat!
@steveconn I have absolutely no idea why they would want to stage a coup: the endlessness of the possibilities explains why there is so rich history of literature speculating into the possible reasons behind the assassination. But regardless of the circumstantial evidence - of which there is overwhelming amounts - the cold, hard facts on their own clear Oswald as the lone assassin.
@fasteddiejs If no reason to kill someone, then to conceive an entire conspiracy around it (without one clearly named suspect seen with a rifle in his/her hands) is patently absurd.
@steveconn There is more to the product than the just packaging and the sales pitch the seller gives you with such earnestness.There are varying angles and perspectives to things: one person sees attack,another sees defence and the corrider of power is always, has always and will always be shrouded by the veil of unfathomable mystery.The precise machinations of those behind a purported coup will never be known,we can speculate,we can make a compelling case,but truth is we'll probably never know.
@steveconn But in an investigation of any kind, you reason forwards, not backwards. You don't say hmmmmm there is no readily identifiable motive here, and that exonerates all concerned; rather, you look at the evidence from the ground up, and once certain truths have been established, then perhaps, and only then, do you delve into some case history to try and contexulise and understand the evidence sitting in front of you
@steveconn Now on an objective look of the evidence the irrifutable conclusion is that there is no way that beyond reasonable doubt Oswald commisioned this crime alone, if he acted at all. You speak of not having another suspect with "a rifle in his/ her hands", well we don't have frame by frame account of Oswald in the like manner, does that exonerate Oswald? When all the evidence against him is very weak, contrived, and to quote: "patently absurd"?
@fasteddiejs I'll take Oswald's record of protesting "fair play for Cuba" and attempting to assasinate a political figure (General Walker) two years before JFK over pictures of supposed shooters on the grassy knoll that have the clarity of bigfoot photos.
@steveconn Oswald's record of protesting "fair play for Cuba" - did you need read any of what I wrote above? It doesn't concern you that he was pictured and known to fraternise with anti-Castro groups? That as a marine he was stationed in Japan at a secret U-2 base as a radar operator, and a known counter-intelligence base? But this disaffected, disenfranchised youth took it upon himself to teach himself Russian and then to defect to Russia?
@steveconn Yep, clearly a regular $2 an hour nutcase clerk, who witnesses have testified at the HSCA hearings as working for the CIA and the FBI. The ARRB declassified a memo written by J Edgar Hoover himself that specifically mentions Lee Oswald. Hoover writes in the June 3rd 1960 memo: "Since there is a possibility that an imposter is using Oswald's birth certificate, any current information the Department of State might have concerning the subject will be appreciated."
@steveconn Yep just a regular defector to Russia-when there was known operations endeavouring to infiltrate Soviet Russia with disenfranchised youths acting as spys.And as for the grainy photos purporting to show supposed shooters on the grassy knoll, yeah you're right, they are plainly ridiculous. But to accept facts on their face value, when the evidence of the crime itself being so unbelievably shaky, is patently ridiculous.
@fasteddiejs Right, Oswald going to Russia makes his involvement even more likely. But to implicate endless phantoms and multiple angles to a shooting that indeed could be explained by three shots from the Texas School depository is a waste of time, Bill Hicks hipster jive aside.
@steveconn "Right, Oswald going to Russia makes his involvement even more likely" - why did he go to Russia? "A shooting that indeed could be explained by three shots from the TSD" - i'm afraid it can't: the medical evidence flouts the official version of events, which isn't even consistent with itself, nevermind consistent with the ubiquitous eye witness testimony of those at the scene and neuro-surgeons who treated Kennedy at Parkland Memorial Hospital.
@fasteddiejs He went to Russia because he was a lone nut trying to find himself. "Hey, I'm gonna shoot the president." That's what lone nuts do. If the neurosurgeons and eyewitnesses had actually been on the sixth floor watching the bullets enter him it would have been much clearer; they're all scattered and after the fact.
@steveconn Circular reasoning to declare someone as a lone nut because...drum roll...he went to Russia to find himself...and how do we know this....because...drum roll...he went on to shoot the president. Well, prove it. Look at the evidence, prove he shot the president, and prove he was a disaffected nutcase looking to find himself in communist Russia. The burden of proof is at your door
@steveconn There are many more explainations why he went Russia, as I have mentioned below. Yet more circular reasoning...if the neurosurgeons and eyewitnesses had actually been on the sixth floor they would have seen Oswald's guilt; but thery're all scattered after the event. But no one saw him - so how do we know of his guilt....we look at the evidence, and this evidence exonerates him. The autopsy reports are inconsistent with themselves which is interesting state of affairs to say the least
@steveconn The burden of proof is not satisfied by making statements of the calibre of: the bible is the word of God, God is perfect because the bible says so, because God is perfect the bible must be perfect. Oswald was a nutcase who went to Russia to find himself, we know he was a nutcase because he shot the president, and we know he shot the president because he was a nutcase who, amongst other things, went to Russia to find himself.
@fasteddiejs Still more convincing than dozens of conspiracy assasins and witnesses all conveniently murdered or hushed up by the government before being arrested or able to testify to the contrary.
@steveconn No,sorry,circular reasoning is never convincing. And you're not getting the point:just because we may not know who did it,it does not mean for want of an alternative Oswald must have done it.The guilty are not incriminated for want of alternatives,they are incriminated because of compelling,irrefutable evidence.And in this case the evidence against Oswald- who never stood trial - does not establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.If anything it exonerates him beyond reasonable doubt
@fasteddiejs As a lawyer would tell you, reasonable doubt does not mean simply ANY doubt. As someone who had previously attempted a political assasination (General Walker in '61), was pro-Cuba where Kennedy was not, and had strong anti-government tendencies, Oswald had more motive than the dozens of phantom alternatives one can dream up just because one has the ability to do so. That's the way logic and the legal system works. Too bad for Hicks and the conspiracy fans.
@steveconn Oswald having a motive - even if we accept he was pro-cuban (which he wasn't, being known to fraternise and pictured with anti-castro groups!), even if we accept he was a disaffected nutcase (depsite his background in the marines, at a counter-intelligence base and strong evidence he was working with the CIA and the FBI), even if we accept all your unfounded spoon-fed presumptions, MOTIVES DO NOT INCRIMINATE, EVIDENCE INCRIMINATES, AND MOTIVES CAN'T BE USED AS EVIDENCE
@steveconn If motives were to be used as evidence everyone would be guilty for just about pretty much anything. That is some logic...it will help you. To indict someone of a crime, therefore satisfy the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt, it means that the evidence (the actual events in the commissioning of the act), have to show, almost irrefutably, that Oswald was the shooter. And the evidence plainly doesn't. If anything, it completely exonerates Oswald. End of.
@steveconn Talking of Oswald's purported motives is no different from a conspiracy 'nut' fabricating events to support their pre-determined conclusions. Which I know you hate. So let's stick to the evidence and let's not use circular arguements. The HSCA the second official investigation, and no doubt highly compromised as such 'official investigations' are, even found in favour of conspiracy
@fasteddiejs So WHY after the second HSCA weren't suspects brought to trial, announced on the front page of the New York Times, day after day of headlines announcing who the real culprits were and that Oswald as the prime suspect was overturned once and for all? Because all you've got is whiny speculation that really leads nowhere. Just get over it already.
@steveconn Why weren't the real culprits brought to account? Well, you got me on that one, clearly it must have been Oswald if they couldn't land it on anyone else, with all the concerted effort in the world to treat Oswald in an impartial manner. When some of the most profound intellects of the 20th Century is asking pressing questions into the veracity and integrity of the official conclusions, you should be put on high alert...
@fasteddiejs ...except when they just bounce around from the Mafia to the Cubans to some unnamed men in Dallas smoking cigars in a darkened room...to LBJ...to...RFK....to space aliens wanting to put Kennedy's brain in the body of Hitler...the absurdities pile up pretty quickly when speculation about conspirators with lesser motives than Oswald are given free reign. Names. Headlines. Indictments. Otherwise, good night.
@steveconn Since when did a mainstream outlet confront the issues raised by the JFK assassination with candour and objectivity? The only coverage into "conspiracy theories" permitted expression are those that belittle the idea that JFK wasn't killed by a lone nut on the sixth floor even though there is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE FLOUTING THAT CONCLUSION.
@steveconn Stop using circular arguements, and stop using sophistry of the order of oh well apparently space aliens wanted to put jfk's brain into Hitler haha what a bunch of absurd theories by a bunch of whining little toads. What you continue to ignore is that the evidence NOT MOTIVES (which are spoon-fed presumptions anyway) points to conspiracy. End of. If you want to continue this discussion pls talk about the facts of the case, and nothing more - something you clearly seem incapable of
@fasteddiejs If only all the conspirators had been indicted and put on trial, and given more weight than Oswald as reasonable suspects. Alas, none were named. But you can say that was a conspiracy to cover it up. A conspiracy of a conspiracy of a conspiracy...talk about circular reasoning.
@steveconn Where is the reasoning flawed?Pls tell me?The evidence does not indict Oswald of the crime as the lone gunman. For want of repeating myself - and I do feel like i'm corresponding with a brick wall here - just because there are no other identifiable suspects(apparently),that does not mean Oswald must have done it by want of an alternative. That is just plain dumb...and fortunately for all of us the legal system does not work that way.Christ even Betrund Russell was screaming conspiracy
@steveconn So again look at the evidence and the evidence alone. Do some reading, use some logic and you may just get there, if, that is, you can penetrate through the many layers of your seemingly impenetrable ignorance. And when I say "reading" I do not mean read into one side of the case - the side that supports your pre-determined conclusions. One does not know anything about their views until they know all those things which dissent from those views, and why
@fasteddiejs Then GIVE ME THE NAMES of the other assasins, WHY they wanted Kennedy dead, PROOF of their presence on the grassy knoll, the overpass, etc., and the MASSIVE PUBLIC OUTCRY that wants the public record overturned and them put on trial, either physically or postumously. if you can't supply this, simply stop whining and SHUT THE FUCK UP. Get a life and have a nice day.
@steveconn Are you stupid? Did your mother not give you enough attention when you were little? Why can't you understand that just because we don't know who killed Kennedy, it does not mean, by process of elimination, that Oswald must therefore have killed him. THE EVIDENCE ABSOLVES OSWALD OF BEING THE LONE GUNMAN. I'll say that again just in case it didn't get through: THE EVIDENCE ABSOLVES OSWALD OF BEING THE LONE GUNMAN.
@steveconn Is that really so difficult to grasp? You are quick to mock others of endeavouring to identify other suspects and other motives - even though you yourself trade in motives and motives alone - but hypocritically are first to shout: yes, but there is an absence of credible suspects and motives. But motives has nothing to do with it.
@steveconn I'm British and studied law at college. In order to be guilty of a crime, it must be established that the accused had the actus reus (the guilty act) and mens rea (the guilty mind). The mens rea in murder cases is the intent to kill. The evidence does not establish Oswald caused the death of JFK (actus reus). It also points irrefuatably towards conspiracy. Pls do some reading, pls, I implore you, and stop wasting my time with your asinine arguements.
@fasteddiejs You can take your degrees and erudition and indignation and stew with them on a desert island. Obviously no one gives enough of a crap to retry the case. The end.
@steveconn Well, i'm not the one writing: "obviously no one gives enough crap to retry the case". Retry the case? And what's the reasoning here? That because a subversion of democracy occurred during the presidential election in 2000, it didn't therefore happen in '63? What's the point of this?
@fasteddiejs Because, unlike the Supreme Court clearly handing Bush the Presidency in 2000 despite clearly losing the popular vote, there was no clear proof of a subversion of democracy in the assasination other than the murky conspiracy pap you've been railing on about. Maybe LBJ was behind it to increase our presence in Vietnam...except Kennedy was going to increase our presence there anyway. Maybe it was so he could pass evil Civil Rights and Great Society legislation...um, maybe it was....
@steveconn In my opinion there is evidence of a government cover up in the handling of the case against Oswald - particularly on view of the medical evidence and the conduct of several members of secret service in the days leading up to the assassination. Though I do appreaciate that this can't be substantiated to the best of my knowledge. We'll have to agree to disagree - but to discribe it as "murky conspiracy pap" is rather unjustified on view of the evidence.
@steveconn Yes, I agree.But there are a couple of things in the autopsy skull x-rays,such as the 6.5 mm fragment, unusual metalic debris,and many missing pictures and x rays that could lead to suspicions of foul play.Plus numerous inconsistencies with the testimonies of the pathologists conducting the autospsy, major inconsistencies with the eyes witness testimony of the treating neuro surgeons and the said x-rays.The list goes on. And that's just the autopsy reports
@steveconn Well, i'm not the one saying: "Obviously no one gives enough of a crap to retry the case". Retry the case? And what's the reasoning here: that because there was a subversion of democracy during the 2000 presidential election, there wasn't one in '63? What the point you're making here?
@fasteddiejs FFS, get real. Post magazine carried a picture of Oswald watching the parade. Kennedy's head went TOWARDS the book depository, not away. Oswald had nothing to do with it. NOTHING. The evidence is clear. We are TOLD he made an impossible shot, but we can SEE him watching the parade.
@therealnightwriter er I think you'll find that I support conspiracy. The eye witness testimony of fellow employees of the book depository don't place Oswald on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting.
I am not debating that you couldn't hit JFK from that window. But the entrance and exit wound precludes any claim that the bullet came from that angle. Oswald would have almost been looking down at the top of JFK's head. When JFK's limousine made a left on Elm's street it drove a good hundred feet before Kennedy was hit, meaning that Oswald would have virtually been staring at the back of JFK's head. Do your own investigations dumbass. Instead of believing some doctored Warren commission report.
Meaning that 2 bullets would have had to have done the job. One bullet hitting JFK in the head killing him. The other "magic bullet" hitting JFK in the back, exiting his throat, changing trajectory in the air and hitting Connally in the chest, then exiting, going through is wrist then lodging in his thigh. You honestly believe this shit???
@phucksocialism He also went to Russia in the late fifties, married a Russian woman, lived there for several years, and offered American intelligence to the Soviets. Hmm, think that might be deemed dangerous to national security as well? Get all the facts next time.
@steveconn I think you are gullible. Kennedy was killed from a bullet fired from the grassy knoll. Autopsy photos were doctored to dispel any investigation of a second shooter. Physics do not allow a bullet to be fired from that angle and hit JFK in the front left part of his head. The Warren Commission claimed 3 shots were fired, when eyewitness claim to have seen one bullet completely miss and hit the curb behind the motorcade.
@StonewallJackson26 They're is nothing to prove anything came from the grassy knoll except a picture with some smoke people claim is from a rifle but is too hazy to be sure, and they tested whether a man could fire three shots from that angle and hit JFK at that speed, and it worked. The rest is hipster conspiracy bullshit.
@steveconn JFK was certainly not hit with a bullet from 6 stories up in a corner window of the depository building. The trajectory makes absolutely no sense. If the bullet came from that window it would have struck JFK in the back of the head, rather than the front temporal lobe. I am not a hipster, I am a realist and no way did the fatal bullet come from the depository. That is gullibility if I've ever seen it.
Oliver Stone is the most prominent, known conspiracy fantasist around, so I use him as an example. Many authors including Gerald Posner and Vincent Bugliosi showed that Oswald had both motive and the marksmanship to commit the assasination. The rest, as I said, is conspiracy fantasy.
@revolutionaryraider He had very good shooting scores in the marines, and he had already made an attempt on the life of General Walker in '61, making him a perfect candidate for the assasination of a president. But don't let facts get in the way of your conspiracy theories.
Actually, if you go to the 6th Floor Museum, you can look out the windows next to the sniper's nest and see how EASY the shot actually was. Nothing to it. If you couldn't do it, you have no business handling a loaded rifle.
@steved8878 LOL yeh, anyone can fire a magic bullet, which makes his head fly back the totally wrong way... yeh right. It was an impossible shot which has been proven many times over.
....FUCK!!!!
ScorpiusIncorruptus 1 month ago
Fuck Bill Hicks...Bush was a fundamentalist Christian. That's bullshit. The Bushes are a part of the Bohemian Grove. Satanists. Do your fucking homework and burn in the lake of fire.
rayklassen1973 1 month ago
@rayklassen1973 : You are about to turn 40, & you are really that stupid.
He is clearly making fun of them b/c they PRETEND to be religious.
BadBoriBoy 1 month ago
@rayklassen1973 good see you down there. Bush wasnt christian, he was a bastard. And I am talking about both George Bushs, like father like son right?
Maybe it is you who should do your fucking homework asshole, get YOUR facts right.
TASDisBACK 1 month ago
oh what a big fuckin lizard! ! Lmao
itsoverforuman 2 months ago
If there is such a place as hell for non believers and Bill Hicks is there and I die then I wanna be in hell with Bill Hicks and George Carlin so that way I can be in heaven.
RunDCM 2 months ago
@RunDCM
youll catch me surfing the lake of fire, listening to good tunes.
OGTisk 2 months ago 2
Through his jokes, you can also see his genuine annoyance to the amazing stupidity of creationists! I so wish he were alive today.....so much fucked up shit has happened since his passing, he would have so much comedic material to work with!!!
brbr28 4 months ago
imagine if bill was alive today, he'd be talking about 9/11 it would be crazy!!!
wagooairlines 5 months ago 18
@wagooairlines It would be crazy because it would be the truth. The worst thing we can imagine would be relayed by Bill...but it would be the worst thing we could imagine...
In other words, we're all thinking it, he just says it. He was more in touch with humanity than most living people that I know.
He made us laugh, but we weren't laughing at anything but our own delusions.
fuckyougeorgebush 1 month ago
It's not broadcast in the mainstream media, because the mainstream media isn't objective, it's controlled by the same parties who share a very narrow ideological perspective and omit from mentioning anything that doesn't fit within that limited framework. The news is very different if you get it from other sources than the spoon fed mainstream - read Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent.
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
I think Hick's mullet shot Kennedy.
steveconn 6 months ago
He was struck in the back of the head, not the front. In the Zapruder film you do not see him get shot from the front. They performed an actual recreation with a sharpshooter from the book depository and he was able to get the three shots off on a target at JFK's position and speed. Bill Hicks just ran his mouth and people ate it up.
steveconn 7 months ago
@steveconn So you never saw the photo of the man on a the grassy knoll pointing a rifle then huh. Yes, theres actually a photo of it. My jaw dropped when I saw it. You also didn't see the video of about 50 people running to the grassy knoll and pointing. Or all the witnesses who saw a puff of smoke. E Howard Hunt's deathbed confession? Oswald was known as a terrible shot, testimony from his Marine Corps buddies. Are you just going to ignore those things?
Stillwater900 7 months ago
@Stillwater900 Yes, they were pointing at Kennedy being shot. The photo of the shooter on the grassy knoll is about as blurry as shots of Bigfoot and just as convincing. Magic deathbed confessions are always a joke. Oswald actually had a very good shot record and attempted an assasination attempt on General Walker in '61. Kennedy was not going to pull out of Vietnam- in fact he was just starting to move in troops -so there was no motive to kill him other than the usual Cubans/Mafia/LBJ fantasies
steveconn 7 months ago
@steveconn No, they're pointing AT the knoll, and theres about 40 people running there. Kennedy was literally weeks away from signing legislation to END THE FED, and "shatter the CIA into a million pieces," I bet you didn't know that. Are you going to ignore the 50 people that saw two men on the grassy knoll? And who says deathbed confessions are always a joke?? Why on earth would they be??
Stillwater900 7 months ago
@Stillwater900 Because they're unprovable - the person is by then dead and can't back it up! Talk that Kennedy was going to break up the CIA or any government agency is total horseshit; just anything for people desperate to believe the government killed him. He was going to step up our presence in Vietnam and was a hawk going back to Harvard. Please name the fifty people who saw two men on the grassy knoll. All the names please.
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn "Shatter the CIA into a million pieces" is a direct quote, didn't you know that? He was weeks away from signing Executive Order 11110, which would have taken almost all the Fed's power away, this stuff is common knowledge dude. Seven people witnesses a puff of smoke from the grassy knoll and anywhere from 51 to 65 people said they saw a man firing from there. His head just could not have gone back and to the left from a shot from BEHIND, its against the laws of physics.
Stillwater900 6 months ago
@Stillwater900 Yes, Jack Kennedy was a socialist pioneer who was going to rearrange the entire government and give it back to the people, and that's why they killed him; the puff of smoke is from the doobie that conspiracists smoke to think up this ridiculous shit. Maybe it wasn't 65 people - maybe it was 200, 300 people. No names needed, just keep adding to the number. A shot that ricocheted off Gov. Conneley in the front seat could indeed make JFK move that way.
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn Wait, he moved back and to the left from the shot that blew his brain out, Oswald couldn't have fired two shots at the same time. Do you have a response for that? A few of them even did video interviews, but I know you wouldn't watch them if I gave you the links. They all say the same thing, a man in a railroad uniform shot a rifle and gave it to a man in a police uniform.
Stillwater900 6 months ago
@steveconn Think about this, this is the official explanation; The bullet enters his back, exits upwards, waits in midair 1.6 seconds, turns right into Connallys body, enters down, turns 16 degrees, goes into his wrist, and is found on sitting on the stretcher later in PRISTINE condition. Literally, thats what they want us to believe.. Do you have an explanation for that?
Stillwater900 6 months ago
@Stillwater900 That's the Oliver Stone reduction of the Warren Commision report; the reality is that the bullet went through the Governor's body and hit Kennedy. The rest is blurry conspiracy theory. Even RFK was accused of having a part in the killing. Pathetic.
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn Answer my first question, how'd he move back and to the left from the shot that blew his brain out.
Stillwater900 6 months ago
@Stillwater900 His motorcade passed Oswald's window (who was using a long-range rifle) at that moment. Next.
(Keep up the edgy conspiracies in Heaven, Hicks).
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn ??? Shot from behind, the head would have been blown forward, not back and to the left. And the exit wound would be from on face, not the back of his head.
Stillwater900 6 months ago
@Stillwater900 You can't get around those things. And you're not listening to what I said, the shot that blew his brains out knocked him BACK, not FORWARD. Conservation of momentum says he couldnt have been shot from behind. Are you having trouble visualizing that? If I shoot you in the back of the head, your head will move forward, in the direction the bullet travels, it will never move BACKWARDS towards the gun
Stillwater900 6 months ago
@Stillwater900 He wasn't shot from behind. He was shot as he passed Oswald's window, like I said.
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn Uhh, dude, the Depository is directly behind the motorcade, the official story is that he was shot from behind, didn't you know that? I'll PM you a link to the view
Stillwater900 6 months ago
@steveconn Can't PM you. Google it, there are lots of photos of the view. Its almost EXACTLY behind the motorcade, yet his head was blown BACKWARDS and the exit wound is in the BACK of his head.
Stillwater900 6 months ago
@Stillwater900 NO other shooters were ever named. That's life. Get over it.
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn hahaha, i guess thats the only answer you had
Stillwater900 6 months ago
@Stillwater900 If can't even name any other possible shooters, it's the only answer I need.
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn United States House Select Committee on Assassinations found in 1979: "The Committee investigated until 1978, and in 1979 issued its final report, concluding that President John F. Kennedy was very likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy." Names have been named before and are available online. I've got other things to do than convince you, but I hope I've made you curious. Take care
Stillwater900 6 months ago
@Stillwater900 Gerald Posner's book "Case Closed" and Vincent Bugliosi ("Helter Skelter")'s recent 1000 page book on the assasination: both confirm without doubt Oswald as single shooter. End of story.
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn lol have read Posner's book and I suggest you do some more research
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@fasteddiejs Until you write a book I'll take his opinion over yours.
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn I'm not asking you to take my opinion, merely to do some more research for the sake of objectivity. When one only knows one side of a case, one knows little of that.
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@fasteddiejs Bugliosi studied the entire case as well,came up with the same conclusion. Next.
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn Wow, from your argument you would think these two authors are the only two to have ever studied the case; your powers of rhetoric are astounding.
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@fasteddiejs Since they're only two who didn't bring up Disney-level 'Cubans/Mafia/RFK/LBJ/Sam Giancana jealous over JFK screwing his mistress' explanations for the assasination and just examined the actual evidence, yup, for some reason I go with them.
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn I'm not interested in the wider circumstances of the case, like yourself i'm interested in the evidence, and there is simply not enough evidence to say, that beyond reasonable doubt, Lee Oswald was the lone assassin. The Assassination Records Review Board declassified a number files of files pertaining to the JFK case that completely flouts the official conclusions. Don't take my word for it, look at the primary sources, not fictionalised accounts whether they support conspiracy ornot
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@fasteddiejs Then let's see the news headlines with the names of the people who shot him from the grassy knoll. Until then, it's all pointless speculation.
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn - E. Howard Hunt was named in a court case as being on the grassy knoll that day.
Post magazine carried a picture of Oswald watching the parade. Kennedy's head went TOWARDS the book depository, not away. Oswald had nothing to do with it.
therealnightwriter 6 months ago
@therealnightwriter Alot of people were on the knoll. The rest is horseshit. Oswald had attempted assasination of a government figure before, and The Zapruder film even shows Kennedy's head moving away from the depository.
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn It's not pointless speculation at all. The president of the United States was brutally murdered in, as of yet, unexplained circumstances. The official conclusions are inconsistent and in places totally fabricated to support the lone gunman theory. The incongruity of the autopsy evidence, and how that contradicts with the eye-witness testimony of the treating physicians at Parkland Memorial Hospital. That on its own is enough to clear Lee Oswald of the crime.
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@steveconn Especially considering the man was himself murdered before he ever got to stand a fair trial.
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@fasteddiejs That's patriotic strip-club owners for you.
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn A remarkably well connected patriotic strip-club owner
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@fasteddiejs Yeah, because the mafia hired him to shut up Oswald because JFK was dating Giancana's mistress yada yada zzzzzz....
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn So there are a number of wacky theories out there in the literature?So what?The fact remains Oswald was shot by a very well connected man-mafia connections,CIA connections, arms runner, links with anti-castro cells in New Orleans, he was working for Nixon in '47-and then that man decides on the cuff of the moment to murder the alleged assassin as he's being transfered from city to county police,and who then screams conspiracy during his trial, how can you not think this is suspicious?
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@fasteddiejs Yes, because everyone knows JFK was pro-Castro, especially when he tried to have him assasinated in the Bay Of Pigs operation, so it makes sense an anti-Castro man would want JFK dead. And you can just bundle up CIA/Mafia/arms-runner into any shadowy conspiracy you please. It's alot of fun, anyway...
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn I think you need to do some reading and lots of it. Kennedy inherited the Bag of Pigs operation from Eisenhower's CIA campaign to arm a guerilla army of Cuban exiles. For want of brevity I can't go into the CIA and its history here, and the events leading up to the Bay of Pigs invasion, but suffice to say the CIA is by its very nature covert, secretive and relatively autonomous. We can speculate all we want, make theories here make them there,but to ignore Ruby'sconnections is asinine
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@steveconn And as I have repeatedly said the evidence on it's own is enough to say beyond reasonable doubt that Oswald could not have acted alone, whether he was implicated or not. Fact. End of. The man is innocent before being proven guilty, and his guilt has by no means been established, quite the contrary
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@steveconn To look scoff at those as "conspiracy theorists" just because they look at the evidence (or lack of it), and this overwhelmingly supports conspiracy ie not just Oswald if him at all, is frighteningly ignorant. Coups are not unusual, in fact a peruse over 20th century history shows how alarmingly frequent they are. To think a coup d'etat is not possible on American soil, is arrogant, profoundly conceited and deeply, deeply ignorant of history.
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@fasteddiejs But WHY would they want to stage a coup? The theory that Kennedy was anti-Vietnam is horseshit; he was in fact a gung-ho hawk, hadn't learned anything from French involvement there and was sending advisors down to gear up for greater troop involvement. He wasn't pro-Castro, as the Bay of Pigs made obvious. He wasn't going to break up any of the intelligence agencies. All he basically was doing was dragging his heels on Civil Rights legislation and banging mistresses. What a threat!
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn I have absolutely no idea why they would want to stage a coup: the endlessness of the possibilities explains why there is so rich history of literature speculating into the possible reasons behind the assassination. But regardless of the circumstantial evidence - of which there is overwhelming amounts - the cold, hard facts on their own clear Oswald as the lone assassin.
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@fasteddiejs If no reason to kill someone, then to conceive an entire conspiracy around it (without one clearly named suspect seen with a rifle in his/her hands) is patently absurd.
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn There is more to the product than the just packaging and the sales pitch the seller gives you with such earnestness.There are varying angles and perspectives to things: one person sees attack,another sees defence and the corrider of power is always, has always and will always be shrouded by the veil of unfathomable mystery.The precise machinations of those behind a purported coup will never be known,we can speculate,we can make a compelling case,but truth is we'll probably never know.
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@steveconn But in an investigation of any kind, you reason forwards, not backwards. You don't say hmmmmm there is no readily identifiable motive here, and that exonerates all concerned; rather, you look at the evidence from the ground up, and once certain truths have been established, then perhaps, and only then, do you delve into some case history to try and contexulise and understand the evidence sitting in front of you
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@steveconn Now on an objective look of the evidence the irrifutable conclusion is that there is no way that beyond reasonable doubt Oswald commisioned this crime alone, if he acted at all. You speak of not having another suspect with "a rifle in his/ her hands", well we don't have frame by frame account of Oswald in the like manner, does that exonerate Oswald? When all the evidence against him is very weak, contrived, and to quote: "patently absurd"?
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@fasteddiejs I'll take Oswald's record of protesting "fair play for Cuba" and attempting to assasinate a political figure (General Walker) two years before JFK over pictures of supposed shooters on the grassy knoll that have the clarity of bigfoot photos.
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn Oswald's record of protesting "fair play for Cuba" - did you need read any of what I wrote above? It doesn't concern you that he was pictured and known to fraternise with anti-Castro groups? That as a marine he was stationed in Japan at a secret U-2 base as a radar operator, and a known counter-intelligence base? But this disaffected, disenfranchised youth took it upon himself to teach himself Russian and then to defect to Russia?
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@steveconn Yep, clearly a regular $2 an hour nutcase clerk, who witnesses have testified at the HSCA hearings as working for the CIA and the FBI. The ARRB declassified a memo written by J Edgar Hoover himself that specifically mentions Lee Oswald. Hoover writes in the June 3rd 1960 memo: "Since there is a possibility that an imposter is using Oswald's birth certificate, any current information the Department of State might have concerning the subject will be appreciated."
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@steveconn Yep just a regular defector to Russia-when there was known operations endeavouring to infiltrate Soviet Russia with disenfranchised youths acting as spys.And as for the grainy photos purporting to show supposed shooters on the grassy knoll, yeah you're right, they are plainly ridiculous. But to accept facts on their face value, when the evidence of the crime itself being so unbelievably shaky, is patently ridiculous.
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@fasteddiejs Right, Oswald going to Russia makes his involvement even more likely. But to implicate endless phantoms and multiple angles to a shooting that indeed could be explained by three shots from the Texas School depository is a waste of time, Bill Hicks hipster jive aside.
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn "Right, Oswald going to Russia makes his involvement even more likely" - why did he go to Russia? "A shooting that indeed could be explained by three shots from the TSD" - i'm afraid it can't: the medical evidence flouts the official version of events, which isn't even consistent with itself, nevermind consistent with the ubiquitous eye witness testimony of those at the scene and neuro-surgeons who treated Kennedy at Parkland Memorial Hospital.
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@fasteddiejs He went to Russia because he was a lone nut trying to find himself. "Hey, I'm gonna shoot the president." That's what lone nuts do. If the neurosurgeons and eyewitnesses had actually been on the sixth floor watching the bullets enter him it would have been much clearer; they're all scattered and after the fact.
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn Circular reasoning to declare someone as a lone nut because...drum roll...he went to Russia to find himself...and how do we know this....because...drum roll...he went on to shoot the president. Well, prove it. Look at the evidence, prove he shot the president, and prove he was a disaffected nutcase looking to find himself in communist Russia. The burden of proof is at your door
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@steveconn There are many more explainations why he went Russia, as I have mentioned below. Yet more circular reasoning...if the neurosurgeons and eyewitnesses had actually been on the sixth floor they would have seen Oswald's guilt; but thery're all scattered after the event. But no one saw him - so how do we know of his guilt....we look at the evidence, and this evidence exonerates him. The autopsy reports are inconsistent with themselves which is interesting state of affairs to say the least
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@steveconn The burden of proof is not satisfied by making statements of the calibre of: the bible is the word of God, God is perfect because the bible says so, because God is perfect the bible must be perfect. Oswald was a nutcase who went to Russia to find himself, we know he was a nutcase because he shot the president, and we know he shot the president because he was a nutcase who, amongst other things, went to Russia to find himself.
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@fasteddiejs Still more convincing than dozens of conspiracy assasins and witnesses all conveniently murdered or hushed up by the government before being arrested or able to testify to the contrary.
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn No,sorry,circular reasoning is never convincing. And you're not getting the point:just because we may not know who did it,it does not mean for want of an alternative Oswald must have done it.The guilty are not incriminated for want of alternatives,they are incriminated because of compelling,irrefutable evidence.And in this case the evidence against Oswald- who never stood trial - does not establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.If anything it exonerates him beyond reasonable doubt
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@fasteddiejs As a lawyer would tell you, reasonable doubt does not mean simply ANY doubt. As someone who had previously attempted a political assasination (General Walker in '61), was pro-Cuba where Kennedy was not, and had strong anti-government tendencies, Oswald had more motive than the dozens of phantom alternatives one can dream up just because one has the ability to do so. That's the way logic and the legal system works. Too bad for Hicks and the conspiracy fans.
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn Oswald having a motive - even if we accept he was pro-cuban (which he wasn't, being known to fraternise and pictured with anti-castro groups!), even if we accept he was a disaffected nutcase (depsite his background in the marines, at a counter-intelligence base and strong evidence he was working with the CIA and the FBI), even if we accept all your unfounded spoon-fed presumptions, MOTIVES DO NOT INCRIMINATE, EVIDENCE INCRIMINATES, AND MOTIVES CAN'T BE USED AS EVIDENCE
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@steveconn If motives were to be used as evidence everyone would be guilty for just about pretty much anything. That is some logic...it will help you. To indict someone of a crime, therefore satisfy the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt, it means that the evidence (the actual events in the commissioning of the act), have to show, almost irrefutably, that Oswald was the shooter. And the evidence plainly doesn't. If anything, it completely exonerates Oswald. End of.
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@steveconn Talking of Oswald's purported motives is no different from a conspiracy 'nut' fabricating events to support their pre-determined conclusions. Which I know you hate. So let's stick to the evidence and let's not use circular arguements. The HSCA the second official investigation, and no doubt highly compromised as such 'official investigations' are, even found in favour of conspiracy
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@fasteddiejs So WHY after the second HSCA weren't suspects brought to trial, announced on the front page of the New York Times, day after day of headlines announcing who the real culprits were and that Oswald as the prime suspect was overturned once and for all? Because all you've got is whiny speculation that really leads nowhere. Just get over it already.
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn Why weren't the real culprits brought to account? Well, you got me on that one, clearly it must have been Oswald if they couldn't land it on anyone else, with all the concerted effort in the world to treat Oswald in an impartial manner. When some of the most profound intellects of the 20th Century is asking pressing questions into the veracity and integrity of the official conclusions, you should be put on high alert...
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@fasteddiejs ...except when they just bounce around from the Mafia to the Cubans to some unnamed men in Dallas smoking cigars in a darkened room...to LBJ...to...RFK....to space aliens wanting to put Kennedy's brain in the body of Hitler...the absurdities pile up pretty quickly when speculation about conspirators with lesser motives than Oswald are given free reign. Names. Headlines. Indictments. Otherwise, good night.
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn Since when did a mainstream outlet confront the issues raised by the JFK assassination with candour and objectivity? The only coverage into "conspiracy theories" permitted expression are those that belittle the idea that JFK wasn't killed by a lone nut on the sixth floor even though there is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE FLOUTING THAT CONCLUSION.
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@steveconn Stop using circular arguements, and stop using sophistry of the order of oh well apparently space aliens wanted to put jfk's brain into Hitler haha what a bunch of absurd theories by a bunch of whining little toads. What you continue to ignore is that the evidence NOT MOTIVES (which are spoon-fed presumptions anyway) points to conspiracy. End of. If you want to continue this discussion pls talk about the facts of the case, and nothing more - something you clearly seem incapable of
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@fasteddiejs If only all the conspirators had been indicted and put on trial, and given more weight than Oswald as reasonable suspects. Alas, none were named. But you can say that was a conspiracy to cover it up. A conspiracy of a conspiracy of a conspiracy...talk about circular reasoning.
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn Where is the reasoning flawed?Pls tell me?The evidence does not indict Oswald of the crime as the lone gunman. For want of repeating myself - and I do feel like i'm corresponding with a brick wall here - just because there are no other identifiable suspects(apparently),that does not mean Oswald must have done it by want of an alternative. That is just plain dumb...and fortunately for all of us the legal system does not work that way.Christ even Betrund Russell was screaming conspiracy
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@steveconn So again look at the evidence and the evidence alone. Do some reading, use some logic and you may just get there, if, that is, you can penetrate through the many layers of your seemingly impenetrable ignorance. And when I say "reading" I do not mean read into one side of the case - the side that supports your pre-determined conclusions. One does not know anything about their views until they know all those things which dissent from those views, and why
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@fasteddiejs Then GIVE ME THE NAMES of the other assasins, WHY they wanted Kennedy dead, PROOF of their presence on the grassy knoll, the overpass, etc., and the MASSIVE PUBLIC OUTCRY that wants the public record overturned and them put on trial, either physically or postumously. if you can't supply this, simply stop whining and SHUT THE FUCK UP. Get a life and have a nice day.
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn Are you stupid? Did your mother not give you enough attention when you were little? Why can't you understand that just because we don't know who killed Kennedy, it does not mean, by process of elimination, that Oswald must therefore have killed him. THE EVIDENCE ABSOLVES OSWALD OF BEING THE LONE GUNMAN. I'll say that again just in case it didn't get through: THE EVIDENCE ABSOLVES OSWALD OF BEING THE LONE GUNMAN.
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@steveconn Is that really so difficult to grasp? You are quick to mock others of endeavouring to identify other suspects and other motives - even though you yourself trade in motives and motives alone - but hypocritically are first to shout: yes, but there is an absence of credible suspects and motives. But motives has nothing to do with it.
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@steveconn I'm British and studied law at college. In order to be guilty of a crime, it must be established that the accused had the actus reus (the guilty act) and mens rea (the guilty mind). The mens rea in murder cases is the intent to kill. The evidence does not establish Oswald caused the death of JFK (actus reus). It also points irrefuatably towards conspiracy. Pls do some reading, pls, I implore you, and stop wasting my time with your asinine arguements.
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@fasteddiejs You can take your degrees and erudition and indignation and stew with them on a desert island. Obviously no one gives enough of a crap to retry the case. The end.
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn "Bill, it was just a, you know, taking over of democracy by a totalitarian government. Let it go".
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@fasteddiejs No, that happened when Bush stole the election in 2000. For someone with so much erudition, you're pretty clueless.
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn Well, i'm not the one writing: "obviously no one gives enough crap to retry the case". Retry the case? And what's the reasoning here? That because a subversion of democracy occurred during the presidential election in 2000, it didn't therefore happen in '63? What's the point of this?
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@fasteddiejs Because, unlike the Supreme Court clearly handing Bush the Presidency in 2000 despite clearly losing the popular vote, there was no clear proof of a subversion of democracy in the assasination other than the murky conspiracy pap you've been railing on about. Maybe LBJ was behind it to increase our presence in Vietnam...except Kennedy was going to increase our presence there anyway. Maybe it was so he could pass evil Civil Rights and Great Society legislation...um, maybe it was....
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn In my opinion there is evidence of a government cover up in the handling of the case against Oswald - particularly on view of the medical evidence and the conduct of several members of secret service in the days leading up to the assassination. Though I do appreaciate that this can't be substantiated to the best of my knowledge. We'll have to agree to disagree - but to discribe it as "murky conspiracy pap" is rather unjustified on view of the evidence.
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@fasteddiejs Yet as a subversion of democracy far from proven...
steveconn 6 months ago
@steveconn Yes, I agree.But there are a couple of things in the autopsy skull x-rays,such as the 6.5 mm fragment, unusual metalic debris,and many missing pictures and x rays that could lead to suspicions of foul play.Plus numerous inconsistencies with the testimonies of the pathologists conducting the autospsy, major inconsistencies with the eyes witness testimony of the treating neuro surgeons and the said x-rays.The list goes on. And that's just the autopsy reports
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@fasteddiejs Good stuff. Self-publish your findings and we'll be in touch...
steveconn 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steveconn Well, i'm not the one saying: "Obviously no one gives enough of a crap to retry the case". Retry the case? And what's the reasoning here: that because there was a subversion of democracy during the 2000 presidential election, there wasn't one in '63? What the point you're making here?
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
@fasteddiejs FFS, get real. Post magazine carried a picture of Oswald watching the parade. Kennedy's head went TOWARDS the book depository, not away. Oswald had nothing to do with it. NOTHING. The evidence is clear. We are TOLD he made an impossible shot, but we can SEE him watching the parade.
therealnightwriter 6 months ago
@therealnightwriter er I think you'll find that I support conspiracy. The eye witness testimony of fellow employees of the book depository don't place Oswald on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting.
fasteddiejs 6 months ago
I am not debating that you couldn't hit JFK from that window. But the entrance and exit wound precludes any claim that the bullet came from that angle. Oswald would have almost been looking down at the top of JFK's head. When JFK's limousine made a left on Elm's street it drove a good hundred feet before Kennedy was hit, meaning that Oswald would have virtually been staring at the back of JFK's head. Do your own investigations dumbass. Instead of believing some doctored Warren commission report.
StonewallJackson26 7 months ago
Meaning that 2 bullets would have had to have done the job. One bullet hitting JFK in the head killing him. The other "magic bullet" hitting JFK in the back, exiting his throat, changing trajectory in the air and hitting Connally in the chest, then exiting, going through is wrist then lodging in his thigh. You honestly believe this shit???
StonewallJackson26 7 months ago
@phucksocialism He also went to Russia in the late fifties, married a Russian woman, lived there for several years, and offered American intelligence to the Soviets. Hmm, think that might be deemed dangerous to national security as well? Get all the facts next time.
steveconn 7 months ago
@steveconn I think you are gullible. Kennedy was killed from a bullet fired from the grassy knoll. Autopsy photos were doctored to dispel any investigation of a second shooter. Physics do not allow a bullet to be fired from that angle and hit JFK in the front left part of his head. The Warren Commission claimed 3 shots were fired, when eyewitness claim to have seen one bullet completely miss and hit the curb behind the motorcade.
StonewallJackson26 7 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 They're is nothing to prove anything came from the grassy knoll except a picture with some smoke people claim is from a rifle but is too hazy to be sure, and they tested whether a man could fire three shots from that angle and hit JFK at that speed, and it worked. The rest is hipster conspiracy bullshit.
steveconn 7 months ago
@steveconn JFK was certainly not hit with a bullet from 6 stories up in a corner window of the depository building. The trajectory makes absolutely no sense. If the bullet came from that window it would have struck JFK in the back of the head, rather than the front temporal lobe. I am not a hipster, I am a realist and no way did the fatal bullet come from the depository. That is gullibility if I've ever seen it.
StonewallJackson26 7 months ago
Oliver Stone is the most prominent, known conspiracy fantasist around, so I use him as an example. Many authors including Gerald Posner and Vincent Bugliosi showed that Oswald had both motive and the marksmanship to commit the assasination. The rest, as I said, is conspiracy fantasy.
steveconn 8 months ago
@steveconn What marskmanship? He couldn't hit shit...And his motives were what exactly?...Keep being a good slave.
revolutionaryraider 8 months ago
@revolutionaryraider He had very good shooting scores in the marines, and he had already made an attempt on the life of General Walker in '61, making him a perfect candidate for the assasination of a president. But don't let facts get in the way of your conspiracy theories.
steveconn 8 months ago
Oswald did it. The rest is Oliver Stone fantasy.
steveconn 10 months ago
@steveconn you are well named. The fact that you sight such a lightweight as Oliver Stone shows you're not taking the subject seriously.
dressrehearsalrags 8 months ago
still gives me a chuckle or two
kroikye 1 year ago
Actually, if you go to the 6th Floor Museum, you can look out the windows next to the sniper's nest and see how EASY the shot actually was. Nothing to it. If you couldn't do it, you have no business handling a loaded rifle.
steved8878 1 year ago
@steved8878 LOL yeh, anyone can fire a magic bullet, which makes his head fly back the totally wrong way... yeh right. It was an impossible shot which has been proven many times over.
maltonbranch 1 year ago
@maltonbranch Proven by whom? Every time it's examined it leans toward confirming the official version of events. Ever shot something?
steved8878 1 year ago
@steved8878 Kennedy A legacy in Blood documentary.
( The Autopsy 8 parts ) proves beyond almost any doubt.
SOUPRUN01 1 year ago