Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › TV on DVD and Blu-ray › "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review - Page 4

post #91 of 414
6/11/09 at 7:00pm

Re: MALCOLM WALLACE.....

[quote=phil*]
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Von Pein
[/b]
Unless you're prepared to call J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI a "liar" (and I won't be a bit surprised to hear you call Hoover a "liar", because most conspiracy-thirsty folks like to do just that)

Far be it for me to call J. Edgar Hoover a liar;EVERYBODY knows the man was a saint.

Let's see, so far in this thread, the conspiracy fans have been wrong about:

Rose Cherami
Fingerprints on the rifle
Palm prints on a box
Smoke from a rifle
Bullet fragments in Connally
Evidence wiped from the car
Ability to recreate the SBT shot
Oswald's paraffin test
Shots coming from behind or from 2 directions
Oswald's "patsy" statement

In 4 pages, 10 theories shot down like ducks on the wing, not one holding up to scrutiny. If this was a Little League game, the 10 run rule would have ended it. So how many of these silly scenarios have to be refuted before you guys begin to believe the truth? The record certainly isn't looking too good for your side.
Reply
post #92 of 414
6/11/09 at 7:04pm

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

Quote:
Do you know what my qualifications are? How do we know that YOU are an expert in firearms?

An expert in firearms would know the Manlicher-Carcano was considered a modern rifle. As for me, I've been collecting and firing firearms, including the gunsmithing of black powder replica weapons, since I was 13. Which is why I know a rube in firearms knowledge when I hear one.

Quote:
First of all, I never claimed to be an expert in firearms,or in anything else for that matter. Your reference to me as "Skippy" unfortunately is typical of the condescending manner that the "lone nut did it" camp has for anybody with a different view from theirs; while there are individuals on both sides of this argument who take their beliefs to the extreme,it is far more common for the "lone nut" theorists to resort to personal attacks on those individuals who believe that this tragic event was the result of a conspiracy. You will be hard pressed to find many individuals who believe in the "conspiracy" version who label the "lone nutters" as being nuts themselves because of their beliefs...we don't believe that you believe in flying saucers,aliens, Loch Ness monsters,or Santa Claus just because your viewpoint differs from ours. On the contrary,most of us encourage debate as long as this discourse is civil and relevant to the topic at hand. Sadly, there are those individuals,such as yourself,who, when confronted with a view that is diametrically opposed to their own,feel cornered,and lash out with belittling comments. In my view, it is this attitude,which is FAR MORE PREVALENT among the "lone nutters" than it is for the "conspiracy theorists" goes a long way towards explaining where the REAL truth lies in this case.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, I attacked your knowledge of firearms. The "Skippy" thing was addressing the arrogance of the question (you'd think you wouldn't ask a question you didn't know the answer to, eh?) As far as personal attacks are concerned, I believe the personal attacks started with your post above. When confronted with a fact, you attacked me instead of addressing the fact that you are 100% wrong . . . again. Besides, some of you conspiracy people are really, really crazy!!
Reply
post #93 of 414
6/11/09 at 7:57pm
Thread Starter 

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

I'd like to interject a request:

I hope this thread can either fade away into obscurity (like most threads eventually do), or maintain a civil tone among its participants, because I don't want to risk this thread getting locked due to a hostile, hate-filled environment. (And that's because I want the ability to edit my thread-starting post forever; and the "Edit" buttons disappear if a thread gets closed.)

I've bitten my tongue and refrained from using certain words in this thread, specifically in an effort to keep this thread from getting locked. And believe me, it's not an easy task on my part. But I think I've done it in my HTF JFK threads. I'm hoping others here will do likewise with their tongues. (It hurts a little, but the pain soon subsides.)

Thank you.
Reply
post #94 of 414
6/11/09 at 8:07pm

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

You are correct and I will agree to hold my tongue. But you have to admit it gets pretty boring when it's nothing but "Post crazy theory A, A gets shot down, forget about A and post crazy theory B, B gets shot down, forget about B and post crazy theory C, etc."
Reply
post #95 of 414
6/11/09 at 8:16pm

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil*
...we don't believe that you believe in flying saucers,aliens, Loch Ness monsters,or Santa Claus just because your viewpoint differs from ours.

I'd like to point something out. This issue does not resolve around something subjective in which you can have differing opinions it revolves around something that in the end has one right answer only, because the events of November 22, 1963 happened one way only and ultimately someone is right and everyone else who says it wasn't that way is wrong. The problem is that conspiracy buffdom is too filled with people who have more of a vested interest in tying the assassination to an ideological type of agenda ("the government is evil" etc.) than in letting the honest factual evidence dictate our determination of how events unfolded. The notion that "we don't know enough to ever know the truth" is a giant cop-out and an assertion that doesn't square with any proper historical methodological analysis of this subject, given the overwhelming amount of information that *is* available to us. The people who question the lone assassin argument have to put up or shut up regarding their take on just *how* this happened and stop hiding behind the "reasonable doubt" game. Honest historical scholarship and the sensible use of basic historical methodological principles is what's requried and if conspiracy buffs (as so many do) don't follow those principles, they don't end up with my respect.
Reply
post #96 of 414
6/11/09 at 10:45pm

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

Too bad that 70% of the American public today disagrees with the Oswald LNT. Maybe that's why there's such hostility, because it's still a minority belief. And what about the HSCA findings? They're wrong but the Warren Commission is right. Let me ask you this, LNT people. If the WC found there was a conspiracy, which would have been shocking if they had, do you honestly believe they would have let the public know about it?
Reply
post #97 of 414
6/11/09 at 10:55pm

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

Neil, the game of historical research doesn't rely on public opinion polls, especially when about 95% of the 70% you cite are not likely to have READ the entire Warren Commision testimony and proceedings of 26 volumes and are influenced mostly by the dishonest presentations of conspiracy authors and filmmakers who with their slick packaging, selective presentation of information and in other cases, outright lying present a misleading picture regarding the nature of the evidence.

Case in point. I once saw the aforementioned Robert Groden lie through his teeth to an audience of 100 people at Villanova University, when he presented the Zapruder film with phony sound effects of seven gunshots dubbed in to tell us when the shots supposedly were, and more than a dozen people I talked to afterwards were convinced they had heard an AUTHENTIC soundtrack of seven gunshots on the Z-film, when there is no such thing (and Groden did not tell his audience what he had done).

Groden also lied to this same group by telling the audience in a hushed tone of voice that the Secret Service had changed the motorcade route at the last minute and then he whispered in low tones how Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell was the brother of some general (translation, the Dallas mayor was somehow in on it!) But alas for Groden, if anyone bothers to READ the Warren Commission, one would find there was NO change in the motorcade route at the last minute, and that in fact, the motorcade route was determined by virtue of the fact that once the Dallas Trade Mart was decided for JFK's luncheon speech, then under Dallas traffic law, that motorcade route was the one they had to take. And who was it who made the decision that JFK would speak at the Trade Mart, and thus was ultimately the one responsible for why JFK drove past the School Book Depository and the Grassy Knoll? Why none other than Governor John Connally, who was wounded in the assassination, so I guess Governor Connally was martyring himself on behalf of the conspiracy that he had to be a part of!

Start doing some reading for a change instead of repeating the same old mantras, because it's not going to work with those of us who actually bothered to follow the rules of how honest historical research is done. If you did, you'd then find out that the HSCA *upheld* the Warren Commission on *all* details of importance. Oswald guilty? HSCA said yes. Oswald the only one who fired a gun that wounded JFK and Connally? HSCA said the WC was right. Oswald killed Officer Tippit? HSCA said yes, too. The Single Bullett THeory? The HSCA said that was right too. In fact, the HSCA was about to release a report saying "no evidence of a conspiracy" but at the last minute, their opportunistic chief counsel Robert Blakey, who was hell-bent determined to prove a Mafia killed JFK thesis, pushed the notion of "evidence" of a fourth gun shot based on a dictabelt recording that allegedly picked up the impulse patterns of four shots (not the sounds of actual gunshots. Of course, the fact that the earwitnessnes we were talking about before overwhelmingly said only THREE shots seems not to matter on this point). And on that one smidgen of evidence, the HSCA suddenly at the last minute talked about a "missed fourth shot" despite the fact there was no other evidence to support it.

And then guess what happened to that dictabelt evidence that was the only thing that pointed to a fourth shot? In 1982, a new study by the National Council on Ballistics and Sciences totally discredited the dictabelt recording and found that it did not come from a motorcycle in the motorcade but a parked motorcycle at the Trade Mart. Plus, at the time of the impulse patterns that are supposedly gunshots you can hear the voice of the Dallas sherriff saying something that didn't happen until more than a minute after the assassination.

So the bottom line is, if you want to cite the HSCA, you've got a problem because the HSCA after you take out that one item that was discredited by subsequent study, upholds the WC in all key details.
Reply
post #98 of 414
6/11/09 at 11:20pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Brock
Too bad that 70% of the American public today disagrees with the Oswald LNT. Maybe that's why there's such hostility, because it's still a minority belief.

Well, so much for the honesty of a conspiracy theorist named Neil (or "Danny").

Just funnin', Neil/Danny. (Please take note of smiley face below....)




Quote:
And what about the HSCA findings? They're wrong but the Warren Commission is right.

Of course. Exactly. (Well, as far as their "conspiracy" findings go, the HSCA was wrong, yes.)

Why?

Because the one and only thing that the HSCA had to hang their "conspiracy" hat on -- the silly acoustics/Dictabelt -- has since been 100% trashed and debunked. Here's just one of the latest "debunkings" of the HSCA's "evidence of a fourth shot":

ANALYSIS OF THE ACOUSTICS EVIDENCE IN THE JFK ASSASSINATION

And I can simplify things even more than Mr. Dale K. Myers did (although Dale did a superlative job of synchonizing all of the various assassination films together).....

By looking at just the Robert Hughes Film alone, the HSCA's "4th Shot" acoustics theory can be totally derailed. Here:

Debunking The HSCA's Acoustics Evidence

This still frame from the Hughes Film is the key:




Quote:
Let me ask you this, LNT people. If the WC found there was a conspiracy, which would have been shocking if they had, do you honestly believe they would have let the public know about it?

Of course they would have. Why not? After all, another U.S. Government investigation into the same murder (the HSCA) announced to the world that there was a "95% or greater" chance that a multi-gun plot ended President Kennedy's life, didn't they?*

* = Granted, the House Select Committee desperately wanted to find a conspiracy in the case, IMO. But many conspiracy theorists seem to conveniently forget that the HSCA came to the exact same identical conclusion about the identity of the one and only man who fired any bullets into any victims on Elm Street on November 22, 1963 -- and that man just happened to be every conspiracist's favorite "Patsy For All 11/22/63 Murders In Dallas, Texas" -- Lee H. Oswald.

And the HSCA also happened to fully support the Warren Commission's conclusion that one single bullet (CE399) did, indeed, travel through both JFK and Governor Connally. The WC and HSCA disagreed about the exact timing of that "SBT" gunshot, but both organizations agreed that the SBT was the correct solution to the double-man wounding on Elm Street. And that's a "WC/HSCA In Harmony" fact that a lot of conspiracy promoters like to forget about as well.

And let me ask the anti-SBTers this -- How likely is it that BOTH the Warren boys and the HSCA were both totally wrong about such an important part of the investigation into the President's murder (especially the HSCA, which, as I mentioned, certainly wasn't shy about telling the world that a multi-gun conspiracy did probably exist to kill JFK)?

As author Vincent Bugliosi said in his 2007 JFK book, the Single-Bullet Theory is "so obvious that a child could author it". I couldn't agree more, Vince.

Speaking of the Single-Bullet Theory.....

I've yet to meet the man (or woman....or alien beast from a dying planet) who can successfully undermine and discredit the common sense that I wrote in the following SBT piece. Maybe Neil/Danny will be the first (since he's apparently not quite "done" with this thread after all):

The Single-Bullet Theory: A Common-Sense Approach

www.Twitter.com/DavidVonPein

logo_analog_off-vfl102489.gif
Reply
post #99 of 414
6/13/09 at 7:43am

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Brock
Too bad that 70% of the American public today disagrees with the Oswald LNT.

At one point, 100% of the public thought the world was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth. Does that mean they were right?

And I thought you were done with this thread?
Reply
post #100 of 414
6/13/09 at 9:01am

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

see post below
Reply
post #101 of 414
6/13/09 at 9:06am

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie
An expert in firearms would know the Manlicher-Carcano was considered a modern rifle. As for me, I've been collecting and firing firearms, including the gunsmithing of black powder replica weapons, since I was 13. Which is why I know a rube in firearms knowledge when I hear one.



Actually, I attacked your knowledge of firearms. The "Skippy" thing was addressing the arrogance of the question (you'd think you wouldn't ask a question you didn't know the answer to, eh?) As far as personal attacks are concerned, I believe the personal attacks started with your post above. When confronted with a fact, you attacked me instead of addressing the fact that you are 100% wrong . . . again. Besides, some of you conspiracy people are really, really crazy!!

So people who have a different view of events than you are:1)Skippies 2)arrogant 3)100% wrong 4) really,really crazy. ...and you've been collecting firearms since you were 13? If you and I should ever meet...I hope I'm wise enough to keep my distance.
Reply
post #102 of 414
6/13/09 at 9:15am

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil*
So people who have a different view of events than you are:1)Skippies 2)arrogant 3)100% wrong 4) really,really crazy. ...and you've been collecting firearms since you were 13? If you and I should ever meet...I hope I'm wise enough to keep my distance.

So now you think people who collect firearms are inherently dangerous, and yet you whine about me disparaging you? I feel you really should take a look back at yourself when you speak about people who, "when confronted with a view that is diametrically opposed to their own,feel cornered,and lash out with belittling comments." I corrected your ignorant and inaccurate statement. You've done nothing but criticize me personally ever since I (yet again) shot holes in your delusional beliefs (pun very much intended). Physician, heal thyself.


And by the way, when speaking about Kennedy conspiracy buffs, the only thing I know for sure about their character or mental status is your #3 above.
Reply
post #103 of 414
6/13/09 at 9:30am

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie
So now you think people who collect firearms are inherently dangerous, and yet you whine about me disparaging you? I feel you really should take a look back at yourself when you speak about people who, "when confronted with a view that is diametrically opposed to their own,feel cornered,and lash out with belittling comments." I corrected your ignorant and inaccurate statement. You've done nothing but criticize me personally ever since I (yet again) shot holes in your delusional beliefs (pun very much intended). Physician, heal thyself.


And by the way, when speaking about Kennedy conspiracy buffs, the only thing I know for sure about their character or mental status is your #3 above.

Hmm...you seem to have a great deal of pent up anger and you own firearms...you know, some people would say that you sound a great deal like...Lee Harvey Oswald!
Reply
post #104 of 414
6/13/09 at 9:40am

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil*
Hmm...you seem to have a great deal of pent up anger and you own firearms...you know, some people would say that you sound a great deal like...Lee Harvey Oswald!

Where exactly do you get the idea I have pent up anger? Methinks you are projecting just a little too much, because I'm actually pretty mellow. By the way, aren't you the one who said that us "lone nutters" are prone to lashing out and personally attacking you poor, misunderstood conspiracy buffs who only wish to discuss the evidence? The irony is simply amazing. Who knew that the only thing I had to do to disprove that little bit of disparaging nonsense is . . . wait.
Reply
post #105 of 414
6/13/09 at 9:53am

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie
Where exactly do you get the idea I have pent up anger?

It was a wild guess.
Reply
post #106 of 414
6/13/09 at 9:57am

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil*
So people who have a different view of events than you are:1)Skippies 2)arrogant 3)100% wrong 4) really,really crazy. ...and you've been collecting firearms since you were 13? If you and I should ever meet...I hope I'm wise enough to keep my distance.
Are you going to admit that the facts show that your ballyhooing of the "puffs of firearm smoke" claim is utterly baseless, or are you going to continue to try to divert attention from your demonstrably false claim by talking about Jeff instead of the assassination? This is very tiresome.
Reply
post #107 of 414
6/13/09 at 9:58am

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil*
It was a wild guess.

Care to discuss the evidence in this case, or are you just going to post ever more disparaging (not to mention inaccurate) personal attacks? Talk about pent up anger; we don't even know each other and yet you've spent the last hour launching personal barb after personal barb my way. Grow up, you child.
Reply
post #108 of 414
6/13/09 at 10:07am

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie
Care to discuss the evidence in this case, or are you just going to post ever more disparaging (not to mention inaccurate) personal attacks? Talk about pent up anger; we don't even know each other and yet you've spent the last hour launching personal barb after personal barb my way. Grow up, you child.

You seem to be intent on proving my allegations...
Reply
post #109 of 414
6/13/09 at 10:09am

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

Quote:
On the contrary,most of us encourage debate as long as this discourse is civil and relevant to the topic at hand. Sadly, there are those individuals,such as yourself,who, when confronted with a view that is diametrically opposed to their own,feel cornered,and lash out with belittling comments. In my view, it is this attitude,which is FAR MORE PREVALENT among the "lone nutters" than it is for the "conspiracy theorists" goes a long way towards explaining where the REAL truth lies in this case.

I'm going to call Merriam-Webster and have them post a link to the above next to their online definition of the phrase "hoisted on your own petard."
Reply
post #110 of 414
6/13/09 at 10:13am

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil*
You seem to be intent on proving my allegations...

As opposed to you, who have done your best at disproving your allegations. Keep up the personal attacks Mr. "Us conspiracy buffs only want to talk nicely about the evidence, but the lone nutters always resort to personal attacks!!"

And by the way, if you really sense pent up anger in my posts, I suggest you look up the definition of "projection" (in the psychiatric sense). I'm about as far from "pent up" as Ghandi.
Reply
post #111 of 414
6/13/09 at 10:19am

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie
As opposed to you, who have done your best at disproving your allegations. Keep up the personal attacks Mr. "Us conspiracy buffs only want to talk nicely about the evidence, but the lone nutters always resort to personal attacks!!"

And by the way, if you really sense pent up anger in my posts, I suggest you look up the definition of "projection" (in the psychiatric sense). I'm about as far from "pent up" as Ghandi.
Actually...I wouldn't be at all surprised if you claimed you WERE Ghandi...
Reply
post #112 of 414
6/13/09 at 10:21am

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil*
Actually...I wouldn't be at all surprised if you claimed you WERE Ghandi...


Quote:
Originally Posted by phil*
Your reference to me as "Skippy" unfortunately is typical of the condescending manner that the "lone nut did it" camp has for anybody with a different view from theirs; while there are individuals on both sides of this argument who take their beliefs to the extreme,it is far more common for the "lone nut" theorists to resort to personal attacks on those individuals who believe that this tragic event was the result of a conspiracy. You will be hard pressed to find many individuals who believe in the "conspiracy" version who label the "lone nutters" as being nuts themselves because of their beliefs...we don't believe that you believe in flying saucers,aliens, Loch Ness monsters,or Santa Claus just because your viewpoint differs from ours. On the contrary,most of us encourage debate as long as this discourse is civil and relevant to the topic at hand. Sadly, there are those individuals,such as yourself,who, when confronted with a view that is diametrically opposed to their own,feel cornered,and lash out with belittling comments. In my view, it is this attitude,which is FAR MORE PREVALENT among the "lone nutters" than it is for the "conspiracy theorists" goes a long way towards explaining where the REAL truth lies in this case.

Reply
post #113 of 414
6/13/09 at 10:25am

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie

Ghandi was a great man...I was paying you a compliment...
Reply
post #114 of 414
6/13/09 at 10:27am

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil*
Ghandi was a great man...I was paying you a compliment...

Are you trying to get the thread locked?
Reply
post #115 of 414
6/13/09 at 10:31am

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie
Are you trying to get the thread locked?

No...why would I do that...I would much rather debate the facts in this case.. but only if you promise to remain calm...sorry..I forgot...you're...mellow..
Reply
post #116 of 414
6/13/09 at 10:33am

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil*
No...why would I do that...I would much rather debate the facts in this case.. but only if you promise to remain calm...sorry..I forgot...you're...mellow..

Congratulations, you are the first person on the HTF that I've ever put on ignore.
Reply
post #117 of 414
6/13/09 at 10:52am

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie
Congratulations, you are the first person on the HTF that I've ever put on ignore.

Too bad....I really wanted to debate the facts of this case with you...
Reply
post #118 of 414
6/13/09 at 10:58am

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

I can't believe that this thread degenerated into an argument.
Reply
post #119 of 414
6/13/09 at 11:12am

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisR
I can't believe that this thread degenerated into an argument.

Neither can I.
Reply
post #120 of 414
6/13/09 at 11:50am

Re: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie
Neither can I.

That makes 3 of us.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: TV on DVD and Blu-ray
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › TV on DVD and Blu-ray › "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review