Is everyone missing the point?

  • New to the board or trying to figure out how something works here? Check out the User Guide.
  • Hot Topics is on indefinite hiatus.

  • The message board is closed between the hours of 4pm ET Friday and 8:30am ET Monday.

    As always, the Board will be open to read and those who have those privileges can still send private messages and post to Profiles.

Do you believe Lee Oswald assassinated President Kennedy?

  • yes

  • no


Results are only viewable after voting.

muskrat

Dis-Member
Nov 8, 2010
4,486
19,225
Under your bed
People ask me who killed JFK I say, 'Nobody.' He faked his death, just like Elvis, and the two spent many a lazy Sunday sharing peanut butter banana bacon sandwiches and playing miniature golf. I mean, they're dead by now, rest their souls, but they oulived the sixties in a duplex apartment in Salem, Indiana and made decent wages as lookalike entertainers. Everybody knows this.
 

kay brown

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2016
77
73
61
You're putting a whole lot more stock into what is meant by "likes" than the way they're used here. Many members use a like just to acknowledge that they've read a post or to acknowledge someone's point of view. It does not necessarily signify an agreement with it that in and of itself signifies disagreement with someone else's.

We get it, you don't believe that Oswald didn't do it but the "tone" that is coming across whether intended or not when you "inform" people about your point of view and reasons for believing he didn't do it are what's causing the rankling from other members. Those who don't believe there was a conspiracy and/or other shooters have just as much right to believe the evidence that has been provided thus far and to not believe the "evidence" that you've provided that in your mind proves there was a conspiracy and Oswald wasn't the only (or the) shooter. They really don't need someone repeatedly telling them they are wrong anymore than you want to be told that you are and that if only they would take a minute to read/watch it, then they will change their mind and see the light.
No I am not putting any stock in anything other than the facts... a persons screen name next to the words "likes this" .. pretty much says they like this ..I would "ask" you to go back in this the thread of this post in all my comments and copy/paste where I am "telling people they are wrong"..as you just stated...using those words.. there should be many incidents as you just said and I quote "repeatedly" telling them they are wrong"... this is a controversial topic and there are sides .. please show me in this post where I have used the words ..where I am telling some one they are wrong...and if I have and please use the reply # I will acknowledge it ... now I did say people were wrong in another post ... one that I started...and I toned it down there after.. after everyone flipped out .. but I don't think I did this one ... ..why I keep replying is there a bias that I perceive ..an unfairness ...from the members to the certain moderators... yeah I get it .. no one wants to hear what I have to say ...... including you which is obvious ...would you also go back and list the reply # where you have publicly chastised other members who have been negative towards me .. have used not only a tone but words that were insulting towards me" ... where you have went on for a few paragraphs telling them what is wrong about their behavior ...does it matter that what they say in that respect towards me rankles me? ...or does it only matter that they get rankled.. of course it doesn't.
 

Moderator

Ms. Mod
Administrator
Jul 10, 2006
47,477
122,562
Maine
No I am not putting any stock in anything other than the facts... a persons screen name next to the words "likes this" .. pretty much says they like this ..I would "ask" you to go back in this the thread of this post in all my comments and copy/paste where I am "telling people they are wrong"..as you just stated...using those words.. there should be many incidents as you just said and I quote "repeatedly" telling them they are wrong"... this is a controversial topic and there are sides .. please show me in this post where I have used the words ..where I am telling some one they are wrong...and if I have and please use the reply # I will acknowledge it ... now I did say people were wrong in another post ... one that I started...and I toned it down there after.. after everyone flipped out .. but I don't think I did this one ... ..why I keep replying is there a bias that I perceive ..an unfairness ...from the members to the certain moderators... yeah I get it .. no one wants to hear what I have to say ...... including you which is obvious ...would you also go back and list the reply # where you have publicly chastised other members who have been negative towards me .. have used not only a tone but words that were insulting towards me" ... where you have went on for a few paragraphs telling them what is wrong about their behavior ...does it matter that what they say in that respect towards me rankles me? ...or does it only matter that they get rankled.. of course it doesn't.
Sorry, but I've got a lot of other things that are higher on my priority list of things to do. If you don't get it that it's your tone that's coming across in that way, then you don't get it. We can agree to disagree.
 

muskrat

Dis-Member
Nov 8, 2010
4,486
19,225
Under your bed
Sorry, but I've got a lot of other things that are higher on my priority list of things to do. If you don't get it that it's your tone that's coming across in that way, then you don't get it. We can agree to disagree.
Poor Marsha! You have my permission to 'Irish up' your next cup of coffee if you so desire. Maybe have yer significant other massage yer feet tonight.
 
Oct 13, 2015
748
5,728
35
Rhode Island
Oh I'm gonna get in trouble for this but I can't help myself. I mean no disrespect but again I can't help myself. I have this weird kind of dyslexic thing that often makes me see written things wrong. There's a tea shop by where I live that says "Tea Time", at first glance I always see it as "Eat Me". Long story short. When I see this thread in the new posts, I see "Is Everyone Passing the Joint?" I shall see myself out now, no need to call the bouncer.

(Edited, as I had to go buy a question mark.)
Haha, that's ok, Patricia! I was just scanning the last few pages of this thread and I keep reading "patsy" as "pasty." Oswald was a pasty (pastie?) And now I'm giggling like an 8-year-old. I'm clearly very mature. ;)

P.S.--I don't mean the old English term for pastry; more like the type of pasties that banana above might be thinking about wearing! :biggrin-new:
 

staropeace

Richard Bachman's love child
Nov 28, 2006
15,106
48,030
Alberta,Canada
like I said they come out of the wood work to be offended at me if I respond to someone being negative towards myself.. where as you your self "liked" Aloysius Nell and his comment .." is that you, the pot, have probably been smoking a lot of it." no indignation there I see...and as far as saying the word "typical" it seems to be .. people on here respond to my replys with comments that make no sense... like a guy made a comment on here about not believing in a higher power and I simply "asked" him about the concept of sight and how it came about .. and the human eye that it could just happen to be able to interpret and make use of that concept sight .. and that the concept of colors were threw in there to make it more beautiful .. and I simply asked if he thought it was an accident.. and in response I had a seemingly non-sensible comment attacking me with "sight being all about evolution and how dare I cram my beliefs about sight down someones throat and you ...
....yourself have made your own assertions on here like "Remember that this is a work of fiction. I do not think that Stephen was looking for truth. He was just entertaining us with fiction." which when you say something like that it really makes me wonder whether you actually even read the book or if you know that Stephen King is on record in many interviews stating his belief that he believes Oswald killed Kennedy and his multi-page afterword to his book 11/22/63 states why he believes such.. I think if he was trying to do other than impress his personal belief on Oswald on us as his reader .. he would have stated he was just trying to be entertaining... and yes you don't make to much sense to me when you make statements like that and that if you are really just all about attacking someone for the sake that they do not believe as you... I have asked people here to justify the magic bullet theory... I have asked people on here to justify how they believe a piece of sh*t rifle with a $1.50 scope that the experts could not even sight in until they places metal shims under it .. to justify with facts and reasons why they believe that.. I have put out facts that no one has countered ... like why did LBJ before JFK even was pronounced dead have the secret service scrub with buckets of soapy water and brushes the limousine as it set in the hospital parking lot totally destroying the brain and blood spatter that would have showed he was hit from the front right . .the direction of the grassy knoll ....and I get back comments using the word conspiracy theorist like they are all kooks ..like that explains it all... and jokes about smoking pot or such explains it ... so when I say ... makes no sense .. typical ... that is how it is... at least to me.. anyone on here can believe what they want .. I am responding to comments made to me .. and if this forum was not moderated I would probably sink to lower levels to .. as it is I am pointing out the hypocrisy of some on here. .. I also feel from some comments that they really do not care who shot him and basically why do I not shut up... cause I do care .. and I am responding to the person who originated this post ...that are we all missing the point ..because he asserted as I do that he does not believe the official lie. .and that is what when you look at all the inconsistencies and ...like a bullet in perfect condition setting on the stretcher next to JFK that supposedly defied the laws of physics and caused much muscle and bone damage .. that it has to be a massive cover up of the real facts by members of government that go all the way to LBJ .. to J Edgar Hoover .. to Earl Warren ... to the CIA.. the FBI .. high members of the military .. f**k it
Btw, I have read this book four times. There is no King book that I have not read. I have been on the message board for ten years.
 
Jul 17, 2016
16
54
37
My belief at this point is that the evidence overwhelmingly suggests he was the lone gunman. But even now I'm still careful to say "suggests" rather than "proves". I don't know if it can ever be definitely proven now if he was alone. He was part of it, I'm definitely willing to say the evidence goes so far as to prove that. He WAS in the book depository with that rifle and did take shots. Was he the only one? Was his the only bullets to find a mark? I believe yes. But that part is where I always fall back to "suggestion" rather than "proof".
 

MikiM

Well-Known Member
May 25, 2016
47
142
53
Houston, Texas
I'm always a day late or a dollar short so it doesn't surprise me that only now have I become aware of the film. I know it's fiction. I know Steven King is a terrific writer with an exceptional sense of make believe, but I look on this book as something else, a perpetuation of deliberate falsehoods pertaining to the assassination of John Kennedy. At the end of the book King felt the need to confirm his belief that Lee Oswald was guilty as sin. Seeing as how his book was written prior to Judyth Baker's "Lee and Me" I'd assumed (hoped) Mr. King had read her book by now and come to a different conclusion. It seems I assumed wrongly. Films are a powerful medium in explaining historical events, oft times incorrectly yet the moviegoers immediately take the film at face value with no critical thinking whatsoever. I'm certain this will be the case with this film, sad to say. The fact is Lee Oswald never shot our President. He was a patsy just as he declared prior to his murder. Truth. Honest truth.
***
I don't think he was a patsy...I think he was part of a conspiracy, and did not act alone. My uncle was with the DPD when the assassination occurred, and was one of the cops escorting Oswald when Ruby shot him. That ALSO was part of the conspiracy, as my uncle said that Oswald's transfer was SUPPOSED to be EXTREMELY clandestine. He will not say very much about the assassination, however...only that like I said, Oswald was not the only shooter, he WAS a fall guy, and that if my uncle TL said any more, he along with his entire family tree will disappear. And I mean ENTIRE, down to the last SEED.
 

RichardX

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2006
1,658
4,023
***
I don't think he was a patsy...I think he was part of a conspiracy, and did not act alone. My uncle was with the DPD when the assassination occurred, and was one of the cops escorting Oswald when Ruby shot him. That ALSO was part of the conspiracy, as my uncle said that Oswald's transfer was SUPPOSED to be EXTREMELY clandestine. He will not say very much about the assassination, however...only that like I said, Oswald was not the only shooter, he WAS a fall guy, and that if my uncle TL said any more, he along with his entire family tree will disappear. And I mean ENTIRE, down to the last SEED.
I guess your uncle is in trouble then since you posted this on the Internet! LOL. The transfer of Oswald was not "clandestine" if by that you mean it was supposed to be secret. To contrary and ironically, one of things that got the DPD in trouble was being overly transparent. They did not want to be accused of mistreatment of Oswald and so allowed the press the run of the police station. There was absolute chaos in the halls caused by the reporters. Oswald was allowed to freely speak with the press and even gave a press conference. The DPD announced the time of the transfer to the press the day before and it was carried on national TV. Ruby actually went to send a money order to one of his employees and would have missed the transfer had it happened on schedule. Something he certainly would not have done had he been intending to kill Oswald. Instead he happened to see the commotion and showed up at almost the last second. He left his dog who was by all accounts his most beloved companion in the car. Something those who knew him said he would not have done had his plan been to kill Oswald and go to jail that day. Rather all indications are that it was a spontaneous event.
 

MikiM

Well-Known Member
May 25, 2016
47
142
53
Houston, Texas
I guess your uncle is in trouble then since you posted this on the Internet! LOL. The transfer of Oswald was not "clandestine" if by that you mean it was supposed to be secret. To contrary and ironically, one of things that got the DPD in trouble was being overly transparent. They did not want to be accused of mistreatment of Oswald and so allowed the press the run of the police station. There was absolute chaos in the halls caused by the reporters. Oswald was allowed to freely speak with the press and even gave a press conference. The DPD announced the time of the transfer to the press the day before and it was carried on national TV. Ruby actually went to send a money order to one of his employees and would have missed the transfer had it happened on schedule. Something he certainly would not have done had he been intending to kill Oswald. Instead he happened to see the commotion and showed up at almost the last second. He left his dog who was by all accounts his most beloved companion in the car. Something those who knew him said he would not have done had his plan been to kill Oswald and go to jail that day. Rather all indications are that it was a spontaneous event.
LOL...He was TOLD it was SUPPOSED to be confidential, but you know how THAT goes. Everything I've said is pretty much public record. He wouldn't have said anything to anyone otherwise. He knows a lot more, though. I told him he should write a book to be published posthumously, but he shook his head saying that he worried it would STILL end up with everyone in his family dead. Even TODAY, he still says it. As for Ruby...I don't really put TOO much store into what those who knew him say. We all know how that goes..."But he was such a nice guy! So quiet, loved animals...took in strays all the time.." etc etc etc... :)
 

RichardX

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2006
1,658
4,023
LOL...He was TOLD it was SUPPOSED to be confidential, but you know how THAT goes. Everything I've said is pretty much public record. He wouldn't have said anything to anyone otherwise. He knows a lot more, though. I told him he should write a book to be published posthumously, but he shook his head saying that he worried it would STILL end up with everyone in his family dead. Even TODAY, he still says it. As for Ruby...I don't really put TOO much store into what those who knew him say. We all know how that goes..."But he was such a nice guy! So quiet, loved animals...took in strays all the time.." etc etc etc... :)

That is what they all say just before the hit team comes calling. If you come under any form of coercion, work in a secret code phrase like "the black dog runs at night" to let us know. Ms. Mod will deploy the rescue team. Remember, the conspirators still play hard ball despite their octogenarian status. So don't underestimate them even if they are drooling soup.:cool:
 

chief4db

When it doubt, run!
Feb 11, 2015
733
2,664
whatsamatteru. usa
I believe he shot Kennedy but he did not act alone. He got off 3 shots in 7 seconds with an Italian bolt action rifle. He hit em including a head shot.

They had navy seals try and duplicate that and couldn't do it in perfect conditions. Not to mention no stress that Oswald was under. His heart had to be pounding, sweating in that heat. Seal had barely enough time to cycle threw 3 rounds let alone time to aim.
 
Jul 17, 2016
16
54
37
I dunno, I remember watching a documentary not too long ago where they filmed an elderly gentleman in the same spot, with the same type of rifle, and he got off the 3 shots in about six seconds. That its particularly difficult for someone who's at least halfway decent with a rifle to get three shots off in seven seconds I'm pretty sure was a fallacy perpetuated by the movie JFK. A film which takes A LOT of creative liberties. Which is a nice way of saying it made up almost everything. If you're referring to a different source of course I'd be interested to check out what it was.
 

RichardX

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2006
1,658
4,023
I believe he shot Kennedy but he did not act alone. He got off 3 shots in 7 seconds with an Italian bolt action rifle. He hit em including a head shot.

They had navy seals try and duplicate that and couldn't do it in perfect conditions. Not to mention no stress that Oswald was under. His heart had to be pounding, sweating in that heat. Seal had barely enough time to cycle threw 3 rounds let alone time to aim.

No one knows exactly how long it took Oswald to fire the three shots since there is no way to know when the first and last shot was fired. It could easily have been 10 seconds or longer. The feat has been duplicated by non-experts and the shots were not difficult. CBS did a recreation back in the 60's that confirmed this. The MC rifle used by Oswald was prone to jamming but if it did not jam then it was an efficient rifle easily capable of hitting JFK with a scope at that distance. By comparison, Charles Whitman who received the same USMC training as Oswald, hit human targets at almost three times the distance of Oswald's longest shot in the JFK assassination.

 
Likes: GNTLGNT

kay brown

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2016
77
73
61
***
I don't think he was a patsy...I think he was part of a conspiracy, and did not act alone. My uncle was with the DPD when the assassination occurred, and was one of the cops escorting Oswald when Ruby shot him. That ALSO was part of the conspiracy, as my uncle said that Oswald's transfer was SUPPOSED to be EXTREMELY clandestine. He will not say very much about the assassination, however...only that like I said, Oswald was not the only shooter, he WAS a fall guy, and that if my uncle TL said any more, he along with his entire family tree will disappear. And I mean ENTIRE, down to the last SEED.
I believe you to be correct in that Oswald had prior knowledge that there was to be an attempt to kill JFK. I believe he was a low level cia asset .. I do not believe he fired a gun that day.. I do believe he was set up way in advance to take the fall. I also believe that Ruby was ordered to silence Oswald .. the cia and mob were in bed together from earlier ventures...JFK being killed they were also conjoined but there were other players as well ..ie: Hoover .. LBJ who set the Warren commission up to promote the lone nut theory.. .. in my earlier replys of which garnered much derision I have listed links and infor to support the following ..the man who shot Tibbit who bears a resemblence to Oswald was actually meant to prevent Oswald from being taken into custody by killing him.. however he ran into Tibbit and there ensued a confrontation and he killed Tibbit ( google image search "james files 21 years old" ).. the first picture shows James Files with a dark haired man.. he is the man who Files claims killed Tibbit... research if you desire and form your own opinions.
 
Likes: GNTLGNT
We’ve created a Stephen King Library action for the 
			  Google Assistant and skill for Amazon Alexa. It'll give 
			  you a personalized reading recommendations based on your 
			  answers to a series of questions—so what are you waiting 
			  for? Find out which Stephen King book you should read 
			  next!