1. New to the board or trying to figure out how something works here? Check out the User Guide.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Hot Topics is open from 8:30 AM - 4 PM ET Mon - Fri.

    Dismiss Notice
  3. 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.

Is everyone missing the point?

Discussion in '11/22/63' started by Joe Holt, Dec 20, 2015.

?

Do you believe Lee Oswald assassinated President Kennedy?

  1. yes

  2. no

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Aloysius Nell

    Aloysius Nell Well-Known Member

    Tippit, not Tibbit. Just saying.
     
  2. kay brown

    kay brown Well-Known Member

    Correct..the brain what can ya do..
     
  3. GNTLGNT

    GNTLGNT The idiot is IN

  4. staropeace

    staropeace Richard Bachman's love child

  5. Doc Creed

    Doc Creed Well-Known Member

    Mic drop!:run_pig:
     
    kingricefan and GNTLGNT like this.
  6. mal

    mal Well-Known Member

    kingricefan, Neesy and GNTLGNT like this.
  7. Dana Jean

    Dana Jean Reformed Dirty Pirate Hooker Moderator

    What kind of pasty are we talking about?

    Stripper pasty or some sort of doughy tart?
     
    kingricefan, Neesy and GNTLGNT like this.
  8. mal

    mal Well-Known Member

    Stripper pasty. I tried putting it with the stripper banana but I guess it didn't work. Rats!
     
  9. mal

    mal Well-Known Member

    Now that I read your question over I once saw a stripper who was a doughy tart.
     
  10. Alternate Reality

    Alternate Reality Active Member

    I for sure believe Oswald was there and trying to shoot him, however, I don't believe he was the one who got the kill shot. To make a long story short, I don't believe he had the skills to make that shot. Just my opinion of course!
     
  11. kay brown

    kay brown Well-Known Member

    I agree with you 100% in that LH Oswald did not even fire a shot at JFK. Jim Marrs book "Crossfire" absolutely shreds the case against Lee H Oswald..but on this forum you will not find many who do not support King and his belief that Oswald was guilty....in fact this forum in my experience has been somewhat hostile to advocating his innocence.
     
    mal, kingricefan and Neesy like this.
  12. Neesy

    Neesy #1 fan (Annie Wilkes cousin) 1st cousin Mom's side

    Sorry about that - I don't think anyone wanted to come across as hostile - most try to be respectful of the other person's opinions
    :watermelon:
     
  13. Dana Jean

    Dana Jean Reformed Dirty Pirate Hooker Moderator

    I think you took good natured teasing as hostile?
     
    mal, kingricefan, Neesy and 1 other person like this.
  14. Philzilla

    Philzilla Well-Known Member

    Jim Marrs :thumbs_down:
    Jim Marrs couldn't shred his own wheat.
     
    mal, kingricefan and GNTLGNT like this.
  15. Alternate Reality

    Alternate Reality Active Member

    Who does Jim Marrs think did it?
     
    mal, kingricefan, Neesy and 1 other person like this.
  16. Robert Gray

    Robert Gray Well-Known Member

    I do think quite a few people are missing the point. Let me reiterate. The reason the Kennedy assassination was important for this book is BECAUSE we don't know and there is so much conjecture. King wrote about an ethical man granted access and thus profound power. The point of the book was never to convince you that Oswald did or didn't kill Kennedy. It was about the protagonist's journey. It was, in fact, just the "situation" and no more than that. Those fixated on arguing about the real world events clearly miss the forest for the trees. What is more, King writes about alternate realities all the time and this one is clearly no different. It even works into the text itself how altering the past is creating more realities based on what if in an endless cascade. So, before I belabor this beyond sanity, get over it.
     
    Philzilla, kingricefan, Neesy and 2 others like this.
  17. Tery

    Tery Dreaming in Middletown Moderator

  18. chief4db

    chief4db When it doubt, run!

    Yes, Oswald the scum took him out. He hit bottom and was a trained shooter. If she would have said there was a chance of working on their relationship he probably would not have gone thru with it.
     
    Neesy, mal, GNTLGNT and 1 other person like this.
  19. twiggymarie

    twiggymarie Daughter of One

    I always took the point of the book being that messing with time always has consequences, (and not necessarily good ones), even when what you would change seems like it would be a noble cause, and one needing change. That was just my take on it.
     
    mal, Neesy, kingricefan and 1 other person like this.
  20. RichardX

    RichardX Well-Known Member

    I agree that King's book is a work of fiction and not intended as a primer on the JFK assassination. King has, however, both in his book and at public events layed out the case against Oswald. That evidence is persuasive. There is no real conjecture about Oswald's guilt from King's perspective either in the context of this book or outside it. It is not an "alternative reality." It wasn't ambiguity regarding Oswald's guilt that made him select the JFK assassination to drive the fictional plot but rather what would happen if a major historical event was altered (i.e. Oswald was stopped from assassinating JFK). I agree though that the topic of Oswald's guilt is generally pointless to debate. My experience with JFK conspiracy theorists is that no amount of evidence or common sense can ever change their opinion. It is a matter of faith-based belief in how the world works that this had to be the work of sinister forces that control all major events. If they were capable of exercising reason and common sense, they would not be conspiracy theorists to begin with. So the better argument for not engaging in these endless debates in my opinion is that no one will ever change their mind. The history books record that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK. Every official investigation has reached that same conclusion. The evidence overwhelmingly supports that conclusion for any reasonable person who takes the time to study the basic case. The fact that some can never be convinced of this obvious conclusion is meaningless when the facts and circumstances support Oswald's guilt.
     

Share This Page

The Outsider - Coming May 22nd