Cat_Lover
I need some sources for a research project, and I have been looking online for websites. I was just wondering if there was any one website that would be best to find information on this subject.
Thanks to anyone with helpful answers ahead of time.
Answer
There are none at all. There simply was no conspiracy. Therefore no "reliable" conspiracy websites.
All websites and books on the subject always begin either with some litany of facts which swiftly devolves into the author's personal diatribe on the subject with the transition from fact to fiction being done sometimes as well as a Paul Harvey transition from news to commercial but usually to some lesser degree of skill OR they just start out ranting and toss a few facts in here and there.
I prefer the latter as they are easier to spot and guard one's brain against. The former are much more insidious, akin to reading a Neo-Nazi's diatribe against the brown races of the world so as to understand your enemy but picking up a few things in your head as you read that a couple years later you don't remember the source of: they just float around in the general mass of knowledge you have and you regard them as facts BECAUSE you don't remember their utterly spurious source. "Good" JFK conspiracy work is exactly that. You pick up some things as facts that are nothing of the sort and lose track of how you "learned" them and gradually you come to believe because more things you read tally exactly with the "facts" in your general store of knowledge: it all becomes so clear...
Every single one of the main characters pushing this garbage: a) is in it for the money: it's just simpler than working for a living as they cannot take orders from a boss and Dairy Queen (their competence level in actual work) doesn't pay as well as books and speaker's fees, and b) has had enough contact of their own with spy agencies and other government figures to qualify as much as the nutjob Oswald for anyone else's conspiracy theories: If one of these authors ever assassinated a government official, those contacts would easily let a whole new generation of theorists to pose that guy's conspiracy genre.
Personally, I'd like my chance to point out my guess about things IF, and only if, something more actually did occur. I am certain the evidence actually only supports Oswald doing the killing so I'm not presenting it as something to replace that.
IF, and only if, there were more gunmen I say Kennedy certainly had many enemies, his own personally and his father's, and the path and speeds taken that day were unique in their vulnerability and the publicity about them. The switchback the car approached as Oswald shot was the most vulnerable a US President has been since that day probably. The car was coming directly toward Oswald, an amateur marksman (military training to shoot is pretty basic and so the skill needed to win shooting medals from the military is about the level of the skill needed for winning a Purple Heart), and had to slow to almost a crawl to turn. As an amateur, you'd expect Oswald to pick the book depository. I would have. I have the skill to easily shoot better than he did and I have less training than he though probably more practice as I've lived longer than he managed. That's part of why it's so clear the Oswald really did it. Part. However, the point is, people claimed to have seen two other gunfire sources. No one claims both mind you, all witnesses claiming other sources claim only one or the other but leave that aside. The two other sources, if real, were where you'd expect professionals to be, behind the car. Same essentially straight shots, but without everyone looking at you, seeing your location instantly, and pursuing you immediately. Organized crime is charged with one, the CIA with the other.
So. Why couldn't there have been THREE different, unconnected, attempts on JFK that day? Even an amateur who never assassinated anyone else in his life like Oswald saw the value of that corner. Maybe there were three different gunmen and maybe each of the pros were aware of Oswald and so picked a compatible weapon. Though not likely aware of each other until events played out, they could have been waiting for Oswald the nutjob to fire and then both opened up to make sure a bullet really ended up where Oswald intended. Perhaps that's why Oswald stuttered his fire rather than Bang-aim-breathe-Bang-aim-breathe-Bang his way through it. Maybe he just really expected his first shot to be perfect and only fired two more times when he found the real world didn't work like Westerns.
No one else suggests that! My theory is just as valid as theirs and can explain every false issue they bring up. Every. Single. One. Yet you aren't going to regard mine as valid. Examine that and you'll find the only difference is that I stated going in that I don't believe it. I don't push it. I don't mix in falsehood, innuendo, poor reasoning, and lots of confidence in my theory and certainty that there are many somewhat unspecified powers out to get me for it. So mine, which explains every single falsehood they propound and presents an even juicier "plot" environment is still poo-poo'ed and theirs are still honored.
That should gi
There are none at all. There simply was no conspiracy. Therefore no "reliable" conspiracy websites.
All websites and books on the subject always begin either with some litany of facts which swiftly devolves into the author's personal diatribe on the subject with the transition from fact to fiction being done sometimes as well as a Paul Harvey transition from news to commercial but usually to some lesser degree of skill OR they just start out ranting and toss a few facts in here and there.
I prefer the latter as they are easier to spot and guard one's brain against. The former are much more insidious, akin to reading a Neo-Nazi's diatribe against the brown races of the world so as to understand your enemy but picking up a few things in your head as you read that a couple years later you don't remember the source of: they just float around in the general mass of knowledge you have and you regard them as facts BECAUSE you don't remember their utterly spurious source. "Good" JFK conspiracy work is exactly that. You pick up some things as facts that are nothing of the sort and lose track of how you "learned" them and gradually you come to believe because more things you read tally exactly with the "facts" in your general store of knowledge: it all becomes so clear...
Every single one of the main characters pushing this garbage: a) is in it for the money: it's just simpler than working for a living as they cannot take orders from a boss and Dairy Queen (their competence level in actual work) doesn't pay as well as books and speaker's fees, and b) has had enough contact of their own with spy agencies and other government figures to qualify as much as the nutjob Oswald for anyone else's conspiracy theories: If one of these authors ever assassinated a government official, those contacts would easily let a whole new generation of theorists to pose that guy's conspiracy genre.
Personally, I'd like my chance to point out my guess about things IF, and only if, something more actually did occur. I am certain the evidence actually only supports Oswald doing the killing so I'm not presenting it as something to replace that.
IF, and only if, there were more gunmen I say Kennedy certainly had many enemies, his own personally and his father's, and the path and speeds taken that day were unique in their vulnerability and the publicity about them. The switchback the car approached as Oswald shot was the most vulnerable a US President has been since that day probably. The car was coming directly toward Oswald, an amateur marksman (military training to shoot is pretty basic and so the skill needed to win shooting medals from the military is about the level of the skill needed for winning a Purple Heart), and had to slow to almost a crawl to turn. As an amateur, you'd expect Oswald to pick the book depository. I would have. I have the skill to easily shoot better than he did and I have less training than he though probably more practice as I've lived longer than he managed. That's part of why it's so clear the Oswald really did it. Part. However, the point is, people claimed to have seen two other gunfire sources. No one claims both mind you, all witnesses claiming other sources claim only one or the other but leave that aside. The two other sources, if real, were where you'd expect professionals to be, behind the car. Same essentially straight shots, but without everyone looking at you, seeing your location instantly, and pursuing you immediately. Organized crime is charged with one, the CIA with the other.
So. Why couldn't there have been THREE different, unconnected, attempts on JFK that day? Even an amateur who never assassinated anyone else in his life like Oswald saw the value of that corner. Maybe there were three different gunmen and maybe each of the pros were aware of Oswald and so picked a compatible weapon. Though not likely aware of each other until events played out, they could have been waiting for Oswald the nutjob to fire and then both opened up to make sure a bullet really ended up where Oswald intended. Perhaps that's why Oswald stuttered his fire rather than Bang-aim-breathe-Bang-aim-breathe-Bang his way through it. Maybe he just really expected his first shot to be perfect and only fired two more times when he found the real world didn't work like Westerns.
No one else suggests that! My theory is just as valid as theirs and can explain every false issue they bring up. Every. Single. One. Yet you aren't going to regard mine as valid. Examine that and you'll find the only difference is that I stated going in that I don't believe it. I don't push it. I don't mix in falsehood, innuendo, poor reasoning, and lots of confidence in my theory and certainty that there are many somewhat unspecified powers out to get me for it. So mine, which explains every single falsehood they propound and presents an even juicier "plot" environment is still poo-poo'ed and theirs are still honored.
That should gi
Hi Gays and Lesbain friends,dou you know that gay sex is punishable by death...?
Q. In 7 countries, and another 70 it's still illegal and you might go to JAIL? Or be castrated or have to perform community service (thats picking up rubbish to the uneducated)
Answer
Yes,
and in some a women can be put to death if her husband says she had an affair.
Some places they kill women who are victims of rape.
In other lands the family decide who the children will marry, the children have no say in it.
I saw a video of a 6 year old boy who was caught stealing, his arm was held as a car drove over it.
There are also many examples of western people in third world countries trying to ease the suffering, but the local government feeling pressure say these people are spy's so have them killed.
I was mildly amused by a news report where all these Christian missionaries were shot dead.
The driver begged to be spared, he only escaped a bullet to the head because he told them he is a Muslim and then he was able to say several passages from the Koran.
It was this that amused me. If he was a true believer he would not have begged for his life as he would have had no fear of death. What he in fact did by begging and grasping at possible ways to save his life was he prove he is an infidel.
I say. The silly Muslims killed the wrong people. Despite the Christian missionaries not being Muslim, at least they believe in God.
So yes your right. The world is full of nutters.
Yes,
and in some a women can be put to death if her husband says she had an affair.
Some places they kill women who are victims of rape.
In other lands the family decide who the children will marry, the children have no say in it.
I saw a video of a 6 year old boy who was caught stealing, his arm was held as a car drove over it.
There are also many examples of western people in third world countries trying to ease the suffering, but the local government feeling pressure say these people are spy's so have them killed.
I was mildly amused by a news report where all these Christian missionaries were shot dead.
The driver begged to be spared, he only escaped a bullet to the head because he told them he is a Muslim and then he was able to say several passages from the Koran.
It was this that amused me. If he was a true believer he would not have begged for his life as he would have had no fear of death. What he in fact did by begging and grasping at possible ways to save his life was he prove he is an infidel.
I say. The silly Muslims killed the wrong people. Despite the Christian missionaries not being Muslim, at least they believe in God.
So yes your right. The world is full of nutters.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment