Anyone still believe in the JFK assasination conspiracy?

[OzmO]

i don't think i do anymore. 

[Camel Jockey]

According to toxie, the aliens that landed in roswell killed JFK..

In ruins of Babylon Saddam Hussien found a small gold statue of someone similar looking to JFK.. Saddam concluded that it was the evil lord Zenu, dictator of the milky way galaxy. He got this info from a missing portion of the dead sea scrolls that kept in Uday Hussien's bedroom.

Anyways, Saddam took the side of Zenu and that's where the US got alarmed. They killed JFK because he was really Zenu is disguise, or atleast that's what they thought. That was actually a Zenu look a like and Zenu was LBJ and he wanted to dominate the world. He decided to turn on his alley Saddam for oil and that's how it goes.

toxie's explanation covers the iraq war too! now you know!

[seauantea]

Chalk it up to political savvy (or perhaps having a triple digit IQ) but I am inclined to agree with congress that in all likelihood there was a conspiracy. I challenge anyone with unrelated parents to spend a couple hours reading over these findings and not agree:

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/

(or just look at the summary http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html)

I.A. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President
 
I.B. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations
 
I.C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy
 
I.D. Agencies and departments of the U.S. Government performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of their duties. President John F. Kennedy did not receive adequate protection. A thorough and reliable investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination was conducted. The investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate. the conclusions of the investigations were arrived at in good faith, but presented in a fashion that was too definitive

Bear in mind that this is the same Kennedy who attempted to dismantle the CIA and who pissed on the DOD/military industrial complex re Cuba/Vietnam. If you stood to lose not only power but also billions, what would you do?

[headhuntersix]

Kennedy would have gotten more involved in Vietnam..he would not have committed he amounts of troops that we did. It would have looked like Afghanistan. He loved SF and grew their prominence within the Army. The CIA would have had to be part of any war in the Far East. He was committed to stopping the spread of communism.

[seauantea]

What Kennedy would have done is debatable.

What Kennedy did do is not:

1) Kennedy had ordered the return of first 1000 (later, after the successful Diem coup, possibly adjusted to 100's) US "advisors" from Vietnam by the end of 1963. Kennedy's administration expected to be effectively withdrawn from Vietnam by 1965. Keep in mind Kennedy did not want to appear soft on Communism, especially after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, so any talk of complete withdrawal could not have occurred till after the 1964 (re)election (think McCarthy and the Red Scare):

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/state63.htm

Secretary [of Defense Robert S.] McNamara and General [Maxwell D.] Taylor reported to the President this morning and to the National Security Council this afternoon. Their report included a number of classified findings and recommendations which will be the subject of further review and action. Their basic presentation was endorsed by all members of the Security Council and the following statement of United States policy was approved by the President on the basis of recommendations received from them and from Ambassador [Henry Cabot] Lodge.

1. The security of South Viet-Nam is a major interest of the United States as other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working with the people and Government of South Viet-Nam to deny this country to communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy in South Viet-Nam.

2. The military program in South Viet-Nam has made progress and is sound in principle, though improvements are being energetically sought.

3. Major U.S. assistance in support of this military effort is needed only until the insurgency has been suppressed or until the national security forces of the Government of South Viet-Nam are capable of suppressing it.

Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment that the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965, although there may be a continuing requirement for a limited number of U.S. training personnel. They reported that by the end of this year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Viet-Nam can be withdrawn.

4. The political situation in South Viet-Nam remains deeply serious. The United States has made clear its continuing opposition to any repressive actions in South Viet-Nam. While such actions have not yet significantly affected the military effort, they could do so in the future.

5. It remains the policy of the United States, in South Viet-Nam as in other parts of the world, to support the efforts of the people of that country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free society.

2) Perhaps more relevant than Kennedy's Vietnam policy was his track record on the fight against communism. You are correct in saying he wanted to contain communism. However, you forget the lessons learned from the Bay of Pigs, where Kennedy withdrew vital US air support at the last minute thus killing the coup. Instead he was negotiating with Khrushchev and found a diplomatic resolution to the Cuban Missile Crisis. The message was clear: Kennedy values the struggle for peace more than the struggle against communism.

With this in mind, could the military industrial complex really afford to roll the dice with Kennedy over Vietnam?

Links for your edification:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam.htm
(100's of documents relating to the Vietnam War, pay particular attention to those from 1963)

http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/volume_vi/exchanges.html
(The Kennedy/Khrushchev exchanges, many felt the Kennedy was crossing the line to treason here, but was too popular to impeach)

[OzmO]

Chalk it up to political savvy (or perhaps having a triple digit IQ) but I am inclined to agree with congress that in all likelihood there was a conspiracy. I challenge anyone with unrelated parents to spend a couple hours reading over these findings and not agree:

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/

(or just look at the summary http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html)

Bear in mind that this is the same Kennedy who attempted to dismantle the CIA and who pissed on the DOD/military industrial complex re Cuba/Vietnam. If you stood to lose not only power but also billions, what would you do?

Scientific acoustical evidence?   How so and where is this evidence?   The place had echoes and the retort of a rifle shot would have been hard to pin point as reported by the 174 witnesses who heard it.

there is certainly many people who didn't want him around, but motive alone doesn't prove a comspiracy.

[seauantea]

Scientific acoustical evidence?   How so and where is this evidence?   The place had echoes and the retort of a rifle shot would have been hard to pin point as reported by the 174 witnesses who heard it.

there is certainly many people who didn't want him around, but motive alone doesn't prove a comspiracy.

Admittedly, I am moved by the expert analyses of someone who can barely string a sentence together; however, the opinions of experts before congress carry slightly more weight. Laziness and stupidity are a lethal combination, all you had to do was click on the first link I provided and the details of the acoustical analysis were readily available:

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1b.html

[Dos Equis]

Admittedly, I am moved by the expert analyses of someone who can barely string a sentence together; however, the opinions of experts before congress carry slightly more weight. Laziness and stupidity are a lethal combination, all you had to do was click on the first link I provided and the details of the acoustical analysis were readily available:

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1b.html

If you're going to call someone stupid for a grammatical error, ensure your grammar is correct.  It's "analysis," not "analyses."  He didn't provide more than one analysis.  And your second reference to "analysis" is probably wrong too.  If there was more than one analysis, you should have said "analysis was," not "analysis were."  And if there was more than one analysis, you should have said "analyses were." 

Oh . . . and Ozmo is a whole lot smarter than you.  Just fyi.     

[OzmO]

Admittedly, I am moved by the expert analyses of someone who can barely string a sentence together; however, the opinions of experts before congress carry slightly more weight. Laziness and stupidity are a lethal combination, all you had to do was click on the first link I provided and the details of the acoustical analysis were readily available:

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1b.html

Oh boy,  you are lugging me on sentence structure?  Are you that weak that all you have are links and sarcasm? 

Do you have the capacity to carry on a conversation without being a jackass; to answer questions and discuss issues comparing and contrasting the details; showing evidence that you've summarized from links you provide or is all you do post some links up, cutting and pasting information and then finding the first trivial error in someone's response and attack them in a condescending nature? 

Can you explain in your own words what the scientific acoustical evidence is or are you going to continue to just post links or cut and paste stuff?  Because frankly, Sunday mornings are not for research or worrying about gay-ass sentence structure.

[OzmO]

If you're going to call someone stupid for a grammatical error, ensure your grammar is correct.  It's "analysis," not "analyses."  He didn't provide more than one analysis.  And your second reference to "analysis" is probably wrong too.  If there was more than one analysis, you should have said "analysis was," not "analysis were."  And if there was more than one analysis, you should have said "analyses were." 

Oh . . . and Ozmo is a whole lot smarter than you.  Just fyi.     

I must be still really sleepy;  I didn't notice any of that.     Thanks BB.

[Dos Equis]

I must be still really sleepy;  I didn't notice any of that.     Thanks BB.

No problem.     I must be the only person in Honolulu working on a Sunday morning.   

[seauantea]

If you're going to call someone stupid for a grammatical error, ensure your grammar is correct.  It's "analysis," not "analyses."  He didn't provide more than one analysis.  And your second reference to "analysis" is probably wrong too.  If there was more than one analysis, you should have said "analysis was," not "analysis were."  And if there was more than one analysis, you should have said "analyses were." 

Oh . . . and Ozmo is a whole lot smarter than you.  Just fyi.     

Clearly you did not read his reply to the end. Otherwise, in your infinite wisdom, would have noticed he analyzed both acoustics and comspiracies in general; ergo my usage of "analyses" stands, and you are wrong. Kindly note my previous comment regarding laziness and stupidity. Unless, as I am starting to suspect, those are prerequisites to moderate this board, in which case carry on

Yes, I too am wrong as I should have typed "analyses were".

Regarding his stupidity, he was asking questions that can only be described as infantile in the context of a Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives. Further to that point, and to answer the calls from “Ozmo” for a simplistic explanation of the apparently overwhelming information provided, there is nothing of value I can add that was not clearly explained in the links furnished. Sadly, I do not have a knack for "dumbing things down" for the likes of you.

[Dos Equis]

Clearly you did not read his reply to the end. Otherwise, in your infinite wisdom, would have noticed he analyzed both acoustics and comspiracies in general; ergo my usage of "analyses" stands, and you are wrong. Kindly note my previous comment regarding laziness and stupidity. Unless, as I am starting to suspect, those are prerequisites to moderate this board, in which case carry on

Yes, I too am wrong as I should have typed "analyses were".

Regarding his stupidity, he was asking questions that can only be described as infantile in the context of a Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives. Further to that point, and to answer the calls from “Ozmo” for a simplistic explanation of the apparently overwhelming information provided, there is nothing of value I can add that was not clearly explained in the links furnished. Sadly, I do not have a knack for "dumbing things down" for the likes of you.

 

Buzzzz!!!  More errors.  Should be "you would have noticed."  And the period goes inside of the quotation marks.  It should read "analyses were." 

What was that you said?  "Admittedly, I am moved by the expert analyses of someone who can barely string a sentence together"  [chuckle]

[seauantea]

Buzzzz!!!  More errors.  Should be "you would have noticed."  And the period goes inside of the quotation marks.  It should read "analyses were." 

What was that you said?  "Admittedly, I am moved by the expert analyses of someone who can barely string a sentence together"  [chuckle]

#1 You're wrong about the placement of the period, both are acceptable in that instance 0/1

#2 You should not start a sentence with a conjunction 0/2

#3 If you insist on using sentence fragments (ie "Should be you...") at lease be consistent (ie "Should read..." not "It should read...") 0/3

It is enviable Ozmo has you to defend his honor. If I suffer a series of strokes and find myself incapable of dealing with you I too will ask my girlfriend for help

[Dos Equis]

#1 You're wrong about the placement of the period, both are acceptable in that instance 0/1

#2 You should not start a sentence with a conjunction 0/2

#3 If you insist on using sentence fragments (ie "Should be you...") at lease be consistent (ie "Should read..." not "It should read...") 0/3

It is enviable Ozmo has you to defend his honor. If I suffer a series of strokes and find myself incapable of dealing with you I too will ask my girlfriend for help

Period goes at the end of your last sentence!  Bwahahahahahaha!! 

1.  Wrong.

2.  Wrong.  Two references for you, for paragraphs 1 and 2:  "The Gregg Reference Manual" and Bryan Garner's "A Dictionary of Modern American Usage."   

3.  I could care less about my grammar on this board.  I make tons of mistakes.  I'm not the one who attacked someone's intellect based on their sentence structure on a bodybuilding message board.  That was you.  I'm just pointing out how you made a fool of yourself.   

Now, don't give up.  Maybe your next post will have no grammatical/punctuation errors.  C'mon dude.  You can do it.     
 

[seauantea]

1) Not wrong.

2) Reread, I wrote "should". In other words, if you do not wish to appear having failed the third grade you may want to consider not starting sentences with conjunctions in the future.

3) Intelligent reply. When in doubt, reach and rationalize

[Dos Equis]

1) Not wrong.

2) Reread, I wrote "should". In other words, if you do not wish to appear having failed the third grade you may want to consider not starting sentences with conjunctions in the future.

3) Intelligent reply. When in doubt, reach and rationalize

LOL . . .

"Reread, I wrote 'should.'"  That might be your worst attempt to write a grammatically correct sentence.  Brutal.     

Also, a period goes at the end of sentence (see your paragraph 3).  I learned that BEFORE third grade.  LOL . . .

Nothing wrong with starting a sentence with “and” or “but.”  Go buy the “Dictionary of Modern American Usage.”  It explains why. 

Keep trying mang!       

[seauantea]

LOL . . .

"Reread, I wrote 'should.'"  That might be your worst attempt to write a grammatically correct sentence.  Brutal.     

Also, a period goes at the end of sentence (see your paragraph 3).  I learned that BEFORE third grade.  LOL . . .

Nothing wrong with starting a sentence with “and” or “but.”  Go buy the “Dictionary of Modern American Usage.”  It explains why. 

Keep trying mang!       

It is improper to quote me and change the punctuation of what was written. Theoretically, you should put [sic] after; however, seeing as a period is acceptable before or after the quote in that instance as well, that is unnecessary.

I will try to use small words here cause my first two tries did not click with you: You can use a con junc tion at the start of a sen ten ce but it makes you look dumb.

Granted dumb may be a step up, so I will leave it be.

For one who does not care you sure are replying often, despite your boyfriend apparently having left you

[Dos Equis]

It is improper to quote me and change the punctuation of what was written. Theoretically, you should put [sic] after; however, seeing as a period is acceptable before or after the quote in that instance as well, that is unnecessary.

I will try to use small words here cause my first two tries did not click with you: You can use a con junc tion at the start of a sen ten ce but it makes you look dumb.

Granted dumb may be a step up, so I will leave it be.

For one who does not care you sure are replying often, despite your boyfriend apparently having left you

Wrong again!  You use "[sic]" if the grammar is unchanged, but if you correct grammar/punctuation, you use brackets to indicate the change.  So, I should have used brackets, but not "[sic]."  Dude, you suck.  LOL. . . .

You forgot your period again.  LOL.  The more you post, the more you look like a fool for calling someone dumb based on their grammar. 

Three references for you (in addition to the two prior books I recommended):

http://www.amazon.com/English-Grammar-Dummies-Geraldine-Woods/dp/0764553224/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-9359477-2415957?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180907331&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Pocket-Idiots-Guide-Grammar-Punctuation/dp/1592573932/ref=sr_1_2/104-9359477-2415957?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180907303&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Writing-Well/dp/0028636945/ref=sr_1_3/104-9359477-2415957?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180907303&sr=1-3

Enjoy.   

[OzmO]

Is it just me or do you smell Johnny Apollo?

[Dos Equis]

Is it just me or do you smell Johnny Apollo?

Ah so.  Yes I do.  Sybil has been "dead" for so long, I had forgotten about him.   

[OzmO]

Ah so.  Yes I do.  Sybil has been "dead" for so long, I had forgotten about him.   

He still doesn't have the nuggets to respond intelligently however (save trying to be the grammar police).  And all he has so far is ad-hom and some links.  I wonder if he'll go the direction of 4 shots vs. 3 shots?

[seauantea]

Wrong again!  You use "[sic]" if the grammar is unchanged, but if you correct grammar/punctuation, you use brackets to indicate the change.  So, I should have used brackets, but not "[sic]."  Dude, you suck.  LOL. . . .

You forgot your period again.  LOL.  The more you post, the more you look like a fool for calling someone dumb based on their grammar. 

Three references for you (in addition to the two prior books I recommended):

http://www.amazon.com/English-Grammar-Dummies-Geraldine-Woods/dp/0764553224/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-9359477-2415957?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180907331&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Pocket-Idiots-Guide-Grammar-Punctuation/dp/1592573932/ref=sr_1_2/104-9359477-2415957?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180907303&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Writing-Well/dp/0028636945/ref=sr_1_3/104-9359477-2415957?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180907303&sr=1-3

Enjoy.   

Again, your inability to read plain English knows no bounds. I told you quoting me and changing what I wrote is improper, I advised you (if your changes had in fact been correct, which they were not) to leave them unchanged and use [sic] instead. Perhaps you should click on some of those fabulous links you uncovered

In addition to his unique spelling of conspiracy and inability to deal with the proper ownership of simple verbs, Ozmo is an idiot for failing to grasp that congressional hearing may just have thought about echoes and sought the testimony of experts. Additionally, he was too stupid to click on the links I provided to find detailed answers to his questions, not to mention the fact a simple http://www.yahoo.com search could have saved his lazy ass the embarrassment of this thread.

Once again, so much effort from the one who does not care. There is no shame in admitting you love him

[OzmO]

Again, your inability to read plain English knows no bounds. I told you quoting me and changing what I wrote is improper, I advised you (if your changes had in fact been correct, which they were not) to leave them unchanged and use [sic] instead. Perhaps you should click on some of those fabulous links you uncovered

In addition to his unique spelling of conspiracy and inability to deal with the proper ownership of simple verbs, Ozmo is an idiot for failing to grasp that congressional hearing may just have thought about echoes and sought the testimony of experts. Additionally, he was too stupid to click on the links I provided to find detailed answers to his questions, not to mention the fact a simple http://www.yahoo.com search could have saved his lazy ass the embarrassment of this thread.

Once again, so much effort from the one who does not care. There is no shame in admitting you love him

more ad-hom garbage.   .   


do you have anything besides this dribble or are you all insults and no meat?

i guess the answer to this question:

"Do you have the capacity to carry on a conversation without being a jackass; to answer questions and discuss issues comparing and contrasting the details; showing evidence that you've summarized from links you provide or is all you do post some links up, cutting and pasting information and then finding the first trivial error in someone's response and attack them in a condescending nature?"

is, "No."

[Dos Equis]

He still doesn't have the nuggets to respond intelligently however (save trying to be the grammar police).  And all he has so far is ad-hom and some links.  I wonder if he'll go the direction of 4 shots vs. 3 shots?

He is a yellowbellied coward.