??

The only name I recognize from the cast is Audie Murphy, a World War II hero who became a B-movie idol after leaving the service. His main forte was westerns, I suspect because he looked like Alan Ladd.

Well, any port in a storm, I guess.

Not sure which is worse...

And what would we rather look at? Criminals getting way with murder or some good looking, basically innocent humans showing their stuff?

Being that this is a forum about politics, it is weird that some don't think discussing one of the biggest most influential politicians life and death is somehow to be shoveled off into a dungeon somewhere.

Frankly, the whining, like in the OP about the issue is like I say a form of porn and is what should be somehow covered up. But what the heck, let them whine if it makes them feel better.

It's a conspiracy, I tells ya. Hiding all this JFK stuff.

That's what the OP is whining about.

We should ask him where he was on the day JFK was assassinated. Does he have an alibi? Mmmm.....

mostly just the day of his death.

Then maybe you'll see?

We talk mainly about the changes that came forth from his death. It is the WC bible beaters that talk about the day and we just remark that they need glasses. And then the WC bible beaters whine that they see any threads about any of it. Just trust the WC bible they scream. Again, and again. It's liken unto porn.

Whatever happened to just ignoring a thread you're not interested in?

It is relatively clear that they decided to let the natives go a little crazy for the anniversary.

Problem with that?

gunman is still questioned. I think that's important. Sorry you have a need to shut others, with different opinions, out of the discussion.

However it's not a matter of opinion but one of fact and evidence. You can have the opinion that the earth is flat, if you want.

I love how YOU get to decide what the facts are, based on the pronouncements of those YOU decide are reliable sources - like the corporate media and all the Posner-worshipping posters on this board.

All that this exercise has proven is that both sides disagree, even about basic "facts" like which way JFKs head and brains went - based on the Zapruder film and the testimony of those spattered by his brains.

But, I will agree that this is not a good topic for GD.

In the end, the corporate media can outlast the finite number of people who were alive at the time of the assassination and care enough to strive for justice, instead of a whitemwash. I take heart that my BS detector was operating in 1963 and continues to do so until this day.

Case closed, my ass.

The evidence does that, and evidence is completely neutral. It doesn't have a side. (By the way, the Zapruder film? Shows Kennedy's had going forward at the moment the bullet hits it, and the major direction of blood spatter as forward. Forensics and ballistics? The shots came from behind. Not possible for them to've come from anywhere else.))

And what is your evidentiary soruce for the blood going forward, since we have testimony from a motorcycle cop riding BEHIND JFK that he (the cop) was spattered w JFK's blood and brains?

Its not a matter of just facts. Its a matter of whose facts.

If it were just facts, it would have been settled forty years ago.

I'd be more careful who I trusted my brain with.

care to address yourself to the evidence presented regarding what happens when a high-velocity bullet passes through human tissue?

to the evidence and testimony gathered by the WC, the HSCA and others.

How does that make him a clown?

only interpretations.

depending on how exactly the head reacts with the bullet, conservation of momentum, will actually require backward spatter in some cases

And, of course, as the motorcade was moving forward, anyone immediately behind the President's car would have driven into aerosol from the spatter

After all, the government told us he was dead, and they always lie, correct?

We have the right to ask questions. He was OUR president, too. Those who are telling us to move along, nothing to see here, are obviously, and rightly, questioned, as to their motives.

But no amount of creative conspiratorial theorizing is going to 1. bring him back from the dead, 2. change the facts in the case, or 3. do anything tangible for the country.

At the end of the day, all the CT handwringing amounts to little more than self-aggrandizement and an elitist attitude that the CTist is in on some double-secret-probation level of info that Joe Six Pack doesn't know about. Coupled, of course, with a big sense of victimhood whenever challenged on the theories, and a distinctly smug attitude that the CTist is the knight in shining armor who is going to expose the bad guys and save the country in the process.

It's an "us v them" attitude that warms the cockles of the Roves of this world.

Whether or not it brings him back (of course it doesn't), there are many who disagree with the official version, and there are many aspects to that version which remain questionable. We have the right to question. I'm sure there are many CT mongers out there who display the attitude that you describe, but there are also many who don't, and who only are saying that there is more to this story than the official version. They have every right to express their doubts, and no one should be trying to shut them up.

that the Warren Commission got it right, what would your opinion be of the decades of CTs in this case?

I would give them the benefit of the doubt. They deserve that.

Just something to do because one has time on their hands?

That kind of thinking is along the lines of questioning evolution, is it not?

And, no, it's not anything like questioning evolution.

of questioning evolution.

Check this link about all the many mysterious deaths of people investigating the hard-to-believe lone gunman theory then see if you still "believe" it.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOpje8kixcV-skbCZOOiNIw/videos?view=0&sort=dd&live_view=500&flow=list

but whoever is behind your efforts is and has been trying very hard to have people believe in the single gun nut theory.

that is that JFK was not your president.

With that in mind, I'd suggest you consider the wisdom of dialing it down a bit.

I never lived in NYC, either; that wouldn't stop me from calling out conspiracist cranks who insist the WTC was brought down by a controlled demolition if that sort of nonsense was allowed in this forum.

Call out your ass -- The only sort of "nonsense" that shouldn't be allowed here is

the insufferable arrogance of people like you, and by the way,

you might want to learn to spell: It's "dialing", not "dialling".

Where, precisely? Pointing out that something just isn't true isn't "arrogance".

(And it's "dialling". At least in British English; I live in the UK. Your ignorance is showing.)

and to answer your question, In this instance, it's contained in your absurd certainty of what is "true",

when so many others far closer to the situation, in terms of both age and access, are NOT.

As to my supposed "ignorance", sorry dear, but to the contrary, it was precisely my LACK of ignorance that enabled

me to pick out your British "tells"....Oh do forgive my missing that "dialing" thing, lol, but then again

it's YOU who are posting on an American board, not me posting on a British one.

Because I look at evidence?

And I'm American. My wife is British; I've lived in the UK for several years now. As I live in the UK and read British newspapers and communicate in writing with mostly British people I have necessarily adapted my spelling. As you would probably expect a Brit moving to the States to do. And if you're not ignorant then you're apparently just an asshole.

"Because I look at evidence"?

Sure, because the rest of us clearly do NOT, right?..Not even people like Secretary of State John Kerry who has

stated he DOES believe there was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination?.

As has been repeatedly demonstrated by people saying things that just aren't true, over and over and over. (Like the canard about the HSCA finding evidence of a conspiracy...that's been debunked and isn't evidence.)

I am not quite sure what you're on about.

"And if you're not ignorant then you're apparently just an asshole"

You'd probably do well to learn to not make things personal if you're so bothered by responses in kind.