Quote:We really have to cut out all this crap and stop wasting time with myths and fantasies, and stick to the hard facts that prove conspiracy. Everything else is a time-waster, and fodder for the lone-nutters to discredit.

Magda Hassan Wrote:

Darrell Curtis Wrote:

Tracy Riddle Wrote:Darrell, I totally agree with you.
Still, it's human nature to try to figure all this stuff out.

Vasilios, I remember Gerry Patrick Hemming (if you find him trustworthy) telling one researcher that there was no shooting team behind the north knoll; only a diversionary team with a firecracker. But he told so many different stories to different people.

I'm pleased to see my post didn't stir up the usual anger that I've seen when someone doesn't follow script,
or toe the party line. In all fairness DPF is a bit better behaved than all of the other JFK sites.

Human nature is what's killing us physically, spiritually as a species. I don't think that's good reason to play
to the base level.

When people start bickering about spelling corrections, that's *not* debate, that's in-fighting. Debate is analysis
and refutation of the internal consistency of an argument, or lack thereof. And I mean argument in the sense of a conclusion that
follows the premise, not simply two people disagreeing.

Welcome to the forum Darrell. Your comments and observations are appreciated. One of the reasons we don't have the lone nutters here, apart from them being wrong, is that the endless circular debates, which have been going around for decades now about pointless things degenerate into acrimony and do nothing to further research itself or build productive working relationships between people. Which might well be the intent. We start from the point that conspiracy is well established in the death of JFK, and its cover up, and work from that. Saves time and energy for things that really matter. We also have just established a JFK Wiki and timeline to accumulate data on the events. Apart from its contribution to the public record it is also a place where people can work in a solitary manner with out the potential pitfalls and clashes of discussion forums. Please feel free to make yourself available of it if you wish. Peter Presland can help you with any log in matters with regards to that.

Darrell Curtis Wrote:Thank you Magda, I'd like to know more about Wiki and timeline, but don't want to derail this thread any further.

Thank you.

And thank you those who took my comments as constructive criticism,
and not slander or an attack of any kind.

Tracy Riddle Wrote:

Albert Doyle Wrote:I agree with Darrell. We should be forcing the government to admit the truth about the assassination.


Both Hoffman and Bowers saw rifles behind the fence. And Julia Mercer saw Ruby carrying an obvious rifle in a case up the Knoll.

Ok, well (puts on devil's advocate hat)...First, I have a lot of problems with Hoffman's story. Second, when did Bowers ever say he saw rifles behind the fence?
And whatever Mercer saw, it seems the height of absurdity to have Jack Ruby parking on Elm Street and take out a rifle case in plain view. Those cars that Bowers saw circling in the parking lot behind the picket fence would be a much safer way of delivering weapons to the area.

Lauren Johnson Wrote:

Tracy Riddle Wrote:

Albert Doyle Wrote:I agree with Darrell. We should be forcing the government to admit the truth about the assassination.


Both Hoffman and Bowers saw rifles behind the fence. And Julia Mercer saw Ruby carrying an obvious rifle in a case up the Knoll.

Ok, well (puts on devil's advocate hat)...First, I have a lot of problems with Hoffman's story. Second, when did Bowers ever say he saw rifles behind the fence?
And whatever Mercer saw, it seems the height of absurdity to have Jack Ruby parking on Elm Street and take out a rifle case in plain view. Those cars that Bowers saw circling in the parking lot behind the picket fence would be a much safer way of delivering weapons to the area.

I don't have a PhD in "Julia Ann Mercer" studies, but one possibility is that the very absurdity of taking a rifle out in plain view could be an indicator of spookiness, just as Oswald handing out leaflets, getting in a fight, and the getting on TV. Why? Setting up another patsy? This would have required another narrative structure in case Oswald had ended up with an air tight alibi of some kind. Then go with "the mob did it."

Darrell Curtis Wrote:*SIGH*

This is my first, and likely, my last post to this or any JFK
assassination discussion forum.

While I am NOT a "Lone Nutter", I have serious reservations about
what passes for "JFK assassination research". I've been watching/lurking this
and the other major forums for years. And this thread is typical of what I see.
Bickering and in-fighting. It all proves true a quote from Vince Salandria:
"...and not waste anymore time micro-analyzing the evidence. That's exactly
what they want us to do. They have have kept us busy for so long. And I bet buddy,
that is what will happen to you. They will keep you very, very busy, and eventually
they will wear you down."

Or keep you lost with your head in the sand of evidence, both false and real.
And fighting amongst yourselves. Distracted and ineffective. Who cares about
smoke, or not smoke? What's the point of "badge man", "black dog man" "umbrella
man", "dark complected man" or anything else. There's more than enough evidence
to prove Oswald innocent in a court of law. That should be the focus of efforts of
those who really want to prove the case of conspiracy, and the Government's deception.

Some, very few, are sincere. Most, I feel are more interested in conspiratainment. It's
a hobby and past-time. After having had my nose in every conceivable book, magazine and
website about this for the last thirteen years, I've concluded that it's a waste of time to
bother with the details. We'll never know with 100% who was involved, who wasn't who did what
where when and how. JFK's murder was designed to be confusing, misleading, deceptive and
unsolvable. But the case for Oswald's innocence, and a case for conspiracy *can* be proven.

Sadly that's not what many want. And they'll spend the rest of their lives chasing their tails
trying to prove who was shooting from where, what that blob in a film or photograph is, or
is not, was that smoke or something else. By the time something meaningful could have been
done about this for the public good, it will be far too late. Lincoln's murder is a good example
of that.

I'm sure this will generate a great deal of anger and condemnation. I have no use for that,
so if you want to say something constructive, e-mail or PM me.

Thank you