The Best Points to Make...

[SeamusCoogan]

No mercy left home with home alongside BS this morning.

[Michael Dell]

SeamusCoogan wrote:No mercy left home with home alongside BS this morning.Again, that is your choice. I wish you well. And I am quite happy allowing our respective posts to speak for themselves.Namaste.

[ThomZajac]

[quote="Michael Dell"]I mentioned this in another thread, but I tend to introduce conspiracy topics to an audience unfamiliar with the subject matter. The crowd I'm preaching to comes to me through sports, movies, TV, and other such nonsense, and then I try to slip some truth in there along the way. Well, of all the conspiracy topics I've covered, and I've done some rather obscure ones, the Kennedy assassination has drawn the most negative feedback. People always insist on pointing towards Bugliosi, Mack, Posner, etc as proving I'm all oatmeal north of the eyebrows. In response, I usually point them to Jim DiEugenio's work, the "Evidence of Revision" films, and the CTKA 10-point program.But the question is when you encounter someone who doubts conspiracy, what key points of evidence do you use to state your case?I try to focus on the number of bullets needed, the fact Ford admitted moving the back wound, and Oswald's history. I think if you go too deep into things, the person gets overwhelmed and slowly starts to back away from you in search of the nearest exit. So I think one or two key points work best. Which would you recommend? Michael, I wrestled with this question long ago and came up with an answer that has worked well for me.Oddly, it is the fact that a conspiracy and coverup can be proven in so many that causes us problems as this makes it difficult to know where to begin, how much weight to attach to various points, and how long to stay on them.One conclusion I've reached is that older people who believe the Warren Report are not particularly open to the idea that they might be wrong. Seems to me most of thee folks are successful types, and they just don't want to pursue the notion that the government that has given them the opportunity to succeed is a secret and nasty one that is anything but democratic. They take pride in their success and a government conspiracy to kill the president and cover it up would greatly diminish their accomplishments. You can present to them what any reasonable jury would find to be proof, but to them it's not. So I try to remember that some people will refuse to believe a coup d'etat occurred on November 22, 1963 no matter what evidence I present. It's like trying to prove there is no God.That said, when someone is truly curious and open to evidence I put all my eggs in one basket: I can prove JFK suffered a massive exit wound to the back of his head- thus meaning a shot from the front- thus meaning that the government was not only wrong in its conclusion but also deliberately so.How to prove an exit wound in the back of the head? I'll have to look it up, but I seem to remember that 26 of the 27 medical people who saw the president at Parkland stated they saw such a wound. Listening to witness after witness describe the same wound- in my mind- is nothing short of astounding. It's not one person. It's not two or three. It's 27 people describing the same wound! It gets way more complicated after that, explaining why the autopsy results don't show such a wound, but I don't go there for a while, rather I add supporting evidence of a shot from the front, which there is tons: witnesses hearing shots from in front, seeing people there, smelling gunpowder, the acoustic findings of the Select Committee. In short, the evidence demonstrating tht a shot or shots were fired from in front, and that the president was hit from in front is so substantial as to be considered not just prooof, but overwhelming, undeniable and absolute truth.But that's just me.Thom

[Michael Dell]

Bob wrote:The SBT doesn't work without Ford moving up the back wound (it really doesn't work anyway). Therefore...there HAS to be at least two shooters. Therefore...a conspiracy. It's that simple.Bob, yes, that's what I usually lean on. I think Ford's admitting he moved the wound is all there needs to be said.

[Michael Dell]

Kirk wrote:Since we are not there. I say bring it all on. Any information, no matter how crazy it sounds. Let us weigh it for probability.Kirk, thank you for the reply...

[Michael Dell]

ThomZajac wrote:In short, the evidence demonstrating tht a shot or shots were fired from in front, and that the president was hit from in front is so substantial as to be considered not just prooof, but overwhelming, undeniable and absolute truth.Thom, Thanks for the reply. Yeah, it's tough to argue with so many witnesses saying the same thing, yet doubters always fall back on witnesses being unreliable. But if that's the case, then why do authorities even bother with witnesses at all? I always tend to go with the people who were actually there. I'm not sure if anyone here is familiar with the finer points of the Columbine shooting, but that's another case where the eyewitness testimony is overwhelming in regards to proving the official story isn't true.

[ThomZajac]

Do tell-

[Michael Dell]

ThomZajac wrote:Do tell-Basically, dozens and dozens of eyewitness gave corroborating reports that there were multiple shooters that day, numbering well beyond Harris and Klebold. Other shooters were even identified repeatedly by name, yet the authorities did nothing. It really is rather shocking. Columbine was one of those things I never questioned, but once I started looking into it, it's impossible to believe the official story. The only question is whether it was merely a case of local incompetence or a full-fledged government psyop. Sadly, I would tend to believe the latter. One of the main guys leading the charge for Columbine truth is named Evan Long. I would highly recommend his documentary "The Columbine Cause." He goes through the actual police reports and shows how the evidence and eyewitness accounts simply don't add up. If interested, I can even link you to a 90-minute podcast I did with Evan discussing the case. But here's his movie...http://thecolumbinecause.tk/ And here's a message board dedicated to Columbine and other shooting incidents...http://signofthetimes.yuku.com/forums/1 ... MBINE.html

[ThomZajac]

Excellent- thanks. I will check them out after I wrestle past my current deadline.I know how you feel though; I went through the same thing with the Jonestown massacre.

[Michael Dell]

ThomZajac wrote:Excellent- thanks. I will check them out after I wrestle past my current deadline.I know how you feel though; I went through the same thing with the Jonestown massacre.See, Jonestown is one I have yet to investigate. I've certainly heard a lot of interesting things regarding mind control and such, but I haven't had a chance to dig into it yet. So please feel free to point me in the right direction. I think my favorite conspiracies, if one can even call them that, are the ones I never even dreamed could be anything but the official story. Columbine was definitely one of those. Another was John Lennon. In fact, I find all the music industry stuff quite fascinating. Between Project Monarch (Michael Jackson), Masonic symbolism (MTV music awards), Illuminati connections (Jay-Z and friends), and murders (Cobain, Hendrix), the music industry is a conspiracy theorist's dream... or I should probably say nightmare.