But you're comparing apples with pears by using the BBC for one and the Guardian for another.

BBC on the Trump incident: [Link]

"The US president told France's first lady, Brigitte Macron, she looked beautiful and complimented her figure."

They did with JFK and he was the golden boy, and his reported mistake was in itself a mistake.

and The Guardian would, of course, but the BBC probably wouldn't.

Come on, the treatment of JFK and Trump on mistakes isn't even comparable.

When I heard that the so called 'mistake' was itself a mistake. It just said everything you'd need to know about journalism in general.

Oh come on Tux! Don't tell me you believe in the JFK conspiracy as well?

I actually suspected you did but it's fun to act incredulous about it.

I once believed it too...around about when the Oliver Stone movie came out....but I put quite a lot of research into it as a student and came to the conclusion that the official claims are fundamentally accurate.

There was one shooter and he was Oswald.....the single most compelling revelation was finding out about the realities of the 'back and to the left' claim.

In reality the nervous systems doesn't always follow the expected physical paths when a brain is suddenly ripped apart. I found studies that showed this in cows that are shot to the brain and in evidence given by soldiers about shot colleagues on the battlefield.

The body doesn't always move in the expected manner. Then you find out the magic bullet theory is flawed but I should close up...cus we could go on about this kind of thing forever.

Just as in the 9/11 conspiracy there are perfectly reasonable answers for all the claims. Granted the JFK conspiracy is far more believable than 9/11 but, in my view, it doesn't really stand up to serious objective research.

Over fifty years ago now.....Most people alive then and involved in anything are dead.

So if something incriminating was ever to come out it certainly is taking its time.

Still, you never know.

Oh come on Tux! Don't tell me you believe in the JFK conspiracy as well?

I actually suspected you did but it's fun to act incredulous about it.

I once believed it too...around about when the Oliver Stone movie came out....but I put quite a lot of research into it as a student and came to the conclusion that the official claims are fundamentally accurate.

There was one shooter and he was Oswald.....the single most compelling revelation was finding out about the realities of the 'back and to the left' claim.

In reality the nervous systems doesn't always follow the expected physical paths when a brain is suddenly ripped apart. I found studies that showed this in cows that are shot to the brain and in evidence given by soldiers about shot colleagues on the battlefield.

The body doesn't always move in the expected manner. Then you find out the magic bullet theory is flawed but I should close up...cus we could go on about this kind of thing forever.

Just as in the 9/11 conspiracy there are perfectly reasonable answers for all the claims. Granted the JFK conspiracy is far more believable than 9/11 but, in my view, it doesn't really stand up to serious objective research.

It would have made far more sense for the mob to kill RFK in 62.

If the mob connection had legs there would have been a leak by now that stood up.

Ruby said that sympathy for the president's widow was his only motive. Sure he had mob connections but again, there's no real evidence.

I think people get excited by categorising half truths as proven truths. For example, the Warren report found that Ruby had connections to the mob but he wasn't in the mob. They were lots of people like that. Oswald was very sympathetic to Cuba and hung around with lots of anti establishment figures that doesn't mean Castro or the mob used him to kill Kennedy.

Occam's razor.

Edited by Stirlingsays (05 May 2018 11.33am)

For me, when I watch that Zapruder film in slow mo it looks like the kill bullet comes from high and behind. Before his head goes 'back and to the left'(nervous system reaction) it goes forward (force impact).

We know that position high up in the book depository would have been Oswald's.

That was my conclusion anyway....I certainly watched it enough times....and it isn't pleasant.

[Link]

Edited by Stirlingsays (05 May 2018 12.54pm)

Sure, but you wouldn't convict anyone on that.

I just don't think that history can be controlled very easily....so many variables. I mean how much control do you have over your own life? Luck and the motivations of others, realised and failed, factor in hugely into anyone's life.

If a set of events proceeds along a certain path it is always tempting to look back at a point and say....well, the future here is obvious.....we even have sayings about hindsight and all that.

Yet I bet if I said to you predict the major events of the next five years you couldn't.......There are strong possibilities, possibilities and unlikelihoods and all the inbetweens.

Just me chewing the fat. Nothing wrong with you seeing it your way.

Edited by Stirlingsays (05 May 2018 2.32pm)

By far the greatest (US) ''conspiracy'' took place 105yrs ago despite it being completely unconstitutional to this day.
If those involved in this particular scam can get away with this then JFK/9-11/pointless wars are merely a walk in the park.

‘'It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.'’