Stand-Offish wrote:Our views are coloured by what our experiences have been ... therein lies possibly non-objectivity.
Both sides exhibit this.
Evidence or opinion, where does one start and the other begin?
Well, again, I don't think they are, in all cases, mutually exclusive. It's a complex relationship which I could spend quite a number of pages talking about - if I had the time (hence the
late reply to your question).
Quote:Personally without wanting to suffer your wrath , and I did quite like the softer, more reasonable approach of this last post, I am not really sure why it matters so much to you.
I'm not really sure why it DOESN'T matter to you.
Quote:I think, even on this side, we are all pretty much prepared to believe that you are right, that it is hard to believe the JFK findings.
But at the end of long delvings you can't tell me definitively who did it. That is no criticism, you have certainly tried.
You are right in saying I can't give you the exact names of the individual shooters in Dealey Plaza (do these even matter?). But you are wrong if you think I haven't told you who was responsible. I've repeatedly named the prime suspects who conspired to assassinate President Kennedy and provided a ton of supporting evidence.
Those names are (in no particular order):
Allen W. Dulles (former head of the CIA).
James Angleton (former head of CIA counter-intelligence division).
Guy Bannister (ex-FBI)
David W. Ferrie (CIA)
Clay Shaw (CIA/OSS)
General Curtis D. LeMay (head of Strategic Air Command)
Richard Bissell (CIA)
David Atlee Phillips (CIA)
H.L. Hunt (Big Oil)
General Edward Lansdale (CIA)
D.H. Bird (Big Oil)
Jack Ruby (CIA/mafia)
Richard Helms (CIA)
William K. Harvey (and his ZR-RIFLE company which almost certainly provided the shooters). (CIA)
McGeorge Bundy (Kennedy staff)
Bill Greer (Secret Service)
and others ...
Quote:But I can't for the life of me see how that maps to 9/11.
I am not alone. You are in a small minority that don't see two planes hitting two towers and two towers collapsing in a quite logical manner in keeping with the laws of physics and simple cause and effect.
As I've repeatedly said - I really don't see the tower question as crucial. Once you know there was significant insider trading in the days leading up to 9/11 on the very airlines involved the fate of the towers becomes a secondary issue. Had the US government possessed ANY evidence linking Bin Laden and his group to shorting the stocks of those airlines they would have published it in triple-oversized bold font. The fact that they chose instead to throw a veil of secrecy over the entire issue really doesn't leave one with a great deal of doubt as to the origins of the conspiracy.
Quote:So if you can also give us examples of how you have gone in on a conspiracy angle and then after consideration rejected that stance, then that would perhaps demonstrate a balanced view.
I like the fact that you just PRESUME I automatically think everything is a conspiracy first and then (possibly) adjust my opinions in accordance with evidence. This is despite the fact that I have repeatedly told you that the only conspiracy I consistently took seriously in thirty five years was JFK...
I don't need you or anyone else to validate my opinions. I'm confident in what I know and if you want to believe something different that's your business.
Quote:You don't need to write a novel every time in response.
You know plebs like me aren't worth it.
Quite.