How to convince a non-believer

[ThomZajac]

Katisha wrote-"Thanks Thom, those interviews with the Parkland doctors are great. They were part of what turned me into a believer, but this imaginary non-believer of mine is a bit of a cynic, and he won't accept them because they aren't contemporaneous. He's a stubborn git!"Well, there is the problem; non-believers will almost always find a reason to dismiss evidence, or to not even look at it. Does he think the doctors ALL are in error due to faulty memories? Or that they have been corrupted? I suspect that if the testimonies were more contemporaneous he would find another reason to dismiss them, such as 'not all of them were under oath," or "the questions were taken out of context." Sorry for my grumpiness on this, and I know I am righteous, but I am continually amazed by the power of denial.My guess is you'll get nowhere with your stubborn git. I hope I am wrong and I wish you luck.

[katisha]

ThomZajac wrote:Katisha wrote-"Thanks Thom, those interviews with the Parkland doctors are great. They were part of what turned me into a believer, but this imaginary non-believer of mine is a bit of a cynic, and he won't accept them because they aren't contemporaneous. He's a stubborn git!"Well, there is the problem; non-believers will almost always find a reason to dismiss evidence, or to not even look at it. Does he think the doctors ALL are in error due to faulty memories? Or that they have been corrupted? I suspect that if the testimonies were more contemporaneous he would find another reason to dismiss them, such as 'not all of them were under oath," or "the questions were taken out of context." Sorry for my grumpiness on this, and I know I am righteous, but I am continually amazed by the power of denial.My guess is you'll get nowhere with your stubborn git. I hope I am wrong and I wish you luck.Yeah, fair enough Thom; I think I was a bit harsh on your contribution (besides which I said in the first post that we didn't HAVE to stick to primary sources, so I kinda moved the goalposts a bit). Apologies for that.OK, my imaginary friend is stubborn and cynical, but he's also intelligent and prepared to accept well-researched and presented persuasive evidence, as well as just black-and-white yes-or-no evidence. Your links would, at the very least, 'give him furiously to think' as Hercule Poirot might say

[saracarter766]

i'm just gonna state my opinion here i never have and never will believe a bullet that was supposedly to have done 7 injures and it comes out nearly pristine i just don't believe that at all and i also believe oswald was innocent of this tragedy the higher ups just set him up and he sadly took the fall for this tragic murder. this is my opinion though and arlen specter should be ashamed to have taken a part in this tragedy the man makes me wanna puke.

[Frenchy]

Im with Sara on this one, the SBT proves conspiracy, CE399 is the absolute proof of Conspiracy.No matter how many cartoon/computer graphics show, no bullet as ever done what CE399 is claimed to have done, and come out so pristine. IMO

[katisha]

Agreed, the wondrous bullet is very compelling evidence indeed.

[ChristophMessner]

Yes, Sara, Pasquale, Frenchy, Thom, Katisha, you are all good with your judgement. Let's not forget, that Oswald was not out of breath at the second floor and that the way officer Baker detected him, proves that Oswald came from the south entrance. Also think about the sudden cleaning of the limo at Parkland and the removal of evidence by repairing the limo soon afterwards. Radio man and umbrella man ... I hope you post something kind of proof-list to David von Pein on jfkassassinationforum and other websites like I do, where this lone-nutter-propagandist promotes Vincent Bugliosi's elaboration.

[katisha]

Thanks Pasquale; you've reminded me of another one I forgot: I'd definitely show the photo of the bloke cleaning out the back of the car outside Parkland hospital.

[Bob]

To me there are many reasons that show why indeed the JFK assassination was a conspiracy, but the one that proves it more than others is the "magic bullet" theory. Without it, Lee Harvey Oswald could not have been the only shooter (I don't believe LHO was a shooter at all). To me there was a definite conspiracy reaching to the highest realms of the U.S. Government which led to the Warren Commission. There were two very interesting members of the Warren Commission...former CIA director Allan Dulles...a man JFK had fired for his role in the Bay of Pigs debacle, and Gerald Ford...a man who got his start in politics as a mentor of Prescott Bu$h, just like Richard Nixon...and Ford was ironically Nixon's campaign manager in the 1960 Presidential election. Ford also was the eyes and ears for J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI as the Warren Commission had it's "investigation". Anyway, the WC knew that Arlen Specter's "magic bullet" theory had to happen to help pin the blame on Oswald. Ford decided to get "creative"...http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/sibert.htmFord moved JFK's back wound up several inches to make the Specter theory even plausible. If people knew this, then all of Dale Myers 3D computer graphic bullshit would never be relevant. Ford was just as much as a conspirator as LBJ, Poppy Bu$h and the others. Maybe Ford didn't help plan the assassination, but he certainly helped to cover up the REAL truth.

[ThomZajac]

Good morning! No worries, Katisha, I'm part Italian and sometimes my mellow California side doesn't quite balance it out. Good discussion.I'm obviously with all you guys on the SBT, and I very much realize that it is the linchpin for the lone nut scenario, and that the whole thing falls apart when the SBT is disproved, which it should easily be for any reasonably intelligent open minded person. Heck, there was more bullet fragment mass removed from Connally's wrist than was missing from the bullet the WC said caused the damage! And on top of that, there are the bullet fragments that were left in Connally's thigh wound. And the list of impossibilities for the SBT goes on, I realize that.BUT, in my opinion, non-believers will always find a way to make the existing conclusions of the SBT irrelevant. For example, I've heard some say that the James Teague bullet was the shot the exited from JFK's throat, and that all of Connally's wounds were caused by another shot (still adds up to three!). And I believe Posner or some lone nut concluded one of the shots hit a tree branch and fragmented into two pieces,and that one of those pieces went Tague's way. Another has said he believes Oswald fired four shots and that the first one missed ('hitting' Tague) and that Oswald simply had picked up one (or two) of the spent cartridges. The nearly pristine nature of the magic bullet is explained away too by various means, such as "if it's a ridiculous as you say, the WC would never have relied on it." Disproving the SBT means there were more than three shots (it doesn't prove a shot came from anywhere but the rear), and lone nutters will simply find other ways to explain how three shots could have done it, or how four shots would have been possible. In short, I think the best way to prove a conspiracy is by utilizing the best evidence, JFK's body, not by attempting to disprove the lone nut fairly tale put forth by the government. Happy Independence Day!

[Bob]

Happy independence day to you as well Thom! You also make some excellent points.Good morning! No worries, Katisha, I'm part Italian and sometimes my mellow California side doesn't quite balance it out. Good discussion. - ThomAll that fine wine in your part of the country can really make things balance out!