• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

MSNBC: RFK assassination conspiracy

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,565
1,050
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
You have obviously been halucenating, noto12ious didn't say anything about any woman woman in a polka-dot dress. And like Arkaign expalined above, noto12ious's 13 shots claim is based on an audio recording of the incedent, not any pockmarks.
I was speaking in general. The only thing noto12ious "said" was to post a couple of youtube links with no genuine commentary of his own.

Turned around and pushed back first?
That, in fact, is the "official" belief.

Most conspiracy theories evolve from human incompetence. The whole act of creating conspiracies in these high-profile events is to fabricate scenarios inside the blanks of what we do not know, particularly those facts lost due to faulty eyewitnesses or just through time. To a conspiracy theorist, it is never a possibility that we do not know what really happened and might never know. Someone always knows and is hiding the truth.
That may be a good way of describing the majority of 'conspiracy theorists', but I have to say that conspiracies are incredibly common, albeit usually benign and non-criminal. Whenever two or more individuals work or plan together to accomplish a task or set of tasks, it is a 'conspiracy'.

With that established, it's easy to look at the evidence available and determine that Sirhan Sirhan was not the only person firing a weapon in that room at that time.

With that established, it gets murkier. The question of what the relationship (if any) was between the other gunman/gunmen and Sirhan is indeterminate at this time. The question of intent is indeterminate as well, but I'd have a hard time believing that anyone else 'accidentally' shot RFK in the back multiple times, at such a close range.

Another indeterminate and complex issue is the possible connection between the perpetrators and the authorities. It seems that the investigation and evidence collection/analysis was possibly criminally botched, it was so poorly handled. To suppress evidence for so long, to lose/destroy evidence to the point that the city had to pay for their mishandling/destruction of it speaks volumes. The question is, was it merely a series of unintentional blunders, or was there an intentional path followed?

And finally, looking at motive of the unknown assassin(s), things get cloudier fast. It's extremely easy to see a variety of people and organizations that either professed outward hate and opposition to RFK's goals and agenda, or would gain considerably by removing him from the picture. He had made many many enemies, so with such a wide set of possible perpetrators, narrowing it down is pure guesswork without an official investigation.

My best educated guess would be a CIA assassination. Looking at declassified documents on CIA techniques from that era, and at other wet work done on those lines, it very much has the fingerprints of the agency. The CIA's prime motive for such an action would be their very existence as they knew it. Wide autonomy, black budgeting, and a virtually unlimited playground on the world stage to kill, blackmail, steal, and infiltrate. Who wouldn't kill to protect this kind of unlimited money and power?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,051
8,457
126
Originally posted by: Arkaign
That may be a good way of describing the majority of 'conspiracy theorists', but I have to say that conspiracies are incredibly common, albeit usually benign and non-criminal. Whenever two or more individuals work or plan together to accomplish a task or set of tasks, it is a 'conspiracy'.

With that established, it's easy to look at the evidence available and determine that Sirhan Sirhan was not the only person firing a weapon in that room at that time.

With that established, it gets murkier. The question of what the relationship (if any) was between the other gunman/gunmen and Sirhan is indeterminate at this time. The question of intent is indeterminate as well, but I'd have a hard time believing that anyone else 'accidentally' shot RFK in the back multiple times, at such a close range.

Another indeterminate and complex issue is the possible connection between the perpetrators and the authorities. It seems that the investigation and evidence collection/analysis was possibly criminally botched, it was so poorly handled. To suppress evidence for so long, to lose/destroy evidence to the point that the city had to pay for their mishandling/destruction of it speaks volumes. The question is, was it merely a series of unintentional blunders, or was there an intentional path followed?

And finally, looking at motive of the unknown assassin(s), things get cloudier fast. It's extremely easy to see a variety of people and organizations that either professed outward hate and opposition to RFK's goals and agenda, or would gain considerably by removing him from the picture. He had made many many enemies, so with such a wide set of possible perpetrators, narrowing it down is pure guesswork without an official investigation.

My best educated guess would be a CIA assassination. Looking at declassified documents on CIA techniques from that era, and at other wet work done on those lines, it very much has the fingerprints of the agency. The CIA's prime motive for such an action would be their very existence as they knew it. Wide autonomy, black budgeting, and a virtually unlimited playground on the world stage to kill, blackmail, steal, and infiltrate. Who wouldn't kill to protect this kind of unlimited money and power?
I won't dispute this. The RFK assassination marked a major turning point in the CIA's power in the US. Remember, my comments to the OP earlier in this thread is the way he acts like everyone who doesn't take his extreme interpretation of the conspiracy is a govt puppet, i.e. according to him if you don't believe that squibs took down the WTC then you can't believe that the govt. had any involvement or foreknowledge in 9/11 whatsoever.

What I will say on topic, however, is that while another gunman may have been involved, it is certain that Sirhan Sirhan fired shots. No matter what the conspiracy, he is not innocent.
And on 13 shots, I didn't realize we were discussing the Pruszynski recording. I can't access youtube right now from work so this is a case where genuine commentary for the OP, per the forum rules, would have been helpful. This recording was NOT suppressed evidence BTW. It is (relatively) newly recovered evidence. The story is that no one even realized the significance of it until 2004, although the tape had been freely available in the CA state archives the whole time.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,565
1,050
126
I know the audio recording wasn't suppressed, and never said it was. It was luckily just not brought into the open for a long time, and that delay helped save it from probably being seized/destroyed.

What was suppressed were the photos James Enyart took of the scene in the immediate moments after the killing.

In any case, I'm glad a real discussion of this is starting to form. Agreed this thread started out on bad legs.
 

noto12ious

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2001
1,131
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
I won't dispute this. The RFK assassination marked a major turning point in the CIA's power in the US. Remember, my comments to the OP earlier in this thread is the way he acts like everyone who doesn't take his extreme interpretation of the conspiracy is a govt puppet, i.e. according to him if you don't believe that squibs took down the WTC then you can't believe that the govt. had any involvement or foreknowledge in 9/11 whatsoever.

What I will say on topic, however, is that while another gunman may have been involved, it is certain that Sirhan Sirhan fired shots. No matter what the conspiracy, he is not innocent.
And on 13 shots, I didn't realize we were discussing the Pruszynski recording. I can't access youtube right now from work so this is a case where genuine commentary for the OP, per the forum rules, would have been helpful. This recording was NOT suppressed evidence BTW. It is (relatively) newly recovered evidence. The story is that no one even realized the significance of it until 2004, although the tape had been freely available in the CA state archives the whole time.
really? prove where i've ever stated this. go ahead, link the thread and quote me. or you can dodge this challenge too. i've stated numerous times you can think whatever you want to think... but if you namecall and ingorantly throw around insults like a coward, i'm going to confront you on facts and watch you run :) however, i've never stated what you're accusing me of :) time for a retraction / dodge on your part :thumbsup:



you didn't know we were talking about 13 shots? wtf? i stated in the original post as my commentary. blind are you? looks like you owe another retraction.

edit: maybe you should've actually looked at the reports instead of chiming in with your original 9/11 troll post.
 

sadguy

Member
Jun 27, 2005
157
0
0
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: Arkaign

I don't want to talk about 9/11 crap in here either, let's keep this on RFK, kthanx. This means YOU, OP!
but i'm on a roll!

very well. it's great seeing these apologists coming up with blanks.
This is no way to have a discussion. I don't really see any apologists either. Let's get this
The apologists are alchemize (a routine apologist in every thread it seems) and vic.

Although vic made himself look like a royal fool.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,051
8,457
126
Originally posted by: sadguy
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: Arkaign

I don't want to talk about 9/11 crap in here either, let's keep this on RFK, kthanx. This means YOU, OP!
but i'm on a roll!

very well. it's great seeing these apologists coming up with blanks.
This is no way to have a discussion. I don't really see any apologists either. Let's get this
The apologists are alchemize (a routine apologist in every thread it seems) and vic.

Although vic made himself look like a royal fool.
For what? For pointing out exactly what notor12ious is like? Or what conspiracy theory extremists are like in general?

I want to know, why is it with conspiracy theorists that if one does not drink the kool-aid all the way down (by which I mean to accept YOUR theory and only YOUR theory, no matter how whacky it might be), then one is some kind of government apologist? Why is it, for example, that if I think the planes, and not demolitions, are what took down the WTCs, that I am marked as an apologist EVEN IF I might agree the government may well have had some involvement and/or was completely incompetent?

Answer that fscking question or STFU.

And to the OP: kindly don't send me anymore hate PMs. Thanks.
 

sadguy

Member
Jun 27, 2005
157
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: sadguy
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: Arkaign

I don't want to talk about 9/11 crap in here either, let's keep this on RFK, kthanx. This means YOU, OP!
but i'm on a roll!

very well. it's great seeing these apologists coming up with blanks.
This is no way to have a discussion. I don't really see any apologists either. Let's get this
The apologists are alchemize (a routine apologist in every thread it seems) and vic.

Although vic made himself look like a royal fool.
For what? For pointing out exactly what notor12ious is like? Or what conspiracy theory extremists are like in general?

I want to know, why is it with conspiracy theorists that if one does not drink the kool-aid all the way down (by which I mean to accept YOUR theory and only YOUR theory, no matter how whacky it might be), then one is some kind of government apologist? Why is it, for example, that if I think the planes, and not demolitions, are what took down the WTCs, that I am marked as an apologist EVEN IF I might agree the government may well have had some involvement and/or was completely incompetent?

Answer that fscking question or STFU.

And to the OP: kindly don't send me anymore hate PMs. Thanks.
Well, the fact that you tried ridicule the OP for not providing a comment, when he in fact did? Then it turns out you didn't even view the original links? What's up with that? That makes you look like an idiot. And why are you even bringing 9/11 into this thread? Sounds like you have a personal vendetta against anyone who questions the government about 9/11.

Yes, you sound like an apologist, especially about 9/11, which you brought up. What makes you sound like an apologist on the RFK issue is how you wouldn't even dare look at the OP's links, and continued to recite the government's version even after the OP and Arkaign pointed out the holes. I guess one should give you credit for finally ADMITTING there's something fishy going on with the RFK coverup (you only did so after other posters called you delusional and you were backed up against a wall with the evidence presented).
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,051
8,457
126
Originally posted by: sadguy
Well, the fact that you tried ridicule the OP for not providing a comment, when he in fact did? Then it turns out you didn't even view the original links? What's up with that? That makes you look like an idiot. And why are you even bringing 9/11 into this thread? Sounds like you have a personal vendetta against anyone who questions the government about 9/11.

Yes, you sound like an apologist, especially about 9/11, which you brought up. What makes you sound like an apologist on the RFK issue is how you wouldn't even dare look at the OP's links, and continued to recite the government's version even after the OP and Arkaign pointed out the holes. I guess one should give you credit for finally ADMITTING there's something fishy going on with the RFK coverup (you only did so after other posters called you delusional and you were backed up against a wall with the evidence presented).
No, I have a "personal vendetta" against people who insist on saying I have a "personal vendetta against anyone who questions the government" solely because I don't accept THEIR theory.
I don't think I could be more clear about this. Just because I think your little conspiracy dogma is whack does not mean that I do not question the government as well, because I do. That's what's up with that.

And it wasn't that I didn't "dare" look at the OP's links. I said exactly what the issue was: youtube is blocked from my work, so I couldn't view them at that time.

And did you read what I said in my first post in this thread? "all-or-nothing tinfoil extremism" That you have to drink the kool-aid all the way down or you'll be accused of something like having a "personal vendetta against anyone who questions the government."

And what have noto12ious and you done ever since throughout this thread? Proved me exactly right on that.
And conspiracy theorists wonder why no one takes you seriously... I've said it before, I'll say it again, if the evil world of the conspiracy theorists is really true, in all its dark shadowy lizard people horror, then they must be in on it themselves. What else could explain it?
 

noto12ious

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2001
1,131
0
0
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: Vic
I won't dispute this. The RFK assassination marked a major turning point in the CIA's power in the US. Remember, my comments to the OP earlier in this thread is the way he acts like everyone who doesn't take his extreme interpretation of the conspiracy is a govt puppet, i.e. according to him if you don't believe that squibs took down the WTC then you can't believe that the govt. had any involvement or foreknowledge in 9/11 whatsoever.

What I will say on topic, however, is that while another gunman may have been involved, it is certain that Sirhan Sirhan fired shots. No matter what the conspiracy, he is not innocent.
And on 13 shots, I didn't realize we were discussing the Pruszynski recording. I can't access youtube right now from work so this is a case where genuine commentary for the OP, per the forum rules, would have been helpful. This recording was NOT suppressed evidence BTW. It is (relatively) newly recovered evidence. The story is that no one even realized the significance of it until 2004, although the tape had been freely available in the CA state archives the whole time.
really? prove where i've ever stated this. go ahead, link the thread and quote me. or you can dodge this challenge too. i've stated numerous times you can think whatever you want to think... but if you namecall and ingorantly throw around insults like a coward, i'm going to confront you on facts and watch you run :) however, i've never stated what you're accusing me of :) time for a retraction / dodge on your part :thumbsup:



you didn't know we were talking about 13 shots? wtf? i stated in the original post as my commentary. blind are you? looks like you owe another retraction.

edit: maybe you should've actually looked at the reports instead of chiming in with your original 9/11 troll post.
what happened vic, couldn't provide a single quote? where's the retraction / apology :)
 

Wheezer

Diamond Member
Nov 2, 1999
6,732
1
0
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: Wheezer
Guess what....he's still just as dead as his brother.....wtf is the point?
oh come on, you can't be serious!

it's like saying the king family should've never filed this victorius lawsuit to set the record straight
yes, yes I am.

Whenever someone in power dies at the hands of another. Or some great catastrophe that boggles the human minds ability to grasp...there are conspiracy theories.

And that is exactly what they are....The Kennedy's, King, princess Di.

The fact is, if someone wants you dead, they will find a way to do it, period. All it takes is motive and opportunity. Not necessarily a well planned opportunity, but opportunity.

The fact is, you can pick at this scab and pick at this scab all you want...it's not going to prove anything.

It is far more likely a lone gunman with a grudge killed both brothers than it is of some massive government cover up...especially with you look at how inept and inefficient ALL branches of the government are.

All that lawsuit proves is that there are idiots in the jury box.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,565
1,050
126
Originally posted by: Wheezer
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: Wheezer
Guess what....he's still just as dead as his brother.....wtf is the point?
oh come on, you can't be serious!

it's like saying the king family should've never filed this victorius lawsuit to set the record straight
yes, yes I am.

Whenever someone in power dies at the hands of another. Or some great catastrophe that boggles the human minds ability to grasp...there are conspiracy theories.

And that is exactly what they are....The Kennedy's, King, princess Di.

The fact is, if someone wants you dead, they will find a way to do it, period. All it takes is motive and opportunity. Not necessarily a well planned opportunity, but opportunity.

The fact is, you can pick at this scab and pick at this scab all you want...it's not going to prove anything.

It is far more likely a lone gunman with a grudge killed both brothers than it is of some massive government cover up...especially with you look at how inept and inefficient ALL branches of the government are.

All that lawsuit proves is that there are idiots in the jury box.
Have you looked at the evidence? How exactly does one shoot thirteen times from an 8-shot revolver without reloading?

What examining this evidence so far has proven is that there were at least two guns firing that night.

Further examination may reveal why evidence was destroyed/suppressed, and what individuals/groups may have been responsible.

Likely to be solved? Not really, but it's definitely the kind of thing that bears looking into.
 

Wheezer

Diamond Member
Nov 2, 1999
6,732
1
0
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Wheezer
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: Wheezer
Guess what....he's still just as dead as his brother.....wtf is the point?
oh come on, you can't be serious!

it's like saying the king family should've never filed this victorius lawsuit to set the record straight
yes, yes I am.

Whenever someone in power dies at the hands of another. Or some great catastrophe that boggles the human minds ability to grasp...there are conspiracy theories.

And that is exactly what they are....The Kennedy's, King, princess Di.

The fact is, if someone wants you dead, they will find a way to do it, period. All it takes is motive and opportunity. Not necessarily a well planned opportunity, but opportunity.

The fact is, you can pick at this scab and pick at this scab all you want...it's not going to prove anything.

It is far more likely a lone gunman with a grudge killed both brothers than it is of some massive government cover up...especially with you look at how inept and inefficient ALL branches of the government are.

All that lawsuit proves is that there are idiots in the jury box.
Have you looked at the evidence? How exactly does one shoot thirteen times from an 8-shot revolver without reloading?

What examining this evidence so far has proven is that there were at least two guns firing that night.

Further examination may reveal why evidence was destroyed/suppressed, and what individuals/groups may have been responsible.

Likely to be solved? Not really, but it's definitely the kind of thing that bears looking into.
ok, lets see.....the government has hired more than one to shoot RFK...now we know that the THEORY from a crap RECORDING is that there were 13 shots and yet only 1 entered RFK's body correct?

So then what does that prove? Well it proves that POSSIBLY there was more than one killer, it also proves that that (those) killers were so freakin inept that out of 13 shots only ONE hit the target....which proves my point even further....a government that came up with Social Security, Medicare and the tax code is just as fvcking stupid when they try to kill someone.

When someone shows me a picture of the killer in front of RFK at the point that the shot was fired instead of relying on "eyewitness" accounts that are over 40 years old or a photo of someone else putting a gun to the back of his head......then maybe you might have a slim chance to convince me.

Conspiracy theories are like religion and we all know how rabid some zealots are about their religion.....and this....well, this is not much different.

In the grand scheme of things one thing is painfully clear...HE'S STILL DEAD.....Just like JFK, just like King, just like Monroe, just like Lincoln, just like Diana, just like anyone else that you think had an entire government conspiracy dedicated just to them......so what.


 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,921
3
0
Originally posted by: Wheezer
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Wheezer
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: Wheezer
Guess what....he's still just as dead as his brother.....wtf is the point?
oh come on, you can't be serious!

it's like saying the king family should've never filed this victorius lawsuit to set the record straight
yes, yes I am.

Whenever someone in power dies at the hands of another. Or some great catastrophe that boggles the human minds ability to grasp...there are conspiracy theories.

And that is exactly what they are....The Kennedy's, King, princess Di.

The fact is, if someone wants you dead, they will find a way to do it, period. All it takes is motive and opportunity. Not necessarily a well planned opportunity, but opportunity.

The fact is, you can pick at this scab and pick at this scab all you want...it's not going to prove anything.

It is far more likely a lone gunman with a grudge killed both brothers than it is of some massive government cover up...especially with you look at how inept and inefficient ALL branches of the government are.

All that lawsuit proves is that there are idiots in the jury box.
Have you looked at the evidence? How exactly does one shoot thirteen times from an 8-shot revolver without reloading?

What examining this evidence so far has proven is that there were at least two guns firing that night.

Further examination may reveal why evidence was destroyed/suppressed, and what individuals/groups may have been responsible.

Likely to be solved? Not really, but it's definitely the kind of thing that bears looking into.
ok, lets see.....the government has hired more than one to shoot RFK...now we know that the THEORY from a crap RECORDING is that there were 13 shots and yet only 1 entered RFK's body correct?

So then what does that prove? Well it proves that POSSIBLY there was more than one killer, it also proves that that (those) killers were so freakin inept that out of 13 shots only ONE hit the target....which proves my point even further....a government that came up with Social Security, Medicare and the tax code is just as fvcking stupid when they try to kill someone.

When someone shows me a picture of the killer in front of RFK at the point that the shot was fired instead of relying on "eyewitness" accounts that are over 40 years old or a photo of someone else putting a gun to the back of his head......then maybe you might have a slim chance to convince me.

Conspiracy theories are like religion and we all know how rabid some zealots are about their religion.....and this....well, this is not much different.

In the grand scheme of things one thing is painfully clear...HE'S STILL DEAD.....Just like JFK, just like King, just like Monroe, just like Lincoln, just like Diana, just like anyone else that you think had an entire government conspiracy dedicated just to them......so what.
What if you don't blame the government and just consider that maybe there were two gunmen? That's all the scientists are saying-you're adding all the crap about a government conspiracy.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,064
0
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
This is so old and it has been beat to death like a dead horse. Give it a rest.
Only to a fool like yourself. Not everyone will gobble up lies so enthusiastically.
 

Wheezer

Diamond Member
Nov 2, 1999
6,732
1
0
Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: Wheezer
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Wheezer
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: Wheezer
Guess what....he's still just as dead as his brother.....wtf is the point?
oh come on, you can't be serious!

it's like saying the king family should've never filed this victorius lawsuit to set the record straight
yes, yes I am.

Whenever someone in power dies at the hands of another. Or some great catastrophe that boggles the human minds ability to grasp...there are conspiracy theories.

And that is exactly what they are....The Kennedy's, King, princess Di.

The fact is, if someone wants you dead, they will find a way to do it, period. All it takes is motive and opportunity. Not necessarily a well planned opportunity, but opportunity.

The fact is, you can pick at this scab and pick at this scab all you want...it's not going to prove anything.

It is far more likely a lone gunman with a grudge killed both brothers than it is of some massive government cover up...especially with you look at how inept and inefficient ALL branches of the government are.

All that lawsuit proves is that there are idiots in the jury box.
Have you looked at the evidence? How exactly does one shoot thirteen times from an 8-shot revolver without reloading?

What examining this evidence so far has proven is that there were at least two guns firing that night.

Further examination may reveal why evidence was destroyed/suppressed, and what individuals/groups may have been responsible.

Likely to be solved? Not really, but it's definitely the kind of thing that bears looking into.
ok, lets see.....the government has hired more than one to shoot RFK...now we know that the THEORY from a crap RECORDING is that there were 13 shots and yet only 1 entered RFK's body correct?

So then what does that prove? Well it proves that POSSIBLY there was more than one killer, it also proves that that (those) killers were so freakin inept that out of 13 shots only ONE hit the target....which proves my point even further....a government that came up with Social Security, Medicare and the tax code is just as fvcking stupid when they try to kill someone.

When someone shows me a picture of the killer in front of RFK at the point that the shot was fired instead of relying on "eyewitness" accounts that are over 40 years old or a photo of someone else putting a gun to the back of his head......then maybe you might have a slim chance to convince me.

Conspiracy theories are like religion and we all know how rabid some zealots are about their religion.....and this....well, this is not much different.

In the grand scheme of things one thing is painfully clear...HE'S STILL DEAD.....Just like JFK, just like King, just like Monroe, just like Lincoln, just like Diana, just like anyone else that you think had an entire government conspiracy dedicated just to them......so what.
What if you don't blame the government and just consider that maybe there were two gunmen? That's all the scientists are saying-you're adding all the crap about a government conspiracy.
no, the OP opened that door when he stated:

13 shots you say? A conspiracy by denifition you say? Couldn't be...the american government could never assassinate anyone and then cover it up cough jfk, mlk cough.
....or did you miss that part?

See when you take the government out of the conspiracy equation....then you are left with nothing but a couple of guys who wanted RFK dead which sucks all the fun out of it for people like the OP

I can accept a couple of guys deciding to kill RFK...hell I would beleive the mob was involved in this, wayyyyyy before the US government.....they have the brains to pull it off.

but the truth is, there is no evidence of that....now we have a couple of guys who feel the same way the OP does and are trying to make a name for themselves....you wanna prove it was a conspiracy?...fine....show us more than some theories about what *might* or might not be gunshots in some old recording that is 40+ years old, or another Oliver Stone movie......show something more plausible.




 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,492
0
0
I'm not an apologist, I'm a conspiracy theorist insulter.

So answer the question OP...what conspiracy theories DON'T you believe? I think it's a valid question.
 

noto12ious

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2001
1,131
0
0
Originally posted by: Wheezer

no, the OP opened that door when he stated:

13 shots you say? A conspiracy by denifition you say? Couldn't be...the american government could never assassinate anyone and then cover it up cough jfk, mlk cough.
yeah. because when the government decides to omit critical evidence that would've changed the official story, it's called a C-O-V-E-R-U-P.

so now you're saying there was a second shooter that killed rfk... and that the government covered it up....and so it's no big deal?

gotcha.

oh, wait for it....i bet you're going to say the government just...botched the investigation, right?

very well then, time to change allllll the history books and set the record straight. i'm sure you would have no problem with that. let's go.
 

noto12ious

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2001
1,131
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
I'm not an apologist, I'm a conspiracy theorist insulter.

So answer the question OP...what conspiracy theories DON'T you believe? I think it's a valid question.
nah, you're an apologist.

you can't even acknowledge this confirmed conspiracy. because you're an apologist.

go ahead, make an excuse for how the jury was "misguided". :laugh:
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,369
5,371
126
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: Wheezer

no, the OP opened that door when he stated:

13 shots you say? A conspiracy by denifition you say? Couldn't be...the american government could never assassinate anyone and then cover it up cough jfk, mlk cough.
yeah. because when the government decides to omit critical evidence that would've changed the official story, it's called a C-O-V-E-R-U-P.

so now you're saying there was a second shooter that killed rfk... and that the government covered it up....and so it's no big deal?

gotcha.

oh, wait for it....i bet you're going to say the government just...botched the investigation, right?

very well then, time to change allllll the history books and set the record straight. i'm sure you would have no problem with that. let's go.
critical evidence that was so covered up it was sitting in the california state archives and readily available for public examination? sounds like I-N-C-O-M-P-E-T-E-N-C-E. but then i am an A-P-O-L-O-G-I-S-T, right?
 

sadguy

Member
Jun 27, 2005
157
0
0
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: Vic
I won't dispute this. The RFK assassination marked a major turning point in the CIA's power in the US. Remember, my comments to the OP earlier in this thread is the way he acts like everyone who doesn't take his extreme interpretation of the conspiracy is a govt puppet, i.e. according to him if you don't believe that squibs took down the WTC then you can't believe that the govt. had any involvement or foreknowledge in 9/11 whatsoever.

What I will say on topic, however, is that while another gunman may have been involved, it is certain that Sirhan Sirhan fired shots. No matter what the conspiracy, he is not innocent.
And on 13 shots, I didn't realize we were discussing the Pruszynski recording. I can't access youtube right now from work so this is a case where genuine commentary for the OP, per the forum rules, would have been helpful. This recording was NOT suppressed evidence BTW. It is (relatively) newly recovered evidence. The story is that no one even realized the significance of it until 2004, although the tape had been freely available in the CA state archives the whole time.
really? prove where i've ever stated this. go ahead, link the thread and quote me. or you can dodge this challenge too. i've stated numerous times you can think whatever you want to think... but if you namecall and ingorantly throw around insults like a coward, i'm going to confront you on facts and watch you run :) however, i've never stated what you're accusing me of :) time for a retraction / dodge on your part :thumbsup:



you didn't know we were talking about 13 shots? wtf? i stated in the original post as my commentary. blind are you? looks like you owe another retraction.

edit: maybe you should've actually looked at the reports instead of chiming in with your original 9/11 troll post.
what happened vic, couldn't provide a single quote? where's the retraction / apology :)
Hm..... where did vic go after this challenge? He's still posting in other threads, but he can't seem to answer these questions? And what's the deal with Vic trolling first, mods?

Questions about Forum Moderation will not be tolerated in threads here. You may contact the Anandtech Moderator by PM or post in PFI.

Fern
AnandTech P&N Moderator



Originally posted by: Vic..
And finally, it is believed that RFK was accidentally pushed by the crowd into Sirhan Sirhan, which is why the angle of the killing shot is so unusual.
The following refutes your ridiculous theory:

guardian

Lastly, five of the shots - 3, 5, 8, 10 and 12 in the sequence - were found to have odd acoustic characteristics when specific frequencies were analysed separately. Van Praag thinks this is because they came from a different gun pointing away from Pruszynski's microphone.

To recreate this he recorded the sounds made by firing the Iver Johnson and another revolver, a Harrison and Richardson 922. At least one member of Kennedy's entourage was carrying this weapon when the killing happened. In the acoustic tests it produced the same frequency anomalies Van Praag had seen in the original recording but only when fired away from the microphone.

He presented his results on Thursday at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences annual meeting in Washington DC.








 

ASK THE COMMUNITY