JFK Assasination Probable Conspiracy
Debate Rounds (3)
If Oswald had shot JFK, why did nobody see him with a rifle coming into work that day? The rifle was in his name, but no one at work had seen him bring it in. The infamous picture of him holding the rifle, has two different reflections from the sun, one of sunrise and one of sundown, if you were to look at his face and then at his feet you'd see that. Moments after the president had been shot, how could one of the women he worked with see him drinking a Coca-Cola, looking calm as ever? If he had shot the president why would he go out the front entrance?
If after the shooting the government had no idea who could done such a think why did they not search every possible area that a shooter could have shot from? Why was the Grassy Knoll never searched? Why did numerous people report they heard more then 3 shots, but we're told there was only 3 bullets, to be found? How can 3 bullets leave seven wounds within 2 people (President Kennedy and Governor Connally)? If there truly is nothing to hide about the assassination why is it we can't access the JFK files until 2038?
I apologize for my delay in responding to this. I've been out of town, and have only now just had a computer, rather than a phone, to work with.
My opponent has asked several questions about the assassination, and while I will address them in the following rounds, what I want to know from my opponent is...what do you think happened on November 22, 1963? Because thus far, all you've done is ask questions about the standard narrative given by the Warren Report. You have not presented a counter-narrative. You've not given an alternate reality to the one suggested by the mainstream. And so I would like to hear from you what you believe happened on that day, because without an alternative narrative to the one presented by the Warren Report, the question of a conspiracy is an absurd one. It's a question based on paranoia (and perhaps a bit of wish-thinking), not one of actual, conceivable reality.
JFK at the time of his assassination was making notable strides to end certain issues with other countries (Russia, Cuba). He was also at the time starting to dismember the CIA because he felt it was to big of a corporation with too much power. Now obviously I don't have specific names to give because I didn't live back then and its not as if names were ever released, but I believe that it was a number of his advisers. Why? Because think about this, war is money, as sad and diluted as that sounds it just is, especially for the winning side. The U.S. has always had a very credible navy. So think about it, you're someone who is seeking more money and you are a very essential part of congress, and if you go to war, you benefit.
JFK wasn't about the money - he always donated his pay checks to charity, because he had already come from a wealthy family and wanted to give back. He truly cared about the well being of this country, but to someone who feels like they always need more and more money, they're going to do what they have to do. Now, I don't believe this was this work of some mastermind, but those who advise the President of the United States are going to be fairly intelligent and if they work together, they'll get just what they're seeking. Especially if it means more money for themselves, which I think most would agree, a substantial amount of people in congress only care about it money for themselves - now more then ever.
Back on topic, so as I said if war means money, and if the president goes, his ideas go right with him. As you can bet they did when LBJ took office. If they wanted JFK's ideas to go, they knew he had to go with them, and those people and the CIA are the only ones that could have had the power at the time to do so. To much doesn't make sense, and if the government doesn't have anything to hide, then why not simply clue us in on all of the things that don't make sense, the things we have the right to know.
To add, have you seen the security measures that were taken at the time of the motorcade? Despicable! The way that day was handled goes against all standard procedure, were talking about the president here, don't you think they would taken some extra precautions? Especially the way that Dallas at the time felt about JFK and his beliefs.
The problem is your ideas for why a conspiracy would have killed JFK are completely in contrast with the motives present in the life of the killer. Lee Harvey Oswald, as noted in the Warren Report, was clearly a psychopath, exhibiting several traits associated with Anti-Social Personality Disorder. He further more considered himself as an avowed Communist, and would have been deeply opposed to both JFK's Capitalist leanings, and his stature as President. It's conceivable that he believed his assassination might get him in good with Cuba, a nation he was trying to enter at the time. This fact is further supported by the fact that when in custody, he repeatedly asked for legal representation by members of the Communist Party USA. And I should point out that presidents have been killed for far less, and far more delusional reasons, such as the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, wherein the gunman wanted to kill him in order to impress the object of his delusional romance, actress Jodie Foster.
This simply doesn't fit with what you are proposing. It's clear that Oswald killed JFK. At best, there may have been a second gunman. But Oswald did commit murder. His potential reasons for doing so don't match up with the narrative you are proposing. Oswald would never have assassinated the President for some secret Capitalist agenda. An agenda, which I should point out, you've still no evidence for.
At that's the real issue here. Because ultimately, the Warren Report, even if not perfect, is a coherent narrative with serious hard evidence backing it. You've asked questions about specific procedure's taken, and perhaps some shoddy investigating. But until you have serious evidence of nefarious and malicious intent, all these things are explained away by incompetence, which is far more likely the case. Do you have any serious evidence of malicious wrongdoing?
demimorin forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pros arguments were not backed by an reasonable reports or articles., Additionally, Pro could not even give specific to why the resolution was probable. As such Con gets argument points for pointing out the obvious flaws. Con also gets conduct points as Pro forfeited the final round.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.