The Instigator
DoctaFly
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
rwebberc
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

John Fitzgerald Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald. The facts are overwhelming. Period.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,762 times Debate No: 2666
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (10)

 

DoctaFly

Pro

I want a conspiracy whackjob to give me one fact that a conspiracy occurred on November 22, 1963. not a hypothesis, not an opinion, not a rumor, not innuendo, not hearsay, not possibilities, not what ifs. Facts. I don't even want several facts. Give me ONE incontrovertible fact that proves that a conspiracy killed Jack Kennedy. In 45 plus years, conspiracy theorists have not provided a shred of evidence. Just the afore-stated muddling of truths and distortion of historical record.

What say you, conspiracy fans? Give me one fact.
rwebberc

Con

I'm not going to give you indisputable evidence that Oswald didn't act alone. If that existed then this debate wouldn't be happening and you wouldn't believe that Oswald killed Kennedy. As William Cowper famously said, "absence of proof is not proof of absence". The fact remains that there are still numerous unexplained problems with the findings of the Warren Commision.

The morning of the assassination, the FBI, Secret Service, and Dallas PD were given a list of 23 known subversives in the Dallas area. Of those 23, 22 were followed. Who wasn't? The man at the top of the list who entered the book depository building carrying a 3 foot long rifle (1). Why wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald followed?

JFK's route was published in the Dallas Morning News that morning and was widely known. But at the last minute the Secret Service changed the route so that it would go directly past the depository (1).

Oswald's description was broadcast by the Dallas PD 12 minutes after JFK was shot. This seems nothing short of miraculous, as police officer J.D. Tippit was not supposedly shot by Oswald until 35 MINUTES after the assassination!

There are certainly other facts about the case that point to inconsistencies in your supposed answer, but I believe those are sufficient enough now to cast doubt on the findings of the Warren Commision. In conclusion, the facts are not overwhelming, and questions certainly still remain.

1. http://karws.gso.uri.edu...

2. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
DoctaFly

Pro

I was going to go to bed prior to responding, but then I read your reply, and I couldn't wait.

First of all, one of the most common conspiracy theories involves a "sudden" and "evil" alteration of the motorcade route in Dealey Plaza. This is classic conspiracy bunk, and complete historical fallacy. let me clear this one up quickly so that it is not repeated:

The ONLY way a vehicle could get to the Trade Mart, where Kennedy was scheduled to speak at 1pm that fateful day, was to take elm Street to the freeway. Elm Street exits to the right after the overpass, and the freeway takes a traveler directly to the Trade Mart. if the evil Secret Service and FBI had wanted to get the President to the Trade Mart by staying on Main Street, they would have had to jump a curb. In fact, every single car and bus in the motorcade would have had to jump the curb after the overpass to access the freeway. Actually, because I have been to Dealey Plaza several times and have driven the route, I can tell you that it isn't even a curb. It is a divider about 3 to 4 feet in width. The limo would have been beached on such a curb. Again, this is one of the most commonly cited "theories" about the malignant forces at work that day, and one of the most easily disproved. The route was NOT altered that morning. Complete hogwash. The route was the same one planned three days before, and Oswald knew it, because it was published in the Dallas Morning News (Elm Street route and all)! Conspiracy debunkers have disproved this weak accusation repeatedly for 40 years, and yet it still pops up, because people fail to do primary source material research. They just repeat conspiracy books, articles, and websites. This is how conspiracy theories survive reason and flourish, despite all evidence and reason to the contrary.

Next: The "miraculous" police description of Oswald 12 minutes following the assassination. Nothing miraculous about it. Howard Brennan was sitting with his wife on the concrete wall across Elm Street, directly facing the Depository. He noticed a man with a rifle 10 minutes prior to the assassination and POINTED HI OUT TO HIS WIFE. When the shots began, Brennan looked up and saw a white male wearing a brown shirt, dark hair, thin, etc. He recalled watching the man take a third shot, then pause as though to make sure he had hit his mark, and then he withdrew back into the window and disappeared. (You can read Brennan's testimony anywhere). Now, Brennan's description was PRECISELY what was utilized by DPD because they had nothing else to go on. Ironically, and this is what confuses conspiracy nutjobs the most, Brennan became convinced that a conspiracy existed later in life, and refused to do any more interviews about the assassination. Why is this ironic? Because Brennan's very description and his observation, with his wife, of the shooter, his description which was verbatim broadcast all over Dallas to police dispatchers, and his recollection of the exact same description of events to the Warren Commission (he did not alter or embellish his recollections like so many others mysteriously did (see: Jean Hill) is what led to Oswald's arrest. Conspiracy theorists cannot reconcile Brennan's rock solid witness descriptions that went out over police radios with his later fear that a conspiracy occurred, because it defeated conspiracy theorist attempts to discredit the man. Magically described on police radios and then arrested? Hardly.

This is precisely what I was waiting for from someone who believed a vast conspiracy occurred. See, I spent 8 years -- eight years -- studying the assassination. I went into my research convinced beyond a doubt that a conspiracy had robbed this country of a president, and that evil forces were in play to suppress the truth. Then I began to do original, primary source material research. Meaning I did not rely on conspiracy books, on websites, on YouTube videos, on magazine articles. I read original testimony. I visited Dealey Plaza. I interviewed experts. I visited the National Archives three times to view original documents, archival photographs, and artifacts from that day. and my steadfast determination in believing in a conspiracy crumbled. A reasoned mind cannot do original research and hold to the theory that anyone but Oswald murdered Kennedy. Every "fact" argued by conspiracy theorists for decades has been thoroughly, and REPEATEDLY disproved, and often by people who originally BELIEVED in a conspiracy! But here's the catch: conspiracy theorists who publish their ideas, and thus have the power to influence a wide-reaching audience, also have an agenda to keep their theories alive. Why? It is first and foremost a money making endeavor. They need to keep their theories dancing in the minds of unknowing people who have NOT done any research themselves. So they purposely avoid to mention facts. They distort reality. They fail to disclose evidence that has been around for 45 years. They forget names, places, events, facts. they warp reality on purpose to keep the myth alive. This isn't simply me babbling on here; this is absolute fact. Conspiracy theorists manipulate the truth and suppress facts in their publications to keep people enthralled. This is almost as big a crime as the assassination itself. Almost. What IS a big crime is the argument that Oswald was innocent. It insults John Kennedy and his legacy to suggest that his murderer was innocent of the greatest crime of the century.

Let's hear some more of your "facts". As I said, I have researched this subject to death. I have heard every single one of them, and I have an answer -- not a theory, a factually based response -- to every single one of them.
rwebberc

Con

Impressive amount of personal research. The burden of proof is on you, however, to show that there is no credible reason to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was solely responsible for JFK's assassination. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I don't believe it can proven that Oswald shot Kennedy AND that he acted alone. I noticed you failed to respond to my argument that it is highly suspicious that Oswald was at the top of the subversives list and happened to be the only one not followed, I can only assume then that you agree.

The following is an excerpt from the testimony of Dr. Robert Nelson Mcclelland to Arlen Specter.

"The initial impression that we had was that perhaps the wound in the neck, the anterior part of the neck, was an entrance wound and that it had perhaps taken a trajectory off the anterior vertebral body and again into the skull itself, exiting out the back, to produce the massive injury in the head. However, this required some straining of the imagination to imagine that this would happen, and it was much easier to explain the apparent trajectory by means of two bullets, which we later found out apparently had been fired, than by just one then, on which basis we were originally taking to explain it" (1).

Here is a link to the drawing made by Dr. Mcclelland of the exit wound: http://www.jfklancer.com...

It would have been impossible for Oswald to have created this wound from his vantage point behind and to the right of President Kennedy.

Marine sniper instructors Craig Roberts and Carlos Hathcock tried to recreate the shot supposedly taken by Oswald according to the Warren Commission. They couldn't. Here is an excerpt from Roberts' book Kill Zone: "Let me tell you what we did at Quantico," Hathcock said. "We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don't know how many times we tried it, but we couldn't duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. Now if I can't do it, how in the world could a guy who was a non-qual on the rifle range and later only qualified 'marksman' do it?"

Finally, forensic scientist D.B. Thomas examined recordings of radio channels used by Dallas PD. In the article he published in Science and Justice Journal, he said that five separate gunshots can be heard. "One of the sounds matches the echo pattern of a test shot fired from the grassy knoll", Thomas concludes (2).

1. http://jfkassassination.net...
2. http://news.bbc.co.uk...

It would appear that there are enough holes in the findings of the Warren Commission to cast doubt on the lone gunman theory. It is your job to provide indisputable evidence that trumps these findings.
Debate Round No. 2
DoctaFly

Pro

DoctaFly forfeited this round.
rwebberc

Con

Disappointing. My opponent appears to be more interested in debating the merits of bodily functions and the sexual prowess of presidential candidates than debating about something he actually claims to have some sort of knowledge about.

The affirmative side of a debate is charged with showing why the resolution is the only answer to a problem. As the negative side, my only job is to cast doubt as to whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald was solely responsible for assassinating President Kennedy. I believe I have provided sufficient evidence to show that it is not possible to say for certain that Oswald shot Kennedy, and that he acted alone. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by rwebberc 9 years ago
rwebberc
Sorry, doctafunk, it just seemed like a logical conclusion given your recent behavior and multiple accounts. I guess it's still a mystery. If you'd like another shot at this debate I'd be happy to oblige. Feel free to read my other debates too hehe.
Posted by DoctaFunk 9 years ago
DoctaFunk
Actually my idiot friend got ahold of my account and began posting obscene debates without my consent. That account was subsequently terminated before I hada chance to post my next point to this debate, which was not only valid, it was potent.

I worked all weekend on a law paper, which is why I was delayed in responding here.

Oh, and I didn't go around voting for your opponents. If you recall, we actually agreed on one debate (about abortion). So I had nada to do with that.
Posted by rwebberc 9 years ago
rwebberc
As an aside, and I must say also out of my own vanity, all my previous opponents seem to have mysteriously garnered 3 more votes last night and, given his activity during this time period, I kind of suspect DoctaFly. I urge anyone reading this to look at my other debates and vote for who they think defended their position the best.
Posted by John_Quincy_Adams 9 years ago
John_Quincy_Adams
I believe anything Carlos Hathcock says.
Posted by rwebberc 9 years ago
rwebberc
Doctafly, I've noticed that since my last post, you've engaged in a slew of nonsensical debates that seem to have the sole purpose of dumbing down this website. Should I take this as a sign you've conceded this debate and I should focus my attention elsewhere? At the very least, I must say I'm disappointed that you are making my inevitable win seem less impressive.
Posted by rwebberc 9 years ago
rwebberc
The first line of my second round should say "Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't solely responsible". Sorry for the mistake.
Posted by rwebberc 9 years ago
rwebberc
Sorry, the Tippit thing is supposed to be attributed to the second source.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by rwebberc 8 years ago
rwebberc
DoctaFlyrwebbercTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by HoosierPapi 9 years ago
HoosierPapi
DoctaFlyrwebbercTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mrqwerty 9 years ago
mrqwerty
DoctaFlyrwebbercTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
DoctaFlyrwebbercTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by trayhayes 9 years ago
trayhayes
DoctaFlyrwebbercTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Cooperman88 9 years ago
Cooperman88
DoctaFlyrwebbercTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by coutinho 9 years ago
coutinho
DoctaFlyrwebbercTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
DoctaFlyrwebbercTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by John_Quincy_Adams 9 years ago
John_Quincy_Adams
DoctaFlyrwebbercTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by kenicks 9 years ago
kenicks
DoctaFlyrwebbercTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03