The Instigator
cocksucker911
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheRussian
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The JFK assassination; the CIA

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 446 times Debate No: 92308
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (0)

 

cocksucker911

Pro

Resolution: Based on the evidence currently available, it is most likely that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin of JFK, and if he was involved, he was not the lone assassin.
TheRussian

Con

I accept. I don't necessarily disagree, and am open about the topic. Simply haven't done much research on it, so show me, Mr. cocksucker911, the evidence for such a theory.

The sole BoP is on you, best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1
cocksucker911

Pro

For the first round I'll just state the evidence surrounded the assassination that indicates that Oswald was planned to be framed for the assassination.

On the morning of November 22nd, 1963, The Dallas Morning News conducted an entire full page advertisement which associated JFK with communism, the entire city was littered with posters in which many of them were headed something along the lines of, 'wanted for treason.' [1] On this day, Dallas had a list of 23 subversives, Lee Harvey Oswald was on this list, in fact, he was at the top of this list, because of his membership in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. [2] On this day, as a security measure, 22 out of the 23 people on this list were followed. The one that was not, was Lee Harvey Oswald. Due to the fact that they conveniently forgot to follow Oswald, in fact the person at the top of the list was the only person on the list they did not follow, and due to this they failed to observe that he apparently carried an over three foot long rifle into the depository. While it is possible, this situation is highly highly improbable, this is an anomaly which suggests that Oswald was planned on being framed for the assassination.

Even more strange, are the circumstances surrounding the last minute change of the presidents motorcade route. In the original route, he was planned to go straight down Main St, which is not past Oswald's depository. [3] Yet they changed the route to go straight past Oswald's depository, and this raises a glaring anomaly. Why would they change the route at the last minute to go past Oswald's depository? Two viable explanations are that they did this in order to frame Oswald, or they did this as a security measure. While either of these may be true, the explanation of a security measure is extremely improbable, I'll get to that next round. However there is another glaring anomaly that surrounds this. If Lee Harvey Oswald wanted to assassinate JFK, how did he magically guess that the secret service would very strangely, which is an anomaly in itself,change the route of the motorcade? He could not have guessed this, and this points to Oswald being framed rather than having assassinated JFK. He simply could not have figured out that The secret service would change the route at the last minute to go past his depository. If he planned to kill JFK, then it does not make any sense that he would set up in the depository, as he could not have known he would go past Elm St. On the security measure explanation of why they would conveniently change the route of the motorcade to go past Oswald's depository, if they wanted this for security, then it does not make sense that they would make the original route of the motorcade so well known and public in the first place and then change the route to a street that was relatively close to the original street, although not in shooting range of the depository. A picture of the known original route v.s the actual route is in [3]

However, the events surrounding the assassination of Patrolman Tippit, which Oswald was originally arrested for, brings up possibly the most improbable anomalies and most extraordinary question in a prime murder case in modern history. The only person with a clear eyewitness view of the shooting (supposedly) is Helen Markham, and she estimated that the shooting took place from between 1:06 pm-1:07 pm. [4] However, Oswald's description was broadcast by the Dallas Police at 12:43 pm, roughly 12 minutes after the assassination. [5] This is an extraordinary question, how was the Dallas Police able to magically predict not only that Tippit would be murdered, but that Oswald was the murderer, when Tippit was still alive. This is truly bordering the blatantly impossible. It make no sense that they were able to predict Oswald would kill Tippit when he was still alive, and were confident enough to give Oswald's description in connection with the murder when he was still alive. This points to Oswald being framed, they had absolutely no way to predict Tippit would kill JFK, some one or some group had to have been using him as a patsy.

The fact that Oswald was the only person not followed on a list of 23 people where he was at the top (a stunning and highly improbable display of incompetence and convenience), the idea that the route of the motorcade was magically changed at the last minute and Oswald was able to magically predict that they would do this, and that the Dallas Police magically predicted that Oswald would murder Patrolman Tippit over 20 minutes before Tippit died, all points to Oswald being used as a patsy.

1. http://www.dallasnews.com...

2. http://www.ratical.org...

3. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

4. http://22november1963.org.uk...

5. http://22november1963.org.uk...
TheRussian

Con

Thus far, I'm pretty convinced. Please continue if you have more evidence/information.
Debate Round No. 2
cocksucker911

Pro

cocksucker911 forfeited this round.
TheRussian

Con

I checked your sources and they are well cited. I did not expect such a strong, well structured argument supported by seemingly reliable sources. Pardon me for providing such weak (nonexistent) resistance.
Debate Round No. 3
cocksucker911

Pro

cocksucker911 forfeited this round.
TheRussian

Con

Thank you for the enlightenment.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by c0cksucker911 7 months ago
c0cksucker911
I got banned before I could finish this sh1t.

But I gave myself a much more tame username.
Posted by KRTxBallistic 8 months ago
KRTxBallistic
Still, I think someone else should have accepted.
Posted by TheRussian 8 months ago
TheRussian
You and I both know that in this debate, it makes no sense for me to have any Burden of Proof as I have nothing to prove. Yes, I agree that "most likely" is not entirely affirmative.
Posted by KRTxBallistic 8 months ago
KRTxBallistic
"most likely" is not affirmative.
Posted by TheRussian 8 months ago
TheRussian
"Based on the evidence currently available, it is most likely that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin of JFK, and if he was involved, he was not the lone assassin." was his resolution. That is an affirmative claim.
Posted by KRTxBallistic 8 months ago
KRTxBallistic
No, because he doesn't claim that the JFK assassination was carried out by the CIA. The title doesn't say anything like "The CIA was behind JFK's assassination", it basically tells us the topic, and which people will be discussed. Basically, it says "The JFK assassination; was the CIA behind it". In R1 he states it's a possibility, not that it was carried out by the CIA. Therefore, BoP is shared.
Posted by TheRussian 8 months ago
TheRussian
From I see, you're pretty new to the site...BoP should not have been shared in this situation. He is affirming a positive claim, the sole BoP rests on him. It's his job to prove something, not mine. I mean think about it, I can't PROVE anything, I can only try to debunk his arguments.
Posted by KRTxBallistic 8 months ago
KRTxBallistic
The BoP should have been shared, but you accepted HIS debate and placed the sole BoP on your opponent.

I'm not criticizing your performance, I'm saying you shouldn't have accepted the debate when you have 0 interest in debating.
Posted by TheRussian 8 months ago
TheRussian
Once again I ask, can you come up with any counter arguments? If you can't, then you have no right to be criticizing me for my performance in this debate.
Posted by TheRussian 8 months ago
TheRussian
Because when he has sole BoP, I do not need to present any arguments of my own, no prior research is necessary. I can focus on trying to dismantle my opponent's arguments, which I was not able to do, therefore he, so far, has essentially won.
No votes have been placed for this debate.