DVP's Assassination Poll
David Von Pein
I'm interested in finding out just how far away from the "mainstream"
the JFK conspiracy theorists are at the alt.assassination.jfk and
alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroups, with the "mainstream" being
represented, at least in part, by the ABC News poll shown below (as
far as the specific question of "Did Lee Oswald Shoot JFK With A
Gun?", that is).
Here are the results of the ABC News poll, which was conducted in
November 2003:
"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the
Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in
addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not
involved in the assassination at all?":
ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
NO OPINION ------------- 10%
Poll Source:
http://PollingReport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
---------------
My poll in this thread is (quite obviously) designed for conspiracy
believers only, because the answers to my two questions are always
going to be "Yes" when answered by any and all lone-assassin
proponents.
If everyone who responds to my poll in this thread would answer the
two questions in the following brief and concise manner, I'd
appreciate it:
1.) Yes or No.
2.) Yes or No.
No other commentary is needed (unless you feel compelled to provide
additional remarks).
==========================================
THE QUESTIONS:
1.) DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD FIRED ANY GUNSHOTS AT PRESIDENT
KENNEDY ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?
2.) DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD SHOT AND KILLED DALLAS POLICE
OFFICER J.D. TIPPIT ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?
==========================================
Thanks in advance to everyone who decides to participate in my poll.
John Blubaugh
Yes and yes.
JB
Thalia
1. No
2. No
drummist1965
1. Yes
2.Yes
parousia
1) NO
2) NO
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dave, with the CTs, it looks like it's all or nothing.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> I'm interested in finding out just how far away from the "mainstream"
> the JFK conspiracy theorists are at the alt.assassination.jfk and
> alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroups, with the "mainstream" being
> represented, at least in part, by the ABC News poll shown below (as
> far as the specific question of "Did Lee Oswald Shoot JFK With A
> Gun?", that is).
>
False representation. That one poll is not the mainstream. It is just
one snippet in time.
> Here are the results of the ABC News poll, which was conducted in
> November 2003:
>
> "Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the
> Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in
> addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not
> involved in the assassination at all?":
>
> ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
> ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
> OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
> NO OPINION ------------- 10%
>
It's a little bit better than some of the other polls by giving more
choices, but you don't explain the context. You intentionally leave out
the other questions to mislead us. Your numbers do not accurately
reflect what percentage thought it was a conspiracy. You try to leave
the false impression that only 51% thought it was a conspiracy.
Here is what the OTHER question was.
"Do you feel the Kennedy assassination was the work of one man, or was
it part of a broader plot?"
One Man Broader Plot No Opinion
.
% % %
.
11/03 22 70 8
.
That's 70% for conspiracy and only 22% for lone nut.
The difference is between a small percentage who thought that it was a
conspiracy and that Oswald was not involved plus a small percentage who
thought that Oswald was the lone shooter, but acting on behalf of others.
> Poll Source:
> http://PollingReport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
>
> ---------------
>
> My poll in this thread is (quite obviously) designed for conspiracy
> believers only, because the answers to my two questions are always
> going to be "Yes" when answered by any and all lone-assassin
> proponents.
>
It should not, because most WC defenders secretly believe it was a
conspiracy. See the poll done at the Journalists Remember symposium.
In this very forum you will find that 90% of the WC defenders say that
Oswald was the only shooter. You will find one or two who say that
Oswald was not the only shooter, but it was still not a conspiracy.
And FYI even if Oswald was a shooter or the only shooter it could still
be a conspiracy. Almost everyone in Washington thought that Oswald was
the lone shooter AND that it was a conspiracy, with Oswald as the killer
paid by Castro.
> If everyone who responds to my poll in this thread would answer the
> two questions in the following brief and concise manner, I'd
> appreciate it:
>
> 1.) Yes or No.
> 2.) Yes or No.
>
How about 3.) Sod off.
> No other commentary is needed (unless you feel compelled to provide
> additional remarks).
>
> ==========================================
>
> THE QUESTIONS:
>
> 1.) DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD FIRED ANY GUNSHOTS AT PRESIDENT
> KENNEDY ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?
>
UNKNOWN
> 2.) DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD SHOT AND KILLED DALLAS POLICE
> OFFICER J.D. TIPPIT ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?
>
YES
pjsp...@aol.com
David, we've discussed that ABC poll before and you know full well it was
flawed a poll with incredibly misleading results. Asking people if Oswald
was not involved in the assassination at all is like asking people if they
think the Warren Commission told the truth about everything. Almost no one
will say yes. People believing Oswald had infiltrated a plot and was set
up, etc, will refuse to say that he was not involved at all, just as
people thinking the Warren Commission came to the correct conclusions, but
took some short cuts in their report, will refuse to say they told the
truth about everything.
You and every LN on this newsgroup know the poll was flawed. If only 7% of
the people think Oswald was innocent, then where does anyone getting off
complaining about Oliver Stone's JFK, and its impact on the public. No one
believing Stone's movie could possibly believe Oswald was an assassin
hired by the Pentagon. If the poll was accurate, and only 7% of the public
believes someone other than Oswald fired the shots at Kennedy, then it can
only be assumed Stone's movie convinced more people fired the shots than
the other way around. And you know that isn't true.
The proper question would have been to ask people if they believe Oswald
fired the shots from the sniper's nest. You and I both know from personal
experience the answer to this question will be about 50% yes, 50% no.
As for my answers to your poll, no and yes.
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pat, what are the main reasons you think Oswald killed Tippit? I have not
completely made up my mind about this, but lean towards he didn't, but I
see merit in both sides of the argument. Is there any evidence that you
believe is incontrovertible that indicates Oswald killed Tippt? thanks
dcwi...@yahoo.com
1) Probably not, altho yes I did advance one possible scenario in
which Oswald was a gunman. I now doubt that for obvious reasons.
2) No. Some of the lineup witnesses, I believe, saw only a man with
Tippit's gun--Mrs Markham & at least one of the Davis sisters-in-law.
One lineup witness, Cab Calloway, I believe, saw no one fleeing. And
one lineup witness, Scoggins, was, I believe, the man with Tippit's
gun.
Note: There is one error in the above. No, only one....
pjsp...@aol.com
My thoughts on the Tippit killing are not as concrete as my thoughts
on the Kennedy killing, but I tend to think Oswald killed Tippit for a
number of reasons.
In no particular order...
1. Someone bearing at least a moderate resemblance to Oswald killed
Tippit, and the CT proposal that someone killed Tippit to frame Oswald
makes little sense to me, seeing as they'd already successfully set
him up for killing Kennedy. I just don't see Johnny Brewer and Julia
Postal as part of some larger plot.
2. Tippit's killer was reported to have muttered "poor dumb cop" or
some such thing. I can see Oswald saying something like this, but not
a professional assassin presumably imitating Oswald to frame him for
killing Tippit.
3. It seems pretty clear Oswald did have a pistol on him when
arrested, and that he pulled it on the officer trying to arrest him.
Why would he have had it if he hadn't intended on using it? That it
was planted on him doesn't make a lot of sense, seeing as the
witnesses to his arrest heard him crying out things such as "I protest
this police brutality" or whatever. If they'd planted a pistol on him,
why didn't he yell out that they were doing so?
4. The NAA of Oswald's hand and cheek casts, while suggesting Oswald
did not fire a rifle on 11-22, were also suggestive he'd fired his
pistol.
5. While I think Oswald was innocent of killing Kennedy, I also
suspect he was involved in the plot on some level, knew damn well who
did kill Kennedy, and was on the run when captured. As a result, that
he'd have shot a police officer while on the run is not a surprise to
me. The "only guilty people run" and "only guilty people would kill a
cop while on the run" argument of so many LNs is just childish
gibberish. Anyone who knows anything about life knows that innocent
people will kill if they think their own life is in danger. The
biggest industry on Earth is based on this presumption. It's called
WAR.
Bud
> On 2/25/2010 9:00 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm interested in finding out just how far away from the "mainstream"
> > the JFK conspiracy theorists are at the alt.assassination.jfk and
> > alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroups, with the "mainstream" being
> > represented, at least in part, by the ABC News poll shown below (as
> > far as the specific question of "Did Lee Oswald Shoot JFK With A
> > Gun?", that is).
>
> False representation. That one poll is not the mainstream. It is just
> one snippet in time.
What has happened in the case that the public would be aware of that
would change opinions dramatically in the last 7 years?
> > Here are the results of the ABC News poll, which was conducted in
> > November 2003:
>
> > "Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the
> > Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in
> > addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not
> > involved in the assassination at all?":
>
> > ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
> > ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
> > OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
> > NO OPINION ------------- 10%
>
> It's a little bit better than some of the other polls by giving more
> choices, but you don't explain the context. You intentionally leave out
> the other questions to mislead us. Your numbers do not accurately
> reflect what percentage thought it was a conspiracy.
Why did you think his point was conspiracy versus non-conspiracy
belief?
> You try to leave
> the false impression that only 51% thought it was a conspiracy.
DVP was showing that this poll reflects that 83% of the people
believe that Oswald was shooting at JFK.
> Here is what the OTHER question was.
>
> "Do you feel the Kennedy assassination was the work of one man, or was
> it part of a broader plot?"
> One Man Broader Plot No Opinion
>
> .
> % % %
>
> .
> 11/03 22 70 8
>
> .
>
> That's 70% for conspiracy and only 22% for lone nut.
But still 83% think Oswald was shooting at Kennedy, which I believe
was DVP`s point (most CTers being outside the mainstream).
> The difference is between a small percentage who thought that it was a
> conspiracy and that Oswald was not involved plus a small percentage who
> thought that Oswald was the lone shooter, but acting on behalf of others.
>
> > Poll Source:
> >http://PollingReport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
>
> > ---------------
>
> > My poll in this thread is (quite obviously) designed for conspiracy
> > believers only, because the answers to my two questions are always
> > going to be "Yes" when answered by any and all lone-assassin
> > proponents.
>
> It should not, because most WC defenders secretly believe it was a
> conspiracy. See the poll done at the Journalists Remember symposium.
> In this very forum you will find that 90% of the WC defenders say that
> Oswald was the only shooter. You will find one or two who say that
> Oswald was not the only shooter, but it was still not a conspiracy.
> And FYI even if Oswald was a shooter or the only shooter it could still
> be a conspiracy. Almost everyone in Washington thought that Oswald was
> the lone shooter AND that it was a conspiracy, with Oswald as the killer
> paid by Castro.
Can you produce a poll that supports that claim?
> > If everyone who responds to my poll in this thread would answer the
> > two questions in the following brief and concise manner, I'd
> > appreciate it:
>
> > 1.) Yes or No.
> > 2.) Yes or No.
>
> How about 3.) Sod off.
>
> > No other commentary is needed (unless you feel compelled to provide
> > additional remarks).
>
> > ==========================================
>
> > THE QUESTIONS:
>
> > 1.) DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD FIRED ANY GUNSHOTS AT PRESIDENT
> > KENNEDY ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?
>
> UNKNOWN
>
> > 2.) DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD SHOT AND KILLED DALLAS POLICE
> > OFFICER J.D. TIPPIT ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?
>
> YES
>
> > ==========================================
>
> > Thanks in advance to everyone who decides to participate in my poll.
>
> >http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
BTW, "of course"/"hell yes" to the poll.
David Von Pein
>>> "Most WC defenders secretly believe it was a conspiracy." <<<
Here we have a conspiracy theorist's unusual mind at work again, I
see, as he imagines all kinds of stuff that is not true.
~Yawn~
David Von Pein
>>> "We've discussed that ABC poll before and you know full well it was [a] flawed poll with incredibly misleading results." <<<
Nonsense. This question (which twice includes the key word--"GUNMAN")
is about as cut-and-dry (and NON-misleading) as you can get:
"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the
Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in
addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not
involved in the assassination at all?":
ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
NO OPINION ------------- 10%
http://PollingReport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
So, unless the 1,031 people who took part in that ABC News poll were
completely retarded, it means that 83% of those 1,031 people are of
the opinion that OSWALD SHOT PRESIDENT KENNEDY. Period. And that's an
opinion that a large percentage of the people who post at the acj &
aaj forums do not agree with.
And as we can see via just the first-day "returns" in this poll of
mine, only 25% of the conspiracy theorists who offered up a firm
opinion about my #1 question ("DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD FIRED
ANY GUNSHOTS AT PRESIDENT KENNEDY ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?") think that
Lee Oswald fired any shots at JFK....1 out of 4 people.*
* = Not counting Tony Marsh, who answered "Unknown", or Steve Barber
(because he's an LNer, and I specifically stated that I really didn't
want any LNers to respond to my poll's questions, because it's obvious
what their answers are going to be).
Obviously, just 4 people isn't a very large representative sample, but
it's something to build on, and (as I fully expected) the 75% of the
four respondents thus far who fall into the "OSWALD DID NOT SHOOT
KENNEDY" category is not even close to the mere 7% who occupied that
category in the 2003 ABC News poll.
===================================================
ABC'S 2003 ASSASSINATION POLL--83% THINK OSWALD WAS SHOOTING AT JFK:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c0189f6da4be3133
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ecfae05e92eaf9f2
===================================================
black...@aol.com
Yes
Yes
bigdog
> 4. The NAA of Oswald's hand and cheek casts, while suggesting Oswald
> did not fire a rifle on 11-22, were also suggestive he'd fired his
> pistol.
Why do you say NAA tests suggest Oswald did not fire a rifle on 11-22
when the NAA tests were positive for barium and antimony?
pjsp...@aol.com
are, in fact, proving yourself to be either completely disingenuous, or
completely out to lunch. If only 7% of the people doubt Oswald fired
shots, where in the heck does your boy Bugliosi, or any other LN, get off
claiming Oliver Stone deceived America into believing there was a
conspiracy, yawn, deception, yawn, outright lie, yawn?
Do you REALLY believe less than 7% of Americans doubted Oswald's guilt
BEFORE the release of JFK? OF COURSE NOT.
Do you really believe anyone watching JFK, and being swayed by its
presentation of the evidence, would leave the theater thinking well,
yeah, the Pentagon (and/or CIA) was behind the assassination, and
OSWALD was working for them! OF COURSE NOT.
So, based on this flawed TV poll, you must then reject all other polls
asserting that 50% of those surveyed think the CIA was behind the
assassination...
Do you reject these surveys based on anything other than a knee-jerk
reaction?
Do you honestly believe that the vast majority of CTs think Oswald
fired his shots on behalf the mafia, or some other entity other than
the CIA or Pentagon? OF COURSE NOT.
You absolutely positively DO NOT BELIEVE this poll. And pretending you
do is counter-productive...
Anthony Marsh
What? I answered YES to question 2.
You make a career out of misrepresenting what conspiracy believers
believe.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "We've discussed that ABC poll before and you know full well it was
[a] flawed poll with incredibly misleading results."<<<
>
> Nonsense. This question (which twice includes the key word--"GUNMAN")
> is about as cut-and-dry (and NON-misleading) as you can get:
>
>
> "Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the
> Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in
> addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not
> involved in the assassination at all?":
>
> ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
> ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
> OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
> NO OPINION ------------- 10%
>
>
> http://PollingReport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
>
>
> So, unless the 1,031 people who took part in that ABC News poll were
> completely retarded, it means that 83% of those 1,031 people are of
> the opinion that OSWALD SHOT PRESIDENT KENNEDY. Period. And that's an
> opinion that a large percentage of the people who post at the acj&
> aaj forums do not agree with.
>
The discrepancy between the results which I pointed out proves that a
small percentage believed that Oswald was the lone shooter and part of a
conspiracy. You seem to have this blind spot where you can't understand
that a lone shooter can be part of a conspiracy.
Some of the people polled were able to understand that subtle distinction.
> And as we can see via just the first-day "returns" in this poll of
> mine, only 25% of the conspiracy theorists who offered up a firm
> opinion about my #1 question ("DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD FIRED
> ANY GUNSHOTS AT PRESIDENT KENNEDY ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?") think that
> Lee Oswald fired any shots at JFK....1 out of 4 people.*
>
> * = Not counting Tony Marsh, who answered "Unknown", or Steve Barber
> (because he's an LNer, and I specifically stated that I really didn't
> want any LNers to respond to my poll's questions, because it's obvious
> what their answers are going to be).
>
> Obviously, just 4 people isn't a very large representative sample, but
> it's something to build on, and (as I fully expected) the 75% of the
> four respondents thus far who fall into the "OSWALD DID NOT SHOOT
> KENNEDY" category is not even close to the mere 7% who occupied that
> category in the 2003 ABC News poll.
>
Ever hear of selection bias? That is exactly what you are doing.
> ===================================================
>
> ABC'S 2003 ASSASSINATION POLL--83% THINK OSWALD WAS SHOOTING AT JFK:
>
As part of a conspiracy.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
It's what you guys prove every day.
> ~Yawn~
>
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 25, 10:03 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 2/25/2010 9:00 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I'm interested in finding out just how far away from the "mainstream"
>>> the JFK conspiracy theorists are at the alt.assassination.jfk and
>>> alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroups, with the "mainstream" being
>>> represented, at least in part, by the ABC News poll shown below (as
>>> far as the specific question of "Did Lee Oswald Shoot JFK With A
>>> Gun?", that is).
>>
>> False representation. That one poll is not the mainstream. It is just
>> one snippet in time.
>
> What has happened in the case that the public would be aware of that
> would change opinions dramatically in the last 7 years?
>
Hard to say. Maybe new documents coming out. Maybe deathbed confessions.
Maybe revelations about CIA activities. Maybe new books. Maybe new movies.
>>> Here are the results of the ABC News poll, which was conducted in
>>> November 2003:
>>
>>> "Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the
>>> Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in
>>> addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not
>>> involved in the assassination at all?":
>>
>>> ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
>>> ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
>>> OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
>>> NO OPINION ------------- 10%
>>
>> It's a little bit better than some of the other polls by giving more
>> choices, but you don't explain the context. You intentionally leave out
>> the other questions to mislead us. Your numbers do not accurately
>> reflect what percentage thought it was a conspiracy.
>
> Why did you think his point was conspiracy versus non-conspiracy
> belief?
>
Because he is a WC defender and his job is to misrepresent facts to push
non-conspiracy.
>> You try to leave
>> the false impression that only 51% thought it was a conspiracy.
>
> DVP was showing that this poll reflects that 83% of the people
> believe that Oswald was shooting at JFK.
>
Yes, as part of a conspiracy.
>> Here is what the OTHER question was.
>>
>> "Do you feel the Kennedy assassination was the work of one man, or was
>> it part of a broader plot?"
>> One Man Broader Plot No Opinion
>>
>> .
>> % % %
>>
>> .
>> 11/03 22 70 8
>>
>> .
>>
>> That's 70% for conspiracy and only 22% for lone nut.
>
> But still 83% think Oswald was shooting at Kennedy, which I believe
> was DVP`s point (most CTers being outside the mainstream).
>
Maybe MOST because we have examined the evidence in more detail than the
average public. But some do accept that Oswald was a shooter AND it was
a conspiracy. That is what the HSCA concluded.
>> The difference is between a small percentage who thought that it was a
>> conspiracy and that Oswald was not involved plus a small percentage who
>> thought that Oswald was the lone shooter, but acting on behalf of others.
>>
>>> Poll Source:
>>> http://PollingReport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
>>
>>> ---------------
>>
>>> My poll in this thread is (quite obviously) designed for conspiracy
>>> believers only, because the answers to my two questions are always
>>> going to be "Yes" when answered by any and all lone-assassin
>>> proponents.
>>
>> It should not, because most WC defenders secretly believe it was a
>> conspiracy. See the poll done at the Journalists Remember symposium.
>> In this very forum you will find that 90% of the WC defenders say that
>> Oswald was the only shooter. You will find one or two who say that
>> Oswald was not the only shooter, but it was still not a conspiracy.
>> And FYI even if Oswald was a shooter or the only shooter it could still
>> be a conspiracy. Almost everyone in Washington thought that Oswald was
>> the lone shooter AND that it was a conspiracy, with Oswald as the killer
>> paid by Castro.
>
> Can you produce a poll that supports that claim?
>
You want me to do my own polling?
I can do a poll to produce any result you want. I can do a poll to find
that 100% of the respondents think that aliens killed President Kennedy.
David Von Pein
Pat Speer's last post is a real doozy. I guess Pat must think that ABC
News just MADE UP the figures that appear in the poll results.
Oliver Stone's fantasy film aside, the FACT remains that 83% of the 1,031
people polled by ABC News in Nov. 2003 said they thought Oswald fired
shots at JFK.
Why do you feel the need to complicate and/or distort those clear-as-a-
bell poll results, Pat?
(Silly question, huh?)
David Von Pein
>>> "The discrepancy between the results which I pointed out proves that a
small percentage believed that Oswald was the lone shooter and part of a
conspiracy. You seem to have this blind spot where you can't understand
that a lone shooter can be part of a conspiracy. Some of the people polled
were able to understand that subtle distinction." <<<
I never said that the majority of the "83%" didn't believe in a
conspiracy. Please try to find in this thread where I've even HINTED at
that notion. You won't find such a DVP statement. How COULD I even suggest
such a thing with these stats from the very same poll staring me in the
face:
"Do you feel the Kennedy assassination was the work of one man, or was it
part of a broader plot?"....
One Man -- 22%
Broader Plot -- 70%
No Opinion -- 8%
My poll is all about asking people whether or not CTers think Oswald
WAS A GUNMAN, not about whether any "conspiracy" existed.
As usual, Tony Marsh just likes to argue--even when an argument isn't
called for.
Bud
> On 2/26/2010 1:35 PM, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 10:03 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 2/25/2010 9:00 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> >>> I'm interested in finding out just how far away from the "mainstream"
> >>> the JFK conspiracy theorists are at the alt.assassination.jfk and
> >>> alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroups, with the "mainstream" being
> >>> represented, at least in part, by the ABC News poll shown below (as
> >>> far as the specific question of "Did Lee Oswald Shoot JFK With A
> >>> Gun?", that is).
>
> >> False representation. That one poll is not the mainstream. It is just
> >> one snippet in time.
>
> > What has happened in the case that the public would be aware of that
> > would change opinions dramatically in the last 7 years?
>
> Hard to say. Maybe new documents coming out. Maybe deathbed confessions.
> Maybe revelations about CIA activities. Maybe new books. Maybe new movies.
Maybe they`ve had no new information enter their consciouness in
those 7 years to influence their opinions.
> >>> Here are the results of the ABC News poll, which was conducted in
> >>> November 2003:
>
> >>> "Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the
> >>> Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in
> >>> addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not
> >>> involved in the assassination at all?":
>
> >>> ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
> >>> ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
> >>> OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
> >>> NO OPINION ------------- 10%
>
> >> It's a little bit better than some of the other polls by giving more
> >> choices, but you don't explain the context. You intentionally leave out
> >> the other questions to mislead us. Your numbers do not accurately
> >> reflect what percentage thought it was a conspiracy.
>
> > Why did you think his point was conspiracy versus non-conspiracy
> > belief?
>
> Because he is a WC defender and his job is to misrepresent facts to push
> non-conspiracy.
And your job is to create strawmen to distract from the points he
was actually making.
> >> You try to leave
> >> the false impression that only 51% thought it was a conspiracy.
>
> > DVP was showing that this poll reflects that 83% of the people
> > believe that Oswald was shooting at JFK.
>
> Yes, as part of a conspiracy.
No, the 83% only reflects people who believe Oswald was shooting at
JFK.
> >> Here is what the OTHER question was.
>
> >> "Do you feel the Kennedy assassination was the work of one man, or was
> >> it part of a broader plot?"
> >> One Man Broader Plot No Opinion
>
> >> .
> >> % % %
>
> >> .
> >> 11/03 22 70 8
>
> >> .
>
> >> That's 70% for conspiracy and only 22% for lone nut.
>
> > But still 83% think Oswald was shooting at Kennedy, which I believe
> > was DVP`s point (most CTers being outside the mainstream).
>
> Maybe MOST because we have examined the evidence in more detail than the
> average public.
Doesn`t matter, it still puts the belief outside of the mainstream,
which was DVP`s point.
John Blubaugh
He learned that technique from LNs.
JB
David Von Pein
>>> "Some of the lineup witnesses, I believe, saw only a man with Tippit's
gun--Mrs Markham & at least one of the Davis sisters-in-law." <<<
Oh, for Pete sake, Don. You're just making up silly theories that you
should be embarrassed to put in print.
You think the only gunman Markham saw was carrying TIPPIT'S gun? And that
this gunman Markham and the Davis girl saw was SCOGGINS? Talk about
rewriting history. Don Willis is making a concerted effort at doing that
here.
Scoggins never even had Tippit's gun, of course. It was Ted Callaway who
took Tippit's gun, not Scoggins. And this wasn't until a few minutes after
Tippit's killer had fled the crime scene. And Markham and Davis saw a
gunman immediately after Tippit was shot. And Davis even saw Oswald
dumping the shells out of his gun. Even you will admit that the person who
had Tippit's gun wasn't doing any shell-dumping that day, right Don?
>>> "One lineup witness, Cab [aka Ted] Calloway [sic], I believe, saw no
one fleeing." <<<
Oh, goodie! Don is making stuff up again! Wonderful!
>>> "And one lineup witness, Scoggins, was, I believe, the man with
Tippit's gun." <<<
Your belief is provably wrong.
Question for Donald C. Willis: Why do you have such a strong desire to
misrepresent the known evidence in both the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder
cases?
I'm just curious to know what fuels the desire to totally rewrite the
known facts about those two Dallas crimes.
j leyden
Slam Dunk: yes & Yes.
JGL
> I'm interested in finding out just how far away from the "mainstream"
> the JFK conspiracy theorists are at the alt.assassination.jfk and
> alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroups, with the "mainstream" being
> represented, at least in part, by the ABC News poll shown below (as
> far as the specific question of "Did Lee Oswald Shoot JFK With A
> Gun?", that is).
>
> Here are the results of the ABC News poll, which was conducted in
> November 2003:
>
> "Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the
> Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in
> addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not
> involved in the assassination at all?":
>
> ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
> ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
> OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
> NO OPINION ------------- 10%
>
> Poll Source:http://PollingReport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
>
> ---------------
>
> My poll in this thread is (quite obviously) designed for conspiracy
> believers only, because the answers to my two questions are always
> going to be "Yes" when answered by any and all lone-assassin
> proponents.
>
> If everyone who responds to my poll in this thread would answer the
> two questions in the following brief and concise manner, I'd
> appreciate it:
>
> 1.) Yes or No.
> 2.) Yes or No.
>
> No other commentary is needed (unless you feel compelled to provide
> additional remarks).
>
> ==========================================
>
> THE QUESTIONS:
>
> 1.) DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD FIRED ANY GUNSHOTS AT PRESIDENT
> KENNEDY ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?
>
> 2.) DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD SHOT AND KILLED DALLAS POLICE
> OFFICER J.D. TIPPIT ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?
>
pjsp...@aol.com
Your response, David, indicates that you know I'm right, and that neither
you nor any other LN on this forum actually believes that poll. As stated,
the questions were flawed and led to inaccurate results.
The people answered based upon the question of whether or not Oswald was
involved. You have extrapolated from this that ALL these people thought he
was a shooter. Being involved does not equal being a shooter. It follows
then that many responded in a manner indicating Oswald was a shooter
because they didn't want to say he wasn't involved at all. It was a false
dichotomy. If asked the question of whether or not child molesters should
be executed or allowed to roam free, the vast majority of people would say
"executed" because the alternative is unthinkable, even though they would
actually choose a third alternative should it have been offered.
If, on the other hand, you continue to play this game, and continue to
insist that the vast majority of those suspecting a conspiracy believe
Oswald shot Kennedy as part of a conspiracy, you should at least enlighten
us as to who these people think Oswald was working for.
Was it the mafia? Which would be weird considering that the vast majority
of CTs on this and all other forums think the "mafia-did-it" theory is a
distraction... And even weirder...considering such a suspicion would prove
Bugliosi and all other critics of Oliver Stone had criticized Stone for
spreading a theory which his movie had argued against...
Or was it the CIA? In which case Bugliosi and all other critics of Stone
would also owe him an apology, as it would prove those suspecting a
conspiracy had completely rejected Stone's proposition Oswald was a patsy,
and had formed their own conspiracy theory based upon the films or
writings of...no one.
So, for which of these reasons does Bugliosi (and you, and every other LN
on this forum claiming Stone had misled millions of people into believing
a conspiracy in which Oswald was a patsy) owe Stone an apology?
We're waiting...
Anthony Marsh
No, the 83% include people who said it was a conspiracy.
>>>> Here is what the OTHER question was.
>>
>>>> "Do you feel the Kennedy assassination was the work of one man, or was
>>>> it part of a broader plot?"
>>>> One Man Broader Plot No Opinion
>>
>>>> .
>>>> % % %
>>
>>>> .
>>>> 11/03 22 70 8
>>
>>>> .
>>
>>>> That's 70% for conspiracy and only 22% for lone nut.
>>
>>> But still 83% think Oswald was shooting at Kennedy, which I believe
>>> was DVP`s point (most CTers being outside the mainstream).
>>
>> Maybe MOST because we have examined the evidence in more detail than the
>> average public.
>
> Doesn`t matter, it still puts the belief outside of the mainstream,
> which was DVP`s point.
>
What belief is outside the mainstream? The mainstream belief is conspiracy.
Anthony Marsh
>
> Pat Speer's last post is a real doozy. I guess Pat must think that ABC
> News just MADE UP the figures that appear in the poll results.
>
We think that you intentionally misrepresented the figures from that poll.
> Oliver Stone's fantasy film aside, the FACT remains that 83% of the 1,031
> people polled by ABC News in Nov. 2003 said they thought Oswald fired
> shots at JFK.
>
Yes, as part of a conspiracy.
> Why do you feel the need to complicate and/or distort those clear-as-a-
> bell poll results, Pat?
>
Why do you feel the need to misrepresent that poll to try to pretend
that it means that most people did not think it was a conspiracy?
> (Silly question, huh?)
>
Anthony Marsh
I am guessing he means the cheek tests being negative.
Bud
It might also include left handed people, but the total reflects the
people who believe Oswald was shooting at JFK.
> >>>> Here is what the OTHER question was.
>
> >>>> "Do you feel the Kennedy assassination was the work of one man, or was
> >>>> it part of a broader plot?"
> >>>> One Man Broader Plot No Opinion
>
> >>>> .
> >>>> % % %
>
> >>>> .
> >>>> 11/03 22 70 8
>
> >>>> .
>
> >>>> That's 70% for conspiracy and only 22% for lone nut.
>
> >>> But still 83% think Oswald was shooting at Kennedy, which I believe
> >>> was DVP`s point (most CTers being outside the mainstream).
>
> >> Maybe MOST because we have examined the evidence in more detail than the
> >> average public.
>
> > Doesn`t matter, it still puts the belief outside of the mainstream,
> > which was DVP`s point.
>
> What belief is outside the mainstream?
Still can`t follow a discussion, eh Tony? Look above, I spelled it
out.
> The mainstream belief is conspiracy.
Really? The mainstream belief for the best condiment to put on hot
dogs is "conspiracy"? I think there are probably different mainstream
beliefs about different topics and issues.
David Von Pein
>>> "The people answered based upon the question of whether or not Oswald
was involved. You have extrapolated from this that ALL these people
thought he was a shooter. Being involved does not equal being a shooter.
It follows then that many responded in a manner indicating Oswald was a
shooter because they didn't want to say he wasn't involved at all." <<<
To believe Pat Speer here, we have no choice but to believe that a large
number of the 1,031 people who responded to the question shown below
(which was part of a 2003 ABC News poll) decided to TOTALLY IGNORE the key
word "GUNMAN" which appears in the FIRST TWO-THIRDS of the question.
Patrick Speer must, indeed, be of the opinion that almost all of the
people who responded to this question were retarded and/or complete idiots
(because, per Speer, the majority of these people should have really
answered "No Opinion" to this question, instead of answering as they did):
"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the
Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in
addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not
involved in the assassination at all?":
ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
NO OPINION ------------- 10%
http://www.PollingReport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
>>> "If, on the other hand, you continue to play this game, and continue
to insist that the vast majority of those suspecting a conspiracy believe
Oswald shot Kennedy as part of a conspiracy..." <<<
It's not a "game" at all, Pat. I think that ABC News poll is probably
pretty doggone accurate and likely represents the thoughts of the
"mainstream" in America fairly well regarding Oswald's involvement AS A
GUNMAN in JFK's murder.
It's only the outer-fringe CTers who occupy forums such as acj and aaj who
represent a "majority" in the Anybody-But-Oswald club. The majority of
people, I'd wager to say, think Oswald took some shots at Kennedy.
>>> "...you should at least enlighten us as to who these people think
Oswald was working for. Was it the mafia? .... Or was it the CIA? In which
case Bugliosi and all other critics of Stone would also owe him an
apology, as it would prove those suspecting a conspiracy had completely
rejected Stone's proposition Oswald was a patsy, and had formed their own
conspiracy theory based upon the films or writings of...no one. So, for
which of these reasons does Bugliosi (and you, and every other LN on this
forum claiming Stone had misled millions of people into believing a
conspiracy in which Oswald was a patsy) owe Stone an apology? We're
waiting..." <<<
You're resembling Mister Salty more every day, Pat -- i.e., you seem to
like to "twist" thing all out of shape.
How many hours of pondering did it take you before writing that last hunk
of silliness about Bugliosi owing Oliver Stone an "apology" (of all
things!)?
Good Lord, you think that Bugliosi owes Stone AN APOLOGY for mangling
virtually all of the facts in the JFK case in his 1991 fantasy movie?!
And you think this "apology" is in order because the general public at
large (per the ABC poll at least) believes that Oswald really wasn't the
innocent patsy (i.e., a non-gunman) as portrayed in Stone's film, even
though most of that same general public still believes in a conspiracy of
some kind to kill Kennedy?
You must be kidding.
A good thing for Pat (or anybody) to do would be to conduct a "poll" of
their own, and ask a whole bunch of strangers on the street (or several
friends and relatives) the two key questions that I asked in my poll in
this forum thread:
1.) DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD FIRED ANY GUNSHOTS AT PRESIDENT
KENNEDY ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?
2.) DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD SHOT AND KILLED DALLAS POLICE
OFFICER J.D. TIPPIT ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?
After getting, let's say, about 40 or 50 firm "Yes" or "No" answers
(especially to question #1), what do you think the results would be? Would
the results be closer to ABC's 7% in the "Oswald Was Not A Gunman"
category? Or would the percentage be much higher than that (like it is at
every JFK forum on the planet)?
Might be interesting to find out, huh?
(If the CIA didn't have me chained to this computer 24/7, I might even try
conducting the poll myself.) ;)
REPRISE:
>>> "...you should at least enlighten us as to who these people think
Oswald was working for. Was it the mafia? .... Or was it the CIA?" <<<
For an answer, take a look at another section of that same Polling Report
link that I keep posting. That exact question was asked in the Gallup Poll
in November 2003, with 37% of the 471 respondents saying the Mafia was
involved, while 34% favored the CIA. And 18% said Lyndon Johnson had a
hand in the assassination:
David Von Pein
>>> "Why do you feel the need to misrepresent that poll to try to pretend
that it means that most people did not think it was a conspiracy?" <<<
See my earlier reply.
Perhaps, Tony, you should stop acting like you know what you're talking
about. You're really rotten at it a lot of the time. (Like now.)
Anthony Marsh
Perhaps you could stop misrepresenting historical facts, like hiding the
results which showed 70% saying it was a conspiracy.
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "The people answered based upon the question of whether or not Oswald
> was involved. You have extrapolated from this that ALL these people
> thought he was a shooter. Being involved does not equal being a shooter.
> It follows then that many responded in a manner indicating Oswald was a
> shooter because they didn't want to say he wasn't involved at all."<<<
>
>
> To believe Pat Speer here, we have no choice but to believe that a large
> number of the 1,031 people who responded to the question shown below
> (which was part of a 2003 ABC News poll) decided to TOTALLY IGNORE the key
> word "GUNMAN" which appears in the FIRST TWO-THIRDS of the question.
> Patrick Speer must, indeed, be of the opinion that almost all of the
> people who responded to this question were retarded and/or complete idiots
> (because, per Speer, the majority of these people should have really
> answered "No Opinion" to this question, instead of answering as they did):
>
No, they knew exactly what they meant. That Oswald was the only gunman
in the conspiracy, a hired killer for Castro or the CIA, or the Mob.
> "Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the
> Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in
> addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not
> involved in the assassination at all?":
>
> ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
> ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
> OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
> NO OPINION ------------- 10%
>
>
> http://www.PollingReport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
>
>
>
>>>> "If, on the other hand, you continue to play this game, and continue
> to insist that the vast majority of those suspecting a conspiracy believe
> Oswald shot Kennedy as part of a conspiracy..."<<<
>
>
> It's not a "game" at all, Pat. I think that ABC News poll is probably
> pretty doggone accurate and likely represents the thoughts of the
> "mainstream" in America fairly well regarding Oswald's involvement AS A
> GUNMAN in JFK's murder.
>
Yes, quite accurate, reflecting the FACT that 80% of the public believe
it was a conspiracy. That is the mainstream belief. You are outside the
mainstream.
> It's only the outer-fringe CTers who occupy forums such as acj and aaj who
> represent a "majority" in the Anybody-But-Oswald club. The majority of
> people, I'd wager to say, think Oswald took some shots at Kennedy.
>
More false charges. Such a small sample could not possibly duplicate the
larger sample. And the larger sample was taken at random from the general
public. What you are doing is looking at a much smaller sample which is
not random and has studied this case in more depth than the public at
large. It's called selection bias.
Only a moron would think that conspiracy researchers here would agree 100%
with the ABC poll.
>
>>>> "...you should at least enlighten us as to who these people think
> Oswald was working for. Was it the mafia? .... Or was it the CIA? In which
> case Bugliosi and all other critics of Stone would also owe him an
> apology, as it would prove those suspecting a conspiracy had completely
> rejected Stone's proposition Oswald was a patsy, and had formed their own
> conspiracy theory based upon the films or writings of...no one. So, for
> which of these reasons does Bugliosi (and you, and every other LN on this
> forum claiming Stone had misled millions of people into believing a
> conspiracy in which Oswald was a patsy) owe Stone an apology? We're
> waiting..."<<<
>
> You're resembling Mister Salty more every day, Pat -- i.e., you seem to
> like to "twist" thing all out of shape.
>
> How many hours of pondering did it take you before writing that last hunk
> of silliness about Bugliosi owing Oliver Stone an "apology" (of all
> things!)?
>
> Good Lord, you think that Bugliosi owes Stone AN APOLOGY for mangling
> virtually all of the facts in the JFK case in his 1991 fantasy movie?!
>
List which facts you think he mangled. As a director he clearly made up
details to patch the story together.
If he shows a film of the autopsy that is clearly made up because there
was no film of the autopsy. But to make the story flow he needs to portray
what happened at each stage. Just as film makers recreate events in a
cabinet meeting. There were no cameras filming the cabinet meeting so the
film maker needs to make up details to try to replicate the conditions at
the time. I have never seen you complain about that technique in ANY other
movie. Only in JFK, because it questions your beloved WC lies.
> And you think this "apology" is in order because the general public at
> large (per the ABC poll at least) believes that Oswald really wasn't the
> innocent patsy (i.e., a non-gunman) as portrayed in Stone's film, even
> though most of that same general public still believes in a conspiracy of
> some kind to kill Kennedy?
>
> You must be kidding.
>
The film portrays one man's viewpoint on the assassination. You can
disagree with Garrison. Fine. But don't blame Oliver Stone for trying to
be faithful to his icon.
>
> A good thing for Pat (or anybody) to do would be to conduct a "poll" of
> their own, and ask a whole bunch of strangers on the street (or several
> friends and relatives) the two key questions that I asked in my poll in
> this forum thread:
>
>
> 1.) DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD FIRED ANY GUNSHOTS AT PRESIDENT
> KENNEDY ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?
>
> 2.) DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD SHOT AND KILLED DALLAS POLICE
> OFFICER J.D. TIPPIT ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?
>
>
> After getting, let's say, about 40 or 50 firm "Yes" or "No" answers
> (especially to question #1), what do you think the results would be? Would
> the results be closer to ABC's 7% in the "Oswald Was Not A Gunman"
> category? Or would the percentage be much higher than that (like it is at
> every JFK forum on the planet)?
>
I think 90% of the answers would be "Who the Hell is Lee Harvey Oswald?"
The other 10% of the answers would be "President who?"
> Might be interesting to find out, huh?
>
Well, of course it would be interesting. But meaningless.
We actually did ask a series of questions at a researcher conference in
Chicago. Almost everyone agreed that shots were fired from the TSBD.
Only Lifton said no shots came from behind.
Maybe someone remembers how many researchers thought Oswald was
involved. Close to a majority as I remember, out of about 500 people in
the audience. Jerry Rose asked the questions.
> (If the CIA didn't have me chained to this computer 24/7, I might even try
> conducting the poll myself.) ;)
>
You mean actually going outside and mingling with the public? Isn't that
too dangerous for you?
> REPRISE:
>
>>>> "...you should at least enlighten us as to who these people think
> Oswald was working for. Was it the mafia? .... Or was it the CIA?"<<<
>
> For an answer, take a look at another section of that same Polling Report
> link that I keep posting. That exact question was asked in the Gallup Poll
> in November 2003, with 37% of the 471 respondents saying the Mafia was
> involved, while 34% favored the CIA. And 18% said Lyndon Johnson had a
> hand in the assassination:
>
> http://www.PollingReport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
>
In most polls the CIA beats the Mafia.
The Journalists Remember symposium had its own poll.
I am only reporting what the moderator, Darwin Payne, said at the end of
the conference. Here is the breakdown he reported:
Did Oswald act alone? Yes - 75, No - 6
Was Oswald involved in a conspiracy? Yes - 9, No - 72
If you believe that there was a conspiracy, who was involved?
Mafia - 32
Cuba - 14
US intelligence agencies - 42
DPD - 5
So, the results of their survey were very similar to what I posted as
representing what most polls of the American public believe. And as I
pointed out, if you ask most journalists and CIA employees, about 99% of
them will publicly state that they think that Oswald was a lone nut, as
close as your 32 to 1 result from Aynesworth could get. I think we can
dismiss the one dissenter as not having turned up his hearing aid high
enough to hear the question. It should have been 33 to nothing. I would
not rely on Aynesworth for anything.
But if you talked to those same people privately, about half of them would
tell you that they suspect that there was a conspiracy and most likely
Castro and/or the KGB were behind it. The Journalists Remember Symposium
just confirms everything that I said.
David Von Pein
>>> "You can disagree with Garrison. Fine. But don't blame Oliver Stone for trying to be faithful to his icon." <<<
I agree with you--partially. But I sure as heck CAN blame Oliver Stone
for resurrecting Jim Garrison's half-baked and bogus case against Clay
Shaw. Stone certainly didn't have to do that, did he now? (Of ALL
people to paint as a hero in the vast landscape of JFK-related lore,
Stone picked Jim Garrison! That's simply unbelievable to begin with!)
And Stone knew full well, of course, that his "blockbuster" film
(which was based on a case that even Stone himself must surely have
known had been engineered by a total kook--Jim Garrison) would be seen
and embraced by millions of gullible movie-goers all around the globe.
That type of behavior is just flat-out irresponsible, IMO. (Even for a
big-shot movie director.) And it's even MORE irresponsible since Mr.
Stone HIMSELF, on television and elsewhere, has sung the praises of
Kook Garrison over and over again since 1991.
So, do you still think I should give Oliver Stone a free pass for
putting up on the movie screen a whole bunch of stuff that any
reasonable and knowledgeable person has got to know is just plain
bullshit?
pjsp...@aol.com
repeat it.
David, IF only 7 % of the public thinks Oswald did not fire the shots
AND, as you acknowledge, 34% of the public nevertheless thinks the CIA
was involved in the assassination, it follows that AT LEAST 27% of the
public thinks Oswald fired shots as part of a CIA plot. So, let's be
clear...Do YOU believe approximately 27% of the public believes Oswald
fired shots as part of a CIA plot?
YES or NO. I answered your silly poll. You should answer mine. YES or
NO.
FWIW, I've discussed the assassination with well over 500 people over
the years--at least 300 of whom were just common people with no strong
interest in the assassination--and have never discussed it with anyone
who thought Oswald deliberately shot Kennedy on behalf of the CIA.
Have you? Can you name them? While I've met a few who thought Oswald
was part of MK/ULTRA or under hypnosis when he fired the shots, you
know as well as I do that only a small number of the public at large
has even heard of MK/ULTRA, probably less than 2%, and that such a
theory has no widespread support..
David Von Pein
>>> "David, IF only 7% of the public thinks Oswald did not fire the shots AND, as you acknowledge, 34% of the public nevertheless thinks the CIA was involved in the assassination, it follows that AT LEAST 27% of the public thinks Oswald fired shots as part of a CIA plot. So, let's be clear...Do YOU believe approximately 27% of the public believes Oswald fired shots as part of a CIA plot? YES or NO." <<<
Yes. That sounds about right, especially given the questions asked and
answered by the 1,031 people in the 2003 ABC News poll.
Let me guess -- You think this ENTIRE poll is a farce now, right Pat?
Even the CIA/Mafia/LBJ stats:
http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
Is there any end to the cover-up (per you CTers)? The WC; the HSCA;
Clark; Rockefeller; the MSM; Cronkite even!; and now ABC News is
rigging polls in the year 2003?
Next conspirator -- Big Bird? Seinfeld perhaps?
David Von Pein
Correction needed in my last post:
I accused Pat Speer of possibly thinking that the "entire" 2003 ABC
News poll was a "farce". But since the "Mafia/CIA" stuff was gathered
by Gallup, not ABC, I must amend that question to this:
Pat,
Do you trust ANY of the ABC News poll OR any of the Gallup poll?
The Gallup poll says that 34% of the 471 adults who were polled think
the CIA was "Involved" in the assassination. It doesn't say how many
of those 34% ALSO think Oswald was a triggerman, however.
I wonder what pct. of that 34% thinks Oswald pulled the trigger?
My guess would be: a pretty decent-sized number.
Do you agree or disagree, Pat?
Anthony Marsh
> Since you keep running from this question, David, I suppose I should
> repeat it.
> David, IF only 7 % of the public thinks Oswald did not fire the shots
> AND, as you acknowledge, 34% of the public nevertheless thinks the CIA
> was involved in the assassination, it follows that AT LEAST 27% of the
> public thinks Oswald fired shots as part of a CIA plot. So, let's be
> clear...Do YOU believe approximately 27% of the public believes Oswald
> fired shots as part of a CIA plot?
>
> YES or NO. I answered your silly poll. You should answer mine. YES or
> NO.
>
> FWIW, I've discussed the assassination with well over 500 people over
> the years--at least 300 of whom were just common people with no strong
> interest in the assassination--and have never discussed it with anyone
> who thought Oswald deliberately shot Kennedy on behalf of the CIA.
> Have you? Can you name them? While I've met a few who thought Oswald
It was his own mother who came up with that theory.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
>>>> "You can disagree with Garrison. Fine. But don't blame Oliver Stone
for trying to be faithful to his icon."<<<
>
> I agree with you--partially. But I sure as heck CAN blame Oliver Stone
> for resurrecting Jim Garrison's half-baked and bogus case against Clay
> Shaw. Stone certainly didn't have to do that, did he now? (Of ALL
> people to paint as a hero in the vast landscape of JFK-related lore,
> Stone picked Jim Garrison! That's simply unbelievable to begin with!)
>
You obviously know nothing about film making. If you are going to have a
hero of the film then you need a villain. It is not just enough to have
some nebulous Military Industrial Complex. You need a face, you need a
man, you need a bad guy to fight against.
> And Stone knew full well, of course, that his "blockbuster" film
> (which was based on a case that even Stone himself must surely have
> known had been engineered by a total kook--Jim Garrison) would be seen
> and embraced by millions of gullible movie-goers all around the globe.
>
Jeez, that's the whole point of propaganda.
> That type of behavior is just flat-out irresponsible, IMO. (Even for a
> big-shot movie director.) And it's even MORE irresponsible since Mr.
> Stone HIMSELF, on television and elsewhere, has sung the praises of
> Kook Garrison over and over again since 1991.
>
> So, do you still think I should give Oliver Stone a free pass for
> putting up on the movie screen a whole bunch of stuff that any
> reasonable and knowledgeable person has got to know is just plain
> bullshit?
>
Of course you should not give anybody a free pass, but you do if it is
Bugliosi lying about the evidence. You are a partisan, not a drama critic.
pjsp...@aol.com
as much as 27% of the public thinks Oswald fired the shots as part of a
CIA plot, and only 7% think Oswald did not fire shots, that means that, in
your opinion, those thinking Oswald a CIA-trained assassin outnumber those
thinking Oswald to have been a patsy by a margin of roughly 4 to 1. IF you
really believe this, you should be able to point to at least one prominent
CT who believes this. As stated, the MK/ULTRA scenario holds Oswald to
have been unwittingly involved in the assassination, and is held by an
extremely small minority of CTs. Outside of that small minority, can you
name one person who thinks Oswald was an assassin working for the CIA?
FWIW, flawed polls are conducted everyday. Sometimes they are designed to
be flawed, because someone wants to use the poll for political purposes.
One shouldn't take from this that the pollsters are therefore part of a
grand conspiracy, however.
As you know, from reading Bugliosi, Al Gore won the 2000 election in
Florida no matter how the ballots were counted, as long as they all were
counted, but Bush won if only certain counties were recounted. Even so,
the newspapers of this country, after PAYING for this recount out of their
own pocket, chose to report that Bush would have won the recount of the
counties being counted before the Supreme Court stopped them from
finishing, and leave the REAL story that he would have lost should ALL the
votes in ALL the counties have been counted in accordance with the law, as
one would expect in a Democracy, to the final paragraphs of their long
report. NOW, was this a conspiracy? No...it was politics. In the aftermath
of the movie JFK, ABC News knew that they had a lot more to gain by making
CTs look silly than they would by casting further doubt on Oswald's
innocence. So they sought to marginalize people like Stone and Lane by
making them appear to be out of touch with the mainstream audience that
they had in fact largely won over. It wasn't a conspiracy. It was
politics.
P.S. Tony is right. Marguerite Oswald, on one particularly bad day,
floated the idea that the government hired Lee to kill Kennedy because
they knew Kennedy was in bad health and wanted him to die a martyr, or
some such thing. Can you find anyone else, living or dead, to believe such
a thing, even for one day?
Anthony Marsh
>
> Correction needed in my last post:
>
> I accused Pat Speer of possibly thinking that the "entire" 2003 ABC
> News poll was a "farce". But since the "Mafia/CIA" stuff was gathered
> by Gallup, not ABC, I must amend that question to this:
>
>
> Pat,
>
> Do you trust ANY of the ABC News poll OR any of the Gallup poll?
>
Do you trust any poll? Or do you think that all polls are bogus the way so
many WC defenders do? On the one hand they claim that polls are worthless
when they indicate that the vast majority of the public thinks the JFK
assassination was a conspiracy. Then they claim that polls are 100%
accurate when they indicate that their favorite rightwing nut has a chance
of winning in the election.
> The Gallup poll says that 34% of the 471 adults who were polled think
> the CIA was "Involved" in the assassination. It doesn't say how many
> of those 34% ALSO think Oswald was a triggerman, however.
>
That is one of the known flaws of those polls. Some people think that
Oswald was working for the CIA and although he was the lone shooter he was
part of the CIA conspiracy.
> I wonder what pct. of that 34% thinks Oswald pulled the trigger?
>
> My guess would be: a pretty decent-sized number.
>
I bet you can't even think of a way that Oswald could be involved
without being one of the shooters.
Anthony Marsh
> You're once again running from the numbers, David. IF. as you now purport,
> as much as 27% of the public thinks Oswald fired the shots as part of a
> CIA plot, and only 7% think Oswald did not fire shots, that means that, in
> your opinion, those thinking Oswald a CIA-trained assassin outnumber those
> thinking Oswald to have been a patsy by a margin of roughly 4 to 1. IF you
> really believe this, you should be able to point to at least one prominent
> CT who believes this. As stated, the MK/ULTRA scenario holds Oswald to
Believes what? Some people have already responded to the poll saying
that Oswald did not shoot President Kennedy. Various conspiracy authors
claim that Oswald didn't shoot anybody.
> have been unwittingly involved in the assassination, and is held by an
> extremely small minority of CTs. Outside of that small minority, can you
> name one person who thinks Oswald was an assassin working for the CIA?
>
His mother.
> FWIW, flawed polls are conducted everyday. Sometimes they are designed to
> be flawed, because someone wants to use the poll for political purposes.
> One shouldn't take from this that the pollsters are therefore part of a
> grand conspiracy, however.
>
Tell everyone what push polling is.
> As you know, from reading Bugliosi, Al Gore won the 2000 election in
> Florida no matter how the ballots were counted, as long as they all were
> counted, but Bush won if only certain counties were recounted. Even so,
> the newspapers of this country, after PAYING for this recount out of their
> own pocket, chose to report that Bush would have won the recount of the
> counties being counted before the Supreme Court stopped them from
> finishing, and leave the REAL story that he would have lost should ALL the
> votes in ALL the counties have been counted in accordance with the law, as
> one would expect in a Democracy, to the final paragraphs of their long
> report. NOW, was this a conspiracy? No...it was politics. In the aftermath
That was a poll?
> of the movie JFK, ABC News knew that they had a lot more to gain by making
> CTs look silly than they would by casting further doubt on Oswald's
> innocence. So they sought to marginalize people like Stone and Lane by
> making them appear to be out of touch with the mainstream audience that
> they had in fact largely won over. It wasn't a conspiracy. It was
> politics.
>
So ABC wanted the result to be 70% of the American public thinking it was
a conspiracy in order to make CTers look silly? Can you explain that?
David Von Pein
Oh, geez. Pat Speer has taken my simple question at the beginning of
this poll (i.e., a question to determine if the "mainstream" figure of
7% thinking OSWALD WAS A GUNMAN was anywhere close to the thinking of
the people occupying these forums) and has extended and stretched it
far beyond what I designed it to be.
Go back to my first post, Pat, and see if you can figure out what I
was trying to really do with my "poll". I'm not typing out a bunch of
additional words to again explain something that should be quite
evident from Post #1.
David Von Pein
>>> "I bet you can't even think of a way that Oswald could be involved without being one of the shooters." <<<
Sure I can. But what's the point in doing that? All sensible people
KNOW that Oswald was a shooter. For REASONABLE and sensible people,
that particular fact is BEYOND debate. Oswald was firing a rifle at
Kennedy. Period.
And that's what the 2003 ABC News poll reflects--a mainstream belief
(83% of 1,031 people polled) that Lee Harvey Oswald had a gun in his
hands on November 22, 1963, and was firing that gun at President
Kennedy.
http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
David Von Pein
CORRECTING ANOTHER INEVITABLE DVP TYPO FROM MY LAST POST (~Sigh~ and
~Crap!~)....
I really meant to say this, of course:
Pat Speer has taken my simple question at the beginning of this
poll (i.e., a question to determine if the "mainstream" figure of 7%
thinking OSWALD WAS ****NOT**** A GUNMAN was anywhere close to the
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "I bet you can't even think of a way that Oswald could be involved without being one of the shooters."<<<
>
> Sure I can. But what's the point in doing that? All sensible people
> KNOW that Oswald was a shooter. For REASONABLE and sensible people,
> that particular fact is BEYOND debate. Oswald was firing a rifle at
> Kennedy. Period.
>
Poisoning the well. And this comes from someone on the losing side of
the debate who only has 10% of the population with him.
> And that's what the 2003 ABC News poll reflects--a mainstream belief
> (83% of 1,031 people polled) that Lee Harvey Oswald had a gun in his
> hands on November 22, 1963, and was firing that gun at President
> Kennedy.
>
Because he was part of the conspiracy.
> http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
>
>
pjsp...@aol.com
designed to harass those you disagree with by demonstrating that you
don't actually believe the poll you're citing.
I ask again, IF only 7% of the public thinks Oswald innocent, as
revealed by the flawed poll, WHERE does your hero VB get off blaming
CTs for spreading distrust of the government by claiming he was
innocent? According to the poll, after all, the arguments of most
every conspiracy theorist, including Oliver Stone, have been
thoroughly rejected by the public. If the public has already rejected
these theories, then, WHY would Bugliosi spend 1500 pages or so
trying
to prove them wrong? What is he, a geriatric, with nothing better to
do
with his time than argue a case he has already won? I mean, what's
next? Another 2500 page book proving once and for all that Manson was
guilty?
Neither you nor your hero believes that poll. Not even for one
second.
And I wish you'd just admit it.
David Von Pein
>>> "Neither you nor...[Vincent Bugliosi] believes that poll. Not even for one second. And I wish you'd just admit it." <<<
I have absolutely no good reason to disbelieve or distrust that
particular ABC News poll. The question that TWICE has the word
"gunman" attached to it is as clear as the nose on Jimmy Durante's
face.
But if I WERE to disbelieve that "7%" ABC poll, where does that really
lead? I'll tell you where -- such a belief leads to a vast MAJORITY of
Americans actually falling into "Kookville". Because under such
conditions of totally disbelieving that ABC poll, the vast majority of
Americans (just like the majority of CTers at every JFK forum known to
man) really DON'T believe Lee Oswald fired even a single shot at
President Kennedy.
Do you REALLY want me to come out and say that I believe that MOST
Americans are kooks when it comes to their beliefs in the JFK case --
from the limited standpoint, that is, of the question that I asked in
my own poll in this thread: "DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD FIRED ANY
GUNSHOTS AT PRESIDENT KENNEDY ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?"?
I guess I COULD come out and say that the majority of Americans (the
"mainstream", that is) are just exactly like all of the "Anybody But
Oswald" conspiracy theorists on the JFK forums, but the 2003 ABC News
poll linked again below is making it very difficult for me to believe
such a thing.
http://PollingReport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
David Von Pein
>>> "According to the [ABC News] poll [in 2003], after all, the arguments of most every conspiracy theorist, including Oliver Stone, have been thoroughly rejected by the public. If the public has already rejected these theories, then, WHY would Bugliosi spend 1500 pages or so trying to prove them wrong? What is he, a geriatric, with nothing better to do with his time than argue a case he has already won?" <<<
Huh? You think that Vince Bugliosi had already "won" the case, even
with these conspiracy numbers staring him in the face in 2003 (four
years before his JFK book was published)?:
GALLUP POLL:
ONE MAN ----------- 19%
OTHERS INVOLVED -- 75%
NO OPINION --------- 6%
=============
ABC NEWS POLL:
ONE MAN -------- 22%
BROADER PLOT -- 70%
NO OPINION ----- 8%
=============
Pat Speer seems to think that the ONLY thing that Mr. Bugliosi wanted
to accomplish in his book "Reclaiming History" was to show that Oswald
fired shots at JFK.
Yes, indeed, establishing that Oswald was guilty of shooting President
Kennedy was certainly one of Vince's goals when he wrote his book--no
doubt about that. But a large part of "RH" is called "BOOK TWO:
DELUSIONS OF CONSPIRACY: WHAT DID NOT HAPPEN", which takes up a little
more than 40% of the book (and CD-ROM of endnotes).
And in "Book Two", Bugliosi is not really talking about Oswald's
guilt, because he already establishes LHO's guilt in "Book One". The
last words that VB writes at the end of "Book One" are these words:
"Since we can be absolutely sure that Oswald killed Kennedy, he
could not have been a "patsy" (i.e., he could not have been "framed")
as many conspiracy theorists love to say. By definition, you can't
frame someone who is guilty; you frame INNOCENT people. To frame, per
the dictionary, means "to incriminate an innocent person through the
use of false evidence." Since we know Oswald was guilty, we thereby
know that no other person or persons killed Kennedy and framed Oswald
for the murder they committed. Therefore, the only remaining issue
worthy of discussion is whether Oswald acted alone, that is, whether
he was a part of a conspiracy to murder the president." -- VINCENT
BUGLIOSI; PAGE 969 OF "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.2007)
--------
So, even if a large number of people (83% via the ABC News poll) do
agree with Vince that Oswald was firing shots at JFK in Dealey Plaza,
that doesn't mean that Bugliosi's job in "Reclaiming History" was
completed. Not by a longshot. Because, as another question in that
same ABC poll vividly demonstrates, there's still the 70% of Americans
who believe in a conspiracy (whether they believe Oswald was a shooter
or not).
Anthony Marsh
> Sorry, David, for injecting a little common sense into a thread
> designed to harass those you disagree with by demonstrating that you
> don't actually believe the poll you're citing.
>
> I ask again, IF only 7% of the public thinks Oswald innocent, as
> revealed by the flawed poll, WHERE does your hero VB get off blaming
> CTs for spreading distrust of the government by claiming he was
> innocent? According to the poll, after all, the arguments of most
> every conspiracy theorist, including Oliver Stone, have been
> thoroughly rejected by the public. If the public has already rejected
> these theories, then, WHY would Bugliosi spend 1500 pages or so
> trying
Because he got paid by the word.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "According to the [ABC News] poll [in 2003], after all, the arguments
of most every conspiracy theorist, including Oliver Stone, have been
thoroughly rejected by the public. If the public has already rejected
these theories, then, WHY would Bugliosi spend 1500 pages or so trying to
prove them wrong? What is he, a geriatric, with nothing better to do with
his time than argue a case he has already won?"<<<
>
> Huh? You think that Vince Bugliosi had already "won" the case, even
> with these conspiracy numbers staring him in the face in 2003 (four
> years before his JFK book was published)?:
>
>
> GALLUP POLL:
>
>
> ONE MAN ----------- 19%
> OTHERS INVOLVED -- 75%
> NO OPINION --------- 6%
>
> =============
>
> ABC NEWS POLL:
>
> ONE MAN -------- 22%
> BROADER PLOT -- 70%
> NO OPINION ----- 8%
>
> =============
>
>
> Pat Speer seems to think that the ONLY thing that Mr. Bugliosi wanted
> to accomplish in his book "Reclaiming History" was to show that Oswald
> fired shots at JFK.
Don't give up too easily. Your hero Vincent Bugliosi is single-handedly
responsible for lowering the number from 90% to 76%. It took thousands
of lies to do that, but no one else seemed willing to ruin his
reputation to do it.
>
> Yes, indeed, establishing that Oswald was guilty of shooting President
> Kennedy was certainly one of Vince's goals when he wrote his book--no
> doubt about that. But a large part of "RH" is called "BOOK TWO:
> DELUSIONS OF CONSPIRACY: WHAT DID NOT HAPPEN", which takes up a little
> more than 40% of the book (and CD-ROM of endnotes).
>
> And in "Book Two", Bugliosi is not really talking about Oswald's
> guilt, because he already establishes LHO's guilt in "Book One". The
> last words that VB writes at the end of "Book One" are these words:
>
>
> "Since we can be absolutely sure that Oswald killed Kennedy, he
> could not have been a "patsy" (i.e., he could not have been "framed")
> as many conspiracy theorists love to say. By definition, you can't
Illogical. Bugliosi was never a cop. You can indeed frame a guilty
person. The police do it all the times. Here in Boston they plant drugs
on a known drug dealer whose house is clean in order to make a case. In
the OJ Simpson case they KNEW he was guilty, but didn't have enough
physical evidence so they planted a bloody glove that didn't even fit
Simpson. If it doesn't fit you must acquit.
> frame someone who is guilty; you frame INNOCENT people. To frame, per
No, in the spy business you frame people you know are guilty.
To entrap them.
> the dictionary, means "to incriminate an innocent person through the
> use of false evidence." Since we know Oswald was guilty, we thereby
Yeah, a children's dictionary. In the real adult world guilty people are
framed all the time.
> know that no other person or persons killed Kennedy and framed Oswald
> for the murder they committed. Therefore, the only remaining issue
> worthy of discussion is whether Oswald acted alone, that is, whether
> he was a part of a conspiracy to murder the president." -- VINCENT
> BUGLIOSI; PAGE 969 OF "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.2007)
>
> --------
>
> So, even if a large number of people (83% via the ABC News poll) do
> agree with Vince that Oswald was firing shots at JFK in Dealey Plaza,
> that doesn't mean that Bugliosi's job in "Reclaiming History" was
> completed. Not by a longshot. Because, as another question in that
> same ABC poll vividly demonstrates, there's still the 70% of Americans
> who believe in a conspiracy (whether they believe Oswald was a shooter
> or not).
>
>
So, you conclude from this that 70% of the public are kooks?
David Von Pein
>>> "Don't give up too easily. Your hero Vincent Bugliosi is
single-handedly responsible for lowering the number from 90% to 76%." <<<
The pct. was never as high as 90%, of course. You've probably just made up
that figure out of Tony Marsh whole cloth.
>>> "So, you conclude from this that 70% of the public are kooks?" <<<
Is there any chance you'll actually READ the things I say (instead of
misrepresenting them)? Any chance at all?
"Do you REALLY want me to come out and say that I believe that MOST
Americans are kooks when it comes to their beliefs in the JFK case -- from
the limited standpoint, that is, of the question that I asked in my own
poll in this thread: "DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD FIRED ANY GUNSHOTS AT
PRESIDENT KENNEDY ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?"? I guess I COULD come out and say
that the majority of Americans (the "mainstream", that is) are just
exactly like all of the "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy theorists on the
JFK forums, but the 2003 ABC News poll...is making it very difficult for
me to believe such a thing." -- DVP; 03/04/10
pjsp...@aol.com
Well, here's another flawed poll that will scare you.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/1/7039/91947
bigdog
> Well, here's another flawed poll that will scare you.
>
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/1/7039/91947
>
> On Mar 4, 2:25 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >>> "According to the [ABC News] poll [in 2003], after all, the
arguments of most every conspiracy theorist, including Oliver Stone, have
been thoroughly rejected by the public. If the public has already rejected
these theories, then, WHY would Bugliosi spend 1500 pages or so trying to
prove them wrong? What is he, a geriatric, with nothing better to do with
his time than argue a case he has already won?" <<<
>
> > Huh? You think that Vince Bugliosi had already "won" the case, even
> > with these conspiracy numbers staring him in the face in 2003 (four
> > years before his JFK book was published)?:
>
> > GALLUP POLL:
>
> > ONE MAN ----------- 19%
> > OTHERS INVOLVED -- 75%
> > NO OPINION --------- 6%
>
> > =============
>
> > ABC NEWS POLL:
>
> > ONE MAN -------- 22%
> > BROADER PLOT -- 70%
> > NO OPINION ----- 8%
>
>
Really shocking that over 70% of the readers of a left wing website would
blame right wingers. Interesting that of those, the split is roughly 6-5
that Oswald took no part. About 60% of all responders believe Oswald was
involved, either alone or as part of a plot. The poll doesn't specifically
asked if Oswald fired the shots.
Anthony Marsh
>
> Well, here's another flawed poll that will scare you.
>
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/1/7039/91947
>
That's why I don't read the Daily Kos. Not only is the blogger
illiterate, he is a troll who can't even use his real name.
Talk about bias, those questions are the stupidist, most biased
questions I've seen.
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "Don't give up too easily. Your hero Vincent Bugliosi is
> single-handedly responsible for lowering the number from 90% to 76%."<<<
>
> The pct. was never as high as 90%, of course. You've probably just made up
> that figure out of Tony Marsh whole cloth.
>
>
>>>> "So, you conclude from this that 70% of the public are kooks?"<<<
>
> Is there any chance you'll actually READ the things I say (instead of
> misrepresenting them)? Any chance at all?
>
I read the message in reverse chronological order so I speculated on that
before I had read your vacillating message below.'
> "Do you REALLY want me to come out and say that I believe that MOST
> Americans are kooks when it comes to their beliefs in the JFK case -- from
> the limited standpoint, that is, of the question that I asked in my own
> poll in this thread: "DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD FIRED ANY GUNSHOTS AT
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?"? I guess I COULD come out and say
> that the majority of Americans (the "mainstream", that is) are just
> exactly like all of the "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy theorists on the
> JFK forums, but the 2003 ABC News poll...is making it very difficult for
> me to believe such a thing." -- DVP; 03/04/10
>
And again that is not what the ABC poll showed, but you interpret people
saying that it was a conspiracy as believing that Oswald was not involved.
That is not true.
David Von Pein
>>> "The poll doesn't specifically asked if Oswald fired the shots." <<<
But the ABC News poll does (which, of course, is the whole point of
this thread to begin with):
"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the
Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in
addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not
involved in the assassination at all?"
http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
Anthony Marsh
As expected 90% of the right-wing posters here blame the Communists.
It was so stupid it doesn't qualify as a poll.
Bud
As expected, you mangle and misinterpret any information you can get
your hands on. LNers think a person was guilty, not an ideology.
Anthony Marsh
Yeah, and you still don't get the point that they think Oswald was the
only gunman and part of a conspiracy.
Bud
You still don`t get the point that most CTers believe Oswald is
innocent, and that that belief is not mainstream.
Anthony Marsh
In any murder it is always a person who is guilty, but that person can
do it for reasons of ideology.
Bud
We don`t hold Jodie Foster responsible for Hinckley`s attempt, it
isn`t real important which windmill the self-deluded crackpot is
tilting against.
Anthony Marsh
Prove it.
Most is not all. Yet you treat it that way.
Anthony Marsh
Some people did and she had to hire a bodyguard.
Some people accused her of feeding his paranoia and driving him over the
edge.
Bud
<snicker> Yah, perhaps a poll is in order, just like DVP was doing.
> Most is not all. Yet you treat it that way.
How can you ever hope to counter an argument if you can never understand
them? I will simplify it, hopefully to within your grasp. CTers in these
newsgroups (here and the nuthouse) have often expressed the idea that
their position is in the mainstream, that they are representative of the
opinion of the public at large. DVP was attempting to show that this was
not the case, that they may be in the mainstream with some of their
beliefs, but that those who hold that Oswald was innocent are not in
mainstream. Now, if you respond to this, make sure that you don`t
inadvertently address anything I`ve actually said.
pjsp...@aol.com
But you missed it entirely, Bud. DVP as much as admitted that he knows
the poll was incorrect, and that he only accepts it because he CHOOSES
to believe in a world where the vast majority of Americans think
Oswald guilty, even if his acceptance of this means that a substantial
percentage of Americans think Oswald was a hit man for the CIA, which
he KNOWS is not true.
Bud
Those people were probably CTers. I was talking about LNers.
David Von Pein
>>> "DVP as much as admitted that he knows the poll was incorrect..." <<<
I admitted no such thing, Pat. You should really control your habit of
incorrectly attempting to assess what other people believe and
think....such as when you say you know what the 83% of the people in the
ABC poll were thinking when they voted for Oswald as a shooter (even
though you seem to believe that most of them don't believe LHO was a
gunman at all, but they voted that way anyway).
IOW, stop imitating Tony Marsh.
Anthony Marsh
They were Reaganites.