A bit before my time. But according to family members who were alive and watching the news:
#1 - Eyewitnesses gave various radically different versions of events. Many present were CERTAIN that bullets were coming from a different direction. Careful selection of which accounts to believe could provide evidence for practically anything...
#2 - I suspect one in amillion is hyperbole. However, people did not find the offical version convincing at the time. Nor did the later investigation change many minds.
#3 - The conduct of the investigation did not increase public confidence. This was an era before the CSI TV series, but the handling of the body and other physical evidence indicated either remarkable ignorance of forensic science or a lack of concern about determining the truth. The murder of the suspect by an organized crime figure, attributed OFFICIALLY to a transport of civic spirit, did not help matters.
#4 - The initial reaction of my family members upon hearing the news was "Johnson did it." Not any sort of evidence, but indicative of public opinion. And after the Warren Comission, some sort of conspiracy with him involved still seemed more likely than the official account of a lone gunman, some bizarre coincidences, and the worst spin control in recorded history.
I don't have much emotional capital invested either way. It is a bit scary that I find the notion of a successful coup so plausible, but I've heard many whopping lies from the government over far smaller stakes. On the other hand, coincidences do happen. I'd like to know the truth, but suspect it's become a religious issue. Anyone doubting the official version gets labeled a crackpot, while any actual evidence for the offical version has obviously been manufactured by our secret overlords...
"Suddenly, this hairless ape that infests almost every corner of the landmass of this planet thinks that it's his fault. Cute, but kinda pathetic."
I'm always amused when someone dismisses the consensus opinion of the global community of scientific experts (achieved after two generations of intense debate) by invoking pop psychology. Or to put it another way, looks like this particular bad stuff IS our fault. But you at least didn't put forward any conspiracy theories.
"Do the negative aspects of Global Warming outweigh the positive aspects? Yes."
There's a good deal of hysteria about global warming. A permanent climate change would have good as well as bad effects... However, the transition period could get ugly. Unexpected weather typically means worse crop yields, and until farmers learn the new parameters there will be lots of unexpected weather. Google "Great Leap Forward" for historically recent outcome of massive agricultural sector failure...
Of course changes in temperature/precipitation might occur gradually (over centuries rather than decades). But given how important certain wind/water currents are, IMHO assuming no sudden climate changes is serious Polyanna territory.
Slashdot Mirror
A bit before my time. But according to family members who were alive and watching the news:
#1 - Eyewitnesses gave various radically different versions of events. Many present were CERTAIN that bullets were coming from a different direction. Careful selection of which accounts to believe could provide evidence for practically anything...
#2 - I suspect one in amillion is hyperbole. However, people did not find the offical version convincing at the time. Nor did the later investigation change many minds.
#3 - The conduct of the investigation did not increase public confidence. This was an era before the CSI TV series, but the handling of the body and other physical evidence indicated either remarkable ignorance of forensic science or a lack of concern about determining the truth. The murder of the suspect by an organized crime figure, attributed OFFICIALLY to a transport of civic spirit, did not help matters.
#4 - The initial reaction of my family members upon hearing the news was "Johnson did it." Not any sort of evidence, but indicative of public opinion. And after the Warren Comission, some sort of conspiracy with him involved still seemed more likely than the official account of a lone gunman, some bizarre coincidences, and the worst spin control in recorded history.
I don't have much emotional capital invested either way. It is a bit scary that I find the notion of a successful coup so plausible, but I've heard many whopping lies from the government over far smaller stakes. On the other hand, coincidences do happen. I'd like to know the truth, but suspect it's become a religious issue. Anyone doubting the official version gets labeled a crackpot, while any actual evidence for the offical version has obviously been manufactured by our secret overlords...
"Suddenly, this hairless ape that infests almost every corner of the landmass of this planet thinks that it's his fault. Cute, but kinda pathetic."
I'm always amused when someone dismisses the consensus opinion of the global community of scientific experts (achieved after two generations of intense debate) by invoking pop psychology. Or to put it another way, looks like this particular bad stuff IS our fault. But you at least didn't put forward any conspiracy theories.
"Do the negative aspects of Global Warming outweigh the positive aspects? Yes."
There's a good deal of hysteria about global warming. A permanent climate change would have good as well as bad effects... However, the transition period could get ugly. Unexpected weather typically means worse crop yields, and until farmers learn the new parameters there will be lots of unexpected weather. Google "Great Leap Forward" for historically recent outcome of massive agricultural sector failure...
Of course changes in temperature/precipitation might occur gradually (over centuries rather than decades). But given how important certain wind/water currents are, IMHO assuming no sudden climate changes is serious Polyanna territory.