|
|
 August 25, 2010, 07:51:35 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 3606
|
In the last couple of days we have seen more of the usual. The Nuts trying to twist everthing, while trying to make this look like a conspiracy.
Zapruder is a strong witness for the LN side, but one of the nuts has tried to twist this in the last couple of days.
Zapruder said he heard 2 or 3 shots. The LN side said there were 3 shots.
Zapruder said they was so much reverberation and echos to tell where the shots came from. The LN side has always said alot of people couldn't tell because of these factors.
And Zapruder also testfied and said right on TV on 11/22 that the right wide of JFK's head opened up. Exactly like the autopsy photos and the Zfilm shot.
This is when they become nuts and nothing but. When they are so obsessed with trying to make it look like a conspiracy that facts no longer matter. Its like a religious belief to many of the nuts. The truth no loger matters, its all about trying to back up their fantasy.
And oh yeah there was the case this week of the nuts once again taking a vague statement from Rub try and show he admitted to a conspiracy. Which of course is a lie, but they try it about once a month.
I don't understand how anyone can be s obsessed with a theory that they are wlling to lie to try and back it. Can anyone of the LN who used to be a CT explain how it gets to this.
-------------------------
-------------------------
What is silly is thinking that two turns that reduced the speed of the car to 8-11 m.p.h. is no big deal when motorcades are suppose to keep a 44 m.p.h. speed..R Caprio
LHO had poor hand-eye coordination and proof of this is seen in the fact he couldn't drive an automobile-- R Caprio
|
|
|
 Reply |
|
|
|
|
August 31, 2010, 08:50:02 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 3606
|
What I very clearly have said, however, is that the white decorative pergola (and maybe the area behind the stockade fence) is what was behind Zapruder. Also, the area behind the stockade fence is not the "grassy knoll"....unless you can show me grass (or even a knoll of some sort) in that parking lot.
You are 100% correct, Bill. What was behind Zapruder's back, actually changed as he filmed the motorcade. Looking at these photographs shows how his back position changed as he was panning. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginAs a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginAs a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginDuncan I do not wish to get into a personal argument with Bill and Rob But was Zapruder filming from the Knoll?. I believed the word Knoll meant Hill If I am mistaken I am sure somebody will point it out .Zapruder stood on a concrete abutment. In front of him was a piece of grass on an incline where the Newmans were . this incline ran up to and beyond the railway bridge and levelled out at the Stemmons freeway intersection. So am I now to assume that the Grassy Knoll does not include the incline upto and including the stockade fence and concrete wall.IOW the steps leading down to Elm is the border between The Knoll and what ?.I could think of a name for it but I would rather it came from somebody who had actually been there and knows. Ian Bill and Lee have both been there. Being there is not the answer I was looking for! Let's say theoretically they are correct, at this stage of the case (nearly 47 years out) the terminology is what wins out! IOW, if the local natives don't consider this part to be the GK, but the researchers, the WC and every one else does, we have to go with that as that is what everyone is referring to! The point is this, the evidence shows us shots came from the stockade fence/concrete wall section of DP and that is BEHIND Zapruder! Bill believes LHO acted alone (at least that is my impression of what he thinks based on all of his posts) and there is ONLY one location for that belief and that was NEVER BEHIND Zapruder. That was my point. Bill, like many others who share his beliefs never address the POINT, but instead play games making other things the focal point! To sum up: THERE IS NO WAY ANYONE CAN CLAIM THE TSBD WAS BEHIND ZAPRUDER! The rest is just semantics to distract. There is no evidence that shots came from the stockade fence/concrete wall section of DP. There is witness testimony, but no actual evidence. There is more witnsses testimony that the shots didn't come from there. More witnsses said the shots came from the TSDB. There were eye wtinsses to a shooter on the 6th floor. There were 3 guys on the 5th floor who heard the shots right above them. And over 90% of witnsses said there were only 3 shots. So obviously some of the witnsses have to be wrong. And obviously the ones that thought they heard shots from the GK are wrong. There is no proof of it at all. The plurality of witnesses said the shots came from the grassy knoll. Yes, witnesses are often wrong. But you substitute your bias to claim that ONLY the GK witnesses are wrong. Its not bias. The case was settled over 40 years ago, and the GK witnsses were wrong. Period. That the nuts need to keep going on about this open and shut case, doesn't change the facts.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
August 31, 2010, 08:55:11 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 3606
|
What I very clearly have said, however, is that the white decorative pergola (and maybe the area behind the stockade fence) is what was behind Zapruder. Also, the area behind the stockade fence is not the "grassy knoll"....unless you can show me grass (or even a knoll of some sort) in that parking lot.
You are 100% correct, Bill. What was behind Zapruder's back, actually changed as he filmed the motorcade. Looking at these photographs shows how his back position changed as he was panning. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginAs a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginAs a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginDuncan I do not wish to get into a personal argument with Bill and Rob But was Zapruder filming from the Knoll?. I believed the word Knoll meant Hill If I am mistaken I am sure somebody will point it out .Zapruder stood on a concrete abutment. In front of him was a piece of grass on an incline where the Newmans were . this incline ran up to and beyond the railway bridge and levelled out at the Stemmons freeway intersection. So am I now to assume that the Grassy Knoll does not include the incline upto and including the stockade fence and concrete wall.IOW the steps leading down to Elm is the border between The Knoll and what ?.I could think of a name for it but I would rather it came from somebody who had actually been there and knows. Ian Bill and Lee have both been there. Being there is not the answer I was looking for! Let's say theoretically they are correct, at this stage of the case (nearly 47 years out) the terminology is what wins out! IOW, if the local natives don't consider this part to be the GK, but the researchers, the WC and every one else does, we have to go with that as that is what everyone is referring to! The point is this, the evidence shows us shots came from the stockade fence/concrete wall section of DP and that is BEHIND Zapruder! Bill believes LHO acted alone (at least that is my impression of what he thinks based on all of his posts) and there is ONLY one location for that belief and that was NEVER BEHIND Zapruder. That was my point. Bill, like many others who share his beliefs never address the POINT, but instead play games making other things the focal point! To sum up: THERE IS NO WAY ANYONE CAN CLAIM THE TSBD WAS BEHIND ZAPRUDER! The rest is just semantics to distract. There is no evidence that shots came from the stockade fence/concrete wall section of DP. There is witness testimony, but no actual evidence. There is more witnsses testimony that the shots didn't come from there. More witnsses said the shots came from the TSDB. There were eye wtinsses to a shooter on the 6th floor. There were 3 guys on the 5th floor who heard the shots right above them. And over 90% of witnsses said there were only 3 shots. So obviously some of the witnsses have to be wrong. And obviously the ones that thought they heard shots from the GK are wrong. There is no proof of it at all. This is wrong Duncan. Of the 95 folks they asked in regards to the origin of the shots nearly two-thirds of them said the GK area! This caused them to stop asking. Well over a hundred witnesses were never asked this simple question! Wrong. Most who had an opinion said the shots came from the TSBD. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
August 31, 2010, 08:59:06 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 3606
|
What I very clearly have said, however, is that the white decorative pergola (and maybe the area behind the stockade fence) is what was behind Zapruder. Also, the area behind the stockade fence is not the "grassy knoll"....unless you can show me grass (or even a knoll of some sort) in that parking lot.
You are 100% correct, Bill. What was behind Zapruder's back, actually changed as he filmed the motorcade. Looking at these photographs shows how his back position changed as he was panning. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginAs a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginAs a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginDuncan I do not wish to get into a personal argument with Bill and Rob But was Zapruder filming from the Knoll?. I believed the word Knoll meant Hill If I am mistaken I am sure somebody will point it out .Zapruder stood on a concrete abutment. In front of him was a piece of grass on an incline where the Newmans were . this incline ran up to and beyond the railway bridge and levelled out at the Stemmons freeway intersection. So am I now to assume that the Grassy Knoll does not include the incline upto and including the stockade fence and concrete wall.IOW the steps leading down to Elm is the border between The Knoll and what ?.I could think of a name for it but I would rather it came from somebody who had actually been there and knows. Ian Bill and Lee have both been there. Being there is not the answer I was looking for! Let's say theoretically they are correct, at this stage of the case (nearly 47 years out) the terminology is what wins out! IOW, if the local natives don't consider this part to be the GK, but the researchers, the WC and every one else does, we have to go with that as that is what everyone is referring to! The point is this, the evidence shows us shots came from the stockade fence/concrete wall section of DP and that is BEHIND Zapruder! Bill believes LHO acted alone (at least that is my impression of what he thinks based on all of his posts) and there is ONLY one location for that belief and that was NEVER BEHIND Zapruder. That was my point. Bill, like many others who share his beliefs never address the POINT, but instead play games making other things the focal point! To sum up: THERE IS NO WAY ANYONE CAN CLAIM THE TSBD WAS BEHIND ZAPRUDER! The rest is just semantics to distract. - Rob Caprio Really?  Care to show this "evidence"? The point is this, the evidence shows us shots came from the stockade fence/concrete wall section of DP and that is BEHIND Zapruder! - Rob Caprio Good. At least you finally acknowledge that the grassy knoll was not behind Zapruder, as you falsely claimed earlier. Caprio Error #14 or CE14, as I like to call it: "(Zapruder) was left with the impression the shots came from BEHIND him which would have meant the Grassy Knoll area"THERE IS NO WAY ANYONE CAN CLAIM THE TSBD WAS BEHIND ZAPRUDER! - Rob Caprio I agree. In fact, I have never disagreed with this statement. The evidence is in the statements (withheld of course for many years) of almost everyone who worked on him and did an autopsy on him! His RIGHT-REAR PORTION OF HIS HEAD WAS BLOWN OUT! He had an entry wound in the throat and right temple! He had NO wound at the base of the neck! What evidence do YOU have to show he was shot in the back of the head and base of the neck? I asked Robbie yesterday to name the Doctors who said there was an eentry wound in the right temple. So far nothing.. Just Robbie making stuff up again.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
August 31, 2010, 09:04:57 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 3606
|
What I very clearly have said, however, is that the white decorative pergola (and maybe the area behind the stockade fence) is what was behind Zapruder. Also, the area behind the stockade fence is not the "grassy knoll"....unless you can show me grass (or even a knoll of some sort) in that parking lot.
You are 100% correct, Bill. What was behind Zapruder's back, actually changed as he filmed the motorcade. Looking at these photographs shows how his back position changed as he was panning. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginAs a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginAs a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginDuncan I do not wish to get into a personal argument with Bill and Rob But was Zapruder filming from the Knoll?. I believed the word Knoll meant Hill If I am mistaken I am sure somebody will point it out .Zapruder stood on a concrete abutment. In front of him was a piece of grass on an incline where the Newmans were . this incline ran up to and beyond the railway bridge and levelled out at the Stemmons freeway intersection. So am I now to assume that the Grassy Knoll does not include the incline upto and including the stockade fence and concrete wall.IOW the steps leading down to Elm is the border between The Knoll and what ?.I could think of a name for it but I would rather it came from somebody who had actually been there and knows. Ian Bill and Lee have both been there. Being there is not the answer I was looking for! Let's say theoretically they are correct, at this stage of the case (nearly 47 years out) the terminology is what wins out! IOW, if the local natives don't consider this part to be the GK, but the researchers, the WC and every one else does, we have to go with that as that is what everyone is referring to! The point is this, the evidence shows us shots came from the stockade fence/concrete wall section of DP and that is BEHIND Zapruder! Bill believes LHO acted alone (at least that is my impression of what he thinks based on all of his posts) and there is ONLY one location for that belief and that was NEVER BEHIND Zapruder. That was my point. Bill, like many others who share his beliefs never address the POINT, but instead play games making other things the focal point! To sum up: THERE IS NO WAY ANYONE CAN CLAIM THE TSBD WAS BEHIND ZAPRUDER! The rest is just semantics to distract. There is no evidence that shots came from the stockade fence/concrete wall section of DP. There is witness testimony, but no actual evidence. There is more witnsses testimony that the shots didn't come from there. More witnsses said the shots came from the TSDB. There were eye wtinsses to a shooter on the 6th floor. There were 3 guys on the 5th floor who heard the shots right above them. And over 90% of witnsses said there were only 3 shots. So obviously some of the witnsses have to be wrong. And obviously the ones that thought they heard shots from the GK are wrong. There is no proof of it at all. This is wrong Duncan. Of the 95 folks they asked in regards to the origin of the shots nearly two-thirds of them said the GK area! This caused them to stop asking. Well over a hundred witnesses were never asked this simple question! Simple Robbie, Most witnsses said the shots came from the TSBD. Over 90 % said there wee 3 shots or less fired. There were eye witnsses to someone shooting from the 6th floor. Taking all this into account find it amusing when the nuts quote witnsses wh sa what they want to hear.Wen they do this , they ignore the majority who don't agree with them. Its a worn out scam.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
 leefarley |
August 31, 2010, 10:10:16 PM
|
Group: Guest
|
Only as  or a conspiracy nut can know thw facts of the case, and believe in a conspiracy. Why don't you stop with the blanket label " " talk, Brian? You yourself have proven, on numerous occasions, that you don't know the facts of the case. Point out the numerous occasions. Sorry but anyone who starts out by saying he can't believe that a lone person would decide to shoot a President is a ..Period..Considering the great majority of assasins have been lone nuts it points out that he decided it was a conspiracy, now is into the stupid argument phse. Like jus about every conspiracy nut on the internet. I'll make a deal with you. I'll point out the numerous times you've demonstrated that you don't know the evidence if you list the "great majority of assassins [who] have been lone nuts." I assume you're talking about assassinations and attempted assassinations of all heads of state or are you limiting this to the U.S.? I think that's a fair deal. here is a list of attempted presidential assasins in America. Like i said only a complete says he can't believe a lone nut would decide to kill a President. The type of statement that a conspiracy nut makes. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginWhatever drugs you are on they are not doing you any favors. What is your point here? That some presidents have been killed by lone nuts? You do know that Lincoln was killed as a result of a conspiracy don't you? Or is that a figment of my imagination as well? You do know that the attempt on Truman was the result of a conspiracy, don't you? Or have I made that up? What you are saying is this. Some presidents have been assassinated by lone-nuts and some presidents have had attempts on their lives by lone nuts. So therefore, even though some presidents have been killed by a conspiracy, and some have had attempts on their lives as a result of a conspiracy, we would be idiots to think that a president couldn't be killed by a lone nut, so we must therefore believe that JFK was killed by a lone nut. You are stark raving bonkers.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
August 31, 2010, 11:37:03 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 3606
|
Only as or a conspiracy nut can know thw facts of the case, and believe in a conspiracy. Why don't you stop with the blanket label " " talk, Brian? You yourself have proven, on numerous occasions, that you don't know the facts of the case. Point out the numerous occasions. Sorry but anyone who starts out by saying he can't believe that a lone person would decide to shoot a President is a ..Period..Considering the great majority of assasins have been lone nuts it points out that he decided it was a conspiracy, now is into the stupid argument phse. Like jus about every conspiracy nut on the internet. I'll make a deal with you. I'll point out the numerous times you've demonstrated that you don't know the evidence if you list the "great majority of assassins [who] have been lone nuts." I assume you're talking about assassinations and attempted assassinations of all heads of state or are you limiting this to the U.S.? I think that's a fair deal. here is a list of attempted presidential assasins in America. Like i said only a complete says he can't believe a lone nut would decide to kill a President. The type of statement that a conspiracy nut makes. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginWhatever drugs you are on they are not doing you any favors. What is your point here? That some presidents have been killed by lone nuts? You do know that Lincoln was killed as a result of a conspiracy don't you? Or is that a figment of my imagination as well? You do know that the attempt on Truman was the result of a conspiracy, don't you? Or have I made that up? What you are saying is this. Some presidents have been assassinated by lone-nuts and some presidents have had attempts on their lives by lone nuts. So therefore, even though some presidents have been killed by a conspiracy, and some have had attempts on their lives as a result of a conspiracy, we would be idiots to think that a president couldn't be killed by a lone nut, so we must therefore believe that JFK was killed by a lone nut. You are stark raving bonkers. You can't figure out what I am saying? Are you kidding. A couple days ago some nut said he can't believe that one guy would decide to kill a President on a whim. The listIi just posted shows that the great majority of time it is one guy who tries this. So only an like I said would find it hard to believe that a lone nut could decide to kill a President. DUH. Are you stark raving stupid. The what you are saying line by you is not what I am saying. Follow along please.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 01, 2010, 02:10:58 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 9042
|
Martin, no doubt there is a lot of witness testimony that could be examined thoroughly and still not lead LNers to agree with CT's.
Just curious, Martin, what do you believe that I have "improved my thoughts" about?
Best to you as well,
Bill
I mean Bill Newman, Bill. best to you Martin I have never believed that Bill Newman was a good witness for LNers.
-------------------------
-------------------------
"The TRUTH doesn't require anyone's belief." - Dale Myers
"The human mind craves a mystery more than it loves the truth." - Dan Rather
"Reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men." - John F. Kennedy
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 01, 2010, 02:14:00 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 9042
|
What I very clearly have said, however, is that the white decorative pergola (and maybe the area behind the stockade fence) is what was behind Zapruder. Also, the area behind the stockade fence is not the "grassy knoll"....unless you can show me grass (or even a knoll of some sort) in that parking lot.
You are 100% correct, Bill. What was behind Zapruder's back, actually changed as he filmed the motorcade. Looking at these photographs shows how his back position changed as he was panning. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginAs a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginAs a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginDuncan I do not wish to get into a personal argument with Bill and Rob But was Zapruder filming from the Knoll?. I believed the word Knoll meant Hill If I am mistaken I am sure somebody will point it out .Zapruder stood on a concrete abutment. In front of him was a piece of grass on an incline where the Newmans were . this incline ran up to and beyond the railway bridge and levelled out at the Stemmons freeway intersection. So am I now to assume that the Grassy Knoll does not include the incline upto and including the stockade fence and concrete wall.IOW the steps leading down to Elm is the border between The Knoll and what ?.I could think of a name for it but I would rather it came from somebody who had actually been there and knows. Ian Bill and Lee have both been there. Being there is not the answer I was looking for! Let's say theoretically they are correct, at this stage of the case (nearly 47 years out) the terminology is what wins out! IOW, if the local natives don't consider this part to be the GK, but the researchers, the WC and every one else does, we have to go with that as that is what everyone is referring to! The point is this, the evidence shows us shots came from the stockade fence/concrete wall section of DP and that is BEHIND Zapruder! Bill believes LHO acted alone (at least that is my impression of what he thinks based on all of his posts) and there is ONLY one location for that belief and that was NEVER BEHIND Zapruder. That was my point. Bill, like many others who share his beliefs never address the POINT, but instead play games making other things the focal point! To sum up: THERE IS NO WAY ANYONE CAN CLAIM THE TSBD WAS BEHIND ZAPRUDER! The rest is just semantics to distract. - Rob Caprio Really? Care to show this "evidence"? The point is this, the evidence shows us shots came from the stockade fence/concrete wall section of DP and that is BEHIND Zapruder! - Rob Caprio Good. At least you finally acknowledge that the grassy knoll was not behind Zapruder, as you falsely claimed earlier. Caprio Error #14 or CE14, as I like to call it: "(Zapruder) was left with the impression the shots came from BEHIND him which would have meant the Grassy Knoll area"THERE IS NO WAY ANYONE CAN CLAIM THE TSBD WAS BEHIND ZAPRUDER! - Rob Caprio I agree. In fact, I have never disagreed with this statement. The evidence is in the statements (withheld of course for many years) of almost everyone who worked on him and did an autopsy on him! His RIGHT-REAR PORTION OF HIS HEAD WAS BLOWN OUT! He had an entry wound in the throat and right temple! He had NO wound at the base of the neck! What evidence do YOU have to show he was shot in the back of the head and base of the neck? I asked Robbie yesterday to name the Doctors who said there was an eentry wound in the right temple. So far nothing.. Just Robbie making stuff up again. I have learned that Caprio definitely does "make stuff up". In fact, he seems to be a pro at it.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 01, 2010, 02:32:09 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 5244
|
Tennis anyone?.
-------------------------
-------------------------
Some things we know we know,the rest we have to find out for ourselves
One of the first things we found out was that the Warren Commission never pursued a conspiracy investigation.
Louis Stokes
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
leefarley |
September 01, 2010, 10:25:55 AM
|
Group: Guest
|
Only as or a conspiracy nut can know thw facts of the case, and believe in a conspiracy. Why don't you stop with the blanket label " " talk, Brian? You yourself have proven, on numerous occasions, that you don't know the facts of the case. Point out the numerous occasions. Sorry but anyone who starts out by saying he can't believe that a lone person would decide to shoot a President is a ..Period..Considering the great majority of assasins have been lone nuts it points out that he decided it was a conspiracy, now is into the stupid argument phse. Like jus about every conspiracy nut on the internet. I'll make a deal with you. I'll point out the numerous times you've demonstrated that you don't know the evidence if you list the "great majority of assassins [who] have been lone nuts." I assume you're talking about assassinations and attempted assassinations of all heads of state or are you limiting this to the U.S.? I think that's a fair deal. here is a list of attempted presidential assasins in America. Like i said only a complete says he can't believe a lone nut would decide to kill a President. The type of statement that a conspiracy nut makes. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginWhatever drugs you are on they are not doing you any favors. What is your point here? That some presidents have been killed by lone nuts? You do know that Lincoln was killed as a result of a conspiracy don't you? Or is that a figment of my imagination as well? You do know that the attempt on Truman was the result of a conspiracy, don't you? Or have I made that up? What you are saying is this. Some presidents have been assassinated by lone-nuts and some presidents have had attempts on their lives by lone nuts. So therefore, even though some presidents have been killed by a conspiracy, and some have had attempts on their lives as a result of a conspiracy, we would be idiots to think that a president couldn't be killed by a lone nut, so we must therefore believe that JFK was killed by a lone nut. You are stark raving bonkers. You can't figure out what I am saying? Are you kidding. A couple days ago some nut said he can't believe that one guy would decide to kill a President on a whim. The listIi just posted shows that the great majority of time it is one guy who tries this. So only an like I said would find it hard to believe that a lone nut could decide to kill a President. DUH. Are you stark raving stupid. The what you are saying line by you is not what I am saying. Follow along please. I'm stupid? You are possibly one of the biggest gonads frequenting this board. You expect me to follow your lunacy? Jesus. I'd end up in a mental hospital if I followed you. Let's see how your gonad logic works eh? Somebody said on this board that they can't believe that someone alone would decide on a whim to kill a president. You then say he's an because the "great majority" of assassins have been lone nuts. Point 1. There have been four U.S. presidents assassinted in office. Two were killed by what you would term "lone nuts." One was killed by way of quite a large conspiracy. The other has been debated for nearly 48 years. On my side of the fence two U.S. presidents have been killed by conspiracy. Two by lone nuts. That's 50/50. Point 2. What would your answer be if somone said they couldn't believe that someone would take part in a conspiracy to kill the president. Would your answer be something like this? "Anyone who thinks a president cannot be killed by way of a conspiracy is an as 25% (or 50% depending on your point of view) of assassinated presidents have been killed by a conspiracy." Oh and BTW. The assassins of McKinley and Garfield, they both had clearly defined and reported political and personal motives. Something you and the rest of the LN gang are absent in the case of Lee Harvey Oswald. No motive and according to the TSBD employees testimony, no opportunity.
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 01, 2010, 10:48:22 AM by Lee Farley »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 01, 2010, 03:14:00 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 3606
|
Only as or a conspiracy nut can know thw facts of the case, and believe in a conspiracy. Why don't you stop with the blanket label " " talk, Brian? You yourself have proven, on numerous occasions, that you don't know the facts of the case. Point out the numerous occasions. Sorry but anyone who starts out by saying he can't believe that a lone person would decide to shoot a President is a ..Period..Considering the great majority of assasins have been lone nuts it points out that he decided it was a conspiracy, now is into the stupid argument phse. Like jus about every conspiracy nut on the internet. I'll make a deal with you. I'll point out the numerous times you've demonstrated that you don't know the evidence if you list the "great majority of assassins [who] have been lone nuts." I assume you're talking about assassinations and attempted assassinations of all heads of state or are you limiting this to the U.S.? I think that's a fair deal. here is a list of attempted presidential assasins in America. Like i said only a complete says he can't believe a lone nut would decide to kill a President. The type of statement that a conspiracy nut makes. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginWhatever drugs you are on they are not doing you any favors. What is your point here? That some presidents have been killed by lone nuts? You do know that Lincoln was killed as a result of a conspiracy don't you? Or is that a figment of my imagination as well? You do know that the attempt on Truman was the result of a conspiracy, don't you? Or have I made that up? What you are saying is this. Some presidents have been assassinated by lone-nuts and some presidents have had attempts on their lives by lone nuts. So therefore, even though some presidents have been killed by a conspiracy, and some have had attempts on their lives as a result of a conspiracy, we would be idiots to think that a president couldn't be killed by a lone nut, so we must therefore believe that JFK was killed by a lone nut. You are stark raving bonkers. You can't figure out what I am saying? Are you kidding. A couple days ago some nut said he can't believe that one guy would decide to kill a President on a whim. The listIi just posted shows that the great majority of time it is one guy who tries this. So only an like I said would find it hard to believe that a lone nut could decide to kill a President. DUH. Are you stark raving stupid. The what you are saying line by you is not what I am saying. Follow along please. I'm stupid? You are possibly one of the biggest gonads frequenting this board. You expect me to follow your lunacy? Jesus. I'd end up in a mental hospital if I followed you. Let's see how your gonad logic works eh? Somebody said on this board that they can't believe that someone alone would decide on a whim to kill a president. You then say he's an because the "great majority" of assassins have been lone nuts. Point 1. There have been four U.S. presidents assassinted in office. Two were killed by what you would term "lone nuts." One was killed by way of quite a large conspiracy. The other has been debated for nearly 48 years. On my side of the fence two U.S. presidents have been killed by conspiracy. Two by lone nuts. That's 50/50. Point 2. What would your answer be if somone said they couldn't believe that someone would take part in a conspiracy to kill the president. Would your answer be something like this? "Anyone who thinks a president cannot be killed by way of a conspiracy is an as 25% (or 50% depending on your point of view) of assassinated presidents have been killed by a conspiracy." Oh and BTW. The assassins of McKinley and Garfield, they both had clearly defined and reported political and personal motives. Something you and the rest of the LN gang are absent in the case of Lee Harvey Oswald. No motive and according to the TSBD employees testimony, no opportunity. Of course he ignores that I posted attempted assasinations also. he has to ignore this to come up with his figure. More conspiracy nut twisting Fact is like I said in the great majority of cases when someone killed or tried to kill a President it was a lone nut. That is a fact. JFK had been debated by idiots like you for 47 years. Doesn't change the fact that Oswald did it alone. People debate alot of stupid things. Oswald did it alone, and there has never been one fact to change that. Point 2 is more talk. Again you ignore the great majority have been lone nuts. because you have to in your argument. The last statement again is typical of a conspiracy nut. Oswald tried to kill Walker for political and personal reasons but you try to deny he would try to kill JFK for the same reasons. Talk about a dumb statement. So a few months earlier he was willing to kill for reasons that he wasn't in Nov huh. maybe the dumbest statement yet. But this is the type of no common sense nonesense that people like you have to make, because no facts back your theory. Side note, the very small minority that were conspiracy ( Truman, Lincoln ) were uncovered right away. But you want us to believe despite the fact that there has never been a gov't conspiracy to kill a politician in American history, in this case there was this massive conspiracy but according to most nuts just about everyone was involved, yet 47 years later the media can't find it, and nobody has come foward. Yeah ok. The whole conspiracy theory is so ignorant in this case that it alone makes you stupid. Yes.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
| 0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.
|
