JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
If Oswald Was The Assassin, Did He Plan His Escape From The TSBD Very Well?
Paul May:
--- Quote from: Jim Brunsman on June 09, 2020, 08:57:01 PM ---Here's May still trying to gaslight history. Not going to work on my watch, pal. I cite the back wound not exiting as proof of the impossibility of the SBT and he trots out a bunch of irrelevant ballistic evidence that makes zero sense. Your arguments are the most archaic, disproven, unscientific nonsense imaginable. Yaw angle is somehow supposed to supersede the obvious implications of a non-transit through the president's body? You also said at one point that there really are exit wounds on the front of the body. Strange, but I have seen no evidence to support this dubious claim. The doctors at Parkland certainly didn't report any such thing. How do you explain all the medical witnesses who report a huge hole in the back of the head? I'm sure you will dodge that too. Again, so pointless to be here....
--- End quote ---
This conversation will end here. Here’s what’s known for SURE: I’ve given you rational responses to questions concerning ballistics which a first year researcher should know. Here’s what you have shown readers of this thread:
1. You do no research. You read conspiracy books.
2.The basics of the case and the capabilities of ammunition is beyond your understanding.
3. You lie continuously about the actual evidence.
4. The neck wound ballistically was an exit wound. That’s been proven by the tie nick. Hence, a wound in the front of the body. The metal fragments found in Connally’s body are tied ballistically to Oswald’s MC. You call this “irrelevant” ballistic evidence”.
5. The doctors at Parkland were ER doctors, ONLY concerned with saving a life not determining cause of death.
6. The authenticated autopsy photos along with any ballistic evidence trump ANY witness testimony. Always.
7. History is debated, never argued. You cannot debate because you don’t know the case AT ALL. Not surprising. This is what happens when you read conspiracy crap and do no actual research.
8. Your inability to answer even my most basic questions tells all the readers of this thread what they need to know about you. Want to talk 50 year old plus crap, Brunsman’s your guy.
Duncan MacPherson, a highly respected wound ballistic expert and author of the book “Bullet Penetration” had no interest in the JFK assassination but did make this comment about conspiracy types which describes you perfectly:
“I’m always amused by people who attempt to speak authoritatively on subjects they know nothing about specifically regarding firearms”.
Now, go sell your crap to some first year researcher like yourself. You won’t find him/her on this site.
Paul May:
--- Quote from: Otto Beck on June 09, 2020, 10:38:27 PM ---Oswald’s MC -- LOL
Are you even past the first year?
--- End quote ---
Your typically intelligent comment. Sad. Mom and dad must be so proud.
Thomas Graves:
--- Quote from: Paul May on June 09, 2020, 04:08:40 PM ---Ah, your ego is damaged. How sad. The questions asked of you are relevant to the readers of this blog. I surely understand why you refuse to answer. You can’t. You have little time. You’re reading books seeking confirmation bias. Sad again. You cannot debate using a false premise. Each thing you post.....”multiple assassins” is one example. You claim it’s YOUR truth. Prove it to the readers. I challenge you. Show us some original research on your part. You’re actually worse than a neophyte. You appear to be ignorant to the basic known facts of this case. You’re entertaining. You determine in your own mind what happened reading all these books you claim to read, throw out all of the data that doesn’t fit your conclusion and then hail your findings as the only possible solution. You’re a hoot.
--- End quote ---
Paul,
It appears that James Brunsman has seen (many, many times?) Oliver Stone's KGB-disinformation-based (and expanded upon by Stone, himself!) movie (sic), JFK.
That's why he's such an expert!
-- MWT ;)
Paul May:
--- Quote from: Thomas Graves on June 09, 2020, 10:54:58 PM ---Paul,
It appears that James Brunsman has seen (many, many times?) Oliver Stone's KGB-disinformation-based (and expanded upon by Stone, himself!) movie (sic),JFK.
That's why he's such an expert!
-- MWT ;)
--- End quote ---
Bingo Tom.
Jim Brunsman:
Tommy (have in the) Graves with another warped response. The truth is, I rarely if ever think about "JFK" by Oliver Stone. However, he came so much closer to the truth than the "Warren Omission."
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version