The Brown Paper Bag

[John Mytton]

Oh goody, the amateur hour continues in the most shallow way possible. That's just sad.

The WC explanation wins by default.

This most pathetic comment sums it up nicely what a fool showing his true colors can be like....

The WC report is nothing more than a prosecutorial presentation of an extremely weak circumstantial case. Even worse, it's a political motivated report to bring about a quick explanation to convince the American public. In other words, it's not worth the paper it was written on!

When, as it did for me, the WC explanation falls short of providing a solid case and turns out to be a mere propaganda tool, it can never be a default, except of course for fools who do not understand the first thing they are actually talking about.

Do you really want to expose yourself as an idiot who can not counter any point I have raised? Have at it.... I can only feel sorry for you

This most pathetic comment sums it up nicely what a fool showing his true colors can be like....

except of course for fools who do not understand the first thing they are actually talking about.

expose yourself as an idiot

JohnC has been nothing but respectful with you this entire time but as usual when your back is against the wall, you deliver a barrage of insults, this always happens and then when someone matches your energy to give you a taste of your own medicine, like a spoiled child you cry foul, without realizing that since day 1 you have ALWAYS been the instigator. If you want to be treated like an adult, act like an adult!!

Coming from a pathetic loser who always reverts to personal attacks when he can't win an argument, this is funny!

JohnM

[John Corbett]

Oh goody, the amateur hour continues in the most shallow way possible. That's just sad.

The WC explanation wins by default.

This most pathetic comment sums it up nicely what a fool showing his true colors can be like....

The WC report is nothing more than a prosecutorial presentation of an extremely weak circumstantial case. Even worse, it's a political motivated report to bring about a quick explanation to convince the American public. In other words, it's not worth the paper it was written on!

When, as it did for me, the WC explanation falls short of providing a solid case and turns out to be a mere propaganda tool, it can never be a default, except of course for fools who do not understand the first thing they are actually talking about.

Do you really want to expose yourself as an idiot who can not counter any point I have raised? Have at it.... I can only feel sorry for you

You just made my point for me. All you did was take potshots at the WC without offering a better explanation of the evidence, or even one as good, or even one at all. You dismiss the WC as politically motivated without ever refuting the substance of their report or even try to explain how their conclusions don't fit the body of evidence. The WC's conclusions were spot on. Decades of study and advances in technology that wasn't available to the WC have allowed us to fine tune what we know, but it still falls within the parameters the WC provided. The WC did not reach a conclusion about the missed shot, allowing for the miss to be either the first, second, or third shot that missed and even allowed for there to have only been two shots with no misses. Most LNs now believe it was the first shot that missed. The WC found that the single bullet struck between Z210 and Z225. There is a clear consensus that the single bullet struck at or about Z222 and that JFK and JBC both show reactions a few frames later. 3-D computer simulations now have shown us the geometry of the single bullet theory works perfectly. Failure Analysis established a cone from which the single bullet could have been fired and the sniper's nest was in the center of that cone. Dale Myers created a virtual 3-D simulation of Dealey Plaza and showed that JFK and JBC were perfectly lined up for the single bullet to work. All the conspiracy advocates have offered us are 2-D diagrams and that ridiculous courtroom demonstration in Oliver Stone's movie, both of which show JBC directly in front of JFK and facing straight ahead. What they proved is that if you start with a faulty premise, you will likely reach a faulty conclusion. Boy, did they ever.

[John Corbett]

JohnC has been nothing but respectful with you this entire time but as usual when your back is against the wall, you deliver a barrage of insults, this always happens and then when someone matches your energy to give you a taste of your own medicine, like a spoiled child you cry foul without realizing that since day 1, you have ALWAYS been the instigator. If you want to be treated like an adult, act like an adult!!


JohnM

I've been dealing with the conspiracy hobbyists on and off for 35 years and not much has changed. This particular forum is just more of the same. They never want to talk about specifics or deal with the body of evidence as a whole. They never try to explain what they think happened because they have no evidence that shows the JFKA happened a different way than what the WC gave us. The expect us to reject the WCR without ever offering something more compelling. They don't have a leg to stand on and they know it, but rather than admit they have been wrong all these years, they double down on their nonsense.

[John Mytton]

Yes,  James Cadigan:

You mean James Cadigan, the same James Cadigan that examined Oswald's rifle bag at the FBI Laboratory in WASHINGTON, you know on the other side of the Country!





JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

JohnC has been nothing but respectful with you this entire time but as usual when your back is against the wall, you deliver a barrage of insults, this always happens and then when someone matches your energy to give you a taste of your own medicine, like a spoiled child you cry foul, without realizing that since day 1 you have ALWAYS been the instigator. If you want to be treated like an adult, act like an adult!!


JohnM

This isn't the first time I've asked this, as it has happened before several times on this forum, but could it be that you and John Corbett are related?

I'm only asking because the way the two of you behave is identical. The same silly arguments, the same unability to produce a coherent argument, the same lack of capacity to counter when one of your false claims or misrepresentations have been debunked and the same way of blaming others for what you constantly do yourself.

Oh well, at least it's cute how you come to his aid when he needs it most. I'm sure he'll do the same for you. 

[Tom Graves]

This isn't the first time I've asked this, as it has happened before several times on this forum, but could it be that you and John Corbett are related?

I'm only asking because the way the two of you behave is identical. The same silly arguments, the same unability [sic] you to produce a coherent argument, the same lack of capacity to counter when one of your false claims or misrepresentations have been debunked and the same way of blaming others for what you constantly do yourself.

Oh well, at least it's cute how you come to his aid when he needs it most. I'm sure he'll do the same for you.

You poor thing, you.

[Martin Weidmann]

You just made my point for me. All you did was take potshots at the WC without offering a better explanation of the evidence, or even one as good, or even one at all. You dismiss the WC as politically motivated without ever refuting the substance of their report or even try to explain how their conclusions don't fit the body of evidence. The WC's conclusions were spot on. Decades of study and advances in technology that wasn't available to the WC have allowed us to fine tune what we know, but it still falls within the parameters the WC provided. The WC did not reach a conclusion about the missed shot, allowing for the miss to be either the first, second, or third shot that missed and even allowed for there to have only been two shots with no misses. Most LNs now believe it was the first shot that missed. The WC found that the single bullet struck between Z210 and Z225. There is a clear consensus that the single bullet struck at or about Z222 and that JFK and JBC both show reactions a few frames later. 3-D computer simulations now have shown us the geometry of the single bullet theory works perfectly. Failure Analysis established a cone from which the single bullet could have been fired and the sniper's nest was in the center of that cone. Dale Myers created a virtual 3-D simulation of Dealey Plaza and showed that JFK and JBC were perfectly lined up for the single bullet to work. All the conspiracy advocates have offered us are 2-D diagrams and that ridiculous courtroom demonstration in Oliver Stone's movie, both of which show JBC directly in front of JFK and facing straight ahead. What they proved is that if you start with a faulty premise, you will likely reach a faulty conclusion. Boy, did they ever.

I bet that if there was a church where you could worship the WC, you'd be there just about every day of the week. It's not rational nor reasonable to blindly accept what one source says; it's the appeal to authority fallacy!

You just made my point for me. All you did was take potshots at the WC without offering a better explanation of the evidence, or even one as good, or even one at all.

Now why would I offer a better explanation to a fairy tale story? Would you perhaps like me to write an alternative version of the report? Are you sane?

You hide behind the WC report as if it is a bible, but are unable to defend their findings and conclusions beyond what they have written in the report. And than, like an insecure little boy, you constantly pump yourself up with crap like claiming your evidence weighing skills are superior. You don't discuss the evidence, as is clearly demonstrated by the fact that you have completely ignored my detailed reply, yesterday, to you crappy "two bags are really one" nonsense! Instead you hide behind the WC, constantly attack the person you talk to and talk down to them. It is pathethic. Your "I've been dealing with with the conspiracy hobbyists on and off for 35 years" makes no impression. All it shows is that during all that time you haven't learned a single damned thing. Critical thinking at it's worst!

What they proved is that if you start with a faulty premise, you will likely reach a faulty conclusion. Boy, did they ever.

Hilarious. Did you forget the Katzenbach memo of 11/25/63?

"The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin, that he did not have confederates who are still at large and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."

This was written three days after the murder, when they had just begun to collect evidence. If there ever was a faulty premise to start an "investigation" it's this one!

All you keep on showing in just about every post is that you are incapable of independent logical thought. All you do is blindly follow whatever the leader says, because you are in a cult and don't even know it!

Now please explain to me why it should be worth some of my time to continue talking to you, because I can't figure out a reason why! Hell, I can't even figure out why you are here. You've said yourself that it would be a fool's errand to talk to people over and over again and expect a different result. Yet here you are spewing the same BS over and over again. What's that all about?

If you are here to discuss the evidence, then discuss the evidence and don't hide behind the WC every time you get stuck.