Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: When Was JBC Hit?
« Last post by Andrew Mason on Today at 07:03:47 PM »
But it is not just Connolly who puts the first two shots that far apart.

Connally doesn't put the shots that far apart.
Well, he put all 3 shots 10 to 12 seconds apart and estimated the time between the first two at 2 seconds and enough time for him to recognize it as a rifle shot, form the conclusion that an assassination was occurring and decide to turn around to check on the President.

My point is that it is not necessary to have Connally tell us how long it was between shots #1 and#2.  We have many others who recalled a longer pause between the first two with the third coming in rapid succession after the second. Connally is only one witness and his recollection conflicts with those of dozens of others.

Quote
His first impressions are that the two events are a split second apart.
His recollection of the event slows time down.
But at no time does he put the shots over four seconds apart.
Automatic rifle.
Two or three shooters.
My God, it was quick.
A split second.
Yet you want to ignore his later statement that it was not less than a second and closer to two.
2
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: When Was JBC Hit?
« Last post by Andrew Mason on Today at 06:53:40 PM »
Anyone with the experiences that JBC had in WWII could easily distinguish the differences. JBC said he never heard the shot that hit him. Apparently he just assumed that it was a separate shot. The fact that he described that only a very very short time span elapsed between when he heard the first shot (that he recalled hearing) and when he felt the “fist” hit his back is what brought the thought of automatic gunfire to his mind. This suggests to me that it was the same shot with a delayed reaction to the pain (similar to what you claim about a supposedly separate shot hitting his leg and him not feeling it for several seconds).
But he heard the first shot before he felt the bullet hit him in the back.  If two events happened from the same shot, the sound reaching his ear would have happened after the bullet hit his back/armpit.
3
If they're framing him on a visit to the Cuban consulate they would simply say he admitted to going there during his interrogation. He's dead; they can say he admitted to it. Why would they say he denied it if they are trying to frame him for it? Just say he said he did. Again, he can't deny it since, y'know, he's dead.

As to Hoover: He was, as the record shows, a ruthless and powerful man but the idea that he would/could know everything about what his people did in the investigation, could control what they found and limit it, is conspiracy silliness at its finest. Conspiracists really believe that "the CIA" and "the FBI" and these bureaucracies can be completely controlled, and were. They can't. A Hitler or a Stalin couldn't control all of their people, their bureaucracies, their factions and personality conflicts. Read any history of their rule. Do you folks read anything other than conspiracy books?

As in: the FBI agents James Hosty and his superior Gordon Shanklin destroyed a note that Oswald left complaining about the FBI's treatment of his wife. Hoover knew nothing about it. If he had such control then how could that have happened? And after the assassination Hoover punished about a dozen agents (I think it was 17) for their failures to adequately monitor Oswald. He couldn't control everything his people did or didn't do. He was one person.

For a better and greater example read about Hoover and the FBI and the Hiss/Chambers investigation. Hoover was left out of the loop from his own people. He didn't know what was happening. He couldn't control all of it; hell, he couldn't control just about any of it.

4
i mention " THE EVENT " what event ? . i made zero comment about knotts lab either in favor or against it . neither pushing it as accurate nor questioning its accuracy . that is the beginning ,middle and end . you even had someone else (i think it was charles ) believing i did mention it . however that is now cleared up . i never mentioned it . PERIOD . the only one now having a difficulty in accepting reality is you .

there is a hypocrisy , and LN hypocrisy .as i accurately pointed out , one of many .

LN will cite a witness to support todays LN claim , while tomorrow they will attack the same witness if they said or saw something LN do not like .
LN continually ask CT to produce animations or work to support their claims . when an animation has been produced (all be it not a CT created animation ) you as an LN then immediately look to attack and dismiss it .
LN as i have said choose to ignore problems with myers animation , while you seek to go to town on attacking and dismissing knotts lab animation  .
as i said only one  of many hypocrisies by LN .

there is no hypocrisy on my side . i merely stated a fact , a fact that you dont care for .

"John Kelin: What do you think about Lee Harvey Oswald? Could he have done it by himself?

Dale Myers: Oh, certainly: anybody could have done it by themselves. First off, I don't think Lee Harvey Oswald pulled the trigger.

John Kelin: The trigger, or a trigger?

Dale Myers: Okay ... a trigger.

John Kelin: I mean – you know, if there were two gunmen, could he have been one of them?

Dale Myers: Exactly. Okay. Well the gun that was fired from the Texas School Book Depository was the gun that fired all the shots that hit any victims. And including the fatal shot. But I don't think he was the finger that was behind that trigger. Although there's no doubt that it was his rifle. And to say that he did not pull the trigger does not mean that he was not involved in some way; he obviously was involved. But as far as saying that he was guilty ... I find that extremely hard to believe. And I think I'll show enough evidence to indicate, or that I think I could circumstantially beyond a reasonable doubt, so to speak, prove to anybody else, that he was not the man behind the trigger."

theres another hypocrisy . a man who said that Oswalds finger WAS NOT on the trigger , that he can prove to a reasonable doubt that Oswald did not do it  .yet he now has profited substantially certainly by over 1 million by saying Oswald did do it . the grass really is greener (green being the operative word ) on the LN side of the fence lol .

Don’t be so kind to yourself. It is known as talking out of both sides of your mouth. Attempting to say something while not saying it out loud. Now you are stating you are comparing Meyers and LNers to no one and at the same time everyone.

Where is your comparison of Meyers SBT and Knotts Lab SBT, but I guess we already saw it in the original post. Knotts Lab animation side mouth post was the exact opposite of the Meyers critique? They were both animations of the exact same event. Exactly what was the difference in your mind?

Is it because there is no difference? Wouldn’t the same whining, sniveling, bawling rant and rave equally apply to Knotts Lab?

Once again back at Meyers and LNers. 
5
you dont need to tell me on what side of the fence any particular person posting here is on

I wasn't showing you what side of the fence anyone was on.
I was showing that you post nonsense that you can't back up.
But you crack on "big boy", let's see what you've got.

i back up that WHICH I CLAIM to be fact , not what LN falsely state that i claim . the two are very different things . just like you i / we have zero responsibility for what OTHERS claim , only what i / you  claim . this is the very reason why i have posted multiple times to a person who said i made claims / was claiming (asking them to quote ME and speak to me directly ) when i never did . that person neither responded to me nor quoted me because it is patently obvious that i never made the claims they mentioned .

as i have said YOU WORRY ABOUT YOU and what you post or claim ok ? , let me worry about me . oh and again you seek to be nasty or rude ,why is that ? .  when i said i am a big boy i simply mean i am an adult and that as such i can look after myself . it seems to me that you took that in a very different way to how it was intended . but so be it .
6
hoover played no part in jfks assassination , the FBI did however play a part in concealing information . and that simply would never be done without his knowledge .

as for mexico , certainly at the cuban embassy two people who spoke to the man claiming to be Oswald claimed Oswald was not the man they spoke to . consul Azcue when asked he stated (not verbatim now from memory ) that he could not identify the man he saw shot in the DPD basement as the man he spoke to because the man he spoke to was blonde . and a second witness (duran ) description of the man was of a blonde man . i dont think i have  seen a single mention of this here by any of the LN posting . i appreciate most posts have been about the pulse cameras which were working , however we need to discuss the actual people who were there and spoke with or saw Oswald .


Mr. CORNWELL . Senor Azcue, the pictures on the upper lefthand
portion of each document would appear to be of the same individu-
al; is that correct?
Senor AzCUE. Yes, sir.
Mr. CORNWELL. Do those pictures of that individual appear to
you to be the same individual who visited the consulate in Mexico
City on the occasions you have previously described to us?
Senor AZCUE. Truly, this photograph is one that I saw for the
first time when the honorable U.S. committee members came to
Cuba in April of this year, and I was surprised that I believe that it
was not the same person. Fifteen years had gone by so it is very
difficult for me to be in a position to guarantee it in a categorical
form.
But my belief is that this gentleman was not, is not, the person
or the individual who went to the consulate .
Mr. CORNWELL. Directing your attention to the period of time
immediately after the assassination, the day of the assassination or
the day after the assassination, did you during that period of time
have an occasion to see pictures of the alleged assassin in the
newspapers or to observe on television the man identified at that
time as Lee Harvey Oswald?
Senor AZCUE. Yes, sir, not so close to the date, not in the first
few days, not immediately thereafter. Some time I calculate ap-
proximately-and I say this because I am not a great movie fan,
but it was in mid-December approximately-I saw at that time the
film in which Ruby appears assassinating the Oswald who was
there, and I was not able to identify him and only 2 months had
gone by since I had seen the Oswald who appeared at the consul-
ate . And I had a clear mental picture because we had had an
unpleasant discussion and he had not been very pleasant to me and
I did not recognize when I first saw him. I did not recognize
Oswald.
The man who went to the consulate was a man over 30 years of
age and very thin, very thin faced. And the individual I saw in the
movie was a young man, considerably younger, and a fuller face.
Mr. CORNWELL. What color hair did the individual have to the
best of your memory who visited the consulate?
Senor AZCUE. He was blond, dark blond.
Mr. CORNWELL. Did the individual you saw in the movie, the
person who was killed by Jack Ruby, resemble more closely the
individual in these photographs to your memory than the individu-
al who visited the consulate?
Senor AZCUE. I believe so.

duran also described the man she saw as blonde and short , all be it she would also say that Oswald was the man .  but then LN will of course dispute her description . but we have to consider that both she and azcue described a short blonde man of 5 feet 6 or under . Oswald was neither blonde , nor short at 5 feet 10 or 11 .

"Like Azcue, Contreras said the "Oswald" he met looked more than thirty years old. Like Sylvia Duran, he recalled very positively that Oswald was short-he too thought at most 5' 6". He said he would normally be reluctant to be so specific, but his recall on this point is persuasive. Contreras himself is only 5' 9" tall, and he clearly recalled looking down at the man he calls "Oswald the Rabbit." "

there is a lot of information to assert that a person / s was in some way pretending to be Oswald at different times . we must consider all of this .

7
The vague description Hoover uses, "the man" implies that Hoover didn't know who he was.

BTW, at the time, Hoover was 1500 miles away from Mexico City and 1200 miles away from Dallas, where the surveillance materials were being examined. How would he really know? After all, he was wrong about tapes being sent to Dallas.
All true - we can include the confusion by the CIA people at Mexico City - and relevant to a non-conspiracist view of information but irrelevant to conspiracists since everything is only understood through a conspiracy perspective. E.g., we see a goofball waving an umbrella; they see an operative coordinating the triangulated sniper fire.

Apparently (I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong) he thinks Hoover was lying about this on the call; Hoover was aware of the plan to send this person to impersonate Oswald. That is, Hoover knew who the person was and what the person was up to. So Hoover was dissembling about this in the call. That seems to be what he is suggesting.

Why Hoover would even discuss/reveal this supposed plot is not explained. By discussing it and then releasing the transcript later he is *revealing* the plan, this impersonation. Lose that transcript; or edit the part about the impersonator out. And why would the CIA release the photo of the man they supposedly sent (or knew about) to impersonate Oswald? This too exposes the plan. Burn that photo. None of this makes sense. Hell, why even use this person to imitate Oswald? The Soviets knew what Oswald looked like; and would after he's arrested for the assassination. This is the best person they could find to imitate Oswald? It's absurd.

Add to this that the Soviets never exposed this supposed impersonation - the man is clearly not Oswald. In fact they said the man they met *was* the real Oswald and that the man in the photo was another person who never identified himself as Oswald but was someone else.

But again if the only way you can interpret this information is through a conspiracy perspective then all of this is irrelevant.
8
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Dr. Cyril Wecht has died
« Last post by Charles Collins on May 19, 2024, 10:40:47 PM »
     Just how High could a shot pass above the Queen Mary when it was close to being right on top of the rear bumper of the JFK Limo? And, there's also the Downgrade of Elm St. This is exactly why when re-creations of the shots are done, the Queen Mary with those Large SS Agents standing on the (R) running board are NOT INCLUDED. Of course, this omission is mandatory to try and sell the SBT. The trajectory of that shot is problematic on multiple fronts. And then you got Knott Lab Laser SCIENCE recently proving the SBT "IS IMPOSSIBLE". You guys need to get off this laughably old saw. The SBT's day is done.


9
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Dr. Cyril Wecht has died
« Last post by Royell Storing on May 19, 2024, 09:54:25 PM »

     Just how High could a shot pass above the Queen Mary when it was close to being right on top of the rear bumper of the JFK Limo? And, there's also the Downgrade of Elm St. This is exactly why when re-creations of the shots are done, the Queen Mary with those Large SS Agents standing on the (R) running board are NOT INCLUDED. Of course, this omission is mandatory to try and sell the SBT. The trajectory of that shot is problematic on multiple fronts. And then you got Knott Lab Laser SCIENCE recently proving the SBT "IS IMPOSSIBLE". You guys need to get off this laughably old saw. The SBT's day is done.   
10
"Every word of this is utter nonsense. It all exists in your own mind and nowhere else."

actually it exists on multiple threads not only on this forum but everywhere that LN post . whether you accept that or not matters not one bit to me .

you dont need to tell me on what side of the fence any particular person posting here is on .

"You are being overly sensitive and reading too much into things"

as i have already said to one or two people here who are far to quick to attack . YOU WORRY ABOUT YOU and how and why and what you post . i am a big boy , i can take care of myself .

you dont need to tell me on what side of the fence any particular person posting here is on

I wasn't showing you what side of the fence anyone was on.
I was showing that you post nonsense that you can't back up.
But you crack on "big boy", let's see what you've got.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10