JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Mytton on January 27, 2024, 03:23:19 AM
-
I just came across a post from a member that says OJ didn't stab anyone and this member has a very unique view of the JFKA, so it got me wondering in how many CT members also support other conspiracies?
Michael T. Griffith is constantly espousing the "scholars" in the JFKA, (that btw, in nearly all cases are underqualified), that share his conspiracy mindset so I guess that Griffith would also endorse the plethora of Engineers and Architects that believe in a 9/11 conspiracy. Yes?
So CT's and I guess some LNers, let's hear what you believe about the World of Conspiracies, and present your evidence here and let's see where that takes us.
Some starters.
Was building 7's free fall a product of demolition?
Was the Pentagon hit by a missile?
Was thermite or super-thermite found at the 9/11 site?
Where is the wreckage from Flight 93?
Were holograms covering the missiles that struck the WTC?
Was OJ set up by the Police or someone else?
Did they stuff up the DNA evidence?
Why did the original prosecution exclude so much evidence and why did they present such a weak case?
Are the non parallel shadows on the Moon faked?
Why is the flag waving on the Moon with no air?
Where are the stars in the NASA photos?
JohnM
-
I think that this image could be revised to indicate the WC and its conclusions (and all the authors of the books opposing them) and it would be appropriate.
(https://i.vgy.me/AOdSWU.jpg)
8)
-
I just came across a post from a member that says OJ didn't stab anyone and this member has a very unique view of the JFKA, so it got me wondering in how many CT members also support other conspiracies?
Michael T. Griffith is constantly espousing the "scholars" in the JFKA, (that btw, in nearly all cases are underqualified), that share his conspiracy mindset so I guess that Griffith would also endorse the plethora of Engineers and Architects that believe in a 9/11 conspiracy. Yes?
So CT's and I guess some LNers, let's hear what you believe about the World of Conspiracies, and present your evidence here and let's see where that takes us.
Some starters.
Was building 7's free fall a product of demolition?
Was the Pentagon hit by a missile?
Was thermite or super-thermite found at the 9/11 site?
Where is the wreckage from Flight 93?
Were holograms covering the missiles that struck the WTC?
Was OJ set up by the Police or someone else?
Did they stuff up the DNA evidence?
Why did the original prosecution exclude so much evidence and why did they present such a weak case?
Are the non parallel shadows on the Moon faked?
Why is the flag waving on the Moon with no air?
Where are the stars in the NASA photos?
JohnM
lol that looks like you are expecting people to hand you a stick so you can then beat them with it on this forum for years to come . this is a jfk assassination discussion forum .
-
I think that this image could be revised to indicate the WC and its conclusions (and all the authors of the books opposing them) and it would be appropriate.
(https://i.vgy.me/AOdSWU.jpg)
8)
i like that . thanks for posting .
-
I just came across a post from a member that says OJ didn't stab anyone and this member has a very unique view of the JFKA, so it got me wondering in how many CT members also support other conspiracies?
Michael T. Griffith is constantly espousing the "scholars" in the JFKA, (that btw, in nearly all cases are underqualified), that share his conspiracy mindset so I guess that Griffith would also endorse the plethora of Engineers and Architects that believe in a 9/11 conspiracy. Yes?
So CT's and I guess some LNers, let's hear what you believe about the World of Conspiracies, and present your evidence here and let's see where that takes us.
Some starters.
Was building 7's free fall a product of demolition?
Was the Pentagon hit by a missile?
Was thermite or super-thermite found at the 9/11 site?
Where is the wreckage from Flight 93?
Were holograms covering the missiles that struck the WTC?
Was OJ set up by the Police or someone else?
Did they stuff up the DNA evidence?
Why did the original prosecution exclude so much evidence and why did they present such a weak case?
Are the non parallel shadows on the Moon faked?
Why is the flag waving on the Moon with no air?
Where are the stars in the NASA photos?
JohnM
DNA evidence is interesting.
If dna (or any other) evidence is rigged then the chances of being wrong is 1 in 1 (not 1 in 1,000,000,000 etc).
If dna evidence is contaminated at the scene or in the lab then the chances of being wrong is not 1 in 1,000,000,000, it is 1 in 1.
If a bloody glove is planted by police & the dna evidence is tested by 100 different independent labs & one from russia, then the chances of being wrong is 1 in ...
-
I think that this image could be revised to indicate the WC and its conclusions (and all the authors of the books opposing them) and it would be appropriate.
(https://i.vgy.me/AOdSWU.jpg)
8)
Yes, one test can sink a theory.
But, it duznt.
Einsteinian science (& Covid science & nutrition science etc) duznt work that way.
Bad news is censored.
However, the Einsteinian Dark Age of Science is coming to an end, for the times they are a-changin'.
Before very long we will see the death of theories re......
The Big Bang.
Black Holes.
Gravitational Waves.
LIGO krapp.
The Cosmic Microwave Background krapp.
E=mcc.
That c is constant.
That aether duznt exist.
That hard little electrons can orbit a (large spherical) nucleus.
That electricity is made by electrons moving along inside a wire.
etc.
-
lol that looks like you are expecting people to hand you a stick so you can then beat them with it on this forum for years to come . this is a jfk assassination discussion forum .
Hi Fergus, stop being so paranoid, because your dumbass posts have given me more than enough ammunition to "beat you over the head with a stick".
I just thought it would be an interesting topic and perhaps analyze the mindset of why people like you, can with a straight face, believe the most ridiculously unbelievable theories, that's all.
And yes, this is a JFKA forum but the spillover into investigating why CT's still believe the "People in Authority" are manipulating the general population decades later in unrelated "mysteries" is a fascinating subject. Don't you think?
JohnM
-
Hi Fergus, stop being so paranoid, because your dumbass posts have given me more than enough ammunition to "beat you over the head with a stick".
I just thought it would be an interesting topic and perhaps analyze the mindset of why people like you, can with a straight face, believe the most ridiculously unbelievable theories, that's all.
And yes, this is a JFKA forum but the spillover into investigating why CT's still believe the "People in Authority" are manipulating the general population decades later in unrelated "mysteries" is a fascinating subject. Don't you think?
JohnM
What a load of BS. And calling Fergus "Fergus" is just nasty and tells us all we need to know about "John Mytton".
And Fergus was of course correct. LNs, like him, know they can not argue the case on the weak merits of it's evidence. They are similar to the current "impeachment investigation" into President Biden, where Republicans constantly claim to have convincing evidence but always fail to produce it. Because of the weakness of their case, LNs would love to call anybody who disagrees with them a CT and a believer in all sorts of other wacky conspiracy theories, because that makes it easier to attack them and call them nutjobs. He is doing exactly that in his last post.
It is utterly pathetic.
-
What a load of BS. And calling Fergus "Fergus" is just nasty and tells us all we need to know about "John Mytton".
And Fergus was of course correct. LNs, like him, know they can not argue the case on the weak merits of it's evidence. They are similar to the current "impeachment investigation" into President Biden, where Republicans constantly claim to have convincing evidence but always fail to produce it. Because of the weakness of their case, LNs would love to call anybody who disagrees with them a CT and a believer in all sorts of other wacky conspiracy theories, because that makes it easier to attack them and call them nutjobs. He is doing exactly that in his last post.
It is utterly pathetic.
I like how you two are constantly supporting each other and coming to the other's defence, that's super neat!
JohnM
-
I like how you two are constantly supporting each other and coming to the other's defence, that's super neat!
JohnM
Neither needs to be defended by the other, but I can understand how a sick mind like you would think that.
But thank you for showing, with your pathetically weak reply, that my previous post was spot on! Thumb1:
-
John is looking for a stick to beat you with.
-
John is looking for a stick to beat you with.
Of course he is. It's an admission of the weakness of his case. If he had a strong case he would not have to resort to this kind of BS.
-
John is looking for a stick to beat you with.
As I already said, you Kooks "serious researchers" have provided a lifetime of easily refuted garbage, crazy theories and outrageous speculation, so I don't need any more ammunition. This is just a thread to find out how deep the paranoia goes and thus far, I have been truly reaped the seed that I sowed.
Thanks for your participation.
JohnM
-
As I already said, you Kooks "serious researchers" have provided a lifetime of easily refuted garbage, crazy theories and outrageous speculation, so I don't need any more ammunition. This is just a thread to find out how deep the paranoia goes and thus far, I have been truly reaped the seed that I sowed.
Thanks for your participation.
JohnM
so I don't need any more ammunition.
And why would you even need ammunition?
The simple and only answer is that you need to attack people who disagree with you, because your arguments and "evidence" are so pathetically weak that it doesn't convince anybody except the most gullible.
-
so I don't need any more ammunition.
And why would you even need ammunition?
The simple and only answer is that you need to attack people who disagree with you, because your arguments and "evidence" are so pathetically weak that it doesn't convince anybody except the most gullible.
Wow, why all the hostility?
Calm down!
If you were so confident in your beliefs, then you could simply and calmly explain your position, but instead you are obviously threatened by the truth, so that's why you constantly go on these aggressive rants!
JohnM
-
Wow, why all the hostility?
Calm down!
If you were so confident in your beliefs, then you could simply and calmly explain your position, but instead you are obviously threatened by the truth, so that's why you constantly go on these aggressive rants!
JohnM
What beliefs would that be? I have explained "my position" to you over and over again, but you just don't like and can't handle it.
There is nothing aggressive about what I say, but, like a typical narcissist, you instantly start playing the victim as soon as you've lost the argument and all credibility.
Keep digging the hole you're in ...... Thumb1:
Btw have you figured out already how you are going to explain your need for "ammunition"?
-
Btw have you figured out already how you are going to explain your need for "ammunition"?
Well Duh!, Fergus said "to hand you a stick so you can then beat them with it" and Robert posted "John is looking for a stick to beat you with."
And in case you didn't know, a "stick" in this context is a figurative Weapon of War, so I simply responded that, I didn't need any more ammunition(sticks) because Kooks like you and your new best mate, have supplied plenty!
Get it now, Einstein?
JohnM
-
Well Duh!, Fergus said "to hand you a stick so you can then beat them with it" and Robert posted "John is looking for a stick to beat you with."
And in case you didn't know, a "stick" in this context is a figurative Weapon of War, so I simply responded that, I didn't need any more ammunition(sticks) because Kooks like you and your new best mate, have supplied plenty!
Get it now, Einstein?
JohnM
So much BS... typical for a weasel.
so I simply responded that, I didn't need any more ammunition(sticks)
The operative words being "didn't need any more"... Which of course means that you believed you already had enough ammunition.
What it doesn't explain is why you need ammunition at all....
Care to try again?
-
So much BS... typical for a weasel
And that's where I stopped reading.
Next time try leading with your argument, instead of yet another aggressive Ad Hominin, and you might actually get me to read one of your off topic worthless diversionary posts.
JohnM
-
And that's where I stopped reading.
Next time try leading with your argument, instead of yet another aggressive Ad Hominin, and you might actually get me to read one of your off topic worthless diversionary posts.
JohnM
And that's where I stopped reading.
Really?
Next time try leading with your argument, instead of yet another aggressive Ad Hominin, and you might actually get me to read one of your off topic worthless diversionary posts.
Isn't it amazing how you can determine that what I wrote is "one or your off topic worthless diversionary posts", when you really haven't read it? Pull the other one...
But I understand. If I was in the position you have placed yourself in, I would also prefer to run instead of answering the question, because the answer would have exposed you as the pathetic troll with no solid arguments that you truly are.
Now, I'm sure you won't be reading that as well, because it is indeed ad hom.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The whole thing is hilarious. A fool who needs and claims he has ammunition to attack others who turns into a whining "victim" as soon as he gets put in his place.
-
And that's where I stopped reading.
Really?
Yes, really!
Not one of your posts in this thread has been on topic and when you again lead your 6th post with the same repeated hostility, I knew exactly what you were going to say.
And now that you attempted to call me out, I just read your post and what do you know, I was EXACTLY right!
You are so mindlessly predictable, that you make my job a breeze.
Btw thanks for providing me with even more ammunition! Muhahaha!
JohnM
-
Yes, really!
Not one of your posts in this thread has been on topic and when you again lead your 6th post with the same repeated hostility, I knew exactly what you were going to say.
And now that you attempted to call me out, I just read your post and what do you know, I was EXACTLY right!
You are so mindlessly predictable, that you make my job a breeze.
Btw thanks for providing me with even more ammunition! Muhahaha!
JohnM
Thanks for the laugh... now, care to explain why you even need "even more ammunition"?
you make my job a breeze.
What job would that be?
Btw, no matter how many times and in how many ways you try to divert the conversation, I will continue to ask you why you even need "ammunition" at all....
-
What job would that be?
My job is to keep this topic on the front page and you make it so easy by falling for every trap I set up, because, and I mean no offence by this, but you really aren't the sharpest tool in the shed.
JohnM
-
My job is to keep this topic on the front page and you make it so easy by falling for every trap I set up, because, and I mean no offence by this, but you really aren't the sharpest tool in the shed.
JohnM
I don't mind keeping this useless topic on the front page because as long as it's there it will keep on exposing you as the troll you are.
Now, why do you need "ammunition" at all?
Btw, if you want to insult me, you really have to do a whole lot better that this pathetic childish attempt.
-
I don't mind keeping this useless topic on the front page because as long as it's there it will keep on exposing you as the troll you are.
Now, why do you need "ammunition" at all?
Btw, if you want to insult me, you really have to do a whole lot better that this pathetic childish attempt.
I don't mind keeping this useless topic on the front page because as long as it's there it will keep on exposing you as the troll you are.
Thanks, but everyone reading all your aggressive off topic posts can see who the Troll truly is, and that obviously ain't me.
Now, why do you need "ammunition" at all?
I'm not going to explain my multiple responses dealing with this, yet again. If you can't comprehend what I've written, then that's all on you.
Btw, if you want to insult me, you really have to do a whole lot better that this pathetic childish attempt.
Oh, I am so sorry, I have spent my entire life being a complementing nice guy and I have trouble insulting people, whereas you've had a lifetime of being a nasty little man, so my kind hearted insults to you, are mere child's play. I get it, I really do!
JohnM
-
To find out, why not start threads for each of these subjects in the Off Topic section? Thumb1:
-
Thanks, but everyone reading all your aggressive off topic posts can see who the Troll truly is, and that obviously ain't me.
I'm not going to explain my multiple responses dealing with this, yet again. If you can't comprehend what I've written, then that's all on you.
Oh, I am so sorry, I have spent my entire life being a complementing nice guy and I have trouble insulting people, whereas you've had a lifetime of being a nasty little man, so my kind hearted insults to you, are mere child's play. I get it, I really do!
JohnM
So, you continue making a fool of yourself! That's fine.
Oh, I am so sorry, I have spent my entire life being a complementing nice guy and I have trouble insulting people,
Says the guy who just called another member " F-u-n-g-u-s " for no reason whatsoever! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
And being the so-called "complementing nice guy" he calls just about everybody who disagrees with him "kooks". Of course he only does so out of the goodness of his kind tender heart! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
whereas you've had a lifetime of being a nasty little man, so my kind hearted insults to you, are mere child's play. I get it, I really do!
You don't know the first thing about me or my life. All you know is what you read on this forum and that is that I don't suffer fools like you gladly.
I'm not going to explain my multiple responses dealing with this, yet again. If you can't comprehend what I've written, then that's all on you.
Another classic Mytton troll move; claiming that he has already explained something which in truth he never did.
Not one other member, except you, has ever mentioned that they have or need "ammunition". By trying to weasel your way out of this one, you insult the intelligence of all other members.
Not even other LNs come to your defense. That, by itself, is telling enough.
Now, why do you need "ammunition" at all, if not to attack, insult and ridicule other members?
-
Hi Fergus, stop being so paranoid, because your dumbass posts have given me more than enough ammunition to "beat you over the head with a stick".
I just thought it would be an interesting topic and perhaps analyze the mindset of why people like you, can with a straight face, believe the most ridiculously unbelievable theories, that's all.
And yes, this is a JFKA forum but the spillover into investigating why CT's still believe the "People in Authority" are manipulating the general population decades later in unrelated "mysteries" is a fascinating subject. Don't you think?
JohnM
i can guarantee i have never given you or any LN any stick to beat me over the head with lol . you may be able to disagree with me , say i am wrong and if so fine , and so be it . i dont claim perfection .
also i dont resort to name calling or insults , frankly i am intelligent enough to understand that i do not need to go down such a route .and so i would never lower my self to such a level . however i see you have no such qualms .
if you desire to discuss a mindset / mindsets well it should be done equally , IE we should discuss the both mindsets , both LN and CT .
politicians dont try to manipulate the people ? they would never deceive , withhold or lie ? , surely you are intelligent enough to not attempt to argue that they dont do this ? . but then maybe not lol .
but thank you for your reply , if an LN seeks to attack and insult me well then i guess i must be doing something right .
-
Yes, really!
Not one of your posts in this thread has been on topic and when you again lead your 6th post with the same repeated hostility, I knew exactly what you were going to say.
And now that you attempted to call me out, I just read your post and what do you know, I was EXACTLY right!
You are so mindlessly predictable, that you make my job a breeze.
Btw thanks for providing me with even more ammunition! Muhahaha!
JohnM
"You are so mindlessly predictable, that you make my job a breeze." John
so this is YOUR JOB ? . is this an admission by you that you are a paid shall we say DEBUNKER ? . not that i have seen you debunk all that much lol . granted you do provide some good information some times but it seems heavily outweighed by the severe amount of BS and ad hominem that you post .
-
To find out, why not start threads for each of these subjects in the Off Topic section? Thumb1:
Thanks, for the advice!
Because this section should be reserved for the most logical and totally well thought out threads, like that absolutely brilliant thread that postulates that at the same day and date that Oswald took his rifle to work, and planned on shooting the ground, yes shoot the ground, you know to only scare people!, that someone else and their team who were totally unrelated, and who by chance just randomly picked the exact same time and exact same location, and very cleverly decided to set up a triangulation of snipers to also kill the President!!
So yes Jim, this section is truly deserving of the most scholarly threads that obviously have a lot of intellect invested in them!
Congratulations!
JohnM
-
"You are so mindlessly predictable, that you make my job a breeze." John
so this is YOUR JOB ? . is this an admission by you that you are a paid shall we say DEBUNKER ? . not that i have seen you debunk all that much lol . granted you do provide some good information some times but it seems heavily outweighed by the severe amount of BS and ad hominem that you post .
is this an admission by you that you are a paid shall we say DEBUNKER ?
Hilarious, you people seriously think that your posts about a sixty year old event are so damn important that the cover up still needs to be going on! WOW!
Time to wake up Fergus, your irrelevant rants are absolutely worthless and this mistaken belief that you are a self appointed seeker of Truth and Justice, shows the World just how delusional you really are!
JohnM
-
So, you continue making a fool of yourself! That's fine.
Oh, I am so sorry, I have spent my entire life being a complementing nice guy and I have trouble insulting people,
Says the guy who just called another member "Fergus" for no reason whatsoever! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
And being the so-called "complementing nice guy" he calls just about everybody who disagrees with him "kooks". Of course he only does so out of the goodness of his kind tender heart! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
whereas you've had a lifetime of being a nasty little man, so my kind hearted insults to you, are mere child's play. I get it, I really do!
You don't know the first thing about me or my life. All you know is what you read on this forum and that is that I don't suffer fools like you gladly.
I'm not going to explain my multiple responses dealing with this, yet again. If you can't comprehend what I've written, then that's all on you.
Another classic Mytton troll move; claiming that he has already explained something which in truth he never did.
Not one other member, except you, has ever mentioned that they have or need "ammunition". By trying to weasel your way out of this one, you insult the intelligence of all other members.
Not even other LNs come to your defense. That, by itself, is telling enough.
Now, why do you need "ammunition" at all, if not to attack, insult and ridicule other members?
Another mean spirited post from the Forum's excessively aggressive nasty little man.
But thanks for giving me even more "ammunition"! Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
JohnM
-
Hilarious, you people seriously think that your posts about a sixty year old event are so damn important that the cover up still needs to be going on! WOW!
Time to wake up Fergus, your irrelevant rants are absolutely worthless and this mistaken belief that you are a self appointed seeker of Truth and Justice, shows the World just how delusional you really are!
JohnM
to deny A certain amount of cover up of truth and facts in this case took place is beyond idiotic . even tho you are an LN i gave you the respect of putting you above that level based on your knowledge of this case . however if you dont accept that there has been any level of cover up of truth and fact at all in this case well then sadly you have lowered YOURSELF to that level . but i will give you an opportunity to answer and tell us exactly what your stance is in regard the question of cover up .
rants ? lol , i never rant , i am as cool as the proverbial cucumber . i say what i feel i need to say , i call a spade a spade , but i never rant , never get angry and never insult or abuse . but as we can see from just your writings here on this thread the same most certainly cannot be said of you .
justice ? well justice is not my domain . i leave justice to those best suited to attempting to get it . on the other hand we should ALL want and seek the truth even if that truth may prove that we were wrong . i have yet to meet the LN in all my years who was so willing as to allow the truth to dissuade them from the BS they were pushing .
-
Another mean spirited post from the Forum's excessively aggressive nasty little man.
But thanks for giving me even more "ammunition"! Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
JohnM
Another mean spirited post from the Forum's excessively aggressive nasty little man.
Says the selfproclaimed life long "complementing nice guy" who claims to have trouble insulting people. Hilarious!
And you actually think that anybody who reads your BS posts will believe that?
But thanks for giving me even more "ammunition"!
Why do you need "even more ammunition"?
-
Another mean spirited post from the Forum's excessively aggressive nasty little man.
Says the selfproclaimed life long "complementing nice guy" who claims to have trouble insulting people. Hilarious!
And you actually think that anybody who reads your BS posts will believe that?
Thumb1: No one believes that and one glance thru his history quickly exposes the fraud.
-
Thanks, for the advice!
Because this section should be reserved for the most logical and totally well thought out threads, like that absolutely brilliant thread that postulates that at the same day and date that Oswald took his rifle to work, and planned on shooting the ground, yes shoot the ground, you know to only scare people!, that someone else and their team who were totally unrelated, and who by chance just randomly picked the exact same time and exact same location, and very cleverly decided to set up a triangulation of snipers to also kill the President!!
So yes Jim, this section is truly deserving of the most scholarly threads that obviously have a lot of intellect invested in them!
Congratulations!
JohnM
Ho ho.
There was no "random picking" of a location. Dealey Plaza was obviously perfect. There is nothing at all far-fetched about separate people acting on that opportune moment.
The hole in the back of Kennedy's head and the entry wound at his throat prove that he wasn't the only one shooting that day (irrespective of whether Oswald's intention was a stunt or a real attempt to kill).
-
Ho ho.
There was no "random picking" of a location. Dealey Plaza was obviously perfect. There is nothing at all far-fetched about separate people acting on that opportune moment.
The hole in the back of Kennedy's head and the entry wound at his throat prove that he wasn't the only one shooting that day (irrespective of whether Oswald's intention was a stunt or a real attempt to kill).
There was no "random picking" of a location. Dealey Plaza was obviously perfect. There is nothing at all far-fetched about separate people acting on that opportune moment.
Kennedy's Limo Parades went through many American cities and covered miles and miles and miles of road but for some reason another team of snipers picked the exact location and time that Oswald decided to shoot the ground? You can't be serious, but what boggles the mind is that you actually are!
The hole in the back of Kennedy's head and the entry wound at his throat prove that he wasn't the only one shooting that day (irrespective of whether Oswald's intention was a stunt or a real attempt to kill).
Yes there was a bullet entrance hole on the back of Kennedy's head and the bullet exit hole on the front of Kennedy's neck was cause by a FMJ bullet which is designed to pass through human flesh and not expand and cause excessive internal damage. And you do know that 94% of the earwitnesses said ALL the shots came from only 1 direction meaning that there was no cross fire, and since we can confirm that both Kennedy were shot from behind therefore ALL shots came from behind.
Besides why on Earth would you have a sniper in front when your Patsy was high and behind, have you thought this through?
The configuration of Dealey Plaza made predicting an exact shot location difficult but shots from different directions is immediately clear.
(https://www.jfk-assassination.net/pdf/Thompson.png)
JohnM
-
Thumb1: No one believes that and one glance thru his history quickly exposes the fraud.
Geez, you Kooks are so sensitive, a little well intentioned ribbing is hardly a mean spirited insult.
JohnM
-
Why do you need "even more ammunition"?
Wow, the irony is obviously lost on you, but this relentless harassment from you is the very epitome of bombarding me with your off topic "ammunition", at least I use the evidence in the JFK case whereas you are just a nasty little man who scrapes the gutters to try to gain any advantage.
JohnM
-
Besides why on Earth would you have a sniper in front when your Patsy was high and behind, have you thought this through?
Oswald wasn't the "patsy" at that stage at all. As I said, this theory suggests that Oswald had no connection whatsoever to the conspiracy cell. They were completely unaware of him until his shots rang out. Oswald was framed for the murder after the fact. The WC knew that there was a conspiracy but had to pin it on the LN.
As President Ford told President Giscard D'Estaing in the 70s: “We first concluded that it was not an isolated crime, it was something organized. We were sure that it was organized. But we were unable to find out by who it was organized’
-
Wow, the irony is obviously lost on you, but this relentless harassment from you is the very epitome of bombarding me with your off topic "ammunition", at least I use the evidence in the JFK case whereas you are just a nasty little man who scrapes the gutters to try to gain any advantage.
JohnM
I'm just asking a question that you are afraid to answer. You can stop the so-called "relentless harassment" instantly by answering the question.
And as far as using the evidence in the JFK case, I have to admit that you do indeed use it, but only for all sorts of misrepresentations to allegedly "support" superficial conclusions, bogus claims and utter speculation.
a nasty little man who scrapes the gutters to try to gain any advantage.
As this goes to your mindset, what advantage am I trying to gain, by asking you a simple question?
Oh, and before I forget, why do you need "even more ammunition"?
You seem to be the only one using that word in relation to something you described as "a figurative Weapon of War"
Well Duh!, Fergus said "to hand you a stick so you can then beat them with it" and Robert posted "John is looking for a stick to beat you with."
And in case you didn't know, a "stick" in this context is a figurative Weapon of War, so I simply responded that, I didn't need any more ammunition(sticks) because Kooks like you and your new best mate, have supplied plenty!
Get it now, Einstein?
JohnM
Btw... Fergus actually said;
lol that looks like you are expecting people to hand you a stick so you can then beat them with it on this forum for years to come . this is a jfk assassination discussion forum .
we wouldn't want you to misrepresent what he actually said, would we now?
-
Oswald wasn't the "patsy" at that stage at all. As I said, this theory suggests that Oswald had no connection whatsoever to the conspiracy cell. They were completely unaware of him until his shots rang out. Oswald was framed for the murder after the fact. The WC knew that there was a conspiracy but had to pin it on the LN.
As President Ford told President Giscard D'Estaing in the 70s: “We first concluded that it was not an isolated crime, it was something organized. We were sure that it was organized. But we were unable to find out by who it was organized’
The WC knew that there was a conspiracy but had to pin it on the LN.
I have no doubt that a possible conspiracy was investigated because according to the WC conclusion and Ford's HSCA testimony, Ford says, they tried to find a conspiracy but couldn't find one, but as for the Warren Commission "knowing" there was a conspiracy and having to "pin it on" Lee Harvey Oswald, is simply a product of an over active imagination.
President FORD - There was a recommendation, as I recall, from the staff that could be summarized this way. No. 1, Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin. Two, there was no conspiracy, foreign or domestic. The commission, after looking at this suggested language from the staff, decided unanimously that the wording should be much like this, and I am not quoting precisely from the Commission staff, but I am quoting the substance. No. 1, that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin. No. 2, the Commission has found no evidence of a conspiracy, foreign or domestic. The second point is quite different from the language which was recommended by the staff. I think the Commission was right to make that revision and I stand by it today.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/hscaford.htm
Conclusions of the Warren Commission Report
The report concluded that:
1. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired from the sixth-floor window at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository.
2. President Kennedy was first struck by a bullet which entered at the back of his neck and exited through the lower front portion of his neck, causing a wound which would not necessarily have been lethal. The President was struck by a second bullet, which entered the right-rear portion of his head, causing a massive and fatal wound.
3. Governor Connally was struck by a bullet which entered on the right side of his back and traveled downward through the right side of his chest, exiting below his right nipple. This bullet then passed through his right wrist and entered his left thigh then it caused a superficial wound.
4. There is no credible evidence that the shots were fired from the Triple Underpass, ahead of the motorcade, or from any other location.
5. The weight of the evidence indicates that there were three shots fired.
6. Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President's throat also caused Governor Connally's wounds. However, Governor Connally's testimony and certain other factors have given rise to some difference of opinion as to this probability but there is no question in the mind of any member of the Commission that all the shots which caused the President's and Governor Connally's wounds were fired from the sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.
7. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald.
8. Oswald killed Dallas Police Patrolman J. D. Tippit approximately 45 minutes after the assassination.
9. Ruby entered the basement of the Dallas Police Department and killed Lee Harvey Oswald and there is no evidence to support the rumor that Ruby may have been assisted by any members of the Dallas Police Department.
10. The Commission has found no evidence that either Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby was part of any conspiracy, domestic or foreign, to assassinate President Kennedy.
11 The Commission has found no evidence of conspiracy, subversion, or disloyalty to the U.S. Government by any Federal, State, or local official.
12. The Commission could not make any definitive determination of Oswald's motives.
13. The Commission believes that recommendations for improvements in Presidential protection are compelled by the facts disclosed in this investigation.
And the HSCA 15 years later came to the same conclusion that Oswald fired three shots, two of which struck the President.
1. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy. The second and third shots Oswald fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.
JohnM
-
I'm just asking a question that you are afraid to answer. You can stop the so-called "relentless harassment" instantly by answering the question.
And as far as using the evidence in the JFK case, I have to admit that you do indeed use it, but only for all sorts of misrepresentations to allegedly "support" superficial conclusions, bogus claims and utter speculation.
a nasty little man who scrapes the gutters to try to gain any advantage.
As this goes to your mindset, what advantage am I trying to gain, by asking you a simple question?
Oh, and before I forget, why do you need "even more ammunition"?
You seem to be the only one using that word in relation to something you described as "a figurative Weapon of War"
Btw... Fergus actually said;
we wouldn't want you to misrepresent what he actually said, would we now?
Yawn!
What a Shocker, yet another self serving off topic post, either stick to posting about what's in the Thread Title or push off, because I refuse to be bullied and continually harassed by some insignificant irrelevant grievance that has no connection with the topic at hand.
JohnM
-
I have no doubt that a possible conspiracy was investigated because according to the WC conclusion and Ford's HSCA testimony, Ford says, they tried to find a conspiracy but couldn't find one, but as for the Warren Commission "knowing" there was a conspiracy and having to "pin it on" Lee Harvey Oswald, is simply a product of an over active imagination.
President FORD - There was a recommendation, as I recall, from the staff that could be summarized this way. No. 1, Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin. Two, there was no conspiracy, foreign or domestic. The commission, after looking at this suggested language from the staff, decided unanimously that the wording should be much like this, and I am not quoting precisely from the Commission staff, but I am quoting the substance. No. 1, that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin. No. 2, the Commission has found no evidence of a conspiracy, foreign or domestic. The second point is quite different from the language which was recommended by the staff. I think the Commission was right to make that revision and I stand by it today.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/hscaford.htm
Conclusions of the Warren Commission Report
The report concluded that:
1. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired from the sixth-floor window at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository.
2. President Kennedy was first struck by a bullet which entered at the back of his neck and exited through the lower front portion of his neck, causing a wound which would not necessarily have been lethal. The President was struck by a second bullet, which entered the right-rear portion of his head, causing a massive and fatal wound.
3. Governor Connally was struck by a bullet which entered on the right side of his back and traveled downward through the right side of his chest, exiting below his right nipple. This bullet then passed through his right wrist and entered his left thigh then it caused a superficial wound.
4. There is no credible evidence that the shots were fired from the Triple Underpass, ahead of the motorcade, or from any other location.
5. The weight of the evidence indicates that there were three shots fired.
6. Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President's throat also caused Governor Connally's wounds. However, Governor Connally's testimony and certain other factors have given rise to some difference of opinion as to this probability but there is no question in the mind of any member of the Commission that all the shots which caused the President's and Governor Connally's wounds were fired from the sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.
7. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald.
8. Oswald killed Dallas Police Patrolman J. D. Tippit approximately 45 minutes after the assassination.
9. Ruby entered the basement of the Dallas Police Department and killed Lee Harvey Oswald and there is no evidence to support the rumor that Ruby may have been assisted by any members of the Dallas Police Department.
10. The Commission has found no evidence that either Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby was part of any conspiracy, domestic or foreign, to assassinate President Kennedy.
11 The Commission has found no evidence of conspiracy, subversion, or disloyalty to the U.S. Government by any Federal, State, or local official.
12. The Commission could not make any definitive determination of Oswald's motives.
13. The Commission believes that recommendations for improvements in Presidential protection are compelled by the facts disclosed in this investigation.
And the HSCA 15 years later came to the same conclusion that Oswald fired three shots, two of which struck the President.
1. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy. The second and third shots Oswald fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.
JohnM
That quotes the WC report which was obviously tailored to frame Oswald. Anyway, you drew the discussion towards all that by by trying to ridiculise my thread about the coincidental, unrelated plots, when all I'd said was - why not start a thread for each of the subjects that you outlined in your OP. It shouldn't have been difficult for you to simply say "Yes, I think I will!".
-
Yawn!
What a Shocker, yet another self serving off topic post, either stick to posting about what's in the Thread Title or push off, because I refuse to be bullied and continually harassed by some insignificant irrelevant grievance that has no connection with the topic at hand.
JohnM
And still no answers to my questions. You are great at making wild claims and saying idiotic stuff, but not so great backing it up with evidence and/or answers.
Are you feeling uncomfortable because you are being called out?
stick to posting about what's in the Thread Title
You mean, just like you did when you said;
Hi Fergus, stop being so paranoid, because your dumbass posts have given me more than enough ammunition to "beat you over the head with a stick".
As I already said, you Kooks "serious researchers" have provided a lifetime of easily refuted garbage, crazy theories and outrageous speculation, so I don't need any more ammunition.
Well Duh!, Fergus said "to hand you a stick so you can then beat them with it" and Robert posted "John is looking for a stick to beat you with."
And in case you didn't know, a "stick" in this context is a figurative Weapon of War, so I simply responded that, I didn't need any more ammunition(sticks) because Kooks like you and your new best mate, have supplied plenty!
Wow, the irony is obviously lost on you, but this relentless harassment from you is the very epitome of bombarding me with your off topic "ammunition", at least I use the evidence in the JFK case whereas you are just a nasty little man who scrapes the gutters to try to gain any advantage.
JohnM
your dumbass posts have given me more than enough ammunition to "beat you over the head with a stick".
a "stick" in this context is a figurative Weapon of War,
to gain any advantage.
What kind of sick individual uses words like "having enough ammunition", "figurative Weapon of War" and "to gain any advantage" on a forum where the JFK murder case is being discussed?
And then starts whining about being bullied and harassed when he is simply asked to explain himself.
Btw; this has become the topic at hand and you are the one who made it so!
-
I have no doubt that a possible conspiracy was investigated because according to the WC conclusion and Ford's HSCA testimony, Ford says, they tried to find a conspiracy but couldn't find one, but as for the Warren Commission "knowing" there was a conspiracy and having to "pin it on" Lee Harvey Oswald, is simply a product of an over active imagination.
President FORD - There was a recommendation, as I recall, from the staff that could be summarized this way. No. 1, Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin. Two, there was no conspiracy, foreign or domestic. The commission, after looking at this suggested language from the staff, decided unanimously that the wording should be much like this, and I am not quoting precisely from the Commission staff, but I am quoting the substance. No. 1, that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin. No. 2, the Commission has found no evidence of a conspiracy, foreign or domestic. The second point is quite different from the language which was recommended by the staff. I think the Commission was right to make that revision and I stand by it today.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/hscaford.htm
Conclusions of the Warren Commission Report
The report concluded that:
1. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired from the sixth-floor window at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository.
2. President Kennedy was first struck by a bullet which entered at the back of his neck and exited through the lower front portion of his neck, causing a wound which would not necessarily have been lethal. The President was struck by a second bullet, which entered the right-rear portion of his head, causing a massive and fatal wound.
3. Governor Connally was struck by a bullet which entered on the right side of his back and traveled downward through the right side of his chest, exiting below his right nipple. This bullet then passed through his right wrist and entered his left thigh then it caused a superficial wound.
4. There is no credible evidence that the shots were fired from the Triple Underpass, ahead of the motorcade, or from any other location.
5. The weight of the evidence indicates that there were three shots fired.
6. Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President's throat also caused Governor Connally's wounds. However, Governor Connally's testimony and certain other factors have given rise to some difference of opinion as to this probability but there is no question in the mind of any member of the Commission that all the shots which caused the President's and Governor Connally's wounds were fired from the sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.
7. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald.
8. Oswald killed Dallas Police Patrolman J. D. Tippit approximately 45 minutes after the assassination.
9. Ruby entered the basement of the Dallas Police Department and killed Lee Harvey Oswald and there is no evidence to support the rumor that Ruby may have been assisted by any members of the Dallas Police Department.
10. The Commission has found no evidence that either Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby was part of any conspiracy, domestic or foreign, to assassinate President Kennedy.
11 The Commission has found no evidence of conspiracy, subversion, or disloyalty to the U.S. Government by any Federal, State, or local official.
12. The Commission could not make any definitive determination of Oswald's motives.
13. The Commission believes that recommendations for improvements in Presidential protection are compelled by the facts disclosed in this investigation.
And the HSCA 15 years later came to the same conclusion that Oswald fired three shots, two of which struck the President.
1. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy. The second and third shots Oswald fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.
JohnM
i hardly think we can use the term unanimous in regard the warren commissioners and their report , not if one wishes to be honest , you do wish to be honest RIGHT ?. so we should inform all those that will read this that senator Russell did not agree with the the main body of the commission on certain things they concluded .and he informed LBJ of this . and is fellow southern contingent on the commission supported him .Russell believed connally and did not accept the single bullet theory as the commission offered it .so Russell dissented and his fellow southern commissioners supported him . yes in the end he signed off on the report as did Cooper and boggs but ONLY because he was told he could get his dissent on record at the final executive session .he was there , he did speak , he believed the stenographer typed what he said . but not one word of what he said appears in transcript of that final executive session . so Russell dissented , and he was deceived into going along with and signing off on the warren report .
Earl warren told us repeatedly from 64 to his death that jfk had an entry wound on the rear of his body , on the right side of the NECK . he knew that was not true . he later admitted seeing atleast one autopsy photo showing the wound in question . we know rankin saw at the least that same photo and he mentioned it in the january 27 (from memory ) sessions .and he knew the wound was not on the NECK as per Spector . and warren himself admitted seeing some autopsy photos . the autopsy photos NOW IN EXISTENCE show a wound not on the right of the neck but lower down on THE BACK . so the commission deceived the people by falsely stating the wound was on the neck when they knew it was on the BACK . clark panel moved the head entry wound up from the EOP up some 4 to 5 inches up to the crown of the head , where autopsy photos show NO entry wound .the HSCA later would adopt that same deception . they went further and sealed away testimonies / statements about a large right rear head wound . and then wrote on their report THE LIE that all bethesda witnesses agreed with the autopsy findings and contradicted the parkland staff .
so why should we simply accept anything to be true from those that deceive us ? or indeed those that would endorse these deceptions as TRUTH ? .
-
I just came across a post from a member that says OJ didn't stab anyone and this member has a very unique view of the JFKA
So you badly blunder with the very first sentence of your ridiculous post. My view of the JFK assassination is hardly "very unique." My view is the view shared by 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world, a view that has been supported by literally hundreds of scholars, including physicists, neuroscientists, wound ballistics experts, forensic pathologists, and firearms experts.
As you note, I do not believe that OJ Simpson killed his ex-wife Nicole and her boyfriend Ron Goldman. Tell me, what have you read about the OJ case? Have you read Alan Dershowitz's book? F. Lee Bailey's book? Joseph Bosco's book? Have you read any of Brian Heiss's research? (Brian Heiss is arguably the leading scholar on the OJ case.) Have you read any of my articles on the OJ case?
https://sites.google.com/site/theojsimpsoncase/ (https://sites.google.com/site/theojsimpsoncase/)
It is ridiculous of you to put the case for OJ's innocence in the same category as the nutty 9/11 and fake-Moon-landing conspiracy theories.
. . . so it got me wondering in how many CT members also support other conspiracies?
Michael T. Griffith is constantly espousing the "scholars" in the JFKA, (that btw, in nearly all cases are underqualified),
False. You have been corrected on this falsehood before. The scholars who support the conspiracy view are just as qualified as, and in some cases more qualified than, the scholars who support your view.
. . . that share his conspiracy mindset so I guess that Griffith would also endorse the plethora of Engineers and Architects that believe in a 9/11 conspiracy. Yes?
LOL! The "plethora" of engineers and architects who believe in the 9/11 conspiracy nuttiness?! Those engineers and architects constitute a tiny, tiny fraction of the engineering and architectural community. Far, far, far more scientists have rejected the 9/11 "Truther" nonsense than have supported it. You manage to blunder even when your main point is valid.
And what exactly is a "conspiracy mindset"? You appear to think that if anyone believes there was a conspiracy in a few famous murder cases or incidents, they must have a "conspiracy mindset." Using your sophomoric logic, one could say that you have a "coincidence mindset," i.e., that you believe that everything that happens is a coincidence. Just because someone believes there was a conspiracy in certain cases does not mean they have a "conspiracy mindset," no more than your rejection of the JFKA conspiracy view means that you believe that conspiracies never happen. Dozens of Americans are convicted of conspiracy every year.
.So CT's and I guess some LNers, let's hear what you believe about the World of Conspiracies, and present your evidence here and let's see where that takes us.
Some starters.
Was building 7's free fall a product of demolition?
Was the Pentagon hit by a missile?
Was thermite or super-thermite found at the 9/11 site?
Where is the wreckage from Flight 93?
Were holograms covering the missiles that struck the WTC?
Was OJ set up by the Police or someone else?
Did they stuff up the DNA evidence?
Why did the original prosecution exclude so much evidence and why did they present such a weak case?
Are the non parallel shadows on the Moon faked?
Why is the flag waving on the Moon with no air?
Where are the stars in the NASA photos?
JohnM
This kind of juvenile strawman polemic is part of the reason you are not credible. If you had bothered to read any of the better pro-conspiracy books on the JFK case, you would know that there are plenty of WC critics who reject the 9/11 and fake-Moon-landing conspiracy theories.
You obviously have not read my book A Comforting Lie: The Myth that a Lone Gunman Killed President Kennedy, in which I rail against the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, the Moon landings, Princes Diana's death, and John Lennon's murder.
BTW, are you aware that your hero Vincent Bugliosi believed that RFK was killed by a conspiracy?
Finally, regarding the DNA evidence in the OJ case, I dare you to read this six-page article of mine that explains why the DNA evidence was both impossible and fraudulent:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uldjDcebXnGi4VkyxrZWmTUgeHRohyD8/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uldjDcebXnGi4VkyxrZWmTUgeHRohyD8/view)
-
So you badly blunder with the very first sentence of your ridiculous post. My view of the JFK assassination is hardly "very unique." My view is the view shared by 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world, a view that has been supported by literally hundreds of scholars, including physicists, neuroscientists, wound ballistics experts, forensic pathologists, and firearms experts.
As you note, I do not believe that OJ Simpson killed his ex-wife Nicole and her boyfriend Ron Goldman. Tell me, what have you read about the OJ case? Have you read Alan Dershowitz's book? F. Lee Bailey's book? Joseph Bosco's book? Have you read any of Brian Heiss's research? (Brian Heiss is arguably the leading scholar on the OJ case.) Have you read any of my articles on the OJ case?
https://sites.google.com/site/theojsimpsoncase/ (https://sites.google.com/site/theojsimpsoncase/)
It is ridiculous of you to put the case for OJ's innocence in the same category as the nutty 9/11 and fake-Moon-landing conspiracy theories.
False. You have been corrected on this falsehood before. The scholars who support the conspiracy view are just as qualified as, and in some cases more qualified than, the scholars who support your view.
LOL! The "plethora" of engineers and architects who believe in the 9/11 conspiracy nuttiness?! Those engineers and architects constitute a tiny, tiny fraction of the engineering and architectural community. Far, far, far more scientists have rejected the 9/11 "Truther" nonsense than have supported it. You manage to blunder even when your main point is valid.
And what exactly is a "conspiracy mindset"? You appear to think that if anyone believes there was a conspiracy in a few famous murder cases or incidents, they must have a "conspiracy mindset." Using your sophomoric logic, one could say that you have a "coincidence mindset," i.e., that you believe that everything that happens is a coincidence. Just because someone believes there was a conspiracy in certain cases does not mean they have a "conspiracy mindset," no more than your rejection of the JFKA conspiracy view means that you believe that conspiracies never happen. Dozens of Americans are convicted of conspiracy every year.
This kind of juvenile strawman polemic is part of the reason you are not credible. If you had bothered to read any of the better pro-conspiracy books on the JFK case, you would know that there are plenty of WC critics who reject the 9/11 and fake-Moon-landing conspiracy theories.
You obviously have not read my book A Comforting Lie: The Myth that a Lone Gunman Killed President Kennedy, in which I rail against the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, the Moon landings, Princes Diana's death, and John Lennon's murder.
BTW, are you aware that your hero Vincent Bugliosi believed that RFK was killed by a conspiracy?
Finally, regarding the DNA evidence in the OJ case, I dare you to read this six-page article of mine that explains why the DNA evidence was both impossible and fraudulent:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uldjDcebXnGi4VkyxrZWmTUgeHRohyD8/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uldjDcebXnGi4VkyxrZWmTUgeHRohyD8/view)
As you note, I do not believe that OJ Simpson killed his ex-wife Nicole and her boyfriend Ron Goldman. My view of the JFK assassination is hardly "very unique."
Geez Louise, the World doesn't revolve around you, I was referring to an OJ post by Marjan Rynkiewicz and his unique theory about how JFK was shot by an AR-15 from the follow up Limo but admittedly your ideas about this case and Zapruder and photo fakery in particular, aren't far behind!
And about OJ, I had no idea that you were this easily deceived, but with your twisted perceptions of reality about the JFKA, it's not surprising that you believe in OJ's innocence.
My view is the view shared by 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world
"of the Western world" LOL!
This incessantly regurgitated statistic from people who have clearly never researched the 60 year old JFK case is pointlessly absurd. Whereas the OJ case was covered much more recently and in depth by the media for months, and you do realize that almost 7/8 of white people and the majority of Black people polled agreed that OJ was guilty! So Griffith, were all those people polled wrong about the OJ case or will you manufacture some new and ridiculous self serving excuse in some insane justification?
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2015/09/Simpson-Public-Opinion.png)
It is ridiculous of you to put the case for OJ's innocence in the same category as the nutty 9/11 and fake-Moon-landing conspiracy theories.
I rest my case! Hahahahahaha!
Btw, it won't be long till you succumb to the 9/11 and Moon conspiracies', because being easily led is part of your DNA!
LOL! The "plethora" of engineers and architects who believe in the 9/11 conspiracy nuttiness?! Those engineers and architects constitute a tiny, tiny fraction of the engineering and architectural community. Far, far, far more scientists have rejected the 9/11 "Truther" nonsense than have supported it.
Hilarious, like your outlier "experts" that exclusively endorse your nutty ideas about the JFKA and who aren't even qualified in the appropriate forensic sciences, and just provide "Junk Science" that you warmly embrace! You can't make this up, you're the Dude, Griffith!
JohnM
-
Quote from: John Mytton on January 28, 2024, 02:00:10 AM
My job is to keep this topic on the front page and you make it so easy by falling for every trap I set up, because, and I mean no offence by this, but you really aren't the sharpest tool in the shed.
JohnM
I don't mind keeping this useless topic on the front page because as long as it's there it will keep on exposing you as the troll you are.
Now, why do you need "ammunition" at all?
Btw, if you want to insult me, you really have to do a whole lot better that this pathetic childish attempt.
Yes, the guy acts like an angry, petty teenager. All he does is post fraudulent graphics, hurl insults, and make erroneous statements. Time and again he proves (1) that he is not to be taken seriously, (2) that he doesn't understand basic logic or critical thinking, and (3) that what little reading he's done has been almost exclusively in pro-WC sources.
His overheated, condescending polemic is comical given that he's defending a position that 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world has rejected for decades now.
-
Mytton uses that wizards spell that takes the stick out of the trolls hand and the stick itself then knocks the troll unconscious 😳
You have to be careful messing with the LN wizards because of their expertise in presenting what seems to be a logical argument constructed on physical evidence which they deem (have faith) to be credible.
The CT general view (imo ) is that when each piece of evidence is examined, that the devil in the details phenomenon introduces a lot of reasonable doubt that the evidence can is credible because of the confused chain of custody and sloppy documentation or lack thereof.
I wonder if I’m crazy sometimes because how could I agree with Martin W. On the JFK conspiracy perspective yet also agree with Richard, the dedicated LN whom I agree with relative to Trump?
And I still like Mytton even when he uses that LN wizardry to ruin my arguments 😵💫