Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Off Topic / Re: Colors of Blue and Gold
« Last post by Joe Elliott on Today at 04:21:15 AM »

Quote from: Richard Smith on November 28, 2022, 02:21:05 PM
Have the Ukranians ever acknowledged that it was one of their missiles that fell into Poland killing two people?

How could the Ukrainians tell if it was one of their missiles or the Russian's? They haven't been able to examine the site of the missile strike.

Not knowing the details of this case, I can still note a fact that points to the Russians. The latitude of the strike in Poland matches the latitude of the center of Kiev. And the longitude matches the longitude of Lviv. Both Kiev and Lviv are large Ukrainian cities. The match is within six miles. That's a pretty big coincidence. It could be that there were two targets, one near the center of Kiev and the other near the center of Lviv and a Russian crossed up the latitude and longitude of the targets. I think it would be interesting to find if their was any sign of a missile strike near the latitude of Lviv and the longitude of Kiev. If this occurred in some empty field or swamp, it might not be obvious.


Quote from: Richard Smith on November 28, 2022, 02:21:05 PM
Has the US intelligence community ever confirmed who pulled off a highly sophisticated operation to blow up the Russian pipelines?  Where is the leftist media when it comes to stories like this that might result in WWIII?  Oh year, they have nothing to do with Trump.

It would be hard to tell for certain. But the Russians have the motive. To put additional pressure on Germany not to continue to support Ukraine. Russian ships were observed near the location the gas leaks erupted from a few days later. Also, a pipeline to Georgia mysteriously blew up in 2006 when they sought membership in NATO. Perhaps it's all just a coincidence. But I don't think so.
2
Off Topic / Re: Colors of Blue and Gold
« Last post by Joe Elliott on Today at 04:00:27 AM »

Quote from: Richard Smith on November 26, 2022, 01:39:01 PM
Those numbers are wildly overblown since the US is also giving support to those NATO countries including paying for the privilege of defending them.  Europe can afford its socialist agenda only because the US has provided the military force for its defense including paying to use the military bases in Europe used by Americans to defend Europe.  As Trump pointed out numerous times, many NATO members don't even pay their small share.  It is one of the greatest scams in history.  The US military and contractors convince the politicians to pay trillions to defend Europe and then kickback payments to the politicians to ensure that this has continued since the end of WWII.  The Europeans must fall over laughing at us.  While the US has hundreds of thousands of homeless, schools that are falling down, and rampant poverty, the Europeans are able to afford a socialist utopia paid for by the US.

Insufficient reasons for not stopping the march of Authoritarianism while we can. Let's just do it. The iron is hot. Besides, I don't think the Russians will last the winter. Too much Russian corruption. Too much poor logistics for their army to stand during a cold winter. They had enough problems getting adequate supplies up to the front during warm weather. But we shall see.

A relatively small investment now, just ten per cent of our yearly defense spending, may greatly reduce the need for such a large amount of defense spending in the years to come. If the threat of Russia is removed, I don't see why we couldn't get away with a 20 % reduction in defense spending in the years to come. We surely won't need to spend as much to defend against China alone as we will need to continue to defend against both China and Russia. It's a good gamble.
3
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on Today at 01:41:22 AM »
Quote from: Richard Smith on Today at 12:33:36 AM
You are really doubling down on this?  HA HA HA.  Just when I thought it couldn't get any better.  Quincy M.D. you aren't.  Obviously, the autopsy is a critical component of any murder investigation.    Each crime is different, but the results of the autopsy can be taken in conjunction with other crime scene evidence to help identify or eliminate a suspect.  Just repeating idiotic general comments like "it can shed no light on who the assassin was" as though there is no further context because your moronic sidekick said it and you embarrassed yourself by repeating it is amusing.   The WC used crime scene evidence to place a shooter (i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald) at a specific location.  Whether you agree with its conclusion is the not point.  The autopsy result can lend support to that conclusion or eliminate that possibility.   And that has direct implications for the conclusion that LHO was the assassin.

The WC used crime scene evidence to place a shooter (i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald) at a specific location.

Could you be anymore evasive and vague? I doubt it! What "crime scene evidence" used by the WC are you talking about?

I haven't seen any supporting evidence for the conclusion that Oswald was on the 6th floor in the WC report, so what am I missing?
4
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book
« Last post by John Iacoletti on Today at 01:13:50 AM »
Quote from: “Richard Smith” on Today at 12:33:36 AM
You are really doubling down on this?  HA HA HA.  Just when I thought it couldn't get any better.  Quincy M.D. you aren't.  Obviously, the autopsy is a critical component of any murder investigation.    Each crime is different, but the results of the autopsy can be taken in conjunction with other crime scene evidence to help identify or eliminate a suspect. 

You’re the one doubling down on an idiotic claim. Given that you cannot demonstrate where Oswald was at the time of the shots or even precisely where the head shot came from, the direction of the head shot (even if it had been reliably determined) does not rule in or out Oswald or anybody else.
5
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book
« Last post by Jon Banks on Today at 01:07:47 AM »
Quote from: John Iacoletti on Today at 12:53:18 AM
No, an autopsy tells you nothing about who the killer was.

Especially when it was one of the worst autopsy performances in recorded history.

A large part of the reason why the medical evidence remains inconclusive on the question of “conspiracy” is due to the poorly handled autopsy that raised more questions than answers about what happened.

That anyone still defends the JFK autopsy is really amazing…
6
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book
« Last post by John Iacoletti on Today at 01:03:01 AM »
Quote from: Martin Weidmann on November 28, 2022, 11:20:05 PM
That's not what you said earlier. Do you now understand your error?

On the very remote chance that he did understand his error, he would never admit it. You can always tell when “Richard” is beaten and humiliated — he starts slinging even more insults than usual. But he never slings any evidence.
7
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book
« Last post by John Iacoletti on Today at 12:53:18 AM »
Quote from: “Richard Smith” on November 28, 2022, 09:54:36 PM
And, of course, the autopsy results are crucial evidence in confirming who the assassin was or was not in the context of the totality of the evidence.

No, an autopsy tells you nothing about who the killer was. And what “totality of the evidence”? You’ve steadfastly avoided ever enumerating this evidence.

Insulting people doesn’t make your nonsensical ramblings any less nonsensical.
8
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book
« Last post by Richard Smith on Today at 12:33:36 AM »
Quote from: Martin Weidmann on Today at 12:22:56 AM
the one about the autopsy not shedding light on who was the assassin is a knee slapper.

So, you still haven't understood after all. Let's try baby steps.... the autopsy can possibly shed a light on the number of assassins, but it can shed no light whatsoever of who the assassin(s) was/were. If fact, the autopsy did in no way identify Oswald as the assassin or even contribute to such an identification.

Btw, am I to conclude due to the lack of an answer to my question that you really haven't got a clue what evidence allowed the WC to conclude that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD? Now, why doesn't that surprise me?

You are really doubling down on this?  HA HA HA.  Just when I thought it couldn't get any better.  Quincy M.D. you aren't.  Obviously, the autopsy is a critical component of any murder investigation.    Each crime is different, but the results of the autopsy can be taken in conjunction with other crime scene evidence to help identify or eliminate a suspect.  Just repeating idiotic general comments like "it can shed no light on who the assassin was" as though there is no further context because your moronic sidekick said it and you embarrassed yourself by repeating it is amusing.   The WC used crime scene evidence to place a shooter (i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald) at a specific location.  Whether you agree with its conclusion is the not point.  The autopsy result can lend support to that conclusion or eliminate that possibility.   And that has direct implications for the conclusion that LHO was the assassin.
9
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on Today at 12:22:56 AM »
Quote from: Richard Smith on Today at 12:08:57 AM
So I won't be reading about this in the NY Times anytime soon?  LOL.  Of all the idiotic claims you have made on this forum, and they are numerous, the one about the autopsy not shedding light on who was the assassin is a knee slapper.  And you were so quick to parrot that nonsense from your contrarian sidekick not even pausing to consider the astounding stupidity of it.  Pure comedy gold.

the one about the autopsy not shedding light on who was the assassin is a knee slapper.

So, you still haven't understood after all. Let's try baby steps.... the autopsy can possibly shed a light on the number of assassins, but it can shed no light whatsoever on who the assassin(s) was/were. If fact, the autopsy did in no way identify Oswald as the assassin or even contribute to such an identification.

Btw, am I to conclude due to the lack of an answer to my question that you really haven't got a clue what evidence allowed the WC to conclude that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD? Now, why doesn't that surprise me?
10
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book
« Last post by Richard Smith on Today at 12:08:57 AM »
Quote from: Martin Weidmann on November 28, 2022, 11:20:05 PM
And, of course, the autopsy results are crucial evidence in confirming who the assassin was or was not in the context of the totality of the evidence.

That's not what you said earlier. Do you now understand your error?

If, as the WC concluded pursuant to the evidence, LHO was on the 6th floor of a building behind JFK, then he couldn't have fired a shot that caused a frontal wound.

That's true. But what evidence was it exactly that allowed the WC to conclude that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD?

You are reaching astounding levels of stupidity.   

The biggest fool is he who overestimates his own "intelligence" and calls others stupid, just because he doesn't understand what they say.

So I won't be reading about this in the NY Times anytime soon?  LOL.  Of all the idiotic claims you have made on this forum, and they are numerous, the one about the autopsy not shedding light on who was the assassin is a knee slapper.  And you were so quick to parrot that nonsense from your contrarian sidekick not even pausing to consider the astounding stupidity of it.  Pure comedy gold.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Mobile View