Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: When the SN was built
« Last post by Zeon Mason on Today at 04:02:04 AM »
Is Charles certain about this 12:15 time stamp for the Bronson film clip of the box on the SN window ledge?

For years it’s been stated that the Bronson film
sequence showing the box was approx 12:25

Is a siren ambulance arriving for the epileptic man enough to cause a  shooter to completely abandon his plan to use a (theoretically) previously prepared SE window , and move hastily with rifle in hand and STAND close to a wide open SW window ?

The “gun holding” person (imo) would not need to have gotten as close as 3-5 ft to the SW window to be able to see that no motorcade had yet entered Dealey plaza.

One siren and the shooter is apparently over reacting and he wanted to know the source of that siren, thus he had to move to within 5ft to be able to have LOS to that  source which was the ambulance below in front of the TSBD entrance?

He must have  forgotten momentarily that he had his rifle displayed and being that close to a fully open window would allow a potential LARGE no. of Persons gathered in Dealey plaza to have LOS to himself and the rifle?
2
Off Topic / Re: Hunter Biden laptop
« Last post by Joe Elliott on Today at 02:51:35 AM »

Hunter needs a new lawyer since his current one just inadvertantely confirmed (not that there was any doubt) that the contents of the laptop are his:

“Backing up Mr. Biden’s files for any repair did not require Mr. Mac Isaac to review the contents of any such files,” a lawyer for Biden wrote. “Mr. Biden did not consent to Mr. Mac Isaac gaining access to the content of those files in April 2019 or at any other time.”

But confirms that Mr. Mac Isaac had access to those files. And could have modified them. Or gotten someone else to modify them, and modify servers to make the files look legit. Someone like the Russians who would have the knowledge and means to do all of that.

It's one thing if the laptop was in continuous position of the FBI or the police. It's another thing if it was in possession of someone hostile to Biden and his father. I don't see how this doesn't destroy the value of this 'evidence'.
3

Andrew Mason places a lot of faith in witnesses. I don't.

Suppose we place faith in eyewitnesses on other questions.

In popular history, the trial of witches in the late Middle Ages was a great tragedy, resulting in the needless death of thousands of innocent women. But what does the witness testimony have to say? In thousands of cases eyewitnesses testified before judges about the witchcraft they observed. The support for the practicing of witchcraft is overwhelmingly supported by eyewitness testimony. Surely, they couldn't have all been lying or mistaken. If we have the same faith that Andrew Mason has in eyewitnesses, we would have to say that popular history is wrong. That much harm was averted by the death of all those witches.

Or on the question of Bigfoot. Rational thinking says they don't exist. If we can't capture one, surely we could shoot and kill one. Or get one run over by a car. Or if that is not big enough, a logging truck. Or find a body, Or a skeleton. Or at least a skull. If nothing else, we should at least be able to find EDNA of an unknown primate, as we can find the EDNA of other animals like bears and lynxes. But year after year, nothing turns up. And yet, the eyewitness evidence for the existence of Bigfoot is overwhelming. Thousands have seen a Bigfoot. Surely not all those witnesses could be lying or mistaken.

Witnesses can be mistaken. For all sorts of reasons. A belief that witchcraft is real, that Bigfoot is real, can influence what people perceive. A plausible reason why Bigfoot sightings were so rare before 1958, but much more common afterwards, particularly after the Patterson/Gimlin film of 1967. The Crack-Thump of a single rifle shot can be mistaken for two shots. And is perhaps more easily mistaken for two shots for a longer shot at 88 yards than ones at 63 or 43 yards. Or the sound of the shot and of a bullet fragment striking  the metal windshield frame. Their are possible explanations for witnesses being mistaken in 1963.

As a skeptic, I don't see why witness perceptions should be the last word in what happened. Particularly when so many witnesses disagree with each other.
4
Off Topic / Re: Colors of Blue and Gold
« Last post by Joe Elliott on Today at 02:09:45 AM »

It didn't take long for the war mongers to begin clamoring for jet fighters.  The endless escalation of this conflict begs the ultimate question: 

What happens when the choice narrows to Ukraine being overrun or sending in US and NATO ground forces?  What then?

I don't see a trend leading to Ukraine being overrun. The Russians take months of a slow steady push to take Bakhmut before they are finally just able to take, ... Soledar, a pre-war town on 3,000. The great task of taking Bakhmut, a pre-war town of 10,000, will have to await another day. But if they are finally able to take Bakhmut, who knows what they may be able to accomplish next. The sky is the limit. They might even be able to take a town of 15,000 before Trump gets trashed in the elections of 2024.

The Russians have nothing to compare to the Ukrainian swift taking over of the large areas east of Kharkiv and Kherson. At this rate of Russian advance, the glaciers of the next Ice Age will overtake Moscow before Russia will overrun Ukraine.

But what happens if there is some sort of miracle reversal and Ukraine is on the verge of being overrun? Do we send in NATO ground forces? No. This is Ukraine's fight. No NATO forces will be sent in unless Russia attacks a NATO country, or uses a Nuclear bomb, or poison gas, or biological weapons. If Ukraine loses, Ukraine loses.

Which is why we need to make certain that we send enough. We should send in the jets Ukraine requests. All our expenditures, are a fraction of our yearly spending on defense, about 6 per cent. We should send in 10 per cent each year. And cut down our defense spending by 10 per cent. Surely, with Russia so occupied with Ukraine, we can cut down our defense spending by that much.

This aid to Ukraine is one of the best deals the U. S. has ever gotten. For just 6 per cent of our military budget, the Russian army is trashed, and the danger of Russia overrunning central Europe is greatly diminished for now and years to come. If we could spend another 6 per cent that would decimate China's military, making it impossible for them to invade Taiwan for the next several years, I would do it.

Just think what a great deal it would have been in 1938, if 6 per cent of the U. S. defense spending in 1938 could have been used to trash Germany's army, making it impossible for them to successfully invade Poland or France. And another 6 per cent spent to trash the Japanese navy, making an attack on Pearl Harbor impossible. Wouldn't that have been worth doing had it been an option? Why is this a bad option, for the U. S. in 2022-2023?
5
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: When the SN was built
« Last post by John Iacoletti on February 02, 2023, 09:47:05 PM »
In his interview with Bob Porter, Lt. Day mentions a "3 by 5" card", probably a standard size card for most prints. The palm print was lifted with 2" wide tape, so the paper it was mounted on was non-standard.

This illustrates nicely that "Day said so" (especially 33 years later) doesn't make something correct.

Summary from Pat Speer of how Day's story evolved through the years:

--------
1. 11-29-63--4-22-64 Lt. Day's initial story regarding the rifle is that he removed the wood stock after noticing a print going under the wood stock down at the bottom of the barrel near the trigger guard, and that he then discovered a print that had been completely covered by the wood stock near the firing end of the barrel. He says he then lifted this print, and was pressured into turning the rifle over to the FBI before he could photograph both what remained of this print and the other print on the barrel he hadn't even started to work on.

2. 9-9-64 Lt. Day stops claiming he removed the wood stock from the rifle after noticing a print on the barrel by the trigger guard. As this print was not lifted by Day nor developed by the FBI, the FBI's failure to observe or document this print was quite a problem, and its disappearance from Day's story within days of the FBI's telling the Warren Commission they found evidence supporting Day's claim CE 637 was lifted from the rifle... is quite the coincidence.

3. 9-9-64 Lt. Day names the person he claims pressured him into discontinuing work on the rifle, and it's Chief of Police Jesse Curry.

4. 10-18-77 Lt. Day begins claiming it was the print down by the end of the barrel--the print he claimed he lifted--that he observed before removing the wood stock. This is quite the change considering he originally claimed this print was completely covered by the wood stock.

5. 10-18-77 Lt. Day also begins claiming it was Capt. Will Fritz, as opposed to Chief Jesse Curry, who pressured him into discontinuing work on the rifle.

6. 10-18-77 Lt. Day also begins claiming he told FBI agent Vincent Drain about the print on the underside of the rifle barrel before handing him the rifle on 11-22-63.

7. 1993 Lt. Day begins claiming it was Capt. George Doughty who pressured him into discontinuing work on the rifle, as opposed to Curry and Fritz.

8. 1993 Lt. Day also begins claiming he not only told Vincent Drain about the print on the underside of the barrel, but pointed out its location.
6
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: When the SN was built
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on February 02, 2023, 09:24:39 PM »
So is it possible to prove something didn't happen or not?  I'm losing track.  You are all over the place.

You've lost track a very long time ago.

You can't even prove that something did happen.
7
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: When the SN was built
« Last post by Richard Smith on February 02, 2023, 08:55:26 PM »
who claims to have proven

you haven't actually proven those things

Stop babbling and make up your mind. Did I, or did I not, claim to have proven either?

Asks the same guy who claims to have proven that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and that Day didn't mention the prints to anyone.

Says the guy who, for the past 7 months now, has failed to prove that Oswald did come down the stairs and now also can not prove that Day told anybody about the print he allegedly lifted from the rifle.


Btw, in the part of Day's interview for the Sixth Floor Museum, Oral History Collection, in 1996, Day claims that he showed Drain where the print he lifted from the rifle had been. He states;

And I told him at the time, there‟s a print here. I showed him where it is, where it was.

which implies that there must have been residue of the print on the weapon. Yet, when the FBI examined the rifle, a few hours later, they found no print or residue.

How Day can show Drain something that the FBI lab said wasn't there is beyond me.

So is it possible to prove something didn't happen or not?  I'm losing track.  You are all over the place. 
8
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: When the SN was built
« Last post by John Iacoletti on February 02, 2023, 08:28:54 PM »
Asks the same guy who claims to have proven that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and that Day didn't mention the prints to anyone.  LOL.  Granted you haven't actually proven those things but apparently believe the concept is possible.

Says the guy whose evidence that Oswald came down the stairs is that he did.
9
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: When the SN was built
« Last post by John Iacoletti on February 02, 2023, 08:27:30 PM »
It’s just like “Richard” to flail around a wet noodle and call it a “spanking”.
10
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: When the SN was built
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on February 02, 2023, 08:11:04 PM »
Asks the same guy who claims to have proven that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and that Day didn't mention the prints to anyone.  LOL.  Granted you haven't actually proven those things but apparently believe the concept is possible.

who claims to have proven

you haven't actually proven those things

Stop babbling and make up your mind. Did I, or did I not, claim to have proven either?

Asks the same guy who claims to have proven that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and that Day didn't mention the prints to anyone.

Says the guy who, for the past 7 months now, has failed to prove that Oswald did come down the stairs and now also can not prove that Day told anybody about the print he allegedly lifted from the rifle.


Btw, in the part of Day's interview for the Sixth Floor Museum, Oral History Collection, in 1996, Day claims that he showed Drain where the print he lifted from the rifle had been. He states;

And I told him at the time, there‟s a print here. I showed him where it is, where it was.

which implies that there must have been residue of the print on the weapon. Yet, when the FBI examined the rifle, a few hours later, they found no print or residue.

How Day can show Drain something that the FBI lab said wasn't there is beyond me.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Mobile View