Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1


False historians are trying to conflate the American government's policy of preventing communism with JFK and his plans...


Those are two radically-conflicting things...


Those false historians use false versions to drown out and avoid mentioning Kennedy's documented overtures at detente and the peace initiatives he was documented as making in Douglass...
2
The ONLY statistically weird thing here is the number of votes Biden received in 2020 during the pandemic.  Never replicated before or since.  I've provided my explanation to you.  The laws were changed in almost every state in the months leading up to the election using COVID as a fake pretext.  That allowed Dems to ballot harvest from younger folks and minority voters who traditionally vote in lower percentages.  They canvased those communities and facilitated voting for Biden by mail.   Biden received the vast majority of the mail in vote while losing the in person voting by a significant margin.  That itself is strange.  It may not be outright fraud, but there is no doubt that the explanation for Biden's election is that the voting rules were change to Biden's advantage and that was the difference.  When they reverted in 2024 to provide some check on mail in voting, Kamala lost by similar margins to Hillary.

"Comprehensive statistical analyses and state-level audits have confirmed that Joe Biden's 2020 vote totals were not a statistical outlier and showed no evidence of systemic fraud from ballot harvesting."

There has never been ANY evidence of election fraud in US elections significant enough to change outcome
The percentages range 0.000003% and 0.0025% of all votes cast.  Minuscule.
Our elections have always been secure and trusted until Donald Trump came along.
3
Much ado about nothing. That pretty much describes the nearly 63 year long snipe hunt the conspiracy hobbyists have been on. And what do they have to show for their efforts? A hole in the ground.

I see your campaign to prove you have no credibility and should not even be posting in this forum continues. You're doing a great job.

So the fact that two witnesses independently said they saw the bullet hit the grass and create a visible mound is "much ado about nothing"? Well, I guess if you're trying to prove you have no business commenting on the JFK case, such mutually corroborating evidence must indeed be "much ado about nothing" -- at least in your mind.

So the fact that two additional witnesses, Wayne and Edna Hartman, informed the FBI that they saw the ground mounded up and were told by policemen at the scene that a bullet had hit the ground there -- that's your idea of "much ado about nothing"? Well, again, if you're trying to show that your presence in this forum is a continual clown show, then it makes sense that you would dismiss this additional, FBI-recorded evidence as "much ado about nothing." I mean, what else are you going to do, since you're pathologically determined to deny any and all evidence that refutes your theory of the shooting?

BTW, are you aware that Walthers' friend Al Maddox, at the time an agent for the Liquor Control Board, acknowledged that Walthers told him he found a bullet in the grass (Thomas, Hear No Evil, p. 418)? Let me just guess: Maddox was "lying" or "mistaken," right?!

I have yet to see you, MTG, or anybody else provide a direct quote from Day saying he saw a bullet in the grass. I can believe after being told there was a bullet hole that he might have estimated the distance. That doesn't mean Day confirmed there had been a bullet in the grass.

Day was interviewed by reporters from the Dallas Times-Herald and the interview summary was published on 11/24/63. Let's read it, and notice that another Dallas policeman also estimated the distance from the sixth-floor window to the hole in the grass:

Dallas Police Lt. J. C. Day of the crime lab estimated the distance from the sixth-floor corner window the slayer used to the spot where one of the bullets was recovered at 100 yards. He added that it could be more. Another Dallas policeman estimated the distance at 125 yards.

Where in the article do you see any indication whatsoever that Day had any doubt about the bullet in the grass? Where do you see even a hint that Day only estimated the distance because he was told there was a bullet hole in the grass? Why did another policeman tell the reporters that the distance may have been 125 yards?

Surely if Day and the other police officer had had any doubt that a bullet had hit the grass near the manhole cover, they would have said so. At the very least, they surely would have qualified their estimates of the distance from the sixth-floor window to the bullet hole by noting that the bullet strike had not yet been confirmed. 

I'm still waiting for you explain why journalist Richard Dudman would have reported, in a published news story, that a "police inspector told me they had just found another bullet in the grass." Explain how Dudman could have been "mistaken" about this. Give an example of the wording that the police inspector could have used that Dudman could have confused as a statement that a bullet had been found in the grass. 

I'm still waiting for you explain what the man in the suit picked up and put in his pocket after he reached down to the hole in the grass. BTW, Hugh Betzner noticed this scene and described it as "police officers and some men in plain clothes . . . digging around in the dirt as if they were looking for a bullet" (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/138955293/wayne-eldridge-hartman). Gee, what a coincidence, hey?

For those who want to see the photographic evidence of the suited man doing this, here's a brief video that shows the sequence of the man's actions:

FBI Agent Picks Up Bullet

The video notes that a 12/3/63 FBI memo documents that FBI agent Robert Barrett, believed by some researchers to be the suited man in the photos, submitted a bullet to the FBI lab. This could not be CE 399, because  Barrett never handled CE 399 and is not listed in any CE 399 chain-of-custody document.

Here is a good segment on the evidence regarding the bullet that hit the grass by Vincent Palamara. It includes an interview with Edna Hartman where she describes seeing the bullet hole.

Bullet holes in limousine and extra bullets in Dealey Plaza 11/22/63 PART 1 OF 3 (3:53 to 7:08)

But, of course, you're never going to admit that a bullet hit the grass, much less that it was recovered, because you can't do so without repudiating the lone-gunman theory. This is why you can't offer a rational explanation for the Tague wounding. This is why you must duck and dodge and strain and blunder in trying to explain Dr. James Young's corroborated account of seeing a misshapen bullet at the autopsy. These are do-or-die issues for you. If just one of these credible and corroborated accounts is valid, your theory of the shooting collapses.

 
4
De-bunk theories and recreate the assassination.

Dale Myers has already done that.
5
Because people voted for him. I have no other answer.
I find it incredible in 2024 that 1/3 of the country didn't vote the top of the ticket in the election of a lifetime.
Weird things can happen. I don't scream fraud.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I feel like I have to ask this; 
Who won the 2020 Presidential Election?

You are obviously implying that millions of votes were somehow created or fraudulently counted.
How does that work? - 82 million is an awfully big number - how many do you suppose are false?

The ONLY statistically weird thing here is the number of votes Biden received in 2020 during the pandemic.  Never replicated before or since.  I've provided my explanation to you.  The laws were changed in almost every state in the months leading up to the election using COVID as a fake pretext.  That allowed Dems to ballot harvest from younger folks and minority voters who traditionally vote in lower percentages.  They canvased those communities and facilitated voting for Biden by mail.   Biden received the vast majority of the mail in vote while losing the in person voting by a significant margin.  That itself is strange.  It may not be outright fraud, but there is no doubt that the explanation for Biden's election is that the voting rules were change to Biden's advantage and that was the difference.  When they reverted in 2024 to provide some check on mail in voting, Kamala lost by similar margins to Hillary.   
6
De-bunk theories and recreate the assassination.

that sounds way cool.  hey you were born after 9/11, right?  you knew about that before all the jfk stuff, right? jack’s whack was gyat, huh?
7
De-bunk theories and recreate the assassination.
8
Have you ever taken LSD?

why, is that a proposition ? lol. you bring the pinchot +
9

Gov. JBC's testimony lines up with him being shot ~Z-295.


Absurd. JBC himself believed he was shot in the early Z230s because that is when he saw himself double over as he remembered doing. He was actually shot about a half second earlier than that but didn't seem to notice his right arm flipped upward at Z226, an involuntary reaction he wasn't even aware he had made.
10
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Acoustic Evidence
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 11:33:31 AM »
LOL! Oh, yeah, you bet! I'm still waiting for you to provide credible, factual responses to the points I've made, but instead you've offered nothing but your usual error-filled, illogical, and evasive polemic.

You reject my credible, logical responses but that doesn't mean they haven't been given to you......multiple times.
Quote

Let's just briefly look at three examples:

HUH?! She gave her account to the Dallas Sheriff Department a Secret Service agent on the day of the shooting. Sheesh, how can you not know this and yet pretend to have any business talking about her account? Her account has been discussed in a zillion books on the JFK case. Even John McAdams acknowledged that she told the Sheriff Department and a Secret Service agent about what she saw on 11/22/63. Indeed, in a tacit admission that her initial accounts were credible, McAdams suggested she innocently mistook a tool box for a rifle case.

Yet you get on here and claim she didn't tell "law enforcement about what she saw"!

Did she tell them what she saw before or after the shooting? I think we both know the answer to that. I don't know what she saw or what she thought she saw but it's easy to embellish a story to make it seem relevant to the assassination. Her story would have had far more credibility and significance had she told law enforcement about it BEFORE the assassination. That's what I meant when I said she didn't tell law enforcement. She didn't tell them before the shooting when it could have made a difference.
Quote

This is just further proof that you have no business pretending that you're in any position to credibly comment on the JFK case. You repeatedly show that you don't even know what your side's leading advocates have said on the case.

If credibility were a requirement for commenting on the JFK assassination, you would have been banned from every JFK assassination forum decades ago.
Quote

You didn't offer one syllable to explain the facts I cited that show those "mundane reasons" make no sense.

Your excuses made no sense.
Quote

You ignored all the points I made and just repeated your claim. You didn't explain why a car would need several minutes to see if there was a parking space in that small parking lot. Nor did you explain why a car would need several minutes and longer to figure out that the extension road was the only way in and out of the small parking lot. Nor did you explain why three cars in a row in the space of 25 minutes would have turned onto the extension road in the first place when it obviously led to a small parking lot that was next to the railroad yard.

As long as we are demanding explanations, explain why your conspirators would drive around for several minutes in a small parking lot and then leave. You are the one claiming these cars had some connection to the shooting so the burden is on you to establish that. I have no burden to prove that they were not connected. Once more you have assumed something you cannot prove.
Quote

LOL! Hello? Did you simply not read all of the information that I've documented about the acoustical evidence and about the errors and omissions in the attacks on the acoustical evidence in my previous replies? Was the vocabulary too challenging? What "entire body of evidence" are you talking about?

For starters, Lee Bowers' observation that there was no gunman behind the stockade fence at the time he heard the shots.

Despite numerous people rushing to the area immediately after the shooting, no one saw a man with a rifle in the area behind the stockade fence.

There were no wounds to either JFK or JBC that were caused by a frontal shot.

So if someone fired a shot from the GK, he did so without being seen during or immediately after the shooting.
 
The vast majority of earwitnesses, regardless of where they believed the shots came from, said they heard 3 shots which matches the number of spent shell found in the sniper's nest.

The GK shooter left no spent shells.

No bullets were recovered except for the two fire from Oswald's rifle.

No wounds to either JFK or JBC caused by a shot from the GK.

You made a big deal about Oswald missing the whole limo with his first shot. Apparently your GK shooter did the same.
Quote

I know you've probably already tuned out and that this will go in one ear and out the other, but I present the following for the sake of newcomers to the thread:

The entire "scientific" case against the acoustical evidence was based (1) on the NRC/NAS panel's bogus assumption that there was a 60-second recording pause on Channel 2, and (2) on the resulting claim that the Decker "hold everything" transmission was crosstalk and that therefore the dictabelt's impulses were recorded after the assassination. Linsker and his buddies whittled down the alleged recording pause to 35 seconds, but they did not explain, and still have not explained, how this could have occurred without disrupting the timing of the dispatcher's subsequent transmissions (those transmissions came 60 seconds apart, just as they should have, proving there was no recoding pause on Channel 2).

As mentioned in previous replies, several scientists pointed out years ago that for the recording-pause theory to even be theoretically possible, there would have had to be an offset in the dispatcher time notations on the dictabelt after that point, but there isn't one. The 12:35 and 12:36 time notations occur exactly five and six minutes respectively after the 12:30 time notation.

The new research, including a new PCC test, done by BBN acoustical scientists from 2015-2018 proves (1) that the Fisher "I'll check" transmission is crosstalk, which means the tape's impulse patterns must have been recorded during the assassination, and (2) that the Decker transmission is an overdub created during the copying process and wasn't even recorded at the same speed as the acknowledged crosstalk transmissions.

BTW, are Linsker and his colleagues (all of whom served on the NRC/NAS panel) ever going to respond to Dr. Thomas's 2010 53-page demolition of their 2005 attack on Thomas's 2001 article on the acoustical evidence? Just wondering. Are they going to respond to the appendices on the acoustical evidence written by Dr. Barger and Dr. Richard Mullen in Thompson's 2021 book Last Second in Dallas? Again, just wondering.

It bears repeating that the NRC/NAS panel made no effort to explain the presences of gunfire N-waves on the dictabelt and the windshield-distortion correlations identified in the tape's impulse patterns. What's more, the NRC/NAS panel (1) acknowledged there was a 93% probability that the timing-movement correlations identified by the HSCA's acoustical experts occurred because the dictabelt was recorded during the assassination, and (2) acknowledged there was a 77.7% probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern was caused by gunfire from the grassy knoll, and they only rejected the HSCA's 95+% probability for the grass knoll shot by introducing two egregious errors into their calculations.

You might want to know that, contrary to what your fellow WC apologists usually pretend, we're not "only" talking about Barger, Weiss, and Aschkenasy as the HSCA's acoustical experts, although they were outstanding acoustical scientists who were recommended to the HSCA by the Acoustical Society of America. There were actually 10 acoustical scientists who worked on the HSCA's acoustical evidence: BBN scientists James Barger, Daniel Kalikow, Theodore L. Rhyne, Edward C. Schmidt, Jared Wolf, Scott P. Robinson, and Nancy M. McMahon, and Queens College scientists Mark Weiss, Ernest Aschkenasy, and Ali Ghozati.

You should Google those scientists and see all of their accomplishments and the recognition they achieved in the field of acoustical science. Some of them are still active. Not a single critic of the acoustical evidence had/has credentials in acoustics that even come close to the credentials of HSCA acoustical scientists Barger, Rhyne, Schmidt, Wolf, Robinson, McMahon, Weiss, and Aschkenasy, and to the credentials of Dr. Mullen, the BBN acoustical scientist who conducted the new PCC test and authored an appendix in Thompson's 2021 book.

The following website give a good summation of the arguments for an against the acoustic evidence showing a GK shooter. The following passage sums up the situation fairly succinctly:

"Sources do not provide a single, universally accepted resolution; expert opinion remains divided and many critiques focus on timing, statistical assumptions and recording artifacts rather than on the raw waveform matches alone."

Notice I did not resort to MTG's practice of clipping a few words out of context. I quoted an entire sentence and provided a link to the entire article for others to judge.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10