Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

JFK Assassination & General Discussion & Debate / Re: Why Altgens 6 Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory

« Last post by Mitch Todd on Today at 05:14:04 PM »

Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Today at 04:23:27 PM

You guys say this about every item of evidence that you can't explain.

I'm guessing you haven't bothered to read any of the articles and videos that I've linked in previous replies.

Would you care to offer an explanation for the evidence that Weldon presents, for starters? No, of course not. When at least eight witnesses in three different locations independently confirm something, such corroboration is usually considered to be very strong evidence.

The lack of damage to the windshield in Altgens 6 has already been pretty thoroughly explained. Yourf OP fails completely at that point, and can't be resuscitated by anything Weldon presented.

JFK Assassination & General Discussion & Debate / Re: Why Altgens 6 Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory

« Last post by Steve M. Galbraith on Today at 04:56:49 PM »

Quote from: John Corbett on Today at 04:38:41 PM

What makes you think your musings are worth reading. The stuff you post is silly enough. We don't need to go on a scavenger hunt to find further evidence of your silliness.
Not nearly as strong as forensic evidence.

Look how Barb Junkkarinen researched this question vs. how Michael Griffith looked into it (Junkkarinen was a conspiracist not a lone assassin believer). She didn't uncritically accept any claims about seeing a hole, she looked into them, tried to re-create where they were, what they could see. Were they credible? She sifted through the evidence pro and con, weighed them, and came to a conclusion. Whether it was right or not is second to the question of *how* she studied the issue.

Michael Griffith simply accepts the bullet hole claims (how would a spectator not at the scene know what caused the "hole"?), does no deeper research into the accounts, dismisses counter claims and then concludes that the evidence by itself "refutes" the long assassin theory.

Meanwhile, at the same time he accepts the acoustic analysis which theorized there was no frontal shot at that time. It didn't happen they said. If he believes the acoustics analysis then he can't believe in a early frontal shot and certainly not here at circa Z 260 or so.

JFK Assassination & General Discussion & Debate / Re: Why Altgens 6 Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory

« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 04:38:41 PM »

Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Today at 04:23:27 PM

You guys say this about every item of evidence that you can't explain.

I'm guessing you haven't bothered to read any of the articles and videos that I've linked in previous replies.

What makes you think your musings are worth reading. The stuff you post is silly enough. We don't need to go on a scavenger hunt to find further evidence of your silliness.

Quote

Would you care to offer an explanation for the evidence that Weldon presents, for starters? No, of course not. When at least eight witnesses in three different locations independently confirm something, such corroboration is usually considered to be very strong evidence.

Not nearly as strong as forensic evidence.

JFK Assassination & General Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot

« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 04:36:22 PM »

Quote from: Michael Capasse on Today at 04:25:44 PM

Same cherry picked doesn't make it so.
Why do you even bother?

I do it for amusement only. I have no illusions that I might actually talk some sense into one of the CTs. Many years ago, I did see one CT change sides, and that was Dr. Bob Artwohl. I don't think I was the sole reason for his change of position but he did point some of the points I made as part of the reason he switched.

JFK Assassination & General Discussion & Debate / Re: Jeff Morley Goes Pro-IRGC Mouthpiece...Demented Politics? GOP?

« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 04:33:03 PM »

Quote from: Benjamin Cole on July 10, 2026, 06:09:57 AM

TG-

Do you dislike the Donks and the Phants equally?

On any given day...

Lately, with the Mamdani-stan wing of the D-Party becoming ascendant...maybe 60/40 favor for the GOP.

But, in general it is a race to the bottom between these two parties....

I like Marco Rubio.

I like Rubio too and if he's the GOP nominee for POTUS in 2028, I will gladly vote for him. I think the nomination is J. D. Vance's to lose. A lot can happen between now and the early primaries and caucuses in 2028, but I expect Vance to be the nominee. Rubio would make a great #2.

There are no Democrats who I would even consider voting for in 2028. The Democrat Party has become so toxic with their embracing of the Marxist agenda that I won't consider anybody who is willing to put a D next to their name. I like John Fetterman but he isn't going to be on the national ticket and I live in the neighboring state of Ohio so I can't vote for him anyway. If he is going to remain in the Senate, he will have to switch parties because he will be primaried by the Democrats. Arlen Specter made that move in the oppositive direction. There is one other Democrat I like because he shows some common sense and the courage to call out the far left but I can't imagine him gaining any traction even if he does choose to run. That would be Stephen A. Smith who is a long shot to run and end even longer shot to win the nomination. The Commies are now controlling the primary process in the Democrat Party and not just on the coasts. I hope the Dems nominate AOC. It might be enough to make me believe there is a God.

JFK Assassination & General Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot

« Last post by Michael Capasse on Today at 04:25:44 PM »

Quote from: John Corbett on Today at 04:21:03 PM

I will never understand why so many people look at eye and ear witness accounts as if they are empirical evidence. Witness accounts, by themselves, do not establish anything as factual. Witnesses can be, and often are, wrong. Yet when somebody comes across a witness that fits their preferred narrative, they latch onto it as "proof" of what they choose to believe. They act as if "So and so said........" establishes a fact without ever offering any supporting evidence that indicates what so-and-so said is correct. It might be correct and it might very well be wrong. All eye and ear witness accounts should be looked at as a big MAYBE unless and until it can be corroborated. While multiple witnesses saying the same thing is a bit more compelling than a single witness, it still doesn't establish what they said is correct. Multiple people can make the same mistake. Case in point. A large group of witnesses said all the shots came from the direction of the GK and another large group of witnesses said the shots all came from the direction of the TSBD. Obviously, both groups cannot be right. There is a large group of witnesses who all said the same wrong thing. They all made the same mistake. So while multiple witnesses saying the same thing is a bit more compelling than a single witness, it still does not establish a fact. The only time I will point to an eye or ear witness as evidence is if that witness can be corroborated by forensic evidence.

Same cherry picked

doesn't make it so.
Why do you even bother?

JFK Assassination & General Discussion & Debate / Re: Why Altgens 6 Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory

« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Today at 04:23:27 PM »

Quote from: Steve Barber on Today at 04:01:17 AM

I have seen some really stupid posts by Griffith, but this one takes the cake!
I usually don't read his tripe, but this one caught my eye because of its special type of absurdity.

You guys say this about every item of evidence that you can't explain.

I'm guessing you haven't bothered to read any of the articles and videos that I've linked in previous replies.

Would you care to offer an explanation for the evidence that Weldon presents, for starters? No, of course not. When at least eight witnesses in three different locations independently confirm something, such corroboration is usually considered to be very strong evidence.

JFK Assassination & General Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot

« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 04:21:03 PM »

I will never understand why so many people look at eye and ear witness accounts as if they are empirical evidence. Witness accounts, by themselves, do not establish anything as factual. Witnesses can be, and often are, wrong. Yet when somebody comes across a witness that fits their preferred narrative, they latch onto it as "proof" of what they choose to believe. They act as if "So and so said........" establishes a fact without ever offering any supporting evidence that indicates what so-and-so said is correct. It might be correct and it might very well be wrong. All eye and ear witness accounts should be looked at as a big MAYBE unless and until it can be corroborated. While multiple witnesses saying the same thing is a bit more compelling than a single witness, it still doesn't establish what they said is correct. Multiple people can make the same mistake. Case in point. A large group of witnesses said all the shots came from the direction of the GK and another large group of witnesses said the shots all came from the direction of the TSBD. Obviously, both groups cannot be right. There is a large group of witnesses who all said the same wrong thing. They all made the same mistake. So while multiple witnesses saying the same thing is a bit more compelling than a single witness, it still does not establish a fact. The only time I will point to an eye or ear witness as evidence is if that witness can be corroborated by forensic evidence.

JFK Assassination & General Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot

« Last post by Andrew Mason on Today at 04:09:47 PM »

Quote from: Jack Nessan on Today at 03:37:19 PM

In Motorcade 63, DPD Baker was located on Houston Street when he saw the pigeons fly up from the top of the TSBD. Mr Belin measured his position as being 60 to 80 feet North of the Main Street curb. According to Motorcade 63, that places the limousine at Z205 to Z225.

Mr. BAKER - We appreoximated it was 60 to 80 feet there, north of the north curbline of Main on Houston.

Mr. BELIN - All right. Did you see or hear or do anything else after you heard the first noise?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. As I was looking up, all these pigeons began to fly up to the top of the buildings here and I saw those come up and start flying around.

Given the approximate nature of that kind of estimate and correlation to the zfilm it does not exclude the possibility of a shot fitting with Phil Willis’ evidence of a first shot just before z202.

JFK Assassination & General Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot

« Last post by Jack Nessan on Today at 03:37:19 PM »

In Motorcade 63, DPD Baker was located on Houston Street when he saw the pigeons fly up from the top of the TSBD. Mr Belin measured his position as being 60 to 80 feet North of the Main Street curb. According to Motorcade 63, that places the limousine at Z205 to Z225.

Mr. BAKER - We appreoximated it was 60 to 80 feet there, north of the north curbline of Main on Houston.

Mr. BELIN - All right. Did you see or hear or do anything else after you heard the first noise?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. As I was looking up, all these pigeons began to fly up to the top of the buildings here and I saw those come up and start flying around.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10