Recent Posts
I just LOVE IT when pompous blowhards wet their pants in public!
Jake, God love him, is fun. You're just tedious - except when you wet your pants in public, and then you're fun too!
Dan unwittingly and witlessly raises an interesting question: What is "research," anyway?
Dan seems to think that looking at photos and deciding what he sees, the experts be damned, constitutes research. Ya think? "That ain't Shelley and Lovelady on the sidewalk, and thus Bart Kamp must have faked his photo showing that it is, but I don't have the balls to confront Bart directly" - is that research? Ya think? Is Dan a researcher ... or just a blowhard?
I have said previously that I was amused to see myself called a "JFKA researcher" upon making one significant but purely dumb-luck discovery after an hour of goofing around on Google. (After nearly 50 years of using the legal search engine LEXIS, I am pretty good at formulating queries.)
I did spend 40 years in legal research because my practice focused largely on complex motions and appellate briefs. I know what research looks like, and it's damn hard work. When a JFKA factoid interests me enough to explore it, I do research. To wit:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4962.msg178234.html#msg178234
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4559.0.html
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4484.msg168589.html#msg168589
I have now actually researched perhaps 25 of these. Each one was an absurd amount of work.
So what is "research" in the mind someone like Dan? Point us to some of yours, Dan.
The irony of you posting this is truly Meta.
Tinfoil Nutters such as yourself are just as damaging but at least Jake isn't aware of the damage he does.
At least he doesn't mean it.
What kind of loser spends his time upholding the ridiculous lies of the Warren Commission?
What kind of loser defends the Warren Commission 63 years after the fact?
Get a life.
Those who defend the WC are defending the truth. The one and only truth. You are entitled to believe any ridiculous scenario you want but there is only one truth. If you reject that one, you aren't entitled to a different one of your liking.
Lance belongs to the Lunatic Fringe of Nutters. Tinfoil Nutters. Just like John Corbett and "Richard Smith"
Then there are LNers like Charles Collins and John Mytton.
Honest researchers who have worked their way to their own conclusions.
Not like the spoon-fed losers who have recently emerged on this forum.
There were 3 shots fired and only 2 struck inside the limo so no matter who you think fired it or where you think they fired it from, somebody missed the entire limo.
Not surprising because there is no reason to think anyone was trying to shoot the limo.
# The forensic evidence tells us unmistakably the person who missed the limo was Oswald.
IS IT PLAUSIBLE OSWALD COULD HAVE COMPLETELY MISSED THE LIMO WITH HIS FIRST SHOT?
NO
The irony of you posting this is truly Meta.
Tinfoil Nutters such as yourself are just as damaging but at least Jake isn't aware of the damage he does.
At least he doesn't mean it.
What kind of loser spends his time upholding the ridiculous lies of the Warren Commission?
What kind of loser defends the Warren Commission 63 years after the fact?
Get a life.
The Secret Service agents in the follow-up car reported reacting immediately to the sound of a shot.
Oh, the irony.