Recent Posts
21
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: How Do LNers Deal With Givens?
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 08:40:35 PM »I'm really surprised at you, Tim, for posting such utter nonsense.
Finding Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor DOES NOT place Oswald at the SN window at 12:30
Because Oswald had no alibi at the time of the shooting DOES NOT place him at the SN window at 12:30
Finding Oswald's prints on boxes in the SN DOES NOT place at the SN window at 12:30
There is no piece of evidence - NONE - that places Oswald at the SN window at 12:30
Your interpretation of these select pieces of evidence is that Oswald was the shooter - that's your interpretation of these particular pieces of evidence.
And your assumption is that if Oswald was the shooter, then he was at the SN window at 12:30pm.
It's a theory, Tim, and nothing more.
You never struck me as a true Nutter, in the mould of Corbett or Smith, but it appears you may well be.
There is no single piece of evidence that BY ITSELF places Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired. Taken as a whole, the body of evidence places Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired. For any single piece of evidence, you can come up with an unlikely but plausible alternative explanation that doesn't implicate Oswald. When you have to reach for the least likely explanation for so many pieces of evidence in order to argue for Oswald's innocence, the argument becomes laughable. If you dispute that fact, then give us a PLAUSIBLE alternative explanation that takes into account all of the evidence below.
1. Several witnesses saw a gunman in the southeast corner window of the 6th floor of the TSBD.
2. 3 spent shells were found at that window a short time later.
3. A rifle was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
4. The 3 spent shells were determined to have been fired by the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
5. Only 2 bullets were recovered from the shooting, both determined to have been fired by the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
6. A clear paper trail established that Oswald ordered the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
7. Oswald was photographed with the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
8. Oswald's palm print was found on the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
9. Fibers matching the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested were found on the butt plate of the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
10. A bag was found nearby the sniper's nest with Oswald's finger and palm print on it. The bag had fibers that matched the blanket that Oswald has used to store the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
11. Oswald's fingerprints were found on the top of the boxes that had been stacked to form a rifle rest. The fingerprints were oriented as they would be had Oswald fired the shots from behind those boxes.
We also have Oswald's action following the shooter which point to his guilt in the JFKA. but I'll settle for a plausible explanation of the 10 items listed above that does no conclude that Oswald was the assassin.
My prediction is that if you accept this challenge at all, you will do what CTs always do when presented the evidence listed above. You will attack pieces of the evidence individually, but you will not present a single comprehensive narrative that explains all of these pieces collectively. No such explanation is possible. If it was, somebody would have come up with it by now.
22
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Determining a Timestamp for Darnell
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 08:14:16 PM »Timelines of individuals and images. And this includes Wiegman's timeline and his filming of the JFK Limo still being on Elm St.
And why does that matter?
23
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: How Did Bart Kamp Create The Lovelady Image?
« Last post by Brian Doyle on Yesterday at 07:17:21 PM »What you are saying isn't accurate...
The Sprague copy shows the plaid pattern better...
You are conspicuously avoiding discussing the fact that the scanned original would really show Lovelady's plaid pattern...
24
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: How Did Bart Kamp Create The Lovelady Image?
« Last post by Dan O'meara on Yesterday at 07:08:47 PM »
You can see the plaid pattern in Sprague...You can't in the other image...
You are asking diversionary questions...
The original will show the plaid pattern exactly as Larsen showed it...
You can see the plaid pattern in Sprague...You can't in the other image...
So, just in case I'm not understanding your reply...
...when I ask, how can there be more detail in the washed out and less detail in the clearer image, your reply is that we can see the detail in the washed out image and we can't see the detail in the clearer image...
You are clearly struggling to understand what is happening here.
It is impossible for the washed out image that has far less detail to show more detail than the clear image that has more detail.
The only way this is possible is for the washed out image to be manipulated/doctored/faked.
It's the only way.
Do you understand this very simple principle?
25
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: How Do LNers Deal With Givens?
« Last post by Dan O'meara on Yesterday at 06:59:06 PM »Oswald's rifle being the assassination weapon, together with the fact that he had no alibi for the time of the shooting, places him in the SN at 12:30pm. That's not even considering his fingerprints and palmprints being found there.
I'm really surprised at you, Tim, for posting such utter nonsense.
Finding Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor DOES NOT place Oswald at the SN window at 12:30
Because Oswald had no alibi at the time of the shooting DOES NOT place him at the SN window at 12:30
Finding Oswald's prints on boxes in the SN DOES NOT place at the SN window at 12:30
There is no piece of evidence - NONE - that places Oswald at the SN window at 12:30
Your interpretation of these select pieces of evidence is that Oswald was the shooter - that's your interpretation of these particular pieces of evidence.
And your assumption is that if Oswald was the shooter, then he was at the SN window at 12:30pm.
It's a theory, Tim, and nothing more.
You never struck me as a true Nutter, in the mould of Corbett or Smith, but it appears you may well be.
26
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Determining a Timestamp for Darnell
« Last post by Royell Storing on Yesterday at 06:55:05 PM »Can someone explain to me why any of this matters?
Timelines of individuals and images. And this includes Wiegman's timeline and his filming of the JFK Limo still being on Elm St.
27
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / How Did Bart Kamp Create The Lovelady Image?
« Last post by Brian Doyle on Yesterday at 06:47:24 PM »You can see the plaid pattern in Sprague...You can't in the other image...
You are asking diversionary questions...
The original will show the plaid pattern exactly as Larsen showed it...
28
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Everyone is an expert
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 06:29:34 PM »https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/this-is-how-the-kennedy-assassination-actually-unfolded/vi-AA24beTn?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDBBAN&cvid=6ac3d82aee6245dfb67324114522f194&ei=17
Although the title of the above video indicates this is about the JFKA, the clown doing the narration spends most of the video talking about the history of security measures for presidential motorcades and little time on the JFKA. Only the first 45 seconds and the time from about 10:00 and 12:00 are devoted to the JFKA. During that brief time, the narrator makes several dubious statements, the most glaring is that the Secret Service should have inspected every floor of every tall building along the motorcade route. This statement is laughable on the surface. Does this bozo have any idea how much manpower would have been required to do that and how long it would have taken. And what good would that have done? Even if the Secret Service had inspected the TSBD earlier that morning, how would that have prevented Oswald from shooting JFK? The only way that would be effective is if personnel had been deployed on every floor of every tall building along the motorcade route. That literally would have taken a small army to secure every possible sniper location along the route. Not only would that have been required in Dallas, but in every other city JFK rode in a motorcade during his roughly 1000 day presidency. The claim was made by a guy who was trying to sound smart, and failing badly.
Although the title of the above video indicates this is about the JFKA, the clown doing the narration spends most of the video talking about the history of security measures for presidential motorcades and little time on the JFKA. Only the first 45 seconds and the time from about 10:00 and 12:00 are devoted to the JFKA. During that brief time, the narrator makes several dubious statements, the most glaring is that the Secret Service should have inspected every floor of every tall building along the motorcade route. This statement is laughable on the surface. Does this bozo have any idea how much manpower would have been required to do that and how long it would have taken. And what good would that have done? Even if the Secret Service had inspected the TSBD earlier that morning, how would that have prevented Oswald from shooting JFK? The only way that would be effective is if personnel had been deployed on every floor of every tall building along the motorcade route. That literally would have taken a small army to secure every possible sniper location along the route. Not only would that have been required in Dallas, but in every other city JFK rode in a motorcade during his roughly 1000 day presidency. The claim was made by a guy who was trying to sound smart, and failing badly.
29
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Determining a Timestamp for Darnell
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 05:53:09 PM »Steve - As you see above, I have been repeatedly saying that the Bell Film shows Wiegman rumbling/stumbling (W) across the Knoll Grass. Just like a football player running (R) - (L) across a TV screen. We clearly see the (L) profile of Wiegman's face as he moves (W) across the Knoll Grass.
There is absolutely ZERO PROOF that Wiegman ever was "sprawled" across the steps as You claim. Wiegman Never said he did this and No Eyewitness Ever reported seeing him do this. This claim of Wiegman being "sprawled" across the steps while filming the Hester's is nothing more than another JFK Assassination Urban Legend.
Can someone explain to me why any of this matters?
30
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Now What Mr. Trump?
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 05:50:09 PM »For most of our country's history, power has coalesced around two major parties although in the early years they were more loosely organized factions than political parties. We had the Federalists Hamilton and the Democratic-Republicans led by Jefferson and Madison. Washington did not identify with either party and opposed the creation of political powers. Adams identified as a Federalist and became their only elected president. The Federalists all but disappeared after losing the 1816 election to Monroe. For much of the 1820s, power was concentrated around two men, John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. Although elected in 1824 as a Democratic -Republican, Adams' supporters became identified as the Adams Party and the opposition as the Jacksonians. After Jackson's election in 1828, that Jacksonians became formally know as the Democratic Party which it remains to this day. Following Jackson's reelection in 1832, the Adams Party morphed into the Whigs. The Whigs were a force for about a quarter century electing two presidents and having two others ascend to the presidency following the death of the Whig president. In the 1850s, the Whig Party split over the question of slavery with the northern Whigs becoming what would be known as the Republicans and the pro-slavery Whigs breaking off into minor parties. Presumably most of these would eventual become Democrats. Beginning with the 1860 election, our two major parties have been the Democrats and Republicans. There have been a few third parties that have gained enough support to influence presidential elections without every winning one. George Wallace was the last third party candidate to win electoral votes in 1968 representing the American Independent Party.
I see a potential for another schism and realignment of the major parties as a possibility with anti-MAGA Republicans joining with moderate Democrats to form a centrist party. For that to happen, there would have to be a leader who could bring those two factions together into a political party. Right now, I don't see such a leader. If that were to happen, I think we would still have two major parties. The most likely scenario would be the centrist party to replace the Democratic Party with the far-left socialists becoming a fringe third party. Who knows which group would retain the title of the Democratic Party. Most likely, that would be the centrist party. It would be the result of rank-and-file Democrats taking back their party from the radical left. Again, that would require a leader and most of the current Democrat leadership preferring to kowtow to the radical left rather than opposing them.
I see a potential for another schism and realignment of the major parties as a possibility with anti-MAGA Republicans joining with moderate Democrats to form a centrist party. For that to happen, there would have to be a leader who could bring those two factions together into a political party. Right now, I don't see such a leader. If that were to happen, I think we would still have two major parties. The most likely scenario would be the centrist party to replace the Democratic Party with the far-left socialists becoming a fringe third party. Who knows which group would retain the title of the Democratic Party. Most likely, that would be the centrist party. It would be the result of rank-and-file Democrats taking back their party from the radical left. Again, that would require a leader and most of the current Democrat leadership preferring to kowtow to the radical left rather than opposing them.