Well, if you listen to CNN or MSLSD you think that, but the fact remains Obama gave them 1.7 billion in foreign cash plus lifted sanctions giving them another 50 billion. Sleepy Joe kept the money rolling in.

https://dailyjournal.net/2023/11/24/editorial-biden-keeps-the-billions-flowing-to-iran/

Dear Herr Comrade Smith,

Read it and weep.

ME: Did Obama give $50 billion to Iran?

Google AI: No, President Barack Obama did not "give" $50 billion of U.S. taxpayer money to Iran; rather, the 2015 nuclear agreement (JCPOA) allowed Iran to regain access to its own money—funds that had belonged to Iran and were frozen in foreign banks due to international sanctions.

What Actually Happened Under Obama

• Iran's Own Money: The funds unlocked under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) were Iran's own assets (primarily from oil revenues) that had been frozen in overseas accounts (such as in China, India, Japan, South Korea, and European banks).

• No U.S. Taxpayer Dollars: The United States did not hand over U.S. federal budget funds or taxpayer cash.

• Estimated Amounts: Independent estimates and analyses by groups like the Washington Institute for the Study of Near East Policy noted that while total frozen assets globally were estimated in the tens of billions, a large portion was already committed or restricted, and the actual accessible cashflow returned to Iran was lower than the inflated claims often repeated in political debates.

-- Tom

That's a load of

Well, if you listen to CNN or MSLSD you think that, but the fact remains Obama gave them 1.7 billion in foreign cash plus lifted sanctions giving them another 50 billion. Sleepy Joe kept the money rolling in.

https://dailyjournal.net/2023/11/24/editorial-biden-keeps-the-billions-flowing-to-iran/

I'm going to enjoy this show:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/fort-hood-shooter-s-firing-squad-execution-will-stream-live-for-public-viewing/ar-AA2dPZHt?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDBBAN&cvid=6ac8d22a8ad64d68a7fd58c2c72c9277&ei=27

Dear Herr Corbett,

Is it true that you've told The Traitorous Orange You-Know-What that you want to run the gas chambers so gosh darned much that you'll do it for free?

-- Tom

Your reply takes your trashy conduct to a new low. I see that you've now resorted to crude name-calling, referring to me as "a-hole," "a pathetic a-hole." I'm a bit surprised that the moderators are allowing such conduct. Anyway, let's continue.

Your long winded posts are filled with personal insults you hurl at me, then you whimper like a little school girl when I respond in kind. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

I'm going to split my response into two parts, due to the length required to answer your errant claims. The first part will deal with your arguments about Oswald's marksmanship, the various rifle tests, Oswald's alleged shooting feat, and supposed evidence of Oswald's guilt.

I guess you forgot that four of the 10 series in the HSCA's test took over seven seconds to fire, and two others took over six seconds to fire.

Also, you have again failed to take into account the fact that any shot that landed anywhere in the silhouette was counted as a hit, which at least tripled the size of the target area compared to the small area that your alleged lone gunman hit twice within 5.6 seconds.

You keep ignoring key facts that refute your spin.

One would never know to read this phony protesting that you have argued that Oswald could have performed the shooting feat using the iron sights. You have not asserted that he used the iron sights, but you have clearly argued that he still could have performed the alleged shooting feat using the iron sights.

I guess the term "theoretical possibility" went right over your head. Not surprising. Those are two pretty big words.

Oh my goodness. Your inability to comprehend English at a high-school level rears its head again. You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "between." Saying "between Z209 and Z313" is not the same as saying "from Z209 to Z313." In using "between Z209 and Z313," this excludes Z209 and Z313, since we're talking about the time "between" those two frames.

Let me try to simplify it even more for you: If you say the distance "between the door and the wall is 10 feet" or "it takes six seconds to walk between the door and the wall," obviously your measurement in either case does not include the door itself and the wall itself.

But such basic English comprehension escaped you when you read my statement, which caused you to mistakenly infer that I was saying the gunman fired at Z209. You should have realized I was obviously not saying this anyway because I've repeatedly said the sixth-floor gunman would not have fired until JFK reemerged into view from under the oak tree, which did not happen until Z210.

I see that throughout your reply, you repeat your misreading of my statement and erroneously accuse me of positing a shot at Z209 several times. This is what happens when your education level is so poor that you can't understand the difference between saying "between Z209 and Z313" and "from Z209-313."

Also, you are, of course, assuming a priori that the head shot came from the sixth-floor window, a doubtful proposition. That's where you're getting the flight time of two to three frames. But, a shot from the grassy knoll would have only taken one frame to arrive at the target. 

Umm, yeah, that's why I said "between" Z209 and Z313. What is "foolish" is your assumption that I said or implied that the alleged lone gunman fired at Z209.

Leaving aside your implausible timing scenario, which casts aside Connally's certainty that he was not hit before Z229, your brain seems incapable of credibly dealing with the fact that the WC's Master-rated riflemen combined missed all but one of their second and third shots. IOW, of the 14 shots fired at the second-shot and third-shot target boards, only one was a hit. Yet, you claim that Oswald's second and third shots were both hits.

Umm, I don't. You just can't read English above a high-school level.

Another unfortunate exhibition of your reading-comprehension deficiency. No one says the alleged lone gunman fired at Z209. No one. You just misread plain English due to your lack of education. 
 
A continuation of your discrediting juvenile dodge. Regardless of what they were trying to do, Hendrix took 8.25 seconds for his first set of shots and 7.0 seconds for his second set, and Staley took 6.75 seconds for his first set and 6.45 seconds for his second set. Yet, all of Hendrix and Staley's second and third shots missed.

But, according to your fiction, Oswald scored hits on his final two shots and did so within 5.6 seconds. (I hope you understand the difference between "within 5.6 seconds" and "in 5.6 seconds.") Just to make sure you don't misread me again, let me rephrase to say that your alleged lone gunman scored hits on his final two shots and did so in less than 5.6 seconds.

Ronald Simmons, chief of the U.S. Army's Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch, told the WC how long the Master-rated riflemen took to fire:

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Hendrix fired twice. The time for the first exercise was 8.25 seconds; the time for the second exercise was 7.0 seconds.

Mr. Staley, on the first exercise, fired in 6.75 seconds; the second attempt he used 6.45 seconds.

Specialist Miller used 4.6 seconds on his first attempt, 6.15 seconds in his second attempt, and 4.45 seconds in his exercise using the iron sight. (3 H 446)

Another unfortunate display of your reading-comprehension problem. Again, no one is saying "Oswald" fired "his" second shot at Z209. The problem is that you can't read English at a high-school level, and it's probably unfair to your average high school student to compare their readings skills with yours.

Yet another discrediting evasion of the fact that Hendrix took 8.25 seconds for his first series and 7.0 seconds for his second series, and that all of his second and third shots missed.

It is important to note that Hendrix's time of 8.25 seconds for his first series equals a firing rate of 2.75 seconds per shot (8.25 divided by 3 shots), which was slower than the firing rate you posit for Oswald's supposed final two shots: 2.485 seconds per shot. You claim Oswald fired his supposed last two shots in 4.97 seconds, which equals a firing rate of 2.485 seconds per shot.

You really have a hard time with a very simply concept. 8.25  seconds for 3 shots is not 2.75 seconds per shot. The clock starts at 0:00 with the first shot. That gives the shooter 8.25 seconds for the next TWO shots. That gives the shooter and average of 4.125 seconds for his next two shots. CTs had been making this same mistake when discussing Oswald's shooting until it got explained to them. I hadn't seen anybody make this blunder for decades until you revived it.

Let me try to dumb it down for you one more time, but I doubt you will understand it. I believe Oswald fired his first shot in the Z147-148 window, the second shot in the Z219-220 window, and the third shot in the Z310-311 window. That works out to a total time of 8.9 seconds. That doesn't mean he took 2.97 seconds per shot, because the clock starts when the first shot was taken. That gave him 8.9 seconds to fire the next TWO shots which is an average of 4.45 seconds between shots, not 2.97. None of the 8.9 second time span was used to fire the first shot. The way it breaks down is that after he took his first shot, he took 72 frames or 3.93 seconds to fire his second shot and 91 frames or 4.97 seconds to fire the third and final shot.

Hendrix's time of 7.0 seconds for his second series equals a firing rate of 2.33 seconds per shot, not very much faster than the rate of 2.485 seconds per shot that you posit for Oswald's alleged final two shots.

Hendrix's combined average firing time for his two series of shots was 2.54 seconds per shot. (2.75 seconds per shot plus 2.33 seconds per shot divided by two equals an average of 2.54 seconds per shot.) IOW, Hendrix's combined average firing rate for his two series of shots was slower than the firing rate of 2.485 seconds that you posit for Oswald's alleged final two shots.

Yet, Hendrix, a Master-rated rifleman firing from a 30-foot tower at stationary target boards, missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes with all of his second and third shots while firing at a slower rate than the rate that you posit for Oswald's supposed final two shots. 

Staley took 6.75 seconds for his first series and 6.45 second for his second series. This means his combined average firing time for his two series was 2.2 seconds per shot, not markedly faster than the firing rate of 2.485 seconds per shot that you posit for Oswald's supposed final two shots. Yet, Staley, a Master-rated rifleman firing from a 30-foot tower at  stationary target boards, missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes with all of his second and third shots.

Miller fired more rapidly than did Hendrix and Staley -- 4.6 seconds in his first series, 5.15 seconds in his second series, and 4.45 seconds in his third series -- but only one of his six final two shots landed in the head and neck area of the silhouette.

But, according to you, a guy who only barely qualified in the second of the three Marine Corps rifle qualification categories, while firing a superb semi-automatic rifle at stationary targets that he had recently practiced against and while having at least 5 seconds per shot to fire -- went two-for-two on his final two shots while firing from a 60-foot elevation in a cramped space through a half-open window while firing, even though the WC's three Master-rated riflemen missed with 13 of their 14 second and third shots. 

Uh-huh, readers should be advised that your ludicrous scenario assumes that Oswald fired at JFK before JFK passed under the oak tree, when he was less than 160 feet from the sixth-floor window, and yet somehow, someway missed not only JFK but missed the entire gigantic limousine. That's the only way you can expand your alleged lone gunman's firing time to 9 seconds or more.

Even the WC doubted that the supposed single assassin missed with his first and closest shot, noting that it was unlikely that he would have missed not only JFK but the entire limo:

On the other hand, the greatest cause for doubt that the first shot missed is the improbability that the same marksman who twice hit a moving target would be so inaccurate on the first and closest of his shots as to miss completely, not only the target, but the large automobile. (Warren Report, p. 11)

But you guys, ignoring your beloved WC, can't accept this commonsense observation because you know you must expand your supposed lone gunman's firing time to avoid having to argue that he fired three shots within 5.6 seconds.

The least-absurd lone-gunman scenario is that Oswald did not fire until after Z209, since JFK reemerged into view from beneath the tree at Z210. But this, of course, would mean that he fired three shots in no more than 5.6 seconds. This is why you guys implausibly have him firing before JFK went under the oak tree and have him missing both Kennedy and the huge limo.

This is both silly and absurd. A sixth-floor gunman would have had at least several seconds to aim at JFK before he went under the oak tree. He would have had no need to rush this shot, whereas he definitely would have needed to rush in order to fire just two shots, much less three shots, within 5.6 seconds after Z209.

LOL! You are the poster child for hilarious confirmation bias. It is hard to fathom how you could make this statement in response to the fact that Hendrix took 8.25 seconds on his first series and 7.0 seconds on second series. Again, Hendrix's combined average firing rate for his two series of shots was slower than the firing rate of 2.485 seconds that you posit for Oswald's alleged final two shots.
 
This is another howler that proves you have no business posting in this forum. You are just making up nonsense again. The WC made it clear that the riflemen were not merely firing to see how rapidly the rifle could be fired. The FBI did do such a test, and they specified that they were not firing for accuracy but just to determine the minimum time needed to operate the bolt and the trigger.

The Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test, as the WC made clear, were trying to prove that Oswald could have scored two hits in three shots within the WC's posited timeframe. The WC clearly leaned toward the view that the gunman had 4.8 seconds to 7.9 seconds to fire, between "4.8 to 5.6 seconds" or "7.1 to 7.9 seconds," depending on which shot missed (Warren Report, p. 117). The Commission acknowledged that the only way to add more firing time would be to assume that "more than 2.3 seconds elapsed between a shot that missed and one that hit." And, again, the WC clearly doubted the idea of a first-shot miss.   

LOL! Whitman fired over 150 shots! Your comparison is ridiculous.

This evasive blather is another display of your juvenile behavior. Anyone who knows anything about marksmanship knows it is considerably easier to fire quickly and accurately with a semi-automatic rifle than with a bolt-action rifle. But you're so dishonest and immature that you can't even admit this undisputed fact.

You have no idea if such evidence exists because you've done only a scant amount of reading on the JFK case, and what little reading you've done has mostly been confined to pro-WC sources. People can see in the ongoing thread on Charles Givens that you have no credible answer to the evidence that Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting.

Says the man who can't comprehend English at a high-school level and who blunderingly misread "between Z209 and Z313" to mean a shot was fired at Z209. What makes this gaffe especially baffling is that I have repeatedly noted that JFK did not reemerge into view from under the oak tree until Z210.

More juvenile ducking and dodging. Are you just hoping that all the people who read this thread will have the same juvenile mindset and the same lack of character and education that you have? Are you just hoping that people won't easily see through your deceitful claim that I have not already made perfectly clear herein what would constitute a genuine duplication of Oswald's alleged shooting feat? In addition, you seem to have forgotten about my thread "What Would a Valid Lone-Gunman Rifle Test Look Like?"

But, since part of me almost suspects that you just might be so severely lacking in reading and reasoning skills that you actually don't comprehend what I would consider to be a valid duplication of Oswald's alleged shooting feat, let me try to make even clearer what I have already made obvious:

At a minimum, a valid duplication of Oswald's alleged shooting feat would be for at least one rifleman to fire three shots and to score two hits with his final two shots in no more 5.6 seconds, on his first and only attempt. Got it?

The WC's Master-rated riflemen failed to do this, even though two of them had two attempts and one of them had three attempts. So did the HSCA's expert riflemen, even though they had more than one attempt. And so did 11 of the 12 riflemen in the CBS rifle test, even though they had more than one attempt (and the one rifleman who did score two hits in three shots on his first attempt only did so because CBS counted as a hit any shot that landed anywhere in the target silhouette, which at least tripled the size of the target compared to the small area that Oswald alleged hit twice in no more than 5.6 seconds).
 
This is more of your amateurish bungling. You still refuse to process the fact that any gunman, whether novice or expert, would have had to take time to acquire the target and then aim before firing. He would not have just fired the millisecond the target came into view if he had any hope of firing accurately. I also point out, again, that it takes the human brain a minimum of 1/6th of a second, or 166.67 milliseconds, to register and respond to visual data. 166.67 milliseconds equals three Zapruder frames.

But you keep pretending that time for target acquisition and aiming doesn't count. Your sixth-floor gunman, no matter who he was, would have needed three frames, or 166.67 milliseconds, at the bare minimum, to register and respond to the visual image of JFK's reemergence from under the oak tree before he fired a shot.

If you can't understand this, watch the video clips of the 1967 CBS rifle test and see how long it takes the shooters to fire their first shot, and see how long it takes them to fire another shot after they work the bolt and put their eye back on the scope. They each took several seconds before firing their first shot and then took about one second to fire again after they worked the bolt and put their eye back up to the scope. 

When you're talking about a scenario where the target suddenly emerges into view and where two shots have to be fired from that moment until no more than 5.6 seconds later, you can't say "the clock starts when the first shot is fired." You have to allow time for the gunman to acquire and then aim at the target before firing his first shot.

Regardless of how early you want to assume your lone gunman fired his first alleged shot, he would have had no more than 5.6 seconds to fire his final two shots, and he would have required, at the very least, three frames just for his brain to register and react to the visual data of the image of JFK's emerging into view from under the oak tree in Z210.

I would repeat the fact that Hendrix, a Master-rated rifleman firing from a 30-foot tower at stationary target boards, missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes with all of his second and third shots while firing at a slower rate than the rate you posit for Oswald's supposed final two shots.

I would also repeat the fact that Staley's combined average firing time for his two series was 2.2 seconds per shot, not markedly faster than the firing rate of 2.485 seconds per shot that you posit for Oswald's final two shots. Yet, Staley, a Master-rated rifleman firing from a 30-foot tower at  stationary target boards, missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes with all of his second and third shots. 

You again sound like a insolent teenager who's lashing out because he knows he's losing the argument. Again, just to make sure you understand, I did not even hint, much less say, that the sixth-floor gunman fired at Z209. Your blunderingly inferred this due to your poor reading-comprehension skills.

Yeah, "so what"! Here's the "so what": This means you can't assume that the acquisition and aiming time doesn't count.

This whole surreal discussion is based on your discrediting refusal to admit that firing two shots in no more than 5.6 seconds after JFK emerged from under the oak tree would have been extremely difficult even for an experienced, world-class rifleman.

Yet, the WC's three Master-rated riflemen scored only one hit in their 14 combined second and third shots, even though one of them had a combined firing rate that was slower than the rate you posit for Oswald's alleged final two shots. Furthermore, in all the rifle tests that have been done, the shooters' first shots have always been their most accurate and have almost always been hits, whereas their second and third shots have been their most inaccurate and have almost always been misses. But your shooting scenario turns that pattern on its head and assumes your supposed lone gunman missed both JFK and the entire huge limousine with his first and closest shot.

This is just a continuation of your juvenile dodge, which I've already answered. See above.

This is just a continuation of your juvenile dodge, which I've already answered. See above.
 
Here's a better idea: How about if you find one post where I said you claimed Oswald used the iron sights?

Umm, yeah, and, again, I've never said you claimed Oswald used the iron sights. You came razor close to saying it, but never actually said it. You said that he "could" have used the iron sights and that he "could" have performed his alleged shooting feat with the iron sights.

Another childish reaction to an undisputed fact. This is your dishonest smokescreen to avoid the fact that you have repeatedly said Oswald "could" have performed his alleged shooting feat even if he had used the iron sights.

No, you keep making up the strawman that I've said you claimed Oswald used the iron sights. You're doing this to try to obscure the fact that you have repeatedly said Oswald "could" have performed his alleged shooting feat even if he had used the iron sights, which is nonsense.

No, what's apparent is that you have no business posting in this forum, since you obviously have no clue about the scholarly research (and, yes, it is scholarly research) on every one of the items of evidence that you recited.

Here's a short quiz for you: True or False: The WC was so suspicious of the latent palm print that Lt. Day belatedly produced that they asked him to sign a sworn statement affirming when and how he saw it and lifted it, and Lt. Day refused to sign the statement.

This childish nonsense again? Why do you keep proving that you can't comprehend basic English by falsely claiming that I've accused you of saying Oswald used the iron sights? This whole conversation is just ridiculous. If you weren't so poorly educated and unable to understand English at an adult level, we wouldn't even be having this idiotic discussion. Again, I never said you claimed Oswald used the iron sights, even though you've repeatedly said he "could" have used them and that he "could" have performed the alleged shooting feat if he had used them.

You berated me for even suggesting that Oswald could have used the iron sights. Do you recall making these statements:

"Hello? Hello? Did you miss the fact that the gunman could not have used the iron sights with the scope attached to the rifle? How long is it going to take for your brain to process this information? I mean, this is just unbelievable.

The rifle was found with the scope attached. So, if you want to add time for attaching the scope to Oswald's alleged dash to the second floor, please put this on the table. While you're at it, explain why he would have bothered to do so instead of just stuffing the scope into a box (where it likely would not have been found for months, if ever)."

Clearly, you were scoffing at me for stating it was even possible that Oswald could have used the iron sights. That was probably due to your ignorance of the fact that the scope was offset and the iron sights could be used with the scope in place. It's amazing that somebody who claims to be a researcher wouldn't know this fact. But you aren't interested in facts because they don't support your beliefs. You prefer to regurgitate factoids because they are the building blocks of your beliefs.

And, actually, as I stated in my most recent reply, I have changed my mind about this and agree that the scope was mounted to the left of center and that the gunman could have used the iron sights.

Translation: Your research has been so limited that you don't even know half of what your fellow WC apologists have said, or even half of what the leading published WC apologists have said.

Again, veterans who read this are gonna recognize your dishonest spin. When I went to Army basic training, even guys who had never fired a rifle before in their lives almost always qualified in the Marksman category, and a few of them even qualified in the Sharpshooter category.

Why don't you mention the fact that at the Marine Corps rifle range, Oswald had 5 seconds per shot in the two so-called "rapid fire" phases? Why don't you mention that during the three other phases of the qualification test he had 72 seconds per shot? Yes, let me repeat that: he had 72 seconds, or 1.2 minutes per shot in three of the five phases of the qualification test.

Oswald used about 5 seconds to aim and fire the kill shot.

It is laughable that you and other WC apologists cite Oswald's mediocre Marine Corps rifle scores as evidence he could have performed the alleged lone-gunman shooting feat, especially given the fact that none of the WC's three Master-riflemen performed the feat, that none of the HSCA's four expert riflemen performed the feat, and that only one of the 12 CBS riflemen performed the feat (he only did it because he was an expert rifleman and because the test counted as a hit any shot that landed anywhere in the target silhouette, which was at least three times larger than the target area that the sixth-floor gunman supposedly hit twice within 5.6 seconds).

I've continued to ask it because you have yet to provide a credible, rational, fact-based answer. Your ridiculous ducking and dodging and special pleading do not qualify as a credible, rational, factual answer. 

You were given answers each time you asked this silly question. You lie when you say I ducked and dodged it. Just because you didn't like my answer doesn't mean you weren't given one. This is one of the many reasons I referred to you as an a-hole.

Uh-huh, never mind that most of the CBS riflemen were far more experienced and skilled than Oswald, that five them took 6-7 seconds to fire one or two of their series, and that they were allowed to fire nine practice rounds before the test. Yeah, so what? Right?

More ducking and dodging. Again, the sixth-floor gunman would have been able to take several seconds to aim at JFK before he went under the oak tree. And, again, four of the 10 series in the HSCA's test took over seven seconds to fire, and two of them took over six seconds to fire.

Once more, it's like your brain simply cannot process contrary facts.

Oh, yes, Mr. Teenager. Do you feel good now? And, hey, at least those "CTs" can understand English at a high-school level, unlike you.
 
Good grief, where in those two sentences did you read that I said you've made this argument? Where? I said you obviously were not aware that some of your fellow WC apologists have made this argument, and that you're just too immature to admit it. And we see that you still won't admit it.

I haven't responded point-by-point to the above post because as MTG's posts get longer and longer, it takes much more of my time to respond to each statement, more time than his nonsense deserves. I've spent well over an hour on each of his last two posts. From now on, I will simply pick and choose the most glaring errors of his to respond to.

There was no agreement to tear up. Obama and Biden kept them happy by funneling billions of dollars which they used in the attack on Israel.

 That's a load of