Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Gary Mack knew about the film and said it was a 1st generation copy...

If we went by your standard of evidence nothing could ever be proven to be valid and we could just quit because no evidence would ever be good enough...

The layers of supporting evidence tells you there was no manipulation of Sarah Stanton's features, nor would there be any reason to alter Stanton's clothing...The neckline is clearer because it is a film to film copy...

Again - the fact that other objects in the 6th Floor Museum copy improve in clarity means that the neckline is valid because CIA is not going to sharpen other objects in that copy because there would be no reason to...

One of the biggest things the Prayer Man people exploit is the fact the actual people involved are dead and can't refute their ridiculous gratuitous doubt...

   OK, so let's go at this another way. How did Prof G. Wiliam Jones "manage" to make a, "1st generation film-to-film copy of Darnell"? And the say-so of Gary Mack carries absolutely no weight. He was Wrong on: (1) Badge Man, (2) The McKinnon/Mumford ID, and (3) The Acoustic Evidence.
22
   Do you know if NBC has validated the Darnell Film copy that the Sixth Floor Museum currently has?  At this point, "Prof G. William Jones" claims to have made a Darnell Film "1st generation film-to-film copy" and the Sixth Floor Museum currently has that "1st generation film-to-film copy". One man's "word" regarding the bona fides of this Darnell Film copy inside the Sixth Floor Museum is simply Not sufficient.

Gary Mack knew about the film and said it was a 1st generation copy...

If we went by your standard of evidence nothing could ever be proven to be valid and we could just quit because no evidence would ever be good enough...

The layers of supporting evidence tells you there was no manipulation of Sarah Stanton's features, nor would there be any reason to alter Stanton's clothing...The neckline is clearer because it is a film to film copy...

Again - the fact that other objects in the 6th Floor Museum copy improve in clarity means that the neckline is valid because CIA is not going to sharpen other objects in that copy because there would be no reason to...

One of the biggest things the Prayer Man people exploit is the fact the actual people involved are dead and can't refute their ridiculous gratuitous doubt...
23
   Knott Lab and their forensic science found the SBT to be, "Impossible" back in late 2023. Their work is routinely admitted as "evidence" in courtrooms across the USA on a daily basis. We frequently hear the cry, "where is the Proof?", "where is the Evidence?". Knott Lab hammered that home a few years ago. The SBT has scientifically been proven to be a nonstarter.

I'd be willing consider the Knott Lab conclusion the SBT is impossible if they would tell us why it is impossible but the CTs who cite their work always leave that part out.
24
-Lance-

I thought about it (I read it couple of years ago) but think the learning curve is quite steep for a new student of the case. Same goes for dr. John Newman's Oswald and the CIA.

There is a mind-boggling array of books on the assassination. Just to pick six for a newbee is not easy.

It is if you limit the choices to those worth reading. If I do that, I don't think I could come up with six.
25
The O'Neill book came out in 1987 while the original claim that O'Donnell altered his testimony was first made in 1975. The Chicago Tribune story that quotes him denying he changed his testimony goes over this in greater detail. And Dave Powers, who was alive in 1987 when the book came out, also denied the story that he and O'Donnell told O'Neill they had changed their testimony.

In any case, according to several people quoted in the book O'Neill simply flat out made things up. He's simply not a credible source on this issue.

Bud called these "conspiracy trading cards", allegations that they continually pass around and repeat. It doesn't matter how many times you disprove them they continue to trade them around.


When you say Bud, I'm guessing you are referring to Bud from alt.assassination.jfk. I hadn't heard from Bud since the McAdams forum shutdown. I hope he's doing well.

I always appreciated Bud's take on whatever issue he was talking about, even the few times I would disagree with him.
26
The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: Quoting Common Sense
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 09:21:10 PM »
It's easy (I know, because I've done it) to lob "common sense" LN sound bites at CTers because of their love of fantastically complex JFKA and cover-up scenarios. The CT community is its own worst enemy in this regard. That's why my threshold question is always "Does that make any real-world sense at all?" Often, the answer is no.

But there are CT scenarios that the LN sound bites really don't fit. They aren't ridiculously implausible. They don't violate common sense. If the CT community would focus on these and the most problematical aspects of the LN narrative, it would do itself and serious research a big favor. Alas, it seems that many CTers just can't help themselves.

Likewise, it's easy to lob CT sound bites at those who think the JFKA starts and ends with the WC and Bugliosi. EVEN IF THE LN NARRATIVE IS CORRECT, the WC was a badly flawed, agenda-driven "investigation" that is almost entirely responsible for what has transpired ever since. For multiple reasons, it was nothing like an objective, fact-finding investigation. If I were a LN advocate who wanted to be taken seriously, I would banish the WC and Bugliosi from my vocabulary. Alas, it seems that many LNers just can't help themselves.

It is just astonishing how closely JFKA discussions parallel religious debates. They never go anywhere either, for precisely the same reasons. The fundamentalists, heretics. cultists and atheists just talk past each other.

Though both sides of a religious discussion will point to evidence, it largely comes down to a matter of faith which is why I never argue about religion with anyone. Whatever someone else wants to believe, if they are content with it, who am I to tell them they are wrong.

The JFKA has a wealth of evidence which needs to be looked at objectively. When I see people who start with a preconceived conclusion and then dismiss or accept the evidence based on whether the evidence fits their chosen conclusion, I have no problem telling those people they are wrong.
27

Looking at the backyard photos, I don't see a scope on the rifle.


The black shirt camouflages the black scope. But it is definitely there. It helps to be looking at a good quality photo. This one is from the Sixth Floor Museum.




OK. I see that now.
28
AM--

Thanks for your inquiry.

Well, more or less Greer's narrative lines up with the Connallys, if I understand it correctly.

Mrs. Connally's narrative supports the "first shot hit JFK, the second hit JBC, and third hit JFK." The Connallys have been solid on that from Day One. They are not lefties, or KGB assets, and appear to have no axes to grind. They are just calling a spade a spade.

What Mrs. JBC meant by the word "recoil" is hard to say, but likely that was JBC doubling over from the shot that struck him, which happens ~Z-295.

BTW, JBC getting shot ~Z-295 lines up neatly with the many witnesses who described a "bang....bang-bang" cadence of shots on 11.22.

Nothing in the Z-file indicates either of the Connallys were looking at JFK when either the first or second shot was fired so how could either know which bullet struck him?

JBC not being shot until Z295 doesn't remotely line up with anything in the Z-film. It's one of the dumbest things I've ever seen proposed regarding the JFKA.
29
I was driving home early this afternoon listening to the Clay and Buck Show on the radio and they were talking about the evidence being presented at preliminary hearing for Charlie Kirk's accused killer. Somebody called in proclaiming that Tyler Robinson was being set up as a patsy in the murder. He questioned the evidence being presented and claimed it was being falsified, blah, blah, blah. Clay Travis tried to reason with this clown but it wasn't working. First he asked the caller whether he had better credentials to analyze the ballistics than the agents at the FBI and BATFE and the guy immediately tried to deflect. He asked the guy why he thought all the law enforcement agencies would conspire to frame Tyler Robinson. More deflections. The caller claimed there was no way Robinson could have disassembled the rifle quick enough to escape the way he did. Where have we heard that before.

If they just changed the names I would have thought they were talking about the JFKA. In fact when I first turned on the radio and they were talking about the gunshot to the neck, I thought they were talking about the JFKA. It was only after they named the victim and the alleged assailant that I realized what they were talking about. One thing I will gladly wager is that no matter how much evidence is presented that Tyler Robinson committed the crime, there will be those who will refuse to accept that. Leftists will blame those on the right and those on the right will blame leftists and none of them will have any evidence to support their suspicions. Just like the JFKA CTs.
30
The Warren Commission said it was "not probable" that the shot to the back occurred "before Z210." (Not probable being another way to say "not impossible").

Dear FPR,

It's not impossible that [fill in the blank].

-- Tom
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10