Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
31
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Royell Storing on Yesterday at 11:07:38 PM »
Does anyone besides Tom Graves and John Corbett believe that 75% witnesses hearing the 1…..2.3 pattern were simply wrong and that the 3 shot pattern was really more like 1…2…….3 and spread out over a longer time like 8-10 seconds?

Mary Woodward has been examined by Lance whom seems to think she’s a dingbat at the least. Since Lance has demonstrated intelligent thought in previous threads , there’s no reason to conclude that he also is a dingbat thus casting doubt on  his judgement of Woodward. ( I could be mistaken though  ;) Others wish to cherry pick which parts of Woodwards statements support their preferred 3 shot theory  similar to how CTs and LNs use the potentially dingbat statements of  Markam and Bledsoe to support or refute Oswald shooting Tippit.

Perhaps at least there  has been agreement among we few old timers still hanging around at the JFK bar that there were 3 shots that were fired from that 6th floor TSBD SE window and no other shots  that came from the front of the limo. (Exception being Jake the Outer Limits CT with the policeman on the overpass theory)  :D

Royell maybe is the Lone Ranger CT still thinking there were 2 gunman and there were 2 other guys driving a car and parking it in the no parking zone right there near the TSBD and then jumping out because ( see Royell threads to explain it)  :D

I thought I had it figured out back in the day but there are too many old timers remembering things that I did not remember ( since the Mandela effect started in 2015 and Reverend Billy Graham had 3 funerals from 2005 to 2018)

   And Never forget that Bogus DPD Motorcycle Cop doing crowd control across the train yard and then moving toward/down the Elm St Extension. I believe that He is a huge part of what is holding up the Sixth Floor releasing the last 1/2 of their Darnell Film 1st generation copy. It's now been close to 2 yrs that they have been sitting on this footage.
32
    This ain't the Ed Forum. Deleting entire posts is a "Bozo No-No" around here. You can't run away from your embarrassing position(s) by deleting posts that reveal you don't know what you're talking about. This is exactly why I COPIED your post. The bar is much higher here. You will be given credit when merited. You will also be held accountable when pulling a Boner. Just so you know.

I didn't delete anything. Whether the moderation team deleted it I'm not sure. I can assure you I've not deleted any of my posts.
33

Talk about a couple of dingbats!

The only things Connally got right was his remembering that the first shot sounded as though it was from a high-powered rifle behind him, that he "immediately" (after turning quickly to his left) turned to his right to try to get a glimpse of JFK over his right shoulder, and that he, himself, was hit while he was turning back to his left to try to catch a glimpse of JFK over his left shoulder.

Nellie?

Don't make me laugh.
34
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Zeon Mason on Yesterday at 10:53:52 PM »
Does anyone besides Tom Graves and John Corbett believe that 75% witnesses hearing the 1…..2.3 pattern were simply wrong and that the 3 shot pattern was really more like 1…2…….3 and spread out over a longer time like 8-10 seconds?

Mary Woodward has been examined by Lance whom seems to think she’s a dingbat at the least. Since Lance has demonstrated intelligent thought in previous threads , there’s no reason to conclude that he also is a dingbat thus casting doubt on  his judgement of Woodward. ( I could be mistaken though  ;) Others wish to cherry pick which parts of Woodwards statements support their preferred 3 shot theory  similar to how CTs and LNs use the potentially dingbat statements of  Markam and Bledsoe to support or refute Oswald shooting Tippit.

Perhaps at least there  has been agreement among we few old timers still hanging around at the JFK bar that there were 3 shots that were fired from that 6th floor TSBD SE window and no other shots  that came from the front of the limo. (Exception being Jake the Outer Limits CT with the policeman on the overpass theory)  :D

Royell maybe is the Lone Ranger CT still thinking there were 2 gunman and there were 2 other guys driving a car and parking it in the no parking zone right there near the TSBD and then jumping out because ( see Royell threads to explain it)  :D

I thought I had it figured out back in the day but there are too many old timers remembering things that I did not remember ( since the Mandela effect started in 2015 and Reverend Billy Graham had 3 funerals from 2005 to 2018)

35
Woodward must have been totally delusional if she made up JFK's and Jackie's turning, smiling, and waving to her and her three colleagues at some point.

But they did, just a couple of seconds before CE-399 wounded both JFK and JBC.
I don't wish to intrude but would you do me a favor?
When you say "just a couple of seconds before CE-399 wounded both JFK and JBC" can you add "according to Specter's single bullet theory" to the end of those sentences please.
It's just that its confusing to assassination newcomers because in 1988 JBC actually stated "I heard the first shot, I reacted to it and I was in the process of turning around when I was hit with the second shot, it is totally impossible for the first shot that hit Kennedy to hit me in the back"
You see what I mean? It's confusing for newcomers to the assassination.
36
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Dan O'meara on Yesterday at 10:49:50 PM »
Yes, you are.

Wow, 'lil tommy, that was such a clever joke.
Aren't you a clever little boy.
Well done you.

37
His role was assistant council for the panel but he took over the whole god damn show.
He's not a weapons expert or forensic pathologist who would be qualified to put forward a theory. The fact of the matter is Kellerman told them there was a flurry of shots similar to a sonic boom all coming at once. Jean Hill told them there were 4 to 6 shots and the last 4 all came together, countless other testimony telling them the shots came in together yet they allowed Specter to push this nonsense we've had to chew on for over 60 years.
The Connally's who were in the limo for Gods sake pushed aside and made fools out of so this idiot can prevail. i've seen the phone call between Hoover and LBJ before the warren commission got started. Three shots and one gunman and that was that, they were never going to allow anything else.
E Howard Hunt said it all in his confession about LBJ.

    This ain't the Ed Forum. Deleting entire posts is a "Bozo No-No" around here. You can't run away from your embarrassing position(s) by deleting posts that reveal you don't know what you're talking about. This is exactly why I COPIED your post. The bar is much higher here. You will be given credit when merited. You will also be held accountable when pulling a Boner. Just so you know.
38
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Tom Graves on Yesterday at 10:36:29 PM »
39
Yeah...great attitude to research.
This place is laughable because of tools who believe their word is definitive.
No evidence required.
No research required.
No debate required.
They have spoken.
Awesome.

Do some actual research: https://www.jfk-info.com/zreport.htm
Zavada was a lead in the team that developed Kodakchrome 2. He was considered to be the world's leading expert regarding this particular film.
Dino was out of the loop. That's his whole point.

Where did the Connally's state that "JBC was shot two seconds after Kennedy was shot in the neck area"?
Point me to a single post by even the most lunatic Nutter where they are bigging up Brennan.

You smell like a  BS: merchant who talks big and knows little.
Crack on.
Hey Danny, below is the 1988 interview with the Connally's. Watch it right to the end to the part where JBC absolutely crushes Specter's single bullet theory.
Nell makes a good job too.
Rule one in assassination research:- get your basics right. Before you go off on a tangent giving it the big shamali make sure you know the basics. Before you dive into my ocean, make sure you can swim and right now you're drowning.  ;)
40
Oh, dear, Dan is imbibing his 100-proof angry juice again.

YOU began the post to which I was responding by saying "Just for argument's sake though... Let's say you do have some intelligence and can manage this rudimentary thought experiment ..."

I was good-naturedly tweaking you, as opposed to haughtily pointing out that I have a measured IQ in the 99.7th percentile, scored above the 99th percentile of the Law School Admissions Test, graduated magna cum laude from both college and law school, and, well, whatnot.

There ain't nobody EVER, bub, who has thought they were dealing with a dummy when dealing with me. My posts on this forum speak for themselves. If you want to keep playing this goofy game, be my guest - you're just making yourself look silly, and surely you have sufficient intelligence to understand that. What you think you're accomplishing is beyond me. Do you perhaps actually hate yourself?

My posts on this forum speak for themselves.

That is exactly the point I was making.
Your silly pretence at being some kind of open-minded free thinker, willing to explore any avenue of research...it's embarrassing.
You're an out-and-out, fully fledged Nutter.
Like all Nutters you believe you have a superior intelligence and that anything you think is a fact - just because you think it!!
#delusional
 ;D I love the way you were only "good naturedly" insinuating your superior intelligence but then can't function without stressing how intelligent you believe you are.
Aren't you smart enough to get that joke?

Quote
That sentence makes no sense. Diagram it and you'll see. Perhaps something like "There are many different ways to make a fool of you, but the sheer audacity of a hopeless cluck like you, of all people, bringing up 'credibility' presents me with an opportunity that simply cannot be resisted." Not great and kind of wordy, but at least it's grammatical.

The rest of your response, including my supposed "lies," has nothing to do with the points I raised about Vicki's credibility or lack thereof, or with the vastly more plausible thought experiment that Occam and I tend to favor.

I believe if you'll check with the local Safeway you'll find that angry juice is available in a 40-proof variety rather than the 100-proof stuff you seem to be imbibing. Just a suggestion.

What a shock.
Yet again, side-stepped the mass of evidence demonstrating how Occam's Razor would have carved up Lovelady's credibility.
Side-stepped your own desperate invention of testimony that never existed.
As I have already pointed out - "make an obvious point and you fall to pieces".

If my watch is correct it's almost time for you to run away  Thumb1:

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10