Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
31
pick a state Biden should have lost and explain to me the frame work for how it was executed?

I've explained it to you.  You reject the explanation for the 82 million vote outlier in US election but refuse to provide your own explanation.   Again, how do you account for Biden receiving 82 million votes in 2020?  Millions more votes than anyone before or since including Kamala.  If voters rejected Trump in 2020, why did he win in 2024 receiving basically the same vote total as 2020?  Where did all those tens of millions 2020 Biden voters go in 2024?  Let me guess.  It will just forever be a mystery like where COVID originated.  You are trying to have it both ways here.  Claiming the 2020 election was normal but refusing to account for the statistical outlier in terms of votes cast.   
32
I see your campaign to prove you have no credibility and should not even be posting in this forum continues. You're doing a great job.

I'm glad people like you don't find my writings credible, because if people like you ever found me credible, I would take it as a sign I was in cognitive decline.
Quote


So the fact that two witnesses independently said they saw the bullet hit the grass and create a visible mound is "much ado about nothing"? Well, I guess if you're trying to prove you have no business commenting on the JFK case, such mutually corroborating evidence must indeed be "much ado about nothing" -- at least in your mind.

I wouldn't believe anyone who said they saw a bullet hit the ground because bullets travel too fast to be seen by the naked eye. It had been raining in the DFW area that morning so the ground would have been wet, so there wouldn't have been "bullets kickin' dust-spots on the green". I also find it hard to believe the with the POTUS, whom the spectators had come out to see, coming down Elm St., that anyone would have been focused on a one little patch of ground where this bullet supposedly hit. This is the kind of critical thinking which people like you never seem willing to apply to the rumors they read about.
Quote

So the fact that two additional witnesses, Wayne and Edna Hartman, informed the FBI that they saw the ground mounded up and were told by policemen at the scene that a bullet had hit the ground there -- that's your idea of "much ado about nothing"? Well, again, if you're trying to show that your presence in this forum is a continual clown show, then it makes sense that you would dismiss this additional, FBI-recorded evidence as "much ado about nothing." I mean, what else are you going to do, since you're pathologically determined to deny any and all evidence that refutes your theory of the shooting?

There is no credible evidence that refutes my theory of the shooting, which in actuality is the fact of the shooting. The Hartman's did not see a bullet hit the ground nor did they see a bullet taken out of the ground at the spot. The believed what they were told. No one saw a bullet hit the ground and no one saw a bullet removed from the ground. There were people who HEARD that a bullet had hit the ground in that spot or that a bullet had been taken out of the ground, but no one seems to have actually seen a bullet. That makes these reports of a bullet striking the ground at that point nothing but rumors and rumors are not evidence. But you don't care. You prefer the rumors to the facts because the facts don't support your beliefs.
Quote

BTW, are you aware that Walthers' friend Al Maddox, at the time an agent for the Liquor Control Board, acknowledged that Walthers told him he found a bullet in the grass (Thomas, Hear No Evil, p. 418)? Let me just guess: Maddox was "lying" or "mistaken," right?!

OH!!! Walthers told him he found a bullet in the grass. Did Walthers show him the bullet he found in the grass? What did Walthers do with the bullet he found in the grass? Are we supposed to believe what Walthers told Maddox? Why should we?
Quote

Day was interviewed by reporters from the Dallas Times-Herald and the interview summary was published on 11/24/63. Let's read it, and notice that another Dallas policeman also estimated the distance from the sixth-floor window to the hole in the grass:

Dallas Police Lt. J. C. Day of the crime lab estimated the distance from the sixth-floor corner window the slayer used to the spot where one of the bullets was recovered at 100 yards. He added that it could be more. Another Dallas policeman estimated the distance at 125 yards.

Where in the article do you see any indication whatsoever that Day had any doubt about the bullet in the grass? Where do you see even a hint that Day only estimated the distance because he was told there was a bullet hole in the grass? Why did another policeman tell the reporters that the distance may have been 125 yards?

Surely if Day and the other police officer had had any doubt that a bullet had hit the grass near the manhole cover, they would have said so. At the very least, they surely would have qualified their estimates of the distance from the sixth-floor window to the bullet hole by noting that the bullet strike had not yet been confirmed.

Oh, goody. We have an estimate of how far it was from the sniper's nest to the spot in the ground where no bullet was found. The fact that Day made an estimate of the distance to the sniper's nest is hardly compelling evidence that a bullet was found at that location? 
Quote

I'm still waiting for you explain why journalist Richard Dudman would have reported, in a published news story, that a "police inspector told me they had just found another bullet in the grass." Explain how Dudman could have been "mistaken" about this. Give an example of the wording that the police inspector could have used that Dudman could have confused as a statement that a bullet had been found in the grass. 

Oh, goody. One more guy who was TOLD a bullet was found in the grass. If only there was someone who actually had the bullet that was found in the grass. That would be a story.
Quote

I'm still waiting for you explain what the man in the suit picked up and put in his pocket after he reached down to the hole in the grass. BTW, Hugh Betzner noticed this scene and described it as "police officers and some men in plain clothes . . . digging around in the dirt as if they were looking for a bullet" (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/138955293/wayne-eldridge-hartman). Gee, what a coincidence, hey?

I don't have to explain it. You are the one claiming a bullet was found there. The burden is on you to provide evidence of that. I have no idea what some unidentified person might have put in his pocket. I do know that rumors of an unidentified person putting something in his pocket is not evidence of a bullet having been found.
Quote

For those who want to see the photographic evidence of the suited man doing this, here's a brief video that shows the sequence of the man's actions:

FBI Agent Picks Up Bullet

The video notes that a 12/3/63 FBI memo documents that FBI agent Robert Barrett, believed by some researchers to be the suited man in the photos, submitted a bullet to the FBI lab. This could not be CE 399, because  Barrett never handled CE 399 and is not listed in any CE 399 chain-of-custody document.

Oh, some people believe the unidentified man who put an unidentified object in his pocket might have been FBI agent Robert Barrett. You're really closing in on it, Columbo.
Quote

Here is a good segment on the evidence regarding the bullet that hit the grass by Vincent Palamara. It includes an interview with Edna Hartman where she describes seeing the bullet hole.

Bullet holes in limousine and extra bullets in Dealey Plaza 11/22/63 PART 1 OF 3 (3:53 to 7:08)

Did you happen to notice at the 1:58 mark the limo was surrounded by uniformed officers which means they weren't letting anyone near the limo. It's not surprising that someone looking at the crack in the windshield might assume they were looking at a bullet hole, but as the Secret Service determined on CLOSE EXAMINATION, the windshield was cracked from the inside and the outer surface of the windshield was intact. Also, earlier you had claimed a cop put a pencil through the hole in the windshield. According to the video, the cop SAID, "You could put a pencil through the hole". He did not say he had put a pencil through the hole. Just another example of you fudging facts to support your claim.
Quote

But, of course, you're never going to admit that a bullet hit the grass,

Not without evidence of that.
Quote

much less that it was recovered,

Not without evidence of that.
Quote


because you can't do so without repudiating the lone-gunman theory. This is why you can't offer a rational explanation for the Tague wounding. This is why you must duck and dodge and strain and blunder in trying to explain Dr. James Young's corroborated account of seeing a misshapen bullet at the autopsy. These are do-or-die issues for you. If just one of these credible and corroborated accounts is valid, your theory of the shooting collapses.

I find it strange that you think it implausible that one of Oswald's shot could have caused the Tague wounding but you have no problem believing one of your phantom shooters could have caused the same wounding. Where's your explanation for how that happened. For that matter, just how bad were your phantom shooters firing from all over Dealey Plaza. A few weeks ago you scoffed at the idea that Oswald could have missed the limo with one of his shots. Yet your shooters all seem to have gotten Maggie's Drawers for their efforts. The medical evidence indicates all the shots that hit JFK and JBC were fired from above an behind them. Your GK shooter completely whiffed with his shot. A few weeks ago, you suggested a shooter from the Dal-Tex building had fired over the windshield and that stray shot was the one that struck the curb near Tague. All one has to do is look at Altgens 6 and see how bad a miss that would have to be to completely miss the limo, even if the shooter was as low as the second floor. As for your frontal shot through the windshield, I don't recall you telling us where that shooter might have fired from. I'm sure that explanation would be quite amusing, which is probably why you haven't given us that yet.

In any case, it's quite puzzling how such a sophisticated and massive conspiracy, capable of completely controlling the investigation, couldn't find any competent shooters to get the job done. The only guy who hit what he was aiming at that day was Oswald.
33
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Bell Film Gifs
« Last post by Mark A. Oblazney on Yesterday at 04:45:35 PM »
Bronson shows McIntyre looking at Hickey az Hickey fires.
And Bronson shows McIntyre looking at jfk after Hickey fires.
So, McIntyre did not see jfk's head blown off.

of course !!  how could me have missed this ?

see?  still a-learnin’ sumthin’ every day about this cold case !
34
TDS is not even an insult anymore
This administration regime is a complete disaster on so many levels
35
Does your TDS programming preclude using common sense?  You can't understand the significance of someone receiving tens of millions more votes than anyone else in history?   Just nothing to see there?  If you don't accept fraud or ballot harvesting, then there must be some other explanation for the outlier.  So spin us a yarn.  Explain why Biden received 82 million votes when no one before or since received nearly that many votes.  Was it his charisma?  If he and Kamala were so popular that they received that many votes in 2020, why were they beat by Trump in 2024 by the same voters who "rejected" him?  LOL.  Why not just admit the obvious?  COVID was used as a pretext to change the election laws in a way that decided the election for Biden.  When most of those laws were revoked, Trump won (as he did in 2016 and would have done in 2020 under ordinary circumstances).  Biden won ONLY because of the COVID-related changes.

pick a state Biden should have lost and explain to me the frame work for how it was executed?
36
Quote from: Tim Nickerson on September 10, 2026, 02:15:06 AM
The memo is about the fragments removed from Connally. I posted it as an example of an FBI agent referring to bullet fragments as a bullet. If you were familiar with the subject, you wouldn't have ended up with your foot in your mouth.


That memo is clearly bullet and fragments. A bullet mentioned several times

I see exactly what it says. Call it stupidity all day long. He is referring to the bullet and what he was told about fragments.

How can you think a memo with the name OP Wright and the word bullet is referring to fragments as the same? I'm not aware of him finding - being given - or having anything to do - with any fragment from JBC or JFK. He only found a bullet.

You are of course undeniably correct. Wright played no role in handling the Connally wrist fragments, but he did play a role in the handling of the bullet that eventually became CE 399. The main subject of the memo is clearly the bullet that was removed from Connally, and the information about what Wright was told about the wrist fragments is an aside and is unrelated to the bullet.

But you'll never get Nickerson or Corbett to admit this fact. You've dealt with Corbett enough to know what he's all about.

Let me tell you a little about Nickerson: In my thread on why the back-of-head bullet fragments destroy the lone-gunman theory, he made the astonishing and hilarious claim that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment are the same object, even though both objects can be plainly seen on the AP x-ray, even though they have different dimensions and shapes, and even though they are located at opposite ends of the skull. At first I thought he had misspoken, but he soon made it clear that he was actually making this argument. When I pointed out that both objects are clearly visible on the AP x-ray, that they are located at opposite ends of the skull, and that they look nothing like each other, he still refused to admit his blunder. Why? Because he knows that the 6.5 mm object is fatal to the lone-gunman theory.

So if he will not admit such an undeniable, bald-faced blunder as that, he's not about to admit that the Loeffler memo is clearly mainly talking about CE 399 and that the wrist fragments are an aside.

Objective readers will see that the likes of Nickerson and Corbett have nothing but strained, unreasonable, and disingenuous explanations for Dr. Young's straightforward, corroborated account. You couldn't ask for a more credible and powerful witness, not to mention a more decidedly hostile witness.

Since Dr. Young was such an ardent believer in the lone-gunman theory, WC apologists here don't dare accuse him of lying, so they must resort to the comical argument that it was either all a giant "misunderstanding" or an amazing hallucination.

Lame Explanation 1: Even though Dr. Young made it clear in his 11/23/63 notes that he saw the bullet, and even though he said that Chief Mills confirmed to him the finding of the bullet in the limo, and even though Chief Mills tacitly but clearly confirmed this, well, you know, gosh, this was all just a "misunderstanding" and Dr. Young really only just assumed the envelope contained a bullet.

Lame Explanation 2: Dr. Young, looked at two small metal fragments that made up a tiny fraction of a bullet's mass and somehow, someway experienced a hallucination and saw instead a brass-colored misshapen bullet with a bent tip! Or, Dr. Young was so exhausted on 11/23/63 from having been up most of the night at the autopsy and then the embalming that he somehow merely dreamed that he saw a bullet when in reality he had not seen it but had merely assumed the envelope contained a bullet, even though he described the bullet in the notes he wrote that day.

And Dr. Young was so thoroughly convinced from this giant misunderstanding or stunning delusion that when he learned that the Warren Report had not discussed the bullet, (1) he wrote to former President Gerald Ford to ask if he had any info about the bullet; (2) he asked Arlen Specter about the bullet and even sent Specter a copy of his 11/23/63 notes; (3) he phoned Chief Mills to ensure that his recollection about the bullet was accurate; and (4) he repeated this huge misunderstanding or amazing delusion in his third 2001 oral history interview and even read from his 11/23/63 notes during the interview! Even more amazingly, Chief Mills must have experienced the same incredible misunderstanding or hallucination because he clearly tacitly confirmed to Navy historian Jan Herman that he and Chief Martinell found a bullet in the limo. 

Here's the problem: For WC apologists this is a do-or-die issue. They cannot admit that Dr. Young  saw a bullet that was found in the limo during the autopsy because such an admission destroys the lone-gunman theory. Regardless of how credible Dr. Young was, regardless of the fact that he wrote his first account less than 24 hours after the autopsy, and regardless of the fact that Chief Mills corroborated his account, WC apologists aren't going to accept his account unless they're willing to abandon the lone-gunman theory.
 
37
It doesn't mean votes were created or there was systemic fraud from any ballot harvesting. Trump was rejected in 2020.
40 million? - 80 million?  Biden, so what? - you understand we have an Electoral College right?

https://www.cfr.org/articles/2020-election-numbers

Does your TDS programming preclude using common sense?  You can't understand the significance of someone receiving tens of millions more votes than anyone else in history?   Just nothing to see there?  If you don't accept fraud or ballot harvesting, then there must be some other explanation for the outlier.  So spin us a yarn.  Explain why Biden received 82 million votes when no one before or since received nearly that many votes.  Was it his charisma?  If he and Kamala were so popular that they received that many votes in 2020, why were they beat by Trump in 2024 by the same voters who "rejected" him?  LOL.  Why not just admit the obvious?  COVID was used as a pretext to change the election laws in a way that decided the election for Biden.  When most of those laws were revoked, Trump won (as he did in 2016 and would have done in 2020 under ordinary circumstances).  Biden won ONLY because of the COVID-related changes.
38
Yes, Gov JBC and his surgeon, Dr. Shaw, both said they believed JBC had been hit by a separate shot from the one that struck JFK.

How on earth JBC received an entry wound on the dorsal side on his wrist, after the slug had first traveled through JBC's chest, is another inexplicable mystery of the JFKA. And the slug then made a neat small round hole in JBC's left pant leg and burrowed into his thigh. But the bullet is found later outside the trauma surgery room. Maybe.

The JFKA LNT remains implausible, which is why the second official investigation, HSCA-1979, concluded there likely had been a shot at the GK and a JFKAC.

Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.

39
Quote
2016 Presidential Election: A total of 136,669,276 votes were cast for all candidates, with Donald Trump receiving 62.9 million and Hillary Clinton receiving 65.8 million.

2020 Presidential Election: A historic 159,633,396 total votes were cast across all candidates, which remains the largest numerical voter turnout in U.S. history.

The 2020 election saw an increase of nearly 23 million additional votes compared to 2016, driven by unprecedented voter mobilization and expanded early and mail-in voting options during the COVID-19 pandemic. (nothing sinister about it)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2020 Presidential Election: A record-breaking 159,633,396 total votes were cast for all candidates, resulting in a voter turnout rate of roughly 66.7%.

2024 Presidential Election: The final certified tallies dropped slightly to 156,302,318 total votes cast across all candidates, yielding a turnout rate of approximately 63.3%.

The drop in the 2024 vote total was primarily driven by a multi-million vote decline in Democratic turnout, as Vice President Kamala Harris received about 6.3 million fewer votes than Joe Biden did in 2020—offsetting a roughly 3-million vote gain by Donald Trump over his 2020 performance.

It doesn't mean votes were created or there was systemic fraud from any ballot harvesting. Trump was rejected in 2020.
40 million? - 80 million?  Biden, so what? - you understand we have an Electoral College right?

https://www.cfr.org/articles/2020-election-numbers

40
What is more concerning is Trump's continued and dangerous delusion or con that won the 2020 election.
 :) Did you like Social Studies in school? Did you pay attention?
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10