Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
31
Yes one can pick and choose which ones they like which is what most conspiracy theories are based on. I choose to let the forensic evidence tell me which ones to like. It gives me a much clearer picture of what happened.


There is nothing forensic or even valid in cherry-picking witness statements to a pretext while ignoring corroborated conflicts.


If this were a game of Clue, the winning answer would be Oswald did it with the Carcano from the TSBD.

broken evidence short of proof.
32
How did you become a Libertarian?

Common sense.
33
...and you can pick and choose the ones you like.
 Thumb1: that's what you do.

Yes one can pick and choose which ones they like which is what most conspiracy theories are based on. I choose to let the forensic evidence tell me which ones to like. It gives me a much clearer picture of what happened.

If this were a game of Clue, the winning answer would be Oswald did it with the Carcano from the TSBD.
34
The HSCA saw the file and they realized that Nagell was mentally unstable.

I don't know why people are interested in Nagell. There is nothing there, at all. Even the East
Germans realized he was insane.

All of this is on my blog. I have debunked just about everything Russell wrote about Nagell.

And I have a whole chapter on Nagell in my book, A Heritage of Nonsense.

And you can read the entire STASI file on Nagell on my blog.

fred
35
If I remember correctly, Groden once said that some woman stole all his material. I think her name was Diane or something. Did Groden ever mention this to you as I'm surprised he still has so much stuff if someone once stole all of his material.

It was one of Groden's ex-wives that stole some things. It's hard to tell exactly what she took, but she did take some stuff. It would be nearly impossible to take everything he has. Groden has 4 storage units and a house full of stuff. At one point he owned the house next door to him and used it exclusively for storage, but had to sell the house when he became short on money and had to move everything into his house he lives in.

For example, he has about 4 or 5 big tote boxes of photos he took on the set of "JFK" in 1991. He probably has around 5,000 photos just from the JFK movie.
36
"Who is John Galt?"
I had never heard of him so I googled him. I come to find out he is a character in Atlas Shrugged and the question "Who is John Galt?" was repeated several times during the last part of then novel. That is the extent of my knowledge about John Galt.

How did you become a Libertarian?
37

If every witness is accurate in their recollections of how the shooting happened, then it happened a dozen or more different ways

...and you can pick and choose the ones you like.
 Thumb1: that's what you do.
38
All pretext by you. Disputed and corroborated as false by Phil Willis, Hugh Betzner, Sam Holland and Rosemary Willis.

Who appointed those people as arbiters of truth?

If every witness is accurate in their recollections of how the shooting happened, then it happened a dozen or more different ways. For everything any witness has said, you can find another witness who disputes that. That's why I rely on forensic evidence to tell me what happened. It tells us which witnesses got which parts right.
39
Maybe you should put your jammies on, have your cookie and your glass of milk, and go beddy-bye now, Corbett, so you can dream of John Galt, again.

"Who is John Galt?"
I had never heard of him so I googled him. I come to find out he is a character in Atlas Shrugged and the question "Who is John Galt?" was repeated several times during the last part of then novel. That is the extent of my knowledge about John Galt.
40
I've said UNCORROBORATED witnesses can't be relied upon.
JBC said he turned when he heard the shot. I can see when he turned It was Z164.
JBC disputed the SBT because he had been led to believe JFK was hit by the first shot and he KNEW he had been hit by the second shot. When asked if the single bullet could have occurred on the second shot, he said that's possible.A whole lot of "so-and-say said" arguments with nothing to support that so-and-so accurately remembered exactly what happened when.

How do you know when Rosemary Willis stopped and why? She ran ahead of the limo - how do you know she
wasn't looking back for the car. Her father told Shaw Trial he called her name - How do you know she didn't turn for that ?
She stopped for a shot. - When was the shot? You don't know. Witnesses are often wrong (but only when you want).


I can see when Rosemary Willis stopped. She started to slow down in the late Z160s. It took her about 3 steps to come to a complete stop and as soon as she did, she turned back toward the TSBD. Once again the Z-film shows it is the best witness available to us.
I've never claimed to have proof positive of when the first shot was fired. I have argued the best evidence is it was fired in the 147-148 time frame based on the camera jiggle at Z155. Others may disagree which is fine. Nobody else has definitive proof of when the first shot was fired either. It is all based on how we weigh the clues the Z-film provides us. I can say for fact that there was no shot at Z204 because I know Oswald fired all three shots and he couldn't have fired a shot at Z204 and another at Z219-200. In addition, the tree would have still blocked Oswald's view of JFK at Z204 making it unlikely Oswald would fire a shot then when his target was about to come into the clear in less than half a second.

All pretext by you. Disputed and corroborated as false by Phil Willis, Hugh Betzner, Sam Holland and Rosemary Willis.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10