Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
61
Ben, as you know I've previously expressed my respect for Russo's work and believe his Cuba angle is the most likely of all conspiracy theories. It's really little more than Lone Nut Plus. He makes a good case that the Kennedys' imminent plans for Cuba were pretty widely known in both the pro- and anti-Castro communities in New Orleans and elsewhere. This could have ratcheted up Oswald's hatred for the Kennedys and given him a more plausible motive than he otherwise might seem to have had even if there was nothing resembling a conspiracy. Or it's possible that something resembling a conspiracy was hatched in Mexico City, even if only in the form of "wink wink nudge nudge" encouragement or promises of assistance if Oswald pulled it off. I don't find any of this implausible at all, and as I say it may provide a stronger motive for Oswald than what the bare LN narrative provides. What I do find implausible is that anyone - the Cubans, the Soviets or the Mafia - would have failed to recognize that Oswald was an erratic and unreliable character and would actually have brought him into a formal conspiracy and entrusted him with a mission like killing JFK.
62
Physical laws apply all over the cosmos. Nothing can be done that is physically impossible. Just because someone can't explain what they saw doesn't mean there isn't an explanation. It means the explanation isn't known.
I'm not sure of the point being made here. As a matter of fact, we do not know that "physical laws apply all over the cosmos." This is an assumption of science, without which science would be virtually impossible. So-called "laws" are actually subjective models that are sufficiently accurate to make science possible. One oft-cited example is that the laws of physics as we understand them simply do not operate ("break down") inside a black hole.

When I say UFOs have been observed and recorded doing "physically impossible" things, implied in this statement is something like "assuming our present understanding of the nature of reality is at least in the ballpark of being correct." If it isn't, then all bets are off - what seems physically impossible to us may be entirely possible in the context of a reality that is far different from what we now understand reality to be. One possibility that physicists no longer regard as implausible is that we actually occupy a virtual (i.e., simulated) reality or a consciousness-based reality rather than one that is fundamentally material.

The more highly regarded UFO theories include interactions with other dimensions or universes, time travel (wild as that may sound), or manipulation of our reality from a higher reality (be it a deity, a cosmic software programmer, or whatever). Any of these scenarios could produce phenomena that appear to us to be physically impossible - but only because our understanding of reality is actually far off-base.

UFOs have been observed and recorded exhibiting instantaneous acceleration, instantaneous disappearance and reappearance and numerous other "physically impossible" characteristics. Psychic effects have been repeatedly reported. Credible witnesses have reported UFOs that were vastly larger on the inside than they appeared from the outside.

A little novel from 1884 called Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions has always fascinated me. The premise is that a world of two-dimensional circles, squares and triangles is interacting with a world of three-dimensional spheres and boxes and whatnot. When you think about it, what the denizens of a two-dimensional world would experience if a three-dimensional sphere were interacting with their world is almost exactly what UFO witnesses actually report.

I'm not claiming to have any answers. I'm merely claiming to have a sufficient base of knowledge about the UFO phenomenon to know it defies simplistic or mundane explanations (and is way more mysterious and interesting than the JFKA). In fact, I regard even the ET hypothesis and Royell's "ultraterrestrial" hypothesis (as it's known) as among those that are too simplistic to explain the phenomenon. One ET hypothesis I regard as at least a mild possibility is that the phenomenon as we experience it is not the real phenomenon at all but rather a staged phenomenon generated by perhaps a single highly advanced ET source for purposes known only to it - more or less Jacques Vallee's control system idea.
65
To do the   shooting in front of the cameras, Ruby must have really been upset.

Why did Ruby go  before cameras and say it’s people in high places and we will never know the truth?


He was facing a capital murder charge and might say just about anything to escape the electric chair.
Quote

He changed it  later to the “He was just angry” story.  So if his original statement was a ploy to gain some plea bargain leverage, he sure screwed himself it seems.

UNLESS… Ruby was promised a deal in exchange for changing his statement , after which they killed him in prison with an injection and created false documents that he had cancer and died of pneumonia.

I hate being suspicious but somebody has to keep up the CT side of the spectrum on this forum since most of them are over at that other forum.

Even if he had not succumbed to cancer, it is highly unlikely Ruby would have actually been executed. I don't even think Oswald would have been executed had Ruby not killed him. That's why I'm glad Ruby did what he did even though I can't justify it legally or morally. Oswald got what he deserved and wouldn't have if Ruby hadn't killed him.
66
Not that I care, but we have two responses that reflect an almost complete lack of familiarity with the history and scope of the UFO phenomenon. Anyone familiar with the, say, 1000 best UFO cases - multiple trained and credible witnesses, radar confirmation, physical effects and traces - could not possibly make the dismissive comments we see here.

I won't beat my own peewee encounter to death since I've previously described it, but:

1. I was in the company of a diehard skeptic who was a good friend but thought all varieties of woo-woo were nonsense - and he just about wet his knickers.
2. The encounter was during daylight hours.
3. The UFO was no more than 75 or so yards away and fully visible for 30-40 seconds.
4. Without a word to each other, we both instantly recognized that this was something weird and troubling.
5. There were commonly reported "psychic aftereffects" that confirmed for me that this was no mundane encounter.

I could easily jump on the "ET" bandwagon, but I don't believe this is what it was. The ET explanation doesn't mesh with all the facts of those 1000 best cases (and mine) any better than "optical illusion" or "sooper-dooper miltary technology." The 1000 best cases include UFOs doing unbelievable and even physically impossible things when sooper-dooper military technology still had propellers.

Physical laws apply all over the cosmos. Nothing can be done that is physically impossible. Just because someone can't explain what they saw doesn't mean there isn't an explanation. It means the explanation isn't known.
67
Not that I care, but we have two responses that reflect an almost complete lack of familiarity with the history and scope of the UFO phenomenon. Anyone familiar with the, say, 1000 best UFO cases - multiple trained and credible witnesses, radar confirmation, physical effects and traces - could not possibly make the dismissive comments we see here.

I won't beat my own peewee encounter to death since I've previously described it, but:

1. I was in the company of a diehard skeptic who was a good friend but thought all varieties of woo-woo were nonsense - and he just about wet his knickers.
2. The encounter was during daylight hours.
3. The UFO was no more than 75 or so yards away and fully visible for 30-40 seconds.
4. Without a word to each other, we both instantly recognized that this was something weird and troubling.
5. There were commonly reported "psychic aftereffects" that confirmed for me that this was no mundane encounter.

I could easily jump on the "ET" bandwagon, but I don't believe this is what it was. The ET explanation doesn't mesh with all the facts of those 1000 best cases (and mine) any better than "optical illusion" or "sooper-dooper miltary technology." The 1000 best cases include UFOs doing unbelievable and even physically impossible things when sooper-dooper military technology still had propellers.
68
No such things as Aliens....except illegal. "UFO's" are nothing more than the military testing new craft.
69
• These two morphs that I put together show smooth rotation because they both came from impossible to fake stereoscopic pairs. The first GIF shows Kennedy's left brain hemisphere to be intact and the flap over the right temple as seen in Zapruder. And the second GIF shows the back of Kennedy's head to be intact with a solitary bullet entrance hole where the hair is parted, next to the top of the ruler. Sorry bout that CT's!





JohnM


Dr. Boswell said skull was missing down to the base of the ear, and if the scalp wasn't pulled up over it was open. Also, according to him that's not a bullet hole, but a laceration to the scalp. The entry was lower. So, the photo is 100% legit and would match Z-335 if the scalp was let go.


70
I have a .30-06 and it has quite the recoil. After a range session with that, my right shoulder feels it for a day or so. I'm guessing the 7.35mm has a similar recoil. Does it have the same cartridge size as the 6.5mm Carcano.
7.35 Carcano uses the same case as the 6.5 round, just necked up to hold the larger, pointier bullet. Recoil is relatively light compared to .30-06 (or 7.65 Mauser, for a more subject-specific comparison).
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10