Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10
71
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: U.S. And International Politics
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 08:40:38 PM »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/skydivers-plane-crashed-didnt-time-170100089.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall

Who knew the most dangerous part of skydiving isn't jumping out of the plane. It's going up in the plane.

I wouldn't jump out of a perfectly good airplane for all of Elon Musk's money.

It would have to be going down in flames and even then I'd probably need a push.

The fall isn't what kills you. It's that sudden stop.
72
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Dr. E. Forrest Chapman
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 08:31:58 PM »
Quote from: Charles Collins on Yesterday at 07:50:09 PM
Jack! Jack! Jack! this is what I wrote:

“Based on what I can see in this video, I think that there is reason to believe that the slight indentations on the other empty cartridges besides CE 543 might have also been caused by an impact with the rear bridge.”

That is simply an off the top of my head idea; it is a far cry from “claiming” it.

How about you show us the 30 different marks that you claim are all in the same exact place?

Jack can't make an honest argument. His SOP is to lie about what people have said to make his point. IOW, he's an internet troll.
73
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Vanishing Low Fragment Trail: An Unsolvable Problem for WC Apologists
« Last post by Lance Payette on Yesterday at 08:19:45 PM »
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 07:23:02 PM
It is really rather sleazy for you to question Dr. Mantik's integrity.

I am sleazy to the core, but you'll have to show me and the audience where I questioned Mantik's integrity. I know nothing about him except that shoplifting incident at Walmart and the animal abuse allegations.  :D :D :D

Quote
What does any of this have to do with the subject of the thread: the fact that the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report does not appear on the extant autopsy skull x-rays?

It has nothing to do with it. Enquiring minds simply wonder why you ignored Mark's request if Mantik is now neck-deep in 9/11 studies.

Quote
I think you're being dishonest. I have never questioned Pat Speer's integrity or sincerity, and I have praised and cited some of his research on other issues.

Ah, the references to "college dropout Pat Speer" and his "blundering, amateurish and erroneous" attacks on Mantik were mere slips of the keyboard. Well, it happens.

Do you actually have a little home shrine to Mantik, replete with votive candles and whatnot? The cast of characters with whom Mantik has been associated does not exactly inspire confidence. Pat Speer's massive critique is still up, includes pretty recent references, and seems devastating to me ("Mantik's numerous and repeated mistakes form a pattern--a pattern in which he misrepresents evidence to support a dubious theory and then misrepresents more evidence to defend his theory against heretics like myself"). But others can judge for themselves: https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-19d-stuck-in-the-middle-with-you

Quote
I think it is rather dishonest for you to pretend that you agree with anything approaching a substantive portion of Pat Speer's research.

I am relentlessly dishonest in addition to being sleazy, but I pretend nothing. I respect all of Pat's efforts. I haven't done a quantitative analysis as to the percentage I agree with, but it's all worth a look.

Quote
Now, if you are truly "inclined" to agree with Speer's placement of the rear head entry wound, then you need to explain how in the world the bullet that made that wound could have come from the sixth-floor window. The only theory that Larry Sturdivan has offered to explain this problem is that after the bullet entered the skull it magically veered sharply upward and to the right, yet not a single bullet in the WC's wound ballistics tests performed such an impossible feat. That's just as bad as the WC experts' assumption that JFK's head was tilted nearly 60 degrees forward when the bullet struck.

I mean, it would be nice if you would finally take a stab at trying to explain the vanishing fragment trail, especially since you say you lean toward the EOP site.

I don't "need" to explain anything. When the autopsy doctors, WC and HSCA couldn't agree within 4" about the wound entry, and the Harper fragment has been fitted just about everywhere but JFK's crotch, and characters like Mantik see things that no one else sees, I merely watch in wonderment as the debate unfolds. I was quite impressed by Sturdivan's book, but your use of terms such as "magically" and "impossible" tells us you are simply a crank.
74
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Applying Logic and Critical Thinking to the JFK Assassination
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 08:09:00 PM »
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 07:31:10 PM
It would make perfect sense for Oswald's handlers to have involved him in a staged shooting of Walker so that this could later be used to help implicate him in JFK's death.

Oh, goody. I haven't heard about Oswald's handlers in years. They are an invention by some CTs to explain why Oswald did so many things that made him look guilty. His handlers made him do it.
It reminds me of Flip Wilson's Geraldine character. "The devil made me do it.".
Quote

I don't understand the logic that we should expect that Oswald would have been immediately arrested for trying to shoot Walker if he were involved in a staged Walker shooting. This would have raised the obvious question: Why would someone who wanted to kill the rabidly anti-Kennedy Walker then turn around and kill Kennedy when Kennedy had publicly disgraced Walker and had relieved Walker of command? I just don't understand that logic.

You make the mistake of assuming Oswald was on one side or the other. The fact is he was a Marxist who was far to the left of both men. JFK was not a leftist like his brother Teddy became. He was the most conservative of all the candidates running for the Democrats running for POTUS in 1960. Both Eleanor Roosevelt and Harry Truman were opposed to him being the nominee. He was staunchly anti-Communist and a friend and ally of Nixon in their early days in Congress. He donated $1000 to Nixon's Senate campaign against leftist Helen Douglas. The Kennedys were close allies of Joe McCarthy who dated one of the Kennedy sisters and was godfather to RFK's first born.
Quote


Plus, if Oswald had been arrested for trying to shoot Walker, he may have ended up in jail and would have been unavailable to supposedly shoot JFK.

How would anyone know in March of 1963 that Oswald would be handed a golden opportunity to kill JFK the following November?
Quote

I see some folks have howled at my argument that the gunman purposely missed Walker. The same guy who supposedly went 2/2 in 5.6 seconds from 60 feet up should have had no problem whatsoever missing the window pane/frame and at least hitting Walker somewhere on his torso when firing from no more than 147 feet and having plenty of time to carefully take aim.

I should copy this down so I wouldn't have to type it up again. Oswald fired at Walker from very close range. The fixed iron sights were zeroed for 200 meters and were not adjustable. The scope was adjustable but I doubt it could have been adjusted down to the range Oswald fired at. No matter which sights Oswald chose, it would have aimed high. Instead of firing through the open window, the shot hit the very bottom of the sash and barely missed Walker.
75
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Dr. E. Forrest Chapman
« Last post by Charles Collins on Yesterday at 07:50:09 PM »
Quote from: Jack Nessan on Yesterday at 05:31:43 PM
Quote from: Charles Collins on June 11, 2026, 03:58:42 PM

“Agreed, also there were other firearms experts that verified the FBI’s conclusions, etc. As far as I know, none of them indicated anything either.”
 

J Corbett: 

“It doesn't matter to the amateurish CT sleuths. They know their opinion based on low resolution 6th generation copies of photographs of the shells trumps those of real experts in their field.”

 
You mean like the chamber mark on the side of the shells that the FBI noted in their report to Rankin, but Charles claimed came from the rear receiver of the rifle and not the chamber of the rifle. I have never seen where the real experts other than the FBI identifies the indentations as a chamber mark. Josiah observed the chamber mark on even CE 141 and confirmed what the FBI analysis stated. The “real” experts had not a clue. Any breakthrough on providing evidence of an early missed shot? JBC is definitely not proof.

Jack! Jack! Jack! this is what I wrote:

“Based on what I can see in this video, I think that there is reason to believe that the slight indentations on the other empty cartridges besides CE 543 might have also been caused by an impact with the rear bridge.”

That is simply an off the top of my head idea; it is a far cry from “claiming” it.

How about you show us the 30 different marks that you claim are all in the same exact place?
76
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Dr. E. Forrest Chapman
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 07:49:47 PM »
Quote from: Jack Nessan on Yesterday at 02:41:01 PM
“The way you determine that is to compare their statements with other evidence.”

Why don’t we do just that. JBC is your prime and only witness but does not support a single thing that is proposed. Not one. JBC believes the first shot hit JFK and the second shot hit him.

What a ridiculous comment. JBC had no way of knowing of knowing whether the first shot hit JFK. That's something he was led to believe and why he rejected the SBT. He knew he had been hit by the SECOND shot. That fact alone eliminates your two shot scenario.
Quote

Governor CONNALLY. Yes, I do; I do have doubt, Congressman. I am not at all sure he was shooting at me. I think I could with some logic argue either way. The logic in favor of him, of the position that he was shooting at me, is simply borne out by the fact that the man fired three shots, and he hit each of the three times he fired. He obviously was a pretty good marksman, so you have to assume to some extent at least that he was hitting what he was shooting at.
On the other hand, I think I could argue with equal logic that obviously his prime target, and I think really his sole target, was President Kennedy. His first shot, at least to him, he could not have but known the effect that it might have on the President. His second shot showed that he had clearly missed the President, and his result to him, as the result of the first shot, the President slumped and changed his position in the back seat just enough to expose my back. I haven't seen all of the various positions, but again I think from where he was shooting I was in the direct line of fire immediately in front of the President, so any movement on the part of the President would expose me.

 

Mr. SPECTER. And when do you think you were hit on those slides, Governor, or in what range of slides?
Governor CONNALLY. We took--you are talking about the number of the slides?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
Governor CONNALLY. As we looked at them this morning, and as you related the numbers to me, it appeared to me that I was hit in the range between 130 or 131, I don't remember precisely, up to 134, in that bracket.
Mr. SPECTER. May I suggest to you that it was 231?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, 231 and 234, then.

Where is the corroboration to an early missed shot?

It's not in that cherry picked quote. You completely ignore his testimony that the first shot did not strike him. Whether the first shot struck JFK or not, that makes your two shot scenario impossible. The only way you can make a two shot scenario work is if you believe JBC just imagined hearing the first shot.
Quote


 ------------------

What evidence? There are only you and your opinion. People were shoulder to shoulder along Elm street and not one person heard an early missed shot. The eyewitnesses all state JFK reacted to the first shot.  You think he continued to smile and wave

It is not a debate, it is undeniable. Nothing anywhere indicates there was an early missed shot.

The only thing that is undeniable is that you lie shamelessly. A lot. You lie when you claim there were no 3 shot witnesses. Jarman, Norman, ad Willaims who were one floor below Oswald testified UNDER OATH, that they heard three shots. Glen Bennett's report said the following:

"At this point I heard what sounded like a firecracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head."

That's one shot that he heard, and TWO MORE that he SAW hit JFK. That's three shots, with the first being a missed shot.

Quote
----------------------------------

“the CORROBORATED statements of JBC  and Glen Bennett.”

Bennett is a two shot witness. He referenced just two shots. Get over it.

You are nothing but a lying troll. I just posted his report which described three shots.
Quote

JBC’s part of this theory is nothing but you talking out of both sides of your mouth. JBC is being presented as both right and wrong with his same statement.  On one hand, to you anyway, JBC is right when he states he heard a shot, that in his mind hit JFK but not him, and then he was wrong when he states he was struck by a separate bullet than the one that hit JFK, the one JBC never heard. 

Then, according to this oddball early missed shot theory, an early missed shot is then followed by one bullet that hit both JFK and JBC. In this bizarre theory, JBC’s earlier statement is completely ignored. What did he know, he was wounded is that it? How is that in any way following anything but unsubstantiated personal beliefs?

Keep lying about the evidence. It's all you know how to do.
77
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Applying Logic and Critical Thinking to the JFK Assassination
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 07:31:10 PM »
Quote from: Greg Doudna on Yesterday at 06:46:34 PM
Lance, I believe I addressed the question you raise in my chapter 16 summary. Yes, I agree that it would make no sense from a Walker staged shot point of view, for Oswald to have been involved, unless there was anticipation or intent for Oswald himself, as the “Communist”, to be immediately publicly implicated and/or arrested for it. If that were not the expectation or anticipation, then i agree it doesn’t make sense. However the facts are Oswald was both involved and that did not happen, which calls for explanation.

So I am not actually disagreeing with your reasoning, only the unwarranted conclusion you draw (apparently, that the facts therefore aren’t true to begin with). The problem I attempted to address was why the expected, anticipated arrest and/implication of Oswald immediately in that shot did not happen. That is the puzzle that calls for explanation.

It would make perfect sense for Oswald's handlers to have involved him in a staged shooting of Walker so that this could later be used to help implicate him in JFK's death.

I don't understand the logic that we should expect that Oswald would have been immediately arrested for trying to shoot Walker if he were involved in a staged Walker shooting. This would have raised the obvious question: Why would someone who wanted to kill the rabidly anti-Kennedy Walker then turn around and kill Kennedy when Kennedy had publicly disgraced Walker and had relieved Walker of command? I just don't understand that logic.

Plus, if Oswald had been arrested for trying to shoot Walker, he may have ended up in jail and would have been unavailable to supposedly shoot JFK.

I see some folks have howled at my argument that the gunman purposely missed Walker. The same guy who supposedly went 2/2 in 5.6 seconds from 60 feet up should have had no problem whatsoever missing the window pane/frame and at least hitting Walker somewhere on his torso when firing from no more than 147 feet and having plenty of time to carefully take aim.
78
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: What five anomalies have complicated the investigation over the years?
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 07:27:51 PM »
Quote from: Royell Storing on Yesterday at 04:46:38 PM
    Tying yourself to the mast Never ends well.

I guess when you can't refute what I wrote, you resort to nonsense like this.
79
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Vanishing Low Fragment Trail: An Unsolvable Problem for WC Apologists
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 07:23:02 PM »
Quote from: Lance Payette on Yesterday at 05:33:40 PM
Super! Your statement about Mantik knowing nothing about 9/11 was made on June 2, 2023, and you said you had just conferred with him.

Yes, like many people, he had no interest in examining 9/11 Truther claims at the time, although he did publicly break with Fetzer when Fetzer embraced the nuttiest of the nutty 9/11 Truther claims years earlier. I myself did not spend much time looking into those claims until just a few years ago. I wasn't even aware of some of them until several years after they surfaced.

It is really rather sleazy for you to question Dr. Mantik's integrity. Anyone who knows him will tell you the man is honest to the point of fault. Even the rabid anti-medical-film-evidence-alteration Pat Speer felt compelled to retract his attack on Dr. Mantik's integrity.

Quote from: Lance Payette on Yesterday at 05:33:40 PM
He has now dived into the issue with both feet and is prepared to speak authoritatively on the subject, although I can find no reference to him ever having said anything about 9/11. So why did you ignore Mark Ulrik's polite requests to share Mantik's supposed research that you referenced ... hmmmm?  ::)

Umm, just a few days ago I posted some of Dr. Mantik's recent comments about how DNA evidence refutes 9/11 Truther claims. Sheesh. . . .

What does any of this have to do with the subject of the thread: the fact that the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report does not appear on the extant autopsy skull x-rays?

Quote from: Lance Payette on Yesterday at 05:33:40 PM
I have a feeling your ad hominem attacks on a CT researcher of the quality of Pat Speer are only enhancing his reputation and further diminishing yours.

I think you're being dishonest. I have never questioned Pat Speer's integrity or sincerity, and I have praised and cited some of his research on other issues.

I have questioned Speer's reflexive bias against any and all evidence of alteration of the autopsy materials and the Zapruder film. I have questioned his truly awful attacks on Dr. Mantik's optical-density research. He blunders horrendously in trying to explain away the white patch, for example, claiming it is a bone flap that is clearly in the wrong place to be the white patch. His attempts to innocently explain the 6.5 mm object are both hilarious and pitiful. He is simply way out of his depth on these issues, but he is very good on issues that don't involve medical-evidence/photographic-evidence alteration. He has even claimed that OD measurements are worthless when it comes to metallic objects, an erroneous claim that show he doesn't even grasp the basic of OD measurement.

Quote from: Lance Payette on Yesterday at 05:33:40 PM
As with Bart Kamp, I can appreciate the thoroughness and value of Pat's work without agreeing with everything he says (and I am inclined to agree with his placement of the head wound entry). Bart's and Pat's sites are two of the genuine goldmines of JFKA material.

Oh, hogwash! "Without agreeing with everything he says"?! You agree with almost nothing he says, certainly with almost none of his major conclusions, e.g., that the alleged shooting feat would have been extremely difficult even for an experienced, expert marksman; that the curtain rod story is false and was invented to incriminate Oswald; that Silvia Odio was credible; that the Warren Commission was a whitewash; that Baden rigged much of the FPP's investigation; that Dale Myers' trajectory research is badly flawed, saying "his deception regarding the single-bullet theory is simply inexcusable"; etc., etc., etc.

I think it is rather dishonest for you to pretend that you agree with anything approaching a substantive portion of Pat Speer's research.

Now, if you are truly "inclined" to agree with Speer's placement of the rear head entry wound, then you need to explain how in the world the bullet that made that wound could have come from the sixth-floor window. The only theory that Larry Sturdivan has offered to explain this problem is that after the bullet entered the skull it magically veered sharply upward and to the right, yet not a single bullet in the WC's wound ballistics tests performed such an impossible feat. That's just as bad as the WC experts' assumption that JFK's head was tilted nearly 60 degrees forward when the bullet struck.

I mean, it would be nice if you would finally take a stab at trying to explain the vanishing fragment trail, especially since you say you lean toward the EOP site.
80
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Applying Logic and Critical Thinking to the JFK Assassination
« Last post by Greg Doudna on Yesterday at 06:46:34 PM »
Lance, I believe I addressed the question you raise in my chapter 16 summary. Yes, I agree that it would make no sense from a Walker staged shot point of view, for Oswald to have been involved, unless there was anticipation or intent for Oswald himself, as the “Communist”, to be immediately publicly implicated and/or arrested for it. If that were not the expectation or anticipation, then i agree it doesn’t make sense. However the facts are Oswald was both involved and that did not happen, which calls for explanation.

So I am not actually disagreeing with your reasoning, only the unwarranted conclusion you draw (apparently, that the facts therefore aren’t true to begin with). The problem I attempted to address was why the expected, anticipated arrest and/implication of Oswald immediately in that shot did not happen. That is the puzzle that calls for explanation.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10