Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10
71
  Trump just says what most people are afraid to say. That's why he consistently defies the polling and has been elected POTUS 3 times. Boys in girls locker rooms, Boys competing against girls, wide open borders, these are issues that Trump bluntly spells out. The vast majority of the voting public agrees with him. The Dem's want to shut him up any way they can, even though he is a Lame Duck. Trump's "straight talking" brings out into the open the absurdity of the Dem Party Policies. 
  And Trump is not afraid to continue pointing out the 2020 Election was rigged. People KNOW that election was crooked, just as the recent Calif Primary was. Same M.O. employed for both elections. Count alleged ballots endlessly until the Dem Candidate stuffs the box enough to turn the election around.

The term "lame duck" gets tossed around loosely these days. Initially, it referred to an outgoing Congress the new Congress was voted into office and when it was sworn in. It was also applied to the outgoing POTUS. Originally, both the new Congress and the new POTUS were sworn in on March 4. During that time the current Congress and POTUS have full powers. Usually the sessions just clean up loose ends with spending bills and the Senate can act on confirmations of presidential appointees. The 20th Amendment moved the inauguration of the POTUS to January 20 and the new Congress taking power on January 3. It also shifted the task of confirming the Electoral College vote to the new Congress.

Trump is not a lame duck and will not be one until after the 2028 presidential election. If he loses either the House, Senate, or both, he will have reduced power but he will not be a lame duck. We will simply have divided power which has happened many times in the past> When that happens, the POTUS and Congress have to negotiate with one another to pass legistlation rather than having one party be able ramrod spending bills into law.
72
Good morning Lance. I don’t believe you understand the issues here. I assure you I care very much about the truth and facts. The issue is new information, not possibly known before 2019 but known now (because of the car identification), that Walker aide Robert Surrey was witnessed having walked out of the alley position from where the shot was fired, only seconds after the shot was fired. Yet he does not have a rifle. But it was him.

Now it is all well and good for you to say it makes no sense that Oswald would be there too at the same time as Surrey in that alley, but you need to explain then do you think Oswald was or was not there too with Surrey. One starts with facts first, not with interpretation and then deny facts because the interpretation doesn’t seem to make sense.

And if you are tempted to kneejerk deny Kirk Coleman’s man No. 2 was Surrey going to Surrey’s car, then I don’t think you have read and appreciate the argument there.

Even the FBI in their investigation thought Coleman’s man No 2 was either a Walker person, involved in the shot, or a frightened witness, one of those three, take your pick—who are you to know better. Maybe show a little more humility in commenting on things you haven’t read or understand. That said, I normally like your astute analyses on most things. You’ve got this one wrong here though.

My abstract of the argument:
https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Walker-chapter-summaries-110pdf.pdf
73
There’s a book out that says UM was covertly filming the assassination in order to help alter the Zapruder film which implies Zapruder was in on the assassination. Crazy as it is, it makes more sense (at least the filming part) than the signalman or dart shooting theories.The umbrella does rotate as if following the limo. But that is just because the man holding it was undoubtedly doing the same.

But I think the umbrella was used as a symbol.

So Abe was in on the assassination, filming it so his film could be altered later, and Louie was making his film to assist in the altering of Abe's film ... which obviously did not have to be made at all and would not have to have been altered if it had not been made. And this was all done because the conspirators wanted a film of the assassination so that, after having been altered, it would conclusively show there was no frontal gunman as long as no one ever spotted the alterations. And Abe was allowed to live until 1970, and Louie until he was 90, and Louie came forward voluntarily in 1978, because this all deflected suspicion from what had actually taken place.

"Have I got that right, Perry?"

"Exactly, Della."

Roll the credits.
74
After 62 years, could you let the rest of us in on it?

I thought you already had it all figured out.
76
Outside of gangland lore, it is anomalous that LHO, who may have murdered JFK, was then himself murdered but two days later.

That is certainly an unusual arrangement of events.

The LHO snuff job prevented a sustained interrogation of LHO, and a possible confession.

And prevented a trial, which might have brought out clarifying or alternative narratives.
77
Given the widespread belief in Zapruder film fakery, it is not “self-evident” that it is nonsense.

There is a poster on the EF that pushes this using pages of mathematical calculations purporting to show the film was altered. I think he and perhaps one other person understand what he is trying to say. Most people stop asking questions about it. But if it has math, it MUST be right.

I think it is self-evident nonsense. If one dives immediately into the bewildering "evidence of alteration," which is what they want you to do because then you are playing on their turf, it can start to sound halfway plausible. If one steps back and asks, "Wait a minute, in what meta-narrative of the JFKA does this make any sense? Explain to me why they needed to do this and why they would have done it the way you say they did." - well, then it all falls apart. It's very much like - as I know from considerable experience - debating with a Flat Earther or Young Earther. As long as you stay on their turf, their "evidence" is sorta-kinda persuasive. When you step back and say "wait a minute, bub," it's complete nonsense. I had always assumed the whole Flat Earth thing was tongue-in-cheek, wink wink nudge nudge, folks just enjoying being different and having fun. Noooo, not at all. 84% of Americans believe the earth is spherical, while the rest either believe it is flat or have their doubts. Does this mean the Flat Earth is not self-evident nonsense? It is not self-evident nonsense only to the 16% whose cognitive faculties are not tracking in the channels of normality, at least on this issue and probably many others.

(Apropos of the current Ed Forum Follies, I participated on an active forum called White Horse Theology that went completely poof overnight - no warning, no explanation, just poof. Before it went poof, I was astounded at the number of participants who had intelligent things to say about philosophy and theology but who were also Flat Earthers and Fake Moon Landing-ers. They became positively irate if you dared to suggest these beliefs were just a bit irrational. And, of course, they would inevitably point to the not-insignificant number of people who believe these things.)

I sometimes sound like a John Orr groupie, which I'm not, but there is a theory that hangs together. He accounts for Oswald, he accounts for what occurred and why, he accounts for the physical evidence. It's internally consistent, even if one doesn't find it persuasive. You have to confront his evidence and arguments. You can't just say THAT MAKES NO SENSE.
78

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.

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.
79
There’s a book out that says UM was covertly filming the assassination in order to help alter the Zapruder film which implies Zapruder was in on the assassination. Crazy as it is, it makes more sense (at least the filming part) than the signalman or dart shooting theories.The umbrella does rotate as if following the limo. But that is just because the man holding it was undoubtedly doing the same.

But I think the umbrella was used as a symbol.

That's no crazier than a lot of other crap the CTs have floated the past 62 years.
80
I would have to say:

10) The Huge Gates being left open.

11) Officer Haygood having the affrontery to remove one of his gloves.

12) Umbrella Man doing whatever he was doing.

On #12, I happened to be reading a book that had nothing to do with the JFKA. The symbolism of the umbrella in relation to Neville Chamberlain and Joe Kennedy was FAR more prevalent than those of us who weren't alive during WW2 might realize. There were umpteen political cartoons with the umbrella symbolism. As utterly goofy as it sounds now, Louie Steven Witt's little protest would not have been nearly as obscure in 1963 as it seems now.

There’s a book out that says UM was covertly filming the assassination in order to help alter the Zapruder film which implies Zapruder was in on the assassination. Crazy as it is, it makes more sense (at least the filming part) than the signalman or dart shooting theories.The umbrella does rotate as if following the limo. But that is just because the man holding it was undoubtedly doing the same.

But I think the umbrella was used as a symbol.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10