Was the Stemmons Freeway sign removed?

[John Iacoletti]

It's your words, if you don't want to stand by them then don't, it's only your credibility at stake.

I explained it.  You don't approve of the explanation, but can't point to anything inaccurate about it.

But anything to divert from your inability to defend your conclusion about who killed JFK, right?

[Steve Howsley]

I explained it.  You don't approve of the explanation, but can't point to anything inaccurate about it.

But anything to divert from your inability to defend your conclusion about who killed JFK, right?

This post of yours is unadulterated BS. You make a claim of knowing "exactly" how something works then are unable to do so when challenged. If you were remotely honest you'd admit that your claim of knowing "exactly" how it works was wrong and there would be nothing wrong in saying that. Then to cover your embarrassment you throw out a red herring by saying:

"But anything to divert from your inability to defend your conclusion about who killed JFK, right?"

hoping like hell to drag the conversation in a different direction where you feel comfortable i.e. in the  Deny Deny Deny world you live in. That attempt to distract is such a cheap shot. Now I understand why you are called a liar and a fraud.

[John Mytton]

I explained it.  You don't approve of the explanation, but can't point to anything inaccurate about it.

But anything to divert from your inability to defend your conclusion about who killed JFK, right?

I explained it.

You think you did and that's the problem, all this time you've never had a clue and subsequently all your criticisms of my work have been based on your inability to actually understand what was being presented.

But anything to divert from your inability to defend your conclusion about who killed JFK, right?

Again you started, if you want to stay focused then practice what you preach.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

This post of yours is unadulterated BS. You make a claim of knowing "exactly" how something works then are unable to do so when challenged. If you were remotely honest you'd admit that your claim of knowing "exactly" how it works was wrong and there would be nothing wrong in saying that. Then to cover your embarrassment you throw out a red herring by saying:

"But anything to divert from your inability to defend your conclusion about who killed JFK, right?"

hoping like hell to drag the conversation in a different direction where you feel comfortable i.e. in the  Deny Deny Deny world you live in. That attempt to distract is such a cheap shot. Now I understand why you are called a liar and a fraud.

You nailed it. He keeps writing checks that either he can't afford to pay or just denies outright, weird!

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

This post of yours is unadulterated BS. You make a claim of knowing "exactly" how something works then are unable to do so when challenged. If you were remotely honest you'd admit that your claim of knowing "exactly" how it works was wrong and there would be nothing wrong in saying that. Then to cover your embarrassment you throw out a red herring by saying:

"But anything to divert from your inability to defend your conclusion about who killed JFK, right?"

hoping like hell to drag the conversation in a different direction where you feel comfortable i.e. in the  Deny Deny Deny world you live in. That attempt to distract is such a cheap shot. Now I understand why you are called a liar and a fraud.

Really, Steve?  This is the JFK Assassination Forum, not the Quibble About What The Word "exactly" means Forum.  Like I said, do you want the source code?  Would you even understand it if you saw it? 

The point is, the morphs are composed of artificially generated intermediate images that are not reality.  "Mytton" hasn't disputed that because he knows it's correct.

But if it makes you feel better to call me a "liar" because I wasn't "exact" enough for you then be my guest.  You don't seem to be anywhere near as concerned when people lie about the evidence in the JFK case.  Which is why you're here, right?

Right? 

[John Iacoletti]

You think you did and that's the problem, all this time you've never had a clue and subsequently all your criticisms of my work have been based on your inability to actually understand what was being presented.

Oh, I understand.

"clearly....blah blah blah....conclusively.....blah blah blah....iPhone face recognition .... blah blah blah"

[John Mytton]

Oh, I understand.

Yeah we know, you said you know "exactly how it works" but ironically you are still yet to elaborate on "exactly how it works"?
And if you don't know "exactly how it works" then we can only conclude that when you were criticizing my work all this time you were just being dishonest.

JohnM

[Allan Fritzke]

Getting a little bit back to topic, well not really as it should be talking about the Stemmons Freeway sign being removed!  However much of the talk in this thread centers around a second stop of the limousine west of the triple overpass.   

This interview with David Lifton says there are 3 witnesses to this 2nd stop and says it was at this time that Jacqueline Kennedy wanted to get out the car once more as she feared for her life and was forced back into the car by the SS!  Is this something new or just another author making money?  35:00 minutes into this video!  No question the car had slowed down near to a stop at the time of shooting as Hill runs up to it.  How fast can you run and catch a 12 mph car?

There also was mention of Connally watching the Zapruder Film video on Monday while in the hospital  (47:20) so Nellie and him could comment properly given the knowledge obtained from this.