Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: OzmO on June 02, 2007, 08:00:39 PM
-
i don't think i do anymore.
-
According to toxie, the aliens that landed in roswell killed JFK..
In ruins of Babylon Saddam Hussien found a small gold statue of someone similar looking to JFK.. Saddam concluded that it was the evil lord Zenu, dictator of the milky way galaxy. He got this info from a missing portion of the dead sea scrolls that kept in Uday Hussien's bedroom.
Anyways, Saddam took the side of Zenu and that's where the US got alarmed. They killed JFK because he was really Zenu is disguise, or atleast that's what they thought. That was actually a Zenu look a like and Zenu was LBJ and he wanted to dominate the world. He decided to turn on his alley Saddam for oil and that's how it goes.
toxie's explanation covers the iraq war too! now you know!
-
Chalk it up to political savvy (or perhaps having a triple digit IQ) but I am inclined to agree with congress that in all likelihood there was a conspiracy. I challenge anyone with unrelated parents to spend a couple hours reading over these findings and not agree:
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/
(or just look at the summary http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html)
I.A. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President
I.B. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations
I.C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy
I.D. Agencies and departments of the U.S. Government performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of their duties. President John F. Kennedy did not receive adequate protection. A thorough and reliable investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination was conducted. The investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate. the conclusions of the investigations were arrived at in good faith, but presented in a fashion that was too definitive
Bear in mind that this is the same Kennedy who attempted to dismantle the CIA and who pissed on the DOD/military industrial complex re Cuba/Vietnam. If you stood to lose not only power but also billions, what would you do?
-
Kennedy would have gotten more involved in Vietnam..he would not have committed he amounts of troops that we did. It would have looked like Afghanistan. He loved SF and grew their prominence within the Army. The CIA would have had to be part of any war in the Far East. He was committed to stopping the spread of communism.
-
What Kennedy would have done is debatable.
What Kennedy did do is not:
1) Kennedy had ordered the return of first 1000 (later, after the successful Diem coup, possibly adjusted to 100's) US "advisors" from Vietnam by the end of 1963. Kennedy's administration expected to be effectively withdrawn from Vietnam by 1965. Keep in mind Kennedy did not want to appear soft on Communism, especially after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, so any talk of complete withdrawal could not have occurred till after the 1964 (re)election (think McCarthy and the Red Scare):
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/state63.htm
Secretary [of Defense Robert S.] McNamara and General [Maxwell D.] Taylor reported to the President this morning and to the National Security Council this afternoon. Their report included a number of classified findings and recommendations which will be the subject of further review and action. Their basic presentation was endorsed by all members of the Security Council and the following statement of United States policy was approved by the President on the basis of recommendations received from them and from Ambassador [Henry Cabot] Lodge.
1. The security of South Viet-Nam is a major interest of the United States as other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working with the people and Government of South Viet-Nam to deny this country to communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy in South Viet-Nam.
2. The military program in South Viet-Nam has made progress and is sound in principle, though improvements are being energetically sought.
3. Major U.S. assistance in support of this military effort is needed only until the insurgency has been suppressed or until the national security forces of the Government of South Viet-Nam are capable of suppressing it.
Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment that the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965, although there may be a continuing requirement for a limited number of U.S. training personnel. They reported that by the end of this year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Viet-Nam can be withdrawn.
4. The political situation in South Viet-Nam remains deeply serious. The United States has made clear its continuing opposition to any repressive actions in South Viet-Nam. While such actions have not yet significantly affected the military effort, they could do so in the future.
5. It remains the policy of the United States, in South Viet-Nam as in other parts of the world, to support the efforts of the people of that country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free society.
2) Perhaps more relevant than Kennedy's Vietnam policy was his track record on the fight against communism. You are correct in saying he wanted to contain communism. However, you forget the lessons learned from the Bay of Pigs, where Kennedy withdrew vital US air support at the last minute thus killing the coup. Instead he was negotiating with Khrushchev and found a diplomatic resolution to the Cuban Missile Crisis. The message was clear: Kennedy values the struggle for peace more than the struggle against communism.
With this in mind, could the military industrial complex really afford to roll the dice with Kennedy over Vietnam?
Links for your edification:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam.htm
(100's of documents relating to the Vietnam War, pay particular attention to those from 1963)
http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/volume_vi/exchanges.html
(The Kennedy/Khrushchev exchanges, many felt the Kennedy was crossing the line to treason here, but was too popular to impeach)
-
Chalk it up to political savvy (or perhaps having a triple digit IQ) but I am inclined to agree with congress that in all likelihood there was a conspiracy. I challenge anyone with unrelated parents to spend a couple hours reading over these findings and not agree:
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/
(or just look at the summary http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html)
Bear in mind that this is the same Kennedy who attempted to dismantle the CIA and who pissed on the DOD/military industrial complex re Cuba/Vietnam. If you stood to lose not only power but also billions, what would you do?
Scientific acoustical evidence? How so and where is this evidence? The place had echoes and the retort of a rifle shot would have been hard to pin point as reported by the 174 witnesses who heard it.
there is certainly many people who didn't want him around, but motive alone doesn't prove a comspiracy.
-
Scientific acoustical evidence? How so and where is this evidence? The place had echoes and the retort of a rifle shot would have been hard to pin point as reported by the 174 witnesses who heard it.
there is certainly many people who didn't want him around, but motive alone doesn't prove a comspiracy.
Admittedly, I am moved by the expert analyses of someone who can barely string a sentence together; however, the opinions of experts before congress carry slightly more weight. Laziness and stupidity are a lethal combination, all you had to do was click on the first link I provided and the details of the acoustical analysis were readily available:
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1b.html
-
Admittedly, I am moved by the expert analyses of someone who can barely string a sentence together; however, the opinions of experts before congress carry slightly more weight. Laziness and stupidity are a lethal combination, all you had to do was click on the first link I provided and the details of the acoustical analysis were readily available:
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1b.html
If you're going to call someone stupid for a grammatical error, ensure your grammar is correct. It's "analysis," not "analyses." He didn't provide more than one analysis. And your second reference to "analysis" is probably wrong too. If there was more than one analysis, you should have said "analysis was," not "analysis were." And if there was more than one analysis, you should have said "analyses were."
Oh . . . and Ozmo is a whole lot smarter than you. Just fyi.
-
Admittedly, I am moved by the expert analyses of someone who can barely string a sentence together; however, the opinions of experts before congress carry slightly more weight. Laziness and stupidity are a lethal combination, all you had to do was click on the first link I provided and the details of the acoustical analysis were readily available:
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1b.html
Oh boy, you are lugging me on sentence structure? Are you that weak that all you have are links and sarcasm?
Do you have the capacity to carry on a conversation without being a jackass; to answer questions and discuss issues comparing and contrasting the details; showing evidence that you've summarized from links you provide or is all you do post some links up, cutting and pasting information and then finding the first trivial error in someone's response and attack them in a condescending nature?
Can you explain in your own words what the scientific acoustical evidence is or are you going to continue to just post links or cut and paste stuff? Because frankly, Sunday mornings are not for research or worrying about gay-ass sentence structure.
-
If you're going to call someone stupid for a grammatical error, ensure your grammar is correct. It's "analysis," not "analyses." He didn't provide more than one analysis. And your second reference to "analysis" is probably wrong too. If there was more than one analysis, you should have said "analysis was," not "analysis were." And if there was more than one analysis, you should have said "analyses were."
Oh . . . and Ozmo is a whole lot smarter than you. Just fyi.
I must be still really sleepy; I didn't notice any of that. ;) Thanks BB.
-
I must be still really sleepy; I didn't notice any of that. ;) Thanks BB.
No problem. :) I must be the only person in Honolulu working on a Sunday morning. :'(
-
If you're going to call someone stupid for a grammatical error, ensure your grammar is correct. It's "analysis," not "analyses." He didn't provide more than one analysis. And your second reference to "analysis" is probably wrong too. If there was more than one analysis, you should have said "analysis was," not "analysis were." And if there was more than one analysis, you should have said "analyses were."
Oh . . . and Ozmo is a whole lot smarter than you. Just fyi.
Clearly you did not read his reply to the end. Otherwise, in your infinite wisdom, would have noticed he analyzed both acoustics and comspiracies in general; ergo my usage of "analyses" stands, and you are wrong. Kindly note my previous comment regarding laziness and stupidity. Unless, as I am starting to suspect, those are prerequisites to moderate this board, in which case carry on :)
Yes, I too am wrong as I should have typed "analyses were".
Regarding his stupidity, he was asking questions that can only be described as infantile in the context of a Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives. Further to that point, and to answer the calls from “Ozmo” for a simplistic explanation of the apparently overwhelming information provided, there is nothing of value I can add that was not clearly explained in the links furnished. Sadly, I do not have a knack for "dumbing things down" for the likes of you.
-
Clearly you did not read his reply to the end. Otherwise, in your infinite wisdom, would have noticed he analyzed both acoustics and comspiracies in general; ergo my usage of "analyses" stands, and you are wrong. Kindly note my previous comment regarding laziness and stupidity. Unless, as I am starting to suspect, those are prerequisites to moderate this board, in which case carry on :)
Yes, I too am wrong as I should have typed "analyses were".
Regarding his stupidity, he was asking questions that can only be described as infantile in the context of a Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives. Further to that point, and to answer the calls from “Ozmo” for a simplistic explanation of the apparently overwhelming information provided, there is nothing of value I can add that was not clearly explained in the links furnished. Sadly, I do not have a knack for "dumbing things down" for the likes of you.
::)
Buzzzz!!! More errors. Should be "you would have noticed." And the period goes inside of the quotation marks. It should read "analyses were."
What was that you said? "Admittedly, I am moved by the expert analyses of someone who can barely string a sentence together" [chuckle]
-
::)
Buzzzz!!! More errors. Should be "you would have noticed." And the period goes inside of the quotation marks. It should read "analyses were."
What was that you said? "Admittedly, I am moved by the expert analyses of someone who can barely string a sentence together" [chuckle]
#1 You're wrong about the placement of the period, both are acceptable in that instance 0/1
#2 You should not start a sentence with a conjunction 0/2
#3 If you insist on using sentence fragments (ie "Should be you...") at lease be consistent (ie "Should read..." not "It should read...") 0/3
It is enviable Ozmo has you to defend his honor. If I suffer a series of strokes and find myself incapable of dealing with you I too will ask my girlfriend for help :)
-
#1 You're wrong about the placement of the period, both are acceptable in that instance 0/1
#2 You should not start a sentence with a conjunction 0/2
#3 If you insist on using sentence fragments (ie "Should be you...") at lease be consistent (ie "Should read..." not "It should read...") 0/3
It is enviable Ozmo has you to defend his honor. If I suffer a series of strokes and find myself incapable of dealing with you I too will ask my girlfriend for help :)
Period goes at the end of your last sentence! Bwahahahahahaha!! :D
1. Wrong.
2. Wrong. Two references for you, for paragraphs 1 and 2: "The Gregg Reference Manual" and Bryan Garner's "A Dictionary of Modern American Usage."
3. I could care less about my grammar on this board. I make tons of mistakes. I'm not the one who attacked someone's intellect based on their sentence structure on a bodybuilding message board. That was you. I'm just pointing out how you made a fool of yourself. :)
Now, don't give up. Maybe your next post will have no grammatical/punctuation errors. C'mon dude. You can do it.
-
1) Not wrong.
2) Reread, I wrote "should". In other words, if you do not wish to appear having failed the third grade you may want to consider not starting sentences with conjunctions in the future.
3) Intelligent reply. When in doubt, reach and rationalize :)
-
1) Not wrong.
2) Reread, I wrote "should". In other words, if you do not wish to appear having failed the third grade you may want to consider not starting sentences with conjunctions in the future.
3) Intelligent reply. When in doubt, reach and rationalize :)
LOL . . .
"Reread, I wrote 'should.'" That might be your worst attempt to write a grammatically correct sentence. Brutal.
Also, a period goes at the end of sentence (see your paragraph 3). I learned that BEFORE third grade. LOL . . .
Nothing wrong with starting a sentence with “and” or “but.” Go buy the “Dictionary of Modern American Usage.” It explains why.
Keep trying mang!
-
LOL . . .
"Reread, I wrote 'should.'" That might be your worst attempt to write a grammatically correct sentence. Brutal.
Also, a period goes at the end of sentence (see your paragraph 3). I learned that BEFORE third grade. LOL . . .
Nothing wrong with starting a sentence with “and” or “but.” Go buy the “Dictionary of Modern American Usage.” It explains why.
Keep trying mang!
It is improper to quote me and change the punctuation of what was written. Theoretically, you should put [sic] after; however, seeing as a period is acceptable before or after the quote in that instance as well, that is unnecessary.
I will try to use small words here cause my first two tries did not click with you: You can use a con junc tion at the start of a sen ten ce but it makes you look dumb.
Granted dumb may be a step up, so I will leave it be.
For one who does not care you sure are replying often, despite your boyfriend apparently having left you :)
-
It is improper to quote me and change the punctuation of what was written. Theoretically, you should put [sic] after; however, seeing as a period is acceptable before or after the quote in that instance as well, that is unnecessary.
I will try to use small words here cause my first two tries did not click with you: You can use a con junc tion at the start of a sen ten ce but it makes you look dumb.
Granted dumb may be a step up, so I will leave it be.
For one who does not care you sure are replying often, despite your boyfriend apparently having left you :)
Wrong again! You use "[sic]" if the grammar is unchanged, but if you correct grammar/punctuation, you use brackets to indicate the change. So, I should have used brackets, but not "[sic]." Dude, you suck. LOL. . . .
You forgot your period again. LOL. The more you post, the more you look like a fool for calling someone dumb based on their grammar.
Three references for you (in addition to the two prior books I recommended):
http://www.amazon.com/English-Grammar-Dummies-Geraldine-Woods/dp/0764553224/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-9359477-2415957?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180907331&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Pocket-Idiots-Guide-Grammar-Punctuation/dp/1592573932/ref=sr_1_2/104-9359477-2415957?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180907303&sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Writing-Well/dp/0028636945/ref=sr_1_3/104-9359477-2415957?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180907303&sr=1-3
Enjoy. :)
-
Is it just me or do you smell Johnny Apollo?
-
Is it just me or do you smell Johnny Apollo?
Ah so. Yes I do. Sybil has been "dead" for so long, I had forgotten about him. :)
-
Ah so. Yes I do. Sybil has been "dead" for so long, I had forgotten about him. :)
He still doesn't have the nuggets to respond intelligently however (save trying to be the grammar police). And all he has so far is ad-hom and some links. I wonder if he'll go the direction of 4 shots vs. 3 shots?
-
Wrong again! You use "[sic]" if the grammar is unchanged, but if you correct grammar/punctuation, you use brackets to indicate the change. So, I should have used brackets, but not "[sic]." Dude, you suck. LOL. . . .
You forgot your period again. LOL. The more you post, the more you look like a fool for calling someone dumb based on their grammar.
Three references for you (in addition to the two prior books I recommended):
http://www.amazon.com/English-Grammar-Dummies-Geraldine-Woods/dp/0764553224/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-9359477-2415957?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180907331&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Pocket-Idiots-Guide-Grammar-Punctuation/dp/1592573932/ref=sr_1_2/104-9359477-2415957?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180907303&sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Writing-Well/dp/0028636945/ref=sr_1_3/104-9359477-2415957?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180907303&sr=1-3
Enjoy. :)
Again, your inability to read plain English knows no bounds. I told you quoting me and changing what I wrote is improper, I advised you (if your changes had in fact been correct, which they were not) to leave them unchanged and use [sic] instead. Perhaps you should click on some of those fabulous links you uncovered :)
In addition to his unique spelling of conspiracy and inability to deal with the proper ownership of simple verbs, Ozmo is an idiot for failing to grasp that congressional hearing may just have thought about echoes and sought the testimony of experts. Additionally, he was too stupid to click on the links I provided to find detailed answers to his questions, not to mention the fact a simple http://www.yahoo.com search could have saved his lazy ass the embarrassment of this thread.
Once again, so much effort from the one who does not care. There is no shame in admitting you love him :-*
-
Again, your inability to read plain English knows no bounds. I told you quoting me and changing what I wrote is improper, I advised you (if your changes had in fact been correct, which they were not) to leave them unchanged and use [sic] instead. Perhaps you should click on some of those fabulous links you uncovered :)
In addition to his unique spelling of conspiracy and inability to deal with the proper ownership of simple verbs, Ozmo is an idiot for failing to grasp that congressional hearing may just have thought about echoes and sought the testimony of experts. Additionally, he was too stupid to click on the links I provided to find detailed answers to his questions, not to mention the fact a simple http://www.yahoo.com search could have saved his lazy ass the embarrassment of this thread.
Once again, so much effort from the one who does not care. There is no shame in admitting you love him :-*
more ad-hom garbage. ::).
do you have anything besides this dribble or are you all insults and no meat?
i guess the answer to this question:
"Do you have the capacity to carry on a conversation without being a jackass; to answer questions and discuss issues comparing and contrasting the details; showing evidence that you've summarized from links you provide or is all you do post some links up, cutting and pasting information and then finding the first trivial error in someone's response and attack them in a condescending nature?"
is, "No."
-
He still doesn't have the nuggets to respond intelligently however (save trying to be the grammar police). And all he has so far is ad-hom and some links. I wonder if he'll go the direction of 4 shots vs. 3 shots?
He is a yellowbellied coward.
-
He is a yellowbellied coward.
I'd like to see 240 and Berseker's take on these things. At least they're all grown up. ;D
-
more ad-hom garbage. ::).
do you have anything besides this dribble or are you all insults and no meat?
i guess the answer to this question:
"Do you have the capacity to carry on a conversation without being a jackass; to answer questions and discuss issues comparing and contrasting the details; showing evidence that you've summarized from links you provide or is all you do post some links up, cutting and pasting information and then finding the first trivial error in someone's response and attack them in a condescending nature?"
is, "No."
Please forgive me darling, for a moment I forgot your need to be spoon-fed:
Regarding his stupidity, he was asking questions that can only be described as infantile in the context of a Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives. Further to that point, and to answer the calls from “Ozmo” for a simplistic explanation of the apparently overwhelming information provided, there is nothing of value I can add that was not clearly explained in the links furnished. Sadly, I do not have a knack for "dumbing things down" for the likes of you.
(since you missed it the first time round I’ll even quote it twice :))
Regarding his stupidity, he was asking questions that can only be described as infantile in the context of a Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives. Further to that point, and to answer the calls from “Ozmo” for a simplistic explanation of the apparently overwhelming information provided, there is nothing of value I can add that was not clearly explained in the links furnished. Sadly, I do not have a knack for "dumbing things down" for the likes of you.
Love
Seau
-
Please forgive me darling, for a moment I forgot your need to be spoon-fed:
(since you missed it the first time round I’ll even quote it twice :))
Love
Seau
Since you can't seem to argue or debate a point in your own words you come across pretty stupid to me. I take it back, Johnny, had that ability. You seem like someone else who used to post here from Australia. ;)
Anyone can get on the Internet and pull crap up. Sighting congressional committee investigations don't mean much if you can't at the very least debate their point. But all you've done is post the link and throw insults along the way.
You are pathetic.
When you are ready to step into the batters box and play ball with a real debate I'll be happy to debate it with you.
Here's why the Scientific acoustical evidence assertion you posted doesn't fly:
- There were 3 spent shells in the depositing where Oswald fired at JFK.
- There were 3 shots fired. Although some testimony of witnesses (6 of them) reported they thought they heard 4 shots, , the vast majority of the 174 reported hearing 3 shots.
Besides, all they are saying here: "Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. " which is like saying: "it sounds like more than one person shooting."
Now let's see if you can act like an adult with your response.
-
You would have your answers if you simply took the time to read (and possessed the capacity to understand?) the links I provided, specifically:
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1b.html
(Acoustical evidence)
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1c.html
(Probable conspiracy)
Why would I waste my time explaining to you that which more experienced men have already debated and articulated?
Why should I reply to you as anything other than a lazy fool when you have access to the answers you seek but insist on getting the Cliffsnotes?
Please refer to my previous point about being stupid and lazy, the combination of the two having allowed you to become arrogant enough to think you possibly have any meaningful insight regarding the assassination :(
240orbust is more charitable than I and seems to relish in explaining the obvious to the retarded; perhaps he will stumble upon this thread and feed you some answers.
-
You would have your answers if you simply took the time to read (and possessed the capacity to understand?) the links I provided, specifically:
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1b.html
(Acoustical evidence)
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1c.html
(Probable conspiracy)
Why would I waste my time explaining to you that which more experienced men have already debated and articulated?
Why should I reply to you as anything other than a lazy fool when you have access to the answers you seek but insist on getting the Cliffsnotes?
Please refer to my previous point about being stupid and lazy, the combination of the two having allowed you to become arrogant enough to think you possibly have any meaningful insight regarding the assassination :(
240orbust is more charitable than I and seems to relish in explaining the obvious to the retarded; perhaps he will stumble upon this thread and feed you some answers.
::)
blah blah blah, more ad-hom and more link posting. It would have been just as easy for you to say: I donno. Or you could have just said i don't understand it myself therefore in the absence of any mental agility to debate I'll point to these links.
Obviously you lack the capacity to debate and only possess the passion to condemn.
Further more, you are obviously someone else who has posted on this sight before and was someone who's credibility and personally was exposed for what it was and was laughed off this site. Coward. lol.
Hopes that works well for you.
-
i don't think i do anymore.
i can only show you the door..this one is only 7 mins
WATCH IT
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8768114400602619096&q=jfk++assassination+new+world+order&hl=en
-
::)
blah blah blah, more ad-hom and more link posting. It would have been just as easy for you to say: I donno. Or you could have just said i don't understand it myself therefore in the absence of any mental agility to debate I'll point to these links.
Obviously you lack the capacity to debate and only possess the passion to condemn.
Further more, you are obviously someone else who has posted on this sight before and was someone who's credibility and personally was exposed for what it was and was laughed off this site. Coward. lol.
Hopes that works well for you.
The links I provided specifically address the questions you asked with answers from the highest authorities on the subject. You should be thanking me because I doubt you would have been able to find them on your own.
There is no point debating with someone who is typing out of his ass when I actually took the time to research the issue. Prove to me you are more capable than my 10 year old by 1) reading the links 2) quoting the relevant passages and 3) mustering an intelligent rebuttal. Then, and only then, do you deserve to debate with me on the issue.
ps I am not holding my breath :(
-
The links I provided specifically address the questions you asked with answers from the highest authorities on the subject. You should be thanking me because I doubt you would have been able to find them on your own.
There is no point debating with someone who is typing out of his ass when I actually took the time to research the issue. Prove to me you are more capable than my 10 year old by 1) reading the links 2) quoting the relevant passages and 3) mustering an intelligent rebuttal. Then, and only then, do you deserve to debate with me on the issue.
ps I am not holding my breath :(
When you can put an argument together into your own words I'll start clicking your google hacked links.
Until then:
::) w/e
-
I'm real surprised no one is debating this with me. JFK is the one conspiracy that has probably the most believers.
But when you get to the known facts they all point to a lone gunman.
-
I'm real surprised no one is debating this with me. JFK is the one conspiracy that has probably the most believers.
But when you get to the known facts they all point to a lone gunman.
I thought about starting into it but to be honest most of my knowledge of the assassination comes from Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" and we all know how accurate and true to the facts that movie was.
Although isn't the "magic bullet theory" still somewhat valid though? How did one man fire such an old rifle so many times so accurately in so little time?
-
I thought about starting into it but to be honest most of my knowledge of the assassination comes from Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" and we all know how accurate and true to the facts that movie was.
Although isn't the "magic bullet theory" still somewhat valid though? How did one man fire such an old rifle so many times so accurately in so little time?
The gun he bought, mail order, was advertised as a "fast loading - fast firing" gun. Oswald fired 3 shots in 8.4 seconds.
Bang! first shot
count 3 and 1/2 thousands....
Bang! second shot 3.5 seconds later
Count almost 5, 1 thousands....
Bang! third shot! 8.4 seconds from first shot.
So really he fired 2 shots in 8.4 seconds, becuase the frist shoot started it off.
His target area was already presighted and his gun is stable while resting on books. TRy counting this out loud and pretend to use the bolt action and find a target you just shot at in 3 seconds. seems very easy.
VERY do -able and when you consider Oswald qualified as a sharp shooter in marines it makes sense.
-
I'm real surprised no one is debating this with me. JFK is the one conspiracy that has probably the most believers.
But when you get to the known facts they all point to a lone gunman.
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1b.html
(Acoustical evidence)
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1c.html
(Probable conspiracy)
Experts who possess vastly more evidence, intelligence, and insight than you previously concluded the likelihood of a conspiracy is very high. Consequently, your opinion is utterly worthless and "nobody is debating with you" :)
-
The gun he bought, mail order, was advertised as a "fast loading - fast firing" gun. Oswald fired 3 shots in 8.4 seconds.
Bang! first shot
count 3 and 1/2 thousands....
Bang! second shot 3.5 seconds later
Count almost 5, 1 thousands....
Bang! third shot! 8.4 seconds from first shot.
So really he fired 2 shots in 8.4 seconds, becuase the frist shoot started it off.
His target area was already presighted and his gun is stable while resting on books. TRy counting this out loud and pretend to use the bolt action and find a target you just shot at in 3 seconds. seems very easy.
VERY do -able and when you consider Oswald qualified as a sharp shooter in marines it makes sense.
Yes, I see your point about getting the shots off but I'm still a little skeptical of his accuracy. I know next to nothing about guns and marksmanship though so I could be completely wrong in that.
-
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1b.html
(Acoustical evidence)
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1c.html
(Probable conspiracy)
Experts who possess vastly more evidence, intelligence, and insight than you previously concluded the likelihood of a conspiracy is very high. Consequently, your opinion is utterly worthless and "nobody is debating with you" :)
Actually, err hmmm, jimmy, I'm getting most of my info from a book called: "Reclaiming history" by Vincent Bugliosi. I'll let you use your "search powers" to find out about him. Much of what he saying in his 1500+ page book that dives deep into every facet of the case including conspiracy theories, makes some good points.
So i figured there might be some good debate points from people who believe it was a conspiracy. Perhaps i can test some of these pints out as i haven't made a final conclusion. unfortunately 240 isn't posting much anymore and Berserkers mom is very ill.
So basically all that's been interested up to now is a jack ass. you.
So how about you crawl back up that mule's ass you call your home and come back out when you ready to act like a adult.
I'd be happy to debate and discuss this with you, but i will not sit and read page after page on the internet. If you can put some relative points into your own words and back them up with your posts i'd be happy to respond.
Otherwise, have a nice a day asshole.
-
Yes, I see your point about getting the shots off but I'm still a little skeptical of his accuracy. I know next to nothing about guns and marksmanship though so I could be completely wrong in that.
yeah i donno much either past the hollywood version of "enemy at the gates". But i have this book i bought called "Reclaiming History" by vincent bugliosi. It's like 1500 pages. They have recreation of what JKF looked like in the scope of the rifle. It seems very possible for an experienced sharpshooter.
-
Actually, err hmmm, jimmy, I'm getting most of my info from a book called: "Reclaiming history" by Vincent Bugliosi. I'll let you use your "search powers" to find out about him. Much of what he saying in his 1500+ page book that dives deep into every facet of the case including conspiracy theories, makes some good points.
So i figured there might be some good debate points from people who believe it was a conspiracy. Perhaps i can test some of these pints out as i haven't made a final conclusion. unfortunately 240 isn't posting much anymore and Berserkers mom is very ill.
So basically all that's been interested up to now is a jack ass. you.
So how about you crawl back up that mule's ass you call your home and come back out when you ready to act like a adult.
I'd be happy to debate and discuss this with you, but i will not sit and read page after page on the internet. If you can put some relative points into your own words and back them up with your posts i'd be happy to respond.
Otherwise, have a nice a day asshole.
Somehow I went from being "Johnny Apollo" to "someone else who used to post here from Australia", and now I am "jimmy". Apparently I am not the only member who has highlighted your stupidity.
It took me all of twenty minutes to read through those 2 links, both of which are only one page; granted, I did not have to traverse the screen with my finger, nor look up every second word. Regardless, if you are genuinely interested in having your questions answered you should get out your dictionary and attempt to do the same. It would be more constructive than cherry picking bastardized “evidence” :)
-
Somehow I went from being "Johnny Apollo" to "someone else who used to post here from Australia", and now I am "jimmy". Apparently I am not the only member who has highlighted your stupidity.
It took me all of twenty minutes to read through those 2 links, both of which are only one page; granted, I did not have to traverse the screen with my finger, nor look up every second word. Regardless, if you are genuinely interested in having your questions answered you should get out your dictionary and attempt to do the same. It would be more constructive than cherry picking bastardized “evidence” :)
Well, it's more than obvious you are someone with another account. You might still be any of the three or someone else. w/e. Personally, I feel it's about the lamest thing people do around here. People that do that take this stuff way too serious and need to get a life. Spend time out side and stop working out alone in their garages, meet people. etc.... may be even go to therapy. ;)
Again, when you bring your own points to the table other than just posting links and saying I'm stupid, I'll be more inclined to invest 20 minutes reading it.
And if you really feel some of the things you do about this subject, no one's insisting you post.
-
Well, it's more than obvious you are someone with another account.
Please do note the "more than obvious" evidence I am "someone with another account." :)
Perhaps this is another "gut feeling" comparable to your intimate knowledge of the Kennedy assassination? It is obvious you are privy to information the experts called upon to testify before Congress did not possess. Indeed, you read an entire book; indisputably trumping their PhD’s and years of research!
Had you the ambition to read and understood the links provided, you would be cognisant of the fact the acoustical analyses is of such complexity it needs a page full of explanation. Not wanting to confuse you, perhaps I should simply post the crux of the evidence pointing towards a conspiracy:
Since Weiss and Aschkenasy were able to obtain a match to within +-1/1,000 of a second, the probability that such a match could occur by random chance was slight. Specifically, they mathematically computed that, with a certainty factor of 95 percent or better, there was a shot fired at the Presidential limousine from the grassy knoll.
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1b.html
In other words, there is a less than five percent chance you are not a complete moron. Have a nice night, “asshole” ;D
-
Actually, err hmmm, jimmy, I'm getting most of my info from a book called: "Reclaiming history" by Vincent Bugliosi. I'll let you use your "search powers" to find out about him. Much of what he saying in his 1500+ page book that dives deep into every facet of the case including conspiracy theories, makes some good points.
So i figured there might be some good debate points from people who believe it was a conspiracy. Perhaps i can test some of these pints out as i haven't made a final conclusion. unfortunately 240 isn't posting much anymore and Berserkers mom is very ill.
So basically all that's been interested up to now is a jack ass. you.
So how about you crawl back up that mule's ass you call your home and come back out when you ready to act like a adult.
I'd be happy to debate and discuss this with you, but i will not sit and read page after page on the internet. If you can put some relative points into your own words and back them up with your posts i'd be happy to respond.
Otherwise, have a nice a day asshole.
Thought it might have been JA, but I sounds more like "Jimmy." Dead giveaway is how Jimmy/sandy would often end his posts with a smiley face.
Let's see how long it takes this new gimmick to start threatening people.
-
Stop the press!
I just saw "Shawn Ray" use a smiley face, and "Dina" too.
Oh sweet Jesus, even "Ozmo" had one in his last post!
"Jimmy" is omni present on here!
Good work Beach Bum :)
-
Stop the press!
I just saw "Shawn Ray" use a smiley face, and "Dina" too.
Oh sweet Jesus, even "Ozmo" had one in his last post!
"Jimmy" is omni present on here!
Good work Beach Bum :)
::) Gimmick.
Back from timeout already? Are you done threatening people? I give you one month (or less) before Ron whacks this new gimmick.
Get a life.
-
240 and Rosey believe the world trade center imploded so they might believe the two person theory on the JFK too ::)
-
A 21st century JFK would not have been president for longer then 2 years...Clinton was an amish boy compared to JFK....The media would have eaten him alive...What does that have to do with the assasination conspiracy? I guess nothing...So I will be quiet now...
-
240 and Rosey believe the world trade center imploded so they might believe the two person theory on the JFK too ::)
Am I missing something...Has the video with JFK getting his blown off from the front been debunked or something?
-
i don't think i do anymore.
It has so debunked its ridiculous. Watch any of thye A&E specials on it?
-
i don't think i do anymore.
Only morons ever did.
-
Old Rooster...Weren't you like 22 when kennedy was shot?
-
It has so debunked its ridiculous. Watch any of thye A&E specials on it?
I never have watch them, i will next time i see one on.
-
I'll put this here too.
No argument there. 8)
I was really hoping I'd find someone who could intelligently debate the whole JFK thing. Oh well. Sigh.
I'm still working on this. I put a lot of research in it. Still have more to do but won't have time for a while. I won't have time to get into a big debate but take a look and maybe you will or won't like it.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread411261/pg1
I've also obtained the original camera and film used for the backyard photos. I'm looking for the original newspapers and will find copies some day. They're not easy to find. Anyway, I have a lot of testing planned.
-
thanks Hugo. I'll be reading that link you posted sometime tonite.
-
thanks Hugo. I'll be reading that link you posted sometime tonite.
cool, hopefully in the next year I'll get a chance to finish up on the research. It's not a bad start but a lot more needs to be done to make it solid. And If I debunk myself along the way, that's cool too. I've depressingly done that a few times. :D
-
cool, hopefully in the next year I'll get a chance to finish up on the research. It's not a bad start but a lot more needs to be done to make it solid. And If I debunk myself along the way, that's cool too. I've depressingly done that a few times. :D
hehehe. I now what you mean. I did that with religion so to speak.
I just skimmed over the link. That was very clever the way the writer came up with idea about scaling. The problem is, the resolution is so bad. The point one of the posters made about the telescoping of the pages is plausible and the counter another poster made about there not being enough pages makes sense too.
One other possibility is the few pages we just really telescoped out. Unfortunately its hard to tell. I think in this book i have Bulgosi talks about the photo graph. I'll look at that too later on.
-
hehehe. I now what you mean. I did that with religion so to speak.
I just skimmed over the link. That was very clever the way the writer came up with idea about scaling. The problem is, the resolution is so bad. The point one of the posters made about the telescoping of the pages is plausible and the counter another poster made about there not being enough pages makes sense too.
One other possibility is the few pages we just really telescoped out. Unfortunately its hard to tell. I think in this book i have Bulgosi talks about the photo graph. I'll look at that too later on.
that's my thread there. I had it posted both here and there but they had some forum rules against doing that so I took it down here and left it up there.
-
hugo do you think mossad had any part in it?
israel wanted nukes but jfk was against it
-
hugo do you think mossad had any part in it?
israel wanted nukes but jfk was against it
interesting. I had not looked into that angle, but it appears to be worthy of a look.
Interesting read:
http://www.saveourwetlands.org/mossadass&jfk.html
-
PT'S BACK !!
Seeming as you wish to talk on the 'JFK' incident, I will peruse this.
I don't like to bail on debates I know inside & out (with the exception of 9/11 ;) ), bores the fucking tits of me, & there is no resolution to the whole affair, other than the 1 planned by the 'Zionist foreign policy agenda', that we know see play out before our very eyes. ::)
Just to be clear here, are you saying that the shots that killed 'JFK' came from the book depository ??
What was the distance from that window to the motorcade - do you know in ft ??
Oh, & yes the 3 shots in the time available, from that weapon are well within reason, but that is not the issue here, & you know it, as well as I.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5770984395481454022&ei=DVLmSeznGoKO-AamlK3ABA&hl=en
Enjoy ;)
I look for conspiracies.
A theory is some-thing that is yet be classified, as definitive !!
3 issues, 'Green backs' - 'smash the 'CIA' (yeah, good one Johnny make enemies of the, Dulles, brothers grim) & their over-seas shenanigans' - 'Vietnam' & all the smack that was getting shippped to the states from the 'Golden Triangle'
In 1953, 'Dulles' became the first civilian Director of Central Intelligence, (these brothers get in a lot of pies from 53 onward) which had been formed as part of the National Security Act of 1947; earlier directors had been military officers.
I'm sure other sources are out there. i have some in book form at home. but wiki is convenient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory)
after an initial supersonic rifle exit muzzle velocity of 1,850 to 2,000 feet per second (560 to 610 m/s), very slightly ballistically arced while traveling 189 ft (58 m) in a downward net angle of 25 degrees (allowing for the 3 degrees downward of Elm Street) then entered President Kennedy's rear suit coat at about 1,700 feet per second (518 m/s),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle)
During his Marine Corps service in December 1956, Oswald scored a rating of sharpshooter (twice achieving 48 and 49 out of 50 shots during rapid fire at a stationary target 200 yards (180 m) [183 m] away using a standard issue M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle). Although, in May 1959, he qualified as a marksman (a lower classification than that of sharpshooter), military experts, after examining his records, characterized his firearms proficiency as "above average" and said he was, when compared to American civilian males of his age, "an excellent shot".
In 2008, The History Channel produced a documentary on the Kennedy Assassination that would seem to have settled the matter of Oswald's ability to make the shots once and for all. Duplicating the range, elevation and windspeed of the Presidential limousine at the moment of Oswald's firing at a desert firing range, a retired British Army sniper had no difficulty in making the number of shots with the same level of accuracy within the time frame established by the Zapruder Film with a scoped Carcano identical to Oswald's gun, firing the same type of ammunition, on his first attempt. The documentary also established that the hits in a specially constructed target 'head' that exactly emulates a human head, produced the same splatter pattern and flying pieces of bone and scalp visible in the Zapruder Film.
So basically, he's at marksman or sharpshooter level at 200 yards and he needs to hit a moving target he's pre-sighted at 60 some yards. Very do-able
Oh, & yes the 3 shots in the time available, from that weapon are well within reason, but that is not the issue here, & you know it, as well as I.
I beg to differ old chasp.
You may as well just go get the 'Warren commission" & try & convince us that 'Oswald' shot 'JFK' from a window in the book depository building, with a 'single bolt action 6.5 mm caliber Carcano rifle', a shot that 'Verille Zaitsev' himself could not have made !!
I mean, come on.
It thought is was "your" issue. sorry. :) Seems like you are completely wrong about your single bolt action assertion and it being a possible shot.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5770984395481454022&ei=DVLmSeznGoKO-AamlK3ABA&hl=en
I watched the 2 minute video produced with final cut pro seemingly by amateur film makers.
Here's what i would ask off the top of my head:
- Where and when on the route did this happen?
- What was being said by both agents?
- Were the agents ever interviewed?
- Were the agents breaking protocol by not being on the back?
Until then it doesn't really prove anything.
Aside from that, its stupid reasoning to think that an organization who's sole purpose it to protect the protect the president with their lives would be in on this conspiracy.
-
According to toxie, the aliens that landed in roswell killed JFK..
In ruins of Babylon Saddam Hussien found a small gold statue of someone similar looking to JFK.. Saddam concluded that it was the evil lord Zenu, dictator of the milky way galaxy. He got this info from a missing portion of the dead sea scrolls that kept in Uday Hussien's bedroom.
Anyways, Saddam took the side of Zenu and that's where the US got alarmed. They killed JFK because he was really Zenu is disguise, or atleast that's what they thought. That was actually a Zenu look a like and Zenu was LBJ and he wanted to dominate the world. He decided to turn on his alley Saddam for oil and that's how it goes.
toxie's explanation covers the iraq war too! now you know!
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
-
no conspiracy.....people always want to believe that events are manipulated.....the guy (oswald) had an idea.....got out of bed and shot the president.....case closed.....Kennedy (may God rest his soul) was an idiot for riding in an open car down a long stretch of street with tall buildings around......
-
no conspiracy.....people always want to believe that events are manipulated.....the guy (oswald) had an idea.....got out of bed and shot the president.....case closed.....Kennedy (may God rest his soul) was an idiot for riding in an open car down a long stretch of street with tall buildings around......
(http://www.timeout.com/img/10016383/w310/image.jpg)
you can't be serious?
-
(http://www.timeout.com/img/10016383/w310/image.jpg)
you can't be serious?
LOLOLOLOL ;D
-
Chalk it up to political savvy (or perhaps having a triple digit IQ) but I am inclined to agree with congress that in all likelihood there was a conspiracy. I challenge anyone with unrelated parents to spend a couple hours reading over these findings and not agree:
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/
(or just look at the summary http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html)
Bear in mind that this is the same Kennedy who attempted to dismantle the CIA and who pissed on the DOD/military industrial complex re Cuba/Vietnam. If you stood to lose not only power but also billions, what would you do?
Agreed... Without a doubt there was a conspiracy to assassinate him and it succeeded.
-
if you watch the video you can see his secrete service bodyguards were waved off moments before he got shot... The turned and looked in a direction with their hands up thinking "Why did I just get called off"
-
if you watch the video you can see his secrete service bodyguards were waved off moments before he got shot... The turned and looked in a direction with their hands up thinking "Why did I just get called off"
just like 19 guys with boxcutters turned off NORAD, one guy waiting with a rifle in a building orderd the secret service to fall back.
Makes sense....
-
just like 19 guys with boxcutters turned off NORAD, one guy waiting with a rifle in a building orderd the secret service to fall back.
Makes sense....
The agents were called off by their superiors... It shows it in the video....WATCH THE VIDEO...
-
I've seen the video... I also saw how all the people changed the exact wording to indicate he 'slumped fwd.
Barring all other evidence of the day, you'd have to be an idiot not to see their quotes side by side and say "why did everyone change their wording suddenly from their statements earlier today"?
it's only when you realize from the film that, hey, his head flew backwards on video that you realize they were doing damage control.
Anyone who believes the real JFK story is a silly little person
-
Interesting responses based on this tape from people who are not Secret service agents.
At the time (1963) there were 500+ secret service agents working for the government. All of whom were trained and followed protocol. Yet, in 50 years not one retired, current, former, disgruntled, or one on their death bed has ever come forward to say what they did was deliberate and they were breaking protocol or procedure.
And to top that off, again, this is an organization who's sole purpose is to protect the president of the united states of america with their lives, something they have sworn an oath to do.
It's more than ridiculous to think that the secret service had something to do with assassinating the President of the United States of America
-
oz,
*IF* there is something big enough to take out JFK, they're probably big enough to scare/bribe the 20+ people involved into STFU.
-
I've seen the video... I also saw how all the people changed the exact wording to indicate he 'slumped fwd.
Barring all other evidence of the day, you'd have to be an idiot not to see their quotes side by side and say "why did everyone change their wording suddenly from their statements earlier today"?
it's only when you realize from the film that, hey, his head flew backwards on video that you realize they were doing damage control.
Anyone who believes the real JFK story is a silly little person
Yeah, this coming from the guy who thought the planes that hit the WTC's were actually holograms projected in broad daylight from helicopters which he concluded from youtube videos.
right. ::)
-
oz,
*IF* there is something big enough to take out JFK, they're probably big enough to scare/bribe the 20+ people involved into STFU.
There was something big enough to take out JFK. Is was a bullet fired from a rifle Oswald bought from a catalog.
AND
He was able to do this with skills he learned in the army that enabled him to hit 48 and 49 targets out of 50 at 200 yards earning him a sharp shooter status.
-
if you watch the video you can see his secrete service bodyguards were waved off moments before he got shot... The turned and looked in a direction with their hands up thinking "Why did I just get called off"
REally the video had their voices too?
-
There was something big enough to take out JFK. Is was a bullet fired from a rifle Oswald bought from a catalog.
AND
He was able to do this with skills he learned in the army that enabled him to hit 48 and 49 targets out of 50 at 200 yards earning him a sharp shooter status.
Why do you think mcgovern, the doc, and many others all changed their wording to say "slumped fwd" when they initially said (and motioned with hands) that his head flew back?
Just a case of spontaneous "get the stories straight"?
-
REally the video had their voices too?
did you watch the video, oz?
he throws his hands up in a "WTF, dude?" motion as they round the corner.
Then, that exact guy wasn't on the passenger-side door to cockblock the bullet, about 15 seconds later. hmmmmmmmmmm
-
did you watch the video, oz?
he throws his hands up in a "WTF, dude?" motion as they round the corner.
Then, that exact guy wasn't on the passenger-side door to cockblock the bullet, about 15 seconds later. hmmmmmmmmmm
Yeah i watched it three times. I even tried to read lips. Did you hear the order?
-
and I don't really care about the jfk conspiracy. never really debated it here.
so much shady coverup shit, and messing with the body in the plane... come on, and ford changing the autopsy report?
it stinks, but it was before my time and i'm honestly more concerned with the ice cream i'm eating tonight than that part of history.
-
Yeah i watched it three times. I even tried to read lips. Did you hear the order?
no, but the action was clear. he moved out of position coincidentally at the exact moment bullets flew.
And his action resulted in jfk being hit.
and we never heard about why he moved. Odd. Dontcha think the secret service looked at the same and wondered too?
-
Why do you think mcgovern, the doc, and many others all changed their wording to say "slumped fwd" when they initially said (and motioned with hands) that his head flew back?
Just a case of spontaneous "get the stories straight"?
You mean involved in a tragic violent event don't often change some of the details of their stories after they have had time to reflect on them resulting in inaccuracies on both accounts?
So the reality is, police officers and DA's don't have to take statements after witnesses and victims give their original statements directly after the events?
Using that line of reasoning does nothing.
-
Yeah, this coming from the guy who thought the planes that hit the WTC's were actually holograms projected in broad daylight from helicopters which he concluded from youtube videos.
right. ::)
normally, we piss on beach bum when he resorts to individual 'attack the messenger' tactics.
I thought you were a lot better debater than that.
-
no, but the action was clear. he moved out of position coincidentally at the exact moment bullets flew.
And his action resulted in jfk being hit.
and we never heard about why he moved. Odd. Dontcha think the secret service looked at the same and wondered too?
At the exact moment the bullets flew?
-
normally, we piss on beach bum when he resorts to individual 'attack the messenger' tactics.
I thought you were a lot better debater than that.
I'm just putting your comment in perspective based on what you said about silly little people.
It's important that people know where a comment like that is coming from since obviously i tend to believe the official story more than i believe in a Conspiracy. In that person can take a youtube vid and surmise that it's holograms planes projected from helicopters with explosives timed exactly right and then in turn call people who believe in the official JFK conclusions based on mountains of facts sily little people.
Wouldn't you agree?
-
no conspiracy.....people always want to believe that events are manipulated.....the guy (oswald) had an idea.....got out of bed and shot the president.....case closed.....Kennedy (may God rest his soul) was an idiot for riding in an open car down a long stretch of street with tall buildings around......
From what read earlier today from a book i have the secret service protested the route and the convertible.
-
From what read earlier today from a book i have the secret service protested the route and the convertible.
if i was the chief detective investigating the day's events, that guy shrugging (and the guy yelling to him) right before he moved out of the way right before bullets flew...
that would be the FIRST smoking gun i'd look at. Just like the pricks who shorted airline stock at 20 times normal levels the days before 9/11....
They did something odd which shows they knew something before events. If you have that knowledge and don't act (particularly if you are in an official capacity requiring you to do so), you're guilty bubba.
-
if i was the chief detective investigating the day's events, that guy shrugging (and the guy yelling to him) right before he moved out of the way right before bullets flew...
that would be the FIRST smoking gun i'd look at. Just like the pricks who shorted airline stock at 20 times normal levels the days before 9/11....
They did something odd which shows they knew something before events. If you have that knowledge and don't act (particularly if you are in an official capacity requiring you to do so), you're guilty bubba.
Are you a detective? How do you know it wasn't addressed?
Again how do you know what was even said?
And based on what you said about the stocks then every person who eats white bread is on suspicion for homicide, because in 86% of every murderer ever caught they found they had eaten white bread with in the last 24 hours.
-
and I don't really care about the jfk conspiracy. never really debated it here.
so much shady coverup shit, and messing with the body in the plane... come on, and ford changing the autopsy report?
it stinks, but it was before my time and i'm honestly more concerned with the ice cream i'm eating tonight than that part of history.
You better do some serious cardio tomorrow if you're eating ice cream at 1am :o
-
And based on what you said about the stocks then every person who eats white bread is on suspicion for homicide
Oh. You didn't know about the stock shorts right before the attacks, were you?
They were many times above normal, focused on the 2 airlines jacked and firms in the towers almost exclusively. Decker detailed it a while back.
You didn't hear about that then, okay, I can't crap on you.
-
Here's what crack me up about you sometimes 240.
no, but the action was clear. he moved out of position coincidentally at the exact moment bullets flew.
Here's a link to the Zapruder Film on Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G_Zxup7esU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G_Zxup7esU)
You won't see agents on the back of the vehicle at the moment before the bullets flew
Here something from a website debunking the secret services involvement.
An important discovery by the author was found in the video from ABC television's Dallas/ Fort Worth affiliate WFAA depicting the start of the fateful motorcade at Love Field: agent Henry J. Rybka is shown being recalled by shift leader (and commander of the follow-up car detail) Emory P. Roberts. As the limo begins leaving the area, Rybka's dismay and confusion is made manifest by his unambiguous body language of throwing his arms up several times before, during, and after the follow-up car passes him by, despite agent Paul E. Landis making room for Rybka on the running board of the car.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/palamara/factsheet_vmp.htm (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/palamara/factsheet_vmp.htm)l
The video of the secret service agents was taken when they left love field.
NOT AT THE MOMENT THE SHOTS WERE FIRED as you stated.
You run with conjecture as fact sometimes.
So forgive me if i don't immediatly believe your assertions about these stocks.
-
So forgive me if i don't immediatly believe your assertions about these stocks.
google them yourself from sites you deem fit.
-
google them yourself from sites you deem fit.
I'm sure I'll get to it at some point.
However, its reasonable to think that these hijackers had serious backing from people with money, so it's not out of the question that people knew and or were directed to take advantage of it.
In the mean time, anything you'd like to say about the secret service video at love field?
As chief detective would you have first checked into to where and when the video was taken?
I'm no detective and that was not the first thing i checked.
-
Its obvious who shot him... I just peronally think he had some help... I dont know all the stories or theorys... Something shady went down...
I've seen the video... I also saw how all the people changed the exact wording to indicate he 'slumped fwd.
Barring all other evidence of the day, you'd have to be an idiot not to see their quotes side by side and say "why did everyone change their wording suddenly from their statements earlier today"?
it's only when you realize from the film that, hey, his head flew backwards on video that you realize they were doing damage control.
Anyone who believes the real JFK story is a silly little person
-
Its obvious who shot him... I just peronally think he had some help... I dont know all the stories or theorys... Something shady went down...
Do you think he was acting with a partner or was part of a bigger conspiracy as has been theorized?
-
However, its reasonable to think that these hijackers had serious backing from people with money, so it's not out of the question that people knew and or were directed to take advantage of it.
So it is then a conspiracy that goes beyond 19 guys?
That's a conspiracy theory, dude.
If they had state or pvt funding, then bad guys are sitll on the loose and it was certainly more than the 911 commish reports.
And if its the case, why not investigate or even question those with knowledge to invest heavily right before? (A from 911 commission: Because we only looked at Al-Q). WTF?
-
Yeah, this coming from the guy who thought the planes that hit the WTC's were actually holograms projected in broad daylight from helicopters which he concluded from youtube videos.
right. ::)
you would do best to stick to the topic at hand rather than dismiss based on past unrelated posts. I'm interested in what you say but I have little desire to weigh these kinds of posts. You've done some research, some of us have done some research, let's keep it confined to this and boil it down to a truth if we can. We could all be discredited for this or that throughout our history so it's really no good to go there imo.
-
My father was on the 'Warren commission' & he proved that Oswald killed 'JFK'
There, see how easy that was ??
It thought is was "your" issue. sorry. Smiley Seems like you are completely wrong about your single bolt action assertion and it being a possible shot.
Take my quotes out of context all day & try to chump me that way, if you feel that is solid enough so see me off !! be my guest.
The first comment was not even directed toward you, & it was in relation to 'Gov' evidence on the 9/11 commission, supposedly convincing me that 'Themate' was never used, odd that you would go for that.
My point was "you might as well use the 'WC' to prove that 'LHO' shot 'JFK' - as clearly, it does not.
I watched the 2 minute video produced with final cut pro seemingly by amateur film makers.
Here's what i would ask off the top of my head:
- Where and when on the route did this happen?
- What was being said by both agents?
- Were the agents ever interviewed?
- Were the agents breaking protocol by not being on the back?
Until then it doesn't really prove anything.
Aside from that, its stupid reasoning to think that an organization who's sole purpose it to protect the protect the president with their lives would be in on this conspiracy.
- That was a right turn into 'Houston st' heading toward 'Elm st' & then the turn into 'Dealey Plaza' - or the Kill zone.
- The body language & their actions give a very strong indication that they are being pulled back, no ??
- That I do not know, I would suggest not, considering how corrupt the 'WC' was, & the amount of extremely valuable evidence that was discounted.
- Is that a serious question, or are you running dry here ??
Stupid reasoning ?? errrrrrrrm, one word - 'compartmentalization' - orders are orders (who needed to know,what would have been a need to know basis)you are give orders by your superior in command, & are thus expected to follow, said orders.
Shall we look at the assassination of the 'prime minister' of Israel 'Yitzhak Rabin ' for similarity of action with the 'security detail' (falling back just before the shots ??)
Now watch the 'Zapruder clip' & tell me where the secret service guys are ?? all, except the one who runs to the rear of the limo & tries to do his job after shots were fired !!
They were - ALL - in the second follow up Limo.
Protocol for secret service ?? no !!
&NR=1
-
Yeah i watched it three times. I even tried to read lips. Did you hear the order?
Hear ?? Body language,& the interpretation there-of - not a strong point of your abilities, no ??
-
Do you think he was acting with a partner or was part of a bigger conspiracy as has been theorized?
IMO he was fooled into doing some-thing that he did not fully understand.
Just IMO.
You have side stepped my question from the original thread also.
Do - YOU - beleive that the shots from (behind the motorcade) the 'Book depository' blew an exit wound in the upper left part of 'JFK's' cranium ??
& exploded the front part of his right temple, Honestly !! ::)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6772585564431596301&hl=en
Que the 'MAGIC BULLET' theory.................. ............... ;)
-
i don't think i do anymore.
Look out our resident 'Buntu' will shred you on your written English !! hey 'AM' ??
With total disregard for the facts being discussed ::)
-
Scientific acoustical evidence? How so and where is this evidence? The place had echoes and the retort of a rifle shot would have been hard to pin point as reported by the 174 witnesses who heard it.
Sound reverberations, ah yes, good point - & one that does not help your case, woooooooooooooops !!
Drop the ball some more while you are at it, why not ??
there is certainly many people who didn't want him around, but motive alone doesn't prove a comspiracy ??
I beg to differ, there was one group in particular (I gave you the hint in the original thread = 'Greenbacks').
The 'FED' run by 'Rockefeller' & his boss - 'Rothschild' - shall we go over the evidence of a previous 'US president' that was shot dead after trying to fuck with the international banking boys ??
Hint = 'Lincoln'
The 19th century became known as the age of the 'Rothschild's'when it was estimated they controlled half of the world's wealth. While their wealth continues to increase today, they have managed to blend into the background, giving an impression that their power has waned. They only apply the Rothschild name to a small fraction of the companies they actually control. Some authors claim that the 'Rothschild's' had not only taken over the Bank of England (despite them funding 'William of Orange' & his take over of the British aristocracy, then establishing the 'Bank of England' hhhmmmmmmmm, coincidence ??) but they had also in 1816 backed a new privately owned Central Bank in America.
Along with 'Rockefeller' - & the rest of the usual suspects, LOLOLOLz.
This is price-less ::)
-
If you mean conspiracy as in was he assassinated because he stepped on the wrong toes, definitely and it was clear there was a cover up afterward.
-
you would do best to stick to the topic at hand rather than dismiss based on past unrelated posts. I'm interested in what you say but I have little desire to weigh these kinds of posts. You've done some research, some of us have done some research, let's keep it confined to this and boil it down to a truth if we can. We could all be discredited for this or that throughout our history so it's really no good to go there imo.
I could have said: " Some of the same people who call those who believe the official JFK story a silly little people, believe the planes that hit the WTC's were holograms"
I just decided to skip the BS and get right down to it.
Further more I really don't give a rip if a thread goes off course. It doesn't bother me that much. We are mods, we can police it anytime needed. If the desire between the posters is to content to talk about the topic is will stay on course.
Additionally, you know me well enough, i don't normally throw the first ad-hom stone and didn't here.
-
Sound reverberations, ah yes, good point - & one that does not help your case, woooooooooooooops !!
Drop the ball some more while you are at it, why not ??
I beg to differ, there was one group in particular (I gave you the hint in the original thread = 'Greenbacks').
The 'FED' run by 'Rockefeller' & his boss - 'Rothschild' - shall we go over the evidence of a previous 'US president' that was shot dead after trying to fuck with the international banking boys ??
Hint = 'Lincoln'
The 19th century became known as the age of the 'Rothschild's'when it was estimated they controlled half of the world's wealth. While their wealth continues to increase today, they have managed to blend into the background, giving an impression that their power has waned. They only apply the Rothschild name to a small fraction of the companies they actually control. Some authors claim that the 'Rothschild's' had not only taken over the Bank of England (despite them funding 'William of Orange' & his take over of the British aristocracy, then establishing the 'Bank of England' hhhmmmmmmmm, coincidence ??) but they had also in 1816 backed a new privately owned Central Bank in America.
Along with 'Rockefeller' - & the rest of the usual suspects, LOLOLOLz.
This is price-less ::)
Just because there were people who didn't want the president in power does not mean his death was surely a result of their conspiracy. Every president has enemies. Again i refer to my white bread analogy and homicide victims.
Also read that link about "acoustical evidence" It's very shaky.
-
There, see how easy that was ??
Take my quotes out of context all day & try to chump me that way, if you feel that is solid enough so see me off !! be my guest.
The first comment was not even directed toward you, & it was in relation to 'Gov' evidence on the 9/11 commission, supposedly convincing me that 'Themate' was never used, odd that you would go for that.
My point was "you might as well use the 'WC' to prove that 'LHO' shot 'JFK' - as clearly, it does not.
- That was a right turn into 'Houston st' heading toward 'Elm st' & then the turn into 'Dealey Plaza' - or the Kill zone.
- The body language & their actions give a very strong indication that they are being pulled back, no ??
- That I do not know, I would suggest not, considering how corrupt the 'WC' was, & the amount of extremely valuable evidence that was discounted.
- Is that a serious question, or are you running dry here ??
Stupid reasoning ?? errrrrrrrm, one word - 'compartmentalization' - orders are orders (who needed to know,what would have been a need to know basis)you are give orders by your superior in command, & are thus expected to follow, said orders.
Shall we look at the assassination of the 'prime minister' of Israel 'Yitzhak Rabin ' for similarity of action with the 'security detail' (falling back just before the shots ??)
Now watch the 'Zapruder clip' & tell me where the secret service guys are ?? all, except the one who runs to the rear of the limo & tries to do his job after shots were fired !!
They were - ALL - in the second follow up Limo.
Protocol for secret service ?? no !!
&NR=1
Do you know secret service protocol? I don't think so.
Here's what crack me up about you sometimes 240.
Here's a link to the Zapruder Film on Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G_Zxup7esU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G_Zxup7esU)
You won't see agents on the back of the vehicle at the moment before the bullets flew
Here something from a website debunking the secret services involvement.
An important discovery by the author was found in the video from ABC television's Dallas/ Fort Worth affiliate WFAA depicting the start of the fateful motorcade at Love Field: agent Henry J. Rybka is shown being recalled by shift leader (and commander of the follow-up car detail) Emory P. Roberts. As the limo begins leaving the area, Rybka's dismay and confusion is made manifest by his unambiguous body language of throwing his arms up several times before, during, and after the follow-up car passes him by, despite agent Paul E. Landis making room for Rybka on the running board of the car.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/palamara/factsheet_vmp.htm (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/palamara/factsheet_vmp.htm)l
The video of the secret service agents was taken when they left love field.
NOT AT THE MOMENT THE SHOTS WERE FIRED as you stated.
You run with conjecture as fact sometimes.
So forgive me if i don't immediatly believe your assertions about these stocks.
Read this again.
Take my quotes out of context all day & try to chump me that way, if you feel that is solid enough so see me off !! be my guest.
The first comment was not even directed toward you, & it was in relation to 'Gov' evidence on the 9/11 commission, supposedly convincing me that 'Themate' was never used, odd that you would go for that.
My point was "you might as well use the 'WC' to prove that 'LHO' shot 'JFK' - as clearly, it does not.
I'm just going off the words you wrote. It's not my fault they contradict themselves.
-
Basically the way i see this so far:
- We have the issue with the rifle and shots. Done
- The video of agents. Done
- The rothchilds (white bread analogy: Just because there are people who hate him doesn't prove they are guilty of killing him) Done
- The acoustical evidence. not done yet
-
Look out our resident 'Buntu' will shred you on your written English !! hey 'AM' ??
With total disregard for the facts being discussed ::)
What facts am i disregarding PT?
Your double talk?
The video of the agents at Love field?
The proven plausibility of the rifle, range, and skill?
What is it?
Or is this your standard pattern of ad-hom?
IMO he was fooled into doing some-thing that he did not fully understand.
Just IMO.
You have side stepped my question from the original thread also.
Do - YOU - beleive that the shots from (behind the motorcade) the 'Book depository' blew an exit wound in the upper left part of 'JFK's' cranium ??
& exploded the front part of his right temple, Honestly !! ::)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6772585564431596301&hl=en
Que the 'MAGIC BULLET' theory.................. ............... ;)
I don't recall you talking about the magic bullet.
I do recall you talking about this vid, which beyond inconclusive and doesn't indicate anything.
I do recall you talking about the Rifle, range, and skill of the shots Oswald took.
But if you want to talk about the "magic bullet" I have no problem with it.
-
Basically the way i see this so far:
- We have the issue with the rifle and shots. Done
- The video of agents. Done
- The rothchilds (white bread analogy: Just because there are people who hate him doesn't prove they are guilty of killing him) Done
- The acoustical evidence. not done yet
The thing about JFK is that there isn't one consistent conspiracy theory. The same is true of 9-11.
So far I have heard its the Rothchilds, Cubans, the Mob, Lyndon Johnson, Soviet Bloc, Isreal among others.
In these theories there is noting specific to each that could be correlated together. Some have the CIA complicit, some don't
Some have multiple shoots from multiple locations, some don't.
Some involve influence from foreign governments.
The more theories there are the easier to convince people that the main story is not true,these theories don't need to involve any real research, and need to cause just enough reasonable doubt in the CT believer.
With JFK there is a theory that will fit whichever way lean, if your anti Isreali there is a theory, if hate the Cubans then there is a theory, Ditto for the mob and the rest of them. So it is easy to see why so may people buy into it.
The thing is though that the more theories that there are the less believable it becomes to an outsider or someone with no vested interest, because the logical jumps become too great. Like why would the Rothchilds and the Cubans work together to kill JFK. Or where are the CIA orders instructing a hit on JFK. Someone should have a legitimate copy, because not all of CIA was against JFK.
Occam's Razor
-
We all know Oswald killed JFK... I wanna know why the secrete service was called off literally 10 seconds before he got shot?
-
We all know Oswald killed JFK... I wanna know why the secrete service was called off literally 10 seconds before he got shot?
Here something from a website debunking the secret services involvement.
An important discovery by the author was found in the video from ABC television's Dallas/ Fort Worth affiliate WFAA depicting the start of the fateful motorcade at Love Field: agent Henry J. Rybka is shown being recalled by shift leader (and commander of the follow-up car detail) Emory P. Roberts. As the limo begins leaving the area, Rybka's dismay and confusion is made manifest by his unambiguous body language of throwing his arms up several times before, during, and after the follow-up car passes him by, despite agent Paul E. Landis making room for Rybka on the running board of the car.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/palamara/factsheet_vmp.html (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/palamara/factsheet_vmp.html)
The video of the secret service agents was taken when they left love field.
NOT AT THE MOMENT THE SHOTS WERE FIRED as you (240) stated.
-
NOT AT THE MOMENT THE SHOTS WERE FIRED as you (240) stated.
settle down there homey. I'm not 'busted'. if I want to debate a topic, i have not problem using my own name to do it.
Seriously, you're slipping further into BB territory every day with paranoid delusions and accusations that everyone is a 240 gimmic.
My history here is that I don't really give a shit about the JFk stuff. it's been 4-5 years I've been debating. I've never cared about the topic. busted obviously does. he's not me, and it's a little sad if you went from last nights "attack the messenger" methods to today's "you're a gimmick!" accusations.
-
settle down there homey. I'm not 'busted'. if I want to debate a topic, i have not problem using my own name to do it.
Seriously, you're slipping further into BB territory every day with paranoid delusions and accusations that everyone is a 240 gimmic.
My history here is that I don't really give a shit about the JFk stuff. it's been 4-5 years I've been debating. I've never cared about the topic. busted obviously does. he's not me, and it's a little sad if you went from last nights "attack the messenger" methods to today's "you're a gimmick!" accusations.
No, I think you are mis-understanding what i meant. Most probably I mis-wrote it.
I wanted to make sure Busted knew i wasn't accusing him of saying the shots were fired at the same time.
I wasn't accusing anyone of being a gimmick here.
If you care to, how about getting back to your assertion about the timing of the shots versus the agent video?
-
ok sorry
-
ok sorry
np. :) Gimmicks are hard to prove, but easy to spot sometimes. I can't imagine how anyone could put forth energy for a gimmick to mask their tendencies in a debate.
-
Here something from a website debunking the secret services involvement.
An important discovery by the author was found in the video from ABC television's Dallas/ Fort Worth affiliate WFAA depicting the start of the fateful motorcade at Love Field: agent Henry J. Rybka is shown being recalled by shift leader (and commander of the follow-up car detail) Emory P. Roberts. As the limo begins leaving the area, Rybka's dismay and confusion is made manifest by his unambiguous body language of throwing his arms up several times before, during, and after the follow-up car passes him by, despite agent Paul E. Landis making room for Rybka on the running board of the car.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/palamara/factsheet_vmp.html (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/palamara/factsheet_vmp.html)
The video of the secret service agents was taken when they left love field.
NOT AT THE MOMENT THE SHOTS WERE FIRED as you (240) stated.
Actually it was moments before...
-
Actually it was moments before...
Do you know how long it took them to drive from love field to Dealey Plaza?
Also, was that a breach of protocol?
Those are the questions I'm wondering about.
-
Every president has enemies.
Oh no you don't !!
NOT ONE FUCKING PRESIDENT HAS - EVER - TRIED TO FUCK WITH THIS CREW SINCE.
They made their point load & clear.
Coincidence was it, both presidents who tries to fuck with this lot, eeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, got fucking shot.
You selling, because I am buying, NOT !!
-
We all know Oswald killed JFK... I wanna know why the secrete service was called off literally 10 seconds before he got shot?
WE ??
That is rather presumptuous of you, you might have at least mailed me. ::)
Back to the magic bullet are we, the one that does right angles & loop the loop, yeah, good one ;)
-
Oh no you don't !!
NOT ONE FUCKING PRESIDENT HAS - EVER - TRIED TO FUCK WITH THIS CREW SINCE.
They made their point load & clear.
Coincidence was it, both presidents who tries to fuck with this lot, eeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, got fucking shot.
You selling, because I am buying, NOT !!
What are you talking about? You are not making much sense.
Maybe you should tone down the expressions a bit.
-
settle down there homey. I'm not 'busted'. if I want to debate a topic, i have not problem using my own name to do it.
Seriously, you're slipping further into BB territory every day with paranoid delusions and accusations that everyone is a 240 gimmic.
My history here is that I don't really give a shit about the JFk stuff. it's been 4-5 years I've been debating. I've never cared about the topic. busted obviously does. he's not me, and it's a little sad if you went from last nights "attack the messenger" methods to today's "you're a gimmick!" accusations.
100% on point ;)
-
Back to the magic bullet are we, the one that does right angles & loop the loop, yeah, good one ;)
We will get there. It may take a day or 2. I assure you i won't limit my research to youtube finalcut clips.
-
What are you talking about? You are not making much sense.
Maybe you should tone down the expressions a bit.
Geo-politics & the global banking elite, is not your area is it ??
-
We will get there. It may take a day or 2. I assure you i won't limit my research to youtube finalcut clips.
From shooting the messenger - to accusations of gimmicks - to weak rhetoric/sarcasm.
Intel is intel.
Fuck, I wont even pull you on using Wikipedia.com if you want to look a TARD.
Your call.
-
I assure you i won't limit my research to youtube finalcut clips.
No you will use books you have read, yeah, good one, again !!
-
From shooting the messenger - to accusations of gimmicks - to weak rhetoric/sarcasm.
Intel is intel.
Fuck, I wont even pull you on using Wikipedia.com if you want to look a TARD.
Your call.
You should read all the posts after that.
You'd make less of a fool of yourself.
I can see why you believe in CT's.
And so far, you use mostly ad-hom to make your arguments.
-
You should read all the posts after that.
You'd make less of a fool of yourself.
I can see why you believe in CT's.
And so far, you use mostly ad-hom to make your arguments.
TBH I use another board for serious debate.
I will confess to not having read any of this, except your & my posts.
I am just not that stirred up this weekend.
This is a BB'ing forum & i just can't get into it here.
You know what they say about most BB'ers ??
Yeah !!
-
TBH I use another board for serious debate.
I will confess to not having read any of this, except your & my posts.
I am just not that stirred up this weekend.
This is a BB'ing forum & i just can't get into it here.
You know what they say about most BB'ers ??
Yeah !!
Another defection that's ad-hom based.
One day maybe you can man up and have an adult discussion.
I predict you'll run soon like you did on the other thread.
-
You should read all the posts after that.
You'd make less of a fool of yourself.
I can see why you believe in CT's.
And so far, you use mostly ad-hom to make your arguments.
I personally believe that LHO was the shooter, but his statement that " I am only a patsie" allways made me feel that something else bigger was going on.
-
I personally believe that LHO was the shooter, but his statement that " I am only a patsie" allways made me feel that something else bigger was going on.
Looking at the organizations Oswald was involved in probably made him feel the same way.
Regardless, the JFK assassination seems to be the CT that more Americans believe than any other.
-
Looking at the organizations Oswald was involved in probably made him feel the same way.
Regardless, the JFK assassination seems to be the CT that more Americans believe than any other.
You are an 'ADL' plant - 110%
An Ad-Hominem argument can only be called when your claims are not factual.
Do a Google, Newton.
-
You are an 'ADL' plant - 110%
An Ad-Hominem argument can only be called when your claims are not factual.
Do a Google, Newton.
What claims aren't factual?
No need to ad-hom, just show what's not factual.
If you can.
If you have the courage.
If you are not a coward.
:-*
-
(http://www.timeout.com/img/10016383/w310/image.jpg)
you can't be serious?
dead serious
-
I've seen the video... I also saw how all the people changed the exact wording to indicate he 'slumped fwd.
Barring all other evidence of the day, you'd have to be an idiot not to see their quotes side by side and say "why did everyone change their wording suddenly from their statements earlier today"?
it's only when you realize from the film that, hey, his head flew backwards on video that you realize they were doing damage control.
Anyone who believes the real JFK story is a silly little person
I'm disappointed in you 240..you usually don't fall for this type of nonsense....when you are shot, your body jerks in many ways....no one's body reacts the same .....depends on angle of shot.....your own position , caliber of bullet, etc......Oswald acted alone....there has been no other evidence to contradict that.......if you look at ALL PRESIDENTIAL ASSASINATIONS OR ATTEMPTED ASSASINATIONS there has never been any type of government conspiracy...it was always a normal everyday citizen with a grievance who got an idea to kill the president and went about doing it.....from John Wilkes Booth who killed Lincoln.....to Oswald.......to Squeaky Fromm who tried to kill President Ford....to John Hinckley who tried to kill Reagan.....
-
I'm disappointed in you 240..you usually don't fall for this type of nonsense....when you are shot, your body jerks in many ways....no one's body reacts the same .....depends on angle of shot.....your own position , caliber of bullet, etc......Oswald acted alone....there has been no other evidence to contradict that.......if you look at ALL PRESIDENTIAL ASSASINATIONS OR ATTEMPTED ASSASINATIONS there has never been any type of government conspiracy...it was always a normal everyday citizen with a grievance who got an idea to kill the president and went about doing it.....from John Wilkes Booth who killed Lincoln.....to Oswald.......to Squeaky Fromm who tried to kill President Ford....to John Hinckley who tried to kill Reagan.....
Remember Michael Corleone's famous quote from the Godfather 2 about killing people and what history has taught us.
-
Ozmo, so I can get this straight for down the road argument sake:
You believe Oswald acted alone and there was no government involvement? You pretty much believe the Warren Report? If you can just give me a quick take on what you think happened, that would be cool. Unless I missed it you've had people shooting ideas at you and you've referenced some guys book for the shoot down responses. Let me know what you think happened, thanks.
-
Ozmo, so I can get this straight for down the road argument sake:
You believe Oswald acted alone and there was no government involvement? You pretty much believe the Warren Report? If you can just give me a quick take on what you think happened, that would be cool. Unless I missed it you've had people shooting ideas at you and you've referenced some guys book for the shoot down responses. Let me know what you think happened, thanks.
I think LHO killed the president. I don't think:
Rothchilds, Cubans, the Mob, Lyndon Johnson, Soviet Bloc, Isreal, CIA etc... had anything to do with it, or the government.
I've referenced web sites and this book here:
http://reclaiminghistory.com/?page_id=7 (http://reclaiminghistory.com/?page_id=7)
It's the single largest book i own. 1500+ pages. lol
He also wrote this book:
http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/ (http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/)
I should also say this. Up to about year or so ago, I believed JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy from the government. Kind of like a coup led by LBJ. Most of my beliefs weren't based n facts. I also read another book call "Why believe believe in weird things" by Michael Shermer. This book changed the way i look at things initially and take emotion out of how I come to conclusions.
So bottom line, based on the available facts, LHO acted alone. That's not to say, something may come to light in the future. But as it stands now, that's the way it is. And discussing it is interesting and educational also, especially those who, like yourself, present a good argument and would go the extra mile, like for example, buying that camera.
-
Besmirching History: Vincent Bugliosi Assassinates Kennedy Again
The Military and Warren Commission Cover-up
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/BesmirchingHistory.html (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/BesmirchingHistory.html)
-
Besmirching History: Vincent Bugliosi Assassinates Kennedy Again
The Military and Warren Commission Cover-up
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/BesmirchingHistory.html (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/BesmirchingHistory.html)
Nice article, I will read it again after i skim over it. Are you willing to read Bugliosi's book or did you? :P Or did you just google a sure to exist opposing view point?
-
out of curiosity what does Vincent have to say about the deathbed coffessions of E. Howard Hunt?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13893143/the_last_confessions_of_e_howard_hunt/print
-
Nice article, I will read it again after i skim over it. Are you willing to read Bugliosi's book or did you? :P Or did you just google a sure to exist opposing view point?
speaking for myself, I haven't read his book, but I have listened to him several times and his counter opinions are not hard to find and usually pop up on the subject. His work is so far the greatest done countering conspiracy theorists in the JFK case. I will probably read it some day. Or hell I have a zillion audio credits purchased on audible.com, maybe they have it there.
-
Nice article, I will read it again after i skim over it. Are you willing to read Bugliosi's book or did you? :P Or did you just google a sure to exist opposing view point?
I'd read it
it wasn't a google search. :D
-
speaking for myself, I haven't read his book, but I have listened to him several times and his counter opinions are not hard to find and usually pop up on the subject. His work is so far the greatest done countering conspiracy theorists in the JFK case. I will probably read it some day. Or hell I have a zillion audio credits purchased on audible.com, maybe they have it there.
I've probably only read 500 pages of it total. Just the good stuff. I find it interesting that a guy who counters CT's wrote a book accusing GWB of murder.
So what did Hunt say exactly? I started reading the article and it read like a Omni magazine article. Lots of story. Got board.
-
I'd read it
it wasn't a google search. :D
heheh,
Better be a long trip. ;D
The book weighs 10 pounds lol
-
heheh,
Better be a long trip. ;D
The book weighs 10 pounds lol
:D
-
taken from the article I linked.
The mysterious “CIA” is merely a civilian agency that collects intelligence, conducts and funds political sabotage abroad, and can organize at will mercenary armies in the service of U.S. hegemony
-
What's kind of cool though, is on this forum we can dissect each issue on the assassination using the web and books for reference. Hopefully we can forgo much of the rhetoric and just discuss facts. (I'm more than guilty of being a rhetoric whore)
I tried discussing this with my parents who typically don't believe anything but are staunch believers in the JFK CT and it went badly. lol
-
taken from the article I linked.
So what are you saying? Are you saying that because that's what the CIA does that is what happened then?
-
So what are you saying? Are you saying that because that's what the CIA does that is what happened then?
that what happened?
-
that what happened?
That the CIA organized a mercenary army or just LHO himself and killed JFK.
-
That the CIA organized a mercenary army or just LHO himself and killed JFK.
CIA organized it, LHO was only a patsy.
-
also, while it's on my mind, I had a bit of a chuckle on your take of Oswald's shooting. I have one of his shooting books somewhere and it wasn't that impressive. Keep in mind the targets are not moving. I scored expert, above Oswald on every one of my qualifications. No offense to anyone out there but those who didn't score expert were not very good. Oswald scored marksman on one qualification. I can't even imagine shooting marksman and later being considered a good shot ::) Now move a person who only scored sharpshooter at his best to shooting a moving target through foliage and not any moving target but one that is surely to have your heart racing. As compared to American civilian males his age being an excellent shot, that doesn't shock me at all they would say that. Most american males his age coming from the city and never before or rarely shooting a rifle and of course, what are they going to say, "we're sending Marines into combat that arn't good shooters?" Of course they said that.
-
I've probably only read 500 pages of it total. Just the good stuff. I find it interesting that a guy who counters CT's wrote a book accusing GWB of murder.
So what did Hunt say exactly? I started reading the article and it read like a Omni magazine article. Lots of story. Got board.
WHAT? dude, if that story bores you, you probably shouldn't be engaging in JFK talk. That is one of the most exciting things to come out in recent years. Read it, it's not that long and I can't fathom calling it a omni story... I picked that story because it gives some background. I could have just posted his deathbed confession but if you're not familiar with all of the subplot, it's easy to just write it off as some nut. As usual, dammed if I do, dammed if I don't....
-
CIA organized it, LHO was only a patsy.
So because they had the ability to do it and it was a function of theirs that proves they did it?
What evidence is there of them doing this?
-
also, while it's on my mind, I had a bit of a chuckle on your take of Oswald's shooting. I have one of his shooting books somewhere and it wasn't that impressive. Keep in mind the targets are not moving. I scored expert, above Oswald on every one of my qualifications. No offense to anyone out there but those who didn't score expert were not very good. Oswald scored marksman on one qualification. I can't even imagine shooting marksman and later being considered a good shot ::) Now move a person who only scored sharpshooter at his best to shooting a moving target through foliage and not any moving target but one that is surely to have your heart racing. As compared to American civilian males his age being an excellent shot, that doesn't shock me at all they would say that. Most american males his age coming from the city and never before or rarely shooting a rifle and of course, what are they going to say, "we're sending Marines into combat that arn't good shooters?" Of course they said that.
It took him 3 shots to get the kill. I would imagine a trained sniper would have nailed him in one shot.
Also to, JFK was moving more away from him, not side to side, making the shot easier.
On a side note: did you read Generation Kill? The author was taken back at how good of a shot regular soldiers were.
-
WHAT? dude, if that story bores you, you probably shouldn't be engaging in JFK talk. That is one of the most exciting things to come out in recent years. Read it, it's not that long and I can't fathom calling it a omni story... I picked that story because it gives some background. I could have just posted his deathbed confession but if you're not familiar with all of the subplot, it's easy to just write it off as some nut. As usual, dammed if I do, dammed if I don't....
Chill out dude, I'm not damning you. I'm just tired, sleepy. I thought it might be easier to get to the crux and then work backwards.
You just showed you age, knowing about Omni magazine :)
-
It toke him 3 shots to get the kill. I would imagine a trained sniper would have nailed him in one shot.
sniper? An expert goes on to be a sniper. This is a guy who scored marksman and sharpshooter. That would be an expert after a few six packs. I'm serious, you have to suck to score marksman even once. I can't fathom it. I would have to switch shooting hands and have a few brews to do that. He hit the mark 2 out of 3 and again, I go back to my post above for the rest.
-
Chill out dude, I'm not damning you. I'm just tired, sleepy. I thought it might be easier to get to the crux and then work backwards.
You just showed you age, knowing about Omni magazine :)
best advice I ever got was from Omni. They had an article in the 80's about how to cure the common cold. It's worked for me 90 percent of the time.
-
The author was taken back at how good of a shot regular soldiers were.
we were comparing to your average citizen as per the comment, I agree. Maybe you missed my point I made in that post. I did not intend to degrade the shooting skills of soldiers and marines.
-
sniper? An expert goes on to be a sniper. This is a guy who scored marksman and sharpshooter. That would be an expert after a few six packs. I'm serious, you have to suck to score marksman even once. I can't fathom it. I would have to switch shooting hands and have a few brews to do that. He hit the mark 2 out of 3 and again, I go back to my post above for the rest.
So are you saying he couldn't have made the shot? Or are you saying its not likely?
He had experience shooting. He shot at an above average level. No one knows how much practice he had shooting before he shot JFK. He had a pre-sighted position. And it was 60 meters on his first shot.
Its very possible he can make the shot.
Now if he hadn't ever been in the military or was less than marksman, the shot wasn't pre-sighted and it was farther away, I tend to agree the odds of him making the shot are too remote.
I'm not slamming Omni. I just remember most of their articles as being bloated back then. So what was the advice they gave you on colds?
-
So because they had the ability to do it and it was a function of theirs that proves they did it?
What evidence is there of them doing this?
because they could doesn't prove it. They had their reasons
F1 is starting, I'll come back to this later. too late to start digging :)
-
So are you saying he couldn't have made the shot? Or are you saying its not likely?
He had experience shooting. He shot at an above average level. No one knows how much practice he had shooting before he shot JFK. He had a pre-sighted position. And it was 60 meters on his first shot.
Its very possible he can make the shot.
Now if he hadn't ever been in the military or was less than marksman, the shot wasn't pre-sighted and it was farther away, I tend to agree the odds of him making the shot are too remote.
I'm not slamming Omni. I just remember most of their articles as being bloated back then. So what was the advice they gave you on colds?
no, my main contention was trying to make him sound like a good shooter. He could make the shot, it's by far not impossible, just that it's silly to spin him into more than what he was and when I read that he's and excellent shot, I just can't go along with that based on my experience. And again, you have to put above average into perspective. If you were able to take the average of all citizens, the average probably sucks ass. Scoring marksman is a little better than sucking ass. For someone who teetered between marksman and sharpshooter on a stationary target, I wouldn't have a lot of confidence they could make a moving mark and one that would have any normal person's heart racing.
The cold advice was really good shit. The cold virus breeds or whatever they call it at temps less than body temp. That's why is starts out in the nose and spreads from there. So if you just pinch off your nose and breath through your mouth at the first sign of catching a cold, you can end it right away. It doesn't always work but works pretty good most of the time. I've also just turned up the temp in addition to breathing through my mouth and that works even better. These days for some reason I don't have to worry about it. I've only come down with a full blown cold or flu once since 2000.
-
no, my main contention was trying to make him sound like a good shooter. He could make the shot, it's by far not impossible, just that it's silly to spin him into more than what he was and when I read that he's and excellent shot, I just can't go along with that based on my experience. And again, you have to put above average into perspective. If you were able to take the average of all citizens, the average probably sucks ass. Scoring marksman is a little better than sucking ass. For someone who teetered between marksman and sharpshooter on a stationary target, I wouldn't have a lot of confidence they could make a moving mark and one that would have any normal person's heart racing.
The cold advice was really good shit. The cold virus breeds or whatever they call it at temps less than body temp. That's why is starts out in the nose and spreads from there. So if you just pinch off your nose and breath through your mouth at the first sign of catching a cold, you can end it right away. It doesn't always work but works pretty good most of the time. I've also just turned up the temp in addition to breathing through my mouth and that works even better. These days for some reason I don't have to worry about it. I've only come down with a full blown cold or flu once since 2000.
Point taken, I agree. Not a "good" shooter, but had the ability to make the shot.
Thanks for the cold info. gn.
-
because they could doesn't prove it. They had their reasons
F1 is starting, I'll come back to this later. too late to start digging :)
Motive and ability also doesn't prove guilt.
-
Remember Michael Corleone's famous quote from the Godfather 2 about killing people and what history has taught us.
no..please enlighten me
-
no..please enlighten me
"If history has taught us anything, it is that you can kill anyone"
-
"If history has taught us anything, it is that you can kill anyone"
agreed.....if you look at the history of presidential assasinations in this country, they were all carried out by civilians...no political connections...no one in government..just some crazy person with an agenda...they are the most dangerous because they fly below the radar and aren't detected......
-
"If history has taught us anything, it is that you can kill anyone"
is it in dispute that someone killed him? lol...
-
out of curiosity what does Vincent have to say about the deathbed coffessions of E. Howard Hunt?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13893143/the_last_confessions_of_e_howard_hunt/print
You'll have to read the book yourself. He mentions him on about 12 pages though out the book. He shows how Hunt wasn't there when the TRamp photos where taken and how a nationally recognized expert in photo identification says it's not them.
I read the Rolling Stone article. Doesn't mean much to me, because there is nothing tangible to lock on to. Honestly, it looks like his son is trying to make some cash on who his father was.
-
You'll have to read the book yourself. He mentions him on about 12 pages though out the book. He shows how Hunt wasn't there when the TRamp photos where taken and how a nationally recognized expert in photo identification says it's not them.
I read the Rolling Stone article. Doesn't mean much to me, because there is nothing tangible to lock on to. Honestly, it looks like his son is trying to make some cash on who his father was.
his son hasn't made shit on it. nobody would publish his book so he was actually spending more money to print it on demand at kinkos for people who wanted it. He probably made some on radio shows.
Ozmo, no offense but you know the guys that latch onto every conspiracy theory like it's absolutely true. You're kind of the opposite but same, you latch on to the first convenient debunking and stand solid. Like the Chinese moon walk. You were 95% sure and then the luke came along and provided a debunking lol and you dropped that to 5% on The Luke's testimony lol... You've read 1/3 of a book on debunking JFK CTrs and watched JFK. Yet your solid. I've probably watched a hundred hours of material, and dozens of books through the years, done my own research, and it took me a while to feel pretty sure there was a conspiracy beyond just Oswald. You also seem to be locked down on not considering anything unless the evidence is 5000% proof positive no question remotely possible and it must be of the highest quality available. You really have to lighten up a bit and be open to considering a body of evidence rather than seeing each individual portion isn't the ultimate in smoking guns.
-
his son hasn't made shit on it. nobody would publish his book so he was actually spending more money to print it on demand at kinkos for people who wanted it. He probably made some on radio shows.
It's not what he "made" its what he tried to "make". Because he hasn't made any money on it doesn't mean he didn't originally intend to. His credibility is probably in serious question.
BTW I know first hand the Kinkos thing. ;D
Ozmo, no offense but you know the guys that latch onto every conspiracy theory like it's absolutely true. You're kind of the opposite but same, you latch on to the first convenient debunking and stand solid. Like the Chinese moon walk. You were 95% sure and then the luke came along and provided a debunking lol and you dropped that to 5% on The Luke's testimony lol... You've read 1/3 of a book on debunking JFK CTrs and watched JFK. Yet your solid. I've probably watched a hundred hours of material, and dozens of books through the years, done my own research, and it took me a while to feel pretty sure there was a conspiracy beyond just Oswald. You also seem to be locked down on not considering anything unless the evidence is 5000% proof positive no question remotely possible and it must be of the highest quality available. You really have to lighten up a bit and be open to considering a body of evidence rather than seeing each individual portion isn't the ultimate in smoking guns.
That's how discovery works. You initially think it's one thing then you discover later you were incorrect. You posted that China clip about the time it happened. I was 95% sure, based on my limited knowledge. Luke presented a more knowledgeable counter. Now, 7 months after the space walk, the main stream scientific community or a group or even a respected person has not come forward to say: Hey those are bubbles! The lighting is in water and those are stadium lights!
The difference between me and others on this board who do not believe in CT's is that i will debate and discuss it. Because i am interested in the truth. Because of that i am open to change my mind. I didn't believe in the 9/11 CT at first. For a while i did when 240 first started to talk about it. I researched it pretty heavy and changed my mind seeing it for what it was: 19 hijackers. Not holograms and such.
This Rolling Stone story. It's a story that doesn't give much tangible stuff. I would think if E. Howard Hunt really wanted to come clean he'd had made a statement himself for the press. Even then, St. John (former tweak) doesn't give much more than a story. Had Hunt or son supplied a taped conversation, a bonafide official document or brought to light undeniable evidence that contradicted the official story you'd see me changing my tune. However, most CT's seem to hinge on weak evidence and are heavy on rhetoric to prove their points such as what 240 supplies plenty of.
Another thing, in pursuit of the truth, if an event happens and the "evidence" and "facts" point to a conclusion then its up the the accusers to prove its wrong. Until then i must stay with the evidence and facts and obvious conclusions until new evidence and facts suggest otherwise. Why? Because i want the real truth.
I became this way from talking CT's on here on this forum. ;D I wasn't like this before.
-
It's not what he "made" its what he tried to "make". Because he hasn't made any money on it doesn't mean he didn't originally intend to. His credibility is probably in serious question.
BTW I know first hand the Kinkos thing. ;D
That's how discovery works. You initially think it's one thing then you discover later you were incorrect. You posted that China clip about the time it happened. I was 95% sure, based on my limited knowledge. Luke presented a more knowledgeable counter. Now, 7 months after the space walk, the main stream scientific community or a group or even a respected person has not come forward to say: Hey those are bubbles! The lighting is in water and those are stadium lights!
The difference between me and others on this board who do not believe in CT's is that i will debate and discuss it. Because i am interested in the truth. Because of that i am open to change my mind. I didn't believe in the 9/11 CT at first. For a while i did when 240 first started to talk about it. I researched it pretty heavy and changed my mind seeing it for what it was: 19 hijackers. Not holograms and such.
This Rolling Stone story. It's a story that doesn't give much tangible stuff. I would think if E. Howard Hunt really wanted to come clean he'd had made a statement himself for the press. Even then, St. John (former tweak) doesn't give much more than a story. Had Hunt or son supplied a taped conversation, a bonafide official document or brought to light undeniable evidence that contradicted the official story you'd see me changing my tune. However, most CT's seem to hinge on weak evidence and are heavy on rhetoric to prove their points such as what 240 supplies plenty of.
Another thing, in pursuit of the truth, if an event happens and the "evidence" and "facts" point to a conclusion then its up the the accusers to prove its wrong. Until then i must stay with the evidence and facts and obvious conclusions until new evidence and facts suggest otherwise. Why? Because i want the real truth.
I became this way from talking CT's on here on this forum. ;D I wasn't like this before.
Is there a single conspiracy theory out there you believe? Seriously, if you won't look at anything unless it's a smoking gun as you say would be needed to change your tune, wow...
question for you, do you think in general we should attempt to apply the same kind of standards in discussing conspiracy theory that the American Justice System applies in cases? Do you think that's a good benchmark?
-
Is there a single conspiracy theory out there you believe? Seriously, if you won't look at anything unless it's a smoking gun as you say would be needed to change your tune, wow...
I didn't say that or didn't mean to imply i wouldn't look at it unless its a smoking gun. I told you and have demonstrated I will look at and discuss them. I just start from a different place than you do i guess. For me the burden is on the accuser. For you it seems the burden is on the other.
Off the top of my head:
- I believe the Catholic church is in possession of artifacts, scrolls that would negates the churches power.
- I believe BUSH knew dam well there wasn't WMD's in Iraq
- I believe E. T's have visited our planet.
But, I do realize these are beliefs and are not supported by strong facts or evidence at this time. In other words i understand what these beliefs are.
question for you, do you think in general we should attempt to apply the same kind of standards in discussing conspiracy theory that the American Justice System applies in cases? Do you think that's a good benchmark?
I think if you want to change the official record you have to. For example, St. John's story would get shredded in court as 2nd hand hear say. Otherwise all we have speculation. In discussing it, we can do what ever we want. I tend, to want more tangible stuff, as the internet can spout lots of inaccurate stuff.
-
- I believe E. T's have visited our planet.
Woah.
We're supposed to take you seriously when you believe in little green men?
I suppose you have just invalidated every point you've ever made here by the admission you believe in this guy
(http://www.nonstick.com/sounds/Marvin.gif)
This is the same way you invalidate everything alex jones says because some of it is wrong.
-
Woah.
We're supposed to take you seriously when you believe in little green men?
I suppose you have just invalidated every point you've ever made here by the admission you believe in this guy
(http://www.nonstick.com/sounds/Marvin.gif)
;D
But, I do realize these are beliefs and are not supported by strong facts or evidence at this time. In other words i understand what these beliefs are
-
This is the same way you invalidate everything alex jones says because some of it is wrong.
i didn't say he was full of shit when he introduced himself as Alex Jones! ;D
-
i didn't say he was full of shit when he introduced himself as Alex Jones! ;D
i think you called him a crackpot or something.
fact it, he's a fearmonger... but he did accurately predict the financial collapse, at least 18 months before mainstream media touched the story.
-
I didn't say that or didn't mean to imply i wouldn't look at it unless its a smoking gun. I told you and have demonstrated I will look at and discuss them. I just start from a different place than you do i guess. For me the burden is on the accuser. For you it seems the burden is on the other.
Off the top of my head:
- I believe the Catholic church is in possession of artifacts, scrolls that would negates the churches power.
- I believe BUSH knew dam well there wasn't WMD's in Iraq
- I believe E. T's have visited our planet.
But, I do realize these are beliefs and are not supported by strong facts or evidence at this time. In other words i understand what these beliefs are.
I think if you want to change the official record you have to. For example, St. John's story would get shredded in court as 2nd hand hear say. Otherwise all we have speculation. In discussing it, we can do what ever we want. I tend, to want more tangible stuff, as the internet can spout lots of inaccurate stuff.
Hunt's confession was recorded.
If the American Justice system is your benchmark, then you should know that countless people are convicted all the time without any smoking gun. On testimony and witness accounts and evidence that is by no means solid. It's not always a full set of prints found on the murder weapon stuck in the body of the victim that gets a guy put away. If this were a courtroom, a guy like Hunt's testimony could be heard and considered heavily. I think your requirements are stricter than our Justice System.
Also, Saint John lost his family over this. They won't talk with him and they're furious because the confession was for him, not to be released as he says in the confession, "telling you and you alone" I think he had a lot more to lose than gaining a few bucks for releasing his father's taped confession. Plus I really don't think it's an absolute loss of credibility if someone want to make some money on something. We're kind of fucked that way in this society. If you don't have a lot of money backing you to begin with, it takes time and money to get the information out there. I've wasted a lot myself. If I came up with a body of work on the case, I would very much consider putting a book together to recoup some of the time and money that went into it. Sad if that equates to me losing credibility.
JFK conspiracies have had Hunt in the scopes for a long time. He was hit with many accusations of some level of involvement and for the whole time he denied all of it. That makes his confession before he died rather interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Howard_Hunt
-
i think you called him a crackpot or something.
fact it, he's a fearmonger... but he did accurately predict the financial collapse, at least 18 months before mainstream media touched the story.
A broken clock is right at least twice a day!
-
A broken clock is right at least twice a day!
Even a garbage can gets a steak every now and then.
-
Hunt's confession was recorded.
If the American Justice system is your benchmark, then you should know that countless people are convicted all the without any smoking gun. On testimony and witness accounts and evidence that is by no means solid. It's not always a full set of prints found on the murder weapon stuck in the body of the victim that gets a guy put away. If this were a courtroom, a guy like Hunt's testimony could be heard and considered heavily. I think your requirements are stricter than our Justice System.
Also, Saint John lost his family over this. They won't talk with him and they're furious because the confession was for him, not to be released as he says in the confession, "telling you and you alone" I think he had a lot more to lose than gaining a few bucks for releasing his father's taped confession. Plus I really don't think it's an absolute loss of credibility if someone want to make some money on something. We're kind of fucked that way in this society. If you don't have a lot of money backing you to begin with, it takes time and money to get the information out there. I've wasted a lot myself. If I came up with a body of work on the case, I would very much consider putting a book together to recoup some of the time and money that went into it. Sad if that equates to me losing credibility.
JFK conspiracies have had Hunt in the scopes for a long time. He was hit with many accusations of some level of involvement and for the whole time he denied all of it. That makes his confession before he died rather interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Howard_Hunt
I don't think the discussions here as per my "perceived" requirements come close to the standards in a court room. For one thing, courts afford the participation of real experts and scrutinized evidence. We don't have that here. We don't have the same resources or time each side would have. We don't have the opportunity to personally interview witnesses. There's no Judge to determine what is admissible or inadmissible evidence and to sustain or overrule objections. There's no jury, no deliberation, no sequestering etc. Finally we are not Lawyers or trained investigators. So for those many reasons there is no way this can be, or that i can be accused of wanting things to be to the standards of the american Justice system. I simply think, some of the stuff needs to be put in perspective and weighed similar to that of a court room and not on mostly unacknowledged speculation. For example: How can plane crash into a building a leave a 16 foot whole in it unless it was a missile? Which most of the CT stuff is argued like here, plain ignorantly.
A jury trial can produce many inconsistencies and mistakes. A jury must have a charge. What is the charge? That the Warren commission lied to cover up a conspiracy? Without the benefit of a court room and it's procedure and resources we can only debate it. I mention earlier that in order to make real change it will have to happen in court.
Now for the audio:
Is there more to it? I listened to it twice. Where does he say LBJ organized this group of poeple to kill President Kennedy.
Here's what i did hear that raises questions in my mind:
"I had a reputation for honesty" He works for the CIA and lied to everyone all his life and we are supposed to believe him now and that he's honest?
"You and you alone" He says this and he's being taped?
"He had a maniacal urge to be president" He worked for the United States of America and some one wants to kill the president because they have an maniacal urge to be president and he was ok with that?
Those three issues right there take away credibility.
Also his family may not speak him because they may believe this whole thing is load of crap as he might have been exploiting his dying Father.
Now before you assume that I'm being unreasonable and closed minded, look closely at the questions i asked and remember we are discussing/debating this. Which means just because i don't agree with you, doesn't mean I'm being closed minded.
-
Even a garbage can gets a steak every now and then.
And even a blind squirrel gets a nut now and again.
-
Interesting article and supposed book for sale on Howard Hunt:
http://www.hongpong.com/archives/2007/01/15/e_howard_hunt_88_year_old_watergate_cia_jfk_conspirator_going_tell_his_story_den (http://www.hongpong.com/archives/2007/01/15/e_howard_hunt_88_year_old_watergate_cia_jfk_conspirator_going_tell_his_story_den)
Convicted Watergate 'plumber' claims LBJ may have had JFK assassinated - RawStory.com -
Ron Brynaert
Published: Sunday January 14, 2007
In a soon-to-be-published book, a former CIA agent, convicted for his role as a "plumber" in the Watergate scandal, claims that former President Lyndon B. Johnson may have played a role in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
According to the New York Post's gossip column, Page Six, "E. Howard Hunt – the shadowy former CIA man who organized the Watergate break-in and was once eyed in the assassination of President Kennedy – bizarrely says that Lyndon Johnson could be seen as a prime suspect in the rubout."
"Only the most far-out conspiracy theorists believe in scenarios like Hunt's," the column continues. "But in a new memoir, American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate & Beyond, due out in April, Hunt, 88, writes: 'Having Kennedy liquidated, thus elevating himself to the presidency without having to work for it himself, could have been a very tempting and logical move on Johnson's part.'"
In 2004, the History Channel aired a program called The Guilty Men, which was partially based on a book by Barr McClellan, who alleged that "the law firm he quit a quarter-century ago was involved in convoluted plots that link Johnson to at least 11 deaths, including President Kennedy's." After much criticism, the cable channel apologized to its viewers, then aired a follow-up special which included a panel of three historians who "debunked" the claim.
"We have a great responsibility and this time we did not live up to it," History Channel executive vice president Dan Davids said. "We hold ourselves accountable. As we have said before, nothing is more important to us than the accuracy of our programming and the integrity of our network."
"LBJ had the money and the connections to manipulate the scenario in Dallas and is on record as having convinced JFK to make the appearance in the first place," Hunt writes, according to the tabloid. "He further tried unsuccessfully to engineer the passengers of each vehicle, trying to get his good buddy, Gov. [John] Connolly, to ride with him instead of in JFK's car – where...he would have been out of danger."
A blurb from Hunt's publisher states that in American Spy, "a legendary CIA operative and central figure in the Watergate scandal at last tells his story."
"Now in his late eighties, Hunt looks back over his storied career, revealing what really happened and debunking the many rumors that have swirled around him," the blurb continues. "Writing with his characteristic salty wit, he brings to life his exploits in the CIA, offering surprising revelations about the agency’s Latin American operations–and its masterly manipulation of politics and the media in the U.S."
Adding, "He details the 'black bag jobs' of the White House plumbers, explains why he agreed to participate in the Watergate burglary–even though he thought it was a bad idea–and sheds new light on the aftermath of the break-in. He sets the record straight on rumors about his first wife’s death and accusations that have linked him to the JFK assassination and the George Wallace shooting. And finally, he offers an insider’s advice on how the CIA must now reshape itself to regain its edge and help win the war on terrorism."
Excerpts from Page Six column:
#
Hunt says Johnson also had easy access to CIA man William Harvey, who'd been demoted when he tried to have Fidel Castro poisoned in defiance of orders to drop covert operations against Cuba. Harvey was "a ruthless man who was not satisfied with his position in the CIA and its government salary," Hunt writes.
"He definitely had dreams of becoming [CIA director] and LBJ could do that for him if he were president . . . [LBJ] would have used Harvey because he was available and corrupt." Hunt denies any hand in the assassination, insisting he wasn't one of three mysterious hobos who were photographed at the scene.
I don't know Hugo, this Howard Hunt seems like he's full of it trying to make a buck. And he never really comes out and says: LBJ did it!
-
we should just PM The Luke and ask him to debunk the jfk conspiracy.
-
I don't think the discussions here as per my "perceived" requirements come close to the standards in a court room. For one thing, courts afford the participation of real experts and scrutinized evidence. We don't have that here. We don't have the same resources or time each side would have. We don't have the opportunity to personally interview witnesses. There's no Judge to determine what is admissible or inadmissible evidence and to sustain or overrule objections. There's no jury, no deliberation, no sequestering etc. Finally we are not Lawyers or trained investigators. So for those many reasons there is no way this can be, or that i can be accused of wanting things to be to the standards of the american Justice system. I simply think, some of the stuff needs to be put in perspective and weighed similar to that of a court room and not on mostly unacknowledged speculation. For example: How can plane crash into a building a leave a 16 foot whole in it unless it was a missile? Which most of the CT stuff is argued like here, plain ignorantly.
A jury trial can produce many inconsistencies and mistakes. A jury must have a charge. What is the charge? That the Warren commission lied to cover up a conspiracy? Without the benefit of a court room and it's procedure and resources we can only debate it. I mention earlier that in order to make real change it will have to happen in court.
Now for the audio:
Is there more to it? I listened to it twice. Where does he say LBJ organized this group of poeple to kill President Kennedy.
Here's what i did hear that raises questions in my mind:
"I had a reputation for honesty" He works for the CIA and lied to everyone all his life and we are supposed to believe him now and that he's honest?
"You and you alone" He says this and he's being taped?
"He had a maniacal urge to be president" He worked for the United States of America and some one wants to kill the president because they have an maniacal urge to be president and he was ok with that?
Those three issues right there take away credibility.
Also his family may not speak him because they may believe this whole thing is load of crap as he might have been exploiting his dying Father.
Now before you assume that I'm being unreasonable and closed minded, look closely at the questions i asked and remember we are discussing/debating this. Which means just because i don't agree with you, doesn't mean I'm being closed minded.
whoa, did you just actually say in regards to JFK CT that "participation of real experts and scrutinized evidence. We don't have that here."
I didn't say it should go down like American Justice, I asked if you thought that should be the goal, level wise, attempted... I didn't expect for the actuality of that. We don't have the benefit of that when arguing our points on a message board of what we believe. The point was not to say or ask you if this should go down like a real trial. I'm just saying I think your standards are higher for proof of X than goes down in a lot of cases that convict people and I think that's true.
He sent his son the tape. anyway, it's my understanding that his families opinion was that he should not release the tape and that it was only meant for him. He crossed them and they won't talk to him. That's what he said anyway.
He refers to it as the big event in the tape. Keep in mind that he had a close working relationship with the people he's talking about and a known and proven underhanded relationship at that.
No, he could be lying now too. He had history of denial his whole life and played the part aside from threatening to talk when he was locked up for a while and Nixon caughed up $1 Million and a get out of jail card. So really doing a 180 on his deathbed is very huge for those who have followed the whole thing.
dude, you are being unreasonable. Nobody has any cred for you. There's other expert testimony that suggest conspiracy but I absolutely know you'll just look in the index of your book for the answer.
-
Woah.
We're supposed to take you seriously when you believe in little green men?
I suppose you have just invalidated every point you've ever made here by the admission you believe in this guy
(http://www.nonstick.com/sounds/Marvin.gif)
This is the same way you invalidate everything alex jones says because some of it is wrong.
Just for you 240 ;D
Story broke today:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/04/20/ufo.conference/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/04/20/ufo.conference/index.html)
Former astronaut: Man not alone in universe
(CNN) -- Earth Day may fall later this week, but as far as former NASA astronaut Edgar Mitchell and other UFO enthusiasts are concerned, the real story is happening elsewhere.
Former NASA astronaut Edgar Mitchell, shown in 1998, says "there really is no doubt we are being visited."
Mitchell, who was part of the 1971 Apollo 14 moon mission, asserted Monday that extraterrestrial life exists, and that the truth is being concealed by the U.S. and other governments.
He delivered his remarks during an appearance at the National Press Club following the conclusion of the fifth annual X-Conference, a meeting of UFO activists and researchers studying the possibility of alien life forms.
Mankind has long wondered if we're "alone in the universe. [But] only in our period do we really have evidence. No, we're not alone," Mitchell said.
"Our destiny, in my opinion, and we might as well get started with it, is [to] become a part of the planetary community. ... We should be ready to reach out beyond our planet and beyond our solar system to find out what is really going on out there."
Mitchell grew up in Roswell, New Mexico, which some UFO believers maintain was the site of a UFO crash in 1947. He said residents of his hometown "had been hushed and told not to talk about their experience by military authorities." They had been warned of "dire consequences" if they did so.
Don't Miss
Dog walker 'met man from another planet'
Hundreds of 'alien' aircraft sightings
But, he claimed, they "didn't want to go to the grave with their story. They wanted to tell somebody reliable. And being a local boy and having been to the moon, they considered me reliable enough to whisper in my ear their particular story."
Roughly 10 years ago, Mitchell claimed, he was finally given an appointment at Pentagon to discuss what he had been told.
An unnamed admiral working for the Joint Chiefs of Staff promised to uncover the truth behind the Roswell story, Mitchell said. The stories of a UFO crash "were confirmed," but the admiral was then denied access when he "tried to get into the inner workings of that process."
The same admiral, Mitchell claimed, now denies the story.
"I urge those who are doubtful: Read the books, read the lore, start to understand what has really been going on. Because there really is no doubt we are being visited," he said.
"The universe that we live in is much more wondrous, exciting, complex and far-reaching than we were ever able to know up to this point in time."
A NASA spokesman denied any cover-up.
"NASA does not track UFOs. NASA is not involved in any sort of cover-up about alien life on this planet or anywhere else -- period," Michael Cabbage said Monday.
Debates have continued about what happened at Roswell. The U.S. Air Force said in 1994 that wreckage recovered there in 1947 was most likely from a balloon-launched classified government project.
Stephen Bassett, head of the Paradigm Research Group (PRG), which hosted the X-Conference, said that the truth about extraterrestrial life is being suppressed because it is politically explosive.
"There is a third rail [in American politics], and that is the UFO question. It is many magnitudes more radioactive than Social Security ever dreamed to be," Bassett said.
lolol. good timing eh?
-
we should just PM The Luke and ask him to debunk the jfk conspiracy.
No he'll say Bigfoot did it.
-
Former astronaut: Man not alone in universe
He delivered his remarks during an appearance at the National Press Club following the conclusion of the fifth annual X-Conference, a meeting of UFO activists and researchers studying the possibility of alien life forms.
Ah, he attended a CT conference and told them what they wanted to hear. I wonder what he was paid for this appearance. Times are tough, it seems like this guy is just trying to pay the mortgage.
;D
-
Ah, he attended a CT conference and told them what they wanted to hear. I wonder what he was paid for this appearance. Times are tough, it seems like this guy is just trying to pay the mortgage.
;D
Even for former astronauts lol
-
dude, you are being unreasonable. Nobody has any cred for you. There's other expert testimony that suggest conspiracy but I absolutely know you'll just look in the index of your book for the answer.
Luke completely debunked a theory for him with a single post, and he cited it, he was so happy with it.
However, a deathbed recorded confession of an agent's involvement in something like JFK - something he had long been suspected of and something he had nothing to gain by sharing - nah, that's just CT nonsense :)
-
Even for former astronauts lol
maybe he saw a hologram.
Hell, you had an agent's recorded confession about JFK and you discounted that.
We're supposed to believe some astronaut being paid to speak to a group of CTers?
???
-
dude, you are being unreasonable. Nobody has any cred for you. There's other expert testimony that suggest conspiracy but I absolutely know you'll just look in the index of your book for the answer.
How am i being unreasonable? I told you what i thought and brought up my points.
Are you into just agreeable debates? does everyone have to agree with you to be reasonable?
And who is Nobody that has any cred for me here?
And so what if i do look in the index for an answer? It's a source isn't it? Written by a credible author. Or is just this guys taped confession for his son and his son only credible?
Honestly, Hugo, I don't think you really want to debate this because all it seems you have been doing today is mostly attacking my position on it instead of attacking my arguments.
-
maybe he saw a hologram.
Hell, you had an agent's recorded confession about JFK and you discounted that.
We're supposed to believe some astronaut being paid to speak to a group of CTers?
???
Your are the low res video and hologram expert you should know.
-
How am i being unreasonable? I told you what i thought and brought up my points.
Are you into just agreeable debates? does everyone have to agree with you to be reasonable?
And who is Nobody that has any cred for me here?
And so what if i do look in the index for an answer? It's a source isn't it? Written by a credible author. Or is just this guys taped confession for his son and his son only credible?
Honestly, Hugo, I don't think you really want to debate this because all it seems you have been doing today is mostly attacking my position on it.
no, not just with this, like I said you shoot for the first easiest debunking or slightest thing you can expose for having a credibility crack and you lock onto that. It's like when BB would read an article and find the one line that makes his point ignoring the bulk of the content in the article.
I gotta ask again, did you actually say in regards to JFK CT that "participation of real experts and scrutinized evidence. We don't have that here." Do you really believe there has not been experts and scrutinized evidence?
-
no, not just with this, like I said you shoot for the first easiest debunking or slightest thing you can expose for having a credibility crack and you lock onto that. It's like when BB would read an article and find the one line that makes his point ignoring the bulk of the content in the article.
I gotta ask again, did you actually say in regards to JFK CT that "participation of real experts and scrutinized evidence. We don't have that here." Do you really believe there has not been experts and scrutinized evidence?
Not live in a court room. That's what i was meaning as that's what would take place in a trial giving both sides the opportunity to directly cross examine.
Look, considering who this is and what he said, its shaky. Do you mean to tell me, based solely on this tape, this proves LBJ did it?
It's not enough for me, sorry. That doesn't mean i don't want to see more. It's that its very questionable, indirect and full of possible holes. And on top of that, he was in the book writing business already and his son was broke.
Also, don't compare me to BB. Because if it was BB, he'd had given you two 30 eye rolls and never would have delved this far into a discussion on it. And you know that.
-
Or is just this guys taped confession for his son and his son only credible?
LMAO...
A guy who everything thinks was in on the JFK shooting...
Confesses on his deathbed...
On tape...
And give details of who else was involved...
And Ozmo doesn't consider it credible.
I mean honestly, for a JFK enthusiast like you Oz... hunt's confession should be a huge thing. But since you read 80 pages about sharpshooting and you're convinced... you really believe hunt's words are meaningless.
You have the main suspect confessing on tape with zero to gain except to destory his name for infamy. And it's not credible? LMAO...
-
LMAO...
A guy who everything thinks was in on the JFK shooting...
Confesses on his deathbed...
On tape...
And give details of who else was involved...
And Ozmo doesn't consider it credible.
I mean honestly, for a JFK enthusiast like you Oz... hunt's confession should be a huge thing. But since you read 80 pages about sharpshooting and you're convinced... you really believe hunt's words are meaningless.
You have the main suspect confessing on tape with zero to gain except to destory his name for infamy. And it's not credible? LMAO...
There you go taking stuff out of context and embellishing which is pretty much what do all the time. It seems to be the only way you can continue to argue your lame brain conclusions. Give me a holo high five on that one!
Did you really say the chinese would defeat the America because they know kung fu?
-
Do you mean to tell me, based solely on this tape, this proves LBJ did it?
Oh good god, tell me where I came even close to suggesting that ::)
-
Oh good god, tell me where I came even close to suggesting that ::)
Hugo, again, just because i don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm being unreasonable. I'm just arguing my position and take on the testimony presented.
And just because i ask a question like: "Do you mean to tell me, based solely on this tape, this proves LBJ did it?" Doesn't mean I saying you are saying that. If i was saying you said that I'd say you did. What I'm trying to ask by asking that is, "Do you mean to tell me, based solely on this tape, this proves LBJ did it?" to see the weight in which you put this tape towards your conclusions.
Geez.
-
Did you really say the chinese would defeat the America because they know kung fu?
that was someone else's quote.
witty and inaccurate, but not mine.
-
Hugo,
Can we dispense with the criticizing of me arguing my position now and understand that's what I'm going to do until i see enough facts and evidence to change my mind. It may never happen. I certainly don't expect you to change your position. You may, I may. but i think this is real good stuff aside from this other crap.
I feel like we are in court and you are attacking me for being a defense lawyer. I mean come on dude. Can we stick to the case.
-
that was someone else's quote.
witty and inaccurate, but not mine.
Good. You had me worried there.
Was starting to fear the chinese BIG time. ;D
j/k :)
-
And Hugo,
I have conceded a few things per your arguments:
Oswald shooting ability
Lighting on the space walk.
So its not like its all me discounting everything, if that's what you are suggesting.
-
Hugo,
Can we dispense with the criticizing of me arguing my position now and understand that's what I'm going to do until i see enough facts and evidence to change my mind. It may never happen. I certainly don't expect you to change your position. You may, I may. but i think this is real good stuff aside from this other crap.
I feel like we are in court and you are attacking me for being a defense lawyer. I mean come on dude. Can we stick to the case.
I was simply saying I think you have a higher standard for judgement than what ends up putting many behind bars in our justice system. That was my only point with that and I think it's a valid point to make.
-
I was simply saying I think you have a higher standard for judgement than what ends up putting many behind bars in our justice system. That was my only point and I think it's a valid point to make.
Well maybe so.
Or maybe I'm cross-examining to robustly. ;D I would expect no less from you.
That being said, I would think a lawyer would bring up those points about his confession. If i was playing devil advocate would i be wrong to assume that?
There's more to this confession anyway in regards to arguments against its credibility that i want to see and run by you. But its going to take a bit of research. Perhaps tomorrow. gn.
-
Here's a transcript of the tape:
Hunt: "I heard from Frank that LBJ had designated Cord Meyer Jr. to undertake a larger organization while keeping it totally secret. Cord Meyer himself was a rather favorite member of the Eastern aristocracy. He was a graduate of Yale University and had joined the Marine Corps during the war and lost an eye in the Pacific fighting.
I think that LBJ settled on Meyer as an opportunist (unintelligible) like himself (unintelligible) in a man who had very little left to him in life ever since JFK had taken Cords wife as one of his mistresses. I would suggest that Cord Meyer welcomed the approach from LBJ who was after all only the Vice President at that time and of course could not number Cord Meyer among JFK's admirers; quite the contrary.
As for Dave Philips, I knew him pretty well at one time. He worked for me during the Guatemala project. He made himself useful to the agency in Santiago, Chile where he was an American businessman. In any case, his actions, whatever they were, came to the attention of the Santiago station chief and when his resume became known to people in the Western Hemisphere division he was brought in to work on Guatemalan operations.
Sturgis and Morales and people of that ilk, stayed in apartment houses during preparations for the big event. Their addresses were very subject to change so that where a fellow like Morales had been one day, you'd not necessarily associated with that address the following day. In short it was a very mobile experience.
Let me point out at this point, that if I wanted to fictionalize of when I'm in Miami and elsewhere during the run up for the big event, I would have done so. But I don't want any unreality to tinge this particular story or the information I should say. I was a benchwarmer on it and I had a reputation for honesty. I think it's essential to refocus on what this information, that I've been providing you and you alone by the way, consists of.
What is important in the story is that we backtrack the chain of command up through Cord Meyer and laying the doings at the doorstep of LBJ. He in my opinion, had an almost maniacal urge to become President. He regarded JFK, as he was in fact, an obstacle to achieving that. He could have waited for JFK to finish out his term and then undoubtedly a second term. So that would have put LBJ at the head of a long list of people who were waiting for some change in the executive branch."
Where in this transcript does anybody say anything about the JFK murder?
-
First of all, what does it matter, anything he says cannot be taken into account. He's not credible right, so what's the point arguing anything past that on anything he said. No thanks...
Here's a transcript of the tape:
Hunt: "I heard from Frank that LBJ had designated Cord Meyer Jr. to undertake a larger organization while keeping it totally secret. Cord Meyer himself was a rather favorite member of the Eastern aristocracy. He was a graduate of Yale University and had joined the Marine Corps during the war and lost an eye in the Pacific fighting.
I think that LBJ settled on Meyer as an opportunist (unintelligible) like himself (unintelligible) in a man who had very little left to him in life ever since JFK had taken Cords wife as one of his mistresses. I would suggest that Cord Meyer welcomed the approach from LBJ who was after all only the Vice President at that time and of course could not number Cord Meyer among JFK's admirers; quite the contrary.
As for Dave Philips, I knew him pretty well at one time. He worked for me during the Guatemala project. He made himself useful to the agency in Santiago, Chile where he was an American businessman. In any case, his actions, whatever they were, came to the attention of the Santiago station chief and when his resume became known to people in the Western Hemisphere division he was brought in to work on Guatemalan operations.
Sturgis and Morales and people of that ilk, stayed in apartment houses during preparations for the big event. Their addresses were very subject to change so that where a fellow like Morales had been one day, you'd not necessarily associated with that address the following day. In short it was a very mobile experience.
Let me point out at this point, that if I wanted to fictionalize of when I'm in Miami and elsewhere during the run up for the big event, I would have done so. But I don't want any unreality to tinge this particular story or the information I should say. I was a benchwarmer on it and I had a reputation for honesty. I think it's essential to refocus on what this information, that I've been providing you and you alone by the way, consists of.
What is important in the story is that we backtrack the chain of command up through Cord Meyer and laying the doings at the doorstep of LBJ. He in my opinion, had an almost maniacal urge to become President. He regarded JFK, as he was in fact, an obstacle to achieving that. He could have waited for JFK to finish out his term and then undoubtedly a second term. So that would have put LBJ at the head of a long list of people who were waiting for some change in the executive branch."
Where in this transcript does anybody say anything about the JFK murder?
-
First of all, what does it matter, anything he says cannot be taken into account. He's not credible right, so what's the point arguing anything past that on anything he said. No thanks...
Are you this thin skinned? I said the credibility of the tape is in question. I listed the reasons. I didn't make up the reasons. I didn't make up Saint Johns drug addiction. I didn't make up E. Howard Hunt's past. I bet you'd have the audacity to question the credibility of the Warren commission yet have no problem validating the credibility of a person who lied for a living all his life, published book about it and then sends his former broke tweak son a vague tape that never directly says how JFK was murdered.
So excuse the FUCK out of me for not jumping on the band wagon here.
Where in the transcript is the BIG EVENT defined?
Also, this is only part of the whole tape. Where is the rest of it?
-
I bet you think the reason this hasn't ever been taken seriously by the media is because its part of the whole great cover up, yet is hasn't ever occurred to you that this tape has no meat, nothing tangible. Nothing that says: ________ murdered JFK. Here's what happened. Here's what i know. Here's how i was involved.
THAT is a confession that has something in it.
-
Are you this thin skinned? I said the credibility of the tape is in question. I listed the reasons. I didn't make up the reasons. I didn't make up Saint Johns drug addiction. I didn't make up E. Howard Hunt's past. I bet you'd have the audacity to question the credibility of the Warren commission yet have no problem validating the credibility of a person who lied for a living all his life, published book about it and then sends his former broke tweak son a vague tape that never directly says how JFK was murdered.
So excuse the FUCK out of me for not jumping on the band wagon here.
Where in the transcript is the BIG EVENT defined?
Also, this is only part of the whole tape. Where is the rest of it?
The big event is actually a monday morning get together at Dunkin Donuts between CIA buddies. The rest of the tape shows this which is why his drug attled greedy sack of shit son held it back. You're excused... :)
-
The big event is actually a monday morning get together at Dunkin Donuts between CIA buddies. The rest of the tape shows this which is why his drug attled greedy sack of shit son held it back. You're excused... :)
Oh yeah, we HAVE to assume the big event IS the JFK assassination.
On top of all of that, we have this at the very end in essence justifying LBJ as a suspect:
"So that would have put LBJ at the head of a long list of people who were waiting for some change in the executive branch."
He never says LBJ ordered the murder of JFK
-
Fact of the matter is, had E. Howard Hunt directly said: LBJ ordered the murder of JFK. Here's why i know, here's what i know and here's how i was invovled. It would shaken the US and created a media storm. That's what a direct death bed confession would have produce.
That's why the significance of this PARTIAL taped confession isn't taken too seriously.
-
I ONLY think about it during football season...when I am in Dallas for a game.
-
I ONLY think about it during football season...when I am in Dallas for a game.
Yet you thought about it enough to post here now........ hmmmmmmm
-
Hugo,
You don't think a lawyer in a trial would shred this? Com on dude.
-
Hugo,
You don't think a lawyer in a trial would shred this? Com on dude.
-
Grow up.
Honestly, i didn't expect you to fall apart this easy. If your willingness to discuss and debate the JFK assassination hinges on me accepting your arguments then it only shows how weak your position is.
It's all good though.
Thanks for the vid.
-
Grow up.
Honestly, i didn't expect you to fall apart this easy. If your willingness to discuss and debate the JFK assassination hinges on me accepting your arguments then it only shows how weak your position is.
It's all good though.
Thanks for the vid.
I fell apart? I just noted that I wasn't interested in going further in regards to someone you feel has no cred and you fell apart. What would be the point?
-
I fell apart? I just noted that I wasn't interested going further in regards to someone you feel has no cred and you fell apart. What would be the point?
How did i fall apart?
You are the one acting a child because I disagree with you. You don't even have the substance to attempt to counter why i think this partial taped vague (I can't even call it a confession) audio clip isn't very credible. Like i said a lawyer would shred this in anywhere. That's why this tape hasn't had any real impact in the JFK assassination issue. So here we are, you have the opportunity to do so, to argue its impact and you punk out. Excuse me for not ignoring my sensibilities. In fact excuse the rest of the world while you are at it.
Like i said its ok, it's cool. Its duly noted you lack what it takes to go further and would rather hide your head in the sand believing a conspiracy not based on solid facts and evidence. I do the same with little green men, Evil popes, and GWB's WMD's.
-
How did i fall apart?
You are the one acting a child because I disagree with you. You don't even have the substance to attempt to counter why i think this partial taped vague (I can't even call it a confession) audio clip isn't very credible. Like i said a lawyer would shred this in anywhere. That's why this tape hasn't had any real impact in the JFK assassination issue. So here we are, you have the opportunity to do so, to argue its impact and you punk out. Excuse me for not ignoring my sensibilities. In fact excuse the rest of the world while you are at it.
Like i said its ok, it's cool. Its duly noted you lack what it takes to go further and would rather hide your head in the sand believing a conspiracy not based on solid facts and evidence. I do the same with little green men, Evil popes, and GWB's WMD's.
yea, you fell apart. One single line saying I don't see the point and boom, you definitely came unglued over it and by this post you still are lol. especially considering you're usually one of the calmest here leaving others to do the melting. I just lol'd and figured you needed to rub one out or something ;D Dude, you act like it's a major attack, I honestly don't fathom there is a point to debating with a person over accounts by a person who has no credibility for that person. I mean dude, is there any point to that? I would rather just move on and post something else you might find more interesting to shoot down. I don't even get why you would want to continue talking about a person you feel has no credibility? Move on, there's no need to melt over it.
-
yea, you fell apart. One single line saying I don't see the point and boom, you definitely came unglued over it and by this post you still are lol. especially considering you're usually one of the calmest here leaving others to do the melting. I just lol'd and figured you needed to rub one out or something ;D Dude, you act like it's a major attack, I honestly don't fathom there is a point to debating with a person over accounts by a person who has no credibility for that person. I mean dude, is there any point to that? I would rather just move on and post something else you might find more interesting to shoot down. I don't even get why you would want to continue talking about a person you feel has no credibility? Move on, there's no need to melt over it.
If you can't support the credibility of Hunt's blurp just say so. No need to play games by copping out.
-
If you can't support the credibility of Hunt's blurp just say so. No need to play games by copping out.
you should try reading my posts. Why on earth do you want debate over a person that you straight up feel doesn't have any credibility? What in the wild world of sports would be the point? If you feel he has no credibility and you made that argument clear, there is only one possible outcome to the argument. What is the logic for either you or me to continue down that road with that assumtion of the person made? Is there any possible return? I can't see one! Anything I spend time with bringing to the argument around Hunt in the end still has a "Not Credible" label. I'm much more interested in moving on to something new that is hopefully harder to put a "do not listen to" sticker on. why is that wrong of me to say? seems logical to me.
-
you should try reading my posts. Why on earth do you want debate over a person that you straight up feel doesn't have any credibility? What in the wild world of sports would be the point? If you feel he has no credibility and you made that argument clear, there is only one possible outcome to the argument. What is the logic for either you or me to continue down that road with that assumtion of the person made? Is there any possible return? I can't see one! Anything I spend time with bringing to the argument around Hunt in the end still has a "Not Credible" label. I'm much more interested in moving on to something new that is hopefully harder to put a "do not listen to" sticker on. why is that wrong of me to say? seems logical to me.
It would be one thing for me to put a "not credible" label and not present my reasons for it. Much of what many complain BB does.
However, I've been very detailed about my reasons. Far more than just picking out 1 sentence and then dismissing it all together. I brought upat least a half dozen points explaining why. Yet, your only retort seems to be:
"Why should debate it if you feel this tape has no credibility?"
That Hugo, is a COP OUT.
Straight up.
-
Another thing too that makes your latest action look like a cop out.
You made your case about LHO shooting ability. You made good points based on personal experience. I heeded those points and agreed with you. If i was being bull headed about it, I'd have dismissed them.
You made a case about light diffusing in the alleged water on the space walk. Instead of saying You don't know crap. I said ok fair enough. Trusting your personal opinion based on some level of practical knowledge you insinuated you have.
So again i say:
If you can't support the credibility of Hunt's blurp just say so. ....and we'll move on.
-
It would be one thing for me to put a "not credible" label and not present my reasons for it. Much of what many complain BB does.
However, I've been very detailed about my reasons. Far more than just picking out 1 sentence and then dismissing it all together. I brought upat least a half dozen points explaining why. Yet, your only retort seems to be:
"Why should debate it if you feel this tape has no credibility?"
That Hugo, is a COP OUT.
Straight up.
you're still melting. How's it a cop out?. You named your reasons why he has no credibility. Really the only next possible step I have is effectively rebutting your reasons for him having no credibility so that there is a point to further discussion in regards to Hunt. I can't do that. I don't have anything that cancels your reasons for seeing him as not credible. Now answer me, what is the upside of debating further on Hunt if I cannot shoot down your reasons for him having no credibility? In the end, anything brought under the umbrella of Hunt still lands a zero. Pissing in the wind... What's the upside for me? What's the point for you? Answer those things because I can't. I would much rather move on in an attempt to provide something more solid. How's this my bust?
-
If you can't support the credibility of Hunt's blurp just say so. ....and we'll move on.
What the fuck do you think I've been saying ::) Clearly I don't have what you would need to consider Hunt credible, duh... If Hunt's not credible for you and his son even worse, I fail to see why you want to go further and I really can't fathom the point for me? It's not a cop out, it's logical.
-
you're still melting. How's it a cop out?. You named your reasons why he has no credibility. Really the only next possible step I have is effectively rebutting your reasons for him having no credibility so that there is a point to further discussion in regards to Hunt. I can't do that. I don't have anything that cancels your reasons for seeing him as not credible. Now answer me, what is the upside of debating further on Hunt if I cannot shoot down your reasons for him having no credibility? In the end, anything brought under the umbrella of Hunt still lands a zero. Pissing in the wind... What's the upside for me? What's the point for you? Answer those things because I can't. I would much rather move on in an attempt to provide something more solid. How's this my bust?
What the fuck do you think I've been saying ::) Clearly I don't have what you would need to consider Hunt credible, duh... If Hunt's not credible for you and his son even worse, I fail to see why you want to go further and I really can't fathom the point for me? It's not a cop out, it's logical.
Ok, so you can't support the credibility of Hunt. That's all you had to say.
Next.
-
Ok, so you can't support the credibility of Hunt. That's all you had to say.
Next.
not sure how that wasn't obvious in what I was saying but ok. The credibility issue was the reason I said it was pointless to continue. I assumed that the fact that I didn't have what you would need to consider him credible was obvious.
These are brick walls I can't go through and can't imagine what I could say to counter. Could anybody? I can't possibly prove these false without giving the guys a lie detector test or something
"his son is trying to make some cash" .
"It's not what he "made" its what he tried to "make". Because he hasn't made any money on it doesn't mean he didn't originally intend to. His credibility is probably in serious question."
"He works for the CIA and lied to everyone all his life and we are supposed to believe him now and that he's honest?"
"Howard Hunt seems like he's full of it trying to make a buck."
-
not sure how that wasn't obvious in what I was saying but ok. The credibility issue was the reason I said it was pointless to continue. I assumed that the fact that I didn't have what you would need to consider him credible was obvious.
These are brick walls I can't go through and can't imagine what I could say to counter. Could anybody? I can't possibly prove these false without giving the guys a lie detector test or something
"his son is trying to make some cash" .
"It's not what he "made" its what he tried to "make". Because he hasn't made any money on it doesn't mean he didn't originally intend to. His credibility is probably in serious question."
"He works for the CIA and lied to everyone all his life and we are supposed to believe him now and that he's honest?"
"Howard Hunt seems like he's full of it trying to make a buck."
I think its a pretty fascinating tape from a shadowy figure who was in the thick of things then. What you listed up there were my first impressions that led to my opinion that the tape lacked credibility.
5 other issues support my current, but not permanent, conclusions
1. He never directly says LBJ ordered the murder of JFK.
2. The "Big Event" is never defined.
3. Hunt even seems to try and justify LBJ as a suspect in the murder. If this was confession wouldn't he just say LBJ did it, i was involved, this is what i know.
4. It is very vague to be viewed as a confession
This is why i don't view my conclusions as permanent:
5. This is not the whole recording. What he says before and after it is probably very significant. For one reason, by itself, it really doesn't say LBJ murdered JFK.