Direct Proof that The History Channel Won't Tell You The Truth:

Skitch Patterson

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I don't care what stupid reason you give me,

The what the hell is the point of posting it in a DEBATE forum?

onelongsong

Skitch Patterson wrote:

The what the hell is the point of posting it in a DEBATE forum?

exactly. people hear and believe what they want to. any evidence that goes against their opinion will never be good enough. this is like arguing with plant life.

DriftingByTheStorm

onelongsong wrote:

the smoking gun in this instance is battle wounds. the bullet used tumbles and it was proven with pig carcasses; lined up according to the seats in the limo.

I'm not exactly sure what you are attempting to say here, but if you watch this video, particularly the second part and the 2nd part continued you will clearly see how the charts used to implicate a bullet through the back of Kennedy in to Connally could not possibly have gone through Kennedy's throat due to angle.

If you read testimony from the doctors themselves, you will see the ones who did the revival efforts at Parkland clearly indicate, to this day that the neck wound was an entrance wound and that it was enlarged by the tracheotomy performed to attempt resuccitation of the president!

G Ford edits report. Hides a lie. Hole in the back. Look at the shirt and jacket. Hole in back = hole in Warren Report

wound in the third thorasic vertebrate not the neck

Keep in mind Connally was wounded about 1.6 seconds after Kennedy grabs his own neck. This is too quick for "Oswald" to fire another shot and too late for the bullet to have been the same that hit Kennedy. see here for film analysis - watch at 8:10 !!!

2 Minutes 56 seconds: Connally HIMSELF says DIFFERENT BULLET

Here is a page where James Files talks about how he shot the president. He claims that the shot he fired was 1000th of a second after the man in the SBD fired another shot at the back of the head ... this would jive with that Washington Post article down there about multiple bullet fragments from multiple bullets.

Why suppress the photographs and have drawings made instead ???

autopsy shennanigans -- do doctors usually burn their autopsy reports, with complicty from the president (LBJ)?

onelongsong wrote:

you won't believe any links so i won't waste my time looking for any. you seem to seek out only information that agrees with your opinion.

Ok. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to decide for myself. I always look at links when someone bothers to post them. Try me, instead of being so cynical.

onelongsong wrote:

after 44 years; i'd expect witnesses to die.

I'm talking about people like Deputy Sherrif Roger Craig who insisted up until the time he was found dead of a rifle wound in the chest (he owned two guns, both pistols) in the mid 70's ... not 40 years later like you erroneously mislead ... insisted up until his death that the original rifle recovered was a 7.65 Mauser, as stated on the side of the barrell [and also on the evidence record "7.65 mauser" and i every broadcast the day of his death, not revised by "official history" until the next day] and not consistent with the bullets found in the window.

and THIS -- i mean come one ... there are like 40+ people there ... some of them probably not connected and some obviously a stretch, but many many of them overtly suspicious gunshot deaths!

or this:

But Joe West never heard a full confession from James Files. Files didn’t want to talk. Only if Joe could arrange immunity for him, would Files consider it. During that time Joe had to go into a hospital for heart surgery. The operation itself was a success, but then out of nowhere he went into a coma and never came out of it. With his death, his exhumation suit also died. Files, and others, thinks Joe was murdered by an overdose of wrong medication in order to silence him. He was informed as such by one of his sources. Indeed there are some strange details; the attending doctor is still to be found for example. And just before he went into coma and could not talk anymore, he scribbled a note for his family "Get me out of here, they are trying to kill me!" The official cause of death was Acute Deficiency Respiratory Syndrome. Bob Vernon was later told by a surgeon that this is more or less a standard method to cover-up medical errors, such as an overdose of drugs. Joe's death is one of the main reasons why James Files decided to tell his story to Bob Vernon, who took over from Joe. -James Files Confession Article

onelongsong wrote:

it's also human nature to come up with controversial testimonies because you may get a chance to be on the tele. yes; i'm talking about egos. a lot of people made money writing books and doing talk shows.

It's also human nature to crave power.
Ask yourself what Oswalds motive was. Go ahead. WHAT WAS HIS MOTIVE? What did he stand to gain and what is his stated motive? None! He vehmently maintained his innocence in the short time he was alive after the assassination. He uses the word "patsy" directly.

ALSO: How did a description of Oswald get on the police radio fifteen minutes after the shooting?
WHO KNEW IT WAS OSWALD within 15 minutes of the shooting? They passed his description out immediately. Think about it. Answer?

Now:
What did LBJ and the CIA have to gain?
Power, power, power,
and the furtherance of the Vietnam War.

onelongsong wrote:

let's say there was a shooter in the grassy knoll. did his bullet vaporize after hitting kennedy? if not; why wasn't anyone hit with it? the street accross from the grassy knoll was lined with people.
once again we have a problem with evidence.

custom made wax-tipped mercury-filled round

By the way, this is your "magic bullet" ... this bullet entered JFKs back, exited his throat, entered Connally's back exited his chest, entered his wrist, exited his wrist, and entered his thigh? Can you explain why it looks to be in mint condition with only firing marks but no distortion? Does it look anything like the bullets they show entering pig carcass?

Bullet 399 did it you say? How come Connally's own damn Dr. disagrees?

Here is a Washington Post article about new research which seems to contradict the "magic bullet" theory

onelongsong wrote:

44 years have passed and no new evidence has been presented. the supposed 4th shot heard on the open mic was proven to be a car back firing. this was done with frequency meters.

i'll check that claim out.
you say "no new evidence has been presented" but what about existing evidence that has dissapeared?

possible bullet in the curb and the evidence of this mysteriously dissapeared from the National Archives. Hmm.

The BRAIN?
The brain is the one thing that could have been dissected to trace a bullet path ... instead the brain just kind've dissapeared and was NEVER dissected. :(

onelongsong wrote:

only the warren report has duplicated exactly what happened.

The Warren Commission explains the theory it prefers, with very misleading "evidence" to boot.

The Warren Commission doesn't explain anything relating to Oswalds motive, or bother to investigate his ties to both the FBI (on their payroll!) and the CIA. Hmm.

onelongsong wrote:

i know you don't want to believe it and there's nothing anyone can say to change your mind.

I would love to believe it, but what i see makes me a skeptic.

Once again, on a purely visual discrepancy, what is going on here ?!? Why is the SS ordering Kennedy's personal body guards to stand down ... they are totally absent from the motorcade at the time of his death ... even the SS in the follow up car freak out ...!

explain anything i have linked here.
hell give me links of your own.

I provided you with support for "my" claims (which are actually the claims of 2/3rds of Americans) and yet you don't even trust me to look at yours.

I suspect your response will be something like "why bother arguing with someone like yourself?" ... please don't dissapoint me. I want to see it your way. I want to believe in my government. But it just stinks ... like rotten fucking fish it stinks.

James Files Admits It - "I shot Kennedy"!!!

FBI Agent Zack Shelton on Files

DriftingByTheStorm

onelongsong wrote:

the world was thought to be flat until evidence proved it round. the new evidence in this case was forensic study and recreation of the crime. the news reports what is believed at the time. when new evidence refutes old ideas; there's no need to rehash what was proven wrong.

I would still like you to respond to the post above this one, man.

I'm not being a jerk, i just want someone who seems to have an apparently firm grasp on this "new evidence" to help me see that the JFK conspiracy theory is unfounded.

Either that, or look at some of the links i provided and respond that it does in fact appear to still be a valid theory.

:(

And for the onlookers, i do find relevance in this, even 40+ years on.

The idea of forces within the government being able to pull off a coup d'état that involves the violent murder of a people's president is incredibly relevant. If those same forces are still at work within the government (and arguably outside pulling strings) then it becomes incredibliy relevant!

SweetHarmonics

the powers-that-be would never allow a credible argument against the official story to hit the airwaves

the cable conglomerate is owned by the same interest that initiated the whole setup

resistance is futile

DriftingByTheStorm

SweetHarmonics wrote:

the powers-that-be would never allow a credible argument against the official story to hit the airwaves

the cable conglomerate is owned by the same interest that initiated the whole setup

resistance is futile

i guess what really miffs me is that just 10 years ago we did NOT have a completely complicit and one-interest dominated media ... History Channel was PROOF of that at one point. They were sponsoring anti-state conspiracy TRUTH! They invested their own goddamn money in to it, and spent godknows how long producing four extra hours of proof to back it up ... then they fold to corrupt government pressure and become part of the anti-American infrastructure?

Boo.
:(

I would still really appreciate someone taking a look at any of those links and telling me i'm not crazy.




oh,
and one more time,
real quick,
this is THIRTY SECOND PROOF:
Jack Ruby ADMITTING it was a CONSPIRACY! This conference was NOT AIRED ON TV at the time, it was pulled before broadcast. WHY !?!?

SweetHarmonics

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

then they fold to corrupt government pressure and become part of the anti-American infrastructure?

cuz at the end of the day they are slaves to the same major media infrastructure that allows them to have their network on the roster of the major cable companies and I'm sure they've become completely reliant on the resulting revenues

massive pressure (veiled threats and the like) was undoubtedly applied to the creators and the network to skew it in the direction of the official story

definitely not the first time, the Jack Ruby link you posted is a great example....obviously

onelongsong

SweetHarmonics wrote:

the powers-that-be would never allow a credible argument against the official story to hit the airwaves

the cable conglomerate is owned by the same interest that initiated the whole setup

resistance is futile

just like nixon kept watergate from hitting the airwaves.

gue_barium

onelongsong wrote:

exactly. people hear and believe what they want to. any evidence that goes against their opinion will never be good enough. this is like arguing with plant life.

You do that often?
Do the buffalo see you doing it?
Are you aquainted with the spirit-weed White Dandelion?

Just a friendly ribbing.

onelongsong

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I would still like you to respond to the post above this one, man.

I'm not being a jerk, i just want someone who seems to have an apparently firm grasp on this "new evidence" to help me see that the JFK conspiracy theory is unfounded.

Either that, or look at some of the links i provided and respond that it does in fact appear to still be a valid theory.

:(

And for the onlookers, i do find relevance in this, even 40+ years on.

The idea of forces within the government being able to pull off a coup d'état that involves the violent murder of a people's president is incredibly relevant. If those same forces are still at work within the government (and arguably outside pulling strings) then it becomes incredibliy relevant!

like i said; you seek out the evidence that supports your opinion. you'll find whatever you're looking for online. solid evidence to prove either side. because it's not evidence. at least not evidence that can be used in court. it's been 44 years since jfk and still not one credable shread of evidence worthy enough to make the 10:00 news. i've seen websites with absolute proof of aliens yet they don't make the 10:00 news either. the internet is a big fantacy land. you'll find proof that oswald killed jfk; but you'll also find proof that the mob did it; and several other factions. cuba and russia are among the top 5.
i find it funny when people post links to prove a point. who's behind these sites? maybe you'll post a youtube link but i can easily post on youtube too; so does that make me a credable journalist or scientist? i can build a website in an hour so am i magically all knowing?
the world has some big problems to deal with and soon all this will be meaningless. i just wish people would put forth this much effort and concern towards what is about to happen instead of what happened almost 50 years ago.

jlew24asu

onelongsong wrote:

like i said; you seek out the evidence that supports your opinion. you'll find whatever you're looking for online. solid evidence to prove either side. because it's not evidence. at least not evidence that can be used in court. it's been 44 years since jfk and still not one credable shread of evidence worthy enough to make the 10:00 news. i've seen websites with absolute proof of aliens yet they don't make the 10:00 news either. the internet is a big fantacy land. you'll find proof that oswald killed jfk; but you'll also find proof that the mob did it; and several other factions. cuba and russia are among the top 5.
i find it funny when people post links to prove a point. who's behind these sites? maybe you'll post a youtube link but i can easily post on youtube too; so does that make me a credable journalist or scientist? i can build a website in an hour so am i magically all knowing?
the world has some big problems to deal with and soon all this will be meaningless. i just wish people would put forth this much effort and concern towards what is about to happen instead of what happened almost 50 years ago.

great post. very very true

DriftingByTheStorm

onelongsong wrote:

like i said; you seek out the evidence that supports your opinion. you'll find whatever you're looking for online. solid evidence to prove either side. because it's not evidence. at least not evidence that can be used in court. it's been 44 years since jfk and still not one credable shread of evidence worthy enough to make the 10:00 news. i've seen websites with absolute proof of aliens yet they don't make the 10:00 news either. the internet is a big fantacy land. you'll find proof that oswald killed jfk; but you'll also find proof that the mob did it; and several other factions. cuba and russia are among the top 5.
i find it funny when people post links to prove a point. who's behind these sites? maybe you'll post a youtube link but i can easily post on youtube too; so does that make me a credable journalist or scientist? i can build a website in an hour so am i magically all knowing?
the world has some big problems to deal with and soon all this will be meaningless. i just wish people would put forth this much effort and concern towards what is about to happen instead of what happened almost 50 years ago.

OK.
Look. I am SICK OF THIS BULLSHIT.

I posted links to videos SPECIFICALY PROVING, yes i said PROVING, as in WITHOUT A DOUBT, that what was used to support the "single bullet theory" is 100% errant ... FALSE, INVALID, NOT BASED IN TRUTH, DECEITUFUL, LIES!

That is proof ... it HAS been proved ... the Warren commission SUPPRESSED the actual morgue and autopsy photographs of JFK's body and instead chose to use DRAWINGS of these photos (what? they had photos, but they used drawings instead? yes, they did!) ...

The unused photos show 100% PROVABLE FACTUAL UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE that the bullet wound in JFKs back is in fact, just that, IN HIS FUCKING BACK ... it is in his goddamn back ... WAY THE FUCK BELOW HIS NECK ... six fucking inches below his fucking neck!

HOW DID A BULLET COMING FROM SIX STORIES UP GO THROUGH HIS BACK AND OUT HIS FUCKING NECK !?!?!

You are being dishonest and shameful when you misrepresent posted links as "silly internet conspiracy" just because it didn't hit the mainstream (read: state sponsored, yes state fucking sponsored, a government agency licensed them to be on the airwaves, do the fucking math).

Roland2K posted an israeli news site that rated the people running for president in terms of how they would affect israel ... they listed EVERYONE ... even people who never were really running, like condoleeza, EVERYONE EXCEPT RON PAUL ...

does that mean Ron Paul isn't running for president just because the mainstream news pretends he isnt?!!?

WAKE UP.
QUIT LYING.
QUIT MISREPRESENTING REALITY.

I'm sick of this shit.

Kennedy was murdered in a cold blooded CONSPIRACY ... dozens of people went running up the fucking grassy knoll 30 seconds after he was shot because they thought that was where the bullets came from ... THIS IS NOT SOME FUCKING BULLSHIT HYPOTHESIS!

Sorry,
but your post did nothing to show anyone anything related to truth.

You just deny what you don't want to hear, and try to make me look crazy for digging deep.

Go watch any of that shit, or read any thing in the links.

Come on. Do it.
I KNOW you haven't.

:(

oh.
and where is the proof you said you would NOT post me, because i would NOT read it?
I would still like to NOT read it.
:(

DriftingByTheStorm

Oh.
By the way.
Here is something else you said that bugs the piss out of me.

"you can find proof that oswald killed kennedy..."

you said it in a rant about what you can find proof for, if you look, including "proof" of aliens.

Here is what really fucks me off:

THERE IS NO PROOF THAT OSWALD KILLED KENNEDY.

Not ONE SINGLE GODDAMN SHRED OF EVIDENCE.

He was not linked by DNA to the crime scene. His prints were NEVER found on the gun. He VEHMENENTLY denied being involved. It was NOT his gun.

NO PROOF. NOT ONE SHRED.

He was in that building BECAUSE HE WORKED IN THAT BUILDING. In fact, he was WORKING THAT DAY at that exact moment, getting a fucking soda in the 2nd floor break room where the cop who entered the building 90 seconds after shots went off found him... ON THE SECOND FLOOR, where he was reported to be by a co-worker five minutes BEFORE the crime, and 90 seconds afterwards (according to a cop) ... how did his description get on the Police band APB within 15 minutes? Who knew what he looked like, and why were they looking for him?

WHAT IS YOUR PROOF THAT OSWALD DID IT?
The government says so?
The media says so?

Nice double fucking standard.
Real fucking nice!

Skitch Patterson

you really are a pinnacle of reasoned debate.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

onelongsong wrote:

like i said; you seek out the evidence that supports your opinion. you'll find whatever you're looking for online. solid evidence to prove either side. because it's not evidence. at least not evidence that can be used in court. it's been 44 years since jfk and still not one credable shread of evidence worthy enough to make the 10:00 news. i've seen websites with absolute proof of aliens yet they don't make the 10:00 news either. the internet is a big fantacy land. you'll find proof that oswald killed jfk; but you'll also find proof that the mob did it; and several other factions. cuba and russia are among the top 5.
i find it funny when people post links to prove a point. who's behind these sites? maybe you'll post a youtube link but i can easily post on youtube too; so does that make me a credable journalist or scientist? i can build a website in an hour so am i magically all knowing?
the world has some big problems to deal with and soon all this will be meaningless. i just wish people would put forth this much effort and concern towards what is about to happen instead of what happened almost 50 years ago.

Ever hear of ivestigating credibility and sources?

Links and quotes from books, scientists, and acclaimed authors on the subject.

You make it sound like the internet is noting but fantasy bullshit.

That couldn't be further from the truth...or anywhere even close to reality.

Scholars don't sit and watch TV...they use the internet.

Look up the statistics. More people are getting their news online now.

Ever wonder why TV is waning in comparison as a valid source of factual information?

Again know your sources.....look up and validate your information. Make your decision on what bears merit and what is just fluff.

Easy enough to do. It's not rocket science.

DriftingByTheStorm

Skitch Patterson wrote:

you really are a pinnacle of reasoned debate.

Let me get this straight:

I post a thread with almost TWO DOZEN links to factual information from

a. people who heard gun shots and saw suspects
b. people that took pictures that show possible suspects on the knoll
c. people within the police force that contradict the offical story, one of whom was murdered for his insistence regarding this
d. medical experts directly involved in the inital autopsy who directly and vehmenently disagree with the "official findings" and the practices undertaken before, during, and after the autopsy.
e. well respected medical doctors at the pinnacle of their field who vehmenently disagree with the findings and who show conclusively that what was used to determine the offical report are FACTUALY UNTRUE!
f. the undertaker (for godssake, even the undertaker!) who thinks it was fishy
g. direct testimony from the accused proclaiming his innocence
h. direct testimony from the man who shot the accused saying bluntly and directly that it was a conspiracy and that the Vice President was responsible
i. direct testimony from the mistress of LBJ proclaiming his involvement
j. direct testimony from LBJ's white house lawyer proclaiming his involvement
k. the findings of a congressional investigation stating there were two gunman
l. video proof of the secret service waving off the PERSONAL bodyguards to the president
m. the dallas chief of police admitting he never had any fingerprints of Oswald
n. bullistic evidence of the bullet alleged to have been "the" bullet wich near-conclusively proves this could NOT have been the bullet
o. graphic photos of JFKs body, along with expert testimony which conclusively prove that a bullet entering where it did on his BACK could NOT have exited his THROAT ...

[do i need to go through the whole alphabet and back through AA to ZZ to be credible!?!]

ETC ETC ETC ...

I post all this shit and i get one guy who decides that he has seen PROOF that the opposite is true and directly states I AM NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU LINKS BECAUSE YOU WONT READ THEM ...

look at all the shit i have dug through, you think there is anything i wont read or look at?

This guy gives me NOTHING, NOTHING but his own fucking opinion,
and I am the one who, after MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS TO ILLICIT A REASONED AND FACT-BASED RESPONSE got NOTHING ... NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING?

And I am not being reasonable?

WTF !?!?

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU PEOPLE WANT?
You bitch and fucking moan about us not giving you any thing to support our argument ... read the fucking list above ... does that look pretty good to you or what?

Look through this thread and find me ANYTHING ...ANYTHING that factualy contradicts ANYTHING that i have just said ... !

WHO is not being reasoned?
If i am irriate, it is because the "other" side is being TOTALLY UNREASONED!

Skitch Patterson

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Let me get this straight:

I post a thread with almost TWO DOZEN links to factual information from

a. people who heard gun shots and saw suspects
b. people that took pictures that show possible suspects on the knoll
c. people within the police force that contradict the offical story, one of whom was murdered for his insistence regarding this
d. medical experts directly involved in the inital autopsy who directly and vehmenently disagree with the "official findings" and the practices undertaken before, during, and after the autopsy.
e. well respected medical doctors at the pinnacle of their field who vehmenently disagree with the findings and who show conclusively that what was used to determine the offical report are FACTUALY UNTRUE!
f. the undertaker (for godssake, even the undertaker!) who thinks it was fishy
g. direct testimony from the accused proclaiming his innocence
h. direct testimony from the man who shot the accused saying bluntly and directly that it was a conspiracy and that the Vice President was responsible
i. direct testimony from the mistress of LBJ proclaiming his involvement
j. direct testimony from LBJ's white house lawyer proclaiming his involvement
k. the findings of a congressional investigation stating there were two gunman
l. video proof of the secret service waving off the PERSONAL bodyguards to the president
m. the dallas chief of police admitting he never had any fingerprints of Oswald
n. bullistic evidence of the bullet alleged to have been "the" bullet wich near-conclusively proves this could NOT have been the bullet
o. graphic photos of JFKs body, along with expert testimony which conclusively prove that a bullet entering where it did on his BACK could NOT have exited his THROAT ...

[do i need to go through the whole alphabet and back through AA to ZZ to be credible!?!]

ETC ETC ETC ...

I post all this shit and i get one guy who decides that he has seen PROOF that the opposite is true and directly states I AM NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU LINKS BECAUSE YOU WONT READ THEM ...

look at all the shit i have dug through, you think there is anything i wont read or look at?

This guy gives me NOTHING, NOTHING but his own fucking opinion,
and I am the one who, after MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS TO ILLICIT A REASONED AND FACT-BASED RESPONSE got NOTHING ... NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING?

And I am not being reasonable?

WTF !?!?

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU PEOPLE WANT?
You bitch and fucking moan about us not giving you any thing to support our argument ... read the fucking list above ... does that look pretty good to you or what?

Look through this thread and find me ANYTHING ...ANYTHING that factualy contradicts ANYTHING that i have just said ... !

WHO is not being reasoned?
If i am irriate, it is because the "other" side is being TOTALLY UNREASONED!

you're the one who started the thread with "I don't care what stupid reason you give me", it doesnt really matter what point anyone brings up.. you think you're right to the point of getting significantly frustrated.

You're not looking for debate. You're looking to show how smart you think you are.

DriftingByTheStorm

Skitch Patterson wrote:

you're the one who started the thread with "I don't care what stupid reason you give me", it doesnt really matter what point anyone brings up.. you think you're right to the point of getting significantly frustrated.

You're not looking for debate. You're looking to show how smart you think you are.

:rolleyes:

The "i don't care what reason you give me" comment was in direct relation to History Channel pulling a documentary piece that they invested time, money and effort in to producing simply because some EX-government officials found it "inconvenient".

That IS inexcusable, and i DON'T care what reason you give for it, it IS so.

But you are ALWAYS free to respond intelligently.

Instead, you (and jlew) have REPEATEDLY responded merely by saying "You don't want to hear answers", "You aren't interested in debate" blah blah blah.

I post five times ASKING for debate, and instead you TELL ME what i want.

Hmm.
Sounds like YOU are the one who isn't interested.
But you sure do like to smear my intent, and insinuate that you know my motives.

Whatever.
You play semantics instead of debating the issue,
and you aren't even good at that.

onelongsong

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

:rolleyes:

The "i don't care what reason you give me" comment was in direct relation to History Channel pulling a documentary piece that they invested time, money and effort in to producing simply because some EX-government officials found it "inconvenient".

That IS inexcusable, and i DON'T care what reason you give for it, it IS so.

But you are ALWAYS free to respond intelligently.

Instead, you (and jlew) have REPEATEDLY responded merely by saying "You don't want to hear answers", "You aren't interested in debate" blah blah blah.

I post five times ASKING for debate, and instead you TELL ME what i want.

Hmm.
Sounds like YOU are the one who isn't interested.
But you sure do like to smear my intent, and insinuate that you know my motives.

Whatever.
You play semantics instead of debating the issue,
and you aren't even good at that.

i thought it was settled with the statement that new eveidence has proven that documentary wrong. nobody wants to see old; outdated news. it's clear you haven't seen the documentary that replaced it or maybe you just don't agree with it. thus people believe you only see what you want to see.

DriftingByTheStorm

onelongsong wrote:

i thought it was settled with the statement that new eveidence has proven that documentary wrong. nobody wants to see old; outdated news. it's clear you haven't seen the documentary that replaced it or maybe you just don't agree with it. thus people believe you only see what you want to see.

What the HELL are you talking about.
here we go again with more unsubstantiated babble.

WHAT "NEW" DOCUMENTARY?

This is the fifth fucking time i've asked you to provide ANY sort of link, bibliographical information, or reference as to what the fuck you are talking about.

The ONLY thing you have said in this entire thread as a "rebuttal" is that there is "new evidence" you have COMPLETELY FAILED to show ANY reference to such evidence, and now you are skewing the facts of what happend.

There IS NO NEW DOCUMENTARY related to "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" ... it is a 9 part series, started by an independent production company, and bought outright by A&E\The History Channel, whence they then added FOUR extra hourly segements to the documentary and aired the whole series in 1995 ... some time shortly after that, Gerald Ford, Lady Bird Johnson, and several other threatened to sue the History Channel over the ninth episode of the series, "The Guilty Men", which directly implicated LBJ -- The History Channel promptly CENSORED ITSELF by pulling and permanently canning this episode.

THEY HAS NEVER "REPLACED" IT.
I have no idea what the sam hell you are talking about,
but either you are just trolling to piss me off (which i actually hope) or you are otherwise just ... well ... incorrect.

:(

I love your fucking logic though:
Oh well, you mentioned Forty Two highly relevant and convincing arguments that seemingly disprove the official story, but i thought it was settled with the unsubstantiated hearsay that there was some sort of evidence out there somewhere which i can't mention, cite, or direct your towards that probably proves you are stupid, but like i said i'm not going to show you this evidence, because ... well quite frankly ... well ... i thought that settled it.

Yeah. You're right buddy. I'm a moron.
That fucking settles it.
The "new evidence" which has yet to be brought to light here unequivocaly proves it.
You're a fucking genius. Thanks for your help.

:(