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.
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.
:(
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
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!
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
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.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
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!
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
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.
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.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
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.
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.
:(
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
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.
i remember seeing a special about people who confess to crimes they didn't commit. a lot fits here. people want attention. let's say i was in NY on 9/11. if i say i saw something different than others; i'll be on the tele. i'll get talk show interviews. i could build a website linked to all the search engines and anyone searching that subject would be directed to my site.
a simple search will bring you thousands of sites with enough evidence that aliens are visiting our planet. the video footage is proof; right? but for everything you can prove via the internet; there's as many sites proving the opposite. hell; there's a couple sites that provide evidence that aliens were responsable for 9/11. i believe one has a picture of a ufo over the wtc.
when you consider that everyone is able to contribute to the internet; it's no surprise that most of it is crap. most of the 9/11 conspiracy sites are built and ran by teenagers.
this is why you'll always find what you're looking for on the internet. you'll find proof that oswald killed jfk; but you'll also find proof that the mob did it; lbj did it; and i'm sure you'll find proof aliens did it. it all depends on the wording of your search.
if hanks says something you don't agree with you'll call it dirty politics. you already set the stage.
you really are a troll.
i can't even say to you what i want to say in this forum.
and jlew,
the point was i thought SOMONE may have been able to provide me with an honest answer ... just like 69Charger was able to do with providing personal anecdotal explanations of rocket engine physics to explain certain elements of 911 theory and of the tower collapse ...
anyone who was around last year knows that i changed my position from belief in tower "demolition" to the opposite, namely, "innocent" collapse from fire and plane crashes ...
i AM open to the truth.
Neither of you two harmles little ... mmm mmm mmms is capable of doing anymore than simply bad mouthing me. i'm sick of it.
quit talking shit about the internet, and about your own damn theories about the operating behaviors of my brain.
you haven't provided anyone with anything substantial of relevance to this thread yet. you just talk trash.
put up or shut up!
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
you really are a troll.
i can't even say to you what i want to say in this forum.
and jlew,
the point was i thought SOMONE may have been able to provide me with an honest answer ... just like 69Charger was able to do with providing personal anecdotal explanations of rocket engine physics to explain certain elements of 911 theory and of the tower collapse ...
anyone who was around last year knows that i changed my position from belief in tower "demolition" to the opposite, namely, "innocent" collapse from fire and plane crashes ...
i AM open to the truth.
Neither of you two harmles little ... mmm mmm mmms is capable of doing anymore than simply bad mouthing me. i'm sick of it.
quit talking shit about the internet, and about your own damn theories about the operating behaviors of my brain.
you haven't provided anyone with anything substantial of relevance to this thread yet. you just talk trash.
put up or shut up!
how can someone do that when you completely dismiss what people say because you have all the FACTS? like the other guy said, you arent looking for debate, you are only looking for people to see how smart you are.
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.
:(
dude; take a pill. you can find websites that claim aliens killed jfk. it's all in the wording of your search. the photos of jfk jr were confiscated too. with money comes privledge.
you say dozens of people went running toward the gunshots (grassy knoll)? how many people do you know that would run TOWARDS gunfire? it's not natural. when you post anything that PROVES anything; i'll watch it on CNN. let them know you have evidence because it'll make headline news. anyone can post anything on the internet so it's not a credable source. i've doctored photos and videos myself so i know how easy it is. i've also seen battle wounds where a bullet followed the bone up an arm and exited the neck. i've had a bullet hit a twig and tumble through a deer tearing up the insides.
give me something from a credable source. like CNN or the NY Times. then we can talk. until then you're like the rest of the nutters.
dude; take a pill. you can find websites that claim aliens killed jfk. it's all in the wording of your search. the photos of jfk jr were confiscated too. with money comes privledge.
you say dozens of people went running toward the gunshots (grassy knoll)? how many people do you know that would run TOWARDS gunfire? it's not natural. when you post anything that PROVES anything; i'll watch it on CNN. let them know you have evidence because it'll make headline news. anyone can post anything on the internet so it's not a credable source. i've doctored photos and videos myself so i know how easy it is. i've also seen battle wounds where a bullet followed the bone up an arm and exited the neck. i've had a bullet hit a twig and tumble through a deer tearing up the insides.
give me something from a credable source. like CNN or the NY Times. then we can talk. until then you're like the rest of the nutters.
the people were running up the stairs of the knoll a bit over 30 seconds after the last shot was fired ... they had been on the floor ducking for cover, you can see photos of this. these photos aren't doctored. wake the fuck up. after the shots subsided and word spread from several people (over FIFTY people in that crowd have been qutoed as hearing shots from that knoll! FIFTY!) that shots came from that direction, the crowd ran up the knoll BECAUSE THE FUCKING PRESIDENT WAS MURDERED ... maybe that doesn't make a lick of sense to you because George Bush is such a piece of shit president that most people would be THANKFUL if he were shot, but most people loved and adored kennedy ... most working people ... and when he was violently murdered in front of their eyes, and they were presented with an opportunity to apprehend the suspect, they RAN IN THAT DIRECTION, HOPING TO CHASE HIM\THEM DOWN!
I love your fucking argument that if it's credible you will see it on CNN. Given that this 9 Part Series was aired on The History Channel, and only removed when the government threatened to sue them.
give me something from a credable source. like CNN or the NY Times. then we can talk. until then you're like the rest of the nutters.
SOURCE FOR THIS ARTICLE IS THE WASHINGTON POST given that you are probably from the backwoods, let me inform you that The Washington Post is THE newspaper for the greater Washington DC\Northern Virginia\Maryland Metropolitan Area with a daily circulation number of 929,921! Study Backs Theory of 'Grassy Knoll'
New Report Says Second Gunman Fired at Kennedy
The House Assassinations Committee may have been right after all: There was a shot from the grassy knoll.
That was the key finding of the congressional investigation that concluded 22 years ago that President John F. Kennedy's murder in Dallas in 1963 was "probably . . . the result of a conspiracy."
A special panel of the National Academy of Sciences subsequently disputed the evidence of a fourth shot, contained on a police dictabelt of the sounds in Dealey Plaza that day. The panel insisted it was simply random noise, perhaps static, recorded about a minute after the shooting while Kennedy's motorcade was en route to Parkland Hospital.
A new, peer-reviewed article in Science and Justice, a quarterly publication of Britain's Forensic Science Society, says the NAS panel's study was seriously flawed. It says the panel failed to take into account the words of a Dallas patrolman that show the gunshot-like noises occurred "at the exact instant that John F. Kennedy was assassinated."
In fact, the author of the article, D.B. Thomas, a government scientist and JFK assassination researcher, said it was more than 96 percent certain that there was a shot from the grassy knoll to the right of the president's limousine, in addition to the three shots from a book depository window above and behind the president's limousine.
G. Robert Blakey, former chief counsel to the House Assassinations Committee, said the NAS panel's study always bothered him because it dismissed all four putative shots as random noise -- even though the three soundbursts from the book depository matched up precisely with film of the assassination and other evidence such as the echo patterns in Dealey Plaza and the speed of Kennedy's motorcade.
"This is an honest, careful scientific examination of everything we did, with all the appropriate statistical checks," Blakey said of Thomas's work.
"It shows that we made mistakes, too, but minor mistakes. The main thing is when push comes to shove, he increased the degree of confidence that the shot from the grassy knoll was real, not static. We thought there was a 95 percent chance it was a shot. He puts it at 96.3 percent. Either way, that's 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'
Whose the fucking nutter?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
you really are a troll.
i can't even say to you what i want to say in this forum.
and jlew,
the point was i thought SOMONE may have been able to provide me with an honest answer ... just like 69Charger was able to do with providing personal anecdotal explanations of rocket engine physics to explain certain elements of 911 theory and of the tower collapse ...
anyone who was around last year knows that i changed my position from belief in tower "demolition" to the opposite, namely, "innocent" collapse from fire and plane crashes ...
i AM open to the truth.
Neither of you two harmles little ... mmm mmm mmms is capable of doing anymore than simply bad mouthing me. i'm sick of it.
quit talking shit about the internet, and about your own damn theories about the operating behaviors of my brain.
you haven't provided anyone with anything substantial of relevance to this thread yet. you just talk trash.
put up or shut up!
dude; i like you. all i'm saying is get me tangable evidence. something that is worthy of mainstream news. about 10 years ago my kid did a highschool project. he built a website about the death of princess diana being a hit because she was dating a muslim; which is an enemy of the crown. after reading his website i was convinced. it was that good. he had pictures and parts of interviews and it was bloody brilliant. the kid was 13 years old and never left the states but a lot of people bought into his conspiracy theory. an american author wrote a book with similar theories and his site got thousands of hits. all this was done by a 13 year old kid using photos and remarks from magazines and newspapers; and of course; the internet.
so when you post a link i have to wonder if it's just another teenager doing a school project. nothing against you mate. my kids website still haunts me now and then. could he be right? but then; wouldn't any credable evidence be on major news outlets like CNN, BBC world news, NY times; and the others that have to first investigate a story before it's published?
just like with the demolition theory. no det wire found; not even a piece of blasting cap found; nobody saw tonnes of explosives being brought in; nobody saw people cutting support beams; (in the city that never sleeps) and no explosive residue. we've identified explosives used to blow up planes in mid-air yet no residue in a massive skyscraper. yet people still believe it was demolition.
that's why i need to see evidence admissable in court.
the people were running up the stairs of the knoll a bit over 30 seconds after the last shot was fired ... they had been on the floor ducking for cover, you can see photos of this. these photos aren't doctored. wake the fuck up. after the shots subsided and word spread from several people (over FIFTY people in that crowd have been qutoed as hearing shots from that knoll! FIFTY!) that shots came from that direction, the crowd ran up the knoll BECAUSE THE FUCKING PRESIDENT WAS MURDERED ... maybe that doesn't make a lick of sense to you because George Bush is such a piece of shit president that most people would be THANKFUL if he were shot, but most people loved and adored kennedy ... most working people ... and when he was violently murdered in front of their eyes, and they were presented with an opportunity to apprehend the suspect, they RAN IN THAT DIRECTION, HOPING TO CHASE HIM\THEM DOWN!
I love your fucking argument that if it's credible you will see it on CNN. Given that this 9 Part Series was aired on The History Channel, and only removed when the government threatened to sue them.
SOURCE FOR THIS ARTICLE IS THE WASHINGTON POST given that you are probably from the backwoods, let me inform you that The Washington Post is THE newspaper for the greater Washington DC\Northern Virginia\Maryland Metropolitan Area with a daily circulation number of 929,921! Study Backs Theory of 'Grassy Knoll'
New Report Says Second Gunman Fired at Kennedy
First two sentences:
Whose the fucking nutter?
and what was done with this evidence? people say a lot of things. if it were credable; some action would have been taken.
[A] dude i like you [...] but then; wouldn't any credable evidence be on major news outlets like CNN, BBC world news, NY times; and the others that have to first investigate a story before it's published?
[...]
[C] that's why i need to see evidence admissable in court.
[A] I'm not so sure about you, honestly.
Your responses are not very intellectualy honest.
But i will try. I think maybe you are just naive, confused, and skeptical of being skeptical.
If you are dependent on "mainstream news" to keep you "informed" and to "form" all your opinions for you, you are in deep shit going in to the 21st century. You better wake up to that truth, at least. The media is controlled by some of the same interests that hated that president.
Anyhow, Look up a post or two. Read that shit. Get back to me.
[C] I posted you about twenty links to witnesses, expert witnesses, involved members of the autopsy, and analysis of physical evidence that would ALL be admissible in court. WTF is your definition of "admissible in court" this shit would all be allowed. Witnesses, those doing autopsies, medical experts, the photos of the body etc etc ... ADMISSIBLE!
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
and what was done with this evidence? people say a lot of things. if it were credable; some action would have been taken.
More flagrant intellectual dishonesty.
What exactly is this vague "some action" that you think "would have been taken"?
You think that "new evidence" that the government was involved in a conspiracy is going to convince the same fucking government to conduct an "honest" investigation?
Just what exactly do you think needs to happen for that proof to be valid?
You asked me to show you admissible evidence.
I DID.
You asked me to show you a credible source.
I DID.
Now you just back pedal some more and say ... "oh well, you know ... ho hum ... i think if it were that strong of a case ... i mean ... something would have been done ... or ... uh ... i mean ... yeah. ... YEAH!"
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I'll be very interested (not really ) of your take on this. since you know the truth and all.
You know what.
Fuck it. Lets try a new tack.
Lets work BACKWARDS.
Since some of you are completely unwilling to analyze an OPPOSING viewpoint, lets focus on the one you blindly accept.
FIND AND SHOW ME ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT CORROROBORATES L.H.OSWALD AS THE GUNMAN.
Go ahead. Show me PROOF.
You guys demand it all day long. Left and right.
I'm going to laugh real hard, i'm guessing.
And i know you are both too proud to just let this one go, so give it a whirl. I mean, this is the goddamn crime of the century. There is proof out the wazoo, but they just never used it because someone shot Oswald, case closed, right? But it's there. Boxes of it. Pages and pages of undeniable proof.
It should be REAL EASY, right? The internet will be swarming with hundreds of pages thoroughly debunking the conspiracy "nutters" and will easily and readily explain in plain english the SPECIFIC PROOF ADMISSIBLE IN COURT.
Go ahead.
I'm waiting.
I showed you dozens of pieces of "proof" to the contrary, but you stick to the official story. So give it a whirl. Try it. Prove it.
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
remember?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
You know what.
Fuck it. Lets try a new tack.
Lets work BACKWARDS.
Since some of you are completely unwilling to analyze an OPPOSING viewpoint, lets focus on the one you blindly accept.
FIND AND SHOW ME ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT CORROROBORATES L.H.OSWALD AS THE GUNMAN.
Go ahead. Show me PROOF.
You guys demand it all day long. Left and right.
I'm going to laugh real hard, i'm guessing.
And i know you are both too proud to just let this one go, so give it a whirl. I mean, this is the goddamn crime of the century. There is proof out the wazoo, but they just never used it because someone shot Oswald, case closed, right? But it's there. Boxes of it. Pages and pages of undeniable proof.
It should be REAL EASY, right? The internet will be swarming with hundreds of pages thoroughly debunking the conspiracy "nutters" and will easily and readily explain in plain english the SPECIFIC PROOF ADMISSIBLE IN COURT.
Go ahead.
I'm waiting.
I showed you dozens of pieces of "proof" to the contrary, but you stick to the official story. So give it a whirl. Try it. Prove it.
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
remember?
I'm not giving up on this.
You bastards demand proof out the ass for me anytime i post anything that contradicts the mainstream.
All i'm asking you to do is SHOW ONE PIECE OF PROOF FOR THE MAINSTREAM CONTENTION!
Should it really be that hard?
I mean, the government says its true.
PROVE OSWALD SHOT KENNEDY.
ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE & I WILL SURRENDER!
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I saw a deal on Discovery where they pulled off, what I would say, a 90% accurate magic bullet shot, with one shot. I am not sayin their was no conspiracy, but the magic bullet wouldn't have to be magical, it would just have ricochet off of bone.
I saw a deal on Discovery where they pulled off, what I would say, a 90% accurate magic bullet shot, with one shot. I am not sayin their was no conspiracy, but the magic bullet wouldn't have to be magical, it would just have ricochet off of bone.
Here is the thing.
Magical shot or no "magical" shot,
it proves NOTHING against Oswald.
Who the hell was L. H. Oswald anyhow?
Think about it.
Really think about it.
He was nobody before the shooting.
No one ever heard him talk about the president or wanting to kill him.
He vehmenently denied involvement in the shooting,
and there is NO PROOF he did it. NONE.
He is just a poor dupe who happened to work in the building that the perpatrators may have shot the president from. The government knew his name, because he had been a low level intelligence operative on the FBI payroll up to the day of the shooting. That alone should be cause for concern. This was NOT common knowledge, and still is not. It was completely buried at the time, no one wanted you to know that ... oh by the way, this "crazy" "lone" nut Oswald that we say shot JFK .... oh yeah ... he was actually known to the government ... we were his employer ... he was with intelligence services ... infact, there is the counter-theory that Oswald was not only setup to be the patsy well in advance by bathing him as a communist -- his "defection" to russia, was actually an intelligence operation under the employ of the US Government. Why would a private in the army be immersed in Russian language courses through the Army? Maybe he was invovled in intelligence operations? You think?
Listen to the link. it is an interview with LHO BEFORE the assassination! VERY REVEALING! Get the feeling that Oswald was pretty damn intelligent? That he was probably pretty far left against the status quot of Cuban-American relations? That the government proabably wasn't too fond of his view point, to say the least. That having known and employed Mr. Oswald, that they may reconsider and decide to go ahead and "expend" him in a plot that involved getting rid of another man, cough JFK cough, that was not far enough to the right in his views against Cuba?
Another theory is that he was not only made the patsy, but also duped in to involvement on the level of having him think he was actually there to infiltrate and STOP the assassination plot. oh ... and there is some proof that he knew Jack Ruby ... Jack Ruby whom the government claims shot Oswald because he loved Kennedy, but whose lover says that is not so, and whom was KNOWN to be in the employement of one Richard Nixon back in the 40s and who had mafia connections to boot ...
Either way, the case against Oswald is completely devoid of proof. The man worked in that building and witnesses place him on the SECOND floor both before AND after the shooting. NOT the 6th floor.
The whole thing stinks to high hell on the very face of it, and there ain't NO PROOF that Oswald did it. Just government "say so". Tell me that would stand in a court of law. It is clear THAT is why he was murdered ... the government absolutely could NOT have a trial! They HAD NO PROOF because HE DID NOT DO IT!
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
You know what.
Fuck it. Lets try a new tack.
Lets work BACKWARDS.
Since some of you are completely unwilling to analyze an OPPOSING viewpoint, lets focus on the one you blindly accept.
FIND AND SHOW ME ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT CORROROBORATES L.H.OSWALD AS THE GUNMAN.
Go ahead. Show me PROOF.
You guys demand it all day long. Left and right.
I'm going to laugh real hard, i'm guessing.
And i know you are both too proud to just let this one go, so give it a whirl. I mean, this is the goddamn crime of the century. There is proof out the wazoo, but they just never used it because someone shot Oswald, case closed, right? But it's there. Boxes of it. Pages and pages of undeniable proof.
It should be REAL EASY, right? The internet will be swarming with hundreds of pages thoroughly debunking the conspiracy "nutters" and will easily and readily explain in plain english the SPECIFIC PROOF ADMISSIBLE IN COURT.
Go ahead.
I'm waiting.
I showed you dozens of pieces of "proof" to the contrary, but you stick to the official story. So give it a whirl. Try it. Prove it.
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
remember?
read the warran report. people saw oswald with the gun. it was oswalds gun. etc etc.
Here is the thing.
Magical shot or no "magical" shot,
it proves NOTHING against Oswald.
Who the hell was L. H. Oswald anyhow?
Think about it.
Really think about it.
He was nobody before the shooting.
No one ever heard him talk about the president or wanting to kill him.
He vehmenently denied involvement in the shooting,
and there is NO PROOF he did it. NONE.
He is just a poor dupe who happened to work in the building that the perpatrators may have shot the president from. The government knew his name, because he had been a low level intelligence operative on the FBI payroll up to the day of the shooting. That alone should be cause for concern. This was NOT common knowledge, and still is not. It was completely buried at the time, no one wanted you to know that ... oh by the way, this "crazy" "lone" nut Oswald that we say shot JFK .... oh yeah ... he was actually known to the government ... we were his employer ... he was with intelligence services ... infact, there is the counter-theory that Oswald was not only setup to be the patsy well in advance by bathing him as a communist -- his "defection" to russia, was actually an intelligence operation under the employ of the US Government. Why would a private in the army be immersed in Russian language courses through the Army? Maybe he was invovled in intelligence operations? You think?
Listen to the link. it is an interview with LHO BEFORE the assassination! VERY REVEALING! Get the feeling that Oswald was pretty damn intelligent? That he was probably pretty far left against the status quot of Cuban-American relations? That the government proabably wasn't too fond of his view point, to say the least. That having known and employed Mr. Oswald, that they may reconsider and decide to go ahead and "expend" him in a plot that involved getting rid of another man, cough JFK cough, that was not far enough to the right in his views against Cuba?
Another theory is that he was not only made the patsy, but also duped in to involvement on the level of having him think he was actually there to infiltrate and STOP the assassination plot. oh ... and there is some proof that he knew Jack Ruby ... Jack Ruby whom the government claims shot Oswald because he loved Kennedy, but whose lover says that is not so, and whom was KNOWN to be in the employement of one Richard Nixon back in the 40s and who had mafia connections to boot ...
Either way, the case against Oswald is completely devoid of proof. The man worked in that building and witnesses place him on the SECOND floor both before AND after the shooting. NOT the 6th floor.
The whole thing stinks to high hell on the very face of it, and there ain't NO PROOF that Oswald did it. Just government "say so". Tell me that would stand in a court of law. It is clear THAT is why he was murdered ... the government absolutely could NOT have a trial! They HAD NO PROOF because HE DID NOT DO IT!
mark chapman was a nobody that killed john lennon TO BECOME FAMOUS.
Comments
great post. very very true
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.
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
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!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
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.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
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!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
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.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
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.
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I can not wait to see this!
I'll let everyone know what an idiot i am after someone finally shows me the light.
Seriously.
I look forward to seeing if this is any good or just dirty politics at work.
I find it hard to believe Hanks could be so intellectualy dishonest.
Maybe it is all bunk. Maybe he is just being duped.
Who knows.
Time will tell.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
i remember seeing a special about people who confess to crimes they didn't commit. a lot fits here. people want attention. let's say i was in NY on 9/11. if i say i saw something different than others; i'll be on the tele. i'll get talk show interviews. i could build a website linked to all the search engines and anyone searching that subject would be directed to my site.
a simple search will bring you thousands of sites with enough evidence that aliens are visiting our planet. the video footage is proof; right? but for everything you can prove via the internet; there's as many sites proving the opposite. hell; there's a couple sites that provide evidence that aliens were responsable for 9/11. i believe one has a picture of a ufo over the wtc.
when you consider that everyone is able to contribute to the internet; it's no surprise that most of it is crap. most of the 9/11 conspiracy sites are built and ran by teenagers.
this is why you'll always find what you're looking for on the internet. you'll find proof that oswald killed jfk; but you'll also find proof that the mob did it; lbj did it; and i'm sure you'll find proof aliens did it. it all depends on the wording of your search.
if hanks says something you don't agree with you'll call it dirty politics. you already set the stage.
you really are a troll.
i can't even say to you what i want to say in this forum.
and jlew,
the point was i thought SOMONE may have been able to provide me with an honest answer ... just like 69Charger was able to do with providing personal anecdotal explanations of rocket engine physics to explain certain elements of 911 theory and of the tower collapse ...
anyone who was around last year knows that i changed my position from belief in tower "demolition" to the opposite, namely, "innocent" collapse from fire and plane crashes ...
i AM open to the truth.
Neither of you two harmles little ... mmm mmm mmms is capable of doing anymore than simply bad mouthing me. i'm sick of it.
quit talking shit about the internet, and about your own damn theories about the operating behaviors of my brain.
you haven't provided anyone with anything substantial of relevance to this thread yet. you just talk trash.
put up or shut up!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
how can someone do that when you completely dismiss what people say because you have all the FACTS? like the other guy said, you arent looking for debate, you are only looking for people to see how smart you are.
dude; take a pill. you can find websites that claim aliens killed jfk. it's all in the wording of your search. the photos of jfk jr were confiscated too. with money comes privledge.
you say dozens of people went running toward the gunshots (grassy knoll)? how many people do you know that would run TOWARDS gunfire? it's not natural. when you post anything that PROVES anything; i'll watch it on CNN. let them know you have evidence because it'll make headline news. anyone can post anything on the internet so it's not a credable source. i've doctored photos and videos myself so i know how easy it is. i've also seen battle wounds where a bullet followed the bone up an arm and exited the neck. i've had a bullet hit a twig and tumble through a deer tearing up the insides.
give me something from a credable source. like CNN or the NY Times. then we can talk. until then you're like the rest of the nutters.
the people were running up the stairs of the knoll a bit over 30 seconds after the last shot was fired ... they had been on the floor ducking for cover, you can see photos of this. these photos aren't doctored. wake the fuck up. after the shots subsided and word spread from several people (over FIFTY people in that crowd have been qutoed as hearing shots from that knoll! FIFTY!) that shots came from that direction, the crowd ran up the knoll BECAUSE THE FUCKING PRESIDENT WAS MURDERED ... maybe that doesn't make a lick of sense to you because George Bush is such a piece of shit president that most people would be THANKFUL if he were shot, but most people loved and adored kennedy ... most working people ... and when he was violently murdered in front of their eyes, and they were presented with an opportunity to apprehend the suspect, they RAN IN THAT DIRECTION, HOPING TO CHASE HIM\THEM DOWN!
I love your fucking argument that if it's credible you will see it on CNN. Given that this 9 Part Series was aired on The History Channel, and only removed when the government threatened to sue them.
SOURCE FOR THIS ARTICLE IS THE WASHINGTON POST
given that you are probably from the backwoods, let me inform you that The Washington Post is THE newspaper for the greater Washington DC\Northern Virginia\Maryland Metropolitan Area with a daily circulation number of 929,921!
Study Backs Theory of 'Grassy Knoll'
New Report Says Second Gunman Fired at Kennedy
First two sentences:
Whose the fucking nutter?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
dude; i like you. all i'm saying is get me tangable evidence. something that is worthy of mainstream news. about 10 years ago my kid did a highschool project. he built a website about the death of princess diana being a hit because she was dating a muslim; which is an enemy of the crown. after reading his website i was convinced. it was that good. he had pictures and parts of interviews and it was bloody brilliant. the kid was 13 years old and never left the states but a lot of people bought into his conspiracy theory. an american author wrote a book with similar theories and his site got thousands of hits. all this was done by a 13 year old kid using photos and remarks from magazines and newspapers; and of course; the internet.
so when you post a link i have to wonder if it's just another teenager doing a school project. nothing against you mate. my kids website still haunts me now and then. could he be right? but then; wouldn't any credable evidence be on major news outlets like CNN, BBC world news, NY times; and the others that have to first investigate a story before it's published?
just like with the demolition theory. no det wire found; not even a piece of blasting cap found; nobody saw tonnes of explosives being brought in; nobody saw people cutting support beams; (in the city that never sleeps) and no explosive residue. we've identified explosives used to blow up planes in mid-air yet no residue in a massive skyscraper. yet people still believe it was demolition.
that's why i need to see evidence admissable in court.
and what was done with this evidence? people say a lot of things. if it were credable; some action would have been taken.
[A] I'm not so sure about you, honestly.
Your responses are not very intellectualy honest.
But i will try. I think maybe you are just naive, confused, and skeptical of being skeptical.
If you are dependent on "mainstream news" to keep you "informed" and to "form" all your opinions for you, you are in deep shit going in to the 21st century. You better wake up to that truth, at least. The media is controlled by some of the same interests that hated that president.
Anyhow, Look up a post or two. Read that shit. Get back to me.
[C] I posted you about twenty links to witnesses, expert witnesses, involved members of the autopsy, and analysis of physical evidence that would ALL be admissible in court. WTF is your definition of "admissible in court" this shit would all be allowed. Witnesses, those doing autopsies, medical experts, the photos of the body etc etc ... ADMISSIBLE!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
More flagrant intellectual dishonesty.
What exactly is this vague "some action" that you think "would have been taken"?
You think that "new evidence" that the government was involved in a conspiracy is going to convince the same fucking government to conduct an "honest" investigation?
Just what exactly do you think needs to happen for that proof to be valid?
You asked me to show you admissible evidence.
I DID.
You asked me to show you a credible source.
I DID.
Now you just back pedal some more and say ... "oh well, you know ... ho hum ... i think if it were that strong of a case ... i mean ... something would have been done ... or ... uh ... i mean ... yeah. ... YEAH!"
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I'll be very interested (not really
You know what.
Fuck it. Lets try a new tack.
Lets work BACKWARDS.
Since some of you are completely unwilling to analyze an OPPOSING viewpoint, lets focus on the one you blindly accept.
FIND AND SHOW ME ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT CORROROBORATES L.H.OSWALD AS THE GUNMAN.
Go ahead. Show me PROOF.
You guys demand it all day long. Left and right.
I'm going to laugh real hard, i'm guessing.
And i know you are both too proud to just let this one go, so give it a whirl. I mean, this is the goddamn crime of the century. There is proof out the wazoo, but they just never used it because someone shot Oswald, case closed, right? But it's there. Boxes of it. Pages and pages of undeniable proof.
It should be REAL EASY, right? The internet will be swarming with hundreds of pages thoroughly debunking the conspiracy "nutters" and will easily and readily explain in plain english the SPECIFIC PROOF ADMISSIBLE IN COURT.
Go ahead.
I'm waiting.
I showed you dozens of pieces of "proof" to the contrary, but you stick to the official story. So give it a whirl. Try it. Prove it.
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
remember?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I'm not giving up on this.
You bastards demand proof out the ass for me anytime i post anything that contradicts the mainstream.
All i'm asking you to do is SHOW ONE PIECE OF PROOF FOR THE MAINSTREAM CONTENTION!
Should it really be that hard?
I mean, the government says its true.
PROVE OSWALD SHOT KENNEDY.
ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE & I WILL SURRENDER!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Here is the thing.
Magical shot or no "magical" shot,
it proves NOTHING against Oswald.
Who the hell was L. H. Oswald anyhow?
Think about it.
Really think about it.
He was nobody before the shooting.
No one ever heard him talk about the president or wanting to kill him.
He vehmenently denied involvement in the shooting,
and there is NO PROOF he did it. NONE.
He is just a poor dupe who happened to work in the building that the perpatrators may have shot the president from. The government knew his name, because he had been a low level intelligence operative on the FBI payroll up to the day of the shooting. That alone should be cause for concern. This was NOT common knowledge, and still is not. It was completely buried at the time, no one wanted you to know that ... oh by the way, this "crazy" "lone" nut Oswald that we say shot JFK .... oh yeah ... he was actually known to the government ... we were his employer ... he was with intelligence services ... infact, there is the counter-theory that Oswald was not only setup to be the patsy well in advance by bathing him as a communist -- his "defection" to russia, was actually an intelligence operation under the employ of the US Government. Why would a private in the army be immersed in Russian language courses through the Army? Maybe he was invovled in intelligence operations? You think?
Listen to the link. it is an interview with LHO BEFORE the assassination! VERY REVEALING! Get the feeling that Oswald was pretty damn intelligent? That he was probably pretty far left against the status quot of Cuban-American relations? That the government proabably wasn't too fond of his view point, to say the least. That having known and employed Mr. Oswald, that they may reconsider and decide to go ahead and "expend" him in a plot that involved getting rid of another man, cough JFK cough, that was not far enough to the right in his views against Cuba?
Another theory is that he was not only made the patsy, but also duped in to involvement on the level of having him think he was actually there to infiltrate and STOP the assassination plot. oh ... and there is some proof that he knew Jack Ruby ... Jack Ruby whom the government claims shot Oswald because he loved Kennedy, but whose lover says that is not so, and whom was KNOWN to be in the employement of one Richard Nixon back in the 40s and who had mafia connections to boot ...
Either way, the case against Oswald is completely devoid of proof. The man worked in that building and witnesses place him on the SECOND floor both before AND after the shooting. NOT the 6th floor.
The whole thing stinks to high hell on the very face of it, and there ain't NO PROOF that Oswald did it. Just government "say so". Tell me that would stand in a court of law. It is clear THAT is why he was murdered ... the government absolutely could NOT have a trial! They HAD NO PROOF because HE DID NOT DO IT!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
read the warran report. people saw oswald with the gun. it was oswalds gun. etc etc.
mark chapman was a nobody that killed john lennon TO BECOME FAMOUS.
so what's your point?