• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
Irrelevant. Collusion in illegal acts is a conspiracy, and a claim of the existence of a conspiracy against the available evidence is commonly called a conspiracy theory. Let's not play with words, here.
Click to expand...
Is it still criminal and a "conspiracy" if it's National Security and the cover up saves humanity from extinction in a nuclear war?

I wouldn't use that word in case that is what happened. You would?
 
manifesto said:
In the report from FBI it just says "marked". Are there alternative ways to "mark" a bullet for custody in the FBI 1963?

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide2.GIF
Click to expand...

The most common method of marking evidence in that era would be by the use of an ink pen, and ink deteriorates over time, and metal doesn't absorb ink in any case.

It's worth noting that the JFKlancer article doesn't provide any information on the method of marking.
 
BStrong said:
The most common method of marking evidence in that era would be by the use of an ink pen, and ink deteriorates over time, and metal doesn't absorb ink in any case.
Click to expand...
Are you sure? The three existing signatures are engraved, probably with a diamond pen, the standard tool for marking bullets and casings.

You say "ink pen"? Source?


BStrong said:
It's worth noting that the JFKlancer article doesn't provide any information on the method of marking.
Click to expand...
Probably because there is no information of the method used in the FBI report either.
 
manifesto said:
Is it still criminal and a "conspiracy" if it's National Security and the cover up saves humanity from extinction in a nuclear war?

I wouldn't use that word in case that is what happened. You would?
Click to expand...

If it's illegal, it's criminal. I asked you to stop playing with words, and you doubled down.
 
manifesto said:
The president, Joint Chiefs, CIA ...
Click to expand...

Those are not names.

It seems to me like you DO believe in said conspiracy, but you are so unwilling to commit to saying it that you play word games with the terms involved, and put a lot of effort in answering questions in the vaguest possible ways.
 
Belz... said:
If it's illegal, it's criminal. I asked you to stop playing with words, and you doubled down.
Click to expand...
The US government committed a conspiracy to save the world from nuclear war and certain extinction!

Nice headline. Who's playing with words?
 
Belz... said:
Those are not names.

It seems to me like you DO believe in said conspiracy, but you are so unwilling to commit to saying it that you play word games with the terms involved, and put a lot of effort in answering questions in the vaguest possible ways.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry that you can't pin me down with your preconceived ideas ... no, I'm not actually.
 
manifesto said:
No?
Click to expand...

But you said the president was one of the parties responsible for national security when asked who in government participated in the conspiracy to assassinate the president.

I will assume you simply misspoke then.

So who specifically did participate in this conspiracy? We don't want to be accused of strawmanning your position so it would be better if you just honestly stated it yourself.
 
manifesto said:
The US government committed a conspiracy to save the world from nuclear war and certain extinction!

Nice headline. Who's playing with words?
Click to expand...

You, quite clearly. Stop making things up.

I told you already: criminal collusion is conspiracy regardless of how justified _you_ think the actions were.

I'm sorry that you can't pin me down with your preconceived ideas ...
Click to expand...

See ?
 
Last edited:
Lets say that you have a theory that Oswald assassinated JFK. In order to make this theory plausible you present evidence, witnesses etc.

Now, I do not need to know (and present a theory of) who actually assassinated JFK to show that the theory doesn't hold up. It is sufficient to show that the evidence and the witnesses doesn't hold up.

Is this so hard to grasp?
 
Last edited:
manifesto said:
Lets say that you have a theory that Oswald assassinated JFK. In order to make this theory plausible you present evidence, witnesses etc.

Now, I do not need to know (and present a theory) who actually assassinated JFK to show that the theory doesn't hold up. It is sufficient to show that the evidence and the witnesses doesn't hold up.
Click to expand...

So when are you planning to start ?

The problem isn't that you need to name names, but that so far no one has a clue of what it is you are claiming. You refuse to pin down yourself.
 
)
manifesto said:
Lets say that you have a theory that Oswald assassinated JFK. In order to make this theory plausible you present evidence, witnesses etc.

Now, I do not need to know (and present a theory) who actually assassinated JFK to show that the theory doesn't hold up. It is sufficient to show that the evidence and the witnesses doesn't hold up.

Is this so hard to grasp?
Click to expand...

LOL! We grasped that you had nothing before you did. We've seen it from every other CTist and you're no different. Your hypothesis of "the gubmint" conspiring to assassinate JFK is just a dream that you can't substantiate.

Next.
 
RoboTimbo said:
But you said the president was one of the parties responsible for national security when asked who in government participated in the conspiracy to assassinate the president.I will assume you simply misspoke then.
Click to expand...
But that is a lie. Why are you lying?


RoboTimbo said:
So who specifically did participate in this conspiracy? We don't want to be accused of strawmanning your position so it would be better if you just honestly stated it yourself.
Click to expand...
What "conspiracy"?
 
Belz... said:
So when are you planning to start ?

The problem isn't that you need to name names, but that so far no one has a clue of what it is you are claiming. You refuse to pin down yourself.
Click to expand...
What are You? Have you pinned down yourself lately?

I started this diskussion with two questions:
manifesto said:
Private investigator Barry Krusch asked the people at NARA to send him photographs of the three spent shells found on the floor in the snipers nest, TSBD. They did but the initials proving chain of custody isn't on them.

Anyone here keen to explain why? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25QiW5K9U9c



Private investigator John Hurt went to NARA trying to find the initials on "the magic bullet" CE-399 proving the chain of custody, but they were not on it.

Anyone here keen to explain why that is? http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm
Click to expand...
The only suggestion so far is that SA Todd probably used an "ink pen" when he marked the bullet for custody and that the"ink" have disappeared. The other three signatures is still there, engraved, probably with a standard diamond pen.

Any other suggestions?
 
You can easily follow the conversation.

RoboTimbo said:
Did a cover up take place?
Click to expand...
manifesto said:
Yes, I believe it did.
Click to expand...
RoboTimbo said:
By who?
Click to expand...
manifesto said:
The government.
Click to expand...
RoboTimbo said:
The person who gave me my social security card?
Click to expand...
manifesto said:
No, the persons in charge of US National Security.
Click to expand...
RoboTimbo said:
Which persons were those? What are their names?
Click to expand...
manifesto said:
The president, Joint Chiefs, CIA ...
Click to expand...
Are you claiming that he was only involved in the cover up after his assassination?



manifesto said:
What "conspiracy"?
Click to expand...
The one you've claimed in the above conversation. Are you lying about it now?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom