• 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.

Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
manifesto said:
What photograph?

It seems to be different and contradicting stories of this event. Some say that the arresting officer blocked the firing hammer and some say the gun missfired with a dent in the hull to prove it.

Which one is it?

What cartridges was found by whom and where is the secured chain of custody?

Matched by whom?

When and where?

Well, since I was not active then, how could I be aware of what was said and by whom.

Again, do you have good info, in the thread or elsewhere, cite it and argue for its veracity. I can’t do it for you.

Of course it would. For you and your fellow members of the Mighty Church.

If your ”Null” is built on bogus and highly dubious evidence, it isn’t a ”Null” is it.
Click to expand...

These kinds of posts are unimpressive.
You said you were well versed on the evidence.
Surely you can read the WC for all this, then supply the reasons you disagree with the findings and your counter evidence.
Why exactly do you want all these questions answered *again*?
Did they change some point in the last few hundred pages of discussion?
 
manifesto said:
What photograph?
Click to expand...
More evidence of your ;) lack of knowledge?

It seems to be different and contradicting stories of this event. Some say that the arresting officer blocked the firing hammer and some say the gun missfired with a dent in the hull to prove it.
Click to expand...
Ah good, you ;) do abmit Oswald had his revolver with him which was used to murder Officer Tippitt.
 
Is it worth pointing out that there are always different versions of stories for events. That's how human memory works.
It's why we have things like the revolver itself in evidence, because it can be examined and tested to see which story was more accurate.
If the revolver misfired, was caught by an officer, or both, it was in Oswald's possession with no evidence otherwise.
 
Tomtomkent said:
These kinds of posts are unimpressive.
You said you were well versed on the evidence.
Surely you can read the WC for all this, then supply the reasons you disagree with the findings and your counter evidence.
Why exactly do you want all these questions answered *again*?
Did they change some point in the last few hundred pages of discussion?
Click to expand...

Ah, but if he does that, then he will fail follow the dogma that all CT's live by,

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution"
- Jay "Utah" Windley
 
Tomtomkent said:
These kinds of posts are unimpressive.
You said you were well versed on the evidence.
Surely you can read the WC for all this, then supply the reasons you disagree with the findings and your counter evidence.
Why exactly do you want all these questions answered *again*?
Did they change some point in the last few hundred pages of discussion?
Click to expand...
You are the one making the claims above, you are the one who need to substantiate them with supporting evidence.

Do it.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Is it worth pointing out that there are always different versions of stories for events. That's how human memory works.
It's why we have things like the revolver itself in evidence, because it can be examined and tested to see which story was more accurate.
If the revolver misfired, was caught by an officer, or both, it was in Oswald's possession with no evidence otherwise.
Click to expand...
Still, I need to know which story YOU find the most impressive.

Tell me.
 
manifesto said:
You are the one making the claims above, you are the one who need to substantiate them with supporting evidence.

Do it.
Click to expand...

They have already been substantiated in the discussion and by the investigations of the WC.

You claim you are familiar with the evidence. Why does it need to be restated?

We have a null hypothesis, why state it again? Why not just supply evidence of what YOU believe happened differently?
 
manifesto said:
Still, I need to know which story YOU find the most impressive.

Tell me.
Click to expand...

Why would my opinion effect the evidence you can supply for your narrative of what you believe happened differently?

Do you have something to actually state, at all?
 
I have a couple of questions for manifesto. It's a simple request for clarification on a point he's made a couple of times. You've said you have "read through the controversy" in a few of your posts. Can you do answer two questions for me:

1) What do you mean by that statement?

2) Could you provide a list of all your major sources? You don't need to provide every site you've gone to, but a list of all the major sources of information you've read, including websites, books, any pertinent articles you've read, etc.

Thanks in advance.
 
manifesto said:
Car-6 is a convertible.
Click to expand...

The top edge of the windshield of car 6 would be the same height as the top edge of the car at the intersection in Z133.

Whatever your white blob is, that's a much better explanation than a helmet.
 
heymatto70 said:
I have a couple of questions for manifesto. It's a simple request for clarification on a point he's made a couple of times. You've said you have "read through the controversy" in a few of your posts. Can you do answer two questions for me:

1) What do you mean by that statement?
Click to expand...
That I am fairly up do date on the current developments in the research of said topic.

2) Could you provide a list of all your major sources? You don't need to provide every site you've gone to, but a list of all the major sources of information you've read, including websites, books, any pertinent articles you've read, etc.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
I’m not stating this as an argument for or against anything in particular, I’m stating it when accused of not knowing anything about said topic, since I insist that my opponent/s provide their sources and cite what they find convincing evidence supporting their claim/s.

I’m not here to provide supporting evidence to my opponents bald claims but in spite of this rather self evident state of affairs, I’m time and again requested to do just that.

Yes I know, it is pure madness, but do not forget where we are, inside the Mighty Curch of the Lone Assassin, where up is down, black is white, wrong is right, evil is goodness.

I’m doing my best exposing this, telling the truth.
 
Last edited:
traxy said:
The top edge of the windshield of car 6 would be the same height as the top edge of the car at the intersection in Z133.

Whatever your white blob is, that's a much better explanation than a helmet.
Click to expand...
No. It is lower. Look at Hughes when both car-5 and car-6 is lined up looking from behind.

And, there is no white anything on top of car-6’s windshield.
 
manifesto said:
It seems to be different and contradicting stories of this event. Some say that the arresting officer blocked the firing hammer and some say the gun missfired with a dent in the hull to prove it.
Click to expand...

This is an oddly specific thing to quibble over.

In both versions, Oswald struck a cop in the face and pulled a gun on him. Who cares about the specific reason it misfired? Both versions make Oswald look guilty as hell.
 
manifesto said:
No. It is lower. Look at Hughes when both car-5 and car-6 is lined up looking from behind.

And, there is no white anything on top of car-6’s windshield.
Click to expand...

There doesn't need to be anything white. Sunny day, glass windshield, chrome trim. Do the math.

Nothing in that clip looks remotely like a motorcycle or a helmet. A vehicle was easily the right height to appear in that spot, and several of them were rolling through that area at that time.
 
manifesto said:
You are the one making the claims above, you are the one who need to substantiate them with supporting evidence.
Click to expand...

The supporting evidence has been laid out in the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission for 54 years and the House Select Committee investigation for 39 years. Both of these resources are freely available on multiple websites online.

Forgive the users here if they don't feel like wasting the time cutting it up into bite-sized morsels and spoon feeding it to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom