• 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.
Wolrab said:
Continuing to obfuscate about his Sig line is very effective in his ongoing quest to not answer questions and prolong the thread.
Click to expand...

Probably. It's about Kennedy but not related to the assassination. I found out what I wanted to know on that point, and I'm content with the conclusion I've drawn.
 
JayUtah said:
And comparing your opponents to those whom you accuse of committing a heinous crime is not priming an audience with adverse information in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount your opponents' credibility?
Click to expand...
Why do you misquote me? I didn’t write what you are quoting me to write.

Why?
 
JayUtah said:
Probably. It's about Kennedy but not related to the assassination. I found out what I wanted to know on that point, and I'm content with the conclusion I've drawn.
Click to expand...
Sure you are. Playing chess with your self and your brothers in denial sheering you on.

Can’t lose.
 
Wolrab said:
Continuing to obfuscate about his Sig line is very effective in his ongoing quest to not answer questions and prolong the thread.
Click to expand...
Well, I resent being accused of quoting out of context when I’m not.

Shouldn’t I?

And, who started it all?
 
Disbelief said:
That's not a theory that covers the evidence. Try again.
Click to expand...
What ”evidence” are not ”covered” with a remark that a shot slightly above EOP that according to the WC test shootings, would have blown away parts of his face? A face still intact in photos and x-ray images available in NARA.

The ”angle”? Lol.

That said, since the HSCA medical panel positioned the entrance wound in the cowlick area ca 11 cm above the EOP and ca 4 cm to the right on the midline, the question arises of which official explanation of the headwounds are the official explanation.

WC or HSCA?
 
Last edited:
manifesto said:
What ”evidence” are not ”covered” with a remark that a shot slightly above EOP that according to the WC test shootings, would have blown away parts of his face? A face still intact in photos and x-ray images available in NARA.

The ”angle”? Lol.

That said, since the HSCA medical panel positioned the entrance wound in the cowlick area ca 11 cm above the EOP and ca 4 cm to the right on the midline, the question arises of which official explanation of the headwounds are the official explanation.

WC or HSCA?
Click to expand...

What difference does it make? Oswald could have hit either spot from his vantage point.

Both investigations agreed to a single headshot from the depository, as did the Clarke Panel and the Rockefeller Commission. That's all that matters.
 
traxy said:
We've been burying you in it since minute one.
Click to expand...
No. On the contrary. So far it’s just crap. No chain of custody. More than one chain of custody. Line ups against all rules and without providing legal assistance to the accused. Fabricated paper trails to tie Oswald to the alleged murder weapons. Both of them. Evidence and reports of intimidation and manipulation of witnesses. Manipulation of taken testimonies. Ignoring evidence. And on and on it goes, without any of you Lone Nutters rising an eyebrow.

”Move on, move on, nothing to see. So so, move on ...”

Hate to be the one breaking the news to you, but this is not going away, never. Not until a REAL investigation of the assassination, with a full mandate to see everything and hear everyone, is performed.

HSCA looked promising with Sprauge at the helm, but when they realized that he would do just that, investigate the assassination, the CIA started to turn the MSM and the Congress against him and he had to resign.

In comes Blakey, saying that the CIA is above all suspicions and giving them full veto to deside what the committe could look at, who they could interview and what to publish.

A farce, from then on.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
This 1967 CIA document is like an instruction manual for some of the posters here: http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html
Click to expand...

Did you read any of it?

Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
Click to expand...

All of which is true.

Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent--and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.
Click to expand...

SOP for the CT crowd.

Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.
Click to expand...

Bullseye.

Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.
Click to expand...

D'etante, the KGB and Cuban Intelligence felt the same way as the CIA does.

As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.
Click to expand...

Which means the WC was rushed thanks to CTists. This makes the JFK-Assassination CT crowd the true obstructors of justice.

At this rate some CTist is going to post a new photo of Dealey Plaza taken on 11/22/63 trying to make his case, but will likely show Oswald in the window with his rifle.
 
manifesto said:
What ”evidence” are not ”covered” with a remark that a shot slightly above EOP that according to the WC test shootings, would have blown away parts of his face? A face still intact in photos and x-ray images available in NARA.

The ”angle”? Lol.

That said, since the HSCA medical panel positioned the entrance wound in the cowlick area ca 11 cm above the EOP and ca 4 cm to the right on the midline, the question arises of which official explanation of the headwounds are the official explanation.

WC or HSCA?
Click to expand...

Still no theory like you said that you could easily produce.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom