• 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.

The Death of Vince Foster - What Really Happened? (1995)

fullflavormenthol said:
You're pushing an alternative theory to the one that is accepted, I am merely pointing out the origins of this alternative theory. This is completely relevant to the discussion, but of course it does cast doubt on the alternative theory you are pushing, and so I understand your objections.

Nevertheless you are pushing a CT, and hiding behind supposed altruistic motivations to defend a suicide victim isn't going to change that.
Click to expand...

No, I am claiming that Foster is innocent.
 
Galileo said:
wrong, people can be impartial without having sinister motives.

YOU are the one who is impugning the motivation of Foster by claiming he had a motivation to kill himself.
Click to expand...

Where did I say anything about the facts of the case?

My only contribution was to shed light on the motivations of those who made the film: a collection of hyper-partisan, ideologically rigid hard core conservatives.

But now that you went there - yes, my conclusion so far is that he did committ suicide. This movie has not changed my mind. But how does that impugn Foster's motives? I feel pity for suicide victims and don't attach a moral judgment to it... Some people committ suicide.

Its sad.
 
Praktik said:
Where did I say anything about the facts of the case?

My only contribution was to shed light on the motivations of those who made the film: a collection of hyper-partisan, ideologically rigid hard core conservatives.

But now that you went there - yes, my conclusion so far is that he did committ suicide. This movie has not changed my mind. But how does that impugn Foster's motives? I feel pity for suicide victims and don't attach a moral judgment to it... Some people committ suicide.

Its sad.
Click to expand...

You are not arguing the evidence. There is not enough evidence to prove that Foster committed suicide.

Conclusions reached by government bureaucrats are not evidence.
 
Galileo said:
You are not arguing the evidence. There is not enough evidence to prove that Foster committed suicide.
Click to expand...

Gun powder residue on his hand, gun shot wound consistant with self-infliction, history of clinical depression. Yeah no evidence....:rolleyes:
 
Galileo said:
You are not arguing the evidence. There is not enough evidence to prove that Foster committed suicide.

Conclusions reached by government bureaucrats are not evidence.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing the evidence of the suicide, that is correct. But my contribution was nonetheless valid, and you have yet to demonstrate why discussion of the motives of the film-makers is invalid.

And if all evidence is to be approached from a mythic position of neutrality - then how do you justify the condemnation of conclusions based solely on the fact they originated - in one of three investigatons - by a "government bureaucrat"?

If that isn't evidence, then what about the conclusions drawn by a band of right-wing fanatics?
 
Galileo said:
You are not arguing the evidence. There is not enough evidence to prove that Foster committed suicide.

Conclusions reached by government bureaucrats are not evidence.
Click to expand...

You want a YouTube video of the suicide/murder/assassination/alien abduction, anal probing/staged suicide, don't you?
 
fullflavormenthol said:
Gun powder residue on his hand, gun shot wound consistant with self-infliction, history of clinical depression. Yeah no evidence....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

not evidence. There were no prints on the gun.

Also, you have to prove that the gun powder residue was from the 1913 gun found. Gun powder from 1913 is different than gunpowder from 1993.
 
Galileo said:
not evidence. There were no prints on the gun.

Also, you have to prove that the gun powder residue was from the 1913 gun found. Gun powder from 1913 is different than gunpowder from 1993.
Click to expand...
He used a .38 cal revolver. Last time I checked .38 cal ammo is not uncommon in the post-1913 world. Unless you are claiming that he somehow had working antique ammunition in his possession at the time?

The chemical composition of gun power does not change depending on the type of gun that is used, especially when it uses a standard ammunition.

So it is evidence. What is that evidence again? Oh yeah, gun powder residue on his hand and a wound that is consistent with self-infliction. BTW...he had a history of clinical depression.
 
Galileo said:
not evidence.
Click to expand...

Your opinion, not shared by the vast majority of experts in the field.

There were no prints on the gun.
Click to expand...

Its is rare to get prints. This has already been explained to you.

Also, you have to prove that the gun powder residue was from the 1913 gun found. Gun powder from 1913 is different than gunpowder from 1993.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, I remember those old 1913 guns. You used the ammo that came with them and threw them away. Couldn't reload them in those days. :rolleyes:
 
So let me get this straight: All deaths without an eyewitness, or a witness hearing gunshots, must automatically assumed to be murders?

And by the way, Foster having clinical depression only helps prove the fact that he committed suicide. It is not, however, required. Motive helps in proving a case, but it does not actually PROVE the case as some many CTists seem to believe.
 
kookbreaker said:
Ah yes, I remember those old 1913 guns. You used the ammo that came with them and threw them away. Couldn't reload them in those days. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


I love this. I have a 1899 Winchester bolt action rifle (.22 caliber). original, condition excellent. owned by my great grandfather, passed down to my father, and now it belongs to me. Great condition. I took it out to practice firing with it back in 2005. The bullets we used? Made the day before we went to the firing range.

so what is Gallileo trying to say here????

that bullets and gun powder from 2005 shouldn't work in a 106 year old gun?
 
Arus808 said:
I love this. I have a 1899 Winchester bolt action rifle (.22 caliber). original, condition excellent. owned by my great grandfather, passed down to my father, and now it belongs to me. Great condition. I took it out to practice firing with it back in 2005. The bullets we used? Made the day before we went to the firing range.

so what is Gallileo trying to say here????

that bullets and gun powder from 2005 shouldn't work in a 106 year old gun?
Click to expand...


The main reason I haven't bought a 1911 yet is because I can't find .45 ammo made in the early 20th century. :p
 
Arus808 said:
I love this. I have a 1899 Winchester bolt action rifle (.22 caliber). original, condition excellent. owned by my great grandfather, passed down to my father, and now it belongs to me. Great condition. I took it out to practice firing with it back in 2005. The bullets we used? Made the day before we went to the firing range.

so what is Gallileo trying to say here????

that bullets and gun powder from 2005 shouldn't work in a 106 year old gun?
Click to expand...

a nice anecdote, but there is no evidence of that in the Foster family.
 
It was a .38 cal revolver. It uses .38 cal ammo. They still make .38 cal guns, and still make .38 cal ammo.
 
Just so we're clear:

This is one of the first .38 specials, designed by Smith & Wesson in 1899.

sw38mp.jpg



This is the Colt Police Positive, chambered in .38 special. Colt was manufacturing these in 1913.

400px-PolicePositive.jpg



And this is my carry gun, a S&W 642 airweight. It has the Clinton safety lock meaning it was manufactured after 1998.

swbox3.jpg


THEY ALL FIRE THE EXACT SAME BULLET!!
 
Galileo said:
a nice anecdote, but there is no evidence of that in the Foster family.
Click to expand...


anecdotal, but you MISSED THE ENTIRE POINT, which of course is not surprising

106 year old .22 caliber rifle made in 1899. FIRES .22 caliber bullets.

Do you honestly think that this rifle WOULD ONLY be able to shoot bullets MADE in 1899 ? That any bullet MADE after 1899 could not be used?

This only proves that you DO NOT know a thing about firearms
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom