|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 7:18 am Post subject: |
 |
|
You know it's funny how easy it is to poke holes in this 'warren commission is wrong' stuff, once you start reading about it.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Quote: |
| MoS and YataBoy are out of the mainstream on this. In 1965, only 19% of Americans believed the Warren Report. In all likelihood, this number has only decreased. |
It wouldn't matter if 100% of Americans believed there was more than one assassin in the JFK murder. Truth and reality are not determined by majority rule. |
I absolutely agree with the latter statement. However, if you are going to persist in being part of some self-designated, small minority, do not go painting the rest as some far-out fringe elements. |
I don't have to...they've kinda painted themselves into a corner themselves. |
You have been doing it all along with your snide comments and "tinfoil hat" talk. In any event, it is a much bigger corner than the tiny one you and your ilk are standing in who continue to believe that Oswald acted alone in killing President Kennedy with a magic bullet. You have turned into the loony ones on this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
And what corner would that be, now.
I don't claim that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy that is never named, never nailed down. On this particular thread, at least two pieces of "evidence" have been presented, for which I've provided reasonable explanations that don't involve some kind of conspiracy theory. I guess by "me and my ilk" you're referring to people who would dare to question what is presented to them, whether it's by "the government" or by conspiracy theorists. My cardinal sin is that I apply the same standards of skepticism to conspiracy theories as I do to anything else that is marketed to me. How horrible.
You really do think you're entitled to some kind of special dispensation, don't you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
You haven't seen those of us who use the term 'conspiracy theorist' label all dissent as loony. It is not used for the vast majority of dissent. |
That isn't true. The only thing more close minded than a conservative American true believer is a liberal American true believer. As we see with the reaction to Ron Paul, your country has not taught you how to deal with and embrace new and unique ideas. Your only real option is ridicule. The only "dissent" that is allowed in any sense, are very small variations on the status quo. |
What?
So lack of acceptance of Ron Paul specifically (which is not even the case, he's polling 7% amongst Republicans) is evidence of America's ability generally to 'deal with and embrace new and unique ideas?' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| You know it's funny how easy it is to poke holes in this 'warren commission is wrong' stuff, once you start reading about it. |
What you mean is once you visit McAdam's website and deliver his spin back to us. McAdam's spin means nothing. The evidence presented is the government's failed story. The facts stand.
Lone assassin apologists, like Arlen Specter, John McAdams, William Manchester and Gerald Posner, true believers in magic bullets and lapses in time, short on common sense, gunmanship, and trajectory angles, claim that a single shot wounded Kennedy and Connelly.
Due to trajectory angles from the sixth floor--approximately 17 degrees, depending on the placement of the limo on the street below--a bullet entering and exiting Kennedy would strike Connelly in the lower left hip, if it hit him at all.
And after that single shot did all that damage the bullet remained virtually intact.
This bullet:
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| The researcher concluded that "from beginning to end the story of Madeleine Brown�s romantic and sexual relationship with Lyndon Baines Johnson cannot be verified using public records." |
Right  |
Like it would be there!
Last edited by regicide on Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:15 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| But you've already presented graphics and hypotheses about the JFK assassination that, with a few simple mouse clicks, can be checked and demonstrated to be false. I'm not even that interested in the issue, and it's turned out to be very easy to discount a lot of what you've presented. Quite frankly I'm surprised at how easy it's been. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| But you've already presented graphics and hypotheses about the JFK assassination that, with a few simple mouse clicks, can be checked and demonstrated to be false. I'm not even that interested in the issue, and it's turned out to be very easy to discount a lot of what you've presented. Quite frankly I'm surprised at how easy it's been. |
Graphics and hypotheses? Demonstrated to be false by whom?
You are hopeless, MOS. As I said, go to McAdam's site get your spin and sleep well. Everything is ok.
Witnesses who saw a massive rear exit wound:
Anyone sincerely interested in this case who does not conclude that JFK was murdered as the result of a conspiracy is either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired.
Last edited by regicide on Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:26 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well this one for example:
| regicide wrote: |
 |
I've already shown above that this graphic is inaccurate. It suggests that Connolly was sitting directly behind Kennedy, and at the same height. It also suggests that the entry wound was about a third of the way down the back, which is also untrue, and I've demonstrated above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Manner of Speaking"]Well this one for example:
| regicide wrote: |
I've already shown above that this graphic is inaccurate. It suggests that Connolly was sitting directly behind Kennedy, and at the same height. It also suggests that the entry wound was about a third of the way down the back, which is also untrue, and I've demonstrated above. |
As you know, Ford and Spector altered the point of entry to make the THEORY work.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
As you know, Ford and Spector altered the point of entry to make the THEORY work. |
All I know is that this is the graphic you presented here. YOU, not me. And all you have to do is look at photographs of the limousine, and photographs of the people sitting in the limo, to see that it's inaccurate.
You posted it, not me. I had a look at it, and found that it's false and incorrectly drawn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| regicide wrote: |
As you know, Ford and Spector altered the point of entry to make the THEORY work. |
All I know is that this is the graphic you presented here. YOU, not me. And all you have to do is look at photographs of the limousine, and photographs of the people sitting in the limo, to see that it's inaccurate.
You posted it, not me. I had a look at it, and found that it's false and incorrectly drawn. |
By whom? McAdams , right? That means NOTHING.
You have no independent thought here. You really don't know anything about the case. First of all , Kennedy was hit in the back with what the military calls a "short shot" . That is where the bullet in the back is coming from. The MBT is false and a bullet didn't pass through Kennedy and hit Connelly in the first place. The bullet planted couldn't have caused those wounds. Period.
Kennedy was hit in the head from the front. He was also hit in the throat. You can see that in the Zapruder film and the doctors described that shot as a small wound of entry.
McAdam�s spin is as useless as what you think of some of my sources.
In any event, McAdams fails to consider the height of Connelly compared to Kennedy and the fact that Kennedy was already hit in the neck and was slouching forward.
The path of the bullet is according to the Warren Report. It bounced around and turned in mid air.
Photo of the president's back, oddly taken from below the body. The Warren Commission's report located this wound at the back of the neck, though you can clearly see that the wound is to the back.
Just when the limousine passed the Stemmons Freeway sign, Mrs. Connally heard a kind of gunshots. When she turned looking at the President, she saw him taking his hand to his throat covering a shooting wound. The next second Governor Connally felt an ache in his back which he recognized as a shot. He later said:
...there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle.
Just seconds later he could hear the third shot. Mrs. Kennedy who then believed she listened to firecrackers from the motorcade, heard this moment "terrible noises" and turned to Kennedy. She saw her husband being wounded by a headshot. This was the last and final, fatal shot at Dealey Plaza.
Last edited by regicide on Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:12 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Please don't go posting pictures like that, ok? You want to argue about this, fine, but don't go posting stuff like that, its offensive and obscene. Have some respect for the dead and for the living, for God's sake.
Christ, you've got no consideration at all, do you. You don't give a flying *beep* what you post, as long as you can make yourself look like you're right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Instead of using the true location of the entrance wound in Kennedy's back (approximately four inches below the shoulder), McAdams and others arbitrarily raise it three inches in order to arrive at a trajectory consistent with the sixth-floor window. They also compute the angle of the wound as twenty-one degrees downward. This was nothing less than a blatant distortion of the medical evidence, which was an attempt prove that the bullet entered the president's back at a "slightly upward" angle.
| regicide wrote: |
The SBT is too ridiculous to even take seriously since you would have to believe that it is common for a bullet does it's dirty work and ends up unscathed.
Thats right folks, this is the bullet that they want you to believe killed Kennedy and injured Connelly in numerous places!
 |
Last edited by regicide on Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:29 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| thepeel wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
You haven't seen those of us who use the term 'conspiracy theorist' label all dissent as loony. It is not used for the vast majority of dissent. |
That isn't true. The only thing more close minded than a conservative American true believer is a liberal American true believer. As we see with the reaction to Ron Paul, your country has not taught you how to deal with and embrace new and unique ideas. Your only real option is ridicule. The only "dissent" that is allowed in any sense, are very small variations on the status quo. |
What?
So lack of acceptance of Ron Paul specifically (which is not even the case, he's polling 7% amongst Republicans) is evidence of America's ability generally to 'deal with and embrace new and unique ideas?' |
No. This has nothing to do with Ron Paul. I think Americans have a very difficult time dealing with ideas that fall outside of very tightly defined goalposts of acceptable discourse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| I don't claim that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy that is never named, never nailed down. |
You don't need to know every aspect of the case down to the last detail in order to conclude that people in government are hiding something in this case. Just because one may not know the identities of the real shooters is no reason not to be suspicious of the fact that the government has sealed the records on this case for 75 years.
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| On this particular thread, at least two pieces of "evidence" have been presented, for which I've provided reasonable explanations that don't involve some kind of conspiracy theory. |
People want to argue over minutiae of this case while ignoring the big picture.
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
I guess by "me and my ilk" you're referring to people who would dare to question what is presented to them, whether it's by "the government" or by conspiracy theorists. My cardinal sin is that I apply the same standards of skepticism to conspiracy theories as I do to anything else that is marketed to me. How horrible.
You really do think you're entitled to some kind of special dispensation, don't you. |
I want no special dispensation but I would like you to treat those with diffreing opinons with the same type of respect you feel you deserve. They are also questioning what has been presented to them.
I also find it a bit bizarre that for someone so "uninterested" in this case, you sure spend a lot of time arguing it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
