Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Fed-backed Discovery Channel to air JFK hit piece; pfft
Topic Started: Nov 14 2008, 11:37 PM (1,156 Views)
Lin Kuei
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Fed/Discovery Channel to show new JFK Warren Omission Magic Bullet Theory

Prison Planet Forum
Friday, November 14, 2008


With a huge budget from Federal Reserve controlled trusts, the Discovery Channel has prepared yet another deviously contrived propaganda hit piece to add to the disgusting, shameful and yet still secret Warren Omission coverup of the Pentagon/MI6/CIA Fed Bankster and GE/Rockefeller JFK Assassination. This time they have cleverly obtained a replica of the famed ‘61 Lincoln Bubbletop touring convertible limousine and are attempting vainly to prove from false testimony, falsified forensic reports and ignored evidence that the innocent patsy Oswald firing from the Book Depository where George H W Bush was stationed on the lookout might have possibly produced the type of major head trauma (inflicted by CIA pranksters to the corpse afterwards) thus laying the supposed ‘conspiracy theories’ they so dread to rest once again on yet another sadly and shamefully despoiled anniversary of the legendary leaders public execution by the Tory/Whig Crime Cabal.

This time they are attempting to show that the manually carved-out falsified forehead wounds, rather than the deadly frontal bullet impact that forced his head back and blew the back of his skull out could “have only been caused by a magic bullet from the back’.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/13/jfk-forensics-tech.html

Furthermore they appear to have staged rifles at other locations firing from the grassy knoll and other ill-defined and conveniently mis-chosen positions supposedly aligned to test dummies by some sort of ‘laser’ voodoo to show that the bullets would have hit the cars window frame (one did! but they ignore this fact) and make no mention of the body being missing and mysteriously repackaged, the original coroners reports of quite different looking wounds only to the back of the president’s head and a multitude of other pertinent information is ignored and or set aside to showboat yet some more speculative and phony ‘new’ type of voodoo neo-forensic ’science’!

Their non-theory non-science rests on some new voodoo ‘blood splatter’ theories that totally ignore the huge chunk of Jack’s brain that even Jacqueline herself vainly tried to catch before it flew and fell off the back of the trunk lid and is so ludicrous it’s an insulting near-criminal accessory after the fact abomination.

How shameful it is that they must desecrate the horror of this immense tragedy and President Kennedy’s great sacrifice for peace, honest money and freedom yet once again to slap all of America’s and Vietnam’s victims in the face once again while pissing on the fabulous legacy of this greatest American hero.

Seems we will have to bear yet another sad Festival of Injustice to mark this major anniversary of this ever haunting great tragedy once again! Parties concerned may be interested in getting this program rated as pornography unsuitable for children.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/feddiscovery-channel-to-show-new-jfk-warren-omission-magic-bullet-theory.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
esopxe
Member Avatar

Don't you just love the title of the Discovery article, "Tech Puts JFK Conspiracy Theories to Rest". Good enough for me. Nothing to see here people, move along. :ouch:

Lin Kuei, did I ever tell you (would have been around a year ago) what I experienced regarding JFK? I know I told a couple people here. 8-bit was one of them but don't remember who else I mentioned it to.
Edited by esopxe, Nov 20 2008, 06:46 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lin Kuei
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
a multitude of other pertinent information is ignored and or set aside to showboat yet some more speculative and phony ‘new’ type of voodoo neo-forensic ’science’!


hmm where have we seen this happen before?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lin Kuei
Member Avatar

esopxe
Nov 15 2008, 12:14 AM
Lin Kuei, did I ever tell you (would have been around a year ago) what I experienced regarding JFK? I know I told a couple people here. 8-bit was one of them but don't remember who else I mentioned it to.
no not on the forums, don't think u told me when i was with you in NY last year either... do PM me and share! :O
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
m0n3yman

A headshot would have resulted in the massive head trauma we observed, I can give you a picture of an insurgent shot in the head by a US sniper in Iraq, WAY greater damage.

I have a problem with him working the bolt and getting shots off and hitting the target downrange in half a second...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tim Riches

Quote:
 
innocent patsy Oswald
This is a contradiction in terms.
Quote:
 
inflicted by CIA pranksters
A strange description...
Quote:
 
the huge chunk of Jack’s brain that even Jacqueline herself vainly tried to catch before it flew and fell off the back of the trunk lid
Is he trying to sabotage their own credibility here?
Quote:
 
Parties concerned may be interested in getting this program rated as pornography unsuitable for children.
:blink:

Look, I understand that anger can cloud reason when writing of such a shameful hitpiece, but this reads like a JREFer reacting to a Truth piece! A little objectivity please, and take your foot out of your mouth while you're at it!

Something like 90% of Americans polled believe there was a coverup of the JFK Assassination, to at least some degree, and that the Warren Ommission was a coverup. "Magic Bullet" has entered the lexicon as describing any lame-ass story concocted to divert attention from the guilty. The producers will have one hell of a time creating anything other than a black comedy with this inevitable piece of trash. I think this thing will go down like a lead balloon, perhaps even adding new momentum to any group questioning government duplicity on any subject.

Sometimes I think that AJ and his gang simply don't credit Americans as having a shred of common sense.
Edited by Tim Riches, Nov 15 2008, 11:21 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BoneZ
Member Avatar

Tim Riches
Nov 15 2008, 11:13 AM
A little objectivity please, and take your foot out of your mouth while you're at it!
"Alex Jones" and "objectivity" goes together as much as "Fox News" and "fair and balanced".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
22205
Member Avatar
Arlingtonian
the actual show airs in 15 minutes (on east coast usa), but here is a clip:



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nevermind
Member Avatar
Oh, you didn't know?
These lame debunking attempts don't bother me nearly as much the fact that the majority of Americans, if you hit the streets and ask around, KNOW Oswald didn't act alone, yet role right over and go back to sleep. The same is true with 9/11. Most know by now that we're being lied to, but what do they do about? Nothing. They don't even get mad about it! They just accept it and say, "oh well, what can I do about it? Hey, who won the football game/NASCAR race?" It's like the battered woman syndrome. They get the shit kicked out of them and yet, keep coming back for more instead of standing up to the abuse and putting a stop to it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
datman

Gideon524
Nov 16 2008, 09:27 PM
These lame debunking attempts don't bother me nearly as much the fact that the majority of Americans, if you hit the streets and ask around, KNOW Oswald didn't act alone, yet role right over and go back to sleep. The same is true with 9/11. Most know by now that we're being lied to, but what do they do about? Nothing. They don't even get mad about it! They just accept it and say, "oh well, what can I do about it?
yep that is my big problem too. They either don't want to know and refuse to watch anything that might make them have to do some serious thinking or they did watch some films and thought and said there is something to all this but soon they drifted back to normal life never to talk or think about 911 again.

these hit pieces the network create are all the average person needs to stick their heads back into the sand
Edited by datman, Nov 16 2008, 10:06 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
hiphopopotamus
Member Avatar

Gideon524
Nov 16 2008, 09:27 PM
The same is true with 9/11. Most know by now that we're being lied to, but what do they do about? Nothing. They don't even get mad about it! They just accept it and say, "oh well, what can I do about it? Hey, who won the football game/NASCAR race?" It's like the battered woman syndrome. They get the shit kicked out of them and yet, keep coming back for more instead of standing up to the abuse and putting a stop to it.
I know I'm a minority on this board for these views, but I don't think we were lied to. I dare say a vast majority of Americans don't believe they're being lied to as well. That is not to say I don't think JFK was killed by a conspiratorial group, that certainly looks true. But As for whom I have no idea. There are just too many parties who gained through that tragedy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marley

I wish I could have seen the show so that I would not have to rely on a mere commentary of the program by a potentially biased person.

I did catch a program that demonstrated the path that the second shot took, could have made all of the wounds on JFK and Connelly. Very well done I think.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
datman

watch this JFK 2 and post your thoughts

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4330031689287456187
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
esopxe
Member Avatar

Marley
Nov 19 2008, 05:07 AM
I did catch a program that demonstrated the path that the second shot took, could have made all of the wounds on JFK and Connelly. Very well done I think.
Posted Image

There is no way this bullet did what the official story says it did. This is the bullet that supposedly did all that damage.

Posted Image

This is a bullet fired through cotton wadding.

Posted Image

This is a bullet fired at the body of a dead goat.

Posted Image

Here is a bullet that was fired at a human cadaver.





Here are two angles of the flight path of the bullet.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marley

datman
Nov 19 2008, 07:04 PM
Here are some of my thoughts on the video.

2:52 The video shows the position of the limo during the 3 shots taken by Oswald. It shows the first shot taken as the limo just made the turn putting the bullets path nearly 90 degrees across its path, an obvious attempt at deception on the part of the video maker.

10:32 The narrator criticizes Peter Jennings by saying that Jennings wants us to “just take his word for it”. But the narrator of the film also just wants us to take his word for it that so called (un-named) experts selected their own expert to appear in this video. Can’t have it both ways.

13:40 The narrator claims the second bullet changed course inside of JFK when in fact it merely yawed and kept on moving in nearly the same direction. He also claims that the official theory says the bullet changed directions and waited to hit Connelly. This is a lie as the official theory never states this. It is never stated in the video that Connelly was seated slightly lower and inboard of JFK which could have better aligned them both for a single bullet to make all seven wounds.

14:47 Claims the second bullet was found in absolutely perfect condition. An obvious lie as no one who has ever seen photos of the bullet would make this claim as the bullet has rifling marks, missing material from the base, is bent, and mashed out of round.

41:20 Claims that Oswald was arrested for entering a theater without paying and that no one had a description. Another lie. In fact Howard Brennan gave the police a description of the shooter which was used by the police.

This video has to be the most poorly researched piece of crap on JFK I have ever watched. It is deliberately deceitful and poorly made.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marley

esopxe
Nov 20 2008, 03:43 AM
There is no way this bullet did what the official story says it did. This is the bullet that supposedly did all that damage.

Here are two angles of the flight path of the bullet.

So do you have velocity data to support your conclusion that the bullets shown are comparable to the one claimed to have wounded JFK and Connelly? You understand that a FMJ bullet that penetrates soft tissue will slow down, right? And when it slows down it might not be damaged as much when it goes crashing through bone? Give some careful thought about how the tests bullets were fired before using them to support any theory on the assassination of JFK.

The person who made the drawing of the two men sitting one right in front of the other is lying when he used it to describe the ridiculous path of the bullet that he claims would have to have existed. Anyone who has examined the limo and the Zapruder film knows that the two men were not lined up that way. So why would you support such an obvious false hood as this?
Edited by Marley, Nov 20 2008, 05:01 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
esopxe
Member Avatar

Marley
Nov 20 2008, 05:01 AM
esopxe
Nov 20 2008, 03:43 AM
There is no way this bullet did what the official story says it did. This is the bullet that supposedly did all that damage.

Here are two angles of the flight path of the bullet.

So do you have velocity data to support your conclusion that the bullets shown are comparable to the one claimed to have wounded JFK and Connelly? You understand that a FMJ bullet that penetrates soft tissue will slow down, right? And when it slows down it might not be damaged as much when it goes crashing through bone? Give some careful thought about how the tests bullets were fired before using them to support any theory on the assassination of JFK.

The person who made the drawing of the two men sitting one right in front of the other is lying when he used it to describe the ridiculous path of the bullet that he claims would have to have existed. Anyone who has examined the limo and the Zapruder film knows that the two men were not lined up that way. So why would you support such an obvious false hood as this?
No, a bullet speeds up when it hits soft tissue. :roll: Do you see that bullet. It's virtually undamaged. Are you trying to tell me that bullet went through bone and achieved multiple entrances and exits?

The bodies are slightly offset in the drawing. Look at this picture. It's a small difference of alignment.

Posted Image

And I do agree with you, the bullet does have a ridiculous path. The "official" bullet path that is.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marley

esopxe
Nov 20 2008, 05:40 AM
No, a bullet speeds up when it hits soft tissue. :roll: Do you see that bullet. It's virtually undamaged. Are you trying to tell me that bullet went through bone and achieved multiple entrances and exits?

The bodies are slightly offset in the drawing. Look at this picture. It's a small difference of alignment.

And I do agree with you, the bullet does have a ridiculous path. The "official" bullet path that is.


So what you are saying is that you have no data to support your claim that the bullet should have been damaged more. Why make the claim then? I am saying that the bullet went though JFK's and Connelly's chests, Connelly's arm and into his thigh. The bullet yawed and created oblong wounds as it passed through them.

Anyone who ignores the difference in alignment and uses an inaccurate drawing to support a claim of murder has no integrity. The person who drew the picture you put in your post is such a person.

If you were to take the time to study the true positions of the men in the Limo, then you would see that the bullet path while not straight (it does not have to be) does not make any deviations from a course that would create all of the wounds in the men. But you seem to be content with a false representation of the positions of JFK and Connelly. Until you are willing to accept that some of what you read in High Treason is a deliberate lie, then it is rather a waste of time debating with you.

Sometimes I pick up a book in the store about the JFK assassination. There is usually one good clue on how to determine if the person is a crackpot/liar or worth reading. If they say the bullet was pristine, then they are crackpot liars. Anyone who has taken a look at the bottom straight-on view of the bullet can not truthfully say the bullet was pristine. Here; http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif

Now you have linked to a view of CE 399 that shows the less damaged view. Why did not you not show us the uglier bottom view and tell us it was virtually undamaged. Who's side are you on anyway?
Edited by Marley, Nov 20 2008, 06:06 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
esopxe
Member Avatar

Marley
Nov 20 2008, 05:51 AM
esopxe
Nov 20 2008, 05:40 AM
No, a bullet speeds up when it hits soft tissue. :roll: Do you see that bullet. It's virtually undamaged. Are you trying to tell me that bullet went through bone and achieved multiple entrances and exits?

The bodies are slightly offset in the drawing. Look at this picture. It's a small difference of alignment.

And I do agree with you, the bullet does have a ridiculous path. The "official" bullet path that is.


So what you are saying is that you have no data to support your claim that the bullet should have been damaged more. Why make the claim then?

Anyone who ignores the difference in alignment and uses an inaccurate drawing to support a claim of murder has no integrity. The person who drew the picture you put in your post is such a person.

If you were to take the time to study the true positions of the men in the Limo, then you would see that the bullet path while not straight (it does not have to be) does not make any deviations from a course that would create all of the wounds in the men. But you seem to be content with a false representation of the positions of JFK and Connelly. Until you are willing to accept that some of what you read in High Treason is a deliberate lie, then it is rather a waste of time debating with you.
Where's your data to prove a bullet can do what they say the official bullet did? See, I can do it to. Regardless, I'll look for the damn data but I'm not doing it tonight.

I didn't read anything from High Treason. It's just stamped on the image.

I understand the body positions. That bullet cannot do what the official story said it did without compromising the integrity of the bullet.

I'm curious, do you believe that the headshot came from the back?



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marley

esopxe
Nov 20 2008, 06:07 AM
Where's your data to prove a bullet can do what they say the official bullet did? See, I can do it to. Regardless, I'll look for the damn data but I'm not doing it tonight.

I didn't read anything from High Treason. It's just stamped on the image.

I understand the body positions. That bullet cannot do what the official story said it did without compromising the integrity of the bullet.

I'm curious, do you believe that the headshot came from the back?


Take a look here; http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm for info on the single bullet theory. This is data I agree with.

So where did you get the picture then? To what lengths did you go to verify its accuracy? None? Seems like it. So I take it you are standing with those who will lie and provide an inaccurate picture of the alignment of the men in the limo.

I think you do not understand the body positions. The bullet used was copper jacketed, they can take some abuse without being destroyed. It was not in good shape after passing through two men.

I have no reason to believe that anyone besides Oswald shot JFK, so yes, the bullets came from the back. I've seen the Zapruder film before. The direction of the bullet does not require that the target move in the same direction.
Edited by Marley, Nov 20 2008, 06:26 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
esopxe
Member Avatar

Marley
Nov 20 2008, 06:25 AM
esopxe
Nov 20 2008, 06:07 AM
Where's your data to prove a bullet can do what they say the official bullet did? See, I can do it to. Regardless, I'll look for the damn data but I'm not doing it tonight.

I didn't read anything from High Treason. It's just stamped on the image.

I understand the body positions. That bullet cannot do what the official story said it did without compromising the integrity of the bullet.

I'm curious, do you believe that the headshot came from the back?


Take a look here; http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm for info on the single bullet theory. This is data I agree with.

So where did you get the picture then? To what lengths did you go to verify its accuracy? None? Seems like it. So I take it you are standing with those who will lie and provide an inaccurate picture of the alignment of the men in the limo.

I think you do not understand the body positions. The bullet used was copper jacketed, they can take some abuse without being destroyed. It was not in good shape after passing through two men.

I have no reason to believe that anyone besides Oswald shot JFK, so yes, the bullets came from the back. I've seen the Zapruder film before. The direction of the bullet does not require that the target move in the same direction.
Yes, I confess! I stand with those who lie, those who don't recycle, and those who draw pictures that you don't agree with. Sheesh. :ouch: You don't like the picture. Fine. Why don't you find me one you like or just imagine that the bodies are offset just a tini tiny bit more.

The bullet looks in pretty good shape to me considering all the bullet fragments found in the car and the bodies.

Well, I have good reason to believe that Oswald had nothing to do with the shooting so I guess that's that. Agree to disagree.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Domenick DiMaggio

Marley,

if the fix wasn't in then why were secret service pulled from kennedy's limo prior to it reaching that point and if this is 'routine' then why were the agents who were told to stand down in such a state of shock that they shrugged their arms as if to ask 'why?'???

Edited by Domenick DiMaggio, Nov 20 2008, 07:38 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marley

esopxe
Nov 20 2008, 06:45 AM
Yes, I confess! I stand with those who lie, those who don't recycle, and those who draw pictures that you don't agree with. Sheesh. :ouch: You don't like the picture. Fine. Why don't you find me one you like or just imagine that the bodies are offset just a tini tiny bit more.

The bullet looks in pretty good shape to me considering all the bullet fragments found in the car and the bodies.

Well, I have good reason to believe that Oswald had nothing to do with the shooting so I guess that's that. Agree to disagree.

Asking someone to provide evidence to support your claims is not so bright, it undermines your position. So why would you claim to stand with someone who provides such an inaccurate picture instead of finding another one or drawing one up yourself?

The bullet looks to be in very good shape considering it caused so many wounds. There is some lead missing from the base, and lead fragments in the wound path. Unless anyone can show that there are more lead fragments than missing lead from the bullet, then there is nothing unusual about them. What evidence leads you to believe that Oswald had nothing to do with it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flippy

I love how 9/11 "debunkers" and JFK "debunkers" dismiss everything as coincidence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
esopxe
Member Avatar

Marley
Nov 20 2008, 04:10 PM
esopxe
Nov 20 2008, 06:45 AM
Yes, I confess! I stand with those who lie, those who don't recycle, and those who draw pictures that you don't agree with. Sheesh. :ouch: You don't like the picture. Fine. Why don't you find me one you like or just imagine that the bodies are offset just a tini tiny bit more.

The bullet looks in pretty good shape to me considering all the bullet fragments found in the car and the bodies.

Well, I have good reason to believe that Oswald had nothing to do with the shooting so I guess that's that. Agree to disagree.

Asking someone to provide evidence to support your claims is not so bright, it undermines your position. So why would you claim to stand with someone who provides such an inaccurate picture instead of finding another one or drawing one up yourself?

The bullet looks to be in very good shape considering it caused so many wounds. There is some lead missing from the base, and lead fragments in the wound path. Unless anyone can show that there are more lead fragments than missing lead from the bullet, then there is nothing unusual about them. What evidence leads you to believe that Oswald had nothing to do with it?
It's called sarcasm.

I'll keep my first hand evidence to myself and a select few. Sorry. You don't have to believe me and I don't expect you to but I have shared with some and they could vouch for my legitimacy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The Lounge · Next Topic »
Add Reply