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 (1,154 Views)
esopxe
Member Avatar

Give this debate a listen. (5 Parts)

VINCENT BUGLIOSI VS. CYRIL WECHT







This pertains to what Bugliosi says about the bullets in part 3. Bullet Evidence Challenges Findings In JFK Assassination



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
datman

I'm sure you will never change my mind and I will never change yours.

The things that happened for sure. The secrete service was called back from the limo with Kennedy.
The parade took a odd turn where as it turns out there were far less witnesses
The driver drove rather slow and remained slow with his head turned around until after the head shot, only then speeding up.
Governor Connelly changed his story 2 or 3 times as the prior story is debunked.
Jennings edits his version of the doctors press conference leaving out any part not looking favorable to his story.
Unless you can tell me that all the doctors are imposters or are lying, they all describe a large wound in the back of his head.
The government lost JFKs brain.

just to name a few
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
esopxe
Member Avatar

Posted Image

The crowd prior to the turn down Elm Street.

Posted Image

The crowd on Elm Street.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marley

esopxe
Nov 20 2008, 05:08 PM
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.
I prefer actual evidence to sarcasm; I'm sure most reasonable people do. If you are going to keep evidence to yourself, then why bother with a drawing that obviously contributes to a lie? Why show only the view of the bullet that best supports your position? Why not start off with a drawing that is accurate and a view of the bullet that shows just how "unpristine" it is? Showing all of the evidence when it is simple to do so actually makes your argument stronger as long as it is able to hold any water at all.

If your position is so weak that you need to stoop to such low levels to convince a person of the legitimacy of your theory, then it is time to go back to the drawing board.

No need to apologize. Any evidence that is not worth sharing is probably not worth the time it takes to post a link to, or the paper it is printed on. Go ahead and keep it to yourself. I'm sure it is only good for patting yourself and your friends on the back with. If it was actually worth anything, then it would be in the hands of a sympathetic prosecutor so legal action could be taken. Just make sure anyone in the legal community you share it with is not as insane, incompetent or bizarre as Garrison was.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marley

Flippy
Nov 20 2008, 04:33 PM
I love how 9/11 "debunkers" and JFK "debunkers" dismiss everything as coincidence.
Who is doing that on this thread and where?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marley

Domenick DiMaggio
Nov 20 2008, 07:37 AM
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?'???
Can you tell me who made the original film and who edited it for posting on the web? How did you determine that the agents were in a state of shock when told to stand down? You have interviews with people who were there and able to observe the agents state of mind? Shoulder shrugging is not surefire way of determining if a person is shocked.

The video says Emery Roberts ordered the SS agents away from the limo. Roberts does not appear to call the agents away from riding on the limo because the agents were actually jogging along side of the limo at the time. Was it odd as the narrator claims? How often did the agents ride on the back of the limo? How often did they jog beside it? How often did stay away? The video does not supply any answers except to say it was odd that they did not ride or jog next to the limo.

He says to ask yourself if the assassination could have taken place if the agents were in place on the bumper. Of course it could have. Since the limo was moving down a street at an angle away from the shooter, the agents were not directly blocking the line of sight to the TSBD.
Edited by Marley, Nov 21 2008, 02:26 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marley

datman
Nov 20 2008, 07:51 PM
The things that happened for sure. The secrete service was called back from the limo with Kennedy.
The parade took a odd turn where as it turns out there were far less witnesses
The driver drove rather slow and remained slow with his head turned around until after the head shot, only then speeding up.
Governor Connelly changed his story 2 or 3 times as the prior story is debunked.
Jennings edits his version of the doctors press conference leaving out any part not looking favorable to his story.
Unless you can tell me that all the doctors are imposters or are lying, they all describe a large wound in the back of his head.
The government lost JFKs brain.

What was odd about the turn the limo made? Wasn't it the same as the route decided upon several days in advance and published in Dallas newspapers?

What is wrong with a large wound in the back of the head?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marley

esopxe
Nov 20 2008, 05:16 PM
Give this debate a listen. (5 Parts)

Wecht claims, no way can there be fragments in two bodies that can only be <1.5% of original bullet weight. Never done before. The “never done before” theory is not so solid.

Wecht never specifies the speed at which the test bullets were fired. If the test bullets were fired into a block of ballistic gelatin or merely fired at reduced speed, they might not be damaged as much when they finally hit bone. Anyone know the muzzle velocity of the test bullets? As far as I know it was 2100 fps.

Wecht thinks the second bullet went through JFK then exited on the left side of the limo without hitting Connelly. Who is claiming a magic bullet now? It appears to be Wecht. But then he backpedals to say no zig zagging. He also couldn't come up with a shooter position (on the pavement if actually 11 degrees) to match his 11 degree upward bullet path through JFK. I was not impressed.

Edited to correct 21 fps to 2100 fps
Edited by Marley, Nov 22 2008, 04:29 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

Marley
Nov 21 2008, 05:21 AM
datman
Nov 20 2008, 07:51 PM
The things that happened for sure. The secrete service was called back from the limo with Kennedy.
The parade took a odd turn where as it turns out there were far less witnesses
The driver drove rather slow and remained slow with his head turned around until after the head shot, only then speeding up.
Governor Connelly changed his story 2 or 3 times as the prior story is debunked.
Jennings edits his version of the doctors press conference leaving out any part not looking favorable to his story.
Unless you can tell me that all the doctors are imposters or are lying, they all describe a large wound in the back of his head.
The government lost JFKs brain.

What was odd about the turn the limo made? Wasn't it the same as the route decided upon several days in advance and published in Dallas newspapers?

What is wrong with a large wound in the back of the head?
Obviously you don't hunt.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marley

JFK
Nov 21 2008, 08:32 AM
Obviously you don't hunt.
I hunt some. I know that an expanding bullet has a small entrance wound and can have a large exit wound, especially if it is an expanding bullet or a high speed one.

So how many mammal head shots have you taken? Did your bullet make a small hole in the skull or did it fracture the skull at the point of entry and make a larger hole?

You are using dubious methods of arriving at conclusions. Better you base your conclusions on actual evidence, not just one simple question.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
esopxe
Member Avatar

Marley
Nov 20 2008, 09:17 PM
esopxe
Nov 20 2008, 05:08 PM
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.
I prefer actual evidence to sarcasm; I'm sure most reasonable people do. If you are going to keep evidence to yourself, then why bother with a drawing that obviously contributes to a lie? Why show only the view of the bullet that best supports your position? Why not start off with a drawing that is accurate and a view of the bullet that shows just how "unpristine" it is? Showing all of the evidence when it is simple to do so actually makes your argument stronger as long as it is able to hold any water at all.

If your position is so weak that you need to stoop to such low levels to convince a person of the legitimacy of your theory, then it is time to go back to the drawing board.

No need to apologize. Any evidence that is not worth sharing is probably not worth the time it takes to post a link to, or the paper it is printed on. Go ahead and keep it to yourself. I'm sure it is only good for patting yourself and your friends on the back with. If it was actually worth anything, then it would be in the hands of a sympathetic prosecutor so legal action could be taken. Just make sure anyone in the legal community you share it with is not as insane, incompetent or bizarre as Garrison was.


"I prefer actual evidence to sarcasm." My bad, I forgot that I'm not talking to an actual person. Get over yourself already.

My evidence has nothing to do with that drawing. You know, the drawing that you friggin just can't get over. Let it go. It's ok. You don't have to continue to be a jerk. It's not like you'll lose your JREF membership or anything.

I don't care what angle of the bullet you look at. The thing is near perfect.

You continue to come to all these strange conclusions about me. You said that you had no reason to believe anything other than the official story. I said that I had reason to believe that Oswald had nothing to do with the shooting. You asked why and I said that it was because of some evidence that I had. Then you concoct this out of that statement: "If your position is so weak that you need to stoop to such low levels to convince a person of the legitimacy of your theory, then it is time to go back to the drawing board." What?????

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I understand that would be impossible.

Our little discussion will continue to go nowhere fast so feel free to ignore my posts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
datman

datman
Nov 20 2008, 07:51 PM
I'm sure you will never change my mind and I will never change yours.

At some point this all becomes a big waste of time.

To answer your question as others have said the larger side of the wound is always the back as the bullet is leaving. No matter what Jennings says.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

Marley
Nov 21 2008, 04:12 PM
JFK
Nov 21 2008, 08:32 AM
Obviously you don't hunt.
I hunt some. I know that an expanding bullet has a small entrance wound and can have a large exit wound, especially if it is an expanding bullet or a high speed one.

So how many mammal head shots have you taken? Did your bullet make a small hole in the skull or did it fracture the skull at the point of entry and make a larger hole?

You are using dubious methods of arriving at conclusions. Better you base your conclusions on actual evidence, not just one simple question.
I have ruined enough trophy quality racks to be embarassed about it.

I grew up on a farm in upstate New York and had a rifle in my hands at age 7.

With a skull shot it is invariably a small entry hole, large exit hole.

I base my conclusions on decades of experience.... Unlike yourself.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marley

esopxe
Nov 21 2008, 04:28 PM
"I prefer actual evidence to sarcasm." My bad, I forgot that I'm not talking to an actual person. Get over yourself already.

My evidence has nothing to do with that drawing. You know, the drawing that you friggin just can't get over. Let it go. It's ok. You don't have to continue to be a jerk. It's not like you'll lose your JREF membership or anything.

I don't care what angle of the bullet you look at. The thing is near perfect.

You continue to come to all these strange conclusions about me. You said that you had no reason to believe anything other than the official story. I said that I had reason to believe that Oswald had nothing to do with the shooting. You asked why and I said that it was because of some evidence that I had. Then you concoct this out of that statement: "If your position is so weak that you need to stoop to such low levels to convince a person of the legitimacy of your theory, then it is time to go back to the drawing board." What?????

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I understand that would be impossible.

Our little discussion will continue to go nowhere fast so feel free to ignore my posts.
I think you are the one who needs a chill pill.

Isn't it in post #14 that the drawing in question figures rather prominently? Why is it still there if your evidence e has nothing to do with that drawing? It is easy to edits posts on this forum.

I am not a JREF member.

Nothing in post #14 is near perfect in my opinion. Post the picture that shows the bullet from the bottom, and then tell us all that the oval shape is near perfect. Bullets that are near perfect are round, not oval.

I said your evidence poor. You show a drawing that is obviously wrong; you show only one view of CE 399 to support your argument. These are the low levels I am talking about.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marley

JFK
Nov 21 2008, 06:35 PM
I have ruined enough trophy quality racks to be embarassed about it.

I grew up on a farm in upstate New York and had a rifle in my hands at age 7.

With a skull shot it is invariably a small entry hole, large exit hole.

I base my conclusions on decades of experience.... Unlike yourself.
So you have never seen a mammal skull that was fractured around the entry hole; enough to make a large wound? Are you claiming that a bullet can not create a large wound on the entry side?

I really do not find your arguments convincing. Got evidence to back up your claim?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

Marley
Nov 22 2008, 04:27 AM
JFK
Nov 21 2008, 06:35 PM
I have ruined enough trophy quality racks to be embarassed about it.

I grew up on a farm in upstate New York and had a rifle in my hands at age 7.

With a skull shot it is invariably a small entry hole, large exit hole.

I base my conclusions on decades of experience.... Unlike yourself.
So you have never seen a mammal skull that was fractured around the entry hole; enough to make a large wound? Are you claiming that a bullet can not create a large wound on the entry side?

I really do not find your arguments convincing. Got evidence to back up your claim?
Which part of the word experience do you not understand ?

Had I known that I was going to be having this conversation with you 30 something years later I might have taken pictures. :roll:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marley

Evasion noted.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

Marley
Nov 22 2008, 06:20 PM
Evasion noted.
Whatever Marley. I was there and skinned, gutted, and butchered the aftermath of all the incidents which pertain.

You weren't.
Edited by JFK, Nov 22 2008, 06:31 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marley

See the sentences in post #40 with the question marks at the end? Those are what I was hoping for a response to.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

Marley
Nov 22 2008, 06:45 PM
See the sentences in post #40 with the question marks at the end? Those are what I was hoping for a response to.
The only evidence I have Marley is that I was there.

You were not.

Like I said, had I known you would persist with this line of questioning 30something years ago I would have taken pictures... But I did not.

Also like I said earlier, Whatever Marley. It is not my job to convince you of the facts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

Marley
Nov 22 2008, 04:27 AM
JFK
Nov 21 2008, 06:35 PM
I have ruined enough trophy quality racks to be embarassed about it.

I grew up on a farm in upstate New York and had a rifle in my hands at age 7.

With a skull shot it is invariably a small entry hole, large exit hole.

I base my conclusions on decades of experience.... Unlike yourself.
So you have never seen a mammal skull that was fractured around the entry hole; enough to make a large wound? Are you claiming that a bullet can not create a large wound on the entry side?

I really do not find your arguments convincing. Got evidence to back up your claim?
Marley
 
When you accuse people of lying, then the burden of proof is on you. I'm sure you would understand if someone accused you of lying or of any other crime. Or do you think it is acceptable behavior to make accusations without any evidence?


I await your proof Marley.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marley

Proof of what? I need you to be more specific. I did not make any claims in the portions of the posts you quoted.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

Marley
Nov 25 2008, 07:51 PM
Proof of what? I need you to be more specific. I did not make any claims in the portions of the posts you quoted.
Since I was there, was a participant in the events and you were not Marley, You insinuated that I am a liar with this statement :

Marley
 
Got evidence to back up your claim?



Like I said I await your proof that I am a liar.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eamon85

You all NEED to watch Oswald's Ghost by PBS. it is probably the most fair interpretation of the JFK shooting you can find. Even though i would say it leans 60% in favor of the official story, it does give a good amount of legitimacy to the conspiracy side aswell. what it DOES accomplish is making sure that neither side cant get away with being complete ignoramuses. Of course they leave out an awful lot of importance evidence that points to the conspiracy side (what do you expect), but they make a pretty damn good case that Oswald likely DID shoot or attempt to shoot the president - with or without help.

Don't judge my comments until you've seen it. btjunkie.org has it.

The history channel's 9-part series on JFK is also worth the watch if you have the time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · The Lounge · Next Topic »
Add Reply