JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Jorn Frending on April 04, 2020, 12:40:55 PM
-
When is a CT successful?
A) when proving a conspiracy?
Oswald could not have come down the stairs without being seen thus it must have been a conspiracy, we can all go home now
B) When proving not only conspiracy but proving also who actually pulled the trigger.
Whatever circumstance debunking the LN scenario is useless unless you prove who did it, how he did it and who was behind it.
C) When presenting a general pattern which makes sense relating a bigger number of events to each other without one single event destroying the entire pattern.
This method may not give instant satisfaction but allow for teamwork and help to establish which area of investigation to concentrate on.
If a CT does not know what to expect from himself how does he know what to expect from other CT's.
-
Over the years many researchers have specialized in certain events like proving that Oswald could not have come down the stairs without being seen, the inconsistencies in the autopsy report and the impossibility of the snipers nest.
Most often our subject of interest depend on our background. In my case, with partly military background, I still find the snipers nest impossible.
It's difficult to explain to others and if you are finally able to, so what? Where is the smoking gun?, Who pulled the trigger? Besides, in case that you commit one single mistake all your work is worthless.
Of course there are also researchers who find excitement in naming shooters all over Dealey Plaza or making points based on politics or other personal bias.
In any case I mostly prefer to use method C as described above yet appreciating the enormous work of others on both sides of the fence.
The reason for my three "nightmare" questions will appear in another thread ...
-
Over the years many researchers have specialized in certain events like proving that Oswald could not have come down the stairs without being seen, the inconsistencies in the autopsy report and the impossibility of the snipers nest.
Most often our subject of interest depend on our background. In my case, with partly military background, I still find the snipers nest impossible.
It's difficult to explain to others and if you are finally able to, so what? Where is the smoking gun?, Who pulled the trigger? Besides, in case that you commit one single mistake all your work is worthless.
Of course there are also researchers who find excitement in naming shooters all over Dealey Plaza or making points based on politics or other personal bias.
In any case I mostly prefer to use method C as described above yet appreciating the enormous work of others on both sides of the fence.
The reason for my three "nightmare" questions will appear in another thread ...
It's difficult to explain to others and if you are finally able to, so what? Where is the smoking gun?, Who pulled the trigger? Besides, in case that you commit one single mistake all your work is worthless.
I agree, Jorn. Sometimes I feel that I must be an illiterate who is unable to express his views to others. I feel like I might be writing in some obscure language.
-
It's difficult to explain to others and if you are finally able to, so what? Where is the smoking gun?, Who pulled the trigger? Besides, in case that you commit one single mistake all your work is worthless.
I agree, Jorn. Sometimes I feel that I must be an illiterate who is unable to express his views to others. I feel like I might be writing in some obscure language.
:) ...
-
:) ...
Jorn: It's one thing to say the evidence that Oswald shot JFK is not convincing or persuasive. It's another to promote these bizarre conspiracy theories that the evidence was all planted and faked and staged. And then all covered up for half a century. And all of these subsequent investigations by the government and the media are coverups. That's simply ridiculous.
And it's another thing to say that there's no persuasive evidence that Oswald shot Tippit. My goodness, if someone doesn't believe the evidence that he shot Tippit then it's useless to discuss the JFK assassination.
You are raising questions that I think completely destroy the conspiracy claim that Oswald was framed, that he was totally innocent. To put it briefly: Oswald didn't leave the TSBD shortly after the shooting because he just wanted to take the day off. He was in flight. That's why he shot Tippit and fled into the theater with a loaded revolver and extra bullets.
-
Jorn: It's one thing to say the evidence that Oswald shot JFK is not convincing or persuasive. It's another to promote these bizarre conspiracy theories that the evidence was all planted and faked and staged. And then all covered up for half a century. And all of these subsequent investigations by the government and the media are coverups.
Agreed. Who’s saying that?
And it's another thing to say that there's no persuasive evidence that Oswald shot Tippit. My goodness, if someone doesn't believe the evidence that he shot Tippit then it's useless to discuss the JFK assassination.
Because of some unfair, biased lineups and a gun and shells of questionable provenance? My goodness. How could anybody look at that and think it’s all hunky-dory?
To put it briefly: Oswald didn't leave the TSBD shortly after the shooting because he just wanted to take the day off. He was in flight. That's why he shot Tippit and fled into the theater with a loaded revolver and extra bullets.
Easy to claim. Harder to prove.
-
Perhaps we got off topic rather quickly ...
This post is not like the other "nightmare questions" because it refers to the CT community itself rather than to the case ...
I'm referring to three different attitudes being a CT in the OP, the first post in this thread, where I refer to my own approach ...
It could be interesting to know the point of view of other forum members! ...
-
Jorn: It's one thing to say the evidence that Oswald shot JFK is not convincing or persuasive. It's another to promote these bizarre conspiracy theories that the evidence was all planted and faked and staged. And then all covered up for half a century. And all of these subsequent investigations by the government and the media are coverups. That's simply ridiculous.
And it's another thing to say that there's no persuasive evidence that Oswald shot Tippit. My goodness, if someone doesn't believe the evidence that he shot Tippit then it's useless to discuss the JFK assassination.
You are raising questions that I think completely destroy the conspiracy claim that Oswald was framed, that he was totally innocent. To put it briefly: Oswald didn't leave the TSBD shortly after the shooting because he just wanted to take the day off. He was in flight. That's why he shot Tippit and fled into the theater with a loaded revolver and extra bullets.
Ah yes... kinda just like it's one thing to ignore evidence of rifles that don't match and impossible timelines of a man who can shoot a president at 12:30, walk calmly to a soda machine, buy a coke, talk to a cop, walk 7 blocks to catch a bus, get on that bus, get caught up in traffic, get a transfer, get off that bus, walk 3 or 4 blocks to find a taxi, offer it to an old lady, take the taxi 2.4 miles through traffic and stop lights, get dropped off 3 or 4 blocks from his house, walk home, hang out for 5 minutes, grab a gun, wait for another bus stop, say screw it and walk over a mile just in time to murder a cop at 1:15, then ditch his jacket, but not his gun, empty the shells from the revolver so cops can have even more great evidence, then sneak into a movie, buy popcorn, and wait to be arrested.
And let's not forget ignoring the 2 wallet stories, right? Cause that makes perfect sense. Oh and don't forget ignoring the shot that we all see come from the front right, which just happens to be exactly where 2 men with rifles can be seen in photos and videos, all in favor for the story of a spombleprofglidnoctobunsty shot marksmen who killed a president with a rifle that the army testers deemed trash. In fact, basically stated there was no way that piece of crap rifle could have killed anyone, other than by accident.
So if you're trying to compare which story is more plausible, only a simple minded oaf would think the official story is plausible. People who are too lazy to have to think much rather swallow whatever nonsense the habitual lying government spews. And the swallowers never seem to want to address all the evidence that we can see, like 2 different rifles. Why would there be 2 different rifles? If you don't know there was 2 different rifles then you obviously haven't done much research. On the off chance you might be too lazy, let me help you...
https://photos.app.goo.gl/x3s37GcDTL67cGjg8 https://photos.app.goo.gl/Pn5DW5g7vZgq2sEz6
So here's a swallowers chance to explain to CT'rs why there's 2 rifles. And speak slowly so the CT'rs can take notes. If you can't explain that, then guess what... there's probably a good reason for that. There should only be one. But there isn't. There's 2. Maybe Oswald was talented enough to use 2 rifles at the same time? Who knows. But to ignore stuff like that is the definition of crazy. Not knowing that government is full of spombleprofglidnoctobunsty corrupt liars is naive. Accepting any explanation from a government that has a program called the "Freedom of Information Act" that redacts any and everything worth a damn is just gullible.
-
Honestly there are so many facts that prove that it has be an assassination and that the government is trying to hide it that it's interesting that people are actually still supporting the official version. I personally think that it's stupid. I mean people believe in things like santa clause but they don't believe that JFK was assassinated. I think that there are so many things we don't know that it's stupid to believe everything the government says. I have been doing more research when it comes to numerology (using these articles as reference: https://www.sunsigns.org/angel-number-55-meaning/ ) and I think that the killing of JFK was planned. I'll chare the details later though and in PM only
-
Honestly there are so many facts that prove that it has be an assassination and that the government is trying to hide it that it's interesting that people are actually still supporting the official version. I personally think that it's stupid. I mean people believe in things like santa clause but they don't believe that JFK was assassinated. I think that there are so many things we don't know that it's stupid to believe everything the government says. I have been doing more research when it comes to numerology (using these articles as reference: https://www.sunsigns.org/angel-number-55-meaning/ ) and I think that the killing of JFK was planned. I'll chare the details later though and in PM only
You seem like a classic CTer to me. Yes, I think numerology could be the key to figuring out what really happened. There were supposedly three shots. In any case there were three shells left on the floor. What message was this meant to convey? It was during the third year of JFK’s presidency. And three men who met briefly just outside the lunchroom in the TSBD. And the police didn’t find two or four but three tramps. Too many coincidences to be rationally explained. What else could it mean but that all three branches of government were involved and each wanted to leave its mark.
-
You seem like a classic CTer to me. Yes, I think numerology could be the key to figuring out what really happened. There were supposedly three shots. In any case there were three shells left on the floor. What message was this meant to convey? It was during the third year of JFK’s presidency. And three men who met briefly just outside the lunchroom in the TSBD. And the police didn’t find two or four but three tramps. Too many coincidences to be rationally explained. What else could it mean but that all three branches of government were involved and each wanted to leave its mark.
Also, Oswald had 3 helpers:
1) A. Hidell
2) O. H. Lee
3) Dirty Harvey
;)
-
Also, Oswald had 3 helpers:
1) A. Hidell
2) O. H. Lee
3) Dirty Harvey
;)
Hello Bill
We have been told over and over again, that any rational mind can see that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. That we LNers are blind to the obvious truth. And yet when someone who expresses an opinion of the JFK assassination also have some opinions on other subjects that most people would see as irrational, denying the Holocaust ever happened, believe the government is in a secret conspiracy with space aliens, or the believe in numerology, etc., they are inevitably CTers. I have never heard of a person with really irrational beliefs who also says “Yes, I believe Oswald alone killed JFK”. Never.
If the belief that Oswald alone killed JFK is irrational, it is a truly curious and unexplainable phenomenon that the irrational are so attracted to the opposite conclusion.
Question:
Does any CTer have a theory as to why this is so?
Or a counter example that goes against my claim?
-
[Jackson Grey,] You seem like a classic CTer to me. Yes, I think numerology could be the key to figuring out what really happened. There were supposedly three shots. In any case there were three shells left on the floor. What message was this meant to convey? It was during the third year of JFK’s presidency. And three men who met briefly just outside the lunchroom in the TSBD. And the police didn’t find two or four but three tramps. Too many coincidences to be rationally explained. What else could it mean but that all three branches of government were involved and each wanted to leave its mark.
Joe,
Don't forget The Triple Underpass.
-- MWT ;)
-
I have never heard of a person with really irrational beliefs who also says “Yes, I believe Oswald alone killed JFK”. Never.
That is an irrational belief.
-
Joe,
Don't forget The Triple Underpass.
-- MWT ;)
Good one
And to think Oswald was just a click away from the hat trick..
-
That is an irrational belief.
Then if it is an irrational belief, why don’t LNers tend to hold other really irrational beliefs. Why are the really irrational attracted to the “rational” belief, that JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy.
Let’s list the of the more famous people who have become prominent spokesmen on the JFK assassination issue.
James Fetzer. An early leading spokesman for the Zapruder film being faked:
Holocaust denier and believer in many other wacky theories.
Michael T Griffith. The leading authority CTers go with to argue against the Neurological Spasm Theory:
Creationist and denier of the Theory of Evolution
Supports the notion that the South was right to secede from the Union
Jim Marrs. Author of the book “Crossfire” used as the basis for the movie “JFK”
Supported the notion that the government is conspiring with the space aliens
and I believe he was also an Apollo Moon Landing denier
Mark Lane. Author of “Rush to Judgment and a prominent CTer over the years.
Believed that the Jonestown tragedy was caused by Jim Jones megomania and his ordering mass murder and suicide but by a U. S. government attack. And believes this even though he was a witness.
And when someone joins this forum and expresses a really irrational belief, like the belief in numerology, inevitably they are a solid CTer.
Why is that? Why do people with really extreme irrational beliefs always (from my observations) or at least almost always come down on the “rational” side, believing in a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy? These people never believe Oswald was guilty and acted alone.
What does make sense is believing the Oswald did kill JFK and probably did act alone. So, it is natural that the irrational are not attracted to this theory. Because the irrational are naturally attracted to irrational theories, not to rational theories.
-
What else somebody may or may not believe (and why) has no bearing upon the rationality or lack thereof of their views on the JFK assassination. Those should be examined on their own merits.
-
Just because somebody is rational in one pursuit, it doesn't follow that they are rational in all pursuits. Humans have a great capacity for compartmentalization and confirmation bias.
-
What else somebody may or may not believe (and why) has no bearing upon the rationality or lack thereof of their views on the JFK assassination. Those should be examined on their own merits.
Yeah, but not by you unless they have DNA samples and 21-point fingerprint matches of the people at issue, notarized statements in triplicate, a minimum of 32 (32) color photos and films taken from every conceivable angle on a continuous and easy-to-time-stamp basis, and at least fifteen Registered Atheist and / or Commie corroborations of every potentially Oswald-incriminating eyewitness statement.
-- MWT ;)
-
What else somebody may or may not believe (and why) has no bearing upon the rationality or lack thereof of their views on the JFK assassination. Those should be examined on their own merits.
I think it does have some bearing. If there is a debate and all the prominent spokesmen on the issue who have flaky views on other subjects all come down on one side. If all the casual people that I know of, like the people who post at this and other forums on the JFK assassination, who express unrelated irrational beliefs, all come down on one side, that has some bearing. And the irrational who express an opinion, come down on the CT side.
How should a CTer handle this? Well, they could say to themselves, it doesn’t matter. I’m right and that’s that. And put it out of their mind. You seem to handle it this way.
For me it would be different. If all the prominent spokesmen who seem irrational on other issues, agree with me on one issue. If all the casual people who seem irrational, also agree with me on this one issue, I would stop and reassess my position. If I find that James Fetzer, Micheal T. Griffins, Jim Marrs and Mark Lane all agree with me on some contested issue, I would start from the beginning. Am I really thinking about this case logically? I get the impression that CTers never do this. This just doesn’t concern them.
I cannot think on a single theory I have that the irrational people who express an opinion on, all agree with me. The theory of Evolution. The historical reality of the Holocaust. The historical reality of the Apollo Moon landings.
Question for everyone:
Can anyone think a different subject, than the JFK assassination, that you hold to be true, and all the irrational people who express an opinion agree with you? Or is the JFK assassination the only example you can think of.
-
Then if it is an irrational belief, why don’t LNers tend to hold other really irrational beliefs. Why are the really irrational attracted to the “rational” belief, that JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy.
Let’s list the of the more famous people who have become prominent spokesmen on the JFK assassination issue.
James Fetzer. An early leading spokesman for the Zapruder film being faked:
Holocaust denier and believer in many other wacky theories.
Michael T Griffith. The leading authority CTers go with to argue against the Neurological Spasm Theory:
Creationist and denier of the Theory of Evolution
Supports the notion that the South was right to secede from the Union
Jim Marrs. Author of the book “Crossfire” used as the basis for the movie “JFK”
Supported the notion that the government is conspiring with the space aliens
and I believe he was also an Apollo Moon Landing denier
Mark Lane. Author of “Rush to Judgment and a prominent CTer over the years.
Believed that the Jonestown tragedy was caused by Jim Jones megomania and his ordering mass murder and suicide but by a U. S. government attack. And believes this even though he was a witness.
And when someone joins this forum and expresses a really irrational belief, like the belief in numerology, inevitably they are a solid CTer.
Why is that? Why do people with really extreme irrational beliefs always (from my observations) or at least almost always come down on the “rational” side, believing in a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy? These people never believe Oswald was guilty and acted alone.
What does make sense is believing the Oswald did kill JFK and probably did act alone. So, it is natural that the irrational are not attracted to this theory. Because the irrational are naturally attracted to irrational theories, not to rational theories.
Then if it is an irrational belief, why don’t LNers tend to hold other really irrational beliefs.
Many LNer's believe in the Virgin Birth.... And that can't be explained rationally.......
-
I think it does have some bearing. If there is a debate and all the prominent spokesmen on the issue who have flaky views on other subjects all come down on one side.
"Flaky views" are in the eye of the beholder.
How should a CTer handle this? Well, they could say to themselves, it doesn’t matter. I’m right and that’s that. And put it out of their mind. You seem to handle it this way.
No, I handle it by examining the evidence they put forth for their position. Which is why belief in the WC conclusions (IMO) is one of those "flaky views".
This is just an attempt to poison the well, and it is itself irrational.
-
"Flaky views" are in the eye of the beholder.
To avoid dodging the following questions, answer in the questions in the form:
Yes. [followed by explanations]
Or:
No. [followed by explanations]
Questions:
1. Do you deny the CT side tends to attract more “flaky” supporters who become the prominent spokesmen?
2. If so, do you deny that James Fetzer, Michael T. Griffith, Jim Marrs and Mark Lane held “flaky” views on other non-related JFK subjects?
3. If not, can you point out prominent LN spokesmen who had non-JFK related views that were just as “flaky” as the CT spokesmen?
4. Can you point to a true theory that, just like the “true” JFK conspiracy theory, which also tends to attract the most “flaky” spokesmen?
-
To avoid dodging the following questions, answer in the questions in the form:
Yes. [followed by explanations]
Or:
No. [followed by explanations]
Questions:
1. Do you deny the CT side tends to attract more “flaky” supporters who become the prominent spokesmen?
2. If so, do you deny that James Fetzer, Michael T. Griffith, Jim Marrs and Mark Lane held “flaky” views on other non-related JFK subjects?
3. If not, can you point out prominent LN spokesmen who had non-JFK related views that were just as “flaky” as the CT spokesmen?
4. Can you point to a true theory that, just like the “true” JFK conspiracy theory, which also tends to attract the most “flaky” spokesmen?
Well, I believe that self-described Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, and I believe that former-Communist-but-now-Fascist Vladimir Putin, with help from Julian "Wanker" Assange, Roger Stone, Sean Hannity, Alex Jones, and (probably) the fascistic, pro-Russia Lyndon LaRouche organization, et al., installed "useful idiot" Donald Trump as our president.
Does that count?
-- MWT ;)
-
I'm going to "dodge" all of them, because:
a) Views on other non-related JFK subjects are irrelevant to the topic of the JFK assassination.
and
b) You seem to be automatically equating "flaky" as contradicting official government pronouncements -- as in the Warren Commission Report.
-
I'm going to "dodge" all of them, because:
a) Views on other non-related JFK subjects are irrelevant to the topic of the JFK assassination.
and
b) You seem to be automatically equating "flaky" as contradicting official government pronouncements -- as in the Warren Commission Report.
No. I do not equate “flaky” with contradicting official government pronouncements. Afterall, I disagree with the HSCA pronouncements that the Dictabelt recorded four shots, when it was later discovered that the four “shots” occurred about a minute after the assassination.
No, I equal “flaky” with believing the Holocaust never happened. Or believing that the theory of Evolution is false and Creationism is true. Or that the South was justified in seceding from the Union to preserve slavery. Or that the government is conspiring with the space aliens for some secret purpose. Or that Jim Jones did not order a massive murder-suicide action but this was instead conducted by the U. S. Government. Those are the views I consider to be “flaky”.
Since you dodge my questions, I will give the answers for you.
1. Do you deny the CT side tends to attract more “flaky” supporters who become the prominent spokesmen?
No. If you could name prominent LNers who are just as “flaky” you would say “Yes” and name them. But since you can’t you dodge the question.
2. If so, do you deny that James Fetzer, Michael T. Griffith, Jim Marrs and Mark Lane held “flaky” views on other non-related JFK subjects?
No. Answering “Yes” would be absurd.
3. If not, can you point out prominent LN spokesmen who had non-JFK related views that were just as “flaky” as the CT spokesmen?
Again, you cannot point out prominent LN spokesmen with non-JFK related views.
4. Can you point to a true theory that, just like the “true” JFK conspiracy theory, which also tends to attract the most “flaky” spokesmen?
No. If you could you would name some, or at least one.
And so, if it did turn out that the CTers were right, this would be the only example, in history, that the “flakey” advocates were all attracted to the side that was true on some major issue of contention.
-
Best post I've ever seen from Tommy. There's hope for you yet! But LHO? Come on, you have to be smarter than that! I have not seen one piece of evidence that convinces me that LHO fired a weapon that day. Every piece of evidence has been tampered with, lied about, or covered up. It's so obvious if we are open-minded enough to read enough material. Sure, there are some rather idiotic theories out there, but I don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
-
Joe, all LNers are flaky, because they believe that the evidence conclusively shows that Oswald killed JFK. This is akin to creationism.
By the way, it’s news to me that Mark Lane ever denied that Jim Jones told his followers to commit suicide, so you probably need to come up with something else to smear him with. Even so, it’s still a poisoning the well fallacy. Their views on the JFK assassination stand (or fall) on their own merits.
Can I likewise try to smear prominent LN authors? Sure. Posner was a plagiarist. We’re now learning that Bugliosi’s theory that Manson was trying to start a race war was so much hogwash. And he was accused of beating and choking a woman he had impregnated out of wedlock because she refused to abort his child.
-
There's a lot of bias in the JFK case. People who don't like him, his family and so on, simply cannot overlook the things that make them biased to see the case in another light. It reminds me of the dead prostitute syndrome with detectives. Because some cops think she deserved it, they don't pursue her killer vigorously like they would, say, the respected and well-known country club member who was murdered by his wife.
-
Joe, all LNers are flaky, because they believe that the evidence conclusively shows that Oswald killed JFK. This is akin to creationism.
All CTers (and knee-takers @DeadOswald) are flaky, because they believe that everything is either faked, planted, or altered in some way. That is akin to Oswald Arse Kissing.
-
All CTers (and knee-takers @DeadOswald) are flaky, because they believe that everything is either faked, planted, or altered in some way.
All CTers? Name even one.
Says the guy who can’t even correctly articulate what the evidence is.
-
All CTers? Name even one.
Says the guy who can’t even correctly articulate what the evidence is.
All CTers? Name even one.
> You lot: In one big lump.
Says the guy who can’t even correctly articulate what the evidence is
> You are not the arbiter of what 'correct' is, Judge Johnny
-
> You lot: In one big lump.
That’s what I thought. Can’t even name a single person who says that everything is either faked, planted, or altered in some way.
> You are not the arbiter of what 'correct' is, Judge Johnny
Who was it again who said “They’ll remember me now”?
:D
-
That’s what I thought. Can’t even name a single person who says that everything is either faked, planted, or altered in some way.
Who was it again who said “They’ll remember me now”?
:D
Iacoletti,
Who was it again who said the three women on the Pergola Patio in Towner (Stella Mae Jacob, Gloria Holt and Sharon Simmons) might actually be three guys wearing Bermuda shorts?
-- MWT ;)
-
That’s what I thought. [Bill Chapman] can’t even name a single person who says that everything is either faked, planted, or altered in some way.
Iacoletti,
How about, "The vast majority of CTers believe some pieces of evidence were either fabricated, altered, or ... gasp ... intentionally destroyed by the evil, evil, evil CIA, FBI, and/or DPD."
Does that work?
-- MWT ;)
-
That’s what I thought. Can’t even name a single person who says that everything is either faked, planted, or altered in some way.
Who was it again who said “They’ll remember me now”?
:D
That’s what I thought. Can’t even name a single person who says that everything is either faked, planted, or altered in some way.
> Ask Freeman. I did.
Who was it again who said “They’ll remember me now”?
> Oswald said something to that effect ;) Not like he wanted to be remembered, mind you. After all, his diary could have been faked, planted or altered in some way.
-
The evidence clearly shows that the guy who shot the guy was involved in a conspiracy with Alex/Alec/Alek Hidell (rhymes with Fidel), OH Lee, and Dirty Harvey
Huh?
-- MWT ;)
-
Huh?
-- MWT ;)
Tongue-in-cheek
-
Tongue-in-cheek
I think you got the rhymes with Fidel part correct, Bill.
You've heard of The Blond Oswald In Mexico City, right?
The guy who didn't actually physically impersonate Oswald at the Cuban Consulate on 9/27, but may have given Silvia Duran some taken-in-Minsk photos of Oswald and impersonated him over the phone on 9/28 and 10/1?
Well, the fact that the guy's still alive suggests that short, skinny, blond-haired, very thin-faced KGB colonels who like wearing dark blue Prince of Wales suits and who play lots of volleyball with their colleagues at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City tend to live forever.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Leonov
-- MWT ;)
-
I think you got the rhymes with Fidel part correct, Bill.
You've heard of The Blond Oswald In Mexico City, right?
The guy who didn't actually physically impersonate Oswald at the Cuban Consulate on 9/27, but may have given Silvia Duran some taken-in-Minsk photos of Oswald and impersonated him over the phone on 9/28 and 10/1?
Well, the fact that the guy's still alive suggests that short, skinny, blond-haired, very thin-faced KGB colonels who like wearing dark blue Prince of Wales suits and who play lots of volleyball with their colleagues at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City tend to live forever.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Leonov
-- MWT ;)
I don't claim authorship of 'rhymes with Fidel'
That would be Marina doing the mocking
Here's some of my own aforementioned tongue-in-cheek*
The Nobody Who Shot the Somebody Had Help
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2451.0.html#new
*Sorta, kinda, not really
-
I don't claim authorship of 'rhymes with Fidel'
That would be Marina doing the mocking
Here's some of my own aforementioned tongue-in-cheek*
The Nobody Who Shot the Somebody Had Help
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2451.0.html#new
*Sorta, kinda, not really
Bill,
Were the passport-sized photos of the little prick that the MYSTERIOUS BLOND SOMEBODY gave Silvia Duran ... taken in Minsk?
He sure liked wearing that sweater-vest, didn't he?
That "nobody," that is.
Holy ca-ca.
Moscow, Minsk, Dallas (or was that Thanksgiving get-together in Fort Worth?), "Mexico City" ...
-- MWT ;)
-
> Ask Freeman. I did.
I'm asking you. You're the one who made the silly claim.
-
I'm asking you. You're the one who made the silly claim.
And I gave to one: Freeman.
-
And I gave to one: Freeman.
*you?
-
And I gave to one: Freeman.
Cite Freeman saying he believes “that everything is either faked, planted, or altered in some way”.
-
Cite Freeman saying he believes “that everything is either faked, planted, or altered in some way”.
Last year I asked him that and he agreed
-
That’s not a cite.
-
That’s not a cite.
It is to God/gawd
It might be to your species if I come across that post (or screenshot) one of these days
-
:D So you go from “all CTs” to “one CT” to “I may come up with something some day”.
It figures.
-
:D So you go from “all CTs” to “one CT” to “I may come up with something some day”.
It figures.
You asked me to 'name even one' in Reply #30
> I named Freeman.
Show us where I said "I may come up with something someday"
> I said 'if I come across that post (or screenshot) one of these days'
Not that you're being disengenuous.
--------------------------------------
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2433.msg81060.html#msg81060
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
« on: March 31, 2020, 12:28:07 PM »
Quote from: Jerry Freeman on March 31, 2020, 10:46:52 AM
All LNers share equally in the hunt smell.
'Freeman' is generic for the CT 'all-evidence-is actually was-faked-planted-altered-or ignored-in-some-way' crowd.
And don't you forget it!
There I fixed it for you"
(https://i.postimg.cc/G3SPtK7Q/Freeman.png)
-
You asked me to 'name even one' in Reply #30
> I named Freeman.
Show us where I said "I may come up with something someday"
> I said 'if I come across that post (or screenshot) one of these days'
Not that you're being disengenuous.
--------------------------------------
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2433.msg81060.html#msg81060
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
« on: March 31, 2020, 12:28:07 PM »
Quote from: Jerry Freeman on March 31, 2020, 10:46:52 AM
All LNers share equally in the hunt smell.
'Freeman' is generic for the CT 'all-evidence-is actually was-faked-planted-altered-or ignored-in-some-way' crowd.
And don't you forget it!
There I fixed it for you"
(https://i.postimg.cc/G3SPtK7Q/Freeman.png)
dude, you are f'n- hilarious.
Do you know what words mean?
-
dude, you are f'n- hilarious.
Do you know what words mean?
I know what Oswald Arse Kisser means.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/G3SPtK7Q/Freeman.png)
Now all you’re missing is the part where you “asked him that and he agreed”.
-
Now all you’re missing is the part where you “asked him that and he agreed”.
you asked him that
> I did
and he agreed
> he did