JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Tom Graves on April 16, 2025, 01:49:37 AM
-
For what it's worth, John Iacoletti doesn't believe there is a God, he doesn't believe former sharpshooting Marine / self-described Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, and he doesn't believe the three people walking across the Pergola "patio" a few minutes after the assassination in the Mr. Towner clip were Stella Mae Jacobs, Gloria Holt and Sharon Simmons (misidentified by so-called experts for many years as Gloria Calvery, Karan Hicks, and Carol Reed, respectively), but three Bermuda-shorts-wearing dudes, instead.
What else does Iacoletti not believe?
-
John Iacoletti doesn't believe there is a God, he doesn't believe former sharpshooting Marine / self-described Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, and he doesn't believe the three people walking across the Pergola "patio" a few minutes after the assassination in the Mr. Towner clip were Stella Mae Jacobs, Gloria Holt and Sharon Simmons, but three Bermuda-shorts-wearing dudes.
What else does Iacoletti not believe?
I think Iacoletti may be playing "Devils Advocate"(pun intended).
No intelligent person can possibly believe that Oswald didn't order and possess the rifle.
No intelligent person can possibly deny that both Kennedy, Connally and Connally's lapel are simultaneously reacting, it's right there on film, now one can argue that Connally's reaction was caused by something else, something not yet defined but how does one explain the lapel flip?
I could go on with Iacoletti's long, long list of his weak rejections of anything that incriminates Oswald but at the end of the day he can't rewrite history. And that's a fact Jack!
JohnM
-
I think Iacoletti may be playing "Devils Advocate"(pun intended).
To borrow from Santo Trafficante's quip when asked what he would say if he were told Jack Ruby had been working for the Mafia ("I'd say the Mafia needs a new personnel director"), if he who is Not Worth My Time is playing Devil's Advocate I'd say Satan needs a new personnel director because inane strings of "LOL" and "cool story, bro" aren't getting the job done.
-
I think Iacoletti may be playing "Devils Advocate"(pun intended).
No intelligent person can possibly believe that Oswald didn't order and possess the rifle.
No intelligent person can possibly deny that both Kennedy, Connally and Connally's lapel are simultaneously reacting, it's right there on film, now one can argue that Connally's reaction was caused by something else, something not yet defined but how does one explain the lapel flip?
I could go on with Iacoletti's long, long list of his weak rejections of anything that incriminates Oswald but at the end of the day he can't rewrite history. And that's a fact Jack!
JohnM
Hear! Hear!
-
For what it's worth, John Iacoletti doesn't believe there is a God, he doesn't believe former sharpshooting Marine / self-described Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, and he doesn't believe the three people walking across the Pergola "patio" a few minutes after the assassination in the Mr. Towner clip were Stella Mae Jacobs, Gloria Holt and Sharon Simmons (misidentified by so-called experts for many years as Gloria Calvery, Karan Hicks, and Carol Reed, respectively), but three Bermuda-shorts-wearing dudes, instead.
What else does Iacoletti not believe?
How would an extended list help you in any way win an argument against Iacoletti?
-
How would an extended list help you in any way win an argument against Iacoletti?
Thanks for bumping it!
-
For what it's worth, John Iacoletti doesn't believe there is a God, he doesn't believe former sharpshooting Marine / self-described Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, and he doesn't believe the three people walking across the Pergola "patio" a few minutes after the assassination in the Mr. Towner clip were Stella Mae Jacobs, Gloria Holt and Sharon Simmons (misidentified by so-called experts for many years as Gloria Calvery, Karan Hicks, and Carol Reed, respectively), but three Bermuda-shorts-wearing dudes, instead.
What else does Iacoletti not believe?
You sir, are not so much as a patch on the shirt of John Iacoletti.
-
You sir, are not so much as a patch on the shirt of John Iacoletti.
You, sir, make Vladimir Putin proud.
-
Thanks for bumping it!
You're welcome. Have you come up with an answer?
-
You're welcome. Have you come up with an answer?
"How would an extended list help you in any way win an argument against Iacoletti?"
An extended list of what?
Regardless, I already have.
Lots of them.
He just doesn't realize it.
-
"How would an extended list help you in any way win an argument against Iacoletti?"
An extended list of what?
"What else does Iacoletti not believe?"
So you already forgot what you asked for, wow!
-
"What else does Iacoletti not believe?"
So you already forgot what you asked for, wow!
Even if you'd said "this argument" instead of "an argument," it still wouldn't have made sense because my original OP was a rhetorical question, not an argument:
For what it's worth, John Iacoletti doesn't believe there is a God, he doesn't believe former sharpshooting Marine / self-described Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, and he doesn't believe the three people walking across the Pergola "patio" a few minutes after the assassination in the Mr. Towner clip were Stella Mae Jacobs, Gloria Holt and Sharon Simmons (misidentified by so-called experts for many years as Gloria Calvery, Karan Hicks, and Carol Reed, respectively), but three Bermuda-shorts-wearing dudes, instead. What else does Iacoletti not believe?
D'oh!
-
Even if you'd said "this argument" instead of "an argument," it still wouldn't have made sense because my original OP was a rhetorical question, not an argument:
For what it's worth, John Iacoletti doesn't believe there is a God, he doesn't believe former sharpshooting Marine / self-described Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, and he doesn't believe the three people walking across the Pergola "patio" a few minutes after the assassination in the Mr. Towner clip were Stella Mae Jacobs, Gloria Holt and Sharon Simmons (misidentified by so-called experts for many years as Gloria Calvery, Karan Hicks, and Carol Reed, respectively), but three Bermuda-shorts-wearing dudes, instead. What else does Iacoletti not believe?
D'oh!
Equally desperate, if that's what it was.
-
For what it's worth, John Iacoletti doesn't believe there is a God, he doesn't believe former sharpshooting Marine / self-described Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, and he doesn't believe the three people walking across the Pergola "patio" a few minutes after the assassination in the Mr. Towner clip were Stella Mae Jacobs, Gloria Holt and Sharon Simmons (misidentified by so-called experts for many years as Gloria Calvery, Karan Hicks, and Carol Reed, respectively), but three Bermuda-shorts-wearing dudes, instead.
What else does Iacoletti not believe?
I don't believe that Graves has anything better to do than troll the group with dozens of new threads with personal attacks and lying about what other people do or do not believe.
-
I think Iacoletti may be playing "Devils Advocate"(pun intended).
No intelligent person can possibly believe that Oswald didn't order and possess the rifle.
No intelligent person can possibly deny that both Kennedy, Connally and Connally's lapel are simultaneously reacting, it's right there on film, now one can argue that Connally's reaction was caused by something else, something not yet defined but how does one explain the lapel flip?
"Intelligent person" defined as agreeing with "Mytton's" unsubstantiated claims.
-
To borrow from Santo Trafficante's quip when asked what he would say if he were told Jack Ruby had been working for the Mafia ("I'd say the Mafia needs a new personnel director"), if he who is Not Worth My Time is playing Devil's Advocate I'd say Satan needs a new personnel director because inane strings of "LOL" and "cool story, bro" aren't getting the job done.
What's inane is thinking that regurgitating all the same old fantasized orthodoxy over and over again demands anything more than a "LOL" or a "cool story, bro".
-
What's inane is thinking that regurgitating all the same old fantasized orthodoxy over and over again demands anything more than a "LOL" or a "cool story, bro".
Why does it demand anything at all? If it does demand something, why does it not demand something more substantive than "LOL"? What does "LOL" add to the discussion? Your posts are the functional equivalent of the fundie who responds to every atheist's posts on a religion forum, no matter how substantive the posts may be, with "You're going to Hell anyway."
BTW, you're going to Hell anyway.
-
I think Iacoletti may be playing "Devils Advocate"(pun intended).
No intelligent person can possibly believe that Oswald didn't order and possess the rifle.
No intelligent person can possibly deny that both Kennedy, Connally and Connally's lapel are simultaneously reacting, it's right there on film, now one can argue that Connally's reaction was caused by something else, something not yet defined but how does one explain the lapel flip?
I could go on with Iacoletti's long, long list of his weak rejections of anything that incriminates Oswald but at the end of the day he can't rewrite history. And that's a fact Jack!
JohnM
No intelligent person can seriously believe that Oswald was anything but a patsy, regardless of whether he fired a shot. It is the responsibility of the "intelligent person" to provide a valid trajectory from the TSBD into JFK's back and out through his throat. Until that is done, you are merely a denialist, and all your other arguments are irrelevant. You can't have it both ways, so use your limited graphic skills to demonstrate how the magic bullet trajectory could be plausible. Until you do, you are just a dufus who's wasting our time with empty rhetoric.
Additionally, Iacoletti has been effectively challenging you lone nutters for as long as I've been a member here. He possesses critical thinking skills and an understanding of logical fallacies, which many of you lack. If not for him, this forum would remain a quagmire of high-fiving lone nut denialists perpetuating the lone nut theory until all the conspirators have passed away. I'm sure they are eternally grateful for your patronage. And most of you haven't even been paid for it! How intelligent is that? Thumb1:
-
No intelligent person can seriously believe that Oswald was anything but a patsy, regardless of whether he fired a shot. It is the responsibility of the "intelligent person" to provide a valid trajectory from the TSBD into JFK's back and out through his throat. Until that is done, you are merely a denialist, and all your other arguments are irrelevant. You can't have it both ways, so use your limited graphic skills to demonstrate how the magic bullet trajectory could be plausible. Until you do, you are just a dufus who's wasting our time with empty rhetoric.
Additionally, Iacoletti has been effectively challenging you lone nutters for as long as I've been a member here. He possesses critical thinking skills and an understanding of logical fallacies, which many of you lack. If not for him, this forum would remain a quagmire of high-fiving lone nut denialists perpetuating the lone nut theory until all the conspirators have passed away. I'm sure they are eternally grateful for your patronage. And most of you haven't even been paid for it! How intelligent is that? Thumb1:
"..regardless of whether he fired a shot." Really? Anybody that actually fired a shot, can Not then claim to be a "patsy". Let's not get carried away here.
-
Why does it demand anything at all? If it does demand something, why does it not demand something more substantive than "LOL"? What does "LOL" add to the discussion?
Regurgitating the same old propaganda talking points doesn't add anything to the discussion, either, but here we are. Claims made without substance can be dismissed (and laughed at) without any substance.
Endless navel-gazing discussions about why a Conspiracy would do this or that, does nothing to get us any closer to determining who killed JFK either.
Your posts are the functional equivalent of the fundie who responds to every atheist's posts on a religion forum, no matter how substantive the posts may be, with "You're going to Hell anyway."
You have it backwards again. You and your fellow parishioners are like the deranged fundamentalist spouting off bible verses on the street corner. You can try to engage with them on the specifics of why they believe these things are true, but it's ultimately futile. The best you'll get is "prove that it's NOT true". Sometimes, the only thing you can do is shake your head and walk on by.
BTW, "Oswald's rifle". LOL.
-
"..regardless of whether he fired a shot." Really? Anybody that actually fired a shot, can Not then claim to be a "patsy". Let's not get carried away here.
If you believe this was a conspiracy, then there’s no way the conspirators would have relied solely on Oswald to execute the plan with an unreliable rifle and a misaligned scope. It’s clear that Oswald was set up to be the designated patsy, while Ruby was tasked with eliminating him before he could reveal the truth. This seems painfully obvious to me.
You seem to have overlooked my assertion that Oswald could not have fired any shots. However, whether he did or didn't is irrelevant to his role in a conspiracy. He was not a lone gunman; he was a patsy—regardless of whether he purchased the rifle, posed for photos with it, smuggled it into the TSBD, or fired a few shots at JFK. If this was indeed a conspiracy, he was the intended patsy, whether he was aware of it or not. Every good coup needs one. Comprende?
-
No intelligent person can seriously believe that Oswald was anything but a patsy, regardless of whether he fired a shot. It is the responsibility of the "intelligent person" to provide a valid trajectory from the TSBD into JFK's back and out through his throat.
Trojan Horse,
Do you think the sniper shot from the roof (or an upper floor) of the DalTex building to closely approximate the trajectories of "Patsy Oswald's" ostensible shots -- in particular the Z-222 - Z-224 "Magic Bullet" shot?
Do you think that the bullet or bullets he or she fired had already been fired through Oswald's short-rifle and were fired again as sabot rounds?
Or . . . do you think he or she fired ice bullets, and that the bullet fragments that were found inside the limo (and CE-399 which was found inside Parkland Hospital) were planted?
If so, how were they able to deform CE-399 in such a way that correlated so well to the non-headshot wounds to JFK and JBC?
Do you think . . . .
Aww, never mind.
-
It is the responsibility of the "intelligent person" to provide a valid trajectory from the TSBD into JFK's back and out through his throat. Until that is done, you are merely a denialist, and all your other arguments are irrelevant. You can't have it both ways, so use your limited graphic skills to demonstrate how the magic bullet trajectory could be plausible.
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/qR4XH7br/JFK-SBF-side-on-back-autopsy.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/QCV7jKc2/Spectof-single-bullet-fact.jpg)
JohnM
-
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/qR4XH7br/JFK-SBF-side-on-back-autopsy.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/QCV7jKc2/Spectof-single-bullet-fact.jpg)
JohnM
LOL. Funny that you think your graphic proves something or that it is accurate. Both those trajectories are ABOVE the shoulders, which is not where the T1 vertebrae is located. The hole in the back suggested the bullet entered at T1. The hole in the throat implied it exited at the C7 vertebrae. Even the WC conceded this. I believe they said it exited at C6, which is why they moved the back wound up higher. However, at a 17 degree declination you don't have to be an expert to know that's impossible.
Here is proof that the bullet smashed thru the T1 vertebrae and must have exited at the T1 vertebrae or lower and not at C7 (providing you believe the xray):
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/x-ray_mb.gif
Your trajectory doesn't show that because your perspective of JFK is too high to apply a 17 degree angle from that POV, and the old reenactment didn't use lasers. Consequently, both your trajectories are above the shoulders and do not show a 17 degree angle at the C6 vertebrae, where it must have been to exit at C7. That's just simple math that cannot be fudged with a bogus graphic or a flawed reenactment.
Your only hope of proving your case is to show me using a 2 laser reenactment like the following then match up the wounds and post your results.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_2lasers.png
Don't fudge like the last guy that posted his bogus results. You LNers are such cheaters!
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
JackT
-
Trojan Horse,
Do you think the sniper shot from the roof (or an upper floor) of the DalTex building to closely approximate the trajectories of "Patsy Oswald's" ostensible shots -- in particular the Z-222 - Z-224 "Magic Bullet" shot?
Do you think that the bullet or bullets he or she fired had already been fired through Oswald's short-rifle and were fired again as sabot rounds?
Or . . . do you think he or she fired ice bullets, and that the bullet fragments that were found inside the limo (and CE-399 which was found inside Parkland Hospital) were planted?
If so, how were they able to deform CE-399 in such a way that correlated so well to the non-headshot wounds to JFK and JBC?
Do you think . . . .
Aww, never mind.
I think the throat wound is a shot from the front that entered JFK's throat at C7 and smashed thru his T1 vertebrae and sent fragments out his back at T1 and lower.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_AMBT2.png
Looks like there are a few wounds back there. But I don't expect you to agree with me since you are a staunch denialist at heart. ;)
(https://i.postimg.cc/qR4XH7br/JFK-SBF-side-on-back-autopsy.jpg)
-
LOL. Funny that you think your graphic proves something or that it is accurate. Both those trajectories are ABOVE the shoulders, which is not where the T1 vertebrae is located. The hole in the back suggested the bullet entered at T1. The hole in the throat implied it exited at the C7 vertebrae. Even the WC conceded this. I believe they said it exited at C6, which is why they moved the back wound up higher. However, at a 17 degree declination you don't have to be an expert to know that's impossible.
Here is proof that the bullet smashed thru the T1 vertebrae and must have exited at the T1 vertebrae or lower and not at C7 (providing you believe the xray):
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/x-ray_mb.gif
Your trajectory doesn't show that because your perspective of JFK is too high to apply a 17 degree angle from that POV, and the old reenactment didn't use lasers. Consequently, both your trajectories are above the shoulders and do not show a 17 degree angle at the C6 vertebrae, where it must have been to exit at C7. That's just simple math that cannot be fudged with a bogus graphic or a flawed reenactment.
Your only hope of proving your case is to show me using a 2 laser reenactment like the following then match up the wounds and post your results.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_2lasers.png
Don't fudge like the last guy that posted his bogus results. You LNers are such cheaters!
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
JackT
Both those trajectories are ABOVE the shoulders...
For someone who claims to be a "photogrammetrist" you have a poor understanding of perspective and trigonometry!
The hole in the back suggested the bullet entered at T1. The hole in the throat implied it exited at the C7 vertebrae.
I don't need to guess where the underlying vertebrae are, you just have to open your eyes and see where the entry and exit holes are. Doh!
Your only hope of proving your case is to show me using a 2 laser reenactment like the following then match up the wounds and post your results.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_2lasers.png
How many time have you posted this experiment? As I have said a bazillion times before "just do it" and then we can analyse your results.
JohnM
-
I think the throat wound is a shot from the front that entered JFK's throat at C7 and smashed thru his T1 vertebrae and sent fragments out his back at T1 and lower.
I don't expect you to agree with me since you are a staunch denialist at heart.
Trojan Horse,
It is you, not I, who is a denialist.
Question: Why do you have such a deep psychological need to believe that the evil, evil, evil CIA killed JFK?
Answer: Because you've been zombified by sixty-six years (it started in 1959) of KGB* disinformation, "active measures," and mole-based "Inside Man" / "Outside Man" strategic deception counterintelligence operations waged against the CIA, the FBI, and the intelligence services of our NATO allies.
*Today's SVR and FSB