Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory  (Read 21223 times)

Offline Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2769
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #64 on: December 13, 2023, 01:34:46 PM »
Advertisement
  He's still smarting from Providing his copy of the NIX FILM, which I turned around on him and used as the foundational Proof that a WHITE SHIRT MAN moved UP The Steps and disappeared into darkness. Stay On-Topic, On-Fact. Don't permit your FACTS to get buried in a degenerating Food Fight. And do Not be shy about taking your Victory Lap when he and his type get desperately to the point of flat-out misrepresentation followed by slander. This poor soul has now crossed into that territory.   
« Last Edit: December 13, 2023, 01:37:11 PM by Royell Storing »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #64 on: December 13, 2023, 01:34:46 PM »


Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4267
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #65 on: December 13, 2023, 08:10:39 PM »
This is clownish polemic. Which Zapruder frame even shows Hill touching Jackie, much less grabbing her and putting her back in her seat? Please show it to us.

It is amazing that you make such absurd claims with such adamance. Yet, you duck facts that you can't explain and decline to provide evidence when asked to do so.

So let me repeat: Show us the Zapruder frame where Hill even touches Jackie, much less grabs her and puts her back in her seat. I'm going to keep repeating this challenge until you address it.

A "massive blunder"? Hill's and Jackie's positions and locations in Z375 are virtually identical to their positions and locations in Z380.

But, yes, you are correct that my article mislabels Z375 as Z380. This occurred because I used the Z frame that Cranor uses in her article, and I incorrectly assumed that she was using Z380, since she notes that Jackie begins to retreat in Z381, when in fact I see now that she uses Z375.

I'll be happy to change the frame in my article from Z375 to Z380, since Z380 is just as devastating as Z375 in proving that the current Zapruder film demonstrably contradicts the Nix film regarding how close Hill came to Jackie and Jackie's movements.

Oh, so you're another anti-religious bigot. FYI, my faith has nothing to do with my observations about the Zapruder film. Plenty of non-religious and/or atheistic/agnostic researchers have noted that the Nix film severely contradicts the Zapruder film, that the limo never markedly slows or stops in the Zapruder film, that Brehm's son moves far too quickly, etc., etc.

You again show that your command of written English is poor, one could even say "amateurish." When you're addressing someone by name, you always, always, always put a comma before the name. You can Google this basic fact of punctuation, if you don't believe me.

Anyway, leaving aside your apparent lack of higher education, I do not merely say "slowed or stopped" or "stopped or slowed" in my article: I say "stopped or slowed down markedly for at least a second or two," "came to a full stop or slowed down markedly," and "Nothing like the stop or rapid slowdown described above appears in the current Zapruder film."

Why did you misrepresent what I said? Surely you knew there's a difference between saying "slowed down" and "slowed down markedly."

Just shaking my head. This is both comical and discrediting. Where is the "dramatic slow down" in your video??? Where is it??? This is another one of your fraudulent, deceptive productions, not to mention another prime example of your habit of severely exaggerating. There is no "dramatic slow down" in your "panorama viewing" version.

Moreover, many of the witnesses specified that they saw the limo stop or markedly slow down after they heard the first shot, well before the Z313 shot.

The only slowdown that any expert has detected in the Zapruder film is the split-second slowing of the limousine in Z295-304. Dr. Luis Alvarez detected this half-second slowdown after carefully studying the film frame by frame, and Dr. Art Snyder confirmed Alvarez's finding. When you watch the film at normal speed, this slowdown is imperceptible. Even if know about it in advance and are carefully looking for it, even then it's barely noticeable, because it's so brief. No one can seriously suggest that this imperceptible or barely noticeable half-second slowdown is the event that dozens of witnesses described as a complete stop or a marked slowdown.

And, by the way, just on a point of basic English, you can't say "panorama viewing." "Panorama" is a noun, not an adjective. You should have said "panoramic viewing," not "panorama viewing." Did you ever attend college?

Oh, gee, are we in high school or something? This is juvenile, immature polemic, the kind of stuff one would expect from a teenager.

When are you going to address all the points that I have presented to you but that you have so far ignored?

Finally, allow me to give you another lesson in basic English writing. "Btw" should be "BTW" because it's an abbreviation where each letter stands for a word, as in "FYI" and "ASAP." And "vs" should be "vs." You need a period after the s. Check the Cambridge Dictionary online, if you don't believe me.

Quote
Which Zapruder frame even shows Hill touching Jackie, much less grabbing her and putting her back in her seat? Please show it to us.

I already posted not one frame but an entire sequence, Clint Hill is on the back of a moving vehicle, with one arm Clint is holding on for dear life and he grabs Jackie with his other arm and pushes her back to her seat.



Quote
So let me repeat: Show us the Zapruder frame where Hill even touches Jackie, much less grabs her and puts her back in her seat. I'm going to keep repeating this challenge until you address it.

You can keep repeating it till the cows come home, but it won't change the visual record.



Quote
But, yes, you are correct that my article mislabels Z375 as Z380. This occurred because I used the Z frame that Cranor uses in her article, and I incorrectly assumed that she was using Z380, since she notes that Jackie begins to retreat in Z381, when in fact I see now that she uses Z375.

Thank you, but trying to blame someone else for your lack of fact checking is just par for the course for you isn't it! Man up!

Quote
I'll be happy to change the frame in my article from Z375 to Z380, since Z380 is just as devastating as Z375 in proving that the current Zapruder film demonstrably contradicts the Nix film regarding how close Hill came to Jackie and Jackie's movements.

When you were busy studying grammar in school you obviously forgot to learn about perspective and for that matter a little education on film alteration certainly would have stopped you looking like a Fool, anyway Zapruder and Nix were filming from opposite sides of Dealey Plaza.

In the following example, I chose a more unobstructed view at a point where Hill first has both feet on the rear of the Limo, the frames are Zapruder 383 and Nix 279.
Now using line of sight and a reasonably accurate positioning of Hill's and Jackie's heads (while not pixel perfect it is close enough to convey the basic concept) we can see by using perspective and the filming positions of Nix and Zapruder, why their heads are relatively touching in Nix while far apart in Zapruder.





Quote
Oh, gee, are we in high school or something? This is juvenile, immature polemic, the kind of stuff one would expect from a teenager.

Wow! English wasn't my first language or as a matter of fact not even my second, but the fact that you are reduced to pointing out insignificant grammatical errors and then using this feeble excuse as an attempt to belittle me demonstrates your laughable superiority complex. Do you feel better now you sad little man?

Quote
Oh, so you're another anti-religious bigot. FYI, my faith has nothing to do with my observations about the Zapruder film. Plenty of non-religious and/or atheistic/agnostic researchers have noted that the Nix film severely contradicts the Zapruder film, that the limo never markedly slows or stops in the Zapruder film, that Brehm's son moves far too quickly, etc., etc.

Wow times two, you have so many chips on your shoulders, "faith" isn't always associated with religion as in "his faith in the company was unfounded".
I really don't care on how you spend your Sundays but do you believe that your GOD would approve of the unwarranted attacks that you have inflicted upon me because aren't religious type people supposed to lead by example?

Quote
Did you ever attend college?

Well not for English, no. But perhaps if you focused on science, perspective, biology and physics you wouldn't be completely embarrassing yourself right now.

Quote
Finally, allow me to give you another lesson in basic English writing. "Btw" should be "BTW" because it's an abbreviation where each letter stands for a word, as in "FYI" and "ASAP."

Does it have to be capitalized? In informal, online communication, many people think of capitalization as optional. If you're using BTW in such a setting, go ahead and leave it in lowercase.
https://websitebuilders.com/how-to/glossary/btw/#:~:text=of%20our%20lexicon.-,Does%20it%20have%20to%20be%20capitalized%3F,and%20leave%20it%20in%20lowercase.

In common usage, these acronyms are rarely capitalized: omg, btw, nsfw.
https://www.writingforward.com/grammar/grammar-rules/grammar-rules-capitalization#:~:text=In%20common%20usage%2C%20these%20acronyms,%3A%20OMG%2C%20BTW%2C%20NSFW.

Anyway Griffith, thanks for the English lesson but I got each and every point across and at the end of the day language is used to communicate ideas, whereas you ended up looking like the aggressive overbearing Troll that you are, who can't win with his science, so instead uses irrelevant personal attacks.

Bye.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2023, 10:03:41 PM by John Mytton »

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4267
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #66 on: December 13, 2023, 10:23:43 PM »

Why did you misrepresent what I said? Surely you knew there's a difference between saying "slowed down" and "slowed down markedly."


Have you worked out the difference between "slow down" and "stopped"? LOL!

As I pointed out from my panoramic(thanks for the correction) stabilization, we can see the obvious dramatic slow down.



JohnM
« Last Edit: December 13, 2023, 10:31:04 PM by John Mytton »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #66 on: December 13, 2023, 10:23:43 PM »


Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 929
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #67 on: December 14, 2023, 04:55:28 PM »
I already posted not one frame but an entire sequence, Clint Hill is on the back of a moving vehicle, with one arm Clint is holding on for dear life and he grabs Jackie with his other arm and pushes her back to her seat.

You can keep repeating it till the cows come home, but it won't change the visual record.

Uh, this is long after the sequence under discussion. I was referring to the sequence before Z381, but I did not make this clear. Yes, of course, starting at Z387, we see Hill grabbing Jackie's right arm as he starts to put her back in the limo. This'll have to be one of those cases of "standing by what I meant to say." Given my wording, your response is understandable.

Thank you, but trying to blame someone else for your lack of fact checking is just par for the course for you isn't it! Man up!

Now you're just lying. I said I was the one who mistakenly assumed that Cranor was using Z380.

It says much that you are pouncing on a minor mistake that makes no substantive difference to my case, since Jackie and Hill's locations and positions in Z375 and Z380 are virtually identical.

When you were busy studying grammar in school you obviously forgot to learn about perspective and for that matter a little education on film alteration certainly would have stopped you looking like a Fool, anyway Zapruder and Nix were filming from opposite sides of Dealey Plaza.

You're lying again. I said, in plain English, that Nix and Zapruder filmed from opposite sides of the car. How did you miss that? And your own diagram shows that the Nix and Zapruder camera angles were not that different, just as I noted.

In the following example, I chose a more unobstructed view at a point where Hill first has both feet on the rear of the Limo, the frames are Zapruder 383 and Nix 279.

Now using line of sight and a reasonably accurate positioning of Hill's and Jackie's heads (while not pixel perfect it is close enough to convey the basic concept) we can see by using perspective and the filming positions of Nix and Zapruder, why their heads are relatively touching in Nix while far apart in Zapruder.

This is self-delusion. You can fiddle with graphics all you want, but anyone can plainly see that at no point before Z383 does Hill ever get close to Jackie. Your refusal to admit this is astounding. His right hand never gets near Jackie's right arm until Z387, and his head never comes close to Jackie's head, until perhaps in Z400. In Z380 his head is a good 3 feet from Jackie's head, but in the corresponding Nix frame their heads are so close they look like they could be touching.

Indeed, in the Nix film, Hill gets very close to Jackie before she starts to move backward, and, as I've noted previously, Jackie is much lower and closer to the trunk than she ever gets in the corresponding Z-film sequence. In fact, even in Z385, her right arm is not as parallel to the trunk and her body is not as close to the trunk as it is in the corresponding Nix sequence.

If you say that you just don't see these things, then I say that you're either lying or your eyesight is bad.

Wow! English wasn't my first language or as a matter of fact not even my second, but the fact that you are reduced to pointing out insignificant grammatical errors and then using this feeble excuse as an attempt to belittle me demonstrates your laughable superiority complex. Do you feel better now you sad little man?

Boo-hoo. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. From your first reply to me onward, your responses have been laced with insults, insinuations, and sarcasm, accusing me of being an "amateur," giving me 0 on your delusional scorecard and giving yourself 5, etc. If you're gonna engage in such posturing, don't whine when I point out your writing errors and apparent lack of education.

Wow times two, you have so many chips on your shoulders, "faith" isn't always associated with religion as in "his faith in the company was unfounded".
I really don't care on how you spend your Sundays but do you believe that your GOD would approve of the unwarranted attacks that you have inflicted upon me because aren't religious type people supposed to lead by example?

If you don't want to be called out for being an anti-religious bigot, then don't act like one--don't imply that my views on the JFK case are somehow based on my religious beliefs, which you clearly did.

Well not for English, no. But perhaps if you focused on science, perspective, biology and physics you wouldn't be completely embarrassing yourself right now.

Does it have to be capitalized? In informal, online communication, many people think of capitalization as optional. If you're using BTW in such a setting, go ahead and leave it in lowercase.
https://websitebuilders.com/how-to/glossary/btw/#:~:text=of%20our%20lexicon.-,Does%20it%20have%20to%20be%20capitalized%3F,and%20leave%20it%20in%20lowercase.

In common usage, these acronyms are rarely capitalized: omg, btw, nsfw.
https://www.writingforward.com/grammar/grammar-rules/grammar-rules-capitalization#:~:text=In%20common%20usage%2C%20these%20acronyms,%3A%20OMG%2C%20BTW%2C%20NSFW.

"Common usage"? "Many people think of capitalization as optional." Yes, and many people are poorly educated and look for excuses for their poor writing. How long did you have to search to find two websites that would say that in "common usage" capitalization is "optional"?

Anyway Griffith, thanks for the English lesson but I got each and every point across and at the end of the day language is used to communicate ideas, whereas you ended up looking like the aggressive overbearing Troll that you are, who can't win with his science, so instead uses irrelevant personal attacks.

Again, Crybaby, if you can't take it, don't dish it out. If you don't want your poor writing skills and education called out, stop acting like a jerk and stop posturing like anyone who disagrees with you knows nothing about "science, perspective, biology and physics."

And, BTW, I'd put my knowledge of those subjects up against yours any day.

Bye.

Bye, bye.



« Last Edit: December 14, 2023, 05:00:27 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 929
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #68 on: December 14, 2023, 05:50:00 PM »
What an obnoxious xxxxx.

Jerry, no one asked you to describe yourself, but thanks for sharing. You left out that you're an anti-religious bigot.

You are perhaps the biggest xxxxx and annoying propagandist ever to post on this board. I can't count how many times I've caught you posting utterly bogus graphics and showing a comical lack of knowledge, not to mention bald-faced lying, such as when you claimed that James DiEugenio resoundingly bested me on the Vietnam War in our exchanges in the Education Forum, when anyone can read our exchanges and see that I trounced DiEugenio and that he knows very little about the war.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #68 on: December 14, 2023, 05:50:00 PM »


Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4267
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #69 on: December 14, 2023, 10:15:14 PM »
Uh, this is long after the sequence under discussion. I was referring to the sequence before Z381, but I did not make this clear. Yes, of course, starting at Z387, we see Hill grabbing Jackie's right arm as he starts to put her back in the limo. This'll have to be one of those cases of "standing by what I meant to say." Given my wording, your response is understandable.

Now you're just lying. I said I was the one who mistakenly assumed that Cranor was using Z380.

It says much that you are pouncing on a minor mistake that makes no substantive difference to my case, since Jackie and Hill's locations and positions in Z375 and Z380 are virtually identical.

You're lying again. I said, in plain English, that Nix and Zapruder filmed from opposite sides of the car. How did you miss that? And your own diagram shows that the Nix and Zapruder camera angles were not that different, just as I noted.

This is self-delusion. You can fiddle with graphics all you want, but anyone can plainly see that at no point before Z383 does Hill ever get close to Jackie. Your refusal to admit this is astounding. His right hand never gets near Jackie's right arm until Z387, and his head never comes close to Jackie's head, until perhaps in Z400. In Z380 his head is a good 3 feet from Jackie's head, but in the corresponding Nix frame their heads are so close they look like they could be touching.

Indeed, in the Nix film, Hill gets very close to Jackie before she starts to move backward, and, as I've noted previously, Jackie is much lower and closer to the trunk than she ever gets in the corresponding Z-film sequence. In fact, even in Z385, her right arm is not as parallel to the trunk and her body is not as close to the trunk as it is in the corresponding Nix sequence.

If you say that you just don't see these things, then I say that you're either lying or your eyesight is bad.

Boo-hoo. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. From your first reply to me onward, your responses have been laced with insults, insinuations, and sarcasm, accusing me of being an "amateur," giving me 0 on your delusional scorecard and giving yourself 5, etc. If you're gonna engage in such posturing, don't whine when I point out your writing errors and apparent lack of education.

If you don't want to be called out for being an anti-religious bigot, then don't act like one--don't imply that my views on the JFK case are somehow based on my religious beliefs, which you clearly did.

"Common usage"? "Many people think of capitalization as optional." Yes, and many people are poorly educated and look for excuses for their poor writing. How long did you have to search to find two websites that would say that in "common usage" capitalization is "optional"?

Again, Crybaby, if you can't take it, don't dish it out. If you don't want your poor writing skills and education called out, stop acting like a jerk and stop posturing like anyone who disagrees with you knows nothing about "science, perspective, biology and physics."

And, BTW, I'd put my knowledge of those subjects up against yours any day.

Bye, bye.

Quote
Uh, this is long after the sequence under discussion. I was referring to the sequence before Z381, but I did not make this clear. Yes, of course, starting at Z387, we see Hill grabbing Jackie's right arm as he starts to put her back in the limo. This'll have to be one of those cases of "standing by what I meant to say." Given my wording, your response is understandable.

You still haven't clarified at which point in Zapruder you mean?
You originally quoted the last part of the following response from Hill "She turned toward me and I grabbed her and put her back in the seat. . . . (2 H 139)" where Hill describes Jackie climbing on to the trunk and then he grabs her arm and puts her back in the seat, and the video I posted was after Jackie was climbing on to the back of the trunk and Hill grabs her arm and puts her back in the seat.

Representative BOGGS. This was the first shot?
Mr. HILL. This is the first sound that I heard; yes, sir. I jumped from the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the Presidential limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound, which was different than the first sound. I think I described it in my statement as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object--it seemed to have some type of an echo. I put my right foot, I believe it was, on the left rear step of the automobile, and I had a hold of the handgrip with my hand, when the car lurched forward. I lost my footing and I had to run about three or four more steps before I could get back up in the car.
Between the time I originally grabbed the handhold and until I was up on the car, Mrs. Kennedy--the second noise that I heard had removed a portion of the President's head, and he had slumped noticeably to his left. Mrs. Kennedy had jumped up from the seat and was, it appeared to me, reaching for something coming off the right rear bumper of the car, the right rear tail, when she noticed that I was trying to climb on the car. She turned toward me and I grabbed her and put her back in the back seat, crawled up on top of the back seat and lay there.




Quote
You're lying again. I said, in plain English, that Nix and Zapruder filmed from opposite sides of the car. How did you miss that? And your own diagram shows that the Nix and Zapruder camera angles were not that different, just as I noted.

What? Yes it's obvious to even "Blind Freddy" that Nix and Zapruder filmed from the opposite sides of the Limo, but how do you conclude that "the Nix and Zapruder camera angles were not that different"??

My diagram which is as I said not pixel perfect but is simply illustrating that while Hill's and Jackie's heads are nearly touching in Nix the reason they are far apart in Zapruder is caused by the change in perspective. I'll admit at first, well for a second or two, these images are counter-intuitive and even had me scratching my head but after thinking it through, the answer is undeniable. Sometimes it's best just to analyse the evidence as it stands and figure out any perceived anomalies rather than knee jerking that it must be fake!





Quote
This is self-delusion. You can fiddle with graphics all you want, but anyone can plainly see that at no point before Z383 does Hill ever get close to Jackie. Your refusal to admit this is astounding. His right hand never gets near Jackie's right arm until Z387, and his head never comes close to Jackie's head, until perhaps in Z400. In Z380 his head is a good 3 feet from Jackie's head, but in the corresponding Nix frame their heads are so close they look like they could be touching.

Indeed, in the Nix film, Hill gets very close to Jackie before she starts to move backward, and, as I've noted previously, Jackie is much lower and closer to the trunk than she ever gets in the corresponding Z-film sequence. In fact, even in Z385, her right arm is not as parallel to the trunk and her body is not as close to the trunk as it is in the corresponding Nix sequence.

If you say that you just don't see these things, then I say that you're either lying or your eyesight is bad.

I didn't fiddle with anything, I just presented the appropriate frames, WYSIWYG! and Hill's testimony makes the timing clear, I don't understand why you have a problem. And as for Jackie's height and body part orientation in relation to the trunk, there is nothing unusual? Don't forget that Dealey Plaza slopes down and Nix was filming from higher position, hence why their heads are relatively touching.

Quote
Boo-hoo. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. From your first reply to me onward, your responses have been laced with insults, insinuations, and sarcasm, accusing me of being an "amateur," giving me 0 on your delusional scorecard and giving yourself 5, etc. If you're gonna engage in such posturing, don't whine when I point out your writing errors and apparent lack of education.

Oh, I see it's tit for tat, fair enough!

But anyway, in regards to my grammar, spelling, etc, I'm in good company. ;D

6. Albert Einstein
In Einstein's defense, English was his second language. It's therefore easy to understand why spelling and grammatical errors in his works were a constant source of frustration to the physicist. "I cannot write in English," he said, "because of the treacherous spelling."
https://theweek.com/articles/462824/11-historical-figures-who-really-bad-spelling

Albert Einstein, the most influential physicist of the 20th century, was dyslexic. He loved mathematics and science, but he disliked grammar and always had problems with spelling.
https://www.commlearn.com/famous-dyslexics-who-have-impacted-the-world/#:~:text=Albert%20Einstein%2C%20the%20most%20influential,always%20had%20problems%20with%20spelling.

3. Albert hated the strict discipline of the grammar school he attended as a teenager, and left aged 15…
While at school, he excelled at maths, physics, and philosophy, but struggled with other subjects like languages.
https://www.natgeokids.com/au/discover/science/general-science/albert-einstein-facts/

Would anyone be surprised that at the age of fifty-five he did not reach the same high level in English as he did in his mother tongue, and had, another decade later, to admit that he “cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling?”
http://www.albert-einstein.org/article_handicap.html


Quote
If you don't want to be called out for being an anti-religious bigot, then don't act like one--don't imply that my views on the JFK case are somehow based on my religious beliefs, which you clearly did.

Stop being so paranoid, I didn't have a clue what your religion is and I frankly don't care which god/devil you worship, that's your own business.
But your "faith" in a so far mysterious, unknown and unexplained conspiracy is what I find to be abhorrent! No Biggie!

Quote
"Common usage"? "Many people think of capitalization as optional." Yes, and many people are poorly educated and look for excuses for their poor writing. How long did you have to search to find two websites that would say that in "common usage" capitalization is "optional"?

They were literally the first Google responses to "Btw need to be capitals"

Quote
And, BTW, I'd put my knowledge of those subjects up against yours any day.

Huh? Not any day, today, we are putting our knowledge up against each other?

JohnM

Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 929
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #70 on: December 14, 2023, 10:51:39 PM »
Yeah, I don't think too much of the silly Mormon "religion", which only renounced their racist founding principals a decade ago. It's one thing being born into something so stupid but you choose to join it.

Wow. Okay. I think you proved my point.

And, oh, BTW, the term is "founding principles," not "founding principals." English 101.

I said you suffered beatings on the other board and posted these examples from the Vietnam topic.

    "You really do ally yourself with the LeMay camp.  You really wanted
      an all out WW2 style war in Vietnam.  In other words, if you have to
      do a Dresden type bombing of Hanoi, fine.  If you want to firebomb
      Haiphong, fine.    If you want to invade Laos and Cambodia fine."
               -- James DiEugenio

    "This is not new. Revise all you like, but it won't work. Quoting self-
     interested parties decades after the fact blaming our debacle on the
     "anti-war" crowd or Congressional Democrats is incredibly weak sauce."
               -- Paul Jolliffe

    "Don't you understand anything about Vietnam Mike?"
               -- James DiEugenio

    "This VW loss was due to left-wing media? Some newspaper headlines
     and a CBS special? This does not hold water.
               -- Benjamin Cole

    "It's just something that a tiny percentage of pretend "conservatives"
     cling to so they can delude themselves into thinking they are "real men"
     and that only "pussy Democrats" lose wars. It's total garbage, and
     indicative of the bubble some wish to hide in."
               -- Pat Speer

    "Michael's Operation Linebacker argument is straight out of Craig
     Roberts' pro-conspiracy Kill Zone book from '94. I'm assuming you've
     read that one, Michael, am I right? If so, would you say he's right about
     everything right up to when he starts pushing Rothschild conspiracies in
     chapter 19... or do you think he's onto something with that too?"
               -- James Wilkinson

    "You've lost the debate if you refuse to engage with our counterarguments
     and instead simply continue defaulting to repeating summaries of Vietnam's
     post-war human rights violations, like a chatbot with a limited script. You're also
     ignoring direct questions about whether you've read Kill Zone and subscribe to
     his Rothschild conspiracy theories."
               -- James Wilkinson

    "Michael either doesn’t understand basic critical thinking, or he does and uses
     logical fallacies knowingly. Basically it’s straw man."
               -- Paul Brancato

Can't see where I said who won the debate.

Wow, what a liar you are. What do you think people will think about you if they go read those comments in the context of my posts that they were answering and my responses to their comments? They will see what a royal liar you are. They will see how dishonestly you selected those quotes. They will see that every person you quoted knows next to nothing about the Vietnam War, that their comments were uninformed and erroneous, and that I soundly refuted their arguments.

If anyone doubts this, here are the threads from which Jerry has so dishonestly cherry-picked his handful of comments:

Top 5 Books on JFK & Vietnam
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28983-top-5-books-on-jfk-vietnam/

Oliver Stone's New Documentary and the Vietnam War
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28074-oliver-stones-new-jfk-documentaries-and-the-vietnam-war/

The Myth that JFK Was Killed Over the Vietnam War
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29640-the-myth-that-jfk-was-killed-over-the-vietnam-war/

The Kennedy Withdrawal: The Definitive New Book on JFK and Vietnam
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28669-the-kennedy-withdrawal-the-definitive-new-book-on-jfk-and-vietnam/
« Last Edit: December 15, 2023, 10:02:53 AM by Michael T. Griffith »

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4267
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #71 on: December 15, 2023, 12:31:09 AM »
Wow. Okay. I think you proved my point.

And, oh, BTW, the term is "founding principles," not "founding principals." English 101.

Wow, what a liar you are. What do you think people will think about you if they go read those comments in the context of my posts that they were answering and my responses to their comments? They will see what a royal liar you are. They will see how dishonestly you selected those quotes. They will see that every person you quoted knows next to nothing about the Vietnam War, that their comments were uninformed and erroneous, and that I soundly refuted their arguments.

If anyone doubts this, here are the threads from which Jerry has so dishonestly cherry-picked his handful of comments:

Top 5 Books on JFK & Vietnam
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28983-top-5-books-on-jfk-vietnam/

Oliver Stone's New Documentary and the Vietnam War
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28074-oliver-stones-new-jfk-documentaries-and-the-vietnam-war/

The Myth that JFK Was Killed Over the Vietnam War
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29640-the-myth-that-jfk-was-killed-over-the-vietnam-war/

Quote
Wow. Okay. I think you proved my point.
And, oh, BTW, the term is "founding principles," not "founding principals." English 101.

I learn something everyday, are you a Mormon, aren't they the guys who believe and base their religion on Joseph Smith who found the Golden Plates somewhere in America? Hmmm very interesting?!
I've met a lot of Mormon's and the ones who I didn't slam the door in their face, seemed to be committed to doing good and in my "Book of JohnM" I consider that to be an admirable trait!


Quote
Wow, what a liar you are.  ....

Jerry can respond for himself but I don't see where he took a side, he simply said you took a beating and from those examples you certainly did. He never said or implied that you won or lost the debate.
Btw, I like how DiEugenio started calling you "Mike" you must have really gotten under his skin, like how he changed "David" Von Pein to "Davey"! Hahaha! DiEugenio is such a Big Baby!

To argue America's participation in the Vietnam war and what JFK would have done, in the biased environment of the rabid Ed Forum takes some Balls, what sort of reaction did you expect?

Re: the Vietnam War, My personal layman's opinion is, we can never truly know what would have happened if JFK stayed alive, but personally I believe that JFK would have done much the same as LBJ because of Kennedy's outspoken belief in the "Domino Theory"

JohnM

« Last Edit: December 15, 2023, 12:34:03 AM by John Mytton »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #71 on: December 15, 2023, 12:31:09 AM »