Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Bad conspiracy arguments
88 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Harris
Jul 27, 2012, 9:06:53 PM7/27/12
to
Roger Craig has been proven to be a deliberate liar. He told the Los
Angeles Free Press that he had no idea what the make of the rifle that was
found on the 6th floor was. Several years later, claimed that he saw the
barrel stamped "7.65 Mauser".
Ed Hoffman changed his story half a dozen times and Jean Hill, who
specifically stated that she did see any shooters or shots, claimed years
later in her book that she saw a muzzle flash from the grassy knoll.
Badgeman is a joke. The SBT is NOT impossible. The driver didn't shoot
anybody and not a single witness stated in 1963 and 1964 that he saw a
sniper on the grassy knoll.
Obviously, all of that proves that Oswald acted alone, right?
Well no, it is not right. Simple logic tells us that none of the bad
arguments prove anything - they are nulls, zero, nada. The simple fact is,
that you can make up a hundred goofy theories and they will change
nothing.
The ONLY thing that will bring you to a legitimate conclusion, is good
evidence and good reasoning.
If you honestly think that Oswald acted alone, then you need to be able to
defend that proposition with evidence and logic. We know two things about
the alleged murder weapon, with absolute certainty.
1. It was extremely loud, as are all high powered rifles - at street
level, roughly 16 times louder than the minimum at which involuntary
startle reactions will be provoked.
2. It takes a bare minimum of 2.25 seconds to reload and aim, although all
the FBI experts who tested it, except Frazier, required 3 or more seconds.
3. The Zapruder film is NOT silent. It speaks volumes to us about when the
people around JFK were exposed to extremely loud gunshots and when they
were not.
And the testimonies of the large majority of witnesses and particularly,
the people who we see reacting in the Zapruder film, form a perfect match
with the visible reactions and nonreactions.
If all that isn't enough, the actions and inactions by the Secret Service
are also a perfect match, as are the reactions by the crowd. Look at all
the smiling, happy faces in the Altgens photo, taken at Zapruder frame 255
after at least two shots have been fired.
The fact that most of you refuse to even discuss any of this, is a sad
testimony to your lack of concern for the truth and your allegiance to one
very wrong and corrupt agenda.
Robert Harris
Angeles Free Press that he had no idea what the make of the rifle that was
found on the 6th floor was. Several years later, claimed that he saw the
barrel stamped "7.65 Mauser".
Ed Hoffman changed his story half a dozen times and Jean Hill, who
specifically stated that she did see any shooters or shots, claimed years
later in her book that she saw a muzzle flash from the grassy knoll.
Badgeman is a joke. The SBT is NOT impossible. The driver didn't shoot
anybody and not a single witness stated in 1963 and 1964 that he saw a
sniper on the grassy knoll.
Obviously, all of that proves that Oswald acted alone, right?
Well no, it is not right. Simple logic tells us that none of the bad
arguments prove anything - they are nulls, zero, nada. The simple fact is,
that you can make up a hundred goofy theories and they will change
nothing.
The ONLY thing that will bring you to a legitimate conclusion, is good
evidence and good reasoning.
If you honestly think that Oswald acted alone, then you need to be able to
defend that proposition with evidence and logic. We know two things about
the alleged murder weapon, with absolute certainty.
1. It was extremely loud, as are all high powered rifles - at street
level, roughly 16 times louder than the minimum at which involuntary
startle reactions will be provoked.
2. It takes a bare minimum of 2.25 seconds to reload and aim, although all
the FBI experts who tested it, except Frazier, required 3 or more seconds.
3. The Zapruder film is NOT silent. It speaks volumes to us about when the
people around JFK were exposed to extremely loud gunshots and when they
were not.
And the testimonies of the large majority of witnesses and particularly,
the people who we see reacting in the Zapruder film, form a perfect match
with the visible reactions and nonreactions.
If all that isn't enough, the actions and inactions by the Secret Service
are also a perfect match, as are the reactions by the crowd. Look at all
the smiling, happy faces in the Altgens photo, taken at Zapruder frame 255
after at least two shots have been fired.
The fact that most of you refuse to even discuss any of this, is a sad
testimony to your lack of concern for the truth and your allegiance to one
very wrong and corrupt agenda.
Robert Harris
Oswald_The_Loser's_Loser
Jul 27, 2012, 11:09:24 PM7/27/12
to
The last two words---corrupt agenda
I was expecting a P.S.
If it doesn't fit you must acquit.
I was expecting a P.S.
If it doesn't fit you must acquit.
Jason Burke
Jul 28, 2012, 12:17:27 AM7/28/12
to
hear about the phantom shot at 285? Should I get the popcorn going now,
or wait a few weeks?
Anthony Marsh
Jul 28, 2012, 4:46:03 PM7/28/12
to
Gerry Simone (G)
Aug 21, 2012, 11:13:52 PM8/21/12
to
down to 3 seconds or less, but he was using iron sights and firing at a
stationary target only 25 years away.
In any event, 2.25 seconds is a minimum time, and you have to be damn
good.
Anthony Marsh
Aug 22, 2012, 9:11:13 AM8/22/12
to
Ben Holmes
Aug 22, 2012, 11:29:50 AM8/22/12
to
In article <5034747f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
It will be IMPOSSIBLE for you to cite for that claim.
Most likely, you simply haven't read carefully enough, and you think that
the topic is *any* Mannlicher Carcano, and not a specific one.
It will also be IMPOSSIBLE for you to admit that you're wrong here.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Most likely, you simply haven't read carefully enough, and you think that
the topic is *any* Mannlicher Carcano, and not a specific one.
It will also be IMPOSSIBLE for you to admit that you're wrong here.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
curtjester1
Aug 22, 2012, 11:57:14 PM8/22/12
to
gone by people's testimony of those who viewed the film and those who were
Dealey Plaza witnesses would show the film and incorrect piece of one film
sequence. Not that your theory is wrong, but what you state for other
people's wrongness should be applied to you as well. It's a little
amusing too, that if the SBT is wrong, that people hearing activity other
than the TSBD must be outlandish? What's wrong with that picture?...:)
CJ
John King
Aug 29, 2012, 1:06:00 PM8/29/12
to
In article
<bdcc1f4a-c82d-4bf4...@13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
all certain) you meant something like this:
"Yet you base your argument on the premise that the Zapruder film is
accurate, which if one goes by the testimony of those who viewed the
film, and those who were Dealey Plaza witnesses, would show the film to
be unreliable, and most especially unreliable in one particular sequence
of the film."
Is that at least somewhat close to what you meant? If it isn't, I'm at
a loss to determine what you did mean, honestly, and I would honestly be
astonished if I was the only one, CT or LN or uncommitted, who feels the
same, whether they specifically say so or not.
Thanks.
<bdcc1f4a-c82d-4bf4...@13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
curtjester1 <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Yet you base your argument only if the Zapruder film is accurate, which if
> gone by people's testimony of those who viewed the film and those who were
> Dealey Plaza witnesses would show the film and incorrect piece of one film
> sequence.
Er...could you run that sentence by us again? I *think* (but am not at
> Yet you base your argument only if the Zapruder film is accurate, which if
> gone by people's testimony of those who viewed the film and those who were
> Dealey Plaza witnesses would show the film and incorrect piece of one film
> sequence.
all certain) you meant something like this:
"Yet you base your argument on the premise that the Zapruder film is
accurate, which if one goes by the testimony of those who viewed the
film, and those who were Dealey Plaza witnesses, would show the film to
be unreliable, and most especially unreliable in one particular sequence
of the film."
Is that at least somewhat close to what you meant? If it isn't, I'm at
a loss to determine what you did mean, honestly, and I would honestly be
astonished if I was the only one, CT or LN or uncommitted, who feels the
same, whether they specifically say so or not.
Thanks.
0 new messages