Can we debunk the JFK 100?
LT
the JFK assassination. In my opinion, it was carried out by the
American military-intelligence community because of his foreign policy
and his dissent from the agenda of the power elite.
I am wondering about a website called "The JFK 100" (Here:
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html) that claims to expose 100
errors in the movie JFK. I have read some of it and it is compelling,
but I don't buy it. This guy has links to John McAdams, who has been
exposed time and time again as a spook.
Perhaps some more trained researchers here can debunk this point-by-
point?
Thanks
curtjester1
You can do it, and it will be more satisfying if you do it yourself.
This will keep you busy for awhile:)
Farewell America by James Hepburn
http://www.jfk-online.com/farewell00.html
Radical Right and the Murder of JFK
Great Zapruder Film Hoax
http://64.233.169.132/searchq=cache:9zOZmUg0wm8J:www.assassinationresearch.com/v3n2/v3n2dellarosa.pdf+view+from+zapruders+pedestal&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Presumed Guilty by Howard Roffman
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/
The Taking Of America Richard E. Sprague
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/
ONLINE SITES and ARTICLES
The Fourth Decade articles
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/docset/getList.do?docSetId=1115
Michael T. Griffith (Compelling Evidence author) artilces
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/griffith/Griffithbio.html
Harvey and Lee (online site with articles and symposiums) by John
Armstrong
http://home.wi.rr.com/harveyandlee/
Fair Play Issues, Byrds, Planes, and an Automobile
http://spot.acorn.net/JFKplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/fp.html
Lee Harvey Oswald and the Sports Drome Rifle Range by Reitzes, Burr,
and Banks
http://www.jfk-online.com/oswaldrifle.html
JFK Murder Solved (Wim Dankbaar)
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/index1.htm
Tom Rossely Video Collection ( 9 Episodes of TMWKK = 100's more)
http://whokilledjfk.net/videopg.htm
Tom Rossely Site - Who Killed Kennedy - Also On Live Paltalk every
evening - JFK Case InToto
CJ
David Von Pein
>>> "Can we debunk the JFK 100?" <<<
How does one go about the daunting task of debunking the truth?
Gary Combs
Government and Politics Who Killed Kennedy
gc
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:351977d6-2acb-4b69...@k41g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Gary Combs
And which "truth" is that. Surely you, yes, even you, knows the house of
truth has many mansions.
gc
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:97051e2e-c8fb-4737...@q9g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
muc...@gmail.com
> On Dec 2, 9:51 pm, LT <shadowlu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello. My name is Simon and I'm new to this group. I am interested in
> > the JFK assassination. In my opinion, it was carried out by the
> > American military-intelligence community because of his foreign policy
> > and his dissent from the agenda of the power elite.
>
> > I am wondering about a website called "The JFK 100" (Here:http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html) that claims to expose 100
> > errors in the movie JFK. I have read some of it and it is compelling,
> > but I don't buy it. This guy has links to John McAdams, who has been
> > exposed time and time again as a spook.
>
> > Perhaps some more trained researchers here can debunk this point-by-
> > point?
>
> > Thanks
>
> You can do it, and it will be more satisfying if you do it yourself.
> This will keep you busy for awhile:)
Quit teasing the poor guy. Stone himself has described the movie as a
(counter) myth, so it's pretty disingenuous of you to pretend that it
is historically accurate.
> Farewell America by James Hepburn
>
> http://www.jfk-online.com/farewell00.html
>
> Radical Right and the Murder of JFK
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=uCM7qCjyhnkC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=Kir...
>
> Great Zapruder Film Hoaxhttp://64.233.169.132/searchq=cache:9zOZmUg0wm8J:www.assassinationres...
>
> Presumed Guilty by Howard Roffman
>
> http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/
>
> The Taking Of America Richard E. Sprague
>
> http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/
>
> ONLINE SITES and ARTICLES
>
> The Fourth Decade articles
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/docset/getList.do?docSetId=...
bigdog
Only 100. Oliver Stone's movie was a fictionalized version of an
historic event. There is nothing in the movie worthwhile because it is
just a series of one distortion after another.
Here is just one glaring example of the liberties Stone took with the
facts. The scene where Garrison (Costner) and his assistant are in the
sniper's nest with the rifle. The assistant tells Garrison to time him
while he dry fires the weapon three time. Garrison tells him it is
over 7 seconds. If you time it yourself with a stopwatch, it actually
takes less than 6 seconds. Then the assistant tells Costner the Warren
Commision concluded Oswald fired the shots in 5.6 seconds (a lie) and
in the next breath says they claimed Oswald missed with his first shot
(another lie). The WC did not conclude that although that is almost
certainly the case. The truth is the WC concluded Oswald fired 3
shots, hitting JFK twice and the two shots which struck JFK were
between 4.8 and 5.6 seconds apart. They came to no conclusion as to
which shot missed. By claiming the 3 shots were all fired in 5.6
seconds or less, they are attacking the second shot miss scenario,
then turn around and argue against the likelihood of a first shot
miss. They are combining two mutally exlusive scenarios as if they are
the one and only conclusion of the WC. You can make an argument
against 3 shots in 5.6 seconds or you can argue against a first shot
miss, but to do both is dishonest, but dishonesty is the hallmark of
Oliver Stone's work.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Dec 2, 9:51 pm, LT <shadowlu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello. My name is Simon and I'm new to this group. I am interested in
> > the JFK assassination. In my opinion, it was carried out by the
> > American military-intelligence community because of his foreign policy
> > and his dissent from the agenda of the power elite.
>
> > I am wondering about a website called "The JFK 100" (Here:http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html) that claims to expose 100
> > errors in the movie JFK. I have read some of it and it is compelling,
> > but I don't buy it. This guy has links to John McAdams, who has been
> > exposed time and time again as a spook.
>
> > Perhaps some more trained researchers here can debunk this point-by-
> > point?
>
> > Thanks
>
> Only 100. Oliver Stone's movie was a fictionalized version of an
> historic event. There is nothing in the movie worthwhile because it is
> just a series of one distortion after another.
>
> Here is just one glaring example of the liberties Stone took with the
> facts. The scene where Garrison (Costner) and his assistant are in the
> sniper's nest with the rifle. The assistant tells Garrison to time him
> while he dry fires the weapon three time. Garrison tells him it is
> over 7 seconds. If you time it yourself with a stopwatch, it actually
> takes less than 6 seconds.
I love idiots like "bigdog" for bringing up this same lame point up
year after year! Their pee doctor did the same thing as if cycling
through three times while aiming at a wall is the SAME as shooting
through a huge tree with wind and sever angles at a MOVING CAR!
Don't you love "fair comparisons?"
> Then the assistant tells Costner the Warren
> Commision concluded Oswald fired the shots in 5.6 seconds (a lie)
Don't you love how morons like "bigdog" who claim to support the WC's
take on events doesn't even KNOW what they claimed in the first
place? All one has to do is go to the WCR on page 115 and read the
following:
"Another factor arguing against the second shot missing is that the
gunman would have been shooting at the very near minimum allowable
time to have fired the three shots WITHIN 4.8 TO 5.6 SECONDS, although
it was entirely POSSIBLE for him to have done so." (Emphasis mine)
So much for Stone lying, huh? IT looks like the liar is "bigdog"
himself!
> and
> in the next breath says they claimed Oswald missed with his first shot
> (another lie).
We just saw above how they themselves, the WC, agrued against the
second shot missing, and we know the third could NOT have as they
claim this was the headshot, thus the first one is the only left.
Revisionist WC apologists are the ones claiming the second one missed,
NOT the WC.
> The WC did not conclude that although that is almost
> certainly the case. The truth is the WC concluded Oswald fired 3
> shots, hitting JFK twice and the two shots which struck JFK were
> between 4.8 and 5.6 seconds apart.
They said the whole shooting sequence took between 4.8 to 5.6 seconds,
so anyway you slice it this is the WHOLE time allotted for the
shooting. What is your point here? I like how liars like DVP have
made it over 8 seconds now as well.
> They came to no conclusion as to
> which shot missed.
Another lie, they had to based on the injury suffered by James Tague,
they said initially all three hit but once he came forward they had to
say one missed. They proved this by making up the SBT in the first
place as they showed only two hit the two men. Boy, you really need
to learn this case.
>By claiming the 3 shots were all fired in 5.6
> seconds or less, they are attacking the second shot miss scenario,
> then turn around and argue against the likelihood of a first shot
> miss.
I think they were clear in saying the WC claimed the first shot
missed.
> They are combining two mutally exlusive scenarios as if they are
> the one and only conclusion of the WC.
There was ONLY one conclusion by the WC, and that was the SBT for one
bullet, one for the head, and one missed and hit Tague.
> You can make an argument
> against 3 shots in 5.6 seconds or you can argue against a first shot
> miss, but to do both is dishonest, but dishonesty is the hallmark of
> Oliver Stone's work.
How is this dishonest? It was acknowledged by the WC that ONLY 2
shots hit, so 1 had to miss? You are a liar and make NO sense
whatsoever!
muc...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm nominating Robbie the Boy Wonder (aka Robocrap) for the Clueless
Asshole of the Year Award.
bigdog
wrote:
Chico, you're just too easy. There's no sport in it when the fish
jumps into the boat.
>
> I love idiots like "bigdog" for bringing up this same lame point up
> year after year! Their pee doctor did the same thing as if cycling
> through three times while aiming at a wall is the SAME as shooting
> through a huge tree with wind and sever angles at a MOVING CAR!
>
> Don't you love "fair comparisons?"
>
I wasn't the on making the comparison. Stone was trying to demonstrate
that the MC rifle could not be fired in 5.6 seconds and in the
process, he proved that it could. In HIS demonstration, the rifle was
cycled 3 times within the time allotted by the WC, even though Stone
claimed it was over 7 seconds.
> > Then the assistant tells Costner the Warren
> > Commision concluded Oswald fired the shots in 5.6 seconds (a lie)
>
> Don't you love how morons like "bigdog" who claim to support the WC's
> take on events doesn't even KNOW what they claimed in the first
> place? All one has to do is go to the WCR on page 115 and read the
> following:
>
> "Another factor arguing against the second shot missing is that the
> gunman would have been shooting at the very near minimum allowable
> time to have fired the three shots WITHIN 4.8 TO 5.6 SECONDS, although
> it was entirely POSSIBLE for him to have done so." (Emphasis mine)
>
> So much for Stone lying, huh? IT looks like the liar is "bigdog"
> himself!
>
Way to take the passage out of context. The Warren Commision believed
there was a missed shot but the conflicting testimony made it
impossible to determine for certain which shot missed. To demonstrate
this, they presented pro and con evidence for the missed shot being
the first, second, or third. Maybe you should have read through to
page 117 where they state their final word on the question of which
shot missed:
"The wide range of possibilities and the existence of conflicting
testimony, when coupled with the impossibility of scientific
verification, precludes a conclusive finding by the Commission as to
which shot missed."
One of Stone's lies, presented by the actors, was claiming the WC
concluded the first shot missed which the above passage clearly
indicates they did not. The merely said it was a possibility. The
other lie in this episode was in claiming all three shots WERE fired
in 5.6 seconds or less. Again, they simply concluded it was possible,
but that was not a conclusion.
Yes that is exactky what Stone's actor said and that is a lie. The WC
did NOT conclude a first shot miss. See above passage.
> > They are combining two mutally exlusive scenarios as if they are
> > the one and only conclusion of the WC.
>
> There was ONLY one conclusion by the WC, and that was the SBT for one
> bullet, one for the head, and one missed and hit Tague.
>
Actually, the WC argued that the SBT was a probability. That is one
point I would disagree on. It is a certainty.
> > You can make an argument
> > against 3 shots in 5.6 seconds or you can argue against a first shot
> > miss, but to do both is dishonest, but dishonesty is the hallmark of
> > Oliver Stone's work.
>
> How is this dishonest? It was acknowledged by the WC that ONLY 2
> shots hit, so 1 had to miss? You are a liar and make NO sense
> whatsoever!- Hide quoted text -
>
Try to follow along, Chico. A first shot miss and a 5.6 second time
frame for the three shots are mutally exclusive. If one is true, the
other has to be false. The WC never committed to either scenario and
Stone claimed they concluded both. That is one of just many deceptions
which Stone sold to the American public. The movie JFK was a totally
dishonest work yet millions of Americans who haven't taken the time to
learn the truth were taken in by it.
Now who's the fucking idiot?
bigdog
>
> I'm nominating Robbie the Boy Wonder (aka Robocrap) for the Clueless
> Asshole of the Year Award.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I second the motion.
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, unlike the LNT'er, we train people to understand the case and
not merely parrot what somebody has told them. Of course, 'JFK' is
only a mild case of conspiracy for what we know further today.
CJ
bigdog
You fucking assholes don't understand shit about the JFK
assassination. Talk about your fucking parrots. Not one of you is
capable of thinking for himself. You brain-dead zombies just repeat
the lies that have been fed to you for over four decades by the
conspiracy authors who have taken you hook, line, and sinker. If any
of you were capable of thinking for yourselves, one of you could have
taken all the bullshit you've been fed and at least try to piece it
together into a plausible scenario. But none of you have ever done
that because that would actually require some thought, something you
are incapable of. You take simple, straight forward evidence and weave
the most ridiculous conclusions because that is what you have been
told to believe.
I believe the Warren Commisions conclusion for one simple reason. It
is the only conclusion that is possible for someone who is
knowledgeable about the evidence and has a brain in their head. Only
the stupidest fucks who are incapable of grasping the obvious could
come to any other conclusion. That perfectly describes you.
LT
Kind of like how you debunkers buy everything fed to you by John
McAdams and Vincent Bugliosi?
> If any of you were capable of thinking for yourselves, one of you could have
> taken all the bullshit you've been fed and at least try to piece it
> together into a plausible scenario.
The evidence stands for itself. Just because one isn't able to create
a precise scenario means nothing. The evidence points to
'Conspiracy'.
> I believe the Warren Commisions conclusion for one simple reason. It
> is the only conclusion that is possible for someone who is
> knowledgeable about the evidence and has a brain in their head. Only
> the stupidest fucks who are incapable of grasping the obvious could
> come to any other conclusion. That perfectly describes you.
Yeah, the Warren Commission.. Let's take a look at that, shall we?
Earl Warren: 33rd Degree Mason and friend of ADL frontman Drew
Pearson
Allen Dulles: Nazi/CFR/Bilderberg-linked former CIA director who was
fired by Kennedy
John McCloy: Nazi-linked CFR Chairman and Rockefeller/Ford associate,
member of the Committee of 300
Gerald Ford: 33rd Degree Freemason and CFR/Bilderberg member.
Let's also look at some Warren Commission claims..
A couple of examples:
CLAIM: Oswald acted alone.
FACT: 35 known witnesses stated that shots were fired from the picket
fence area (Grassy Knoll), indicating the presence of a second
shooter. Jack Ruby said that people in very high positions had 'so
much to gain' and 'would never let the true facts come out'. E. Howard
Hunt confessed to being involved.
CLAIM: One bullet caused all of the non-fatal wounds in both Kennedy
and Connally.
FACT: Besides damage to the base (Which is typical), there is no
visible damage to the bullet in question. There is no blood on this
bullet either. Cyril Wecht's presentation of bullets that the Warren
Commission test-fired shows that the condition of "The Single Bullet"
is impossible if the official version is true.
bigdog, go watch "JFK II" and start fighting on the right side.
David Von Pein
>>> "Go watch "JFK II" and start fighting on the right side." <<<
LOL. Lovely suggestion there, Mr. Kook!
Yeah, "JFK II" is certainly the place to go alright, if you're
searching for the "right side" and the "truth" about the JFK
assassination, huh?
"JFK II", by the way, is the same hunk-of-shit program that says there
were THIRTEEN (13!!) shots fired in Dealey Plaza. Yes...a full Baker's
Dozen were fired.
But, incredibly, TEN of those 13 shots fell on deaf ears to every
single witness in the Plaza.
Does any CT-Kook REALLY believe that 13 shots were fired? And do they
think they could dredge up even ONE single witness who claimed to have
heard 13 shots?
Heck, the kooks only have one witness (A.J. Millican) who claims to
have heard more than 7. He said that 8 were fired. I wonder how even
Millican managed to miss the other FIVE that were fired?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/millican.htm
I guess ten of the shots must have been of the "silenced" variety,
huh? But that should still make the "JFK II"-backing kooks of the
world wonder why the acoustics people for the HSCA were only
comfortable with saying that FOUR shots had been fired. (And from what
I understand, even silenced gunshots would have shown up as "impulses"
on the acoustics "fingerprint" offered up by the HSCA investigators.)
And even Bob Groden claims that there were only seven "impulses" on
the Dictabelt recording that he thinks were probably gunshots, which
is a far cry from the 13 purported in the piece-of-total-shit
documentary known as "JFK II".
Replay --- LOL.
===============================================
REVIEW OF "JFK II: THE BUSH CONNECTION" -- TOTAL RUBBISH:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d5a5eeae1e135fd1
===============================================
David Von Pein
DVP REVIEW................
"JFK II -- THE BUSH CONNECTION":
ABSOLUTE JUNK!
PURE TRASH!
UTTERLY SICKENING!
-----------------------------------------------------
The documentary program "JFK II" is, to put it bluntly, a piece of
worthless garbage.
It is more of the same unsupportable and unsupported-by-the-facts
conspiracist-created crappola. It takes some monster-sized gonads to
place on the open market a piece of trash like this. Amazing guts
indeed, to spout such completely-unprovable conspiratorial nonsense.
And just think, somebody's actually making MONEY off of this
conjecture. Unbelievable.
"JFK II" -- dramatically subtitled "The Bush Connection" -- postulates
that former President George H.W. Bush (the 41st U.S. Chief Executive
from 1989-1993) was directly involved in the "plot" to assassinate
President John F. Kennedy in November of 1963.
George Bush (both of them) probably should sue somebody for slander as
a result of the drivel spouted within this disgusting program.
I'm guessing that the conspiracy theorists who have the gall to
produce
programs like "JFK II" must quite literally be running out of
"suspects" to point an accusing finger at with regard to the
assassination of JFK -- so it's time to start implicating every
politician who was over 19 years of age at the time of Kennedy's
murder
on November 22nd, 1963. (Mr. Bush Sr. was 39, by the way, when JFK was
cut down by Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas.)
I wonder if former President Bill Clinton will be the next one on the
"He Had Kennedy Killed!" list of assassination candidates? After all,
Mr. Clinton DID once meet JFK and shook hands with him. That single
handshake probably makes Clinton a potential conspirator too. Kennedy
probably grabbed Bill's hand a little too tightly, forcing Clinton
into
a "He Must Die!" rage, resulting in a "plot" to do away with the 35th
President. (Makes about as much sense as the junk purported by any of
the other two thousand "Kennedy Conspiracy" plots, including this "JFK
II" balderdash.)
The front of this DVD boasts this repulsive and unsupported sentiment
--- "A throrough, documented, criminal indictment of George Herbert
Walker Bush, establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, his guilt as a
supervisor in the conspiracy to assassinate John Kennedy".*
* = The word "conspiracy" is misspelled as "conspiracty" on the DVD's
label. Plus, it appears the name "Kennedy" is not properly
capitalized.
Typical childish errors that, IMO, signify the general kind of low-
rent
production this thing is from start to ugly finish -- right through to
the sloppy, obviously-not-proofread grammatical errors on the
packaging.
And then there's also the offensive cartoonish image on the disc
showing Mr. Bush being electrocuted, which plunges this product even
deeper into a morass of embarrassingly-distasteful dreck. ......
[Since I wrote this review in 2006, the image of the disc art at
Amazon has been replaced by the DVD-cover picture below, which isn't
quite as distasteful, but very stupid-looking nonetheless....]
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000AAIUWA.01-AM7FASYZELDWJ._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
The JFK II website shown on the front of the DVD even goes one passage
further down the vile path by displaying this additional putrid gem:
"If we could present this evidence to a jury in Texas, he {Mr. Bush}
would pay with his life."
Stomach-turning indeed. Truly sickening allegations!
"JFK II" is replete with the usual amount of "It Couldn't Possibly
Have
Been Lee Harvey Oswald That Killed JFK" rhetoric and presumptions and
conspiracy-related theorizing. I admire anyone who can get through
this
whole hour-and-a-half production without vomiting. I barely managed
it.
(I didn't actually BUY this disgusting piece of pro-conspiracy tripe
--
instead, I was able to see it free-of-charge via a weblink off of the
Internet. I certainly wouldn't shell out any hard-earned cash for this
DVD version.)
The contemptible and disgraceful hunk of speculation at the tail-end
of
this 90-minute program, which has the 43rd U.S. President, George W.
Bush, being somehow "involved" in the death of JFK Jr. in July 1999
(which was two years prior to G.W. Bush becoming President), really
capped this thing off in fine utterly-offensive fashion. Now what
possible reason would Mr. Bush have had for "arranging" for Mr.
Kennedy's plane to crash (and taking two other lives with him)?
Pffttt.
Not even worthy of debating, it's so nutty. This program doesn't tell
us the "Why?" re. the G.W. Bush allegation. It's just a short blurb at
the very end of the program. I guess we're just supposed to accept it
on face value as the "truth". (Yeah, sure.)
The quote regarding that JFK Jr. nonsense direct from this
documentary:
"Who did George W. Bush have to kill to get into the 'inner
circle'...?" -- Then it's suggested that Mr. Bush somehow was involved
in JFK Jr's plane going down in Martha's Vineyard. Despicable! And it
gives you some idea as to the "type" of documentary this one is. It's
the usual kind of conspiracy program, which proceeds to smear just
about everybody in sight, except (naturally) Jack Kennedy's real
killer, Lee Harvey Oswald.
This CT Fantasy Show comes complete with the normal sizable cache of
unknown hidden gunmen all over Dealey Plaza, as well as theories of
JFK's body being stolen not just once by evil conspirators, but TWICE,
prior to the dead President's burial.
The standard "CT Motto" exists here. That being, of course ---> "As
long as we don't point an accusing finger at that sweet "innocent"
named "Oswald", all is fine and dandy". (Nauseating, isn't it? It is
to
me, at any rate.)
This video program claims that there were THIRTEEN (13!!) shots fired
in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd. No kidding. 13!
At one point, the "JFK II" narrator berates limousine driver William
Greer for not speeding up earlier, claiming that "By this time, close
to 12 shots have been fired". ~ LOL! ~
And yet, miraculously, NOT ONE SINGLE WITNESS (out of dozens and
dozens
who gave an opinion) heard even CLOSE to that number of shots in
Dealey
Plaza during the shooting.
And (again, miraculously lucky for these plotters) EVERY SINGLE PERSON
who was in a MEDIA position to tell the world about the shooting
within
minutes of the assassination (Merriman Smith, Jay Watson and his
associate, and Jack Bell, plus others) relayed information of ONLY
THREE SHOTS being fired -- which, coincidentally, was the EXACT number
of bullets that Oswald did fire from his Sniper's Perch and, of
course,
just exactly the same number of shots that the "Patsy"-plotters NEEDED
to have reported. I guess it's just more amazing luck for these A-1
assassins. Wonder what happened to the OTHER TEN SHOTS?
THIRTEEN SHOTS fired per this "JFK II" video -- and, to reiterate,
somehow 100% of the witnesses never heard that number (or a number
even
remotely close to the Baker's Dozen purported). And CTers cannot
possibly argue that some of the shots were "silenced". Because in
order
to purport THAT notion, we would not have had even ONE Knoll witness
hear any shots from the FRONT (or so some witnesses claimed). And what
kind of foolish shooters would silence only a few of the shots, and
not
ALL of the frontal shots. It's yet another case of the conspiracy
theories contradicting each other -- but does that stop them from
being
put forth? Of course not.
Large segments of this program are culled from the excellent 1988
PBS-TV "NOVA" Special, "Who Shot President Kennedy?". And that's a
shame, too, because that Walter Cronkite-hosted "NOVA" program is far
too superior a documentary to be affiliated in any way with this "JFK
II" Conspiracy Show.
Naturally, this program also insists that there was a huge hole in the
back of JFK's head after he was shot in Dallas. I'd ask any newcomer
to
the subject of the JFK Assassination to watch the slow-motion video
clip provided below. If you can see ANY back-of-the-head damage to
JFK,
please tell the rest of the population WHERE it is. Because I see
none.
ALL of the head damage is to the FRONT-RIGHT, perfectly consistent
with
an Oswald shot from the Book Depository Building. Plus: ALL the head
"spray" goes FORWARD, again indicative of a bullet travelling through
the head on a Rear-to-Front trajectory. .....
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Headshot-large.gif
---------------
If more assassination "researchers" would stick with the actual
evidence in the JFK murder case, instead of pointing fingers at
everybody from A-to-Z in the U.S. Government and accusing them of
conspiratorial intent, then programs like this "JFK II" might forever
remain unwritten -- which, IMO, would be a major asset to the world of
JFK assassination-related material. Because this entire program should
have ended up on the cutting-room floor.
David Von Pein
April 2006
LT
Immaturity.
""JFK II", by the way, is the same hunk-of-shit program that says
there
were THIRTEEN (13!!) shots fired in Dealey Plaza. Yes...a full Baker's
Dozen were fired. But, incredibly, TEN of those 13 shots fell on deaf
ears to every
single witness in the Plaza. "
Gee, you don't seem to care about all the witnesses who said shots
were fired from the picket fence area (Grassy Knoll). Why do witnesses
suddenly matter to you? Is it not possible silencers were used?
"But that should still make the "JFK II"-backing kooks of the
world wonder why the acoustics people for the HSCA were only
comfortable with saying that FOUR shots had been fired. (And from what
I understand, even silenced gunshots would have shown up as "impulses"
on the acoustics "fingerprint" offered up by the HSCA investigators.)
"
So, now the acoustics evidence matters to you. Too bad you spend the
rest of your time 'debunking' it.
"ABSOLUTE JUNK!
PURE TRASH!
UTTERLY SICKENING! "
Have to admit that made me laugh. Looks like a nerve has been struck.
"The documentary program "JFK II" is, to put it bluntly, a piece of
worthless garbage. "
False. It builds a very good case, in my opinion. In your opinion, it
is garbage, but that is just your opinion.
"It is more of the same unsupportable and unsupported-by-the-facts
conspiracist-created crappola. It takes some monster-sized gonads to
place on the open market a piece of trash like this. Amazing guts
indeed, to spout such completely-unprovable conspiratorial nonsense.
And just think, somebody's actually making MONEY off of this
conjecture. Unbelievable. "
Just a bunch of nauseating insults. No evidence, yet. Hm..
"George Bush (both of them) probably should sue somebody for slander
as
a result of the drivel spouted within this disgusting program. "
Looks like David Von Pein is a Bush supporter. Poor Bush! Being
implicated!
"I'm guessing that the conspiracy theorists who have the gall to
produce
programs like "JFK II" must quite literally be running out of
"suspects" to point an accusing finger at with regard to the
assassination of JFK -- so it's time to start implicating every
politician who was over 19 years of age at the time of Kennedy's
murder
on November 22nd, 1963. (Mr. Bush Sr. was 39, by the way, when JFK was
cut down by Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas.) "
Ignoring the documents presented in the film, David Von Pein continues
steamrolling the insults without any evidence. When does the evidence
start?
"I wonder if former President Bill Clinton will be the next one on the
"He Had Kennedy Killed!" list of assassination candidates? After all,
Mr. Clinton DID once meet JFK and shook hands with him. That single
handshake probably makes Clinton a potential conspirator too. Kennedy
probably grabbed Bill's hand a little too tightly, forcing Clinton
into
a "He Must Die!" rage, resulting in a "plot" to do away with the 35th
President. (Makes about as much sense as the junk purported by any of
the other two thousand "Kennedy Conspiracy" plots, including this "JFK
II" balderdash.) "
Bill Clinton is scum, but I doubt he had it done. He's a frontman for
GHWB, though. With all the trips and pictures of them together, you
couldn't blame someone who didn't know better for assuming they were
partners!
".)
The front of this DVD boasts this repulsive and unsupported sentiment
--- "A throrough, documented, criminal indictment of George Herbert
Walker Bush, establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, his guilt as a
supervisor in the conspiracy to assassinate John Kennedy".* "
Okay. Enough opinions. Where is the evidence?
"* = The word "conspiracy" is misspelled as "conspiracty" on the DVD's
label. Plus, it appears the name "Kennedy" is not properly
capitalized.
Typical childish errors that, IMO, signify the general kind of low-
rent
production this thing is from start to ugly finish -- right through to
the sloppy, obviously-not-proofread grammatical errors on the
packaging. "
Nitpicking. OH GEEZ, TYPOS. DVP really has him debunked! Lol. So..
when is the evidence coming?
"And then there's also the offensive cartoonish image on the disc
showing Mr. Bush being electrocuted, which plunges this product even
deeper into a morass of embarrassingly-distasteful dreck. ...... "
Aw! Poor Bush. This is the funniest review I've read all day.
"The JFK II website shown on the front of the DVD even goes one
passage
further down the vile path by displaying this additional putrid gem:
"If we could present this evidence to a jury in Texas, he {Mr. Bush}
would pay with his life."
Stomach-turning indeed. Truly sickening allegations! "
Stomach-turning, sickening! Looks like we better get David a barf bag!
He's going to hurl! When is the freeking evidence coming? I'm getting
tired of waiting here.
""JFK II" is replete with the usual amount of "It Couldn't Possibly
Have
Been Lee Harvey Oswald That Killed JFK" rhetoric and presumptions and
conspiracy-related theorizing. I admire anyone who can get through
this
whole hour-and-a-half production without vomiting. I barely managed
it.
(I didn't actually BUY this disgusting piece of pro-conspiracy tripe
--
instead, I was able to see it free-of-charge via a weblink off of the
Internet. I certainly wouldn't shell out any hard-earned cash for this
DVD version.) "
-Sigh- I'm afraid I might not make it through this review without
falling asleep. You've dissed Hankey and his film enough. Take all the
rest of your anger and cry it into the pillow. I'm waiting for some
evidence.
"The contemptible and disgraceful hunk of speculation at the tail-end
of
this 90-minute program, which has the 43rd U.S. President, George W.
Bush, being somehow "involved" in the death of JFK Jr. in July 1999
(which was two years prior to G.W. Bush becoming President), really
capped this thing off in fine utterly-offensive fashion"
Of course, Dave presents no evidence. He just throws insults. Perhaps
he can explain.. or even address, the issue of what Dubya was doing
during the three days he went missing. No, Dave would have to do some
research if he were to even address that. Research seems not to be his
thing.
"Not even worthy of debating, it's so nutty."
Cop out.
"This program doesn't tell
us the "Why?" re. the G.W. Bush allegation. It's just a short blurb at
the very end of the program. I guess we're just supposed to accept it
on face value as the "truth". (Yeah, sure.) "
It does tell you the 'why'. Dubya needs to be 'blooded' if he wants to
get into the cabal.
"The quote regarding that JFK Jr. nonsense direct from this
documentary:
"Who did George W. Bush have to kill to get into the 'inner
circle'...?" -- Then it's suggested that Mr. Bush somehow was involved
in JFK Jr's plane going down in Martha's Vineyard. Despicable! And it
gives you some idea as to the "type" of documentary this one is. It's
the usual kind of conspiracy program, which proceeds to smear just
about everybody in sight, except (naturally) Jack Kennedy's real
killer, Lee Harvey Oswald. "
LOL. You say "He doesn't provide the why", and then you quote him
providing the 'Why'. This review is HILARIOUS!
"Despicable"
LOL. Any evidence, yet?
"Jack Kennedy's real
killer, Lee Harvey Oswald."
Evidence?
"This CT Fantasy Show comes complete with the normal sizable cache of
unknown hidden gunmen all over Dealey Plaza, as well as theories of
JFK's body being stolen not just once by evil conspirators, but TWICE,
prior to the dead President's burial. "
And you provide no evidence against this. I am laughing over here.
"The standard "CT Motto" exists here. That being, of course ---> "As
long as we don't point an accusing finger at that sweet "innocent"
named "Oswald", all is fine and dandy". (Nauseating, isn't it? It is
to
me, at any rate.) "
Says the dude who won't present any evidence.
"This video program claims that there were THIRTEEN (13!!) shots fired
in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd. No kidding. 13!
At one point, the "JFK II" narrator berates limousine driver William
Greer for not speeding up earlier, claiming that "By this time, close
to 12 shots have been fired". ~ LOL! ~ "
Finally, an actual point!
"And yet, miraculously, NOT ONE SINGLE WITNESS (out of dozens and
dozens
who gave an opinion) heard even CLOSE to that number of shots in
Dealey
Plaza during the shooting. "
Funny how eyewitnesses only matter to you when they support your
argument. Guess you have no comment about the Knoll witnesses.
"And (again, miraculously lucky for these plotters) EVERY SINGLE
PERSON
who was in a MEDIA position to tell the world about the shooting
within
minutes of the assassination (Merriman Smith, Jay Watson and his
associate, and Jack Bell, plus others) relayed information of ONLY
THREE SHOTS being fired -- which, coincidentally, was the EXACT number
of bullets that Oswald did fire from his Sniper's Perch and, of
course,
just exactly the same number of shots that the "Patsy"-plotters NEEDED
to have reported. I guess it's just more amazing luck for these A-1
assassins. Wonder what happened to the OTHER TEN SHOTS? "
Why do initial media reports only matter to you when they support your
opinion? Here's an media report featured in the movie that you don't
want to mention that was released a day after the assassination:
"Mr. Kennedy was hit by a bullet in the throat, just below the Adam's
apple, they said. This wound had the appearance of the bullets'
entry."
"Mr. Kennedy also had a massive, gaping wound in the back and one on
the right side of the head. "
http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/04/12/specials/johnson-kennedy.html
Entry wounds on the front side and a massive exit wound in the back
(It has to be exit because of it's description as 'massive',
'gaping'.. entry wounds don't cause that).
"THIRTEEN SHOTS fired per this "JFK II" video -- and, to reiterate,
somehow 100% of the witnesses never heard that number (or a number
even
remotely close to the Baker's Dozen purported)."
Why do the eyewitnesses suddenly matter to you? The issue of
eyewitnesses seems to suddenly not matter to you when it comes to the
countless ones whose accounts destroy the Warren Commission.
"Because in
order
to purport THAT notion, we would not have had even ONE Knoll witness
hear any shots from the FRONT (or so some witnesses claimed). And what
kind of foolish shooters would silence only a few of the shots, and
not
ALL of the frontal shots."
..So you acknowledge that there WERE eyewitnesses who reported shots
from the front. Now, how does this work with the theory that there was
only one shooter and that they were on the sixth floor of the Texas
Book Depository Building?
" It's yet another case of the conspiracy
theories contradicting each other -- but does that stop them from
being
put forth? Of course not. "
Different theories can't be expected to all align perfectly. To
suggest so, and to use it in support of your side of the argument, is
simply foolish.
"Large segments of this program are culled from the excellent 1988
PBS-TV "NOVA" Special, "Who Shot President Kennedy?". And that's a
shame, too, because that Walter Cronkite-hosted "NOVA" program is far
too superior a documentary to be affiliated in any way with this "JFK
II" Conspiracy Show. "
-Yawn- More empty insults. Walter Cronkite worked for the MSM as a war
correspondent and was a member of the Masonic DeMolay.
"Naturally, this program also insists that there was a huge hole in
the
back of JFK's head after he was shot in Dallas. I'd ask any newcomer
to
the subject of the JFK Assassination to watch the slow-motion video
clip provided below. If you can see ANY back-of-the-head damage to
JFK,
please tell the rest of the population WHERE it is. Because I see
none. "
So I guess 100% of the doctors were just 'mistaken'. The Zapruder
film, shot by CIA-tied Abraham Zapruder, is a fake:
The Zapruder Film: Truth or Deception?
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=w-rcdBNFnGs
"ALL of the head damage is to the FRONT-RIGHT, perfectly consistent
with
an Oswald shot from the Book Depository Building. Plus: ALL the head
"spray" goes FORWARD, again indicative of a bullet travelling through
the head on a Rear-to-Front trajectory. ..... "
We have two contradictory facts here..
1) 100% of the doctors who examined Kennedy in Dallas described a
large hole in the back of his head.
2) The Zapruder film, shot by a man with CIA ties and released 11
years after the assassination (In the hands of CFR-linked Skull and
Bones/SMOM member Henry Luce) that has been accused of being a fake by
many researchers.
Which is credible.. '1)' or '2)'?
"If more assassination "researchers" would stick with the actual
evidence in the JFK murder case, instead of pointing fingers at
everybody from A-to-Z in the U.S. Government and accusing them of
conspiratorial intent, then programs like this "JFK II" might forever
remain unwritten -- which, IMO, would be a major asset to the world of
JFK assassination-related material. Because this entire program should
have ended up on the cutting-room floor. "
Your opinion.. you addressed only two points in the entire film (and
addressed one of them quite sloppily).
"David Von Pein
April 2006 "
That's it? Wow! What a PATHETIC review!
bigdog
>
> Kind of like how you debunkers buy everything fed to you by John
> McAdams and Vincent Bugliosi?
>
I was an LN long before I read anything by McAdams or Bugliosi.
McAdams has done excellent research and his website has done a
thorough job of debunking some of the more bald faced lies by the CTs.
I consider it and excellent reference but nobody does my thinking for
me. As for Bugliosi, he did an outstanding job as Oswald's prosecutor
in the made-for-TV trial produced for British television. In doing so,
he got a conviction from the jury despite the fact that Oswald was
defended by Gerry Spence, arguably the best trial lawyer in the
country. This is a man who has never lost a single case in all his
years as both a prosecutor and defense lawyer.
Other than exerpts, I have not read Reclaiming History although I have
no doubt it is a definitive work regarding the JFK assassination.
Everything I have read from it and about it tells me it was a
thoroughly researched book and lays to rest any doubt that Oswald shot
and killed JFK and JBT.
> > If any of you were capable of thinking for yourselves, one of you could have
> > taken all the bullshit you've been fed and at least try to piece it
> > together into a plausible scenario.
>
> The evidence stands for itself. Just because one isn't able to create
> a precise scenario means nothing. The evidence points to
> 'Conspiracy'.
>
No, it means everything. You've had 45 years and no one has been able
to produce a plausible alternative scenario to the one presented by
the WC. You can't even come up with a scenario as to how it could have
happened, must less proving that it did happen that way. That is
because all scenarios other than the one the WC presented can easily
be shot down by the available evidence. The WCR has withstood a 45
year onslaught from dickwipes who couldn't find their ass with both
hands. It remains a Gibraltar of truth. The entire CT community cannot
produce an alternative scenario that could stand up to 45 seconds of
scrutiny. There is absolutely zero credible evidence for conspiracy.
> > I believe the Warren Commisions conclusion for one simple reason. It
> > is the only conclusion that is possible for someone who is
> > knowledgeable about the evidence and has a brain in their head. Only
> > the stupidest fucks who are incapable of grasping the obvious could
> > come to any other conclusion. That perfectly describes you.
>
> Yeah, the Warren Commission.. Let's take a look at that, shall we?
>
> Earl Warren: 33rd Degree Mason and friend of ADL frontman Drew
> Pearson
> Allen Dulles: Nazi/CFR/Bilderberg-linked former CIA director who was
> fired by Kennedy
> John McCloy: Nazi-linked CFR Chairman and Rockefeller/Ford associate,
> member of the Committee of 300
> Gerald Ford: 33rd Degree Freemason and CFR/Bilderberg member.
>
Jesus Fucking Christ. The Bilderbergs? So you're one of those assholes
who sees black helicopters everywhere you turn. Let me guess. You
subscribe to the Spotlight. That would explain everything. 'nuff
said.
> Let's also look at some Warren Commission claims..
>
> A couple of examples:
>
> CLAIM: Oswald acted alone.
>
> FACT: 35 known witnesses stated that shots were fired from the picket
> fence area (Grassy Knoll), indicating the presence of a second
> shooter. Jack Ruby said that people in very high positions had 'so
> much to gain' and 'would never let the true facts come out'. E. Howard
> Hunt confessed to being involved.
>
And lots of witnesses identified the TSBD as the source of the shots.
Almost no one thought the shots came from more than one direction so
one group of witnesses had to be wrong. ALL the physical evidence
supports those who said the shots came from the direction of the TSBD
and contradicts those who said they came from the GK.
> CLAIM: One bullet caused all of the non-fatal wounds in both Kennedy
> and Connally.
>
One bullet did cause all the non-fatal wounds in both Kennedy and
Connally.
> FACT: Besides damage to the base (Which is typical), there is no
> visible damage to the bullet in question. There is no blood on this
> bullet either. Cyril Wecht's presentation of bullets that the Warren
> Commission test-fired shows that the condition of "The Single Bullet"
> is impossible if the official version is true.
>
Modern high velocity bullets do not pick up blood and other tissue. As
for the any bullets Wecht produced, they were all fired directly into
bone. The single bullet on the other hand passed through only soft
tissue of JFK's and JBC's torso before first striking any bone. By
this time, it had tumbled end-for-end which is why it is damaged at
the base rather than the nose. Bullets do not tumble coming out of a
rifle. They only begin tumbling after striking an object. The
condition of CE399 is an argument for the SBT, not against it.
> bigdog, go watch "JFK II" and start fighting on the right side.- Hide quoted text -
>
Christ all fucking Mighty. Don't tell me they're making another one.
Didn't they tell enough lies with the first one.
David Von Pein
>>> "It [the worthless and disgusting "JFK II" piece of excrement] builds a very good case, in my opinion." <<<
There's no need to read any more from this "LT" mega-kook. His/her
above endorsement of dreck like "JFK II" says it all.
You'd have to be totally retarded to believe a single thing espoused
in "JFK II".
"13 shots", LT?
LOL.
Let's see you paint a coherent "13 shots were fired" conspiracy plot,
LT...with (remember) a SINGLE gunman (Oswald) being the desired
"patsy" in the Depository. Nothing like complicating your one-patsy
plot to absurd degrees of impracticality by firing up the joint with
13 gunshots (even though your patsy could only get off three shots in
this interval), huh?
But, go ahead and give it a shot. Let's hear how (and why!) the
braindead plotters shot up the Plaza with 13 gunblasts on 11/22. I
love comedy.
This should be better than anything Archie Bunker ever uttered.
David Von Pein
>>> "That's it? Wow! What a PATHETIC review!" <<<
LOL. But it sure was worth it, just to get a kook named "LT" to spout
forth the following hunks of hilarity. (The stuff about Zapruder and
Cronkite are my favorites.)
Oh, my weak bladder! .....
"Bill Clinton is scum, but I doubt he had it done. He's a
frontman for GHWB, though." -- LT
"Walter Cronkite worked for the MSM as a war correspondent and
was a member of the Masonic DeMolay." -- LT
"The Zapruder film, shot by CIA-tied Abraham Zapruder, is a
fake." -- LT (aka: Mr. "13 Shots Were Fired" Mega-Kook)
"It ["JFK II: THE BUSH CONNECTION"] builds a very good case [FOR
THE THIRTEEN-SHOT CONSPIRACY THAT A KOOK NAMED "LT" APPARENTLY IS
WILLING TO SWALLOW], in my opinion." -- LT
"Aw! Poor Bush." -- LT
"Dubya needs to be 'blooded' if he wants to get into the cabal."
-- LT
[LOL break--again.]
"Different theories can't be expected to all align perfectly."
-- LT
[DVP: Yeah, especially theories purporting 13 shots, with just a
single patsy in the TSBD with 4 bullets in his Mannlicher-Carcano. LOL
time--yet again.]
AND LET'S HEAR ONE MORE FROM THE KOOK:
>>> "Says the dude who won't present any evidence." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
As if the kook doesn't know what the real evidence against Oswald is.
But if I don't repeat it all in a review for an obviously-crackpot
program like "JFK II", then I have no case at all, and all of the
evidence against Oswald ceases to exist. Right, kook? LT, you're a
real howl.
LT
No one does my thinking, either. Now that we've got that silly bit out
of the way, let's move on..
"Other than exerpts, I have not read Reclaiming History although I
have
no doubt it is a definitive work regarding the JFK assassination.
Everything I have read from it and about it tells me it was a
thoroughly researched book and lays to rest any doubt that Oswald shot
and killed JFK and JBT. "
I don't think it is reasonable to make such a conclusion when you have
not read the book.
"No, it means everything. You've had 45 years and no one has been able
to produce a plausible alternative scenario to the one presented by
the WC. You can't even come up with a scenario as to how it could have
happened, must less proving that it did happen that way. That is
because all scenarios other than the one the WC presented can easily
be shot down by the available evidence."
So what? If I can point out evidence indicating a conspiracy, it
shouldn't be my job to think up a detailed scenario of how everything
went down. Geeeez!
"The WCR has withstood a 45
year onslaught from dickwipes who couldn't find their ass with both
hands. It remains a Gibraltar of truth. The entire CT community cannot
produce an alternative scenario that could stand up to 45 seconds of
scrutiny. There is absolutely zero credible evidence for conspiracy. "
Wrong. The Warren Commission is dead and has been beaten for 45
years.
"There is absolutely zero credible evidence for conspiracy."
Oh come ON!
1. 100% of the doctors who examined Kennedy in Dallas reported a large
wound in the back of his head.
2. 35 known witnesses reported shots from the Grassy Knoll. Some saw
smoke come from that area.
3. Witnesses reported harassment from authorities
4. A 'V' shaped cut was added to Kennedy's head that covered up a
small wound that had been in the area of that part of the head.
5. The 'Guard Rail' guards were told to stand down. They were
completely confused but followed their orders. No police motorcycles
were guarding the presidential motorcade.
6. The HSCA concluded, based on acoustics evidence, that there was a
shot from the Grassy Knoll.
7. Gerald Ford admitted to fictionalizing the Warren Report by editing
where the wound was.
8. The "Magic Bullet", as it is called, allegedly caused all the non-
fatal wounds in both Kennedy and Connally without being damaged
(Excluding typical damage to the base) and didn't have any blood on
it.
9. Witnesses reported men with rifles in the area prior to the
assassination.
10. E. Howard Hunt brought Spotlight Magazine to court for putting out
an article about him. He (an admitted CIA assassin) changed his story
numerous times about where he was and the court found Spotlight
'Innocent'.
11. Hunt confesses to being involved in the CIA plot to kill Kennedy.
12. The testimony of Marita Lorenz exposes Sturgis and Hunt in the
assassination.
I could go on and on.. It' obvious that more people were involved.
"Jesus Fucking Christ. The Bilderbergs? So you're one of those
assholes
who sees black helicopters everywhere you turn. Let me guess. You
subscribe to the Spotlight. That would explain everything. 'nuff
said. "
Wow, you're certainly an immature one. Newsflash, pal. The Bilderberg
Group exists, it's a behind-closed-doors meeting of very powerful
people. BTW, they admit black helicopters exist. Ever heard of a black
hawk? Anyone who denies their existence is either a nutcase or an
idiot.
No, I don't subscribe to the Spotlight. Bigdog, you are a poor dumbass
with nothing but generalizations and insults.
"
And lots of witnesses identified the TSBD as the source of the shots.
Almost no one thought the shots came from more than one direction so
one group of witnesses had to be wrong. ALL the physical evidence
supports those who said the shots came from the direction of the TSBD
and contradicts those who said they came from the GK. "
The very fact that there are two groups of witnesses who both say
shots were fired from different areas is evidence that shots were
fired from multiple directions. Common sense. 35 witnesses and 58
witnesses cannot be wrong.
All the physical evidence supports a shot from behind? Wrong! The
doctors reported a large wound in the back of Kennedy's head.
"Modern high velocity bullets do not pick up blood and other tissue.
As
for the any bullets Wecht produced, they were all fired directly into
bone. The single bullet on the other hand passed through only soft
tissue of JFK's and JBC's torso before first striking any bone. By
this time, it had tumbled end-for-end which is why it is damaged at
the base rather than the nose. Bullets do not tumble coming out of a
rifle. They only begin tumbling after striking an object. The
condition of CE399 is an argument for the SBT, not against it. "
1) This bullet did not go through an ordinary situation. Based on it's
movements, traces of blood would definitely be suspected. It was
moving around in blood.
2) No, the base damage is typical. The test-fire bullets had been
fired directly into bone.. the single bullet, while passing through
flesh, had to go through bones.
"
Christ all fucking Mighty. Don't tell me they're making another one.
Didn't they tell enough lies with the first one. "
Go to Google Video and watch "JFK II: The Bush Connection" by John
Hankey.
"There's no need to read any more from this "LT" mega-kook. His/her
above endorsement of dreck like "JFK II" says it all. "
Your only addressing 2 points in the entire movie (and addressing one
rather sloppily), with the rest of your review being full of empty
insults, makes me wonder if I should bother reading any more from you.
"You'd have to be totally retarded to believe a single thing espoused
in "JFK II".
"13 shots", LT? "
'13 shots' is one claim in the movie. How do you go from attacking one
claim to saying that the entire film is false? I'm definitely going to
need to see some evidence for that one!
"Let's see you paint a coherent "13 shots were fired" conspiracy plot,
LT...with (remember) a SINGLE gunman (Oswald) being the desired
"patsy" in the Depository. Nothing like complicating your one-patsy
plot to absurd degrees of impracticality by firing up the joint with
13 gunshots (even though your patsy could only get off three shots in
this interval), huh? "
I don't know if '13' was the exact number. I don't like guessing/
theorizing. I stick with the facts. I know that there were more than 3
shots.
"This should be better than anything Archie Bunker ever uttered. "
It's amazing that you insult me. You behave like 9 year old child.
"LOL. But it sure was worth it, just to get a kook named "LT" to spout
forth the following hunks of hilarity. (The stuff about Zapruder and
Cronkite are my favorites.) "
Cronkite is a shill. War correspondents are propagandists. Now, to the
Zapruder film, do you have any evidence against the fakery evidence?
How'a'bout debunking the video instead of just going 'LOL'? In my
opinion, the video showing the exit damage on the front is evidence
that it's fake, since all the doctors in Dallas placed it on the back.
"AND LET'S HEAR ONE MORE FROM THE KOOK: "
Immaturity.
"As if the kook doesn't know what the real evidence against Oswald is.
But if I don't repeat it all in a review for an obviously-crackpot
program like "JFK II", then I have no case at all, and all of the
evidence against Oswald ceases to exist. Right, kook? LT, you're a
real howl. "
Come on, present some.
Gil Jesus
>> AND LET'S HEAR ONE MORE FROM THE KOOK:
Ok, but remember, you asked for it:
DAVID VON PEIN QUOTES
"WHAT DOES "BACK AND TO THE LEFT" PROVE? ANYTHING?"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/422b8ff853bebd3e
----------------------------------------------------------------
"But, let's assume for the sake of argument that there were/are
several different MC 91/38 rifles with the exact same serial number on
them of "C2766"....my next logical question (based on the totality of
evidence in THIS Kennedy murder case) is this one: So what? "
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dc1d90f0571b73f0
Uh...David, if there are multiple rifles with the SAME serial number,
you can't prove that Oswald ever possessed the murder weapon. That
means you have no case.
----------------------------------------------------------------
robcap...@netscape.com
Now, now, Mark, flattery will get you NOWHERE with me! I think you
are in the "giving mood" since it is almost Christmas time, so how
about some PROOF that shows LHO shot and killed JFK and JDT?
Chuck Schuyler
wrote:
> Now, now, Mark, flattery will get you NOWHERE with me! I think you
> are in the "giving mood" since it is almost Christmas time, so how
> about some PROOF that shows LHO shot and killed JFK and JDT?
What sort of evidence could be provided that you would accept as
proof?
(Silence from Caprio.)
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Dec 3, 11:26 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> Chico, you're just too easy. There's no sport in it when the fish
> jumps into the boat.
Almost another year and the same old tricks. You wish Gil and I were
the same person, but alas, we are NOT! Who is bigdog? Why does a
government shill hide behind a moniker if he speaks the truth?
> > I love idiots like "bigdog" for bringing up this same lame point up
> > year after year! Their pee doctor did the same thing as if cycling
> > through three times while aiming at a wall is the SAME as shooting
> > through a huge tree with wind and sever angles at a MOVING CAR!
>
> > Don't you love "fair comparisons?"
>
> I wasn't the on making the comparison. Stone was trying to demonstrate
> that the MC rifle could not be fired in 5.6 seconds and in the
> process, he proved that it could. In HIS demonstration, the rifle was
> cycled 3 times within the time allotted by the WC, even though Stone
> claimed it was over 7 seconds.
The point is NOT whether one can cycle the bolt twice in 5.6 or not,
but rather will you hit ANYTHING! Anyone can point at a wall and say
"see it is possible", that is hardle the SAME as actually landing
shots like LHO allegedly did. Even the best marksmen, under far
better circumstances, could NOT duplicate what the WC claimed LHO
did. Why?
> > > Then the assistant tells Costner the Warren
> > > Commision concluded Oswald fired the shots in 5.6 seconds (a lie)
>
> > Don't you love how morons like "bigdog" who claim to support the WC's
> > take on events doesn't even KNOW what they claimed in the first
> > place? All one has to do is go to the WCR on page 115 and read the
> > following:
>
> > "Another factor arguing against the second shot missing is that the
> > gunman would have been shooting at the very near minimum allowable
> > time to have fired the three shots WITHIN 4.8 TO 5.6 SECONDS, although
> > it was entirely POSSIBLE for him to have done so." (Emphasis mine)
>
> > So much for Stone lying, huh? IT looks like the liar is "bigdog"
> > himself!
>
> Way to take the passage out of context. The Warren Commision believed
> there was a missed shot but the conflicting testimony made it
> impossible to determine for certain which shot missed. To demonstrate
> this, they presented pro and con evidence for the missed shot being
> the first, second, or third. Maybe you should have read through to
> page 117 where they state their final word on the question of which
> shot missed:
>
> "The wide range of possibilities and the existence of conflicting
> testimony, when coupled with the impossibility of scientific
> verification, precludes a conclusive finding by the Commission as to
> which shot missed."
I believe most with the Commission settled on the first shot being the
one that missed, the second shot being the ridiculous SBT shot, and
the third hitting JFK in the head.
> One of Stone's lies, presented by the actors, was claiming the WC
> concluded the first shot missed which the above passage clearly
> indicates they did not. The merely said it was a possibility.
I like how he has selective agreement NOW, when will this guy who
hides behind "bigdog" realize they ONLY said all of this was a
possibility (regarding LHO)? Obviously it is the most UNLIKELY
possibility of all time as it makes no sense and requires magic
bullets to complete the theory but this doesn't stop folks like
"bigdog" from claiming it is all FACTS!
> The
> other lie in this episode was in claiming all three shots WERE fired
> in 5.6 seconds or less. Again, they simply concluded it was possible,
> but that was not a conclusion.
NOTHING they said was a firm conclusion but this DOESN'T stop you from
claiming LHO's guilt on here year after year, but NOW when something
doesn't go his way he wants to pull this card. Nice try loser, but
the report claimed 4.8 to 5.6 seconds was needed by LHO, period. Be
thankful Hoover didn't get his way as he claimed it was even less
time!
Well since they said the second shot was the SBT and the third was the
headshot how do you figure they meant any other shot. IF it was the
second shot, are you saying the first one was the SBT shot? How does
this lineup with the extant Z-film?
> > > They are combining two mutally exlusive scenarios as if they are
> > > the one and only conclusion of the WC.
>
> > There was ONLY one conclusion by the WC, and that was the SBT for one
> > bullet, one for the head, and one missed and hit Tague.
>
> Actually, the WC argued that the SBT was a probability. That is one
> point I would disagree on. It is a certainty.
Can you prove this really happened? The WC failed to. Let's see
undeniable proof the SBT really happened. I dare you!
> > > You can make an argument
> > > against 3 shots in 5.6 seconds or you can argue against a first shot
> > > miss, but to do both is dishonest, but dishonesty is the hallmark of
> > > Oliver Stone's work.
>
> > How is this dishonest? It was acknowledged by the WC that ONLY 2
> > shots hit, so 1 had to miss? You are a liar and make NO sense
> > whatsoever!- Hide quoted text -
>
> Try to follow along, Chico. A first shot miss and a 5.6 second time
> frame for the three shots are mutally exclusive. If one is true, the
> other has to be false. The WC never committed to either scenario and
> Stone claimed they concluded both. That is one of just many deceptions
> which Stone sold to the American public. The movie JFK was a totally
> dishonest work yet millions of Americans who haven't taken the time to
> learn the truth were taken in by it.
They gave a range for the shooting sequence of 4.8 to 5.6 seconds, and
then they said two shots hit and one missed. They did NOT claim this
miss caused the length of the shooting sequence to elongate, so how
can you claim these two things are mutually exclusive? The alleged
shooting feat was within the above parameter of time with two shots
hitting and one missing, that is the WC's claim, you CAN'T change
that. So revisionist history won't work here "bigdog", deal with what
the WC said NOT what you wanted them to say.
> Now who's the fucking idiot?
YOU!!! It has always been you and ALWAYS will be you as you can't even
grasp the theory you lie for!
robcap...@netscape.com
Real evidence that would have STOOD UP IN A COURT OF LAW DURING A
CROSS EXAMINATION DURING DISCOVERY! Last time I checked you folks had
NO evidence of this kind!