Discovery Channels Magic Bullett Program
lazu...@webtv.net
say that I was fortunate to be under the influence when watching it.
The Australian attempted recreation was the best part,quite interesting,
but the bottom line was : they couldn't replicate the Magic Bullett even
with moving Connally about a foot or so to Kennedy's right, having JFK
about 6 inches above Connally in the adjustable jumpseat( ok -I'll give
them that) but, I won't accept Dale Myers Animmated straightline
trajectory exiting BELOW Kennedy's collar & the exit wound with the
Aussies at the base of the left side of Kennedy's chest/neck region.
Still with all that- they couldn't get the bullett into JBC's left
thigh,the bullett was noticeably deformed & even if the bullett somehow
got into Connally's leg, how would it reverse direction, fall out with
no one seeing it and end up under a stretcher?( Connally did say many
years later a bullett fell out in the operating room, though nobody
reported it at the time) The latter wasn't addressed, though I think the
fair mnded interviewer will now understand why this is called" The Magic
Bullett".
Bud
lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> I saw this repeat program for the first time last sun. nite & can only
> say that I was fortunate to be under the influence when watching it.
>
> The Australian attempted recreation was the best part,quite interesting,
> but the bottom line was : they couldn't replicate the Magic Bullett even
> with moving Connally about a foot or so to Kennedy's right, having JFK
> about 6 inches above Connally in the adjustable jumpseat( ok -I'll give
> them that) but, I won't accept Dale Myers Animmated straightline
> trajectory exiting BELOW Kennedy's collar & the exit wound with the
> Aussies at the base of the left side of Kennedy's chest/neck region.
<snicker> They did an amazing job of replicating the wounds, but the
kooks will nitpick and cry it wasn`t done precisely right. What they
did do is show the SBT to be extremely likely despite the kook`s
refusal to accept it. So, instead of infantile denial, why don`t the
kooks present their alternative expaination for those wounds,
accompanied with precise field testing. These men were shot. Quit
scoffing at the explainations others have presented, and present a
better one to knock the SBT out of contention. Much easier to critique
and bitch, I know, but a bit harder to present a plausible alternative.
tomnln
What is it with you calling people "KOOKS" instead of discussing
evidence/testimony?
Do I have to post here that someone told me that you were a "Child
Molester"?
Apparently WC Supporters know they don't have a chance of debating
evidence/testimony
so they get into name calling & personal arttacks.
You Personify a Lower Class who embarrasses the other WC Supporters by
avoiding evidence/testimony.
On the other hand I personify a Higher Class of CT's by Refraining from the
name calling .
I much rather prefer asking people like you to explain why the Authorities
Destroyed Evidence? A Felony.
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1129854792....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
lazu...@webtv.net
misleading the viewers to show that the SBT happened and still they
couldn't prove it. That's the bottom line.
P.S.Sorry to have mispelled Bullet about 5 times, must have been
thinking of the great Steve McQueen movie but that would probably be
more important to you than the content of what I said.
P.S. - you really ought to attend one of the upcoming JFK Conf.'s
-excellent array of speakers, and even you might learn something.
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> Hey Bud;
>
> What is it with you calling people "KOOKS" instead of discussing
> evidence/testimony?
That the people who draw these kooky conclusions are kooks is more
pertinent to these discussions than the evidence/testimony.
> Do I have to post here that someone told me that you were a "Child
> Molester"?
Knock yourself out, kid.
> Apparently WC Supporters know they don't have a chance of debating
> evidence/testimony
> so they get into name calling & personal arttacks.
Apparently, CT don`t see themselves as kooks. Of course they are
wrong about a lot of things.
> You Personify a Lower Class who embarrasses the other WC Supporters by
> avoiding evidence/testimony.
Ah, poor baby, I don`t play your silly games by the rules outlined
by CT kooks?
> On the other hand I personify a Higher Class of CT's by Refraining from the
> name calling .
Yah, you do personify the CT kook.
> I much rather prefer asking people like you to explain why the Authorities
> Destroyed Evidence? A Felony.
McAdams explained the things on your talking point list to you point
by point. The explainations don`t seem to sink in. You have a terrible
understanding of the law, which you display every time you make this
erroneous claim about these things consituting a felony.
Bud
They did everything they could to replicate the positioning of the
men, and the entrances of the wounds. They showed that it was not only
possible, but highly likely that one bullet passed through both men
causing all the wounds.
> including deliberately
> misleading the viewers to show that the SBT happened and still they
> couldn't prove it. That's the bottom line.
Prove something to CT kooks who don`t want to accept things even
when they are demonstrated to them? Not possible. But can you explain
again how it is impossible for one bullet to cause all the wounds to
those two men and come out
in the shape CE399 was? The denial of these things speaks volumes to CT
credibility and capacity for denial.
> P.S.Sorry to have mispelled Bullet about 5 times, must have been
> thinking of the great Steve McQueen movie but that would probably be
> more important to you than the content of what I said.
>
> P.S. - you really ought to attend one of the upcoming JFK Conf.'s
> -excellent array of speakers, and even you might learn something.
I think the WC findings are a pretty good accounting of the events
of 11-22-63, and what led up to them. Most CT work concerns who did
what afterwards. In any case, I`m satisfied with the WC account
(indeed, the only accounting of the known facts in existance), and see
all CT effort as just meandering around to no purpose. Why would I want
to sit through a confrence where CT recount their meanderings?
Ben Holmes
>
>
>lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
>> Hey Bud, they did everything possible,
>
> They did everything they could to replicate the positioning of the
>men, and the entrances of the wounds. They showed that it was not only
>possible, but highly likely that one bullet passed through both men
>causing all the wounds.
>
>> including deliberately
>> misleading the viewers to show that the SBT happened and still they
>> couldn't prove it. That's the bottom line.
>
> Prove something to CT kooks who don`t want to accept things even
>when they are demonstrated to them? Not possible. But can you explain
>again how it is impossible for one bullet to cause all the wounds to
>those two men and come out in the shape CE399 was?
Isn't it far more interesting that LNT'ers cannot duplicate the shape CE399 was
in with a bullet that merely fractures *ONE* bone? (Let alone the multiple hits
of the alleged CE399)
And with over 40 years to work at it, they *still* can't?
>The denial of these things speaks volumes to CT
>credibility and capacity for denial.
The denial of these things speaks volumes to LNT'er credibility and capacity for
denial.
>> P.S.Sorry to have mispelled Bullet about 5 times, must have been
>> thinking of the great Steve McQueen movie but that would probably be
>> more important to you than the content of what I said.
>>
>> P.S. - you really ought to attend one of the upcoming JFK Conf.'s
>> -excellent array of speakers, and even you might learn something.
>
> I think the WC findings are a pretty good accounting of the events
>of 11-22-63, and what led up to them.
Whereas most CT'ers know that the WC volumes containing their actual *evidence*
and *testimony* is a pretty good accounting of the events of 11-22-63... and is
in provable contradiction to their "conclusions".
I find it revealing that you prefer the "conclusions" to the actual underlying
evidence.
tomnln
>
> tomnln wrote:
>> Hey Bud;
>>
>> What is it with you calling people "KOOKS" instead of discussing
>> evidence/testimony?
>
> That the people who draw these kooky conclusions are kooks is more
> pertinent to these discussions than the evidence/testimony.
>
>> Do I have to post here that someone told me that you were a "Child
>> Molester"?
>
> Knock yourself out, kid.
>
>> Apparently WC Supporters know they don't have a chance of debating
>> evidence/testimony
>> so they get into name calling & personal arttacks.
> Apparently, CT don`t see themselves as kooks. Of course they are
> wrong about a lot of things.
Heeeeey, I didn't see you as a Child Molester until someone in the newsgroup
pointed it out to me.
========================================================================
>> You Personify a Lower Class who embarrasses the other WC Supporters by
>> avoiding evidence/testimony.
========================================================================
> Ah, poor baby, I don`t play your silly games by the rules outlined
> by CT kooks?
Evidence/Testimony are the determing Factors in American Justice.
Do you go by some Nazi/Communist form of Justice?
=======================================================================
>> On the other hand I personify a Higher Class of CT's by Refraining from
>> the
>> name calling .
>
> Yah, you do personify the CT kook.
>
>> I much rather prefer asking people like you to explain why the
>> Authorities
>> Destroyed Evidence? A Felony.
====================================================================
> McAdams explained the things on your talking point list to you point
> by point. The explainations don`t seem to sink in. You have a terrible
> understanding of the law, which you display every time you make this
> erroneous claim about these things consituting a felony.
Denials are NOT Explanations.
btw, McAdams "Admitted" they Destroyed Evidence.
Shouldn't you be Following your Leader?
====================================================================
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
> news:1129897211.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > tomnln wrote:
> >> Hey Bud;
> >>
> >> What is it with you calling people "KOOKS" instead of discussing
> >> evidence/testimony?
> >
> > That the people who draw these kooky conclusions are kooks is more
> > pertinent to these discussions than the evidence/testimony.
> >
> >> Do I have to post here that someone told me that you were a "Child
> >> Molester"?
> >
> > Knock yourself out, kid.
> >
> >> Apparently WC Supporters know they don't have a chance of debating
> >> evidence/testimony
> >> so they get into name calling & personal arttacks.
> =======================================================================
> > Apparently, CT don`t see themselves as kooks. Of course they are
> > wrong about a lot of things.
>
> Heeeeey, I didn't see you as a Child Molester until someone in the newsgroup
> pointed it out to me.
Do I need to repeat myself?
> ========================================================================
>
> >> You Personify a Lower Class who embarrasses the other WC Supporters by
> >> avoiding evidence/testimony.
> ========================================================================
> > Ah, poor baby, I don`t play your silly games by the rules outlined
> > by CT kooks?
>
> Evidence/Testimony are the determing Factors in American Justice.
In a trial, kook. In a newsgroup they become fodder for morons to
chatter about.
> Do you go by some Nazi/Communist form of Justice?
The Ruby form of justice worked fine by me.
> =======================================================================
>
> >> On the other hand I personify a Higher Class of CT's by Refraining from
> >> the
> >> name calling .
> >
> > Yah, you do personify the CT kook.
> >
> >> I much rather prefer asking people like you to explain why the
> >> Authorities
> >> Destroyed Evidence? A Felony.
> ====================================================================
> > McAdams explained the things on your talking point list to you point
> > by point. The explainations don`t seem to sink in. You have a terrible
> > understanding of the law, which you display every time you make this
> > erroneous claim about these things consituting a felony.
>
> Denials are NOT Explanations.
> btw, McAdams "Admitted" they Destroyed Evidence.
Was that part of his denial, kook?
> Shouldn't you be Following your Leader?
Shouldn`t you stop broadcasting your stupidity over the internet?
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1129898070....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >
> >
> >lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> >> Hey Bud, they did everything possible,
> >
> > They did everything they could to replicate the positioning of the
> >men, and the entrances of the wounds. They showed that it was not only
> >possible, but highly likely that one bullet passed through both men
> >causing all the wounds.
> >
> >> including deliberately
> >> misleading the viewers to show that the SBT happened and still they
> >> couldn't prove it. That's the bottom line.
> >
> > Prove something to CT kooks who don`t want to accept things even
> >when they are demonstrated to them? Not possible. But can you explain
> >again how it is impossible for one bullet to cause all the wounds to
> >those two men and come out in the shape CE399 was?
>
>
> Isn't it far more interesting that LNT'ers cannot duplicate the shape CE399 was
> in with a bullet that merely fractures *ONE* bone? (Let alone the multiple hits
> of the alleged CE399)
>
> And with over 40 years to work at it, they *still* can't?
Would it matter to kooks if the deformation of bullet in the test
looked exactly like CE399? They`d find some reason to disregard it.
The people conducting the tests did a fair job of replicating the
wounds, though. Perhaps you can give a better explaination for them,
maybe tell what the bullet that struck Connally hit that caused it to
enter his back sideways if it didn`t hit Kennedy first.
> >The denial of these things speaks volumes to CT
> >credibility and capacity for denial.
>
>
> The denial of these things speaks volumes to LNT'er credibility and capacity for
> denial.
Even when it is painstakingly shown how this thing happened, you
kooks reject it, opting instead to cling to this fantasy you`ve
nourished.
> >> P.S.Sorry to have mispelled Bullet about 5 times, must have been
> >> thinking of the great Steve McQueen movie but that would probably be
> >> more important to you than the content of what I said.
> >>
> >> P.S. - you really ought to attend one of the upcoming JFK Conf.'s
> >> -excellent array of speakers, and even you might learn something.
> >
> > I think the WC findings are a pretty good accounting of the events
> >of 11-22-63, and what led up to them.
>
>
> Whereas most CT'ers know that the WC volumes containing their actual *evidence*
> and *testimony* is a pretty good accounting of the events of 11-22-63... and is
> in provable contradiction to their "conclusions".
>
> I find it revealing that you prefer the "conclusions" to the actual underlying
> evidence.
Present something that makes the WC`s findings pale in comparison,
and we`ll talk.
tomnln
The personal attack stuff you've been posting so far is an "Embarrassment"
to your parents.
They told me they have changed their minds about "Abortion".
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1129936839.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
lazu...@webtv.net
guys in check from playing musical chairs with the wounds that always
coinidentally of course favor the official Govt. lie, we had 3 fanatical
lone nutters-Dale Myers, Zimmerman , & Vincent Bugliosi & they still
couldn't do it! Ya gotta love it folks.
Anthony Marsh
> Ben Holmes wrote:
>
>>In article <1129898070....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
>>
>>>
>>>lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hey Bud, they did everything possible,
>>>
>>> They did everything they could to replicate the positioning of the
>>>men, and the entrances of the wounds. They showed that it was not only
>>>possible, but highly likely that one bullet passed through both men
>>>causing all the wounds.
>>>
>>>
>>>>including deliberately
>>>>misleading the viewers to show that the SBT happened and still they
>>>>couldn't prove it. That's the bottom line.
>>>
>>> Prove something to CT kooks who don`t want to accept things even
>>>when they are demonstrated to them? Not possible. But can you explain
>>>again how it is impossible for one bullet to cause all the wounds to
>>>those two men and come out in the shape CE399 was?
>>
>>
>>Isn't it far more interesting that LNT'ers cannot duplicate the shape CE399 was
>>in with a bullet that merely fractures *ONE* bone? (Let alone the multiple hits
>>of the alleged CE399)
>>
>>And with over 40 years to work at it, they *still* can't?
>
>
> Would it matter to kooks if the deformation of bullet in the test
> looked exactly like CE399? They`d find some reason to disregard it.
> The people conducting the tests did a fair job of replicating the
> wounds, though. Perhaps you can give a better explaination for them,
Close, but no cigar.
> maybe tell what the bullet that struck Connally hit that caused it to
> enter his back sideways if it didn`t hit Kennedy first.
>
Perhaps you can give a better explanation for the elongated wound which
you think is on JFK's head, exactly the same length as on Connally's
back, if the bullet hit sideways if it didn't hit someone else first.
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Bud
<snicker> Kooks can`t figure these things out even when it`s
demonstrated for them.
> > maybe tell what the bullet that struck Connally hit that caused it to
> > enter his back sideways if it didn`t hit Kennedy first.
> >
>
> Perhaps you can give a better explanation for the elongated wound which
> you think is on JFK's head, exactly the same length as on Connally's
> back, if the bullet hit sideways if it didn't hit someone else first.
Sure. Skull isn`t skin.
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1130010118.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> If that were True, It Looks even WORSE for you "Child molesters".
Do you find it hard to type with some kid`s dick in your mouth, Tom?
tomnln
has
engaged in "Incest" for several Generations?
They tell me that it progressively deteriorates the brain in successive
generations.
The brain degenration may have been contracted by your mom when she was
turning
$0.35 Tricks in a Lumber Camp.
Please respond; I'm saving the good stuff for later.
ps. Let me know when you want to revert back to the JFK Assassination.
Either way, I'll bury you so deeply with insults, your Guardian Angel won't
be able to find you.
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1130033349....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...