info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Interesting video
114 views
Skip to first unread message
Bud
May 6, 2022, 4:43:56 PM5/6/22
to
A video showed up on my recommended youtube videos, pretty shocking to me that it has over three and a half million views considering it is only a few weeks old. I`ll link to it here in case anyone is interested.
https://youtu.be/3Sh06VUiXaA
At 27:29 the narrator mentions bullet fragments found at the autopsy and flashes a large fragment. I assume this is one of the fragments found in the limo.
https://youtu.be/3Sh06VUiXaA
At 27:29 the narrator mentions bullet fragments found at the autopsy and flashes a large fragment. I assume this is one of the fragments found in the limo.
Bud
May 6, 2022, 6:08:44 PM5/6/22
to
Christopher Strimbu
May 6, 2022, 6:24:18 PM5/6/22
to
On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 4:43:56 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/12/jfk-bullets-being-digitally-preserved.html
Bud
May 6, 2022, 7:10:21 PM5/6/22
to
Ben Holmes
May 6, 2022, 7:36:41 PM5/6/22
to
On Fri, 6 May 2022 16:10:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Chickenshit implies, but cannot support the idea that if you are fully
conversant with the evidence in this case, you'd believe the WCR.
He's simply lying again.
conversant with the evidence in this case, you'd believe the WCR.
He's simply lying again.
Christopher Strimbu
May 6, 2022, 7:37:10 PM5/6/22
to
And yet on other forums (Quora especially), I see kooks attempting to use these poll numbers to buttress their case. It doesn't. As you pointed out, most of the public is highly ignorant of the actual facts of the Kennedy case. I'd point out from what I've seen, the number of theorists has been decreasing. I'm willing to bet it's less than 50%. Most people don't take interest in the case anymore. This isn't 1992 anymore where JFK was the talk of the town and conspiracy books like On the Trail of the Assassins were being sold at airport bookstores like Pop Tarts.
Just my two cents on the issue.
Bud
May 6, 2022, 7:43:28 PM5/6/22
to
On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 7:37:10 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 7:10:21 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 6:24:18 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 4:43:56 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > > A video showed up on my recommended youtube videos, pretty shocking to me that it has over three and a half million views considering it is only a few weeks old. I`ll link to it here in case anyone is interested.
> > > >
> > > > https://youtu.be/3Sh06VUiXaA
> > > >
> > > > At 27:29 the narrator mentions bullet fragments found at the autopsy and flashes a large fragment. I assume this is one of the fragments found in the limo.
> > > It is. It's the NIST 3D model of the fragments. DVP has them on his blog:
> > >
> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/12/jfk-bullets-being-digitally-preserved.html
> > Thanks, I figured as much. Many of the shows like this contain glaring inaccuracies, but they aren`t primarily geared towards the buffs. The general public is largely ignorant about the facts of this case, which is why the opinions shown in opinion polls about this event are mostly worthless.
> I concur. They're made normally to appeal to the layperson, since most people aren't interested in a debunk, unless it's an really unpopular conspiracy like flat earth or the moon landing was fake. Occasionally a good one comes out, like the one Vox released a few months back about the backyard photos or PBS releasing a shortened version of their 1993 documentary "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" on YouTube, but for the most part, they're garbage attempting to appeal to both sides. Stuff like that really popular one by Buzzfeed come to mind.
Just had this parody of conspiracy theories come up in my youtube recommended...
> On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 7:10:21 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 6:24:18 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 4:43:56 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > > A video showed up on my recommended youtube videos, pretty shocking to me that it has over three and a half million views considering it is only a few weeks old. I`ll link to it here in case anyone is interested.
> > > >
> > > > https://youtu.be/3Sh06VUiXaA
> > > >
> > > > At 27:29 the narrator mentions bullet fragments found at the autopsy and flashes a large fragment. I assume this is one of the fragments found in the limo.
> > > It is. It's the NIST 3D model of the fragments. DVP has them on his blog:
> > >
> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/12/jfk-bullets-being-digitally-preserved.html
> > Thanks, I figured as much. Many of the shows like this contain glaring inaccuracies, but they aren`t primarily geared towards the buffs. The general public is largely ignorant about the facts of this case, which is why the opinions shown in opinion polls about this event are mostly worthless.
> I concur. They're made normally to appeal to the layperson, since most people aren't interested in a debunk, unless it's an really unpopular conspiracy like flat earth or the moon landing was fake. Occasionally a good one comes out, like the one Vox released a few months back about the backyard photos or PBS releasing a shortened version of their 1993 documentary "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" on YouTube, but for the most part, they're garbage attempting to appeal to both sides. Stuff like that really popular one by Buzzfeed come to mind.
https://youtu.be/lsgnrYog6W0
> And yet on other forums (Quora especially), I see kooks attempting to use these poll numbers to buttress their case.
Ben Holmes
May 6, 2022, 7:45:52 PM5/6/22
to
On Fri, 6 May 2022 16:37:09 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu
<christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And yet on other forums (Quora especially), I see kooks attempting to
> use these poll numbers to buttress their case. It doesn't. As you
> pointed out, most of the public is highly ignorant of the actual facts
> of the Kennedy case.
Like Chickenshit, you imply what you cannot support. Detailed
<christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And yet on other forums (Quora especially), I see kooks attempting to
> use these poll numbers to buttress their case. It doesn't. As you
> pointed out, most of the public is highly ignorant of the actual facts
> of the Kennedy case.
knowledge of the case doesn't invariably lead one to believe the WCR.
> I'd point out from what I've seen, the number of
> theorists has been decreasing. I'm willing to bet it's less than 50%.
willing to put money on it. How much are you willing to lose?
> Most people don't take interest in the case anymore. This isn't 1992
> anymore where JFK was the talk of the town and conspiracy books like
> On the Trail of the Assassins were being sold at airport bookstores
> like Pop Tarts.
>
>Just my two cents on the issue.
Bud
May 6, 2022, 7:48:08 PM5/6/22
to
> He's simply lying again.
Bud
May 6, 2022, 7:52:40 PM5/6/22
to
On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 7:45:52 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2022 16:37:09 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu
> <christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > And yet on other forums (Quora especially), I see kooks attempting to
> > use these poll numbers to buttress their case. It doesn't. As you
> > pointed out, most of the public is highly ignorant of the actual facts
> > of the Kennedy case.
> Like Chickenshit, you imply what you cannot support.
Do you deny that people are generally ignorant about the facts of this case?
> On Fri, 6 May 2022 16:37:09 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu
> <christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > And yet on other forums (Quora especially), I see kooks attempting to
> > use these poll numbers to buttress their case. It doesn't. As you
> > pointed out, most of the public is highly ignorant of the actual facts
> > of the Kennedy case.
> Like Chickenshit, you imply what you cannot support.
> Detailed
> knowledge of the case doesn't invariably lead one to believe the WCR.
> > I'd point out from what I've seen, the number of
> > theorists has been decreasing. I'm willing to bet it's less than 50%.
> I'm willing to bet that you cannot support your belief, and I'm
> willing to put money on it. How much are you willing to lose?
Christopher Strimbu
May 7, 2022, 8:21:12 AM5/7/22
to
I think Bud hit the nail on the head when he wrote this:
>>>When you have nothing you have to scratch for anything you can get.<<<
So true. That's why we're arguing over the same things 58 1/2 years after the fact.
Paul Baker wrote this on Quora about the poll numbers that I think hits on the head:
https://jfkassassination.quora.com/How-much-of-the-USA-thinks-that-Kennedys-murder-was-part-of-a-conspiracy-6
Most people, American or otherwise, don't know enough about the assassination of JFK to form a considered opinion about whether or not it was a conspiracy. Those who have reached a considered opinion based on what they've seen or heard will more than likely have been biased by a preponderance of conspiracy-oriented literature and film. When anything 'big' happens, in historical terms, most people seem to be geared towards conspiracy thinking. In the collective consciousness, it seems there's limited space for logic, common sense and real evidence. The reality is that, in the context of the assassination, conspiracy thinking invariably leads you along a path that is strewn with factoids, bad science, contradiction and outright lies. This is what fascinates me about the JFK assassination, or any other significant historical event that has a relatively simple explanation compared to the disjointed, sometimes woven-out-of-whole-cloth ideas that the conspiracy community tends to generate. Maybe this is just human nature. The point is that you can't rely on a survey of uninformed or misinformed individuals to support a conclusion. And what is the conclusion here anyway? That there was a conspiracy. Nothing more substantial than that. Ask anyone to elaborate on the details, usually the conversation will end with, 'Well, there just had to be', or 'You've seen JFK, right?'. The fact remains that the only explanation that makes most sense is the one given to us by the Warren Commission. Right now, there is not one single coherent alternative. Just vague, unsubstantiated doubt.
>>>When you have nothing you have to scratch for anything you can get.<<<
Paul Baker wrote this on Quora about the poll numbers that I think hits on the head:
https://jfkassassination.quora.com/How-much-of-the-USA-thinks-that-Kennedys-murder-was-part-of-a-conspiracy-6
Most people, American or otherwise, don't know enough about the assassination of JFK to form a considered opinion about whether or not it was a conspiracy. Those who have reached a considered opinion based on what they've seen or heard will more than likely have been biased by a preponderance of conspiracy-oriented literature and film. When anything 'big' happens, in historical terms, most people seem to be geared towards conspiracy thinking. In the collective consciousness, it seems there's limited space for logic, common sense and real evidence. The reality is that, in the context of the assassination, conspiracy thinking invariably leads you along a path that is strewn with factoids, bad science, contradiction and outright lies. This is what fascinates me about the JFK assassination, or any other significant historical event that has a relatively simple explanation compared to the disjointed, sometimes woven-out-of-whole-cloth ideas that the conspiracy community tends to generate. Maybe this is just human nature. The point is that you can't rely on a survey of uninformed or misinformed individuals to support a conclusion. And what is the conclusion here anyway? That there was a conspiracy. Nothing more substantial than that. Ask anyone to elaborate on the details, usually the conversation will end with, 'Well, there just had to be', or 'You've seen JFK, right?'. The fact remains that the only explanation that makes most sense is the one given to us by the Warren Commission. Right now, there is not one single coherent alternative. Just vague, unsubstantiated doubt.
Gil Jesus
May 7, 2022, 10:41:05 AM5/7/22
to
On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 8:21:12 AM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I think Bud hit the nail on the head when he wrote this:
> >>>When you have nothing you have to scratch for anything you can get.<<<
Like posting opinions, insults and the like ?
> I think Bud hit the nail on the head when he wrote this:
> >>>When you have nothing you have to scratch for anything you can get.<<<
Post evidence, honey. Stay focused.
Christopher Strimbu
May 7, 2022, 10:45:12 AM5/7/22
to
Gil Jesus
May 7, 2022, 4:26:26 PM5/7/22
to
When can we expect you to post some evidence ?
Christopher Strimbu
May 7, 2022, 4:52:34 PM5/7/22
to
Ben Holmes
May 9, 2022, 9:07:54 AM5/9/22
to
On Sat, 7 May 2022 05:21:11 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu
<christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Most people, American or otherwise, don't know enough about the
> assassination of JFK to form a considered opinion about whether or not
> it was a conspiracy. Those who have reached a considered opinion based
> on what they've seen or heard will more than likely have been biased
> by a preponderance of conspiracy-oriented literature and film.
So if you don't know the detailed evidence, and you're a critic,
<christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Most people, American or otherwise, don't know enough about the
> assassination of JFK to form a considered opinion about whether or not
> it was a conspiracy. Those who have reached a considered opinion based
> on what they've seen or heard will more than likely have been biased
> by a preponderance of conspiracy-oriented literature and film.
you're wrong... and if you *DO* know the detailed evidence, and have
based a reasoned understanding based on that evidence that contradicts
the WCR, you're biased.
Silly.
It could also simply be that you're wrong. Or simply a liar.
And the fact that you BLATANTLY lie about the evidence in this case
tends to show the latter.
Ben Holmes
May 9, 2022, 9:07:57 AM5/9/22
to
On Sat, 7 May 2022 07:45:10 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu
<christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 10:41:05 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 8:21:12 AM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> I think Bud hit the nail on the head when he wrote this:
>>> >>>When you have nothing you have to scratch for anything you can get.<<<
>> Like posting opinions, insults and the like ?
>>
>> Post evidence, honey. Stay focused.
>
>Sorry crackhead, this discussion was between me and Bud.
That's what email is for, Chrissy... so stop fussing and provide some
<christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 10:41:05 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 8:21:12 AM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> I think Bud hit the nail on the head when he wrote this:
>>> >>>When you have nothing you have to scratch for anything you can get.<<<
>> Like posting opinions, insults and the like ?
>>
>> Post evidence, honey. Stay focused.
>
>Sorry crackhead, this discussion was between me and Bud.
evidence.
Ben Holmes
May 9, 2022, 9:08:00 AM5/9/22
to
On Sat, 7 May 2022 13:52:32 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu
labeling you "Chrissy" - you in *NO WAY WHATSOEVER* was posting
evidence in this case.
Were we to stop, nothing would change.
The way this works is *YOU* demonstrate courage in addressing the
evidence we cite, **YOU** give credible explanations, **YOU** support
and defend your wacky beliefs, and cease all logical fallacies,
**THEN** ... and only then ... would it be reasonable to start
treating you in some other fashion.
> Seriously, you're looking more and more dumber the longer you keep
> pushing it.
Is that what you think?
<christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 4:26:26 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 10:45:12 AM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 10:41:05 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 8:21:12 AM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> I think Bud hit the nail on the head when he wrote this:
>>>>>>>>When you have nothing you have to scratch for anything you can get.<<<
>>>> Like posting opinions, insults and the like ?
>>>>
>>>> Post evidence, honey. Stay focused.
>>> Sorry crackhead, this discussion was between me and Bud. Shoo shoo, off you go back to your stash of cocaine.
>>
>> I'm sorry. I didn't see your name in the heading. You're certainly not a video and you're certainly not interesting.
>>
>> When can we expect you to post some evidence ?
>
>The day you stop thinking I'm secretly a girl.
This is, of course, an absolute and provable lie. Before we started
>On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 4:26:26 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 10:45:12 AM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 10:41:05 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 8:21:12 AM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> I think Bud hit the nail on the head when he wrote this:
>>>>>>>>When you have nothing you have to scratch for anything you can get.<<<
>>>> Like posting opinions, insults and the like ?
>>>>
>>>> Post evidence, honey. Stay focused.
>>> Sorry crackhead, this discussion was between me and Bud. Shoo shoo, off you go back to your stash of cocaine.
>>
>> I'm sorry. I didn't see your name in the heading. You're certainly not a video and you're certainly not interesting.
>>
>> When can we expect you to post some evidence ?
>
>The day you stop thinking I'm secretly a girl.
labeling you "Chrissy" - you in *NO WAY WHATSOEVER* was posting
evidence in this case.
Were we to stop, nothing would change.
The way this works is *YOU* demonstrate courage in addressing the
evidence we cite, **YOU** give credible explanations, **YOU** support
and defend your wacky beliefs, and cease all logical fallacies,
**THEN** ... and only then ... would it be reasonable to start
treating you in some other fashion.
> Seriously, you're looking more and more dumber the longer you keep
> pushing it.
Ben Holmes
May 16, 2022, 1:50:42 PM5/16/22
to
On Fri, 6 May 2022 16:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 7:45:52 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 16:37:09 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu
>> <christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> And yet on other forums (Quora especially), I see kooks attempting to
>>> use these poll numbers to buttress their case. It doesn't. As you
>>> pointed out, most of the public is highly ignorant of the actual facts
>>> of the Kennedy case.
>>
>> Like Chickenshit, you imply what you cannot support.
LFD.
>> Detailed
>> knowledge of the case doesn't invariably lead one to believe the WCR.
LFD.
>>> I'd point out from what I've seen, the number of
>>> theorists has been decreasing. I'm willing to bet it's less than 50%.
>>
>> I'm willing to bet that you cannot support your belief, and I'm
>> willing to put money on it. How much are you willing to lose?
LFD.
wrote:
>On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 7:45:52 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 16:37:09 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu
>> <christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> And yet on other forums (Quora especially), I see kooks attempting to
>>> use these poll numbers to buttress their case. It doesn't. As you
>>> pointed out, most of the public is highly ignorant of the actual facts
>>> of the Kennedy case.
>>
>> Like Chickenshit, you imply what you cannot support.
>> Detailed
>> knowledge of the case doesn't invariably lead one to believe the WCR.
>>> I'd point out from what I've seen, the number of
>>> theorists has been decreasing. I'm willing to bet it's less than 50%.
>>
>> I'm willing to bet that you cannot support your belief, and I'm
>> willing to put money on it. How much are you willing to lose?
Ben Holmes
May 16, 2022, 1:52:36 PM5/16/22
to
On Fri, 6 May 2022 16:48:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 7:36:41 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 16:10:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 6:24:18 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 4:43:56 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>>>> A video showed up on my recommended youtube videos, pretty shocking to me that it has over three and a half million views considering it is only a few weeks old. I`ll link to it here in case anyone is interested.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://youtu.be/3Sh06VUiXaA
>>>>>
>>>>> At 27:29 the narrator mentions bullet fragments found at the autopsy and flashes a large fragment. I assume this is one of the fragments found in the limo.
>>>> It is. It's the NIST 3D model of the fragments. DVP has them on his blog:
>>>>
>>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/12/jfk-bullets-being-digitally-preserved.html
>>>
>>> Thanks, I figured as much. Many of the shows like this contain
>>> glaring inaccuracies, but they aren`t primarily geared towards the
>>> buffs. The general public is largely ignorant about the facts of this
>>> case, which is why the opinions shown in opinion polls about this
>>> event are mostly worthless.
>>
>> Chickenshit implies, but cannot support the idea that if you are fully
>> conversant with the evidence in this case, you'd believe the WCR.
>
> That is only the creation of your twisted mind.
You say things, you can't show things...
>On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 7:36:41 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 16:10:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 6:24:18 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 4:43:56 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>>>> A video showed up on my recommended youtube videos, pretty shocking to me that it has over three and a half million views considering it is only a few weeks old. I`ll link to it here in case anyone is interested.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://youtu.be/3Sh06VUiXaA
>>>>>
>>>>> At 27:29 the narrator mentions bullet fragments found at the autopsy and flashes a large fragment. I assume this is one of the fragments found in the limo.
>>>> It is. It's the NIST 3D model of the fragments. DVP has them on his blog:
>>>>
>>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/12/jfk-bullets-being-digitally-preserved.html
>>>
>>> Thanks, I figured as much. Many of the shows like this contain
>>> glaring inaccuracies, but they aren`t primarily geared towards the
>>> buffs. The general public is largely ignorant about the facts of this
>>> case, which is why the opinions shown in opinion polls about this
>>> event are mostly worthless.
>>
>> Chickenshit implies, but cannot support the idea that if you are fully
>> conversant with the evidence in this case, you'd believe the WCR.
>
> That is only the creation of your twisted mind.
Bud
May 16, 2022, 7:51:00 PM5/16/22
to
"The general public is largely ignorant about the facts of this case, which is why the opinions shown in opinion polls about this event are mostly worthless."
"That is only the creation of your twisted mind. I merely pointed that the opinions reflected in polls are largely the opinions of people ignorant of the facts of the case, therefore not that meaningful. What they would think if they knew the basic facts of the case is anyone`s guess."
"Nothing to do with the point. The point was that the opinions of ignorant people aren`t worth much."
You know these things are true, and you hate the truth, but the things I said are so obviously true that you couldn`t contest them, so you desperately tried to make it about something else. Classic strawmanning.
Bud
May 23, 2022, 4:35:43 PM5/23/22
to
David Healy
May 23, 2022, 5:35:13 PM5/23/22
to
[...]
Ben Holmes
Jun 10, 2022, 10:51:43 AM6/10/22
to
On Mon, 23 May 2022 13:35:41 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Of course, since polls have shown the same thing since 1964, and these
kids like Chrissy weren't even born yet, you've failed in your
argument.
kids like Chrissy weren't even born yet, you've failed in your
argument.
Ben Holmes
Jun 10, 2022, 10:51:43 AM6/10/22
to
On Mon, 16 May 2022 16:50:58 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Indeed I do...
wrote:
>On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 1:52:36 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 16:48:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 7:36:41 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 16:10:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 6:24:18 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 4:43:56 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>>>>>> A video showed up on my recommended youtube videos, pretty shocking to me that it has over three and a half million views considering it is only a few weeks old. I`ll link to it here in case anyone is interested.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/3Sh06VUiXaA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At 27:29 the narrator mentions bullet fragments found at the autopsy and flashes a large fragment. I assume this is one of the fragments found in the limo.
>>>>>> It is. It's the NIST 3D model of the fragments. DVP has them on his blog:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/12/jfk-bullets-being-digitally-preserved.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, I figured as much. Many of the shows like this contain
>>>>> glaring inaccuracies, but they aren`t primarily geared towards the
>>>>> buffs. The general public is largely ignorant about the facts of this
>>>>> case, which is why the opinions shown in opinion polls about this
>>>>> event are mostly worthless.
>>>>
>>>> Chickenshit implies, but cannot support the idea that if you are fully
>>>> conversant with the evidence in this case, you'd believe the WCR.
>>>
>>> That is only the creation of your twisted mind.
>>
>> You say things, you can't show things...
>
> You show...
>On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 1:52:36 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 16:48:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 7:36:41 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 16:10:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 6:24:18 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 4:43:56 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>>>>>> A video showed up on my recommended youtube videos, pretty shocking to me that it has over three and a half million views considering it is only a few weeks old. I`ll link to it here in case anyone is interested.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/3Sh06VUiXaA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At 27:29 the narrator mentions bullet fragments found at the autopsy and flashes a large fragment. I assume this is one of the fragments found in the limo.
>>>>>> It is. It's the NIST 3D model of the fragments. DVP has them on his blog:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/12/jfk-bullets-being-digitally-preserved.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, I figured as much. Many of the shows like this contain
>>>>> glaring inaccuracies, but they aren`t primarily geared towards the
>>>>> buffs. The general public is largely ignorant about the facts of this
>>>>> case, which is why the opinions shown in opinion polls about this
>>>>> event are mostly worthless.
>>>>
>>>> Chickenshit implies, but cannot support the idea that if you are fully
>>>> conversant with the evidence in this case, you'd believe the WCR.
>>>
>>> That is only the creation of your twisted mind.
>>
>> You say things, you can't show things...
>
Indeed I do...
0 new messages