Oh, you're back. I thought you'd gone up your street kicking everything in sight. You said, "argument is over". What is it, game on again? Taking off your blindfold helps! Firstly, what language is habve, what is that? All you have shown is some boffin in a video banging on in the Warren report. The info I have supplied has proven much of the Warren report has many holes in it, which you want to ignore because it spoils your argument, correct? Of course it has. By fact-checkers right? Wouldn't want any of the truth getting through the cracks. Prove it then that its been 'debunked'. I've provided plenty. You, on the other hand, just one video, and insults. No, sorry. You've proven nothing. Only one video, nothing was highlighted all conjecture. Yet you have the ability to criticise my claims. You doing that is not proving me wrong. Proving me wrong would be you providing evidence to substantiate your claim. Not just bickering and banging on about you're right and I'm wrong. You'd make a crap lawyer in court.
I have no blindfold I have a better understanding of this than you. The Warren commission report was not rigged and you cannot prove otherwise. You can say it all day but your claim is one steeped in ignorance much like your claim of bullets pushing bodies around. You have no clue what the report says and you never read it. The fact is they conducted the best, most thorough and comprehensive criminal investigation in US history and their conclusions are backed up by evidence. Unike yours. You have provided no facts you have only provided claims which are false and easily proven so whicdh i have done. No not by fact checkers. By those who perform due dilligance and study the issue. You have provided none whatsoever only empty clasims based on ignorance I provided facts proving you wrong. I have proven you wrong and your reaction is typical of a small child But you still know I did I never aspired to be a lawyer but I would defeat you in court every time.
No, you don't. All you believe is what is in the Warren report. Nothing more, nothing less. You wouldn't consider any other evidence or facts that aren't in line with your perceived understanding. You lack the ability to think critically, this is your limitation. If The cavalcade is moving north, and LHO is in the book depository how on earth does a hit take place a shown by the footage provided by me happen? I very curious for you to indulge me on that one. Especially when witnesses claim they heard a shot from the front of the cavalcade and the movement of his head when shot, is also evident. If you wish to review the footage, you'll see that he is looking down, studying something looking at something in his hands. then you see the hit to his head that sends it backwards. Which you apparently don't wish to acknowledge, and that what I'd been banging on about is correct and true. So once again, If LHO was to the south (rear of) the cavalcade how does the laws of physics change to suit your narrative? It really baffles me with your illogical explanation that LHO pulled it off. It clear and evident there was more than one shooter and LHO couldn't have done what you so vehemently claim. Lunacy is what I'd call your reasoning. I have, you just refuse to accept them. Incorrect. You only state this because your belief system is being challenged. Of course not. All the info, limited as it is is all above bard and catered for. As I've stated before, you just post one video of the Warren report and that is your statement of claim? Nothing else, just telling me I'm wrong. Hmm, you work a solid case, not. You're quick to bring this up but never go the distance to prove otherwise. It was a metaphor. Stating you present a weak argument and if you were my lawyer, I'd sack you in a heartbeat because you'd lose the fight. Now, is there anywhere in the Warren Report, that states why JFK was assassinated? And do you know why? When you realise this, then you'll know I'm not just banging on a drum, such as you.
Wrong. It is not I who is naive here it is you. Conspiracy theorists always try to save face by claim others are naive but it is actually they who are gullible and naive saps Unliek the the warrenn commision had evidence, you do not. But someone somwhere on a website or in a book told you something and believe it hook line and sinker without bothering to do research and fact check Once again bulllets do not push bodies around as Kennedy's body moved. That is fact, You believe they do because you have seen it in a million movies but that is not real. Neurologica reflex ( from a brain trauma ) and the jety affect DO. Once again you ignore that the witnesses are irrelevant in light of the physical evidence. But in fact the vast majority DID hear the shots coming from OSwald's nest.. I have refused to accept NOTHING. You have massively FAILED to provide any evidence I on the other hand have proven you wrong with evidence and FACTS I am not incorrect. I am right and the evidence PROVES you wrong Actually unlike any source you can find the Warren Commission report makes educated guesses why Odwald shot Kennedy you have fantasy
So you want to ignore the truth or just too arrogant to want to know it? Because it's you that wants to save face. You don't want to know the harshness the truth will bring you. Not even to entertain the idea. Not even to give your lame version doesn't come into account. Piss weak argument. Rather than F* around with this, I'll present to you the speech/ideologies of JFK that got him pinned. I'm sure you disagree, but I anticipate that. Guess what, *spoiler alert*, he says things you deny. This is what prompted his hit, and LHO was only the scapegoat. The CIA did a number on him.
Im long since familiar with this speech but it proves nothing. There was no hit and Oswald acted ALONE. The CIA had no involvement.
It does. It hit a nerve and hit did not sit well with those JFK mentioned. You're special aren't you? No hit? So JFK was not shot and killed, we've been wasting our lives slapping ourselves stupid over something that never happened. Is that what you're implying? Pure ignorance.
It proves NOTHING. Every president gives speeches and those speeches always piss off someone. Oswald murdered him it was not some hit as you imply by other people. It is that simple and that is what the evidence proves. The conspiracy theories have all been DISPROVEN No sir it is not ignorance I am better informed than you as I have proven.
Obviously to you it doesn't. It proves possible intent and motive. The thing I forgot to mention is he was offed not just by that of his speech, ideologies and his disdain of those he mentioned in the speech is what prompted the "HIT". Well, you're beginning to understand, however you fail to accept who he mentioned and pissed off. Just as every other conspiracy theory. Discredited/debunked, to throw people off that there was a conspiracy committed. Here is a task, one of learning, should you take the challenge, look up who created the phrase "conspiracy theory" and why? I'll bet you'll deny that too. Do so, I'm interested in where it will go. No Grasshopper. You are not. You may perceive to be, but you are not. How many traits do you have? I don't want you to perceive this as condescending, I'm merely pointing out things to you. One of them being open-minded. Which you are not, an observation, not a judgement. 11 common traits of highly intelligent people
What's your favourite soup, you Nazi? I like my own chicken and vegetable soup. It's very spicy and can be almost stew-like. Hmm, might give you the recipe if you play nice.
It is very unlikely that Oswald saw this speech and he is the only one who killed Kennedy so no it proves NOTHING. Yes I am better informed on this issue than you and that has been proven. Unlike me you strictly and exvlusively look ast conspiracy theories without ever testing them or considering alternatives. It works like this, an intelligent person considers BOTH sides of a contraversy and gives both equal consideration before judging either one. You have failed to do this. That fact proves you are NOT open minded you willfully ignore any logic or fact which debunks your pet theory which you cling to like religion. The phrase conspircy theory was not created by any one person or entity it is simply a naturally occuring phrase which has been around for over a century.
Yes, that is correct. So he then has no motive or intent. So then who? Those who JFK spoke of in his speech. Back then, the Deep State was known just as the secret societies, and not as a collaboration as it is today. Still, it's a no for being informed. I don't just look at conspiracy theories, I also look at the official narratives. Also, look at all the evidence from both sides of the evidence coin, and see what fits doesn't fit a draw on my own conlusion. This is for everything. I don't buy any official narrative before taking it for a test drive. You should do the same, you might not end up buying all those lemon official narratives. Nup. In your opinion, maybe. But as a logical & rational thinker, a critical thinker works out all the holes in the official narrative. Just as I did with the Port Arthur Massacre, at the beginning of this thread. As I've explained above. Martyn Byant was used as the scapegoat. To usher in the agenda for tighter gun control laws in Australia. Similarly, the same goes for the JFK assassination. He was going to dismantel the secret societies and remove their grasp on the world. For that, he bit the bullet. The triggerman were CIA operatives. LHO was scapegoated. Why did you think he was offed by Jack Ruby? A loose end, that's why. Because with further investigations and interviews/interrogations with LHO, would have unravelled the whole plot and everyone involved would have been exposed. They silenced LHO so he could sing no more. Case closed and people like us debate about the events. Oh sweetheart. My mind is expanded beyond your wildest dreams. You obviously haven't read the article or looked up who and why the term conspiracy theory was born. If you are what you stated, you would have done so, because you're an inquisitive person, however, you haven't done this so your statement is false. As I've stated above. I look at everything find what fits, doesn't fit put it all together draw my own conclusion as represented in my OP. Provide me with proof, please. This just proves my point again. You're too lazy to do a little homework to find that out. What you state is false. As with many narratives, any, whatever it may be. The majority of people will believe any and all BS narratives broadcast, televised or printed. As they are too lazy to do their own research. As I do my own research. Rarely are huge event narratives not full of BS, possibly 98% are BS. Still, I'm waiting. All you have is that first video and your rhetoric that you bang on at me with. Not a convincing or strong argument sunshine. It's very sad. I have provided you with enough to substantiate my claims, even though you disprove them. No matter. I know what is, and you don't. I hope you don't treat life like that.
Here is some more education. It goes for 13 mins and it doesn't bang on about JFK but it does at the beginning talk about who had him offed. https://rumble.com/embed/v183vyn/?pub=4
From my perspective, I see your comments directed to me as a reflection of you. Failure to provide evidence, can't see both sides, Yes I have, yes I do.
It's not much, but it substantiates partially what I've stated previously. JFK Unsolved: The Real Conspiracies examines assassination, who really shot President Kennedy
Wrong, Just because we do not know motive does not mean they had no motive. Motive is not important in court which proves who would make the better lawyer here. It is all about the evidence which you ignore. Your post is a fallacy you do not look at both sides and have refused to do so. you exclusively and strictly look only at what ever cheap and debunked theory you like. There were no CIA operatrives Oswald was the shooter. He was killed by Ruby because ruby was a fan of kennedy. Unlike Oswald we do know what his motive was because he STATED IT. There is no evidence whatsoever of other shooters. You are not waiting I have given you facts and evidence which you wullfully ignore. You have been proven wrong and can only endlessly repost proven lies
Now this one is very juicy. Get your grey matter around this study. Sniper Target Tracking Analysis of John F. Kennedy Assassination
What, one video, the opener? That is not evidence. You have not ever demonstrated anything that substantiates your claims. Other than, "I'm right & you're wrong", BS. This sunshine is not evidence. Whether you like it or not, the things I have presented is and are evidence to prove my points. You just fail to acknowledge them.
Definitely hit a nerve on this one. AS HE STANDS WITH FISTS CLENCHED YELLING AT THE TOP OF HIS LUNGS, "THAT'S GARBAGE, WHY? BECAUSE IT CHALLENGES MY BELIEF SYSTEM. WHAT I KNOW IS THE TRUTH AND NO ONE WILL CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE, REGARDLESS OF ANY CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE, LIES. ALL LIES! The thing is, did you read it? No, hey? How close was I?
I'd back myself in a courtroom than have you defend my case. Then we must be done here. I can hear my brain cells committing suicide, yelling,"please stop, we've had enough of this mad person who knows all but doesn't and talks in circles. ARGH. I'm going to concede on this one. The level of your madness is too much. Good luck on your quest to find sanity. As I will, leaving this one. Toodles
