Secret Service Agent in the motorcade: "My reaction at this time was
that the shot came from somewhere towards the front, but I did not see anyone on the overpass, and looked along the right-hand side of the
road."
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 4:02:02 PM UTC-7, Ben Holmes wrote:
Secret Service Agent in the motorcade: "My reaction at this time was
that the shot came from somewhere towards the front, but I did not see anyone on the overpass, and looked along the right-hand side of the
road."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/witness-to-jfks-killing-changes-his-story-60-years-later
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 7:02:02 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Secret Service Agent in the motorcade: "My reaction at this time wasLurkers, so Paul Landis felt the shots came from the front. Based on what is not supplied by Ben, which makes it difficult to decide how much weight to give to Landis`s feelings.
that the shot came from somewhere towards the front, but I did not see anyone on the overpass, and looked along the right-hand side of the
road."
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 4:07:52 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:there with Mark Lane data.....
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 7:02:02 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Secret Service Agent in the motorcade: "My reaction at this time was that the shot came from somewhere towards the front, but I did not see anyone on the overpass, and looked along the right-hand side of the road."Lurkers, so Paul Landis felt the shots came from the front. Based on what is not supplied by Ben, which makes it difficult to decide how much weight to give to Landis`s feelings.
you are nervous, Dudster.... at LEAST 4 shots, 2 front - 2 rear AND a spent round found on the on the top of the rear seat, by an SS eye witness less that 30' from the shooting? Oh-my... hope you got a new nitro prescription filled... this is right up
Secret Service Agent in the motorcade: "My reaction at this time was
that the shot came from somewhere towards the front, but I did not see anyone on the overpass, and looked along the right-hand side of the
road."
Lurkers, Ben is big on meaningless claims.
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 7:16:33 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
Lurkers, Ben is big on meaningless claims.
The asshole who is afraid of links wants proof.
Let me supply it: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0385a.htm
All this indicates is that Secret Service agents are just as human as anybody else when it comes
to determining the source of gunfire based on the sound. A whole lot of people heard the same
sounds yet had very different impressions about where the shots were coming from. The Altgens
photo shows the agents on the right side of the car turned to the rear which indicates they
believed that is where the shots came from. There is forensic evidence for only one location,
that being the 6th floor sniper's nest. Three spent shells from a rifle found elsewhere on that
floor. This matches the consensus among witnesses that there were three shots.
The asshole who is afraid of links wants proof.
Let me supply it: >https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0385a.htm
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 5:50:46?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
The asshole who is afraid of links wants proof.
Let me supply it:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0385a.htm
All this indicates is that Secret Service agents are just as human as anybody else when it comes
to determining the source of gunfire based on the sound. A whole lot of people heard the same
sounds yet had very different impressions about where the shots were coming from. The Altgens
photo shows the agents on the right side of the car turned to the rear which indicates they
believed that is where the shots came from. There is forensic evidence for only one location,
that being the 6th floor sniper's nest. Three spent shells from a rifle found elsewhere on that
floor. This matches the consensus among witnesses that there were three shots.
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 6:15:43 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
All this indicates is that Secret Service agents are just as human as anybody else when it comesMore comments, no evidence to back it up.
to determining the source of gunfire based on the sound. A whole lot of people heard the same
sounds yet had very different impressions about where the shots were coming from. The Altgens
photo shows the agents on the right side of the car turned to the rear which indicates they
believed that is where the shots came from. There is forensic evidence for only one location,
that being the 6th floor sniper's nest. Three spent shells from a rifle found elsewhere on that
floor. This matches the consensus among witnesses that there were three shots.
The same old bullshit from you.
You're assuming that the witnesses were wrong while you compare apples with oranges.
Don't compare Altgens 6 with what the witnesses said about the SECOND shot.
Altgens 6 was taken at Z frame Z-255, between the first and second shots. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/altgens-with-names.jpg
You see Chaney turned to his left like he said after the FIRST shot. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/James-chaney.mp4
You see Landis turned to his right after the FIRST shot. https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0384b.htm
Now for the second shot:
Landis said the SECOND shot that exploded the Presdent's head sounded like it came from the "front, right-hand side of the road".
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/WH_Vol18_755-landis.gif
Chaney said after he turned left, he turned back around to see the President "struck in the face by the SECOND shot".
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/James-chaney.mp4
These witnesses knew what they were talking about and their accounts corroborate each other and in the realm of credibility that matters big time.
So take your argument about how all witnesses are wrong except those who prove Oswald was guilty and shove it up your ass.
Now tell us why Landis and Chaney were not called to testify before the Warren Commission.
On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:15:41 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 5:50:46?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
The asshole who is afraid of links wants proof.
Let me supply it:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0385a.htm
All this indicates is that Secret Service agents are just as human as anybody else when it comes
to determining the source of gunfire based on the sound. A whole lot of people heard the same
sounds yet had very different impressions about where the shots were coming from. The Altgens
photo shows the agents on the right side of the car turned to the rear which indicates they
believed that is where the shots came from. There is forensic evidence for only one location,
that being the 6th floor sniper's nest. Three spent shells from a rifle found elsewhere on that
floor. This matches the consensus among witnesses that there were three shots.
Notice that Landis makes clear that the supposed SBT was the first
shot.
Notice also that Corbutt simply speculates, and thinks it's evidence.
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 10:09:07?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:15:41 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 5:50:46?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
The asshole who is afraid of links wants proof.
Let me supply it:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0385a.htm
All this indicates is that Secret Service agents are just as human as anybody else when it comes
to determining the source of gunfire based on the sound. A whole lot of people heard the same
sounds yet had very different impressions about where the shots were coming from. The Altgens
photo shows the agents on the right side of the car turned to the rear which indicates they
believed that is where the shots came from. There is forensic evidence for only one location,
that being the 6th floor sniper's nest. Three spent shells from a rifle found elsewhere on that
floor. This matches the consensus among witnesses that there were three shots.
Notice that Landis makes clear that the supposed SBT was the first
shot.
Notice also that Corbutt simply speculates, and thinks it's evidence.
How does Landis' recollections ...
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 7:22:12?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 6:15:43?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
All this indicates is that Secret Service agents are just as human as anybody else when it comesMore comments, no evidence to back it up.
to determining the source of gunfire based on the sound. A whole lot of people heard the same
sounds yet had very different impressions about where the shots were coming from. The Altgens
photo shows the agents on the right side of the car turned to the rear which indicates they
believed that is where the shots came from. There is forensic evidence for only one location,
that being the 6th floor sniper's nest. Three spent shells from a rifle found elsewhere on that
floor. This matches the consensus among witnesses that there were three shots.
Do you need me to present you with the evidence ...
The same old bullshit from you.
You're assuming that the witnesses were wrong while you compare apples with oranges.
Don't compare Altgens 6 with what the witnesses said about the SECOND shot.
I never assume ...
Altgens 6 was taken at Z frame Z-255, between the first and second shots.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/altgens-with-names.jpg
Wrong.
You see Chaney turned to his left like he said after the FIRST shot.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/James-chaney.mp4
You see Landis turned to his right after the FIRST shot.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0384b.htm
Landis ...
Now for the second shot:
Landis said the SECOND shot that exploded the Presdent's head sounded like it came from the "front, right-hand side of the road".
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/WH_Vol18_755-landis.gif
Do you ...
Chaney said after he turned left, he turned back around to see the President "struck in the face by the SECOND shot".
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/James-chaney.mp4
Again...
These witnesses knew what they were talking about and their accounts corroborate each other and in the realm of credibility that matters big time.
So take your argument about how all witnesses are wrong except those who prove Oswald was guilty and shove it up your ass.
I never said all witnesses were wrong.
Now tell us why Landis and Chaney were not called to testify before the Warren Commission.
How am I supposed to know how the WC decided which witnesses to call to testify? If you want
me to guess, I can do that.
On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 10:06:34 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 7:22:12?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 6:15:43?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: >>> All this indicates is that Secret Service agents are just as human as anybody else when it comes
to determining the source of gunfire based on the sound. A whole lot of people heard the sameMore comments, no evidence to back it up.
sounds yet had very different impressions about where the shots were coming from. The Altgens
photo shows the agents on the right side of the car turned to the rear which indicates they
believed that is where the shots came from. There is forensic evidence for only one location,
that being the 6th floor sniper's nest. Three spent shells from a rifle found elsewhere on that
floor. This matches the consensus among witnesses that there were three shots.
Do you need me to present you with the evidence ...
YES!!! YES!!! YES!!!
How many times do we need to ask you to cite evidence???
(But you won't cite evidence... how sad...)
The same old bullshit from you.
You're assuming that the witnesses were wrong while you compare apples with oranges.
Don't compare Altgens 6 with what the witnesses said about the SECOND shot.
I never assume ...
A blatant lie...
Altgens 6 was taken at Z frame Z-255, between the first and second shots. >> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/altgens-with-names.jpg
Wrong.Wrong.
You see Chaney turned to his left like he said after the FIRST shot.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/James-chaney.mp4
You see Landis turned to his right after the FIRST shot.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0384b.htm
Landis ...
You don't believe Landis, why are you trying to use him as a witness?
Now for the second shot:
Landis said the SECOND shot that exploded the Presdent's head sounded like it came from the "front, right-hand side of the road".
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/WH_Vol18_755-landis.gif
Do you ...
Tut tut tut... deal with what was posted.
Chaney said after he turned left, he turned back around to see the President "struck in the face by the SECOND shot".
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/James-chaney.mp4
Again...
You don't believe the eyewitnesses.
These witnesses knew what they were talking about and their accounts corroborate each other and in the realm of credibility that matters big time.
So take your argument about how all witnesses are wrong except those who prove Oswald was guilty and shove it up your ass.
I never said all witnesses were wrong.As you've repeatedly refused to name even a *SINGLE* witness you
believe completely in their testimony and contemporary statements,
this is provably a lie.
Now tell us why Landis and Chaney were not called to testify before the Warren Commission.
How am I supposed to know how the WC decided which witnesses to call to testify? If you wantThen simply name a witness that firmly supported the WCR's theory who
me to guess, I can do that.
was *NOT* called to testify...
You clearly can't reason...
Adding to this Paul Landis thread.stretcher in Parkland. But I guess this is new information resurfacing now.
A story came out literally just yesterday, supposed to be revelatory, that SA Paul Landis found a bullet in the back seat of the limo, a finding which alone debunks the SBT. I say "supposed" to be revelatory because a bullet was already found on a
The NY Times published the article/interview, but it's paywalled so I linked to this article instead:
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4197958-secret-service-agent-raises-questions-about-jfk-magic-bullet-theory
Ben and Gil (+Don), interested in hearing your takes on this.
Secret Service Agent in the motorcade: "My reaction at this time was
that the shot came from somewhere towards the front, but I did not see anyone on the overpass, and looked along the right-hand side of the
road."
Adding to this Paul Landis thread.stretcher in Parkland. But I guess this is new information resurfacing now.
A story came out literally just yesterday, supposed to be revelatory, that SA Paul Landis found a bullet in the back seat of the limo, a finding which alone debunks the SBT. I say "supposed" to be revelatory because a bullet was already found on a
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 11:41:23 -0700 (PDT), David Drummond <borisba...@gmail.com> wrote:stretcher in Parkland. But I guess this is new information resurfacing now.
Adding to this Paul Landis thread.
A story came out literally just yesterday, supposed to be revelatory, that SA Paul Landis found a bullet in the back seat of the limo, a finding which alone debunks the SBT. I say "supposed" to be revelatory because a bullet was already found on a
The NY Times published the article/interview, but it's paywalled so I linked to this article instead:
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4197958-secret-service-agent-raises-questions-about-jfk-magic-bullet-theory
Ben and Gil (+Don), interested in hearing your takes on this.
Unlike many believers, I'm quite happy with what was reported contemporaneously.
he originally said: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-landi.htm
Adding to this Paul Landis thread.stretcher in Parkland. But I guess this is new information resurfacing now.
A story came out literally just yesterday, supposed to be revelatory, that SA Paul Landis found a bullet in the back seat of the limo, a finding which alone debunks the SBT. I say "supposed" to be revelatory because a bullet was already found on a
The NY Times published the article/interview, but it's paywalled so I linked to this article instead:
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4197958-secret-service-agent-raises-questions-about-jfk-magic-bullet-theory
Ben and Gil (+Don), interested in hearing your takes on this.
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 11:41:25 AM UTC-7, David Drummond wrote:stretcher in Parkland. But I guess this is new information resurfacing now.
Adding to this Paul Landis thread.
A story came out literally just yesterday, supposed to be revelatory, that SA Paul Landis found a bullet in the back seat of the limo, a finding which alone debunks the SBT. I say "supposed" to be revelatory because a bullet was already found on a
wound. Ah!--the exit wound. And bruises over the lung & around the trachea. And: Dr. Guinn says that the "stretcher bullet matches the fragments in [Connolly's] wrist. Case closed. Though a few questions remain: Can bullet wounds seem to end, but don't,The NY Times published the article/interview, but it's paywalled so I linked to this article instead:
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4197958-secret-service-agent-raises-questions-about-jfk-magic-bullet-theory
Ben and Gil (+Don), interested in hearing your takes on this.It's tantalizing. A bullet found in the back seat of the limo. A pinky-length wound in the back of JFK's body. Must have fallen out there. But did the wound end there? New information for the Bethesda pathologists: Dr. Perry says there was a throat
And one little adjustment could still validate Landis's story: If the bullet was found in the *front* seat, then it could be the stretcher bullet. Either way, though, I'm afraid that there doesn't seem to be a case here for a 4th shot...
dcw
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:32:26 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:stretcher in Parkland. But I guess this is new information resurfacing now.
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 11:41:25 AM UTC-7, David Drummond wrote:
Adding to this Paul Landis thread.
A story came out literally just yesterday, supposed to be revelatory, that SA Paul Landis found a bullet in the back seat of the limo, a finding which alone debunks the SBT. I say "supposed" to be revelatory because a bullet was already found on a
wound. Ah!--the exit wound. And bruises over the lung & around the trachea. And: Dr. Guinn says that the "stretcher bullet matches the fragments in [Connolly's] wrist. Case closed. Though a few questions remain: Can bullet wounds seem to end, but don't,The NY Times published the article/interview, but it's paywalled so I linked to this article instead:
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4197958-secret-service-agent-raises-questions-about-jfk-magic-bullet-theory
Ben and Gil (+Don), interested in hearing your takes on this.It's tantalizing. A bullet found in the back seat of the limo. A pinky-length wound in the back of JFK's body. Must have fallen out there. But did the wound end there? New information for the Bethesda pathologists: Dr. Perry says there was a throat
And one little adjustment could still validate Landis's story: If the bullet was found in the *front* seat, then it could be the stretcher bullet. Either way, though, I'm afraid that there doesn't seem to be a case here for a 4th shot...
dcwLandis didn't mention seeing a bullet for more than two decades after the assassination. His first mention was in 1988, and then it was only a fragment.
More than likely it's a false memory.
Fred Litwin covers this in detail here: https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-paul-landis-really-find-a-bullet
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:41:25?PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:stretcher in Parkland. But I guess this is new information resurfacing now.
Adding to this Paul Landis thread.
A story came out literally just yesterday, supposed to be revelatory, that SA Paul Landis found a bullet in the back seat of the limo, a finding which alone debunks the SBT. I say "supposed" to be revelatory because a bullet was already found on a
Got any ideas how a bullet would end up in the back seat? Tell us where it could have been fired
from and who or what it could have hit. I'm not even asking you to prove it. Just tell us how it could have happened.
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 3:03:21?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:stretcher in Parkland. But I guess this is new information resurfacing now.
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 11:41:23 -0700 (PDT), David Drummond
<borisba...@gmail.com> wrote:
Adding to this Paul Landis thread.
A story came out literally just yesterday, supposed to be revelatory, that SA Paul Landis found a bullet in the back seat of the limo, a finding which alone debunks the SBT. I say "supposed" to be revelatory because a bullet was already found on a
The NY Times published the article/interview, but it's paywalled so I linked to this article instead:
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4197958-secret-service-agent-raises-questions-about-jfk-magic-bullet-theory
Ben and Gil (+Don), interested in hearing your takes on this.
Unlike many believers, I'm quite happy with what was reported
contemporaneously.
You're happy that it was contemporaneously reported JFK was shot in the head?
Most of the early reports were of three shots fired at the motorcade. CBS, WFAA, UPI, ABC, etc.
You think up to eight shots were fired at the motorcade from three locations.
You're on the far, far fringe with Sky Throne. And you provide no proof for your hobby points.
I need nothing else to prove conspiracy. Read what
he originally said:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-landi.htm
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:27:41 -0700 (PDT), David Drummond <borisba...@gmail.com> wrote:them superior to us.
I see Henry has returned with the flaccid "misremembering" whitewash that he applies to all undesirable witnesses, and the rest of the LNers don't even try to be anything other than hornets at a picnic.
The part I'm having trouble with is Landis did not seem to mention anything like this in his original statement:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-landi.htm
His statement is very detailed, at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.
Certainly also detailed enough that to characterize such a man as easily forgetful or "misremembering" is simply irresponsible.
Also, in the desperation of their apologia it sounds like the LNers are trying to claim that IF there was a bullet in the limo, that it was somehow the same bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland. One of many absurdities they believe which makes
Don't know why they'd do that... they're missing a bullet, you'd think they'd be HAPPY to find it.
I see Henry has returned with the flaccid "misremembering" whitewash that he applies to all undesirable witnesses, and the rest of the LNers don't even try to be anything other than hornets at a picnic.superior to us.
The part I'm having trouble with is Landis did not seem to mention anything like this in his original statement:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-landi.htm
His statement is very detailed, at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.
Certainly also detailed enough that to characterize such a man as easily forgetful or "misremembering" is simply irresponsible.
Also, in the desperation of their apologia it sounds like the LNers are trying to claim that IF there was a bullet in the limo, that it was somehow the same bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland. One of many absurdities they believe which makes them
You're satisfied with the contemporaneous account from Landis? Boris points out that his initial account doesn't seem to be mentioning anything about an "extra" bullet.
Ben: "Unlike many believers, I'm quite happy with what was reported contemporaneously."
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:32:40?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:them superior to us.
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:27:41 -0700 (PDT), David Drummond
<borisba...@gmail.com> wrote:
I see Henry has returned with the flaccid "misremembering" whitewash that he applies to all undesirable witnesses, and the rest of the LNers don't even try to be anything other than hornets at a picnic.
The part I'm having trouble with is Landis did not seem to mention anything like this in his original statement:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-landi.htm
His statement is very detailed, at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.
Certainly also detailed enough that to characterize such a man as easily forgetful or "misremembering" is simply irresponsible.
Also, in the desperation of their apologia it sounds like the LNers are trying to claim that IF there was a bullet in the limo, that it was somehow the same bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland. One of many absurdities they believe which makes
Don't know why they'd do that... they're missing a bullet, you'd think
they'd be HAPPY to find it.
You're satisfied...
You're satisfied with the contemporaneous account from Landis? Boris points out that his initial account doesn't seem to be mentioning anything about an "extra" bullet.
Ben: "Unlike many believers, I'm quite happy with what was reported contemporaneously."
Landis failing to mention a bullet in his original statement is not proof that no bullet was found. It only proves he didn't mention it. I only said I find it odd that it wasn't mentioned.
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 18:23:47 -0700 (PDT), John Corbettstretcher in Parkland. But I guess this is new information resurfacing now.
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:41:25?PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote: >> Adding to this Paul Landis thread.
A story came out literally just yesterday, supposed to be revelatory, that SA Paul Landis found a bullet in the back seat of the limo, a finding which alone debunks the SBT. I say "supposed" to be revelatory because a bullet was already found on a
Low charge bullet struck JFK in the back, then plopped out.Got any ideas how a bullet would end up in the back seat? Tell us where it could have been fired
from and who or what it could have hit. I'm not even asking you to prove it. Just tell us how it could have happened.
You lose!
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:48:41?PM UTC-5, David Drummond wrote: >>>
You're satisfied with the contemporaneous account from Landis? Boris points out that his initial account doesn't seem to be mentioning anything about an "extra" bullet.
Ben: "Unlike many believers, I'm quite happy with what was reported contemporaneously."
Landis failing to mention a bullet in his original statement is not proof that no bullet was found. It only proves he didn't mention it. I only said I find it odd that it wasn't mentioned.
Most likely ...
I see Henry has returned with the flaccid "misremembering" whitewash that he applies to all undesirable witnesses, and the rest of the LNers don't even try to be anything other than hornets at a picnic.
The part I'm having trouble with is Landis did not seem to mention anything like this in his original statement:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-landi.htm
His statement is very detailed, at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.
Certainly also detailed enough that to characterize such a man as easily forgetful or "misremembering" is simply irresponsible.
Also, in the desperation of their apologia it sounds like the LNers are trying to claim that IF there was a bullet in the limo, that it was somehow the same bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland. One of many absurdities they believe which makesthem superior to us.
You're satisfied with the contemporaneous account from Landis? Boris points out that his initial account doesn't seem to be mentioning anything about an "extra" bullet.
Ben: "Unlike many believers, I'm quite happy with what was reported contemporaneously."Landis failing to mention a bullet in his original statement is not proof that no bullet was found. It only proves he didn't mention it. I only said I find it odd that it wasn't mentioned.
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 14:06:06 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 2:27:43 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:There's nothing ‘flaccid’ about it.
I see Henry has returned with the flaccid "misremembering" whitewash that he applies to all undesirable witnesses, and the rest of the LNers don't even try to be anything other than hornets at a picnic.Hi David,
False memory is a verifiable issue. See anything by Elizabeth Loftus.
Or what happened to the McMartins, for one example of people inventing memories and getting people sent to jail. Or many accusations of child sex abuse first brought forth against parents decades later by grown children having “recovered memories”.
them superior to us.The part I'm having trouble with is Landis did not seem to mention anything like this in his original statement:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-landi.htm
His statement is very detailed, at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.
Certainly also detailed enough that to characterize such a man as easily forgetful or "misremembering" is simply irresponsible.“Easily forgetful” is not the charge.
"Misremembering" is closer. But in the scientific literature, it’s called false memories.
Also, in the desperation of their apologia it sounds like the LNers are trying to claim that IF there was a bullet in the limo, that it was somehow the same bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland. One of many absurdities they believe which makes
There was no extra bullet, it's something that Landis only started talking about 25 years after the fact. And originally, it was only a fragment.
What wound would this correspond to?
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 5:06:08?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:There's nothing flaccid about it.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 2:27:43?PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote: >>> I see Henry has returned with the flaccid "misremembering" whitewash that he applies to all undesirable witnesses, and the rest of the LNers don't even try to be anything other than hornets at a picnic.
Hi David,
False memory is a verifiable issue. See anything by Elizabeth Loftus.
Or what happened to the McMartins, for one example of people inventing memories and getting people sent to jail. Or many accusations of child sex abuse first brought forth against parents decades later by grown children having recovered memories.
them superior to us.Easily forgetful is not the charge.
The part I'm having trouble with is Landis did not seem to mention anything like this in his original statement:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-landi.htm
His statement is very detailed, at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.
Certainly also detailed enough that to characterize such a man as easily forgetful or "misremembering" is simply irresponsible.
"Misremembering" is closer. But in the scientific literature, its called false memories.
Also, in the desperation of their apologia it sounds like the LNers are trying to claim that IF there was a bullet in the limo, that it was somehow the same bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland. One of many absurdities they believe which makes
There was no extra bullet, it's something that Landis only started talking about 25 years after the fact. And originally, it was only a fragment.
What wound would this correspond to?
I hadn't thought of the possibility Landis recovered a fragment and later developed a false
memory ...
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:55:09 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:48:41?PM UTC-5, David Drummond wrote: >>>
You're satisfied with the contemporaneous account from Landis? Boris points out that his initial account doesn't seem to be mentioning anything about an "extra" bullet.
Ben: "Unlike many believers, I'm quite happy with what was reported contemporaneously."
Landis failing to mention a bullet in his original statement is not proof that no bullet was found. It only proves he didn't mention it. I only said I find it odd that it wasn't mentioned.
Most likely ...
Sounds like more speculation headed our way.
Deleted, as we don't need more speculation.
Why would anyone shoot their intended murder victim with a less-powerful bullet than normal?
Why wasn't this bullet part of the known evidence?
Please advise.
False memory is a verifiable issue. See anything by Elizabeth Loftus.There's nothing ‘flaccid’ about it.
Or what happened to the McMartins, for one example of people inventing memories and getting people sent to jail. Or many accusations of child sex abuse first brought forth against parents decades later by grown children having “recovered memories”.
You're satisfied with the contemporaneous account from Landis? Boris points out that his initial account doesn't seem to be mentioning anything about an "extra" bullet.
Ben: "Unlike many believers, I'm quite happy with what was reported contemporaneously."Landis failing to mention a bullet in his original statement is not proof that no bullet was found. It only proves he didn't mention it. I only said I find it odd that it wasn't mentioned.
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed, at leastdetailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”
Yet he didn't… and what happened to this supposed bullet?
detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, His statement is very detailed, at least
Yet he didn't and what happened to this supposed bullet?
It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every
new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy. Nor do we have to.
Unlike LNers, who are forced to believe every absurdity without
question, critics do not just blindly accept all claims. Asking
questions is, in fact, the fun of being critical (hence, "critic").
detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed, at least
claims. Asking questions is, in fact, the fun of being critical (hence, "critic").Yet he didn't… and what happened to this supposed bullet?
It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy. Nor do we have to. Unlike LNers, who are forced to believe every absurdity without question, critics do not just blindly accept all
Why would anyone shoot their intended murder victim with a less-powerful bullet than normal?
Why wasn't this bullet part of the known evidence?
Please advise.This is the part where Henry agrees that the magic bullet is "less powerful" than the head shot bullet because one exploded and one remained intact.
This is also the part where Henry conveniently forgets his own counterarguments that bullets act differently.
Why would anyone shoot their intended murder victim with a less-powerful bullet than normal?
Why wasn't this bullet part of the known evidence?
Please advise.This is the part where Henry agrees that the magic bullet is "less powerful" than the head shot bullet because one exploded and one remained intact.
This is also the part where Henry conveniently forgets his own counterarguments that bullets act differently.
detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed, at least
Yet he didn't… and what happened to this supposed bullet?It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy.
Nor do we have to. Unlike LNers, who are forced to believe every absurdity without question,
critics do not just blindly accept all claims. Asking questions is, in fact, the fun of being critical (hence, "critic").
. There's nothing ‘flaccid’ about it.False memory is a verifiable issue. See anything by Elizabeth Loftus.
Or what happened to the McMartins, for one example of people inventing memories and getting people sent to jail. Or many accusations of child sex abuse first brought forth against parents decades later by grown children having “recovered memories”
What's flaccid is your attribution of false memories to anyone in the vicinity of ANY shooting (JFK, Tippett, Walker, Oswald) who even begin to approach to hint at a memory with even the vaugest discrepancy to the WCR.
Suspiciously enough, the false memory phenomenon manages to elude everyone who tows the official narrative to the exact letter. I wonder what Elizabeth Loftus would think about that.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:39:47 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Why would anyone shoot their intended murder victim with a less-powerful bullet than normal?
Why wasn't this bullet part of the known evidence?
Please advise.This is the part where Henry agrees that the magic bullet is "less powerful" than the head shot bullet because one exploded and one remained intact.
This is also the part where Henry conveniently forgets his own counterarguments that bullets act differently.One exploded
and one did not because one was fired directly into the dense bone of a skull and
the other had been slowed considerably by passing through mostly soft tissue fo two men's
torsos before striking a wrist bone.
Landis didn't mention seeing a bullet for more than two decades after the assassination. His first mention was in 1988, and then it was only a fragment.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 9:41:19?AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:the first article from 1983 (which I show in my post linked below) wasn't just a "misquote" on the part of the Associated Press interviewer:
Landis didn't mention seeing a bullet for more than two decades after the assassination. His first mention was in 1988, and then it was only a fragment.
Actually, Paul Landis first mentioned handling a "fragment" in 1983 (based on the newspaper searches I've done this week). And he says in that '83 interview that he then gave the fragment "to somebody" (versus he himself taking it into the hospital).
And the fact that Fred Litwin was able to find a *second* article (from 1988 this time, five years after the article I found) that says the very same thing --- "fragment" and "handed to somebody" --- is important, because it virtually guarantees us that
http://jfk-archiv
One exploded and one did not because one was fired directly into the dense bone of a skull and
the other had been slowed considerably by passing through mostly soft tissue fo two men's
torsos before striking a wrist bone.
Secret Service Agent in the motorcade: "My reaction at this time was
that the shot came from somewhere towards the front, but I did not see anyone on the overpass, and looked along the right-hand side of the
road."
Secret Service Agent in the motorcade: "My reaction at this time was
that the shot came from somewhere towards the front, but I did not see anyone on the overpass, and looked along the right-hand side of the
road."
You don't believe Landis in his contemporary report. Why not simply admit it?
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:13:49?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
You don't believe Landis in his contemporary report. Why not simply admit it?
Already have. Several times.
"FWIW, here's what I think happened .... Paul Landis really did see and pick up a bullet fragment (not a whole bullet) off of the back seat of the Presidential limousine at Parkland Hospital on November 22, 1963.
This is the part where Henry agrees that the magic bullet is "less powerful" than the head shot bullet because one exploded and one remained intact.Straw Man argument. I've never advanced that argument and I never will.
This is also the part where Henry conveniently forgets his own counterarguments that bullets act differently.Bullets can do weird stuff, depending on what they strike.
But you conveniently ignored my points. If you think Landis found a bullet that “plopped out of the neck” then
Commission.
This is the part where Henry agrees that the magic bullet is "less powerful" than the head shot bullet because one exploded and one remained intact.Straw Man argument. I've never advanced that argument and I never will.
Henry then immediately advances this specific argument, but in a slightly reworded variation, ie., "Bullets can do weird stuff." Which is basically what I just said, if not a bit hyperbolically.
Bullets can do weird stuff, depending on what they strike.
This is also the part where Henry conveniently forgets his own counterarguments that bullets act differently.
See above.
But you conveniently ignored my points. If you think Landis found a bullet that plopped out of the neck then
When did I say it plopped out of the neck? It's ironic you just used a straw man argument in the same post in which you complained about a straw man argument being used against you. You even put it in quotes. Impressively brazen...like the Warren
"FWIW, here's what I think happened .... Paul Landis really did see and pick up a bullet fragment (not a whole bullet) off of the back seat of the Presidential limousine at Parkland Hospital on November 22, 1963.
Henry and the other LNers won't like this. They were quick to want to nip this whole incident in the bud and deny *anything* was found.
On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 09:03:36 -0700 (PDT), David Drummond <borisba...@gmail.com> wrote:
"FWIW, here's what I think happened .... Paul Landis really did see and pick up a bullet fragment (not a whole bullet) off of the back seat of the Presidential limousine at Parkland Hospital on November 22, 1963.
Henry and the other LNers won't like this. They were quick to want to nip this whole incident in the bud and deny *anything* was found.Von Penis has already admitted that he doesn't believe Landis. So
he's merely speculating on what he thinks will help his faith.
On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 09:15:48 -0700 (PDT), David Drummond <borisba...@gmail.com> wrote:Commission.
This is the part where Henry agrees that the magic bullet is "less powerful" than the head shot bullet because one exploded and one remained intact.Straw Man argument. I've never advanced that argument and I never will.
Henry then immediately advances this specific argument, but in a slightly reworded variation, ie., "Bullets can do weird stuff." Which is basically what I just said, if not a bit hyperbolically.
Bullets can do weird stuff, depending on what they strike.
This is also the part where Henry conveniently forgets his own counterarguments that bullets act differently.
See above.
But you conveniently ignored my points. If you think Landis found a bullet that “plopped out of the neck” then
When did I say it plopped out of the neck? It's ironic you just used a straw man argument in the same post in which you complained about a straw man argument being used against you. You even put it in quotes. Impressively brazen...like the Warren
Huckster's a blatant liar infrequently - usually he hides his lies a
little bit more diligently.
On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 11:33:42 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
Can you look at this correctly?
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 11:34:06 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
Here's "crazy" for you:
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 12:18:04 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
There is nothing in Landis' story that adds up. For starters. how the hell could a bullet end up
in the back seat.
We could give Landis the benefit of the doubt and say he is just a fuzzy headed old geezer who
has developed some false memories of what happened on 11/22/63.
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:31:49?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
There is nothing in Landis' story that adds up. For starters. how the hell could a bullet end up
in the back seat.
As I understand him, the explanation is that this bullet - the one he supposedly found - was undercharged...
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:14:31 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 12:18:04 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>His story is true because it adds up...
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 11:10:04 AM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:As I understand him, the explanation is that this bullet - the one he supposedly found - was undercharged, that it went a few inches in JFK's back and then emerged out/shaken out during JFK's violent reaction to the head shot. But the autopsy showed a
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:14:31 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 12:18:04 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>His story is true because it adds up...
There is nothing in Landis' story that adds up. For starters. how the hell could a bullet end up
in the back seat. Where was it fire from. Who or what did it hit? The next problem is it would
have been completely irresponsible for Landis to find a key piece of evidence such as a bullet
and not secure it. Instead he claims he laid it on JFK's stretcher which would have been foolish.
He makes no mention of it in his original report or in his more detailed report made a few days
later. Then 60 years later he remembers finding a bullet in he backseat and placing it on JFK's
stretcher and puts it in a book he wants to sell.
We could give Landis the benefit of the doubt and say he is just a fuzzy headed old geezer who
has developed some false memories of what happened on 11/22/63. The more cynical view is
that he is just another in a long line of myth peddlers trying to make money off JFK's death.
Either explanation is plausible. Landis' bullshit story is not.
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:31:49 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:bullet going further, causing damage to JFK's spine, et cetera. And how could a bullet be so undercharged that it only went in a few inches but still reach JFK? How does the ballistics go?
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 11:10:04 AM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:14:31 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 12:18:04 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>His story is true because it adds up...
There is nothing in Landis' story that adds up. For starters. how the hell could a bullet end up
in the back seat. Where was it fire from. Who or what did it hit? The next problem is it would
have been completely irresponsible for Landis to find a key piece of evidence such as a bullet
and not secure it. Instead he claims he laid it on JFK's stretcher which would have been foolish.
He makes no mention of it in his original report or in his more detailed report made a few days
later. Then 60 years later he remembers finding a bullet in he backseat and placing it on JFK's
stretcher and puts it in a book he wants to sell.
We could give Landis the benefit of the doubt and say he is just a fuzzy headed old geezer whoAs I understand him, the explanation is that this bullet - the one he supposedly found - was undercharged, that it went a few inches in JFK's back and then emerged out/shaken out during JFK's violent reaction to the head shot. But the autopsy showed a
has developed some false memories of what happened on 11/22/63. The more cynical view is
that he is just another in a long line of myth peddlers trying to make money off JFK's death.
Either explanation is plausible. Landis' bullshit story is not.
As to finding it and putting it back: No mention for decades in his report and several interviews? He says he was never *asked* about it. That's not believable.9kWHk4rnvBI
Another nurse/intern at the time, Sharon Tuohy, says she too saw a bullet on the stretcher as it was wheeled into the hall after JFK was placed in the casket.
Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPLgFuQS7Y4
But she says was with another nurse, Donna Schloss, who *also* saw the bullet. That nurse says she doesn't know what Tuohy is talking about, she saw no bullet and Tuohy never mentioned it to her. Schloss is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
It never ends <g>.
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 08:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:31:49?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
There is nothing in Landis' story that adds up. For starters. how the hell could a bullet end up
in the back seat.
As I understand him, the explanation is that this bullet - the one he supposedly found - was undercharged...
Don't you know you're never supposed to correct a fellow believer???
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 12:03:43 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 08:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:31:49?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
There is nothing in Landis' story that adds up. For starters. how the hell could a bullet end up
in the back seat.
As I understand him, the explanation is that this bullet - the one he supposedly found - was undercharged...
Don't you know you're never supposed to correct a fellow believer???Unless it can be shown the bullet was undercharged there is no correcting to be done.
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:31:49 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 11:10:04 AM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:14:31 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 12:18:04 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>His story is true because it adds up...
There is nothing in Landis' story that adds up. For starters. how the hell could a bullet end up
in the back seat. Where was it fire from. Who or what did it hit? The next problem is it would
have been completely irresponsible for Landis to find a key piece of evidence such as a bullet
and not secure it. Instead he claims he laid it on JFK's stretcher which would have been foolish.
He makes no mention of it in his original report or in his more detailed report made a few days
later. Then 60 years later he remembers finding a bullet in he backseat and placing it on JFK's
stretcher and puts it in a book he wants to sell.
We could give Landis the benefit of the doubt and say he is just a fuzzy headed old geezer whoAs I understand him, the explanation is that this bullet - the one he supposedly found - was undercharged, that it went a few inches in JFK's back and then emerged out/shaken out during JFK's violent reaction to the head shot.
has developed some false memories of what happened on 11/22/63. The more cynical view is
that he is just another in a long line of myth peddlers trying to make money off JFK's death.
Either explanation is plausible. Landis' bullshit story is not.
But the autopsy showed a bullet going further, causing damage to JFK's spine, et cetera. And how could a bullet be so undercharged that it only went in a few inches but still reach JFK? How does the ballistics go?9kWHk4rnvBI
As to finding it and putting it back: No mention for decades in his report and several interviews? He says he was never *asked* about it. That's not believable.
Another nurse/intern at the time, Sharon Tuohy, says she too saw a bullet on the stretcher as it was wheeled into the hall after JFK was placed in the casket.
Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPLgFuQS7Y4
But she says was with another nurse, Donna Schloss, who *also* saw the bullet. That nurse says she doesn't know what Tuohy is talking about, she saw no bullet and Tuohy never mentioned it to her. Schloss is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
It never ends <g>.
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 3:00:46 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 12:03:43 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 08:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:31:49?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
There is nothing in Landis' story that adds up. For starters. how the hell could a bullet end up
in the back seat.
As I understand him, the explanation is that this bullet - the one he supposedly found - was undercharged...
CIA trained snipers fired an undercharged bullet at JFK in an assassination attempt. Apparently two since the neck/throat bullet also fell out? Where did it exit? As Bud once asked, "What were they trying to do, capture him?"And undercharged bullet could only hit an intended target if the shooter knows it is underchargedDon't you know you're never supposed to correct a fellow believer???Unless it can be shown the bullet was undercharged there is no correcting to be done.
and adjusts his aim to compensate for it. This raises the question as to why an assassin
would deliberately use an undercharged bullet.
The idea that JFK was hit by an undercharged bullet is laughable.
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 3:06:28 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 3:00:46 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 12:03:43 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 08:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:31:49?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
There is nothing in Landis' story that adds up. For starters. how the hell could a bullet end up
in the back seat.
As I understand him, the explanation is that this bullet - the one he supposedly found - was undercharged...
And undercharged bullet could only hit an intended target if the shooter knows it is underchargedDon't you know you're never supposed to correct a fellow believer???Unless it can be shown the bullet was undercharged there is no correcting to be done.
and adjusts his aim to compensate for it. This raises the question as to why an assassin
would deliberately use an undercharged bullet.
The idea that JFK was hit by an undercharged bullet is laughable.CIA trained snipers fired an undercharged bullet at JFK in an assassination attempt. Apparently two since the neck/throat bullet also fell out? Where did it exit? As Bud once asked, "What were they trying to do, capture him?"
And undercharged bullet could only hit an intended target if the shooter knows it is undercharged
and adjusts his aim to compensate for it.
One thing we've seen several examples of is one person hearing something somebody else
claimed and then doubling down on it.
CIA trained snipers fired an undercharged bullet at JFK in an assassination attempt.
"FWIW, here's what I think happened .... Paul Landis really did see and pick up a bullet fragment (not a whole bullet) off of the back seat of the Presidential limousine at Parkland Hospital on November 22, 1963.Henry and the other LNers won't like this. They were quick to want to nip this whole incident in the bud and deny *anything* was found.
detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed, at least
Yet he didn't… and what happened to this supposed bullet?
It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy.
Nor do we have to.
Unlike LNers, who are forced to believe every absurdity without question,
critics do not just blindly accept all claims. Asking questions is, in fact, the fun of being critical (hence, "critic").
. There's nothing ‘flaccid’ about it.False memory is a verifiable issue. See anything by Elizabeth Loftus.
Or what happened to the McMartins, for one example of people inventing memories and getting people sent to jail. Or many accusations of child sex abuse first brought forth against parents decades later by grown children having “recovered memories”
What's flaccid is your attribution of false memories to anyone in the vicinity of ANY shooting (JFK, Tippett, Walker, Oswald) who even begin to approach to hint at a memory with even the vaguest discrepancy to the WCR.
Suspiciously enough, the false memory phenomenon manages to elude everyone who tows the official narrative to the exact letter.
I wonder what Elizabeth Loftus would think about that.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:56:09 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed, at least
You guys agree on very little. That is not a feature of Conspiracy Theory, it is a bug.Yet he didn't… and what happened to this supposed bullet?
It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy.
No, I know full well that you guys have a hard time agreeing on anything. Some argue for film and body alterations, others accept one or the other, or even neither. Some suspect the Mafia, others the CIA, still others Russia, or Cuba, or even Israel.
This is like a Christian with his Bible complaining that all of the other religionists can't agree on an alternative religion. "Why can't they just come up with something?"Nor do we have to.
You guys have to get your case together — after 60 years, shouldn't you guys at least have some semblance of a unified conspiracy theory?
detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”Unlike LNers, who are forced to believe every absurdity without question,
“Absurdity” is a begged question logical fallacy. You asserted this, but did not even attempt to establish this.
critics do not just blindly accept all claims. Asking questions is, in fact, the fun of being critical (hence, "critic").
After 6o years, you guys are no closer to a solution that you were after the first three years, which consisted entirely of sniping at the WC conclusions. Indeed, some want to continue to do only that:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-3s8wMtX6Vs/m/6xn-rAqgAAAJ
PS: I notice you neglected to respond to the point raised, here it is again: Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed, at least
Henry then immediately advances this specific argument, but in a slightly reworded variation, ie., "Bullets can do weird stuff." Which is basically what I just said, if not a bit hyperbolically.This is the part where Henry agrees that the magic bullet is "less powerful" than the head shot bullet because one exploded and one remained intact.Straw Man argument. I've never advanced that argument and I never will.
See above.This is also the part where Henry conveniently forgets his own counterarguments that bullets act differently.Bullets can do weird stuff, depending on what they strike.
Why would anyone shoot their intended murder victim with a less-powerful bullet than normal?But you conveniently ignored my points. If you think Landis found a bullet that “plopped out of the neck” then:
When did I say it plopped out of the neck? It's ironic you just used a straw man argument in the same post in which you complained about a straw man argument being used against you. You even put it in quotes. Impressively brazen...like the WarrenCommission.
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:14:31 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:authorities...
On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 12:18:04 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>His story is true because it adds up...
What Kennedy researchers do is revert to the sensible in their logic and assume that people would act truthful according to assumed expectations...
However the Kennedy assassination is a wicked event full of duplicitiy and official misconduct...
Landis found the Magic Bullet as he told...However he did what any Secret Service agent would do and handed it over to his superior...
From that point on it became a fragment in his recounting...
Landis's superior turned the bullet over to the plotters and they worked it in to the evidence between Johnsen and Rowley in Washington DC...Only Landis can't tell the real version because it exposes the conspiracy and the complicity of government
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 11:58:52 -0700 (PDT), John Corbettpartially eaten cheese sandwich in the lunchroom becomes corroboration of that story.
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
One thing we've seen several examples of is one person hearing something somebody else
claimed and then doubling down on it. Frazier saying he heard that somebody had seen a
Yes, of course it's impossible that one event was seen by more than
one person...
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 2:47:11 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:56:09 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed, at
You guys agree on very little. That is not a feature of Conspiracy Theory, it is a bug.Yet he didn't… and what happened to this supposed bullet?
It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy.
No, I know full well that you guys have a hard time agreeing on anything. Some argue for film and body alterations, others accept one or the other, or even neither. Some suspect the Mafia, others the CIA, still others Russia, or Cuba, or even Israel.
Nor do we have to.
You guys have to get your case together — after 60 years, shouldn't you guys at least have some semblance of a unified conspiracy theory?This is like a Christian with his Bible complaining that all of the other religionists can't agree on an alternative religion. "Why can't they just come up with something?"
detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”Unlike LNers, who are forced to believe every absurdity without question,
“Absurdity” is a begged question logical fallacy. You asserted this, but did not even attempt to establish this.
critics do not just blindly accept all claims. Asking questions is, in fact, the fun of being critical (hence, "critic").
After 6o years, you guys are no closer to a solution that you were after the first three years, which consisted entirely of sniping at the WC conclusions. Indeed, some want to continue to do only that:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-3s8wMtX6Vs/m/6xn-rAqgAAAJ
PS: I notice you neglected to respond to the point raised, here it is again:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed, at least
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 3:23:25 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 2:47:11 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:56:09 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed, at
Israel. You guys agree on very little. That is not a feature of Conspiracy Theory, it is a bug.Yet he didn't… and what happened to this supposed bullet?
It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy.
No, I know full well that you guys have a hard time agreeing on anything. Some argue for film and body alterations, others accept one or the other, or even neither. Some suspect the Mafia, others the CIA, still others Russia, or Cuba, or even
Nor do we have to.
No, this is like an atheist asking why the “one true religion” is practiced so differently by so many different religions.You guys have to get your case together — after 60 years, shouldn't you guys at least have some semblance of a unified conspiracy theory?This is like a Christian with his Bible complaining that all of the other religionists can't agree on an alternative religion. "Why can't they just come up with something?"
Don't lump me in with CTs.
detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”Unlike LNers, who are forced to believe every absurdity without question,
“Absurdity” is a begged question logical fallacy. You asserted this, but did not even attempt to establish this.
critics do not just blindly accept all claims. Asking questions is, in fact, the fun of being critical (hence, "critic").
After 6o years, you guys are no closer to a solution that you were after the first three years, which consisted entirely of sniping at the WC conclusions. Indeed, some want to continue to do only that:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-3s8wMtX6Vs/m/6xn-rAqgAAAJ
PS: I notice you neglected to respond to the point raised, here it is again:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed, at least
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:15:38 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 3:23:25 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 2:47:11 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:56:09 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed, at
Israel. You guys agree on very little. That is not a feature of Conspiracy Theory, it is a bug.Yet he didn't… and what happened to this supposed bullet?
It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy.
No, I know full well that you guys have a hard time agreeing on anything. Some argue for film and body alterations, others accept one or the other, or even neither. Some suspect the Mafia, others the CIA, still others Russia, or Cuba, or even
Nor do we have to.
No, this is like an atheist asking why the “one true religion” is practiced so differently by so many different religions.You guys have to get your case together — after 60 years, shouldn't you guys at least have some semblance of a unified conspiracy theory?This is like a Christian with his Bible complaining that all of the other religionists can't agree on an alternative religion. "Why can't they just come up with something?"
Don't lump me in with CTs.
least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”Unlike LNers, who are forced to believe every absurdity without question,
“Absurdity” is a begged question logical fallacy. You asserted this, but did not even attempt to establish this.
critics do not just blindly accept all claims. Asking questions is, in fact, the fun of being critical (hence, "critic").
After 6o years, you guys are no closer to a solution that you were after the first three years, which consisted entirely of sniping at the WC conclusions. Indeed, some want to continue to do only that:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-3s8wMtX6Vs/m/6xn-rAqgAAAJ
PS: I notice you neglected to respond to the point raised, here it is again:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed, at
The atheist thinks he's not in a religion! Okay, atheist. It's like an atheist complaining that religionists can't come up with one belief system as he and all of his fellow atheists have.
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:15:38 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 3:23:25 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 2:47:11 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:56:09 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed,
Israel. You guys agree on very little. That is not a feature of Conspiracy Theory, it is a bug.Yet he didn't… and what happened to this supposed bullet?
It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy.
No, I know full well that you guys have a hard time agreeing on anything. Some argue for film and body alterations, others accept one or the other, or even neither. Some suspect the Mafia, others the CIA, still others Russia, or Cuba, or even
Nor do we have to.
No, this is like an atheist asking why the “one true religion” is practiced so differently by so many different religions.You guys have to get your case together — after 60 years, shouldn't you guys at least have some semblance of a unified conspiracy theory?This is like a Christian with his Bible complaining that all of the other religionists can't agree on an alternative religion. "Why can't they just come up with something?"
Don't lump me in with CTs.
least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”Unlike LNers, who are forced to believe every absurdity without question,
“Absurdity” is a begged question logical fallacy. You asserted this, but did not even attempt to establish this.
critics do not just blindly accept all claims. Asking questions is, in fact, the fun of being critical (hence, "critic").
After 6o years, you guys are no closer to a solution that you were after the first three years, which consisted entirely of sniping at the WC conclusions. Indeed, some want to continue to do only that:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-3s8wMtX6Vs/m/6xn-rAqgAAAJ
PS: I notice you neglected to respond to the point raised, here it is again:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed, at
The atheist thinks he's not in a religion! Okay, atheist. It's like an atheist complaining that religionists can't come up with one belief system as he and all of his fellow atheists have.Better.
Atheists aren't claiming theirs is the one true religion, the religious do that. If there was one true religion, shouldn't the religious agree on what it was?
And ditto with a conspiracy, if there was one, shouldn't you guys agree on the basic outline — who was behind it, how many shooters, what was done in furtherance of that conspiracy (film and body alteration, swapping of what evidence, etc.)
But CTs agree on little across the board.
Again, it’s a bug, not a feature.
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 8:05:42 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:15:38 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 3:23:25 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 2:47:11 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:56:09 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed,
Israel. You guys agree on very little. That is not a feature of Conspiracy Theory, it is a bug.Yet he didn't… and what happened to this supposed bullet?
It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy.
No, I know full well that you guys have a hard time agreeing on anything. Some argue for film and body alterations, others accept one or the other, or even neither. Some suspect the Mafia, others the CIA, still others Russia, or Cuba, or even
Nor do we have to.
No, this is like an atheist asking why the “one true religion” is practiced so differently by so many different religions.You guys have to get your case together — after 60 years, shouldn't you guys at least have some semblance of a unified conspiracy theory?This is like a Christian with his Bible complaining that all of the other religionists can't agree on an alternative religion. "Why can't they just come up with something?"
Don't lump me in with CTs.
least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”Unlike LNers, who are forced to believe every absurdity without question,
“Absurdity” is a begged question logical fallacy. You asserted this, but did not even attempt to establish this.
critics do not just blindly accept all claims. Asking questions is, in fact, the fun of being critical (hence, "critic").
After 6o years, you guys are no closer to a solution that you were after the first three years, which consisted entirely of sniping at the WC conclusions. Indeed, some want to continue to do only that:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-3s8wMtX6Vs/m/6xn-rAqgAAAJ
PS: I notice you neglected to respond to the point raised, here it is again:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed, at
It IS the Nutter complaining that non Nutters can't all agree on what happened in the JFK assassination. The Nutter, in this complaint, supposes that he is correct and that all the others are wrong because they don't unify, like the Nutters. HankThe atheist thinks he's not in a religion! Okay, atheist. It's like an atheist complaining that religionists can't come up with one belief system as he and all of his fellow atheists have.Better.
Atheists aren't claiming theirs is the one true religion, the religious do that. If there was one true religion, shouldn't the religious agree on what it was?
And ditto with a conspiracy, if there was one, shouldn't you guys agree on the basic outline — who was behind it, how many shooters, what was done in furtherance of that conspiracy (film and body alteration, swapping of what evidence, etc.)
But CTs agree on little across the board.
Again, it’s a bug, not a feature.My mistake for using an analogy. All analogies are imperfect. That's the nature of analogies. It is also a mistake to try to reason with you, as you are simply here to propagate your ideology as the One True Ideology regarding the assassination of JFK.
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 12:25:30 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:detailed, at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 8:05:42 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:15:38 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 3:23:25 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 2:47:11 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:56:09 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very
even Israel. You guys agree on very little. That is not a feature of Conspiracy Theory, it is a bug.Yet he didn't… and what happened to this supposed bullet?
It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy.
No, I know full well that you guys have a hard time agreeing on anything. Some argue for film and body alterations, others accept one or the other, or even neither. Some suspect the Mafia, others the CIA, still others Russia, or Cuba, or
Nor do we have to.
No, this is like an atheist asking why the “one true religion” is practiced so differently by so many different religions.You guys have to get your case together — after 60 years, shouldn't you guys at least have some semblance of a unified conspiracy theory?This is like a Christian with his Bible complaining that all of the other religionists can't agree on an alternative religion. "Why can't they just come up with something?"
Don't lump me in with CTs.
at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”Unlike LNers, who are forced to believe every absurdity without question,
“Absurdity” is a begged question logical fallacy. You asserted this, but did not even attempt to establish this.
critics do not just blindly accept all claims. Asking questions is, in fact, the fun of being critical (hence, "critic").
After 6o years, you guys are no closer to a solution that you were after the first three years, which consisted entirely of sniping at the WC conclusions. Indeed, some want to continue to do only that:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-3s8wMtX6Vs/m/6xn-rAqgAAAJ
PS: I notice you neglected to respond to the point raised, here it is again:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed,
JFK. It IS the Nutter complaining that non Nutters can't all agree on what happened in the JFK assassination. The Nutter, in this complaint, supposes that he is correct and that all the others are wrong because they don't unify, like the Nutters. HankThe atheist thinks he's not in a religion! Okay, atheist. It's like an atheist complaining that religionists can't come up with one belief system as he and all of his fellow atheists have.Better.
Atheists aren't claiming theirs is the one true religion, the religious do that. If there was one true religion, shouldn't the religious agree on what it was?
And ditto with a conspiracy, if there was one, shouldn't you guys agree on the basic outline — who was behind it, how many shooters, what was done in furtherance of that conspiracy (film and body alteration, swapping of what evidence, etc.)
But CTs agree on little across the board.
Again, it’s a bug, not a feature.My mistake for using an analogy. All analogies are imperfect. That's the nature of analogies. It is also a mistake to try to reason with you, as you are simply here to propagate your ideology as the One True Ideology regarding the assassination of
Nutters KNOW we are right and the CTs are wrong. That's why we find your never ending snipe
hunt so amusing. Your obsession reminds us of Ahab's white whale although Ahab's white whale
actually exist as per Herman Melville's story. He had a missing leg to prove it. CTs have nothing
more than their poor reasoning skills to go on.
THAR SHE BLOWS!!!
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:15:38 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 3:23:25 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 2:47:11 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:56:09 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed,
Israel. You guys agree on very little. That is not a feature of Conspiracy Theory, it is a bug.Yet he didn't… and what happened to this supposed bullet?
It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy.
No, I know full well that you guys have a hard time agreeing on anything. Some argue for film and body alterations, others accept one or the other, or even neither. Some suspect the Mafia, others the CIA, still others Russia, or Cuba, or even
Nor do we have to.
No, this is like an atheist asking why the “one true religion” is practiced so differently by so many different religions.You guys have to get your case together — after 60 years, shouldn't you guys at least have some semblance of a unified conspiracy theory?This is like a Christian with his Bible complaining that all of the other religionists can't agree on an alternative religion. "Why can't they just come up with something?"
Don't lump me in with CTs.
least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”Unlike LNers, who are forced to believe every absurdity without question,
“Absurdity” is a begged question logical fallacy. You asserted this, but did not even attempt to establish this.
critics do not just blindly accept all claims. Asking questions is, in fact, the fun of being critical (hence, "critic").
After 6o years, you guys are no closer to a solution that you were after the first three years, which consisted entirely of sniping at the WC conclusions. Indeed, some want to continue to do only that:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-3s8wMtX6Vs/m/6xn-rAqgAAAJ
PS: I notice you neglected to respond to the point raised, here it is again:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed, at
The atheist thinks he's not in a religion! Okay, atheist. It's like an atheist complaining that religionists can't come up with one belief system as he and all of his fellow atheists have.Better.
Atheists aren't claiming theirs is the one true religion, the religious do that. If there was one true religion, shouldn't the religious agree on what it was?
And ditto with a conspiracy, if there was one, shouldn't you guys agree on the basic outline — who was behind it, how many shooters, what was done in furtherance of that conspiracy (film and body alteration, swapping of what evidence, etc.)
But CTs agree on little across the board.
Again, it’s a bug, not a feature.
Nutters KNOW we are right and the CTs are wrong.
It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy.
No, I know full well that you guys have a hard time agreeing on anything.
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 8:05:42 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:15:38 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 3:23:25 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 2:47:11 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:56:09 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed,
Israel. You guys agree on very little. That is not a feature of Conspiracy Theory, it is a bug.Yet he didn't… and what happened to this supposed bullet?
It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy.
No, I know full well that you guys have a hard time agreeing on anything. Some argue for film and body alterations, others accept one or the other, or even neither. Some suspect the Mafia, others the CIA, still others Russia, or Cuba, or even
Nor do we have to.
No, this is like an atheist asking why the “one true religion” is practiced so differently by so many different religions.You guys have to get your case together — after 60 years, shouldn't you guys at least have some semblance of a unified conspiracy theory?This is like a Christian with his Bible complaining that all of the other religionists can't agree on an alternative religion. "Why can't they just come up with something?"
Don't lump me in with CTs.
least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”Unlike LNers, who are forced to believe every absurdity without question,
“Absurdity” is a begged question logical fallacy. You asserted this, but did not even attempt to establish this.
critics do not just blindly accept all claims. Asking questions is, in fact, the fun of being critical (hence, "critic").
After 6o years, you guys are no closer to a solution that you were after the first three years, which consisted entirely of sniping at the WC conclusions. Indeed, some want to continue to do only that:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-3s8wMtX6Vs/m/6xn-rAqgAAAJ
PS: I notice you neglected to respond to the point raised, here it is again:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed, at
It IS the Nutter complaining that non Nutters can't all agree on what happened in the JFK assassination. The Nutter, in this complaint, supposes that he is correct and that all the others are wrong because they don't unify, like the Nutters. HankThe atheist thinks he's not in a religion! Okay, atheist. It's like an atheist complaining that religionists can't come up with one belief system as he and all of his fellow atheists have.Better.
Atheists aren't claiming theirs is the one true religion, the religious do that. If there was one true religion, shouldn't the religious agree on what it was?
And ditto with a conspiracy, if there was one, shouldn't you guys agree on the basic outline — who was behind it, how many shooters, what was done in furtherance of that conspiracy (film and body alteration, swapping of what evidence, etc.)
But CTs agree on little across the board.
Again, it’s a bug, not a feature.My mistake for using an analogy. All analogies are imperfect. That's the nature of analogies. It is also a mistake to try to reason with you, as you are simply here to propagate your ideology as the One True Ideology regarding the assassination of JFK.
It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy.
No, I know full well that you guys have a hard time agreeing on anything.You know the thing about cults, Henry? Their followers agree on everything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnIQalprvR8
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 8:05:42 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:15:38 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 3:23:25 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 2:47:11 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:56:09 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed,
Israel. You guys agree on very little. That is not a feature of Conspiracy Theory, it is a bug.Yet he didn't… and what happened to this supposed bullet?
It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy.
No, I know full well that you guys have a hard time agreeing on anything. Some argue for film and body alterations, others accept one or the other, or even neither. Some suspect the Mafia, others the CIA, still others Russia, or Cuba, or even
Nor do we have to.
No, this is like an atheist asking why the “one true religion” is practiced so differently by so many different religions.You guys have to get your case together — after 60 years, shouldn't you guys at least have some semblance of a unified conspiracy theory?This is like a Christian with his Bible complaining that all of the other religionists can't agree on an alternative religion. "Why can't they just come up with something?"
Don't lump me in with CTs.
least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”Unlike LNers, who are forced to believe every absurdity without question,
“Absurdity” is a begged question logical fallacy. You asserted this, but did not even attempt to establish this.
critics do not just blindly accept all claims. Asking questions is, in fact, the fun of being critical (hence, "critic").
After 6o years, you guys are no closer to a solution that you were after the first three years, which consisted entirely of sniping at the WC conclusions. Indeed, some want to continue to do only that:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-3s8wMtX6Vs/m/6xn-rAqgAAAJ
PS: I notice you neglected to respond to the point raised, here it is again:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed, at
It IS the Nutter complaining that non Nutters can't all agree on what happened in the JFK assassination. The Nutter, in this complaint, supposes that he is correct and that all the others are wrong because they don't unify, like the Nutters. HankThe atheist thinks he's not in a religion! Okay, atheist. It's like an atheist complaining that religionists can't come up with one belief system as he and all of his fellow atheists have.Better.
Atheists aren't claiming theirs is the one true religion, the religious do that. If there was one true religion, shouldn't the religious agree on what it was?
And ditto with a conspiracy, if there was one, shouldn't you guys agree on the basic outline — who was behind it, how many shooters, what was done in furtherance of that conspiracy (film and body alteration, swapping of what evidence, etc.)
But CTs agree on little across the board.
Again, it’s a bug, not a feature.My mistake for using an analogy. All analogies are imperfect. That's the nature of analogies. It is also a mistake to try to reason with you, as you are simply here to propagate your ideology as the One True Ideology regarding the assassination of JFK.
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 12:25:30 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:detailed, at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 8:05:42 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:15:38 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 3:23:25 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 2:47:11 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:56:09 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very
even Israel. You guys agree on very little. That is not a feature of Conspiracy Theory, it is a bug.Yet he didn't… and what happened to this supposed bullet?
It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy.
No, I know full well that you guys have a hard time agreeing on anything. Some argue for film and body alterations, others accept one or the other, or even neither. Some suspect the Mafia, others the CIA, still others Russia, or Cuba, or
Nor do we have to.
No, this is like an atheist asking why the “one true religion” is practiced so differently by so many different religions.You guys have to get your case together — after 60 years, shouldn't you guys at least have some semblance of a unified conspiracy theory?This is like a Christian with his Bible complaining that all of the other religionists can't agree on an alternative religion. "Why can't they just come up with something?"
Don't lump me in with CTs.
at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”Unlike LNers, who are forced to believe every absurdity without question,
“Absurdity” is a begged question logical fallacy. You asserted this, but did not even attempt to establish this.
critics do not just blindly accept all claims. Asking questions is, in fact, the fun of being critical (hence, "critic").
After 6o years, you guys are no closer to a solution that you were after the first three years, which consisted entirely of sniping at the WC conclusions. Indeed, some want to continue to do only that:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-3s8wMtX6Vs/m/6xn-rAqgAAAJ
PS: I notice you neglected to respond to the point raised, here it is again:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed,
JFK. It IS the Nutter complaining that non Nutters can't all agree on what happened in the JFK assassination. The Nutter, in this complaint, supposes that he is correct and that all the others are wrong because they don't unify, like the Nutters. HankThe atheist thinks he's not in a religion! Okay, atheist. It's like an atheist complaining that religionists can't come up with one belief system as he and all of his fellow atheists have.Better.
Atheists aren't claiming theirs is the one true religion, the religious do that. If there was one true religion, shouldn't the religious agree on what it was?
And ditto with a conspiracy, if there was one, shouldn't you guys agree on the basic outline — who was behind it, how many shooters, what was done in furtherance of that conspiracy (film and body alteration, swapping of what evidence, etc.)
But CTs agree on little across the board.
Again, it’s a bug, not a feature.My mistake for using an analogy. All analogies are imperfect. That's the nature of analogies. It is also a mistake to try to reason with you, as you are simply here to propagate your ideology as the One True Ideology regarding the assassination of
Hank’s logic is that if 100 different people each advance a different conspiracy theory, then 99 of them must be wrong. There is no guarantee any one is correct, but with 100 different answers to the same question, there is no way more than one canbe correct, at best.
And Hank’s logic is that for those advancing different conspiracy theories it is now well past the time they should first work together to eliminate the mis-steps and errors in logic and come up with one coherent theory that they can unite behind andagree upon.
Rather than all 100 suggesting their theory is better than the Commission’s solution, and ignoring the 99 other competing theories. It’s incumbent on those with a conspiracy theory to hold the other 99 conspiracy theories up to the light and tellus how they fail and how their theory is better. This they never do.
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:28:25 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:detailed, at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 12:25:30 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 8:05:42 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:15:38 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 3:23:25 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 2:47:11 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:56:09 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very
even Israel. You guys agree on very little. That is not a feature of Conspiracy Theory, it is a bug.Yet he didn't… and what happened to this supposed bullet?
It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy.
No, I know full well that you guys have a hard time agreeing on anything. Some argue for film and body alterations, others accept one or the other, or even neither. Some suspect the Mafia, others the CIA, still others Russia, or Cuba, or
Nor do we have to.
No, this is like an atheist asking why the “one true religion” is practiced so differently by so many different religions.You guys have to get your case together — after 60 years, shouldn't you guys at least have some semblance of a unified conspiracy theory?This is like a Christian with his Bible complaining that all of the other religionists can't agree on an alternative religion. "Why can't they just come up with something?"
Don't lump me in with CTs.
at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”Unlike LNers, who are forced to believe every absurdity without question,
“Absurdity” is a begged question logical fallacy. You asserted this, but did not even attempt to establish this.
critics do not just blindly accept all claims. Asking questions is, in fact, the fun of being critical (hence, "critic").
After 6o years, you guys are no closer to a solution that you were after the first three years, which consisted entirely of sniping at the WC conclusions. Indeed, some want to continue to do only that:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-3s8wMtX6Vs/m/6xn-rAqgAAAJ
PS: I notice you neglected to respond to the point raised, here it is again:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed,
JFK. It IS the Nutter complaining that non Nutters can't all agree on what happened in the JFK assassination. The Nutter, in this complaint, supposes that he is correct and that all the others are wrong because they don't unify, like the Nutters. HankThe atheist thinks he's not in a religion! Okay, atheist. It's like an atheist complaining that religionists can't come up with one belief system as he and all of his fellow atheists have.Better.
Atheists aren't claiming theirs is the one true religion, the religious do that. If there was one true religion, shouldn't the religious agree on what it was?
And ditto with a conspiracy, if there was one, shouldn't you guys agree on the basic outline — who was behind it, how many shooters, what was done in furtherance of that conspiracy (film and body alteration, swapping of what evidence, etc.)
But CTs agree on little across the board.
Again, it’s a bug, not a feature.My mistake for using an analogy. All analogies are imperfect. That's the nature of analogies. It is also a mistake to try to reason with you, as you are simply here to propagate your ideology as the One True Ideology regarding the assassination of
be correct, at best.Hank’s logic is that if 100 different people each advance a different conspiracy theory, then 99 of them must be wrong. There is no guarantee any one is correct, but with 100 different answers to the same question, there is no way more than one can
and agree upon.And Hank’s logic is that for those advancing different conspiracy theories it is now well past the time they should first work together to eliminate the mis-steps and errors in logic and come up with one coherent theory that they can unite behind
us how they fail and how their theory is better. This they never do.Rather than all 100 suggesting their theory is better than the Commission’s solution, and ignoring the 99 other competing theories. It’s incumbent on those with a conspiracy theory to hold the other 99 conspiracy theories up to the light and tell
Name those 100 different theories, and then we can discuss.
1,000 different theories could be better than the WC, which is provably wrong, and has been proven wrong every which way.
Flying Spaghetti Monsters more likely killed JFK than the WC's 3 shots from the TSBD.
Hank's logic is that it is better to stick with a disproven theory than to try to determine what really happened.
I often criticize wrong theories, you lying weasel. Whosie on the Queen Mary certainly did not accidentally blow JFK's brains out. Judyth Vary Shithead certainly did not fuck around with Oswald in Norleens. Ed Hoffman was certainly full of shit. Prayerman is a fucking woman. James Files really is the Rodney Dangerfield of the JFK assassination. Jack White was a loon. Beverly Oliver is definitely lying. Nobody fired from the south knoll.
But, Lying Weasel Hank will just double down on his lies because that's the kind of shit head he is.
It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy.
No, I know full well that you guys have a hard time agreeing on anything.You know the thing about cults, Henry? Their followers agree on everything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnIQalprvR8
detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed, at least
Yet he didn't… and what happened to this supposed bullet?
It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy.
Nor do we have to.
Unlike LNers, who are forced to believe every absurdity without question,
critics do not just blindly accept all claims. Asking questions is, in fact, the fun of being critical (hence, "critic").
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:28:25 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:detailed, at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 12:25:30 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 8:05:42 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:15:38 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 3:23:25 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 2:47:11 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:56:09 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very
even Israel. You guys agree on very little. That is not a feature of Conspiracy Theory, it is a bug.Yet he didn't… and what happened to this supposed bullet?
It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy.
No, I know full well that you guys have a hard time agreeing on anything. Some argue for film and body alterations, others accept one or the other, or even neither. Some suspect the Mafia, others the CIA, still others Russia, or Cuba, or
Nor do we have to.
No, this is like an atheist asking why the “one true religion” is practiced so differently by so many different religions.You guys have to get your case together — after 60 years, shouldn't you guys at least have some semblance of a unified conspiracy theory?This is like a Christian with his Bible complaining that all of the other religionists can't agree on an alternative religion. "Why can't they just come up with something?"
Don't lump me in with CTs.
at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”Unlike LNers, who are forced to believe every absurdity without question,
“Absurdity” is a begged question logical fallacy. You asserted this, but did not even attempt to establish this.
critics do not just blindly accept all claims. Asking questions is, in fact, the fun of being critical (hence, "critic").
After 6o years, you guys are no closer to a solution that you were after the first three years, which consisted entirely of sniping at the WC conclusions. Indeed, some want to continue to do only that:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-3s8wMtX6Vs/m/6xn-rAqgAAAJ
PS: I notice you neglected to respond to the point raised, here it is again:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed,
JFK. It IS the Nutter complaining that non Nutters can't all agree on what happened in the JFK assassination. The Nutter, in this complaint, supposes that he is correct and that all the others are wrong because they don't unify, like the Nutters. HankThe atheist thinks he's not in a religion! Okay, atheist. It's like an atheist complaining that religionists can't come up with one belief system as he and all of his fellow atheists have.Better.
Atheists aren't claiming theirs is the one true religion, the religious do that. If there was one true religion, shouldn't the religious agree on what it was?
And ditto with a conspiracy, if there was one, shouldn't you guys agree on the basic outline — who was behind it, how many shooters, what was done in furtherance of that conspiracy (film and body alteration, swapping of what evidence, etc.)
But CTs agree on little across the board.
Again, it’s a bug, not a feature.My mistake for using an analogy. All analogies are imperfect. That's the nature of analogies. It is also a mistake to try to reason with you, as you are simply here to propagate your ideology as the One True Ideology regarding the assassination of
be correct, at best.Hank’s logic is that if 100 different people each advance a different conspiracy theory, then 99 of them must be wrong. There is no guarantee any one is correct, but with 100 different answers to the same question, there is no way more than one can
and agree upon.And Hank’s logic is that for those advancing different conspiracy theories it is now well past the time they should first work together to eliminate the mis-steps and errors in logic and come up with one coherent theory that they can unite behind
us how they fail and how their theory is better. This they never do.Rather than all 100 suggesting their theory is better than the Commission’s solution, and ignoring the 99 other competing theories. It’s incumbent on those with a conspiracy theory to hold the other 99 conspiracy theories up to the light and tell
Name those 100 different theories, and then we can discuss. 1,000 different theories could be better than the WC, which is provably wrong, and has been proven wrong every which way. Flying Spaghetti Monsters more likely killed JFK than the WC's 3 shotsfrom the TSBD. Hank's logic is that it is better to stick with a disproven theory than to try to determine what really happened. I often criticize wrong theories, you lying weasel. Whosie on the Queen Mary certainly did not accidentally blow JFK's brains
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 5:00:39 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy.
No, I know full well that you guys have a hard time agreeing on anything.You know the thing about cults, Henry? Their followers agree on everything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnIQalprvR8And note that David takes one line out of context and responds to that, while totally ignoring everything else in my post:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/OAfWthTt1d4/m/8pN3EbSoAAAJ
Here it is again, so you can better appreciate what David failed to respond to:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:56:09 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed, at least
You guys agree on very little. That is not a feature of Conspiracy Theory, it is a bug.Yet he didn't… and what happened to this supposed bullet?
It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy.No, I know full well that you guys have a hard time agreeing on anything. Some argue for film and body alterations, others accept one or the other, or even neither. Some suspect the Mafia, others the CIA, still others Russia, or Cuba, or even Israel.
Nor do we have to.
You guys have to get your case together — after 60 years, shouldn't you guys at least have some semblance of a unified conspiracy theory?
detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”Unlike LNers, who are forced to believe every absurdity without question,
“Absurdity” is a begged question logical fallacy. You asserted this, but did not even attempt to establish this.
critics do not just blindly accept all claims. Asking questions is, in fact, the fun of being critical (hence, "critic").
After 6o years, you guys are no closer to a solution that you were after the first three years, which consisted entirely of sniping at the WC conclusions. Indeed, some want to continue to do only that:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-3s8wMtX6Vs/m/6xn-rAqgAAAJ
PS: I notice you neglected to respond to the point raised, here it is again: Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed, at least
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:49:57 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:detailed, at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:28:25 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 12:25:30 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 8:05:42 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:15:38 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 3:23:25 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 2:47:11 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:56:09 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very
or even Israel. You guys agree on very little. That is not a feature of Conspiracy Theory, it is a bug.Yet he didn't… and what happened to this supposed bullet?
It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy.
No, I know full well that you guys have a hard time agreeing on anything. Some argue for film and body alterations, others accept one or the other, or even neither. Some suspect the Mafia, others the CIA, still others Russia, or Cuba,
Nor do we have to.
No, this is like an atheist asking why the “one true religion” is practiced so differently by so many different religions.You guys have to get your case together — after 60 years, shouldn't you guys at least have some semblance of a unified conspiracy theory?This is like a Christian with his Bible complaining that all of the other religionists can't agree on an alternative religion. "Why can't they just come up with something?"
Don't lump me in with CTs.
detailed, at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”Unlike LNers, who are forced to believe every absurdity without question,
“Absurdity” is a begged question logical fallacy. You asserted this, but did not even attempt to establish this.
critics do not just blindly accept all claims. Asking questions is, in fact, the fun of being critical (hence, "critic").
After 6o years, you guys are no closer to a solution that you were after the first three years, which consisted entirely of sniping at the WC conclusions. Indeed, some want to continue to do only that:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-3s8wMtX6Vs/m/6xn-rAqgAAAJ
PS: I notice you neglected to respond to the point raised, here it is again:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very
of JFK. It IS the Nutter complaining that non Nutters can't all agree on what happened in the JFK assassination. The Nutter, in this complaint, supposes that he is correct and that all the others are wrong because they don't unify, like the Nutters. HankThe atheist thinks he's not in a religion! Okay, atheist. It's like an atheist complaining that religionists can't come up with one belief system as he and all of his fellow atheists have.Better.
Atheists aren't claiming theirs is the one true religion, the religious do that. If there was one true religion, shouldn't the religious agree on what it was?
And ditto with a conspiracy, if there was one, shouldn't you guys agree on the basic outline — who was behind it, how many shooters, what was done in furtherance of that conspiracy (film and body alteration, swapping of what evidence, etc.)
But CTs agree on little across the board.
Again, it’s a bug, not a feature.My mistake for using an analogy. All analogies are imperfect. That's the nature of analogies. It is also a mistake to try to reason with you, as you are simply here to propagate your ideology as the One True Ideology regarding the assassination
can be correct, at best.Hank’s logic is that if 100 different people each advance a different conspiracy theory, then 99 of them must be wrong. There is no guarantee any one is correct, but with 100 different answers to the same question, there is no way more than one
and agree upon.And Hank’s logic is that for those advancing different conspiracy theories it is now well past the time they should first work together to eliminate the mis-steps and errors in logic and come up with one coherent theory that they can unite behind
tell us how they fail and how their theory is better. This they never do.Rather than all 100 suggesting their theory is better than the Commission’s solution, and ignoring the 99 other competing theories. It’s incumbent on those with a conspiracy theory to hold the other 99 conspiracy theories up to the light and
shots from the TSBD. Hank's logic is that it is better to stick with a disproven theory than to try to determine what really happened. I often criticize wrong theories, you lying weasel. Whosie on the Queen Mary certainly did not accidentally blow JFK'sName those 100 different theories, and then we can discuss. 1,000 different theories could be better than the WC, which is provably wrong, and has been proven wrong every which way. Flying Spaghetti Monsters more likely killed JFK than the WC's 3
Summing up, the choice is every conspiracist’s concerning these competing conspiracy theories:
Curse the supposed darkness (and continue to rail against the Commission’s conclusions)
or light a supposed candle (and work with other CTs to create a Uniform Conspiracy Theory) that all conspiracists can agree on.
What’s it going to be?
Just as I predicted, Hank doubles down on his lies, just like his carbon copy cookie cutter coreligionist Nutter co-cultists. They have a bible that tells them the truth, a 26-volume bible.
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 6:18:02 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:detailed, at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:49:57 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:28:25 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 12:25:30 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 8:05:42 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:15:38 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 3:23:25 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 2:47:11 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:56:09 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very
or even Israel. You guys agree on very little. That is not a feature of Conspiracy Theory, it is a bug.Yet he didn't… and what happened to this supposed bullet?
It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy.
No, I know full well that you guys have a hard time agreeing on anything. Some argue for film and body alterations, others accept one or the other, or even neither. Some suspect the Mafia, others the CIA, still others Russia, or Cuba,
Nor do we have to.
No, this is like an atheist asking why the “one true religion” is practiced so differently by so many different religions.You guys have to get your case together — after 60 years, shouldn't you guys at least have some semblance of a unified conspiracy theory?This is like a Christian with his Bible complaining that all of the other religionists can't agree on an alternative religion. "Why can't they just come up with something?"
Don't lump me in with CTs.
detailed, at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”Unlike LNers, who are forced to believe every absurdity without question,
“Absurdity” is a begged question logical fallacy. You asserted this, but did not even attempt to establish this.
critics do not just blindly accept all claims. Asking questions is, in fact, the fun of being critical (hence, "critic").
After 6o years, you guys are no closer to a solution that you were after the first three years, which consisted entirely of sniping at the WC conclusions. Indeed, some want to continue to do only that:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-3s8wMtX6Vs/m/6xn-rAqgAAAJ
PS: I notice you neglected to respond to the point raised, here it is again:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very
of JFK. It IS the Nutter complaining that non Nutters can't all agree on what happened in the JFK assassination. The Nutter, in this complaint, supposes that he is correct and that all the others are wrong because they don't unify, like the Nutters. HankThe atheist thinks he's not in a religion! Okay, atheist. It's like an atheist complaining that religionists can't come up with one belief system as he and all of his fellow atheists have.Better.
Atheists aren't claiming theirs is the one true religion, the religious do that. If there was one true religion, shouldn't the religious agree on what it was?
And ditto with a conspiracy, if there was one, shouldn't you guys agree on the basic outline — who was behind it, how many shooters, what was done in furtherance of that conspiracy (film and body alteration, swapping of what evidence, etc.)
But CTs agree on little across the board.
Again, it’s a bug, not a feature.My mistake for using an analogy. All analogies are imperfect. That's the nature of analogies. It is also a mistake to try to reason with you, as you are simply here to propagate your ideology as the One True Ideology regarding the assassination
can be correct, at best.Hank’s logic is that if 100 different people each advance a different conspiracy theory, then 99 of them must be wrong. There is no guarantee any one is correct, but with 100 different answers to the same question, there is no way more than one
behind and agree upon.And Hank’s logic is that for those advancing different conspiracy theories it is now well past the time they should first work together to eliminate the mis-steps and errors in logic and come up with one coherent theory that they can unite
tell us how they fail and how their theory is better. This they never do.Rather than all 100 suggesting their theory is better than the Commission’s solution, and ignoring the 99 other competing theories. It’s incumbent on those with a conspiracy theory to hold the other 99 conspiracy theories up to the light and
shots from the TSBD. Hank's logic is that it is better to stick with a disproven theory than to try to determine what really happened. I often criticize wrong theories, you lying weasel. Whosie on the Queen Mary certainly did not accidentally blow JFK'sName those 100 different theories, and then we can discuss. 1,000 different theories could be better than the WC, which is provably wrong, and has been proven wrong every which way. Flying Spaghetti Monsters more likely killed JFK than the WC's 3
Summing up, the choice is every conspiracist’s concerning these competing conspiracy theories:
Curse the supposed darkness (and continue to rail against the Commission’s conclusions)
or light a supposed candle (and work with other CTs to create a Uniform Conspiracy Theory) that all conspiracists can agree on.
What’s it going to be?Hankster, you've no standing here.
You have not presented a scenario of events defining 11/22/63, specifically Dallas.
Hope that money is good...
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 6:24:43 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 5:00:39 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy.
No, I know full well that you guys have a hard time agreeing on anything.You know the thing about cults, Henry? Their followers agree on everything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnIQalprvR8And note that David takes one line out of context and responds to that, while totally ignoring everything else in my post:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/OAfWthTt1d4/m/8pN3EbSoAAAJ
Here it is again, so you can better appreciate what David failed to respond to:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:56:09 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed, at
You guys agree on very little. That is not a feature of Conspiracy Theory, it is a bug.Yet he didn't… and what happened to this supposed bullet?
It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy.No, I know full well that you guys have a hard time agreeing on anything. Some argue for film and body alterations, others accept one or the other, or even neither. Some suspect the Mafia, others the CIA, still others Russia, or Cuba, or even Israel.
Nor do we have to.
You guys have to get your case together — after 60 years, shouldn't you guys at least have some semblance of a unified conspiracy theory?we've got plenty of scenarios as to what hapened in Dallas and elsewhere,
where is yours, son?
detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”Unlike LNers, who are forced to believe every absurdity without question,
“Absurdity” is a begged question logical fallacy. You asserted this, but did not even attempt to establish this.
critics do not just blindly accept all claims. Asking questions is, in fact, the fun of being critical (hence, "critic").
After 6o years, you guys are no closer to a solution that you were after the first three years, which consisted entirely of sniping at the WC conclusions. Indeed, some want to continue to do only that:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-3s8wMtX6Vs/m/6xn-rAqgAAAJ
PS: I notice you neglected to respond to the point raised, here it is again:
Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed, at least
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 11:09:36 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
You're a kook, a weasel and a liar...and everybody knows it.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 12:58:13 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
You make no points, kook!
You're just a lying weasel and everybody knows it. But, among Nutters, that's a compliment!
Murderers and liars are proud of their evil. They think it makes them smart.
Hankster, you've no standing here. You have not presented a scenario of events defining 11/22/63, specifically Dallas. Hope that money is good...
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 12:58:13 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
You make no points, kook! You're just a lying weasel and everybody knows it. But, among Nutters, that's a compliment! Murderers and liars are proud of their evil. They think it makes them smart.
On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 18:10:27 -0700 (PDT), David Healy
<dhealy9...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hankster, you've no standing here. You have not presented a scenario of events defining 11/22/63, specifically Dallas. Hope that money is good...My challenge still remains - I'll match ANY believer's scenario in
both length, detail, and number of citations.
PS: I notice you neglected to respond to the point raised, here it is again: Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed, at leastdetailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”
cult of the round earth.It may surprise Henry to learn that CTers don't subscribe to every new detail and theory which points to a conspiracy.
No, I know full well that you guys have a hard time agreeing on anything.You know the thing about cults, Henry? Their followers agree on everything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnIQalprvR8Interesting. But your argument is illogical. It's called affirming the consequent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent#:~:text=Affirming%20the%20consequent%20is%20the,.
You’re labelling those who believe the same thing as a cult, but while all cult followers believe the same thing, not all those who believe the same thing are members of a cult. For example, those who believe the earth is round are not members of the
detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.
PS: I notice you neglected to respond to the point raised, here it is again: >> Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, His statement is very detailed, at least
I know you love the smell of your own farts, Henry, but not every word of every post you write necessitates a response. I posed a question, not a statement. The question is mine; the statement should therefore be yours. That's how you advance adiscussion. My lack of a response in this area is not a "gotcha" or an "own" on your part, regardless of how warm and fuzzy the notion of such makes you feel.
And if you're really concerned about failure to response to points being raised, I would defer to Ben Holmes, whose posts are regularly ignored.
Secret Service Agent in the motorcade: "My reaction at this time was
that the shot came from somewhere towards the front, but I did not see anyone on the overpass, and looked along the right-hand side of the
road."
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 8:54:17 AM UTC+10, gggg gggg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 4:02:02 PM UTC-7, Ben Holmes wrote:
Secret Service Agent in the motorcade: "My reaction at this time was that the shot came from somewhere towards the front, but I did not see anyone on the overpass, and looked along the right-hand side of the road."
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/a4gm2_C6zhghttps://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2776-secret-service-agent-paul-landis-claims-he-retrieved-a-bullet-from-behind-jfks-limo-seat
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 4:02:02 PM UTC-7, Ben Holmes wrote:https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2776-secret-service-agent-paul-landis-claims-he-retrieved-a-bullet-from-behind-jfks-limo-seat
Secret Service Agent in the motorcade: "My reaction at this time was
that the shot came from somewhere towards the front, but I did not see anyone on the overpass, and looked along the right-hand side of the
road."
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/a4gm2_C6zhg
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 12:33:38 PM UTC+10, Greg Parker wrote:Prof. Joe Riehl. Riehl has an interest in the Kennedy assassination and Judyth tells him of her “connection” to it via working at Reily’s.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 8:54:17 AM UTC+10, gggg gggg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 4:02:02 PM UTC-7, Ben Holmes wrote:
Secret Service Agent in the motorcade: "My reaction at this time was that the shot came from somewhere towards the front, but I did not see anyone on the overpass, and looked along the right-hand side of the road."
From the above thread. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From the wiki page of Landis' "co-author".https://www.youtube.com/shorts/a4gm2_C6zhghttps://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2776-secret-service-agent-paul-landis-claims-he-retrieved-a-bullet-from-behind-jfks-limo-seat
Robenhalt helped former Secret Service agent Paul Landis "process his memories" of the JFK Assassination, enabling Landis to write his memoir The Final Witness (2023).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Robenalt
This is the same technique used initially by Judyth Vary Baker via her earliest enabler, to come up with her fantastical story.
From my essay on Judyth:
1996: Angela’s Ashes is published to wide critical and popular acclaim. It is a memoir written in the creative nonfiction genre by Frank McCourt. Judyth commences work in the English Faculty at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette where she meets
Riehl and Baker come to believe she has “repressed” memories which he helps her retrieve. Riehl also suggests she take Luis Urrea’s Creative Nonfiction classes where she learns to organize her memories and reconstruct events she has “recovered.
https://gregrparker.com/the-making-of-a-fantasistIn a perfect world, that would be the Peter Dale Scott quote that follows you around.
I feel nothing but disgust that so many are falling over themselves to back this obvious bullshit.
--------------------------------------------
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:36:22 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:meets Prof. Joe Riehl. Riehl has an interest in the Kennedy assassination and Judyth tells him of her “connection” to it via working at Reily’s.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 12:33:38 PM UTC+10, Greg Parker wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 8:54:17 AM UTC+10, gggg gggg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 4:02:02 PM UTC-7, Ben Holmes wrote:
Secret Service Agent in the motorcade: "My reaction at this time was that the shot came from somewhere towards the front, but I did not see
anyone on the overpass, and looked along the right-hand side of the road."
From the above thread. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From the wiki page of Landis' "co-author".https://www.youtube.com/shorts/a4gm2_C6zhghttps://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2776-secret-service-agent-paul-landis-claims-he-retrieved-a-bullet-from-behind-jfks-limo-seat
Robenhalt helped former Secret Service agent Paul Landis "process his memories" of the JFK Assassination, enabling Landis to write his memoir The Final Witness (2023).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Robenalt
This is the same technique used initially by Judyth Vary Baker via her earliest enabler, to come up with her fantastical story.
From my essay on Judyth:
1996: Angela’s Ashes is published to wide critical and popular acclaim. It is a memoir written in the creative nonfiction genre by Frank McCourt. Judyth commences work in the English Faculty at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette where she
recovered”.Riehl and Baker come to believe she has “repressed” memories which he helps her retrieve. Riehl also suggests she take Luis Urrea’s Creative Nonfiction classes where she learns to organize her memories and reconstruct events she has “
In a perfect world the assassination doesn't happen, and conspiracy nuts too paranoid to use their real names online. have nothing to fantasize about. They are left in a puddle of drool and medicated by Nurse Ratchet.https://gregrparker.com/the-making-of-a-fantasist
I feel nothing but disgust that so many are falling over themselves to back this obvious bullshit.In a perfect world, that would be the Peter Dale Scott quote that follows you around.
--------------------------------------------
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:43:26 PM UTC+10, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:meets Prof. Joe Riehl. Riehl has an interest in the Kennedy assassination and Judyth tells him of her “connection” to it via working at Reily’s.
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:36:22 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 12:33:38 PM UTC+10, Greg Parker wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 8:54:17 AM UTC+10, gggg gggg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 4:02:02 PM UTC-7, Ben Holmes wrote:
Secret Service Agent in the motorcade: "My reaction at this time was
that the shot came from somewhere towards the front, but I did not see
anyone on the overpass, and looked along the right-hand side of the
road."
From the above thread. --------------------------------------------------------------------------https://www.youtube.com/shorts/a4gm2_C6zhghttps://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2776-secret-service-agent-paul-landis-claims-he-retrieved-a-bullet-from-behind-jfks-limo-seat
From the wiki page of Landis' "co-author".
Robenhalt helped former Secret Service agent Paul Landis "process his memories" of the JFK Assassination, enabling Landis to write his memoir The Final Witness (2023).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Robenalt
This is the same technique used initially by Judyth Vary Baker via her earliest enabler, to come up with her fantastical story.
From my essay on Judyth:
1996: Angela’s Ashes is published to wide critical and popular acclaim. It is a memoir written in the creative nonfiction genre by Frank McCourt. Judyth commences work in the English Faculty at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette where she
recovered”.Riehl and Baker come to believe she has “repressed” memories which he helps her retrieve. Riehl also suggests she take Luis Urrea’s Creative Nonfiction classes where she learns to organize her memories and reconstruct events she has “
https://gregrparker.com/the-making-of-a-fantasist
In a perfect world the assassination doesn't happen, and conspiracy nuts too paranoid to use their real names online. have nothing to fantasize about. They are left in a puddle of drool and medicated by Nurse Ratchet.I feel nothing but disgust that so many are falling over themselves to back this obvious bullshit.In a perfect world, that would be the Peter Dale Scott quote that follows you around.
--------------------------------------------
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 127:55:42 |
| Calls: | 6,663 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,335,183 |
