Quote: (03-03-2017 04:07 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 04:04 PM)LockeAndLoad Wrote:  

Very good book, very entertaining Amazon miniseries as well.

Lolwut? That shit is on TV? I'm gonna go get that right now. Thanks!

Sorry--it's on Hulu. James Franco is the lead. Definitely check it out

Quote: (03-03-2017 04:02 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

BrewDog, you're slipping bro....must be the age getting to you.
Gotta come up with something better.

Quote: (03-03-2017 04:08 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 04:01 PM)LockeAndLoad Wrote:  

I guess you won't be hiring me to provide legal services any time soon.

Jim Garrison was a real attorney....he gathered real evidence and presented it a court of law.

I have presented real evidence in the past 2 pages in the form of videos, crime scene objects, eyewitness testimony and highlighted the absence of important missing documentation...you have presented no evidence in favour of the lone gunman theory.

You don't sound like a very good attorney to me.

I've noted your assessment of my skills as an attorney on a "manosphere" message board thread regarding a conspiracy and will work to improve.

Since we are apparently in open court, I'll start: Were you on hand to personally interview (and cross-examine, or at least witness the cross-examination of) the witnesses? Did you personally examine the crime scene objects? Did you examine original copies of the videotapes? Were you able to personally investigate the reason for the missing documentation (interview the agents in charge of keeping the records? personally examine the normal record-keeping process?)? Or are you simply parroting back the work others have done, which may or may not have been done for financial gain in the form of movie/book/documentary compensation, notoriety, or all of the above? I await your answers, counselor.

A very basic reading of my posts would show I have never said that I believe without a shadow of doubt that there was a "lone gunman." Instead, I have simply argued that the vast majority of conspiracy theories are just that: theories developed frequently (but not always) through loosely cobbling together various pieces of incomplete information. I would be willing to bet we will never truly know what happened (and even then, I would suspect conspiracy theorists would still dispute the findings, one way or the other. That's sort of the problem inherent in conspiracy theories that are attempting to find the "ultimate" truth: if you're willing to believe there was a massive cover-up in the first place, why when there is seemingly a "resolution" would you believe that explanation?). In my experience, the most logical, simple, and less convoluted explanation is usually correct.

I AM, however, very interested in further exploring your assertion that releasing someone's tax returns would go a long way to clearing up any issues, especially in terms of entanglement with foreign governments.

Quote: (03-03-2017 04:30 PM)LockeAndLoad Wrote:  

I've noted your assessment of my skills as an attorney on a "manosphere" message board thread regarding a conspiracy and will work to improve.

Since we are apparently in open court, I'll start: Were you on hand to personally interview (and cross-examine, or at least witness the cross-examination of) the witnesses? Did you personally examine the crime scene objects? Did you examine original copies of the videotapes? Were you able to personally investigate the reason for the missing documentation (interview the agents in charge of keeping the records? personally examine the normal record-keeping process?)? Or are you simply parroting back the work others have done, which may or may not have been done for financial gain in the form of movie/book/documentary compensation, notoriety, or all of the above? I await your answers, counselor.

A very basic reading of my posts would show I have never said that I believe without a shadow of doubt that there was a "lone gunman." Instead, I have simply argued that the vast majority of conspiracy theories are just that: theories developed frequently (but not always) through loosely cobbling together various pieces of incomplete information. I would be willing to bet we will never truly know what happened (and even then, I would suspect conspiracy theorists would still dispute the findings, one way or the other. That's sort of the problem inherent in conspiracy theories that are attempting to find the "ultimate" truth: if you're willing to believe there was a massive cover-up in the first place, why when there is seemingly a "resolution" would you believe that explanation?). In my experience, the most logical, simple, and less convoluted explanation is usually correct.

I AM, however, very interested in further exploring your assertion that releasing someone's tax returns would go a long way to clearing up any issues, especially in terms of entanglement with foreign governments.

So, basically you have no real evidence.

I rest my case.

Quote: (03-03-2017 04:34 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 04:30 PM)LockeAndLoad Wrote:  

...

So, basically you have no real evidence.

I rest my case.

We don't have to prove a negative. If you have evidence that Oswald didn't kill JFK, then bring it. Otherwise, the onus is not upon the rest of us to prove your conspiracy.

Quote: (03-03-2017 04:36 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

We don't have to prove a negative. If you have evidence that Oswald didn't kill JFK, then bring it. Otherwise, the onus is not upon the rest of us to prove your conspiracy.

Keep trying BrewDog....eventually you'll be able to lose your virginity.



...

Quote: (03-03-2017 04:43 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

Keep trying BrewDog....eventually you'll be able to lose your virginity.

Wow, that was a real doozy. You really got me good.

The Wall hitted hard on Oswald's widow...

   

   

   

Quote: (03-03-2017 04:34 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 04:30 PM)LockeAndLoad Wrote:  

I've noted your assessment of my skills as an attorney on a "manosphere" message board thread regarding a conspiracy and will work to improve.

Since we are apparently in open court, I'll start: Were you on hand to personally interview (and cross-examine, or at least witness the cross-examination of) the witnesses? Did you personally examine the crime scene objects? Did you examine original copies of the videotapes? Were you able to personally investigate the reason for the missing documentation (interview the agents in charge of keeping the records? personally examine the normal record-keeping process?)? Or are you simply parroting back the work others have done, which may or may not have been done for financial gain in the form of movie/book/documentary compensation, notoriety, or all of the above? I await your answers, counselor.

A very basic reading of my posts would show I have never said that I believe without a shadow of doubt that there was a "lone gunman." Instead, I have simply argued that the vast majority of conspiracy theories are just that: theories developed frequently (but not always) through loosely cobbling together various pieces of incomplete information. I would be willing to bet we will never truly know what happened (and even then, I would suspect conspiracy theorists would still dispute the findings, one way or the other. That's sort of the problem inherent in conspiracy theories that are attempting to find the "ultimate" truth: if you're willing to believe there was a massive cover-up in the first place, why when there is seemingly a "resolution" would you believe that explanation?). In my experience, the most logical, simple, and less convoluted explanation is usually correct.

I AM, however, very interested in further exploring your assertion that releasing someone's tax returns would go a long way to clearing up any issues, especially in terms of entanglement with foreign governments.

So, basically you have no real evidence.

I rest my case.

It's rather difficult to engage in a discussion when my counterpart argues a completely different premise. So aside from 50 years worth of ballistic and forensic evidence tying the weapon in question to LHO, reports of eyewitnesses that support a lone gunman theory, I suppose I don't have evidence.

I'm surprised that you didn't address my questions, however. I'm not sure of your age, but I would imagine you aren't old enough to have actually investigated the matter. Perhaps you have some sort of credentials as a recognized Kennedy Assassination expert? Maybe you have written a thoroughly researched--and vetted--book on the subject? Or perhaps you at least have a degree in American History, maybe wrote a Masters thesis on the assassination? Absent these credentials, that would suggest that your first-hand knowledge of "real evidence" is about as robust as mine, which is essentially limited to reading a book or two, seeing a movie, watching a documentary, and posting on a message board that is primarily known as a place to share ideas about approaching women. That certainly makes neither one of us experts on the matter to the extent that either one can say with any degree of certainty what actually happened.

Quote: (03-03-2017 04:47 PM)LockeAndLoad Wrote:  

It's rather difficult to engage in a discussion when my counterpart argues a completely different premise. So aside from 50 years worth of ballistic and forensic evidence tying the weapon in question to LHO, reports of eyewitnesses that support a lone gunman theory, I suppose I don't have evidence.

I'm surprised that you didn't address my questions, however. I'm not sure of your age, but I would imagine you aren't old enough to have actually investigated the matter. Perhaps you have some sort of credentials as a recognized Kennedy Assassination expert? Maybe you have written a thoroughly researched--and vetted--book on the subject? Or perhaps you at least have a degree in American History, maybe wrote a Masters thesis on the assassination? Absent these credentials, that would suggest that your first-hand knowledge of "real evidence" is about as robust as mine, which is essentially limited to reading a book or two, seeing a movie, watching a documentary, and posting on a message board that is primarily known as a place to share ideas about approaching women. That certainly makes neither one of us experts on the matter to the extent that either one can say with any degree of certainty what actually happened.

Quote: (03-03-2017 04:53 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 04:47 PM)LockeAndLoad Wrote:  

It's rather difficult to engage in a discussion when my counterpart argues a completely different premise. So aside from 50 years worth of ballistic and forensic evidence tying the weapon in question to LHO, reports of eyewitnesses that support a lone gunman theory, I suppose I don't have evidence.

I'm surprised that you didn't address my questions, however. I'm not sure of your age, but I would imagine you aren't old enough to have actually investigated the matter. Perhaps you have some sort of credentials as a recognized Kennedy Assassination expert? Maybe you have written a thoroughly researched--and vetted--book on the subject? Or perhaps you at least have a degree in American History, maybe wrote a Masters thesis on the assassination? Absent these credentials, that would suggest that your first-hand knowledge of "real evidence" is about as robust as mine, which is essentially limited to reading a book or two, seeing a movie, watching a documentary, and posting on a message board that is primarily known as a place to share ideas about approaching women. That certainly makes neither one of us experts on the matter to the extent that either one can say with any degree of certainty what actually happened.

Just devolving into a meme, rather than engaging in a discussion or actually responding to something I've said? I was hoping for more of an interaction that would be more appropriate for two intelligent men than posting an image in order to avoid an actual conversation. Unfortunate.

Quote: (03-03-2017 04:59 PM)LockeAndLoad Wrote:  

Just devolving into a meme, rather than engaging in a discussion or actually responding to something I've said? I was hoping for more of an interaction that would be more appropriate for two intelligent men than posting an image in order to avoid an actual conversation. Unfortunate.

Well... at least he hasn't called you a racist.

yet

Quote: (03-03-2017 04:59 PM)LockeAndLoad Wrote:  

Just devolving into a meme, rather than engaging in a discussion or actually responding to something I've said? I was hoping for more of an interaction that would be more appropriate for two intelligent men than posting an image in order to avoid an actual conversation. Unfortunate.

When you start bringing some evidence that contradicts the evidence I (and other rvf members) posted in pages 1 and 2 then we can talk like men. Until then you are just playing devil's advocate. And badly at that.

Quote: (03-03-2017 05:06 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 04:59 PM)LockeAndLoad Wrote:  

Just devolving into a meme, rather than engaging in a discussion or actually responding to something I've said? I was hoping for more of an interaction that would be more appropriate for two intelligent men than posting an image in order to avoid an actual conversation. Unfortunate.

Well... at least he hasn't called you a racist.

yet

I thought calling someone a "racist" was just a last-bastion tactic reserved for liberals and "blue pill cucks"? Would be sad to see a red-pill alpha debase himself in such a way

Quote: (03-03-2017 05:07 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 04:59 PM)LockeAndLoad Wrote:  

Just devolving into a meme, rather than engaging in a discussion or actually responding to something I've said? I was hoping for more of an interaction that would be more appropriate for two intelligent men than posting an image in order to avoid an actual conversation. Unfortunate.

When you start bringing some evidence that contradicts the evidence I (and other rvf members) posted in pages 1 and 2 then we can talk like men. Until then you are just playing devil's advocate. And badly at that.

Citations from Wikipedia articles, clips from a Hollywood movie, selections from 50+ year old handheld films, and a video of Jesse Ventura in a controlled environment firing a rifle in a documentary expressly aimed at disproving the "lone gunman" theory. Not exactly unimpeachable evidence, counselor.

What you're failing to realize is I'm not arguing against your point. I readily concede that you could be right! My point is simply that in order for you to be right, an infinite number of things have to go exactly right and a massive cover-up has to carry on for 50+ years (and likely forever in order to preserve some semblance of trust in government and balance). For a cover-up of this scale to happen and perpetuate would be virtually impossible.

Or, a simpler explanation may be that a former military member with knowledge of a rifle and vantage points fired shots that killed the president riding in an open-car motorcade.

Mercenary, I repped you some time ago because you brought interesting ideas to the table. I thought the flat earth thread was at least entertaining and an interesting thought experiment. Even though you were panned for it. I don't see how you hope to win anyone over though by trolling dissent with memes and personal attacks. If anything you are playing into the idea that threads like this don't bring value to the forum.

Quote: (03-03-2017 04:08 PM)LockeAndLoad Wrote:  

Sorry--it's on Hulu. James Franco is the lead. Definitely check it out

I'm 30 minutes into it. GREAT STUFF!

Usually the movie sucks compared to the book, but this show is pretty damn awesome.

Oswald acted alone. 54 years of "research" have failed to provide a better explanation of the facts. Conspiracy theorists have to come up with straw men representations of the "magic bullet," Oswald's marksmanship, etc.

Occam's razor favors the simplest explanation: Oswald was a Communist sympathizer who shot JFK for a reason that is forever lost to history.

Quote: (03-03-2017 04:46 PM)Rocha Wrote:  

The Wall hitted hard on Oswald's widow...

She's in movies now though

Quote: (03-03-2017 05:14 PM)LockeAndLoad Wrote:  

Citations from Wikipedia articles, clips from a Hollywood movie, selections from 50+ year old handheld films, and a video of Jesse Ventura in a controlled environment firing a rifle in a documentary expressly aimed at disproving the "lone gunman" theory. Not exactly unimpeachable evidence, counselor.

What you're failing to realize is I'm not arguing against your point. I readily concede that you could be right! My point is simply that in order for you to be right, an infinite number of things have to go exactly right and a massive cover-up has to carry on for 50+ years (and likely forever in order to preserve some semblance of trust in government and balance). For a cover-up of this scale to happen and perpetuate would be virtually impossible.

Or, a simpler explanation may be that a former military member with knowledge of a rifle and vantage points fired shots that killed the president riding in an open-car motorcade.

The forensic evidence against this is overwhelming. Exit wound in the back of his head, entry wound at the throat, movement of JFK's head etc.

I know you're a lawyer with very limited science background, but the statistical evidence about the death rate of JFK witnesses I've provided is pretty damning, for anyone who isn't scientifically illiterate. To have 78 unnatural deaths in a witness pool of 1400 is statistically impossible (odds smaller than 1 in a trillion).

Quote: (03-03-2017 05:39 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

Oswald acted alone. 54 years of "research" have failed to provide a better explanation of the facts. Conspiracy theorists have to come up with straw men representations of the "magic bullet," Oswald's marksmanship, etc.

Occam's razor favors the simplest explanation: Oswald was a Communist sympathizer who shot JFK for a reason that is forever lost to history.

That's a standard form denier reply that ticks all the "skeptic" talking points:

-Using the term "conspiracy theory", a NLP killshot which was developed and weaponized by the CIA in an attempt to clamp down the public's disbelief of the official JFK story. Fact.

Under Obama, Cass Sunstein has revived this type of deep state control/subversion of the real skeptical discourse, organizing an infiltration of new media among other measures.

-misuse of the concept of straw man and other dubious cognitive shortcuts, outright dismissal of valid data points and alternative narratives supported by scientific analysis and research.

-the old "someone would have blown the whistle", or the fantasy that the NYT, the WaPo or CNN are stocked with Woodward-Bernstein types who will crawl naked on broken glass to expose the truth, instead of the reality that their oligarch owners (the Pritzkers, Murdoch, Graham/Bezos, Rockefellers/foundations etc) set their limits and retain ideologically committed professional liars.

You also have a basic misunderstanding of the compartmentalization of the covert operation process at the managerial and operational levels. As Mercenary said, it is broken down on a need to know level, and the conspiracy is covered by strong cultural controls, conformity and a near-religious belief in the institutions (press, government, law enforcement etc).

-Basic scientific illiteracy, behind the misuse of the Occam's Razor concept, which gets conflated here with basic cognitive dissonance. You're going to disbelieve a "conspiracy theory" not on the basis of facts, but because it shakes the foundation of your belief system, so you would rather just chuck the whole set of evidence and stay in the safe space of the mainstream.

.
.
.
Just out of curisoty, LockandLoad, "Truth Teller", Brewdog, Bummer: do you guys believe in the theory that human CO2 emissions are behind global warming, or is that a conspiracy?

I've been to the Dealey Plaza "museum" and taken the tour. I stood right next to the shooter's nest on the sixth floor of the school book depository (you can't actually stand or go to the place Oswald presumably shot from because it's surrounded by glass). I was mere feet away from the area he shot from though and looking down at the path of JFK's limo.

In addition, I went to the grassy knoll. I walked behind the fence at the top of the knoll and I also walked along the route, in the street, where JFK was shot.

My observations:

Shooting with a rifle from the 6th floor of the building at a target in a slow moving car would not have been difficult. I grew up shooting and I'm confident that I, with my non-military background, could have probably made a head shot on someone in a slow moving car using a rifle with a sighted-in scope from that spot and at that range. It wouldn't have been difficult if you were a fairly proficient marksman.

Getting 3 shots off in less than 6 seconds with a bolt action rifle? Yes, that would have been difficult but not impossible. Especially for a young man in his prime who may have been practicing in the weeks leading up to it and an ex-Marine to boot. In addition, his adrenaline would have been hyped up, probably improving performance.

The internet says the shot was 240 to 265 feet which was my initial estimate of 100 yards of less. Again, not difficult.

The area right behind the fence at the top of the grassy knoll (where conspiracists think another shooter was) is a wide open lot that is contingent with a railroad yard. It's very open. That edge of the fence is right on top of the knoll. Unless someone was concealed in a car backed up to the fence or concealed in some other way, it seems it would have been easy to see a guy with a rifle in that area. Also, rifles are very loud. The area from the top of the knoll to the killshot is, maybe 30 to 50 yards tops. The rifle report would have been VERY loud and obvious to anyone standing on the knoll or even across the street. It would have been very evident where it came from. 30 or 50 yards is practically right on top of the target in terms of shooting with a rifle. So, unless the shooter on the knoll was concealed in some way and using a silencer of some sort, I don't see how people wouldn't have immediately turned around and seen some guy hanging the barrel of a rifle over the fence or even noticed him before hand getting set up. Perhaps the shrubbery was denser in the early 60's. I don't know.

The one thing that makes me think there may have been more than one shooter was:

1. The Zapruder film: Kennedy's head goes back and to the left as if the bullet came from the front. (some say this was an immediate convulsive shock reaction of the bullet entering his brain) which caused JFK's body and head to jerk, in shock, backward. This sounds plausible.

2. Oswald was shot and killed the next day by Ruby. Seems a bit too convenient.

3. The pristine condition of the bullet that was found.

4. On a weaker note, JFK was making waves with the military, CIA and Military industrial complex.

It's an interesting subject and perhaps one day the American people will know for sure. It's also been reported that Lyndon Johnson didn't like JFK and, emerging from a meeting with some Texas businessmen and bigwigs the evening before the assassination, said to his mistress: "Those SOB's (the Kennedys) will never embarrass me again. That's not a threat, that's a promise."

The matter is pretty simple. Long story short Oswald was connected to the KGB and trained for assassination, but suddenly acted on his own after deciding that the Soviets didn't have to tell him when it was time for Kennedy to die.

The the 1950s and 1960s, the KGB had a disgruntled, former Marine communist sympathizer who was willing to work for them. Oswald was trained and conditioned to kill the President if need be.

In late 1962 the USSR was humiliated in the Cuban Missile Crisis. This was a deep blow to Oswald as well, and he began his plans to get revenge for the new nation/ideology of his allegiance. After all, this was the kind of work the KGB was setting him up to do.

Oswald then shot Kennedy after KGB handlers failed to convince him otherwise.

The KGB disinformation machine kicked into gear since the USSR didn't want WWIII over a crazy sort-of agent who went renegade. A Cuban agent murdered Oswald, silencing him. The years and decades after this were filled with conspiracy theories surrounding the Kennedy assassination, many of them concocted or given support by the KGB.

I got all this from "Disinformation" by Ion Mihai Pacepa. This man is nothing to be laughed at--he was the director of the Securitate, communist Romania's secret police force. In 1978 Pacepa defected to the USA and revealed much about the workings and objectives of eastern bloc espionage and subversion. He has covered the Kennedy issue with clarity and from a point of view that makes sense.

My view and probably my focus here would be to focus on the ballistics in the case, that is, the bullets and the fragments found on Kennedy, Connally, and elsewhere around the limousine. Everything else about the JFK assassination can be conjectured about, but it seems to me the ballistics are the matters capable of least conjecture, because they are much more in the realm of physics than anything else. They are matters of data.

In summary, what I'm going to look into over time (and hopefully what some of you shooters out here can adjust my knowledge on) is the bullets themselves, and the fragments left in JFK's brain in particular. The query comes down to: is the "your head asplode" result we see on the Zapruder footage a possible consequence of being hit with one of the bullets that appear to have been loaded in "Oswald's rifle" - full metal jacket, apparently not frangible rounds?

If it's simply not possible for that to have happened, then, by pure logic, there must have been a second rifle and therefore a second gunman - because Oswald's ammunition is known and reasoned out from the physical evidence, and did not include frangible ammo.

If it is possible to have that result from the ammunition Oswald was said to have used, then the question becomes how possible it is - I have no doubt I'll be running into websites that say "Oh, hey, I simulated the same head explosion on JFK with this here Carcano" but don't tell you it took them very specific conditions and took a hundred shots or so before it happened. Again, a low likelihood does not prevent it being possible.

(I am using "Oswald's rifle" for convenience. I am leaving aside the question of whether or not he actually fired shots at all. Oswald's cheek and hands were checked for gunshot residue using paraffin, and returned a negative result ... but apparently the paraffin test was notoriously unreliable, providing both false positives and false negatives. In other words, it doesn't prove one way or the other whether he used the rifle.)

As I said yesterday, that rifle was a piece of shit. The scope was an even bigger piece of shit. That scope is virtually no different from the 4X Tasco "rimfire scope" they sell at walmart. I've got a Marlin model 60 that came fitted with one from the factory. I detailed the eye relief issues before. These problems existed on a semiauto .22 rifle with no recoil.

You're not going to get that piece of shit scope on target, fire, open the bolt, chamber next round, aim, fire again, etc 3 times in under 6 seconds. I don't dispute the possibility of him using the iron sights. After the first shot, the car immediately began to accelerate. A target moving at a fixed rate of speed is very difficult to hit, when it's accelerating, I would say it's almost impossible.

I'm actually watching JFK right now.
1. They said Oswald was a medium skill shooter at best.
2. The tree blocking the window was a live oak. Live oaks are evergreens.
3. The rifle was deemed one of the worst ones out there.
4. He had to shoot it 88 yards through heavy foliage.
5. It took 2 seconds to recycle the rifle. And that doesn't factor in the recoil and time to re aim.
6. The FBI tried two sets of tests and none of their sharpshooters could match Oswald's performance.

If these assertions are true, then I don't see how it was possible for the lone gunman theory.

I've not followed the Kennedy assassination because I've mostly been turned off by the decade of the 60s. I will admit there was a lot of interesting stuff that took place in that time. But I think that most of the music was crap, and all of the dirty fucking baby boomer hippies try to appropriate that as their decade. In truth, the people who were really doing interesting things were those people who were born 10-20 years before the baby boomer cancer. Baby boomers used the trauma of Kennedy getting shot as justification for all of their selfish behavior that goes on even now.

A good baby boomer trolling experiment:
1. Find baby boomer who voted for Hillary.
2. Mention watching the WTC collapse on 9/11.
3. Sit back and wait for them to tell you that watching Kennedy get shot was more traumatic.