Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jake Hammond

Members
  • Content Count

    204
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jake Hammond

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I challenged him on the ‘ evidence ‘ ( as I see it ) of people running up the hill after the shooting and he said that witnesses who reported shots from that area were crackpots. He may have inferred that the people running were crackpots also but that’s not a quote. My point is, that he takes the high road about only using ‘ evidence’ yet does ignore some stuff which does at least seem to be evidence. Rather than reconcile that evidence into a timeline, which is what I try to do. More annoyingly, when someone makes a suggestion about reconciliation he ridicules it.
  2. Lance, explain to me these two issues. 1- if the ‘ carcano bullet ‘can pass through 36” of wood and not even get a scratch , then what happened to the headshot when up entering a human skull it fragmented ( one fragment of which must have caused the dent in the chrome if there were three shots). Also there were fragments both in the car and in the head. If the fragments were fake or planted then you’re a CTer, if they aren’t we have two weapons. 2- Please explain the two closely bunched final shots. Most witnesses describe the two shots as being too close than is physically possible with the Carcano . But it gets better....the final shot was a ( difficult) perfect headshot so he would have had to aim , acquire the target and track the head . Alternatively, he saw the head explode then decided to reload and fire at James Tague. In all honestly ..... explain this and I’ll take you seriously.
  3. A - we do , there is an expulsion of matter rearwards at 316 and a deformity at the rear of the head tallying with the parkland doctors. b - it’s not an ‘ explosion ‘ because the pressure and blood was gone by 316. its hard to prove this but also Jackie’s reactions, she suddenly looks rearward and dives over the trunk , well after 313 . Bob Harris, who I know you are fond of, points this out. Im not 100% on this myself but it would reconcile the evidence.
  4. Lance, everything is a ‘pissing contest He doth protesteth too much ‘. Everything is a pissing contest, You seem to think you’re above it whilst simultaneously doing a massive piss. And please stop talking to us as though we are all the same and all inferior, Godh it’s tedious. If you used to believe in conspiracy theories like us idiots then why the arrogance ? Why the ridicule ? It doesn’t add up . A nice friendly bit of banter occasionally would suffice. A guiding hand and a few links with a ‘ I used to think that ...’ would do. Also, we don’t all believe in Aliens and ‘ Oswald in the doorway’ . Finally, this is not a court of Law. This is not a violent assault case or a marital court. This is the assassination of the president with , at the minimum, a cover up of the link between LHO and the alphabet agencies. Finally finally - it’s not just about who dunnit, it’s about the social history, the context, the implications, the mood, the conversations that were had, the relationship, the human situation, the soul of man. I find that much more interesting personally than who pulled the trigger. Dont tell us we can’t research because you said so. However, I do get your point. I myself once believed in many theories tegarding JFK that turned out to be baloney , and it was just as you described. A propensity to err on the side of the alternative and the unknown is all too tempting. Equally tempting to a different group however is the propensity to believe in what is most comfortable and what they’re told. Which many people are trying to rebel against.
  5. Have you tried reconciling the evidence instead of writing them all of as crackpots ? Genuine question . I always understood the truth to be a law unto itself. Not ‘ the most likely’ , ‘ most common sense’ or most logical. If half of the doctors or more specifically describe something, which is also shown in the autopsy , would you not be best advised to reconcile rather than reject. ?
  6. Thanks . What I’m saying is, if I get specific you ridicule and call the evidence fake or crackpot. So I’m asking you what was incorrect about the investigation. Don’t call it silly , don’t call it a game, if you’re not a fundamentalist then talk to us about those hundred things , deviate from the MSM narrative .....
  7. Weren’t bullet fragments also taken from Connally though ? Can’t have both .
  8. Turn the table on them if you are going to engage. Ask them what is imperfect about the investigations, what potentially could be minutely flawed with their timelines. Put the ball in their court and stop responding to the , ‘ yeah but in this tiny specific situation I will ridicule you and say that I and only I use common sense and you wear a tin hat ‘ .
  9. You dodged that one lance . You know what I’m saying. I’m asking you what , in hindsight, with 20/20 vision, could potentially be a more beautiful and immaculate investigation ? I’m turning the tables again and putting the ball in your court and again you are dodging . I raised the issue of 399 because it is the single most obvious situation of the DPD or FBI planting evidence. I raised Tippit because there was no investigation. Also.... are you comfortable with your view being EXACTLY the same as that if the MSM ?
  10. Initially this was going to be a question to LNers , along the lines of ‘ how do you explain the destruction, damage or cutting of several of the video and images showing the turn on to Elm?’ . Before inserting ones foot in ones mouth however it may be prudent to ask if anyone knows of an good image showing this ? There is one I believe but it’s cropped quite tightly on the lower part of the car . Also , is there any GOOD evidence of the Z film been seen by people avec le turn ? Thank you
  11. What do you think of officer Mclain’s interviews. He calmly laughs it off and explains it all. Also the Bill Decker statement which is known to have come later ... seems debunked to me and pretty flimsy to start with.
  12. Sorry to be obtuse but did JFK also hate JFK. ? Had he thought ( perhaps subconciously) that by martyring himself he could achieve more long term. I mean ..., his presidential actions were a mixed bag at best and he was a serial cheat, on a few different medications and had a pretty dodgy back . Did he have a sort of morbid wish for all this ? He just seems to have been incredibly maverick with who he pissed off and the inferences he made in speaches. just a thought.
×
×
  • Create New...