Jump to content
The Education Forum
Fred Litwin

Need single bullet theory diagram

Recommended Posts

This is the evidence Pat Speer et al refuse to acknolwedge.

See JFK.

See JFK on Elm St.

See JFK on Elm St with a band of white shirt collar above his jacket collar, and a little bit of elevation of the jacket below the collar.

15c.%2BCroft%2BPhoto%2BShowing%2BJFK%27s%2BCar%2BOn%2BElm%2BStreet.jpg

This shows JFK's clothing as required by the T1 back wound.

SBT%202_zpsffsko8jk.jpg

How much more obvious could the discrepancy be, Pat?

...On Elm St:

image.jpeg

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shorter Pat Speer:  --The SBT doesn't work with a T1 inshoot, therefore JFK was shot at T1--

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Shorter Pat Speer:  --The SBT doesn't work with a T1 inshoot, therefore JFK was shot at T1--

Close, but no cigar.

Now, let's get back to the SBT, shall we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Close, but no cigar.

Now, let's get back to the SBT, shall we?

Why?

The trajectory obviously doesn't work.

Let's move beyond that noise -- what happened to the bullets that caused the T3 back wound and throat entrance wound...Pat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Why?

The trajectory obviously doesn't work.

Let's move beyond that noise -- what happened to the bullets that caused the T3 back wound and throat entrance wound...Pat?

LOL. I'd originally written a more detailed response in which I noted that every discussion of the single-bullet theory follows a similar pattern. Someone tries to defend it, a bunch of us start to show them their mistake, and then you jump in and turn the thread into first) a personal attack on me, and second) a discussion of your pet theories.

And here you go, proving me right.

It's pretty creepy, dude.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

LOL. I'd originally written a more detailed response in which I noted that every discussion of the single-bullet theory follows a similar pattern. Someone tries to defend it, a bunch of us start to show them their mistake, and then you jump in

I jump in quoting David Von Pein describing the jacket fold in Croft 3 as "a little bit."

I jump in citing the Fonzi v. Specter 1966 debunking of the SBT and implore, after 52 years, that we might get beyond all the fake debate over the subject.

A fake debate you're more than happy to maintain..

The operative definition of "creepy" -- Pat Speer citing the Gaeton Fonzi takedown of Arlen Specter at a Conference all the while semi-covertly disputing Fonzi/Salandria's primary achievement -- making Specter prove that clothing doesn't elevate when you wave your arms.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I jump in quoting David Von Pein describing the jacket fold in Croft 3 as "a little bit."

So what? We've been over this a dozen times previously. Somehow, though, Cliff thinks that my "little bit" statement means I have no choice but to totally abandon all the other indications of the SBT being true.

As Pat said ---- creepy. (Not to mention silly.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

So what? We've been over this a dozen times previously. Somehow, though, Cliff thinks that my "little bit" statement means I have no choice but to totally abandon all the other indications of the SBT being true.

Only if you want to be intellectually honest.

The Myers' animation shows the jacket collar an inch into the hairline -- the Croft photo shows a white band of shirt collar above the jacket collar.

That you can't acknowledge the discrepancy is amazing.

35 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

As Pat said ---- creepy. (Not to mention silly.)

The clothing evidence makes LNers and VichyCt's recoil like vampires before garlic.

Vampires find garlic creepy,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

E. Martin Schotz

The Waters of Knowledge versus The Waters of Uncertainty:

Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedy

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/27th_issue/schotz.html

<quote on, emphasis added>

THE MALIGNANT NATURE OF PSEUDO DEBATE

Perhaps many people think that engaging in pseudo debate is a benign activity, that it simply means that people are debating something that is irrelevant. This is not the case. I say this because every debate rests on a premise to which the debaters must agree, or there is no debate. In the case of pseudo debate the premise is a lie. So in the pseudo debate we have the parties to the debate agreeing to purvey a lie to the public. And it is all the more malignant because it is subtle. The unsuspecting person who is witness to the pseudo debate does not understand that he is being passed a lie. He is not even aware that he is being passed a premise; it is so subtle that the premise just passes into the person as if it were reality. This premise -- that there is uncertainly to be resolved -- seems so benign. It is as easy as drinking a glass of treated water.

But the fact remains that there is no mystery except in the minds of those who are willing to drink this premise. The premise is a lie, and a society which agrees to drink such a lie ceases to perceive reality. This is what we mean by mass denial.

That the entire establishment has been willing to join in this process of cover-up by confusion creates an extreme form of problem for anyone who would seek to utter the truth. For these civilian institutions -- the media, the universities and the government-- once they begin engaging in denial of knowledge of the identity of the assassins, once they are drawn into the cover-up, a secondary motivation develops for them. Now they are not only protecting the state, they are now protecting themselves, because to expose the obviousness of the assassination and the false debate would be to reveal the corrupt role of all these institutions. And there is no question that these institutions are masters in self protection. Thus anyone who would attempt to confront the true cover-up must be prepared to confront virtually the entire society. And in doing this, one is inevitably going to be marginalized.</q>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...