Paul Bacon

21 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

This woman, correctly or otherwise, believed the protestors were "let in" to the Capitol. Now this is a raw observation, this is not a view filtered by the media. But this sentiment is echoed by many.

Ben, we've already seen video of "protesters" being let in.  It was on the opposite side of the Capitol.  It wasn't filtered by the media.

I think I remember reporting that said it was a republican congressman who held the door open for the protesters in the back.

I didn't pay much attention to it as it was one of those items of interest that were oh so common during our last 5 years.

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I'm sure you can understand why a non-expert like me might not put too much trust in the claim that the scientific evidence is settled. The non-expert thinks: well, it could have been an inside job, you wouldn't rule it out in theory, but if the scientific evidence really is as conclusive as this guy claims, you'd expect a large proportion of experts to support it, and only a small number appear to do so.

Well for God's sake Jeremy, become an expert!  It won't take more than a day's reading before you realize the truth in "controlled demolition".  It doesn't take any trust -- the evidence is right there (unlike the JFK case).

There are some interesting common themes in this thread:  instinctively knowing something's wrong, innate curiosity among us...  We're probably all people who, for whatever reason, have always questioned authority.  I'll bet we're all the same, somehow, in how we get through life.

I turned 11 four days after his murder.  My mother was a big JFK fan and that's why I was too.

Like Joe, I watched the wall to wall coverage that weekend.  And, like Joe, I sat watching LHO's transfer live!  And, again, like Joe, I was stunned when Ruby wacked Oswald.  I instinctively knew something was wrong and I went screaming about what happened to my mother.

I'm with Ty--I search high and low for someone else here in central New Hampshire to talk to about it.  My wife has little interest in it :>)

4 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

With something so startling, you’d think any diligent investigators might have tested the rubble for thermites, amongst other things.

From my reading:  There were some citizens who collected samples of the dust at ground zero as souveniers.  Some of the "souveniers" were tested and found to have contained thermite residue.

I have a feeling you already know about that Chris.

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The implausibility that I mentioned was to do with the practicality of blowing up the buildings. Placing explosives, cutting through steel joists, and whatever other noisy and disruptive activities might have been required, don't strike me as being straightforward to do without being noticed, anywhere, let alone in huge, heavily populated office blocks in downtown Manhattan.

In fact Jeremy, there was work being done on the building in the weeks preceding 9/11/01 -- some of it at night.  They were working in the areas above the ceiling and inside the elevator shafts.  I doubt anyone cut through steel joists, but it's pretty non-disruptive to apply thermite explosives and wiring using hand tools and battery operated drills.  Structures are usually designed to provide easy access for re-doing wiring and plumbing.

20 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Mark,

    You, obviously, haven't studied, or understood, the bona fide scientific research on the 9/11 WTC demolitions.

    Let's talk about the scientific data after you've actually studied it.

    Here are some quality references.*

    Meanwhile, if you're sincerely concerned about censorship in our media, perhaps you can explain to us why the bona fide scientific and forensic evidence about what really happened on 9/11 has been completely blacked out of the U.S. mainstream media for the past 20 years!

    

*https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/beyond-misinformation

https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/explosive-features

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-in-the-journal-of-9-11-studies/419-the-missing-jolt-a-simple-refutation-of-the-nist-bazant-collapse-hypothesis

 

 

 

   

   

6 or 7 years ago, while working as a self-employed, small-time remodeling contractor and having some time on my hands, I looked into 9/11 "conspiracy theories".  The subject came up so often and, being a convinced JFK conspiracy believer, I thought "mabey there's something to this after all."

I spent more than a week reading, but even after the first day, I was completely convinced the building was brought down by controlled demolition.  The evidence was overwhelming.

To this day I remain convinced.  I've spent hours considering the ramifications of this being true.  It, very much, follows the JFK assasination handbook and I blame Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

I know this is the JFK Assasination forum, but I do believe the two are inexorably linked.

Looks like he's slalom skiing around a post...

Something I'm not understanding here.  In the first half of the gif, the side by side comparison, why do the jaw lines look so different?

I always thought it was wierd that JFK stayed so slumped over and still all the way down Elm St., from Z225 until the head shot/s at Z313.  He was not mortally wounded during those seconds and should have been trying something physical to deal with the wounds in his throat and back.  But he just sat, stone still, until getting blasted in the head.

And then the slight movement of his head foward toward the limo front at Z312 is an indication of a shot from the rear -- the first bullet to hit his head...

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The Zapruder film is authentic.

Then how do you explain the Zap film not showing the blowout in the back of the head and the blob on the right front?  Did experts Zavada and Fielding just miss these "obvious artifacts"?  Hmmm...

Tony, just shooting from the hip here, but I read that Marylin Sitzman convinced Zapruder to go back to the office and get his camera.  Could the "them" refer to people in the office?  BTW, I don't discount the idea that Zap was being "run" by some people...

9 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I think so too.  Horne I believe is the one who mentioned frames cut out for "debris removal".  The extent of the explosion Brugioni saw, what splattered Hargis and the other motorcycle cop and the driver of the follow up car?  I have to wonder what else they might have shown in terms of head movement.

If I remember correctly Horne also mentioned removal of these frames speeding up the perceived back and to the left sequence.

Indeed Ron.

Doug also suggested the Z film was shot at 48 fps.  All kinds of data: head movement, exit debris, reactions of other occupants, limo speed, shot sequence, etc. could have been removed and still present a coherent film.

And to Jeremy, there were (3) copies (possibly 4) and one original already in existance by Friday afternoon.  Pretty hard to make a case that the film was accidentally destroyed when there are already four or five copies floating about.

The one thing Dino Brugioni saw in his version of the film, that he distinctly remembers, was the huge billow of pink cloud material rising far above Kennedy's head.  He was quite adamant.  I doubt his memory about that was fogged.  We don't see that in our version.

In my view, frame removal is almost certain.

Then, of course, there's the idea suggested by Doug Horne and others, that the Z film was recorded at 48 fps and edited down to closer to 16 fps like the other cameras.  I wonder how much the Z film would have captured that the other films didn't.  After editing, wouldn't all films still sync with each other?

6 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Well, how would a GK-sourced blowout from the right rear of the skull have spattered Hargis, behind the left rear fender?  The cited blowout spot is already rotated away from Hargis, and toward Chaney.

The only way would have been if JFK's head was rotated toward the GK at some point--something we don't see in the Zapruder film.  Dr. Mantik, based on his studies of the X-rays in the Archives, believed there were 3 shots to the head--above the right eye, tangential entrance just above and in front of the right ear, and a posterior shot at the base of the skull.  Witnesses say the shots were nearly simultaneous.  Any of the shots could easily have rotated JFK's head to make it possible for a shot from the GK to impact Hargis.  Of course, none of this is seen in the manipulated Zap film.

Another thing to ponder, is that the metalic debris trail across the top of the head means that JFK must have been sitting upright at the time of the shot.  We don't see that in the Z film either.

On 5/1/2021 at 1:15 AM, Ron Bulman said:

What I still can't reconcile is back and to the left from the front left.  The geometry, physics, angle of that.

The video Chris B. linked to shows how that is reconciled.  What I can't reconcile is, if the rear blowout was caused by the shot from the South Knoll, how was it that Bobby Hargis was hit so forcefully by blood and brain matter?  Another shot from the Grassy Knoll?

12 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Not being an equestrian, I always thought the expression referred to horses biting (i.e., "chomping") on the bit.

Spread the word William 😁

21 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I know Paul, I was just trying to keep it somewhat informal. 😀

Hey Kirk-

If you're serious:  perfect!  If you're being tongue in cheek: very funny.

8 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

It sounds like Jim's   chomping at the bit for a bloody fascist take over in Ukraine 

I know it's beside the point, but it's a pet peeve of mine.  It drives me nuts!  The phrase is "champing at the bit" not chomping at the bit.  There, I've said it.🙂

There is a vast array of problems facing humankind that would be solved with population control.  There aren't very many problems left that wouldn't be solved by population control.  I have been in favor of population control since the early seventies.

Calvin, Andrej was making a joke.  It's YOU.  That's what he meant.

3 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

That attack review on the book on Amazon is grossly unfair. The guy

obviously had some animus toward it ahead of time and unleashed

it. I recommend anyone here who likes the book (as I do) post

a good review to counterbalance that garbage.

Typical Lance wall of words...

I just had my second shot yesterday.  I was still in the process of pulling up my short sleeve when the EMS guy said he was done.  He stuck me and had a bandaid on me and I didn't feel a thing.  Maybe we can vaccinate these morons in their sleep.  You know, a deep state conspiracy of sorts.

You guys are right.  The use of zooming was used to manipulate what the frames showed.  I'd never noticed before that the camera is much more zoomed-in in z133 versus z01 and 02, as well as later in the film.

People can say whatever they want about Biden, but one thing is clear: he is totally and completely commited to turning the United States toward peace in the long term.  You can see it when he speaks.  He's got no hidden agenda.  Reminds me of John Kennedy.

18 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Donald Trump is now suggesting the FBI, the Justice Department and judges are involved.

I tell you what.

If he starts running around crying out, "Off with their heads!",

I'm outta here.

Steve Thomas

Everybody's involved ...even the American voters!