Glenn Nall Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 re #3 - it's even more simple than geometry - there's too much lead in Connally to have come from one "whole" bullet. Period. He was buried with lead in his leg. There's only one explanation for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) there's too much lead in Connally to have come from one "whole" bullet. Period. He was buried with lead in his leg. That's CT Myth No. 149. And it's just flat-out wrong. "In actuality, the distinct possibility exists that John B. Connally went to his grave with a mere TWO tiny bullet fragments left in his whole body (one in the thigh and one in his wrist)." -- DVP; Dec. 18, 2011 More.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/connally-bullet-fragments.html Edited June 19, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) there's too much lead in Connally to have come from one "whole" bullet. Period. He was buried with lead in his leg. That's CT Myth No. 149. And it's just flat-out wrong. "In actuality, the distinct possibility exists that John B. Connally went to his grave with a mere TWO tiny bullet fragments left in his whole body (one in the thigh and one in his wrist)." -- DVP; Dec. 18, 2011 More.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/connally-bullet-fragments.html President Gerald Ford to Valery French president Giscard d'Estaing - JFK assassination was a conspiracy: “We arrived at an initial conclusion: it was not the work of one person, it was something set up. We were sure it was set up.” From Robert Morrow 512-306-1510 Weblink: 1) http://ctka.net/2013/VGEonJFK.html ============== Original article from 11-21-2013: http://www.rtl.fr/actu/international/kennedy-le-reve-a-ete-assassine-avec-l-homme-dit-giscard-7767111282 ============== «Gerald Ford (president of the United States from 1974 to 1977, editor’s note) was a member of the Warren Commission», Valéry Giscard d’Estaing resumes. «Once I was making a car trip with him, he was then President as I was myself. I said to him: 'Let me ask you an indiscreet question: you were on the Warren Commission, what conclusions did you arrive at?' He told me: 'It's not a satisfactory [i.e., positive (ntr)] one. We arrived at an initial conclusion: it was not the work of one person, it was something set up. We were sure that it was set up. But we were not able to discover by whom.'» The Kennedy Assassination: «The dream was assassinated along with the man», Giscard says. Radio-Télévision Luxembourg Document. The former President of the Republic tells how he learned about the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy from the mouth of a passerby, and affirms that he believes there were others behind it. ================ By Jérome Chapuis (21 November, 2013) ================ Fifty years ago, «JFK» collapsed in his state convertible while riding through the streets of Dallas, Texas, struck down by several bullets. John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 35th President of the United States (a Democrat), was assassinated the 22 of October [November, (ntr)], 1963, and still today, the truth about this crime has not yet been officially established. Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, at that time Minister of Finance for General de Gaulle, became aware of the event that stupefied the world "in a remarkable manner". «I left my office in the Louvre in order to catch a plane to Villacoublay, on the way to the Auvergne, and on the sidewalk to the right, there was a middle-aged man who was gesturing excitedly: he raised his arm, as if he were hitch-hiking», the former head of state relates for the microphones of RTL = «I said to myself, 'what’s going on, what could be happening?', continues Valéry Giscard d’Estaing. We slowed down, I rolled down the window, he leaned over and said to me, 'The President of the United States was just assassinated, I heard it on the radio, I immediately came out of my house in order to spread the word everywhere.' And he burst into sobbing. Here was someone who had been so traumatized that he could not keep the news to himself.» For the one who performed the highest functions of state from 1974 to 1981, the emotion of this anonymous figure mirrors the shock felt by «all the French» that day. «Because in the assassination of Kennedy, there is in a sense the idea of the assassination of a dream», he says. «When one murders a dream, it is not just the person who is murdered, the dream is killed together with [that person].» The former French President incidentally revealed a few tasty tidbits concerning his relationship with the emblematic American head of state, whom he met in the Oval Office. «He asked me for advice!», notably on inflation, he lets on. As for the atmosphere which reined at the White House during that period, «it was youthfulness which was in power. Youth, which wanted to change the world. He profoundly inspired me», he confides. VGE convinced by the theory there was a conspiracy But if the myth was not extinguished with the man, a blur remains over the true reasons for his death. One man, Lee Harvey Oswald, was rapidly apprehended; he was accused of having fired upon the young President three times with a carbine in a moment favored by fate. He was never brought to trial, murdered less than 48 hours after his questioning. Two official inquiries, whose conclusions are controversial, confirm his guilt: the Warren Commission, in 1974 [1964 (ntr)], and the Stokes [commission, i.e., HSCA (ntr)], from 1976 to 1978. But innumerable theories claim something else: for the conspiracists, Oswald was supposedly remote-controlled by the CIA, the FBI or the extreme Right, depending on the version. --------------------------------------------------------- «Gerald Ford (president of the United States from 1974 to 1977, editor’s note) was a member of the Warren Commission», Valéry Giscard d’Estaing resumes. «Once I was making a car trip with him, he was then President as I was myself. I said to him: 'Let me ask you an indiscreet question: you were on the Warren Commission, what conclusions did you arrive at?' He told me: 'It's not a satisfactory [i.e., positive (ntr)] one. We arrived at an initial conclusion: it was not the work of one person, it was something set up. We were sure that it was set up. But we were not able to discover by whom.'» «Thus there was an organization, which has never been brought to light, which detested, which hated or which feared President Kennedy, and which decided to get rid of him. That is my conviction», the former head of state decisively concludes. Whence we come to learn that two former presidents among the most powerful of their era support the theory of a conspiracy. ---------------------------------- http://www.rtl.fr/actu/international/kennedy-le-reve-a-ete-assassine-avec-l-homme-dit-giscard-7767111282 Edited June 19, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect. This is one of the most effective LNer shill tactics employed followed by these two: 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. 5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues. these are all basic arguments learned in any Critical Thinking class. I notice them a lot when I'm talking with Democrats. Glenn, you're making many of the same points I made when you said I wasn't saying anything interesting. I believe the nutters are here to create controversy and prevent meaningful discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Wagner Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) Ok, we (the CT'rs) believe that many of the LN'rs are shills for somebody. Who? For what purpose? Is their purpose nefarious? The ones who haunt the forums are possible paid to infiltrate and spread lies. So yes their purpose is nefarious. Last week I was friended on fb by another atty - someone I do not know- and when I made my status about the assassination, he began posting stupid crap. So we got into an IM discussion for a few days, but his reasoning was circular. Warren was a good man, therefore there was no conspiracy. And argued that the media would never cover it up. So there are lots of lone nuts who remain ignorant on purpose. In my thirty years as an attorney I have seen much of this with people who have higher education. They are just so invested in the system and will not read anything that will rock their boat. Frustrating. I could not get this atty to even read an Amazon review of JFKU. It had to be a New York times review. So I gave up communicating with him. Waste of time. Dawn, I agree with your thought about some being too invested in the system to see beyond it. There are certainly those who are invested in a financial sense, but I think many more are invested in a visceral/emotional way that is integral to their personal identity. Like some warped version of patriotism. It's like Nietzsche said, "Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." Edited June 19, 2015 by Greg Wagner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) "but I think many more are invested in a visceral/emotional way that is integral to their personal identity. Like some warped version of patriotism." bingo. something much more valuable than money. their pride. I'm about to address one... DVP: are you serious? that's your reply? you cite your own website? dude, you're desparate. Mr Drew - we cannot ALWAYS disagree. Edited June 19, 2015 by Glenn Nall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect. This is one of the most effective LNer shill tactics employed followed by these two: 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. 5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues. these are all basic arguments learned in any Critical Thinking class. I notice them a lot when I'm talking with Democrats. Glenn, you're making many of the same points I made when you said I wasn't saying anything interesting. I believe the nutters are here to create controversy and prevent meaningful discussion. those are not my quotes, Kenneth - those were by someone else - I simply suggested that I remember learning the same "erroneous tactics" in Critical Thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) I'm divided on this issue. While I'm skeptical that anyone gets paid to sow discord on the assassination forums, I would not be surprised if some have sown discord with the intent of impressing the "right" people. Whether or not the "right" people are watching, however, I can not say. It seemed clear to me from the coverage of the 50th that NO ONE in a responsible position in the media follows these forums, or has the slightest clue what is discussed here. So I suspect not. I am quite curious about the motivation of the LNs on these forums, however. And it has nothing to do with the "truth" behind what they believe. Let me explain.. From my study of the O.J. Simpson case, I have come to believe that O.J. (who was my first football hero) is guilty. As a result, I find those still claiming he was innocent "annoying" or "naive". I would never, however, find it worth my time to argue with them, let alone argue with them on a daily basis. It just doesn't matter that much to me. If they want to believe that the semi-racist LAPD is pure racist (or was at that time pure racist), and that a bunch of football-loving cops would frame O.J. for the murder of his white wife, that's their problem. So I don't fully understand why people thinking Oswald did it, and the CT research community a joke, would spend so much of their time arguing for Oswald's guilt, and against the CT research community. I have read interviews with some LNs, and have talked with others, however, and it has become more than clear that some LNs have a misguided hatred for Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, and Oliver Stone , and BLAME them for America's losing its way--a complaint that, in my opinion would be better lobbed at the likes of LBJ, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush. Now, to be clear, some of these LNs are conservative, and some quite liberal, but they share this core belief...that America WAS a great country, or was about to become a great country, until some misguided "critics" caused the American people to doubt themselves, or get side-tracked into obsessing about the murder of one man. Some, mostly conservative, view this as part of a plot among those who hate this country. Some, mostly liberal, see this as a toxic by-product of the 60's. But BOTH sides have a personal stake in all this. They feel they've lost something--and that it's OUR fault. Edited June 19, 2015 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 I think you have perfectly described the entire phenomena. I kept wanting to highlight and quote parts of that with "Exactly!" until i just decided the whole think should be mounted and framed. Nicely put, Pat. they confuse me, so I long ago quit trying to understand them. I'll listen, but I know where it usually ends up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 there's too much lead in Connally to have come from one "whole" bullet. Period. He was buried with lead in his leg. That's CT Myth No. 149. And it's just flat-out wrong. "In actuality, the distinct possibility exists that John B. Connally went to his grave with a mere TWO tiny bullet fragments left in his whole body (one in the thigh and one in his wrist)." -- DVP; Dec. 18, 2011 More.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/connally-bullet-fragments.html "In actuality, the distinct possibility exists " Now that is a Positive statement with a capital P. Let me see, actually, a possibility, exists. And if that is not definitive enough for you......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) DVP: are you serious? that's your reply? you cite your own website? dude, you're desparate [sic]. If you would have bothered to click on the link, "dude", you'd find dozens of source links to support the things I talk about at my own site regarding the Connally fragments. And, BTW, I sure don't see Pat Speer being nailed to the cross for the many times we see these words in a post written by Mr. Speer himself.... "From Chapter 7b at PatSpeer.com..." But I would never fault Pat for citing stuff from his own website. Of course he's going to do that (and often). And that's because he has put a lot of time and effort into the things he places on his site. Just as I have done on my sites. And Pat, like me, is proud of the things he has written on his site. What website operator wouldn't want to prop up his own work and articles? And, as I said above, I normally provide tons of source links to back up my arguments. Edited June 20, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 how would DVP: are you serious? that's your reply? you cite your own website? dude, you're desparate. If you would have bothered to click on the link, "dude", you'd find dozens of source links to support the things I talk about at my own site regarding the Connally fragments.And, BTW, I sure don't see Pat Speer being nailed to the cross for the many times we see these words in a post written by Mr. Speer himself...."From Chapter 7b of PatSpeer.com..."But I would never fault Pat for citing stuff from his own website. Of course he's going to do that (and often). And that's because he has put a lot of time and effort into the things he places on his site. Just as I have done on my sites. And Pat, like me, is proud of the things he has written on his site. What website operator wouldn't want to prop up his own work and articles? And, as I said above, I normally provide tons of source links to back up my arguments. how would i have known it's your own website if i didn't click on it, David? the difference in Pat's website and yours is probably the credibility and content. Of course he can cite his own website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) how would i have known it's your own website if i didn't click on it, David? Easy. By the visible URL (jfk-archives.blogspot...). But here's the translation of Glenn's post above.... Glenn DID click the link, but when he found out that it said "DVP's Archives", he immediately left the page without bothering to check any of the source links DVP provided to back up the things he was saying in the article regarding John Connally's bullet fragments. True or false, Glenn? the difference in Pat's website and yours is probably the credibility and content. Yeah, prob'ly. ~eyeroll~ Of course he [Patrick J. Speer] can cite his own website. But you don't like the idea of me doing the same thing, right? Nice double standard, Glenn. Edited June 20, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 how would i have known it's your own website if i didn't click on it, David? Easy. By the visible URL (jfk-archives.blogspot...). But here's the translation of Glenn's post above.... Glenn DID click the link, but when he found out that it said "DVP's Archives", he immediately left the page without bothering to check any of the source links DVP provided to back up the things he was saying in the article regarding John Connally's bullet fragments. True or false, Glenn? the difference in Pat's website and yours is probably the credibility and content. Yeah, prob'ly. ~eyeroll~ Of course he [Patrick J. Speer] can cite his own website. But you don't like the idea of me doing the same thing, right? Nice double standard, Glenn. You're really having a slow day......So you think you have something interesting on your site. I've been there, didn't see anything worth while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) So you think you have something interesting on your site. I've been there, didn't see anything worth while [sic]. Boy, there's a real surprise, Ken. A CTer finding none of the actual evidence against Oswald "worthwhile". That's something brand new, huh? Edited June 20, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now