Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Jake - I haven’t been following this thread closely, but I happened to read your post. I agree with some of what you said. The plethora of theories that conflict with one another can lead one to start disregarding all of them. I don’t by any means believe all the theories, as you put it. I’m not even sure anyone has correctly framed and fleshed out the truth. But I am convinced that the assassination was carefully planned, and it was a conspiracy by definition, and not a lone shooter acting for personal and possibly unknowable reasons. Would you agree with that last sentence?

Paul, you're wasting your time engaging with this guy.

He's fugazi through and through.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

19 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

No government sponsorship (or any other type) here, although I have been accused of this for years. If we were on the payroll in a quest to change public opinion we would have been fired by now.

It's time to tell the truth to all of you : Cliff Varnell sends me $ 5,000 every week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should separate ‘ nutterism’ from people who don’t agree with you.. The polarisation of nutterism and Cliffism are, in my mind , a standard deviation that should not be totally ignored but should not be considered in reasoned debate.

Take each issue as it comes, look at the evidence, get creative, brain storm, rationalise and discuss. This is an education forum 

 

Edited by Jake Hammond
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

I think we should separate ‘ nutterism’ from people who don’t agree with you.. The polarisation of nutterism and Cliffism are, in my mind , a standard deviation that should not be totally ignored but should not be considered in reasoned debate.

Take each issue as it comes, look at the evidence, get creative, brain storm, rationalise and discuss. This is an education forum 

 

👍

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

I think we should separate ‘ nutterism’ from people who don’t agree with you.. The polarisation of nutterism and Cliffism are, in my mind , a standard deviation that should not be totally ignored but should not be considered in reasoned debate.

Take each issue as it comes, look at the evidence, get creative, brain storm, rationalise and discuss. This is an education forum 

 

At one time, I actually thought "Lone Nut" referred to the people who thought Oswald had acted alone - in the sense that they, not Oswald, were the "Lone Nuts"!  However, the intractable Lone Nut zealots and intractable conspiracy zealots are indeed at polar extremes.  You might as well as Southern Baptists and Mormons to engage in a reasoned discussion about their respective theologies.  Your utopian vision will simply never materialize.  I don't think my posts are anything like over-the-top Lone Nut propaganda, but the responses have been 97% visceral and the rational discussions have been as scarce as hen's teeth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Young-Earth creationists and lone nutters are almost like conjoined twins who were separated at birth.

Here's a prime example of their parallel "thinking":

Young-Earth creationist:  There are no transitional forms in the fossil record. I don't care how many you show me. They can't be transitional.

Lone nutter:  There was no gaping hole in the back of JFK's head. I don't care how many medical witnesses you quote me. They're all wrong.

And how do they know this? They each have infallible holy scripture. The young-Earth creationist has the Word of God and the lone nutter as the JFK autopsy report. Both are free of any error, mythology, or agenda. Question either one and you're going to hell!

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

At one time, I actually thought "Lone Nut" referred to the people who thought Oswald had acted alone - in the sense that they, not Oswald, were the "Lone Nuts"!  However, the intractable Lone Nut zealots and intractable conspiracy zealots are indeed at polar extremes.  You might as well as Southern Baptists and Mormons to engage in a reasoned discussion about their respective theologies.  Your utopian vision will simply never materialize.  I don't think my posts are anything like over-the-top Lone Nut propaganda, but the responses have been 97% visceral and the rational discussions have been as scarce as hen's teeth.

I tried ! I did a proper experiment with science and stuff ! 

 I’ll be sticking to my area of interest in future and to specific questions 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

Young-Earth creationists and lone nutters are almost like conjoined twins who were separated at birth.

Here's a prime example of their parallel "thinking":

Young-Earth creationist:  There are no transitional forms in the fossil record. I don't care how many you show me. They can't be transitional.

Lone nutter:  There was no gaping hole in the back of JFK's head. I don't care how many medical witnesses you quote me. They're all wrong.

And how do they know this? They each have infallible holy scripture. The young-Earth creationist has the Word of God and the lone nutter as the JFK autopsy report. Both are free of any error, mythology, or agenda. Question either one and you're going to hell!

 

 

 

 

 

But Ron , there can be a grey area . Yes there was a gaping hole there BUT Pat spear has proven that the witnesses ( and Z film ) of course all saw an explosion to the top right. So we have two known quantities. Lets look for explanations that explain the two . I again point to Robert Harris’ ‘ attack in dealer plaza ‘ on YT. Two headshots, one knocks him forward and one blasts out the BONE from the back of his head and ultimately sends him backwards. The scalp , hair and some bone are still attached, some doctors , in the madness at parkland, will see a blown out right side and maybe the scalp and remaining bone in place. Others will look closer and see that the structural damage was actually a blow out to the rear and focus on that. Posthumously the DPD , FBI and WC focused on the right top blow out for obvious and , on their part , not necessarily nefarious reasons. They wanted to get the commie loser nailed down and resume the status quo, you might not like that but that’s what happened.  Let’s use a bit of intelligence and look at things clearly and not say “ right , I’m a _______, therefore I have to think this , therefore I’ll pretend that this is true and this didn’t happen. ....

Edited by Jake Hammond
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

But Ron , there can be a grey area . Yes there was a gaping hole there BUT Pat spear has proven that the witnesses ( and Z film ) of course all saw an explosion to the top right. So we have two known quantities. Lets look for explanations that explain the two .

And CTs of course look for an explanation. I think a reasonable explanation is that a bullet entered the right temple, producing the "explosion," as you put it or the opened flap, and blew out the back of JFK's head.

LNs reject any such explanation out of hand, of course, because they believe as a matter of faith that there was no blowout of the back of the head.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

Young-Earth creationists and lone nutters are almost like conjoined twins who were separated at birth.

Here's a prime example of their parallel "thinking":

Young-Earth creationist:  There are no transitional forms in the fossil record. I don't care how many you show me. They can't be transitional.

Lone nutter:  There was no gaping hole in the back of JFK's head. I don't care how many medical witnesses you quote me. They're all wrong.

And how do they know this? They each have infallible holy scripture. The young-Earth creationist has the Word of God and the lone nutter as the JFK autopsy report. Both are free of any error, mythology, or agenda. Question either one and you're going to hell!

 

LOL, I like your analogy.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

Yes there was a gaping hole there BUT Pat spear has proven that the witnesses ( and Z film ) of course all saw an explosion to the top right.

 

Pat did no such thing. He uses a small number of Dealey Plaza spectators to support his POV, but they are the least reliable of the witnesses. First because they were taken by surprise, and second because they had only 1/4 of a second to view the damage.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

LNs reject any such explanation out of hand, of course, because they believe as a matter of faith that there was no blowout of the back of the head.

Mainly because the BEST EVIDENCE---the authenticated autopsy photos and X-rays (in conjunction with the Zapruder Film and JFK's autopsy report)---PROVES for all time that there was no large BOH wound.

Period.

Mark VII.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jake Hammond says he's not an LNer. Yet so far we know that he believes....

  • The single bullet theory.
  • That the gaping head wound wasn't at the back of the head.

As they say, if it quacks like a duck....


(Smells like another Arizona Lawyer story to me.)

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Mainly because the BEST EVIDENCE---the authenticated autopsy photos and X-rays (in conjunction with JFK's autopsy report)---PROVES for all time that there was no large BOH wound.


The only time those things are the Best Evidence is when they haven't been tampered with.  40+ witnesses prove that it's been tampered with.

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...