Discussion:
CT Mentality
(too old to reply)
claviger
2018-07-02 00:58:08 UTC
Permalink
CTs are long on bravado, braggadocio, and plenty of factoids but always
come up short on validated explanations. Once they shoot down all logical
evidence, then it really gets interesting by what's left over: creative
theories and elastic explanations that get even more curious, to the point
of being almost interesting, but in a serpentine way that would surely
blow poor Mr. Occam's logical mind.
mainframetech
2018-07-03 04:22:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by claviger
CTs are long on bravado, braggadocio, and plenty of factoids but always
come up short on validated explanations. Once they shoot down all logical
evidence, then it really gets interesting by what's left over: creative
theories and elastic explanations that get even more curious, to the point
of being almost interesting, but in a serpentine way that would surely
blow poor Mr. Occam's logical mind.
Sounds like you mean the WCR. It depends on theories!

Chris
claviger
2018-07-03 21:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
CTs are long on bravado, braggadocio, and plenty of factoids but always
come up short on validated explanations. Once they shoot down all logical
evidence, then it really gets interesting by what's left over: creative
theories and elastic explanations that get even more curious, to the point
of being almost interesting, but in a serpentine way that would surely
blow poor Mr. Occam's logical mind.
Sounds like you mean the WCR. It depends on theories!
Chris
Science depends on theories supported by evidence and
grounded in logic. Was there only one sniper or several?
If several where were they located, what kind of weapons,
what kind of ammo? How did the get into position and how
did they make a getaway without being spotted by so many
witnesses in the area?
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-04 13:43:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
CTs are long on bravado, braggadocio, and plenty of factoids but always
come up short on validated explanations. Once they shoot down all logical
evidence, then it really gets interesting by what's left over: creative
theories and elastic explanations that get even more curious, to the point
of being almost interesting, but in a serpentine way that would surely
blow poor Mr. Occam's logical mind.
Sounds like you mean the WCR. It depends on theories!
Chris
Science depends on theories supported by evidence and
First you have to propose a theory to explain a phenomenon. The you look
for evidence which supports that or disproves that.
Post by claviger
grounded in logic. Was there only one sniper or several?
If several where were they located, what kind of weapons,
what kind of ammo? How did the get into position and how
did they make a getaway without being spotted by so many
witnesses in the area?
Been there, done that. Pay attention.
claviger
2018-07-05 23:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
CTs are long on bravado, braggadocio, and plenty of factoids but always
come up short on validated explanations. Once they shoot down all logical
evidence, then it really gets interesting by what's left over: creative
theories and elastic explanations that get even more curious, to the point
of being almost interesting, but in a serpentine way that would surely
blow poor Mr. Occam's logical mind.
Sounds like you mean the WCR. It depends on theories!
Chris
Science depends on theories supported by evidence and
First you have to propose a theory to explain a phenomenon.
Then you look for evidence which supports that or disproves
that.
Yes, that is called The Scientific Method.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
grounded in logic. Was there only one sniper or several?
If several where were they located, what kind of weapons,
what kind of ammo? How did the get into position and how
did they make a getaway without being spotted by so many
witnesses in the area?
Been there, done that. Pay attention.
One more time for any new people who read this Newsgroup.
It's showtime, so you have center stage!
mainframetech
2018-07-07 12:58:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
CTs are long on bravado, braggadocio, and plenty of factoids but always
come up short on validated explanations. Once they shoot down all logical
evidence, then it really gets interesting by what's left over: creative
theories and elastic explanations that get even more curious, to the point
of being almost interesting, but in a serpentine way that would surely
blow poor Mr. Occam's logical mind.
Sounds like you mean the WCR. It depends on theories!
Chris
Science depends on theories supported by evidence and
grounded in logic. Was there only one sniper or several?
If several where were they located, what kind of weapons,
what kind of ammo? How did the get into position and how
did they make a getaway without being spotted by so many
witnesses in the area?
You should know, as a proponent of logic that most people would not be
able to find out the answers to your questions, because after the fact the
perpetrators hid their movements and their decisions would not be
available to the rest of us. However, you're welcome to read "The Men
that don't Fit in" by Roderick Mackenzie III. In there is a complete list
of all shooters in Dealey Plaza and where they were stationed. Source
being Mac Wallace, LBJ's hit man. Here's an example:

Eugene Hale Brading was in the Dal-Tex building:

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrading.htm


Chris
bigdog
2018-07-08 12:55:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
CTs are long on bravado, braggadocio, and plenty of factoids but always
come up short on validated explanations. Once they shoot down all logical
evidence, then it really gets interesting by what's left over: creative
theories and elastic explanations that get even more curious, to the point
of being almost interesting, but in a serpentine way that would surely
blow poor Mr. Occam's logical mind.
Sounds like you mean the WCR. It depends on theories!
Chris
Science depends on theories supported by evidence and
grounded in logic. Was there only one sniper or several?
If several where were they located, what kind of weapons,
what kind of ammo? How did the get into position and how
did they make a getaway without being spotted by so many
witnesses in the area?
You should know, as a proponent of logic that most people would not be
able to find out the answers to your questions, because after the fact the
perpetrators hid their movements and their decisions would not be
available to the rest of us. However, you're welcome to read "The Men
that don't Fit in" by Roderick Mackenzie III. In there is a complete list
of all shooters in Dealey Plaza and where they were stationed. Source
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrading.htm
So all someone has to do to convince you is tell you there were other
shooters. It isn't necessary to show any actual evidence.
mainframetech
2018-07-09 14:02:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
CTs are long on bravado, braggadocio, and plenty of factoids but always
come up short on validated explanations. Once they shoot down all logical
evidence, then it really gets interesting by what's left over: creative
theories and elastic explanations that get even more curious, to the point
of being almost interesting, but in a serpentine way that would surely
blow poor Mr. Occam's logical mind.
Sounds like you mean the WCR. It depends on theories!
Chris
Science depends on theories supported by evidence and
grounded in logic. Was there only one sniper or several?
If several where were they located, what kind of weapons,
what kind of ammo? How did the get into position and how
did they make a getaway without being spotted by so many
witnesses in the area?
You should know, as a proponent of logic that most people would not be
able to find out the answers to your questions, because after the fact the
perpetrators hid their movements and their decisions would not be
available to the rest of us. However, you're welcome to read "The Men
that don't Fit in" by Roderick Mackenzie III. In there is a complete list
of all shooters in Dealey Plaza and where they were stationed. Source
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrading.htm
So all someone has to do to convince you is tell you there were other
shooters. It isn't necessary to show any actual evidence.
You tried that gimmick before and got nowhere with it. When will you
learn you can't guess what folks think very well. Don't try to put words
into my had. Just ask what I think. There is evidence that there were
other shooters. And I've listed the many bullet strikes in the plaza to
prove it. You may thing there were 10 fragments that split of from a
single bullet that hit the head of JFK, but it didn't work before and
won't work now.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-12 20:23:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
CTs are long on bravado, braggadocio, and plenty of factoids but always
come up short on validated explanations. Once they shoot down all logical
evidence, then it really gets interesting by what's left over: creative
theories and elastic explanations that get even more curious, to the point
of being almost interesting, but in a serpentine way that would surely
blow poor Mr. Occam's logical mind.
Sounds like you mean the WCR. It depends on theories!
Chris
Science depends on theories supported by evidence and
grounded in logic. Was there only one sniper or several?
If several where were they located, what kind of weapons,
what kind of ammo? How did the get into position and how
did they make a getaway without being spotted by so many
witnesses in the area?
You should know, as a proponent of logic that most people would not be
able to find out the answers to your questions, because after the fact the
perpetrators hid their movements and their decisions would not be
available to the rest of us. However, you're welcome to read "The Men
that don't Fit in" by Roderick Mackenzie III. In there is a complete list
of all shooters in Dealey Plaza and where they were stationed. Source
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrading.htm
So all someone has to do to convince you is tell you there were other
shooters. It isn't necessary to show any actual evidence.
You tried that gimmick before and got nowhere with it. When will you
learn you can't guess what folks think very well.
I don't have to guess to know you've presented no evidence to support
shooters from any location other than the sniper's nest.
Post by mainframetech
Don't try to put words into my had.
I judge you by what you write. You have shown a willingness to buy into
just about any story with no supporting evidence as long as it says
somebody other than Oswald was shooting at JFK. That's where you set the
bar for credibility.
Post by mainframetech
Just ask what I think. There is evidence that there were
other shooters.
Not at all.
Post by mainframetech
And I've listed the many bullet strikes in the plaza to
prove it. You may thing there were 10 fragments that split of from a
single bullet that hit the head of JFK, but it didn't work before and
won't work now.
You can list all the bullet strikes you want. That doesn't make them real.
There is no evidence of bullet strikes other than the two shots from
Oswald that hit JFK. It's probable there was another shot fired by him but
we have no definitive proof of that shot although there is some anecdotal
evidence it may have struck the pavement near the limo.
mainframetech
2018-07-23 13:30:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
CTs are long on bravado, braggadocio, and plenty of factoids but always
come up short on validated explanations. Once they shoot down all logical
evidence, then it really gets interesting by what's left over: creative
theories and elastic explanations that get even more curious, to the point
of being almost interesting, but in a serpentine way that would surely
blow poor Mr. Occam's logical mind.
Sounds like you mean the WCR. It depends on theories!
Chris
Science depends on theories supported by evidence and
grounded in logic. Was there only one sniper or several?
If several where were they located, what kind of weapons,
what kind of ammo? How did the get into position and how
did they make a getaway without being spotted by so many
witnesses in the area?
You should know, as a proponent of logic that most people would not be
able to find out the answers to your questions, because after the fact the
perpetrators hid their movements and their decisions would not be
available to the rest of us. However, you're welcome to read "The Men
that don't Fit in" by Roderick Mackenzie III. In there is a complete list
of all shooters in Dealey Plaza and where they were stationed. Source
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrading.htm
So all someone has to do to convince you is tell you there were other
shooters. It isn't necessary to show any actual evidence.
You tried that gimmick before and got nowhere with it. When will you
learn you can't guess what folks think very well.
I don't have to guess to know you've presented no evidence to support
shooters from any location other than the sniper's nest.
As an arguer, you've taken the role of the Devil's advocate in
anything I say, so it's expected you'd try to pretend some phony idea or
another. And I support shooters in the 'nest' also, but not that hit
anyone.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Don't try to put words into my head.
I judge you by what you write. You have shown a willingness to buy into
just about any story with no supporting evidence as long as it says
somebody other than Oswald was shooting at JFK. That's where you set the
bar for credibility.
Post by mainframetech
Just ask what I think. There is evidence that there were
other shooters.
Not at all.
Post by mainframetech
And I've listed the many bullet strikes in the plaza to
prove it. You may think there were 10 fragments that split of from a
single bullet that hit the head of JFK, but it didn't work before and
won't work now.
You can list all the bullet strikes you want. That doesn't make them real.
There is no evidence of bullet strikes other than the two shots from
Oswald that hit JFK. It's probable there was another shot fired by him but
we have no definitive proof of that shot although there is some anecdotal
evidence it may have struck the pavement near the limo.
You've got a lot of bullet strikes in the plaza to make up for. So
far, you've only tried to solve 2 of them. And were wrong on both of
those!

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-25 01:14:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
CTs are long on bravado, braggadocio, and plenty of factoids but always
come up short on validated explanations. Once they shoot down all logical
evidence, then it really gets interesting by what's left over: creative
theories and elastic explanations that get even more curious, to the point
of being almost interesting, but in a serpentine way that would surely
blow poor Mr. Occam's logical mind.
Sounds like you mean the WCR. It depends on theories!
Chris
Science depends on theories supported by evidence and
grounded in logic. Was there only one sniper or several?
If several where were they located, what kind of weapons,
what kind of ammo? How did the get into position and how
did they make a getaway without being spotted by so many
witnesses in the area?
You should know, as a proponent of logic that most people would not be
able to find out the answers to your questions, because after the fact the
perpetrators hid their movements and their decisions would not be
available to the rest of us. However, you're welcome to read "The Men
that don't Fit in" by Roderick Mackenzie III. In there is a complete list
of all shooters in Dealey Plaza and where they were stationed. Source
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrading.htm
So all someone has to do to convince you is tell you there were other
shooters. It isn't necessary to show any actual evidence.
You tried that gimmick before and got nowhere with it. When will you
learn you can't guess what folks think very well.
I don't have to guess to know you've presented no evidence to support
shooters from any location other than the sniper's nest.
As an arguer, you've taken the role of the Devil's advocate in
anything I say, so it's expected you'd try to pretend some phony idea or
another. And I support shooters in the 'nest' also, but not that hit
anyone.
Hardly. A devil's advocate is someone who argues against a position not
because he opposes it but to get the person advocating that position to
articulate it. I am adamantly opposed to the nonsense you put forth.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Don't try to put words into my head.
I judge you by what you write. You have shown a willingness to buy into
just about any story with no supporting evidence as long as it says
somebody other than Oswald was shooting at JFK. That's where you set the
bar for credibility.
Post by mainframetech
Just ask what I think. There is evidence that there were
other shooters.
Not at all.
Post by mainframetech
And I've listed the many bullet strikes in the plaza to
prove it. You may think there were 10 fragments that split of from a
single bullet that hit the head of JFK, but it didn't work before and
won't work now.
You can list all the bullet strikes you want. That doesn't make them real.
There is no evidence of bullet strikes other than the two shots from
Oswald that hit JFK. It's probable there was another shot fired by him but
we have no definitive proof of that shot although there is some anecdotal
evidence it may have struck the pavement near the limo.
You've got a lot of bullet strikes in the plaza to make up for. So
far, you've only tried to solve 2 of them. And were wrong on both of
those!
No explanation is needed for bullet strikes you simply imagine.
mainframetech
2018-07-26 02:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
CTs are long on bravado, braggadocio, and plenty of factoids but always
come up short on validated explanations. Once they shoot down all logical
evidence, then it really gets interesting by what's left over: creative
theories and elastic explanations that get even more curious, to the point
of being almost interesting, but in a serpentine way that would surely
blow poor Mr. Occam's logical mind.
Sounds like you mean the WCR. It depends on theories!
Chris
Science depends on theories supported by evidence and
grounded in logic. Was there only one sniper or several?
If several where were they located, what kind of weapons,
what kind of ammo? How did the get into position and how
did they make a getaway without being spotted by so many
witnesses in the area?
You should know, as a proponent of logic that most people would not be
able to find out the answers to your questions, because after the fact the
perpetrators hid their movements and their decisions would not be
available to the rest of us. However, you're welcome to read "The Men
that don't Fit in" by Roderick Mackenzie III. In there is a complete list
of all shooters in Dealey Plaza and where they were stationed. Source
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrading.htm
So all someone has to do to convince you is tell you there were other
shooters. It isn't necessary to show any actual evidence.
You tried that gimmick before and got nowhere with it. When will you
learn you can't guess what folks think very well.
I don't have to guess to know you've presented no evidence to support
shooters from any location other than the sniper's nest.
As an arguer, you've taken the role of the Devil's advocate in
anything I say, so it's expected you'd try to pretend some phony idea or
another. And I support shooters in the 'nest' also, but not that hit
anyone.
Hardly. A devil's advocate is someone who argues against a position not
because he opposes it but to get the person advocating that position to
articulate it. I am adamantly opposed to the nonsense you put forth.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Don't try to put words into my head.
I judge you by what you write. You have shown a willingness to buy into
just about any story with no supporting evidence as long as it says
somebody other than Oswald was shooting at JFK. That's where you set the
bar for credibility.
Post by mainframetech
Just ask what I think. There is evidence that there were
other shooters.
Not at all.
Post by mainframetech
And I've listed the many bullet strikes in the plaza to
prove it. You may think there were 10 fragments that split of from a
single bullet that hit the head of JFK, but it didn't work before and
won't work now.
You can list all the bullet strikes you want. That doesn't make them real.
There is no evidence of bullet strikes other than the two shots from
Oswald that hit JFK. It's probable there was another shot fired by him but
we have no definitive proof of that shot although there is some anecdotal
evidence it may have struck the pavement near the limo.
You've got a lot of bullet strikes in the plaza to make up for. So
far, you've only tried to solve 2 of them. And were wrong on both of
those!
No explanation is needed for bullet strikes you simply imagine.
There you go again! Ignoring clear evidence of many bullet strikes.
Anything to pretend the WCR had worth.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-27 21:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
CTs are long on bravado, braggadocio, and plenty of factoids but always
come up short on validated explanations. Once they shoot down all logical
evidence, then it really gets interesting by what's left over: creative
theories and elastic explanations that get even more curious, to the point
of being almost interesting, but in a serpentine way that would surely
blow poor Mr. Occam's logical mind.
Sounds like you mean the WCR. It depends on theories!
Chris
Science depends on theories supported by evidence and
grounded in logic. Was there only one sniper or several?
If several where were they located, what kind of weapons,
what kind of ammo? How did the get into position and how
did they make a getaway without being spotted by so many
witnesses in the area?
You should know, as a proponent of logic that most people would not be
able to find out the answers to your questions, because after the fact the
perpetrators hid their movements and their decisions would not be
available to the rest of us. However, you're welcome to read "The Men
that don't Fit in" by Roderick Mackenzie III. In there is a complete list
of all shooters in Dealey Plaza and where they were stationed. Source
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrading.htm
So all someone has to do to convince you is tell you there were other
shooters. It isn't necessary to show any actual evidence.
You tried that gimmick before and got nowhere with it. When will you
learn you can't guess what folks think very well.
I don't have to guess to know you've presented no evidence to support
shooters from any location other than the sniper's nest.
As an arguer, you've taken the role of the Devil's advocate in
anything I say, so it's expected you'd try to pretend some phony idea or
another. And I support shooters in the 'nest' also, but not that hit
anyone.
Hardly. A devil's advocate is someone who argues against a position not
because he opposes it but to get the person advocating that position to
articulate it. I am adamantly opposed to the nonsense you put forth.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Don't try to put words into my head.
I judge you by what you write. You have shown a willingness to buy into
just about any story with no supporting evidence as long as it says
somebody other than Oswald was shooting at JFK. That's where you set the
bar for credibility.
Post by mainframetech
Just ask what I think. There is evidence that there were
other shooters.
Not at all.
Post by mainframetech
And I've listed the many bullet strikes in the plaza to
prove it. You may think there were 10 fragments that split of from a
single bullet that hit the head of JFK, but it didn't work before and
won't work now.
You can list all the bullet strikes you want. That doesn't make them real.
There is no evidence of bullet strikes other than the two shots from
Oswald that hit JFK. It's probable there was another shot fired by him but
we have no definitive proof of that shot although there is some anecdotal
evidence it may have struck the pavement near the limo.
You've got a lot of bullet strikes in the plaza to make up for. So
far, you've only tried to solve 2 of them. And were wrong on both of
those!
No explanation is needed for bullet strikes you simply imagine.
There you go again! Ignoring clear evidence of many bullet strikes.
It's quite amusing to see what you consider to be clear evidence. I think
it means anything that you think will support your unsupportable beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
Anything to pretend the WCR had worth.
It's not necessary to pretend.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-26 19:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
CTs are long on bravado, braggadocio, and plenty of factoids but always
come up short on validated explanations. Once they shoot down all logical
evidence, then it really gets interesting by what's left over: creative
theories and elastic explanations that get even more curious, to the point
of being almost interesting, but in a serpentine way that would surely
blow poor Mr. Occam's logical mind.
Sounds like you mean the WCR. It depends on theories!
Chris
Science depends on theories supported by evidence and
grounded in logic. Was there only one sniper or several?
If several where were they located, what kind of weapons,
what kind of ammo? How did the get into position and how
did they make a getaway without being spotted by so many
witnesses in the area?
You should know, as a proponent of logic that most people would not be
able to find out the answers to your questions, because after the fact the
perpetrators hid their movements and their decisions would not be
available to the rest of us. However, you're welcome to read "The Men
that don't Fit in" by Roderick Mackenzie III. In there is a complete list
of all shooters in Dealey Plaza and where they were stationed. Source
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrading.htm
So all someone has to do to convince you is tell you there were other
shooters. It isn't necessary to show any actual evidence.
You tried that gimmick before and got nowhere with it. When will you
learn you can't guess what folks think very well.
I don't have to guess to know you've presented no evidence to support
shooters from any location other than the sniper's nest.
As an arguer, you've taken the role of the Devil's advocate in
anything I say, so it's expected you'd try to pretend some phony idea or
another. And I support shooters in the 'nest' also, but not that hit
anyone.
Hardly. A devil's advocate is someone who argues against a position not
People PLAY Devil's Advocate to test the strength of theie friends
arguments.
Post by bigdog
because he opposes it but to get the person advocating that position to
articulate it. I am adamantly opposed to the nonsense you put forth.
Some people call that Pro Forma. You do it no matter what the person says.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Don't try to put words into my head.
I judge you by what you write. You have shown a willingness to buy into
just about any story with no supporting evidence as long as it says
somebody other than Oswald was shooting at JFK. That's where you set the
bar for credibility.
Post by mainframetech
Just ask what I think. There is evidence that there were
other shooters.
Not at all.
Post by mainframetech
And I've listed the many bullet strikes in the plaza to
prove it. You may think there were 10 fragments that split of from a
single bullet that hit the head of JFK, but it didn't work before and
won't work now.
You can list all the bullet strikes you want. That doesn't make them real.
There is no evidence of bullet strikes other than the two shots from
Oswald that hit JFK. It's probable there was another shot fired by him but
we have no definitive proof of that shot although there is some anecdotal
evidence it may have struck the pavement near the limo.
You've got a lot of bullet strikes in the plaza to make up for. So
far, you've only tried to solve 2 of them. And were wrong on both of
those!
No explanation is needed for bullet strikes you simply imagine.
You can't explain the ones we can SEE.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-25 01:15:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
CTs are long on bravado, braggadocio, and plenty of factoids but always
come up short on validated explanations. Once they shoot down all logical
evidence, then it really gets interesting by what's left over: creative
theories and elastic explanations that get even more curious, to the point
of being almost interesting, but in a serpentine way that would surely
blow poor Mr. Occam's logical mind.
Sounds like you mean the WCR. It depends on theories!
Chris
Science depends on theories supported by evidence and
grounded in logic. Was there only one sniper or several?
If several where were they located, what kind of weapons,
what kind of ammo? How did the get into position and how
did they make a getaway without being spotted by so many
witnesses in the area?
You should know, as a proponent of logic that most people would not be
able to find out the answers to your questions, because after the fact the
perpetrators hid their movements and their decisions would not be
available to the rest of us. However, you're welcome to read "The Men
that don't Fit in" by Roderick Mackenzie III. In there is a complete list
of all shooters in Dealey Plaza and where they were stationed. Source
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrading.htm
So all someone has to do to convince you is tell you there were other
shooters. It isn't necessary to show any actual evidence.
You tried that gimmick before and got nowhere with it. When will you
learn you can't guess what folks think very well.
I don't have to guess to know you've presented no evidence to support
shooters from any location other than the sniper's nest.
As an arguer, you've taken the role of the Devil's advocate in
anything I say, so it's expected you'd try to pretend some phony idea or
another. And I support shooters in the 'nest' also, but not that hit
anyone.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Don't try to put words into my head.
I judge you by what you write. You have shown a willingness to buy into
just about any story with no supporting evidence as long as it says
somebody other than Oswald was shooting at JFK. That's where you set the
bar for credibility.
Post by mainframetech
Just ask what I think. There is evidence that there were
other shooters.
Not at all.
Post by mainframetech
And I've listed the many bullet strikes in the plaza to
prove it. You may think there were 10 fragments that split of from a
single bullet that hit the head of JFK, but it didn't work before and
won't work now.
You can list all the bullet strikes you want. That doesn't make them real.
There is no evidence of bullet strikes other than the two shots from
Oswald that hit JFK. It's probable there was another shot fired by him but
we have no definitive proof of that shot although there is some anecdotal
evidence it may have struck the pavement near the limo.
You've got a lot of bullet strikes in the plaza to make up for. So
far, you've only tried to solve 2 of them. And were wrong on both of
those!
Again, remember that the number of strikes does not have to match the
number of bullets. Some bullets broke up into many fragments which are
still missing and won't be found until the next century.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
Jason Burke
2018-07-25 17:14:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
CTs are long on bravado, braggadocio, and plenty of factoids but always
come up short on validated explanations. Once they shoot down all logical
evidence, then it really gets interesting by what's left over: creative
theories and elastic explanations that get even more curious, to the point
of being almost interesting, but in a serpentine way that would surely
blow poor Mr. Occam's logical mind.
     Sounds like you mean the WCR.  It depends on theories!
Chris
Science depends on theories supported by evidence and
grounded in logic.  Was there only one sniper or several?
If several where were they located, what kind of weapons,
what kind of ammo?  How did the get into position and how
did they make a getaway without being spotted by so many
witnesses in the area?
     You should know, as a proponent of logic that most people
would not be
able to find out the answers to your questions, because after the fact the
perpetrators hid their movements and their decisions would not be
available to the rest of us.  However, you're welcome to read "The
Men
that don't Fit in" by Roderick Mackenzie III.  In there is a
complete list
of all shooters in Dealey Plaza and where they were stationed.
Source
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrading.htm
So all someone has to do to convince you is tell you there were other
shooters. It isn't necessary to show any actual evidence.
     You tried that gimmick before and got nowhere with it.  When
will you
learn you can't guess what folks think very well.
I don't have to guess to know you've presented no evidence to support
shooters from any location other than the sniper's nest.
      As an arguer, you've taken the role of the Devil's advocate in
anything I say, so it's expected you'd try to pretend some phony idea or
another.  And I support shooters in the 'nest' also, but not that hit
anyone.
Post by bigdog
Don't try to put words into my head.
I judge you by what you write. You have shown a willingness to buy into
just about any story with no supporting evidence as long as it says
somebody other than Oswald was shooting at JFK. That's where you set the
bar for credibility.
  Just ask what I think.  There is evidence that there were
other shooters.
Not at all.
  And I've listed the many bullet strikes in the plaza to
prove it.  You may think there were 10 fragments that split of from a
single bullet that hit the head of JFK, but it didn't work before and
won't work now.
You can list all the bullet strikes you want. That doesn't make them real.
There is no evidence of bullet strikes other than the two shots from
Oswald that hit JFK. It's probable there was another shot fired by him but
we have no definitive proof of that shot although there is some anecdotal
evidence it may have struck the pavement near the limo.
      You've got a lot of bullet strikes in the plaza to make up for.  So
far, you've only tried to solve 2 of them.  And were wrong on both of
those!
Again, remember that the number of strikes does not have to match the
number of bullets. Some bullets broke up into many fragments which are
still missing and won't be found until the next century.
Don't confuse Chris with reality, Anthony Anthony.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-09 19:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
CTs are long on bravado, braggadocio, and plenty of factoids but always
come up short on validated explanations. Once they shoot down all logical
evidence, then it really gets interesting by what's left over: creative
theories and elastic explanations that get even more curious, to the point
of being almost interesting, but in a serpentine way that would surely
blow poor Mr. Occam's logical mind.
Sounds like you mean the WCR. It depends on theories!
Chris
Science depends on theories supported by evidence and
grounded in logic. Was there only one sniper or several?
If several where were they located, what kind of weapons,
what kind of ammo? How did the get into position and how
did they make a getaway without being spotted by so many
witnesses in the area?
You should know, as a proponent of logic that most people would not be
able to find out the answers to your questions, because after the fact the
perpetrators hid their movements and their decisions would not be
available to the rest of us. However, you're welcome to read "The Men
that don't Fit in" by Roderick Mackenzie III. In there is a complete list
of all shooters in Dealey Plaza and where they were stationed. Source
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrading.htm
So all someone has to do to convince you is tell you there were other
shooters. It isn't necessary to show any actual evidence.
Pay attention. You're attacking the guy who showed you the physical
evidence of a shot from the front. Unless you are clever enough to say
that Oswald shot the President in the forehead. Can you do that?
claviger
2018-07-08 12:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
You should know, as a proponent of logic that most people would not be
able to find out the answers to your questions, because after the fact the
perpetrators hid their movements and their decisions would not be
available to the rest of us. However, you're welcome to read "The Men
that don't Fit in" by Roderick Mackenzie III. In there is a complete list
of all shooters in Dealey Plaza and where they were stationed. Source
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrading.htm
Chris
You support the 20 snipers theory, so why did only 2 out of 20 hit the
target according to you? That is extremely poor shooting for all these
hired guns. What that means is 90% of all those supposed pro snipers had a
Maggie's Drawers experience on the firing range that day. They made LHO
look like the only competent Sharpshooter in Dealey Plaza during this
really weird ambush.
mainframetech
2018-07-09 14:01:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
You should know, as a proponent of logic that most people would not be
able to find out the answers to your questions, because after the fact the
perpetrators hid their movements and their decisions would not be
available to the rest of us. However, you're welcome to read "The Men
that don't Fit in" by Roderick Mackenzie III. In there is a complete list
of all shooters in Dealey Plaza and where they were stationed. Source
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrading.htm
Chris
You support the 20 snipers theory, so why did only 2 out of 20 hit the
target according to you? That is extremely poor shooting for all these
hired guns. What that means is 90% of all those supposed pro snipers had a
Maggie's Drawers experience on the firing range that day. They made LHO
look like the only competent Sharpshooter in Dealey Plaza during this
really weird ambush.
You've made yet another mistake. I don't have a "theory" as if I were
reading the WCR, I have the statement of 3 people that there were multiple
shooters in Dealey Plaza that day, and one of them was present. I also
did NOT say only 2 shooters hit the target that day. I believe from the
evidence that at least 3 shooters hit their target. Again, I also did NOT
say they were "pro snipers". True trained snipers would not have missed
at all. But when you have a bunch of shooters culled from the ranks of
the Mafias, you're not getting the best of the best. Also, the only peon
that I know of in the case that got "Maggie's Drawers" during training was
LHO. His buddies thought he was a lousy shot, and certainly not a
"competent sharpshooter".

Chris
claviger
2018-07-10 22:40:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
You should know, as a proponent of logic that most people would not be
able to find out the answers to your questions, because after the fact the
perpetrators hid their movements and their decisions would not be
available to the rest of us. However, you're welcome to read "The Men
that don't Fit in" by Roderick Mackenzie III. In there is a complete list
of all shooters in Dealey Plaza and where they were stationed. Source
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrading.htm
Chris
You support the 20 snipers theory, so why did only 2 out of 20 hit the
target according to you? That is extremely poor shooting for all these
hired guns. What that means is 90% of all those supposed pro snipers had a
Maggie's Drawers experience on the firing range that day. They made LHO
look like the only competent Sharpshooter in Dealey Plaza during this
really weird ambush.
You've made yet another mistake. I don't have a "theory" as if I were
reading the WCR, I have the statement of 3 people that there were multiple
shooters in Dealey Plaza that day, and one of them was present. I also
did NOT say only 2 shooters hit the target that day. I believe from the
evidence that at least 3 shooters hit their target.
Which 3 shooters?
Post by mainframetech
Again, I also did NOT say they were "pro snipers". True trained snipers
would not have missed at all. But when you have a bunch of shooters
culled from the ranks of the Mafias, you're not getting the best of the best.
Also, the only peon that I know of in the case that got "Maggie's Drawers"
during training was LHO. His buddies thought he was a lousy shot, and
certainly not a "competent sharpshooter".
Chris
LHO did that on purpose to set up his legend.
mainframetech
2018-07-23 13:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
You should know, as a proponent of logic that most people would not be
able to find out the answers to your questions, because after the fact the
perpetrators hid their movements and their decisions would not be
available to the rest of us. However, you're welcome to read "The Men
that don't Fit in" by Roderick Mackenzie III. In there is a complete list
of all shooters in Dealey Plaza and where they were stationed. Source
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrading.htm
Chris
You support the 20 snipers theory, so why did only 2 out of 20 hit the
target according to you? That is extremely poor shooting for all these
hired guns. What that means is 90% of all those supposed pro snipers had a
Maggie's Drawers experience on the firing range that day. They made LHO
look like the only competent Sharpshooter in Dealey Plaza during this
really weird ambush.
You've made yet another mistake. I don't have a "theory" as if I were
reading the WCR, I have the statement of 3 people that there were multiple
shooters in Dealey Plaza that day, and one of them was present. I also
did NOT say only 2 shooters hit the target that day. I believe from the
evidence that at least 3 shooters hit their target.
Which 3 shooters?
Post by mainframetech
Again, I also did NOT say they were "pro snipers". True trained snipers
would not have missed at all. But when you have a bunch of shooters
culled from the ranks of the Mafias, you're not getting the best of the best.
Also, the only peon that I know of in the case that got "Maggie's Drawers"
during training was LHO. His buddies thought he was a lousy shot, and
certainly not a "competent sharpshooter".
Chris
LHO did that on purpose to set up his legend.
Have you any idea how silly that sounds?

Chris
claviger
2018-07-25 01:48:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
You should know, as a proponent of logic that most people would not be
able to find out the answers to your questions, because after the fact the
perpetrators hid their movements and their decisions would not be
available to the rest of us. However, you're welcome to read "The Men
that don't Fit in" by Roderick Mackenzie III. In there is a complete list
of all shooters in Dealey Plaza and where they were stationed. Source
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrading.htm
Chris
You support the 20 snipers theory, so why did only 2 out of 20 hit the
target according to you? That is extremely poor shooting for all these
hired guns. What that means is 90% of all those supposed pro snipers had a
Maggie's Drawers experience on the firing range that day. They made LHO
look like the only competent Sharpshooter in Dealey Plaza during this
really weird ambush.
You've made yet another mistake. I don't have a "theory" as if I were
reading the WCR, I have the statement of 3 people that there were multiple
shooters in Dealey Plaza that day, and one of them was present. I also
did NOT say only 2 shooters hit the target that day. I believe from the
evidence that at least 3 shooters hit their target.
Which 3 shooters?
Post by mainframetech
Again, I also did NOT say they were "pro snipers". True trained snipers
would not have missed at all. But when you have a bunch of shooters
culled from the ranks of the Mafias, you're not getting the best of the best.
Also, the only peon that I know of in the case that got "Maggie's Drawers"
during training was LHO. His buddies thought he was a lousy shot, and
certainly not a "competent sharpshooter".
Chris
LHO did that on purpose to set up his legend.
Have you any idea how silly that sounds?
Chris
Not silly at all for CTs who think LHO was recruited by
the CIA when he was 15 years old serving in the CAP.
mainframetech
2018-07-26 02:12:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
You should know, as a proponent of logic that most people would not be
able to find out the answers to your questions, because after the fact the
perpetrators hid their movements and their decisions would not be
available to the rest of us. However, you're welcome to read "The Men
that don't Fit in" by Roderick Mackenzie III. In there is a complete list
of all shooters in Dealey Plaza and where they were stationed. Source
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrading.htm
Chris
You support the 20 snipers theory, so why did only 2 out of 20 hit the
target according to you? That is extremely poor shooting for all these
hired guns. What that means is 90% of all those supposed pro snipers had a
Maggie's Drawers experience on the firing range that day. They made LHO
look like the only competent Sharpshooter in Dealey Plaza during this
really weird ambush.
You've made yet another mistake. I don't have a "theory" as if I were
reading the WCR, I have the statement of 3 people that there were multiple
shooters in Dealey Plaza that day, and one of them was present. I also
did NOT say only 2 shooters hit the target that day. I believe from the
evidence that at least 3 shooters hit their target.
Which 3 shooters?
Post by mainframetech
Again, I also did NOT say they were "pro snipers". True trained snipers
would not have missed at all. But when you have a bunch of shooters
culled from the ranks of the Mafias, you're not getting the best of the best.
Also, the only peon that I know of in the case that got "Maggie's Drawers"
during training was LHO. His buddies thought he was a lousy shot, and
certainly not a "competent sharpshooter".
Chris
LHO did that on purpose to set up his legend.
Have you any idea how silly that sounds?
Chris
Not silly at all for CTs who think LHO was recruited by
the CIA when he was 15 years old serving in the CAP.
Who thinks that? Sounds kind of foolish.

Chris
claviger
2018-07-27 16:40:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
LHO did that on purpose to set up his legend.
Have you any idea how silly that sounds?
Chris
Not silly at all for CTs who think LHO was recruited by
the CIA when he was 15 years old serving in the CAP.
Who thinks that? Sounds kind of foolish.
Chris
One or two CTs think David Ferrie worked for the CIA and
looked for recruits in the CAP.
bigdog
2018-07-12 20:23:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
You should know, as a proponent of logic that most people would not be
able to find out the answers to your questions, because after the fact the
perpetrators hid their movements and their decisions would not be
available to the rest of us. However, you're welcome to read "The Men
that don't Fit in" by Roderick Mackenzie III. In there is a complete list
of all shooters in Dealey Plaza and where they were stationed. Source
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrading.htm
Chris
You support the 20 snipers theory, so why did only 2 out of 20 hit the
target according to you? That is extremely poor shooting for all these
hired guns. What that means is 90% of all those supposed pro snipers had a
Maggie's Drawers experience on the firing range that day. They made LHO
look like the only competent Sharpshooter in Dealey Plaza during this
really weird ambush.
You've made yet another mistake. I don't have a "theory" as if I were
reading the WCR, I have the statement of 3 people that there were multiple
shooters in Dealey Plaza that day, and one of them was present.
It's still a theory and not a very compelling one. Unsubstantiated claims
by people do not establish facts. You also have no first person accounts.
It's all claims by authors about what somebody else said and since those
somebodies are dead, they can neither affirm or refute what the author has
written. Just because an author has written a book about what a deceased
person has said doesn't establish that the deceased person said that.
Post by mainframetech
I also
did NOT say only 2 shooters hit the target that day. I believe from the
evidence that at least 3 shooters hit their target.
You have told us that your SoGK shooter hit JFK twice and you have another
shooter hitting him in the back. That's two shooters hitting their target.
So who's your third shooter, where did he fire from, and where did he hit
JFK?
Post by mainframetech
Again, I also did NOT
say they were "pro snipers". True trained snipers would not have missed
at all. But when you have a bunch of shooters culled from the ranks of
the Mafias, you're not getting the best of the best.
One thing they Mafia has is competent hit men.
Post by mainframetech
Also, the only peon
that I know of in the case that got "Maggie's Drawers" during training was
LHO. His buddies thought he was a lousy shot, and certainly not a
"competent sharpshooter".
He was good enough to achieve a sharpshooter ranking. That's documented.
mainframetech
2018-07-23 13:31:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
You should know, as a proponent of logic that most people would not be
able to find out the answers to your questions, because after the fact the
perpetrators hid their movements and their decisions would not be
available to the rest of us. However, you're welcome to read "The Men
that don't Fit in" by Roderick Mackenzie III. In there is a complete list
of all shooters in Dealey Plaza and where they were stationed. Source
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrading.htm
Chris
You support the 20 snipers theory, so why did only 2 out of 20 hit the
target according to you? That is extremely poor shooting for all these
hired guns. What that means is 90% of all those supposed pro snipers had a
Maggie's Drawers experience on the firing range that day. They made LHO
look like the only competent Sharpshooter in Dealey Plaza during this
really weird ambush.
You've made yet another mistake. I don't have a "theory" as if I were
reading the WCR, I have the statement of 3 people that there were multiple
shooters in Dealey Plaza that day, and one of them was present.
It's still a theory and not a very compelling one. Unsubstantiated claims
by people do not establish facts.
WRONG! You don't get to make up the rules for witnesses, and you're not
in court. Get it straight.
Post by bigdog
You also have no first person accounts.
It's all claims by authors about what somebody else said and since those
somebodies are dead, they can neither affirm or refute what the author has
written. Just because an author has written a book about what a deceased
person has said doesn't establish that the deceased person said that.
You've been told that one of the authors is alive and his book was
autobiographical. That's "first person". Use you head.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I also
did NOT say only 2 shooters hit the target that day. I believe from the
evidence that at least 3 shooters hit their target.
You have told us that your SoGK shooter hit JFK twice and you have another
shooter hitting him in the back. That's two shooters hitting their target.
So who's your third shooter, where did he fire from, and where did he hit
JFK?
If there was a third successful shooter, he would be with the first
shooter on the South Knoll.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Again, I also did NOT
say they were "pro snipers". True trained snipers would not have missed
at all. But when you have a bunch of shooters culled from the ranks of
the Mafia, you're not getting the best of the best.
One thing they Mafia has is competent hit men.
Think that through. The one hit man I heard tell his story of killing,
was that he would walk up to the back of a target and fire a bullet into
their head. Then another in the heart when they fell down. That's not
from a distance, where there is a different expertise required.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Also, the only person
that I know of in the case that got "Maggie's Drawers" during training was
LHO. His buddies thought he was a lousy shot, and certainly not a
"competent sharpshooter".
He was good enough to achieve a sharpshooter ranking. That's documented.
We've also had someone come here and make a note that the people that
did the scoring of the recruit was their DI, and the DI wants his people
to pass their tests so that the DI is not looked at as incompetent. A
system fraught with possibilities of faking to help a recruit pass.

Chris
Loading...