54 years ago November 22 1963

[Picaro]

Translation:

Guess it's hard for some sycophants to swallow since HW cultivated the "wimp" image so well.
They still think he's as stupid as he looks.

your posts became worthless the instant you

attempted to pass off that stopped footage

as the limo being stopped

what a flop you are

I can't control how somebody creates their gif. I gave you multiple multiple reports from press, police, Secret Service, public officials and bystanders all saying the car stopped. First in post 90 and then more yesterday. You remember, when the witness described JFK being hit in the "forehead".

Got plenty more too.

What that gif, the best I could find at the time, shows is not in the motion of the JFK limo stopping --- it's in the motion of the other vehicles around it suddenly closing in. Did they all speed up at once, like some flock of birds?

The question of whether the car stopped or not is of course not crucial. Obviously a target can be hit on a moving target or on a stopped one. That had already happened while the car was indisputably moving.

Rather, the question is why the Zap film, which was under the control of the CIA, had been doctored to imply that the car never stopped. Why would they do that?

Go ahead, take your best guess. And make it weigh more than "grunt.... Oswald... grunt... leftist.... grunt... me score internet points.... grunt...."

Think you can handle that, Haiku-boi?

No you never did.

the Limo did not stop period and the Zapruder film proves that fact.

The Zapruder film was never under the control of the CIA nor was it altered.

So aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllll those cops and Secret Service and reporters and bystanders and public officials and newspapers who described the limo coming to a stop, were hallucination together, were they?

Desperation strikes deep.

poor discredited liar

lol indeed. Their usual tactic is to lose arguments, and then try to bury their losses under pages and pages of spam posts, hoping nobody goes back and sees their idiocy getting easily destroyed. Pogo does this routinely.

 

[Pogo]

your posts became worthless the instant you

attempted to pass off that stopped footage

as the limo being stopped

what a flop you are

I can't control how somebody creates their gif. I gave you multiple multiple reports from press, police, Secret Service, public officials and bystanders all saying the car stopped. First in post 90 and then more yesterday. You remember, when the witness described JFK being hit in the "forehead".

Got plenty more too.

What that gif, the best I could find at the time, shows is not in the motion of the JFK limo stopping --- it's in the motion of the other vehicles around it suddenly closing in. Did they all speed up at once, like some flock of birds?

The question of whether the car stopped or not is of course not crucial. Obviously a target can be hit on a moving target or on a stopped one. That had already happened while the car was indisputably moving.

Rather, the question is why the Zap film, which was under the control of the CIA, had been doctored to imply that the car never stopped. Why would they do that?

Go ahead, take your best guess. And make it weigh more than "grunt.... Oswald... grunt... leftist.... grunt... me score internet points.... grunt...."

Think you can handle that, Haiku-boi?

No you never did.

the Limo did not stop period and the Zapruder film proves that fact.

The Zapruder film was never under the control of the CIA nor was it altered.

So aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllll those cops and Secret Service and reporters and bystanders and public officials and newspapers who described the limo coming to a stop, were hallucination together, were they?

Desperation strikes deep.

poor discredited liar

lol indeed. Their usual tactic is to lose arguments, and then try to bury their losses under pages and pages of spam posts, hoping nobody goes back and sees their idiocy getting easily destroyed. Pogo does this routinely.

What I posted there, Dipshit, was citation after citation after citation of eyewitness statements, from police, Secret Service, witnesses, reporters, public officials and news media in the moment, all verifying that the car stopped. All this while Haiku-Boi goes on yammering that it didn't.

Now again, whether the car stopped or not is irrelevant to the crime; it doesn't need to stop for the shooting to happen --- it can happen stopped or moving. That's not the issue. The issue is that since we KNOW the car stopped --- yet the surviving edited Zapruder film indicates it does not, that alone tells us some kind of deception is going on.

But snowflakes like you and Haiku would rather just go because you're too weak to deal with it.

And that's your problem, not mine.

 

[jon_berzerk]

^^^fraudulent poster alert^^^

 

[Soupnazi630]

I can't control how somebody creates their gif. I gave you multiple multiple reports from press, police, Secret Service, public officials and bystanders all saying the car stopped. First in post 90 and then more yesterday. You remember, when the witness described JFK being hit in the "forehead".

Got plenty more too.

What that gif, the best I could find at the time, shows is not in the motion of the JFK limo stopping --- it's in the motion of the other vehicles around it suddenly closing in. Did they all speed up at once, like some flock of birds?

The question of whether the car stopped or not is of course not crucial. Obviously a target can be hit on a moving target or on a stopped one. That had already happened while the car was indisputably moving.

Rather, the question is why the Zap film, which was under the control of the CIA, had been doctored to imply that the car never stopped. Why would they do that?

Go ahead, take your best guess. And make it weigh more than "grunt.... Oswald... grunt... leftist.... grunt... me score internet points.... grunt...."

Think you can handle that, Haiku-boi?

No you never did.

the Limo did not stop period and the Zapruder film proves that fact.

The Zapruder film was never under the control of the CIA nor was it altered.

So aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllll those cops and Secret Service and reporters and bystanders and public officials and newspapers who described the limo coming to a stop, were hallucination together, were they?

Desperation strikes deep.

poor discredited liar

lol indeed. Their usual tactic is to lose arguments, and then try to bury their losses under pages and pages of spam posts, hoping nobody goes back and sees their idiocy getting easily destroyed. Pogo does this routinely.

What I posted there, Dipshit, was citation after citation after citation of eyewitness statements, from police, Secret Service, witnesses, reporters, public officials and news media in the moment, all verifying that the car stopped. All this while Haiku-Boi goes on yammering that it didn't.

Now again, whether the car stopped or not is irrelevant to the crime; it doesn't need to stop for the shooting to happen --- it can happen stopped or moving. That's not the issue. The issue is that since we KNOW the car stopped --- yet the surviving edited Zapruder film indicates it does not, that alone tells us some kind of deception is going on.

But snowflakes like you and Haiku would rather just go because you're too weak to deal with it.

And that's your problem, not mine.

It did not stop and that is fact.

Witnesses have flawed memories but cameras do not and the film clearly shows the few witnesses who said it stop are wrong as are all of your other lame theories which have been massively debunked by evidence and facts.

The film was not edited

You have no evidence only stupidity

 

[jon_berzerk]

No you never did.

the Limo did not stop period and the Zapruder film proves that fact.

The Zapruder film was never under the control of the CIA nor was it altered.

So aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllll those cops and Secret Service and reporters and bystanders and public officials and newspapers who described the limo coming to a stop, were hallucination together, were they?

Desperation strikes deep.

poor discredited liar

lol indeed. Their usual tactic is to lose arguments, and then try to bury their losses under pages and pages of spam posts, hoping nobody goes back and sees their idiocy getting easily destroyed. Pogo does this routinely.

What I posted there, Dipshit, was citation after citation after citation of eyewitness statements, from police, Secret Service, witnesses, reporters, public officials and news media in the moment, all verifying that the car stopped. All this while Haiku-Boi goes on yammering that it didn't.

Now again, whether the car stopped or not is irrelevant to the crime; it doesn't need to stop for the shooting to happen --- it can happen stopped or moving. That's not the issue. The issue is that since we KNOW the car stopped --- yet the surviving edited Zapruder film indicates it does not, that alone tells us some kind of deception is going on.

But snowflakes like you and Haiku would rather just go because you're too weak to deal with it.

And that's your problem, not mine.

It did not stop and that is fact.

Witnesses have flawed memories but cameras do not and the film clearly shows the few witnesses who said it stop are wrong as are all of your other lame theories which have been massively debunked by evidence and facts.

The film was not edited

You have no evidence only stupidity

the film the poster posted was an attempted fraud

 

[Pogo]

No you never did.

the Limo did not stop period and the Zapruder film proves that fact.

The Zapruder film was never under the control of the CIA nor was it altered.

So aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllll those cops and Secret Service and reporters and bystanders and public officials and newspapers who described the limo coming to a stop, were hallucination together, were they?

Desperation strikes deep.

poor discredited liar

lol indeed. Their usual tactic is to lose arguments, and then try to bury their losses under pages and pages of spam posts, hoping nobody goes back and sees their idiocy getting easily destroyed. Pogo does this routinely.

What I posted there, Dipshit, was citation after citation after citation of eyewitness statements, from police, Secret Service, witnesses, reporters, public officials and news media in the moment, all verifying that the car stopped. All this while Haiku-Boi goes on yammering that it didn't.

Now again, whether the car stopped or not is irrelevant to the crime; it doesn't need to stop for the shooting to happen --- it can happen stopped or moving. That's not the issue. The issue is that since we KNOW the car stopped --- yet the surviving edited Zapruder film indicates it does not, that alone tells us some kind of deception is going on.

But snowflakes like you and Haiku would rather just go because you're too weak to deal with it.

And that's your problem, not mine.

It did not stop and that is fact.

Witnesses have flawed memories but cameras do not and the film clearly shows the few witnesses who said it stop are wrong as are all of your other lame theories which have been massively debunked by evidence and facts.

The film was not edited

You have no evidence only stupidity

yuh HUH. So alllllllllllllllllllllll those cops, and witnesses, and reporters, and people riding in the same motorcade, including Secret Service ---- who all gave those descriptions BEFORE anyone saw the edited Zap tape --------- just by weird amazing interplanetary convulsion, just happened to mass hallucinate the same thing.

You're a special kind of stupid aren't you.

But wait --- there's plenty more. NOW how much would you pay...

• Mrs. Rose Clark---"…She noted that the President's automobile came almost to a halt following the three shots, before it picked up speed and drove away." [24 H 533]

• Hugh Betzner---"…I looked down the street and I could see the President's car and another one and they looked like the cars were stopped…then the President's car sped on under the underpass." [19 H 467]

• Bill Newman---after the fatal head shot "the car momentarily stopped and the driver seemed to have a radio or phone up to his ear and he seemed to be waiting on some word. Some Secret Service men reached into their car and came out with some sort of machine gun. Then the cars roared off…"; "I've maintained that they stopped. I still say they did. It was only a momentary stop, but…" [Crossfire by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 70; Murder From Within by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 96]

• "I believe Kennedy's car came to a full stop after the final shot." [JFK: Breaking The Silence by Bill Sloan (1993), p. 169]

• "…I believe it was the passenger in the front seat [Roy Kellerman]---there were two men in the front seat---had a telephone or something to his ear and the car momentarily stopped. Now everywhere that you read about it, you don't read anything about the car stopping. And when I say "stopped" I mean very momentarily, like they hit the brakes and just a few seconds passed and then they floorboarded [sic] and accelerated on." [11/20/97 videotaped interview with Bill Law, Mark Row, & Ian Griggs, as transcribed in November Patriots by Connie Kritzberg & Larry Hancock (1998), p. 362]

• "One of the two men in the front seat of the car had a telephone in his hand, and as I was looking back at the car covering my son, I can remember seeing the tail lights of the car, and just for a moment they hesitated and stopped, and then they floorboarded [sic] the car and shot off." [No More Silence by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 96]

• Charles Brehm---"Brehm expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move some 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot…After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of sight." [22 H 837-838]

• Mary Moorman---"She recalls that the President's automobile was moving at the time she took the second picture, and when she heard the shots, and has the impression that the car either stopped momentarily or hesistated and then drove off in a hurry." [22 H 838-839]

• Jean Hill---"…The motorcade came to almost a halt at the time the shots rang out and I would say it [JFK's limo] was just approximately, if not---it couldn't have been in the same position, I'm sure it wasn't, but just a very, very short distance from where it had been. It [JFK's limo] was just almost stunned." [6 H 208-209; Hill's testimony on this matter was dramatized in the Oliver Stone movie "JFK" (1991): "The driver had stopped-I don't know what was wrong with that driver." See also JFK: The Book of the Film (1992), p. 122. Therein is referenced a March 1991 conversation with Jean Hill.]

• James Leon Simmons---"…The car stopped or almost stopped." [2/15/69 Clay Shaw trial testimony; Forgive My Grief Vol. III by Penn Jones, p. 53; High Treason by Groden & Livingstone (1990 Berkley Edition), p. 22]

What's this, three posts now full of all different quotes? Four? And aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllll these people had the same mass hallucination, while a spy agency would never doctor a film because like spying is a totally honest business, and rainbows and unicorns and shit.

Notice the guy above who notes "you don't read anything about the car stopping" --- "now". That's because you and your obedient sheep apologists hawk this fake narrative that everybody else already knows is bullshit.

Note also multiple references to either Greer or Kellerman having a "telephone" or radio and apparently "waiting for orders". See anything of that in what's left of the Zap film?

But no, mass hallucinations and rainbows and unicorns and shit and the CIA is full of boy scouts who simply kept the film safe on a library shelf.

 

[jon_berzerk]

after the final shot

--LOL

 

[Soupnazi630]

So aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllll those cops and Secret Service and reporters and bystanders and public officials and newspapers who described the limo coming to a stop, were hallucination together, were they?

Desperation strikes deep.

poor discredited liar

lol indeed. Their usual tactic is to lose arguments, and then try to bury their losses under pages and pages of spam posts, hoping nobody goes back and sees their idiocy getting easily destroyed. Pogo does this routinely.

What I posted there, Dipshit, was citation after citation after citation of eyewitness statements, from police, Secret Service, witnesses, reporters, public officials and news media in the moment, all verifying that the car stopped. All this while Haiku-Boi goes on yammering that it didn't.

Now again, whether the car stopped or not is irrelevant to the crime; it doesn't need to stop for the shooting to happen --- it can happen stopped or moving. That's not the issue. The issue is that since we KNOW the car stopped --- yet the surviving edited Zapruder film indicates it does not, that alone tells us some kind of deception is going on.

But snowflakes like you and Haiku would rather just go because you're too weak to deal with it.

And that's your problem, not mine.

It did not stop and that is fact.

Witnesses have flawed memories but cameras do not and the film clearly shows the few witnesses who said it stop are wrong as are all of your other lame theories which have been massively debunked by evidence and facts.

The film was not edited

You have no evidence only stupidity

yuh HUH. So alllllllllllllllllllllll those cops, and witnesses, and reporters, and people riding in the same motorcade, including Secret Service ---- who all gave those descriptions BEFORE anyone saw the edited Zap tape --------- just by weird amazing interplanetary convulsion, just happened to mass hallucinate the same thing.

You're a special kind of stupid aren't you.

But wait --- there's plenty more. NOW how much would you pay...

• Mrs. Rose Clark---"…She noted that the President's automobile came almost to a halt following the three shots, before it picked up speed and drove away." [24 H 533]

• Hugh Betzner---"…I looked down the street and I could see the President's car and another one and they looked like the cars were stopped…then the President's car sped on under the underpass." [19 H 467]

• Bill Newman---after the fatal head shot "the car momentarily stopped and the driver seemed to have a radio or phone up to his ear and he seemed to be waiting on some word. Some Secret Service men reached into their car and came out with some sort of machine gun. Then the cars roared off…"; "I've maintained that they stopped. I still say they did. It was only a momentary stop, but…" [Crossfire by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 70; Murder From Within by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 96]

• "I believe Kennedy's car came to a full stop after the final shot." [JFK: Breaking The Silence by Bill Sloan (1993), p. 169]

• "…I believe it was the passenger in the front seat [Roy Kellerman]---there were two men in the front seat---had a telephone or something to his ear and the car momentarily stopped. Now everywhere that you read about it, you don't read anything about the car stopping. And when I say "stopped" I mean very momentarily, like they hit the brakes and just a few seconds passed and then they floorboarded [sic] and accelerated on." [11/20/97 videotaped interview with Bill Law, Mark Row, & Ian Griggs, as transcribed in November Patriots by Connie Kritzberg & Larry Hancock (1998), p. 362]

• "One of the two men in the front seat of the car had a telephone in his hand, and as I was looking back at the car covering my son, I can remember seeing the tail lights of the car, and just for a moment they hesitated and stopped, and then they floorboarded [sic] the car and shot off." [No More Silence by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 96]

• Charles Brehm---"Brehm expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move some 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot…After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of sight." [22 H 837-838]

• Mary Moorman---"She recalls that the President's automobile was moving at the time she took the second picture, and when she heard the shots, and has the impression that the car either stopped momentarily or hesistated and then drove off in a hurry." [22 H 838-839]

• Jean Hill---"…The motorcade came to almost a halt at the time the shots rang out and I would say it [JFK's limo] was just approximately, if not---it couldn't have been in the same position, I'm sure it wasn't, but just a very, very short distance from where it had been. It [JFK's limo] was just almost stunned." [6 H 208-209; Hill's testimony on this matter was dramatized in the Oliver Stone movie "JFK" (1991): "The driver had stopped-I don't know what was wrong with that driver." See also JFK: The Book of the Film (1992), p. 122. Therein is referenced a March 1991 conversation with Jean Hill.]

• James Leon Simmons---"…The car stopped or almost stopped." [2/15/69 Clay Shaw trial testimony; Forgive My Grief Vol. III by Penn Jones, p. 53; High Treason by Groden & Livingstone (1990 Berkley Edition), p. 22]

What's this, three posts now full of all different quotes? Four? And aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllll these people had the same mass hallucination, while a spy agency would never doctor a film because like spying is a totally honest business, and rainbows and unicorns and shit.

Notice the guy above who notes "you don't read anything about the car stopping" --- "now". That's because you and your obedient sheep apologists hawk this fake narrative that everybody else already knows is bullshit.

Note also multiple references to either Greer or Kellerman having a "telephone" or radio and apparently "waiting for orders". See anything of that in what's left of the Zap film?

But no, mass hallucinations and rainbows and unicorns and shit and the CIA is full of boy scouts who simply kept the film safe on a library shelf.

No one said a thing about hallucinations boy and do not call others stupid when you have been owned and debunked and crushed by facts and evidence.

Now read this slowly as you are seriously intellectually impaired. Eyewitnesses are the weakest and least credible form of evidence. Cameras do not lie or make mistakes but people do. Film footage ALWAYS trumps eyewitnesses when the two contradict.

You have no evidence whatsoever that the film was edited making you a liar when you claim it was edited. It was not and you cannot prove it was and the burden is on you to do so,.

Furthermore the witnesses do not support you.

Let's look at it carefully.

The first witness you quoted stated it ALMOST came to a stop. Almost is not the same as stopping BOY. Almost stopped means by definition it DID NOT STOP

Hugh Betzner stated that it LOOKED LIKE the cars stopped. LOOKED LIKE means he was by definition unsure. .

Your fourth quote was not even by an eyewitness. It was taken from a book and the author stated a BELIEF. A belief means....nothing. A BELIEF is evidence of NOTHING.

Mary Moorman was unsure and admitted as much.

Jean Hill stated ALMOST and once again ALMOST means IT DID NOT STOP.

Simmons stated stopped or almost stopped which proves once again he was unsure.

The sixth person you quoted is not even a person or a witness but merely another passage from a book with no witness name making it supposition and nothing more.

The fifth quote you provided is worthless because it names three men who were interviewed but does not specify which of the three made the statement which means it is completely devoid of credibility. It is not a quote at akll and came from no witness.

This leaves 3 witnesses out of hundreds. That is all you have and yes BOY 3 witnesses can easily be mistaken and wrong about such details which the film proves.

The film proves them all wrong and until you provide evidence that it was altered or edited it destroys your claim.

You lose sonny boy you are debunked and pwned and out of your league.

The car did not stop and that is fact IN YOUR ******* FACE and you are finished.

 

[Pogo]

Eyewitnesses are the weakest and least credible form of evidence.

I've posted maybe forty different people who all describe the same thing. And they spoke of it (and in the case of contemporary news media reported it) LOOONG before the CIA got to commandeer the narrative including with the doctored film that eventually came out obviously doctored.

Cameras do not lie or make mistakes but people do.

Especially when they try to doctor a video but forget to account for dozens upon dozens of apparently hallucinating eyewitnesses whose contradiction of what the film is purporting to sell.

Film footage ALWAYS trumps eyewitnesses when the two contradict.

That's what film doctors would like you to believe isn't it. "You gonna believe this film we sat on in our lab behind closed doors, or all these witnesses' hallucinating lying eyes?"


Now again, whether the car stops, "almost" stops, stops very briefly, or doesn't slow down at all, is irrelevant to the crime. None of those makes the shooting possible or impossible. All this tells us is that the film has been doctored. We know that because what it purports to show does not sync with aaaaaalllllll these eyewitnesses and news reports. Therefore it's been edited. The question is --- what has it been edited to hide?

You don't have the balls to address that. Because rainbows and unicorns and candy canes and shit, also the CIA is run by nuns who definitely wouldn't know anything about doctoring films, disguising evidence or any of that cloak-and-dagger stuff because what do we think they are, spies?

Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough (rode in LBJ's car)---"…When the noise of the shot was heard, the motorcade slowed to what seemed to me a complete stop (though it could have been a near stop)…After the third shot was fired, but only after the third shot was fired, the cavalcade speeded up, gained speed rapidly, and roared away to the Parkland Hospital."; "…The cars all stopped. I put in there [his affidavit], 'I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but for the protection of future Presidents, they [the Secret Service] should be trained to take off when a shot is fired." [7 H 439-440; Crossfire by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 482​

Why does the Whitewash Commission contradict 59 witnesses (10 police officers, 7 Secret Service agents, 37 spectators, 2 Presidential aides, 1 Senator, Governor Connally, and Jackie Kennedy)? Did the Whitewash Commission imbibe different hallucinogens?

I have some bridges for sale btw. I gives you a package deal.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Eyewitnesses are the weakest and least credible form of evidence.

I've posted maybe forty different people who all describe the same thing. And they spoke of it (and in the case of contemporary news media reported it) LOOONG before the CIA got to commandeer the narrative including with the doctored film that eventually came out obviously doctored.

Cameras do not lie or make mistakes but people do.

Especially when they try to doctor a video but forget to account for dozens upon dozens of apparently hallucinating eyewitnesses whose contradiction of what the film is purporting to sell.

Film footage ALWAYS trumps eyewitnesses when the two contradict.

That's what film doctors would like you to believe isn't it. "You gonna believe this film we sat on in our lab behind closed doors, or all these witnesses' hallucinating lying eyes?"


Now again, whether the car stops, "almost" stops, stops very briefly, or doesn't slow down at all, is irrelevant to the crime. None of those makes the shooting possible or impossible. All this tells us is that the film has been doctored. We know that because what it purports to show does not sync with aaaaaalllllll these eyewitnesses and news reports. Therefore it's been edited. The question is --- what has it been edited to hide?

You don't have the balls to address that. Because rainbows and unicorns and candy canes and shit, also the CIA is run by nuns who definitely wouldn't know anything about doctoring films, disguising evidence or any of that cloak-and-dagger stuff because what do we think they are, spies?

Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough (rode in LBJ's car)---"…When the noise of the shot was heard, the motorcade slowed to what seemed to me a complete stop (though it could have been a near stop)…After the third shot was fired, but only after the third shot was fired, the cavalcade speeded up, gained speed rapidly, and roared away to the Parkland Hospital."; "…The cars all stopped. I put in there [his affidavit], 'I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but for the protection of future Presidents, they [the Secret Service] should be trained to take off when a shot is fired." [7 H 439-440; Crossfire by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 482​

Why does the Whitewash Commission contradict 59 witnesses (10 police officers, 7 Secret Service agents, 37 spectators, 2 Presidential aides, 1 Senator, Governor Connally, and Jackie Kennedy)? Did the Whitewash Commission imbibe different hallucinogens?

I have some bridges for sale btw. I gives you a package deal.

Wrong you did not post any such number of people as I conclusively proved. You posted statements from 5 who said it stopped and that is all. The rest were debunked and many of them actually testified to the contrary of your claim.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the film was doctored making your claim that it was doctored and edited pure fiction. Sorry little boy but it was not OBVIOUSLY doctored or edited once again you must provide evidence that it was and you CANNOT do so.

You are no expert and your assertion is not valid. No one said hallucination I said they were wrong. That is fact and typical for ANY witness of any incident or event it is simple proven fact eyewitnesses are not credible or reliable, film is reliable. You whine about delusions and hallucinations because you have only a tiny numberof eyewitneesses who are clearly proven conclusively wro

Eyewitnesses are the weakest and least credible form of evidence.

I've posted maybe forty different people who all describe the same thing. And they spoke of it (and in the case of contemporary news media reported it) LOOONG before the CIA got to commandeer the narrative including with the doctored film that eventually came out obviously doctored.

Cameras do not lie or make mistakes but people do.

Especially when they try to doctor a video but forget to account for dozens upon dozens of apparently hallucinating eyewitnesses whose contradiction of what the film is purporting to sell.

Film footage ALWAYS trumps eyewitnesses when the two contradict.

That's what film doctors would like you to believe isn't it. "You gonna believe this film we sat on in our lab behind closed doors, or all these witnesses' hallucinating lying eyes?"


Now again, whether the car stops, "almost" stops, stops very briefly, or doesn't slow down at all, is irrelevant to the crime. None of those makes the shooting possible or impossible. All this tells us is that the film has been doctored. We know that because what it purports to show does not sync with aaaaaalllllll these eyewitnesses and news reports. Therefore it's been edited. The question is --- what has it been edited to hide?

You don't have the balls to address that. Because rainbows and unicorns and candy canes and shit, also the CIA is run by nuns who definitely wouldn't know anything about doctoring films, disguising evidence or any of that cloak-and-dagger stuff because what do we think they are, spies?

Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough (rode in LBJ's car)---"…When the noise of the shot was heard, the motorcade slowed to what seemed to me a complete stop (though it could have been a near stop)…After the third shot was fired, but only after the third shot was fired, the cavalcade speeded up, gained speed rapidly, and roared away to the Parkland Hospital."; "…The cars all stopped. I put in there [his affidavit], 'I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but for the protection of future Presidents, they [the Secret Service] should be trained to take off when a shot is fired." [7 H 439-440; Crossfire by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 482​

Why does the Whitewash Commission contradict 59 witnesses (10 police officers, 7 Secret Service agents, 37 spectators, 2 Presidential aides, 1 Senator, Governor Connally, and Jackie Kennedy)? Did the Whitewash Commission imbibe different hallucinogens?

I have some bridges for sale btw. I gives you a package deal.

You failed miserably which I proved and you know it so now you are simply lying like a coward.

You did not post 40 ******* witnesses BOY that claim is a cowardly and proven egregious lie.

You posted many which did not support your claim and several which contradict you and that has been proven. At best you posted 3 and only 3. You are also lying about delusions and hallucinations. Eyewitnesses are typically wrong and contradictory which doe snot mean hallucinating or delusional it simply means WRONG. The few witnesses who saw the limo stopped are proven wrong and that is fact you cannot refute or challenge.

The film was not OBVIOUSLY doctored or edited your assertions is nothing more than a fuzzy minded claim from you and you alone with no evidence of any kind to support or prove it and you are no expert nor is it obvious to anyone.

You have to provide evidence of such doctoring or editing and you cannot because no such evidence exists thus proving you to be yet more of a liar. and coward.

The film was not doctored an it proves you wrong and you really need to stop being a whiny brat when you have been debunked shredded and outclassed and YOU HAVE BEEN. Seriously boy stop being a baby.

It is not trivial or you would not be trying to lie like a ******* coward about is and you know you are lying like a little coward.

Yarborough said IT SEEMED. Do you know what the word SEEMED means? It means he was not certain and the film proves the limo did not stop and the film is legit with no evidence of being doctored or edited.

The Warren Commission contradicted no one and in fact you have no idea what their report says because you never read it.

Like most chumps that I school you only watched a few you tube films or the fictional movie JFK and think you know something.

Intelligent people ( leaving you out ) always consider both sides of a debate before judging which is correct. You will never have the guts or intellect to do so.

The crime was committed by Oswald as all of the evidence proves you cannot show any evidence to the contrary and I owned your weak ass every time you tried.

Everyone knows I shredded beat and debunked your every retarded claim to the contrary. Where is some evidence? Show some or shut up.

 

[gipper]

You failed to provide a plausible explanation

In any crime, you can always uncover odd stuff that does not support the explanation of the crime or any explanation in which case it is not evidence. Conspiracy theorists love this stuff.

Yeah that explains the numerous inconsistencies, discrepancies, and coincidental events in the deep state murder of JFK.

In a criminal investigation, there will always be anomalies; that is evidence that does not support a reasonable theory of the crime, unexplained fingerprints, discrepancies in statements, unexpected events, etc. However, the simplest explanation, Oswald, a long gunman, acting alone with motive, means, and opportunity supported by overwhelming evidence killed the president.

Unfotunately Oswald had no motive (or even fingerprints at the scene) and the overwhelming evidence points away from him.

The collective entity that does however have abundant means, motive and opportunity, and plenty of personnel, is the same entity that is now keeping those records "classified". Because again they have motive means and opportunity do keep that under wraps as well. They also have equally abundant resources to plant false narratives, doctor photographic evidence, revise or suppress official reports, etc etc.

If that were not the case --- there would be no reason to keep them sealed for so long.

Wrong.

First of all he did have fingerprints at the scene all over the place. His prints were found on the boxes which were used to make the snipers nest, they were found on the expended shell casings and they were found on the rifle which was his and which was also the only rifle found.

This establishes means and opportunity through hardcore physical evidence.

your claim that the entity ( meaning government ) had opportunity and means is simply false and has no supporting evidence of any kind..

They have no such resources to plant evidence or false reports or doctor photographs etc etc. You show no evidence that they did any of these things and neither does anyone else.

Your statement that they had motive is merely opinion supported by no evidence of any kind.

On the other hand we can in fact show evidence that Oswald had motive even if we cannot specifically state which motive was the most immediate. We know he thought of him self as a revolutionary who could start a war through political assassination. We know he tried to commit a political assassination before Kennedy when he made an attempt on Edwin Walker. We know he was deranged and suffering from unchecked mental illness since he was a child.

All supported by documented evidence.

The government has many good and valid reasons for keeping some documents secret. However in the case of JFK they have not kept many such secrets and in fact the evidence proves you wrong.

your entire argument is "could have" which is subjective and meaningless.

Hey Nazi, I hope things are well for you. Do you winter at Langley or the Bush family home in Texas? Please let me know when you can.

I read something the other day that you might be able to comment on. It is that Obama is actually a CIA agent. Can you confirm or deny? What about Trump? Is he CIA too?

 

[Soupnazi630]

In any crime, you can always uncover odd stuff that does not support the explanation of the crime or any explanation in which case it is not evidence. Conspiracy theorists love this stuff.

Yeah that explains the numerous inconsistencies, discrepancies, and coincidental events in the deep state murder of JFK.

In a criminal investigation, there will always be anomalies; that is evidence that does not support a reasonable theory of the crime, unexplained fingerprints, discrepancies in statements, unexpected events, etc. However, the simplest explanation, Oswald, a long gunman, acting alone with motive, means, and opportunity supported by overwhelming evidence killed the president.

Unfotunately Oswald had no motive (or even fingerprints at the scene) and the overwhelming evidence points away from him.

The collective entity that does however have abundant means, motive and opportunity, and plenty of personnel, is the same entity that is now keeping those records "classified". Because again they have motive means and opportunity do keep that under wraps as well. They also have equally abundant resources to plant false narratives, doctor photographic evidence, revise or suppress official reports, etc etc.

If that were not the case --- there would be no reason to keep them sealed for so long.

Wrong.

First of all he did have fingerprints at the scene all over the place. His prints were found on the boxes which were used to make the snipers nest, they were found on the expended shell casings and they were found on the rifle which was his and which was also the only rifle found.

This establishes means and opportunity through hardcore physical evidence.

your claim that the entity ( meaning government ) had opportunity and means is simply false and has no supporting evidence of any kind..

They have no such resources to plant evidence or false reports or doctor photographs etc etc. You show no evidence that they did any of these things and neither does anyone else.

Your statement that they had motive is merely opinion supported by no evidence of any kind.

On the other hand we can in fact show evidence that Oswald had motive even if we cannot specifically state which motive was the most immediate. We know he thought of him self as a revolutionary who could start a war through political assassination. We know he tried to commit a political assassination before Kennedy when he made an attempt on Edwin Walker. We know he was deranged and suffering from unchecked mental illness since he was a child.

All supported by documented evidence.

The government has many good and valid reasons for keeping some documents secret. However in the case of JFK they have not kept many such secrets and in fact the evidence proves you wrong.

your entire argument is "could have" which is subjective and meaningless.

Hey Nazi, I hope things are well for you. Do you winter at Langley or the Bush family home in Texas? Please let me know when you can.

I read something the other day that you might be able to comment on. It is that Obama is actually a CIA agent. Can you confirm or deny? What about Trump? Is he CIA too?

Still no evidence I see.

CIA nazi CIA nazi CIA nazi.

That is the sum total of all your posts and you have no evidence to back up any of your claims.

So childish you have to resort to such stupid and uninformed hyperbole when you get proven wrong and you know you have been proven wrong

 

[gipper]

Yeah that explains the numerous inconsistencies, discrepancies, and coincidental events in the deep state murder of JFK.

In a criminal investigation, there will always be anomalies; that is evidence that does not support a reasonable theory of the crime, unexplained fingerprints, discrepancies in statements, unexpected events, etc. However, the simplest explanation, Oswald, a long gunman, acting alone with motive, means, and opportunity supported by overwhelming evidence killed the president.

Unfotunately Oswald had no motive (or even fingerprints at the scene) and the overwhelming evidence points away from him.

The collective entity that does however have abundant means, motive and opportunity, and plenty of personnel, is the same entity that is now keeping those records "classified". Because again they have motive means and opportunity do keep that under wraps as well. They also have equally abundant resources to plant false narratives, doctor photographic evidence, revise or suppress official reports, etc etc.

If that were not the case --- there would be no reason to keep them sealed for so long.

Wrong.

First of all he did have fingerprints at the scene all over the place. His prints were found on the boxes which were used to make the snipers nest, they were found on the expended shell casings and they were found on the rifle which was his and which was also the only rifle found.

This establishes means and opportunity through hardcore physical evidence.

your claim that the entity ( meaning government ) had opportunity and means is simply false and has no supporting evidence of any kind..

They have no such resources to plant evidence or false reports or doctor photographs etc etc. You show no evidence that they did any of these things and neither does anyone else.

Your statement that they had motive is merely opinion supported by no evidence of any kind.

On the other hand we can in fact show evidence that Oswald had motive even if we cannot specifically state which motive was the most immediate. We know he thought of him self as a revolutionary who could start a war through political assassination. We know he tried to commit a political assassination before Kennedy when he made an attempt on Edwin Walker. We know he was deranged and suffering from unchecked mental illness since he was a child.

All supported by documented evidence.

The government has many good and valid reasons for keeping some documents secret. However in the case of JFK they have not kept many such secrets and in fact the evidence proves you wrong.

your entire argument is "could have" which is subjective and meaningless.

Hey Nazi, I hope things are well for you. Do you winter at Langley or the Bush family home in Texas? Please let me know when you can.

I read something the other day that you might be able to comment on. It is that Obama is actually a CIA agent. Can you confirm or deny? What about Trump? Is he CIA too?

Still no evidence I see.

CIA nazi CIA nazi CIA nazi.

That is the sum total of all your posts and you have no evidence to back up any of your claims.

So childish you have to resort to such stupid and uninformed hyperbole when you get proven wrong and you know you have been proven wrong

Can you please just answer my questions? Why must you constantly dissimulate?

Can't you for once, not do as you were trained at Langley?

 

[Soupnazi630]

In a criminal investigation, there will always be anomalies; that is evidence that does not support a reasonable theory of the crime, unexplained fingerprints, discrepancies in statements, unexpected events, etc. However, the simplest explanation, Oswald, a long gunman, acting alone with motive, means, and opportunity supported by overwhelming evidence killed the president.

Unfotunately Oswald had no motive (or even fingerprints at the scene) and the overwhelming evidence points away from him.

The collective entity that does however have abundant means, motive and opportunity, and plenty of personnel, is the same entity that is now keeping those records "classified". Because again they have motive means and opportunity do keep that under wraps as well. They also have equally abundant resources to plant false narratives, doctor photographic evidence, revise or suppress official reports, etc etc.

If that were not the case --- there would be no reason to keep them sealed for so long.

Wrong.

First of all he did have fingerprints at the scene all over the place. His prints were found on the boxes which were used to make the snipers nest, they were found on the expended shell casings and they were found on the rifle which was his and which was also the only rifle found.

This establishes means and opportunity through hardcore physical evidence.

your claim that the entity ( meaning government ) had opportunity and means is simply false and has no supporting evidence of any kind..

They have no such resources to plant evidence or false reports or doctor photographs etc etc. You show no evidence that they did any of these things and neither does anyone else.

Your statement that they had motive is merely opinion supported by no evidence of any kind.

On the other hand we can in fact show evidence that Oswald had motive even if we cannot specifically state which motive was the most immediate. We know he thought of him self as a revolutionary who could start a war through political assassination. We know he tried to commit a political assassination before Kennedy when he made an attempt on Edwin Walker. We know he was deranged and suffering from unchecked mental illness since he was a child.

All supported by documented evidence.

The government has many good and valid reasons for keeping some documents secret. However in the case of JFK they have not kept many such secrets and in fact the evidence proves you wrong.

your entire argument is "could have" which is subjective and meaningless.

Hey Nazi, I hope things are well for you. Do you winter at Langley or the Bush family home in Texas? Please let me know when you can.

I read something the other day that you might be able to comment on. It is that Obama is actually a CIA agent. Can you confirm or deny? What about Trump? Is he CIA too?

Still no evidence I see.

CIA nazi CIA nazi CIA nazi.

That is the sum total of all your posts and you have no evidence to back up any of your claims.

So childish you have to resort to such stupid and uninformed hyperbole when you get proven wrong and you know you have been proven wrong

Can you please just answer my questions? Why must you constantly dissimulate?

Can't you for once, not do as you were trained at Langley?

Do not ask for others to answer your idiotic questions when you refuse to do so yourself.

Your stupid questions are childish and the very definition of dissimulation.

Since you know full well you have been debunked and crushed with facts and evidence when will you present some evidence to support your comic book fiction assertions?

 

[Pogo]

Eyewitnesses are the weakest and least credible form of evidence.

I've posted maybe forty different people who all describe the same thing. And they spoke of it (and in the case of contemporary news media reported it) LOOONG before the CIA got to commandeer the narrative including with the doctored film that eventually came out obviously doctored.

Cameras do not lie or make mistakes but people do.

Especially when they try to doctor a video but forget to account for dozens upon dozens of apparently hallucinating eyewitnesses whose contradiction of what the film is purporting to sell.

Film footage ALWAYS trumps eyewitnesses when the two contradict.

That's what film doctors would like you to believe isn't it. "You gonna believe this film we sat on in our lab behind closed doors, or all these witnesses' hallucinating lying eyes?"


Now again, whether the car stops, "almost" stops, stops very briefly, or doesn't slow down at all, is irrelevant to the crime. None of those makes the shooting possible or impossible. All this tells us is that the film has been doctored. We know that because what it purports to show does not sync with aaaaaalllllll these eyewitnesses and news reports. Therefore it's been edited. The question is --- what has it been edited to hide?

You don't have the balls to address that. Because rainbows and unicorns and candy canes and shit, also the CIA is run by nuns who definitely wouldn't know anything about doctoring films, disguising evidence or any of that cloak-and-dagger stuff because what do we think they are, spies?

Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough (rode in LBJ's car)---"…When the noise of the shot was heard, the motorcade slowed to what seemed to me a complete stop (though it could have been a near stop)…After the third shot was fired, but only after the third shot was fired, the cavalcade speeded up, gained speed rapidly, and roared away to the Parkland Hospital."; "…The cars all stopped. I put in there [his affidavit], 'I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but for the protection of future Presidents, they [the Secret Service] should be trained to take off when a shot is fired." [7 H 439-440; Crossfire by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 482​

Why does the Whitewash Commission contradict 59 witnesses (10 police officers, 7 Secret Service agents, 37 spectators, 2 Presidential aides, 1 Senator, Governor Connally, and Jackie Kennedy)? Did the Whitewash Commission imbibe different hallucinogens?

I have some bridges for sale btw. I gives you a package deal.

Wrong you did not post any such number of people as I conclusively proved. You posted statements from 5 who said it stopped and that is all. The rest were debunked and many of them actually testified to the contrary of your claim.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the film was doctored making your claim that it was doctored and edited pure fiction. Sorry little boy but it was not OBVIOUSLY doctored or edited once again you must provide evidence that it was and you CANNOT do so.

You are no expert and your assertion is not valid. No one said hallucination I said they were wrong. That is fact and typical for ANY witness of any incident or event it is simple proven fact eyewitnesses are not credible or reliable, film is reliable. You whine about delusions and hallucinations because you have only a tiny numberof eyewitneesses who are clearly proven conclusively wro

Eyewitnesses are the weakest and least credible form of evidence.

I've posted maybe forty different people who all describe the same thing. And they spoke of it (and in the case of contemporary news media reported it) LOOONG before the CIA got to commandeer the narrative including with the doctored film that eventually came out obviously doctored.

Cameras do not lie or make mistakes but people do.

Especially when they try to doctor a video but forget to account for dozens upon dozens of apparently hallucinating eyewitnesses whose contradiction of what the film is purporting to sell.

Film footage ALWAYS trumps eyewitnesses when the two contradict.

That's what film doctors would like you to believe isn't it. "You gonna believe this film we sat on in our lab behind closed doors, or all these witnesses' hallucinating lying eyes?"


Now again, whether the car stops, "almost" stops, stops very briefly, or doesn't slow down at all, is irrelevant to the crime. None of those makes the shooting possible or impossible. All this tells us is that the film has been doctored. We know that because what it purports to show does not sync with aaaaaalllllll these eyewitnesses and news reports. Therefore it's been edited. The question is --- what has it been edited to hide?

You don't have the balls to address that. Because rainbows and unicorns and candy canes and shit, also the CIA is run by nuns who definitely wouldn't know anything about doctoring films, disguising evidence or any of that cloak-and-dagger stuff because what do we think they are, spies?

Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough (rode in LBJ's car)---"…When the noise of the shot was heard, the motorcade slowed to what seemed to me a complete stop (though it could have been a near stop)…After the third shot was fired, but only after the third shot was fired, the cavalcade speeded up, gained speed rapidly, and roared away to the Parkland Hospital."; "…The cars all stopped. I put in there [his affidavit], 'I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but for the protection of future Presidents, they [the Secret Service] should be trained to take off when a shot is fired." [7 H 439-440; Crossfire by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 482​

Why does the Whitewash Commission contradict 59 witnesses (10 police officers, 7 Secret Service agents, 37 spectators, 2 Presidential aides, 1 Senator, Governor Connally, and Jackie Kennedy)? Did the Whitewash Commission imbibe different hallucinogens?

I have some bridges for sale btw. I gives you a package deal.

You failed miserably which I proved and you know it so now you are simply lying like a coward.

You did not post 40 ******* witnesses BOY that claim is a cowardly and proven egregious lie.

You posted many which did not support your claim and several which contradict you and that has been proven. At best you posted 3 and only 3. You are also lying about delusions and hallucinations. Eyewitnesses are typically wrong and contradictory which doe snot mean hallucinating or delusional it simply means WRONG. The few witnesses who saw the limo stopped are proven wrong and that is fact you cannot refute or challenge.

The film was not OBVIOUSLY doctored or edited your assertions is nothing more than a fuzzy minded claim from you and you alone with no evidence of any kind to support or prove it and you are no expert nor is it obvious to anyone.

You have to provide evidence of such doctoring or editing and you cannot because no such evidence exists thus proving you to be yet more of a liar. and coward.

The film was not doctored an it proves you wrong and you really need to stop being a whiny brat when you have been debunked shredded and outclassed and YOU HAVE BEEN. Seriously boy stop being a baby.

It is not trivial or you would not be trying to lie like a ******* coward about is and you know you are lying like a little coward.

Yarborough said IT SEEMED. Do you know what the word SEEMED means? It means he was not certain and the film proves the limo did not stop and the film is legit with no evidence of being doctored or edited.

The Warren Commission contradicted no one and in fact you have no idea what their report says because you never read it.

Like most chumps that I school you only watched a few you tube films or the fictional movie JFK and think you know something.

Intelligent people ( leaving you out ) always consider both sides of a debate before judging which is correct. You will never have the guts or intellect to do so.

The crime was committed by Oswald as all of the evidence proves you cannot show any evidence to the contrary and I owned your weak ass every time you tried.

Everyone knows I shredded beat and debunked your every retarded claim to the contrary. Where is some evidence? Show some or shut up.

Of course dear.

It was a grandiose CIA experiment involving genetically modified LSD. They engineered an entire scene into the DNA of special vaporized LSD and then seeded the clouds the previous night, so that everyone would breathe it in by noon. This chemical engineering triggered a tiny little movie in everybody's head that made it look like the car stopped. And the experiment worked perfectly in 59 witnesses.

That makes way more sense than the cockamamie idea that they actually reported what actually happened. Because nobody's ever found a way to doctor a film. That's crazy talk.

Or to paraphrase a common wisdom --- "you gonna believe a cloak-and-dagger agency that the victim was out to destroy, or 118 lying eyes"?

SMH

 

[Soupnazi630]

Eyewitnesses are the weakest and least credible form of evidence.

I've posted maybe forty different people who all describe the same thing. And they spoke of it (and in the case of contemporary news media reported it) LOOONG before the CIA got to commandeer the narrative including with the doctored film that eventually came out obviously doctored.

Cameras do not lie or make mistakes but people do.

Especially when they try to doctor a video but forget to account for dozens upon dozens of apparently hallucinating eyewitnesses whose contradiction of what the film is purporting to sell.

Film footage ALWAYS trumps eyewitnesses when the two contradict.

That's what film doctors would like you to believe isn't it. "You gonna believe this film we sat on in our lab behind closed doors, or all these witnesses' hallucinating lying eyes?"


Now again, whether the car stops, "almost" stops, stops very briefly, or doesn't slow down at all, is irrelevant to the crime. None of those makes the shooting possible or impossible. All this tells us is that the film has been doctored. We know that because what it purports to show does not sync with aaaaaalllllll these eyewitnesses and news reports. Therefore it's been edited. The question is --- what has it been edited to hide?

You don't have the balls to address that. Because rainbows and unicorns and candy canes and shit, also the CIA is run by nuns who definitely wouldn't know anything about doctoring films, disguising evidence or any of that cloak-and-dagger stuff because what do we think they are, spies?

Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough (rode in LBJ's car)---"…When the noise of the shot was heard, the motorcade slowed to what seemed to me a complete stop (though it could have been a near stop)…After the third shot was fired, but only after the third shot was fired, the cavalcade speeded up, gained speed rapidly, and roared away to the Parkland Hospital."; "…The cars all stopped. I put in there [his affidavit], 'I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but for the protection of future Presidents, they [the Secret Service] should be trained to take off when a shot is fired." [7 H 439-440; Crossfire by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 482​

Why does the Whitewash Commission contradict 59 witnesses (10 police officers, 7 Secret Service agents, 37 spectators, 2 Presidential aides, 1 Senator, Governor Connally, and Jackie Kennedy)? Did the Whitewash Commission imbibe different hallucinogens?

I have some bridges for sale btw. I gives you a package deal.

Wrong you did not post any such number of people as I conclusively proved. You posted statements from 5 who said it stopped and that is all. The rest were debunked and many of them actually testified to the contrary of your claim.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the film was doctored making your claim that it was doctored and edited pure fiction. Sorry little boy but it was not OBVIOUSLY doctored or edited once again you must provide evidence that it was and you CANNOT do so.

You are no expert and your assertion is not valid. No one said hallucination I said they were wrong. That is fact and typical for ANY witness of any incident or event it is simple proven fact eyewitnesses are not credible or reliable, film is reliable. You whine about delusions and hallucinations because you have only a tiny numberof eyewitneesses who are clearly proven conclusively wro

Eyewitnesses are the weakest and least credible form of evidence.

I've posted maybe forty different people who all describe the same thing. And they spoke of it (and in the case of contemporary news media reported it) LOOONG before the CIA got to commandeer the narrative including with the doctored film that eventually came out obviously doctored.

Cameras do not lie or make mistakes but people do.

Especially when they try to doctor a video but forget to account for dozens upon dozens of apparently hallucinating eyewitnesses whose contradiction of what the film is purporting to sell.

Film footage ALWAYS trumps eyewitnesses when the two contradict.

That's what film doctors would like you to believe isn't it. "You gonna believe this film we sat on in our lab behind closed doors, or all these witnesses' hallucinating lying eyes?"


Now again, whether the car stops, "almost" stops, stops very briefly, or doesn't slow down at all, is irrelevant to the crime. None of those makes the shooting possible or impossible. All this tells us is that the film has been doctored. We know that because what it purports to show does not sync with aaaaaalllllll these eyewitnesses and news reports. Therefore it's been edited. The question is --- what has it been edited to hide?

You don't have the balls to address that. Because rainbows and unicorns and candy canes and shit, also the CIA is run by nuns who definitely wouldn't know anything about doctoring films, disguising evidence or any of that cloak-and-dagger stuff because what do we think they are, spies?

Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough (rode in LBJ's car)---"…When the noise of the shot was heard, the motorcade slowed to what seemed to me a complete stop (though it could have been a near stop)…After the third shot was fired, but only after the third shot was fired, the cavalcade speeded up, gained speed rapidly, and roared away to the Parkland Hospital."; "…The cars all stopped. I put in there [his affidavit], 'I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but for the protection of future Presidents, they [the Secret Service] should be trained to take off when a shot is fired." [7 H 439-440; Crossfire by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 482​

Why does the Whitewash Commission contradict 59 witnesses (10 police officers, 7 Secret Service agents, 37 spectators, 2 Presidential aides, 1 Senator, Governor Connally, and Jackie Kennedy)? Did the Whitewash Commission imbibe different hallucinogens?

I have some bridges for sale btw. I gives you a package deal.

You failed miserably which I proved and you know it so now you are simply lying like a coward.

You did not post 40 ******* witnesses BOY that claim is a cowardly and proven egregious lie.

You posted many which did not support your claim and several which contradict you and that has been proven. At best you posted 3 and only 3. You are also lying about delusions and hallucinations. Eyewitnesses are typically wrong and contradictory which doe snot mean hallucinating or delusional it simply means WRONG. The few witnesses who saw the limo stopped are proven wrong and that is fact you cannot refute or challenge.

The film was not OBVIOUSLY doctored or edited your assertions is nothing more than a fuzzy minded claim from you and you alone with no evidence of any kind to support or prove it and you are no expert nor is it obvious to anyone.

You have to provide evidence of such doctoring or editing and you cannot because no such evidence exists thus proving you to be yet more of a liar. and coward.

The film was not doctored an it proves you wrong and you really need to stop being a whiny brat when you have been debunked shredded and outclassed and YOU HAVE BEEN. Seriously boy stop being a baby.

It is not trivial or you would not be trying to lie like a ******* coward about is and you know you are lying like a little coward.

Yarborough said IT SEEMED. Do you know what the word SEEMED means? It means he was not certain and the film proves the limo did not stop and the film is legit with no evidence of being doctored or edited.

The Warren Commission contradicted no one and in fact you have no idea what their report says because you never read it.

Like most chumps that I school you only watched a few you tube films or the fictional movie JFK and think you know something.

Intelligent people ( leaving you out ) always consider both sides of a debate before judging which is correct. You will never have the guts or intellect to do so.

The crime was committed by Oswald as all of the evidence proves you cannot show any evidence to the contrary and I owned your weak ass every time you tried.

Everyone knows I shredded beat and debunked your every retarded claim to the contrary. Where is some evidence? Show some or shut up.

Of course dear.

It was a grandiose CIA experiment involving genetically modified LSD. They engineered an entire scene into the DNA of special vaporized LSD and then seeded the clouds the previous night, so that everyone would breathe it in by noon. This chemical engineering triggered a tiny little movie in everybody's head that made it look like the car stopped. And the experiment worked perfectly in 59 witnesses.

That makes way more sense than the cockamamie idea that they actually reported what actually happened. Because nobody's ever found a way to doctor a film. That's crazy talk.

Or to paraphrase a common wisdom --- "you gonna believe a cloak-and-dagger agency that the victim was out to destroy, or 118 lying eyes"?

SMH

\You do not have 118 eyewitnesses supporting you, You do not have 59 witnesses supporting you.

You have a very few uncertain witnesses.

You ignore the fact that cameras do not lie. If twenty people see a bank robbery it is COMMON for then to disagree on details. This is why banks always have security cameras. Some witnesses may remember 3 criminals others may remember 2. The camera will only record and not remember anything. Whatever number of criminals the camera records is correct and those witnesses who disagree are simply WRONG.

You fail at the numbers game as well because it is irrelevant whether it is ten or a thousand witnesses if the camera proves them wrong they are simply wrong.

That makes more sense than the stupidity you are desperately trying to defend but failing at.

No one quoted a government agency or believes one. Nothing I have said about this issue originates from a cloak and dagger agency.

The CIA has nothing to do with any of this. They did not take custody of the film or have custody of it. You stated an outright stupid lie by making such a claim and you did\ make exactly that claim in an earlier post.

Sorry little boy but you lose and are defeated.

Your only claim is that the film COULD have hypothetically been altered. However anything is hypothetically possible. What you do not have is any evidence that it WAS altered you do not even have evidence that a government agency had possession of it which would have given them an OPPORTUNITY to alter it.

Massive failure for you and you lose, The car did not stop end of story and you ******* know it.

 

[Pogo]

Eyewitnesses are the weakest and least credible form of evidence.

I've posted maybe forty different people who all describe the same thing. And they spoke of it (and in the case of contemporary news media reported it) LOOONG before the CIA got to commandeer the narrative including with the doctored film that eventually came out obviously doctored.

Cameras do not lie or make mistakes but people do.

Especially when they try to doctor a video but forget to account for dozens upon dozens of apparently hallucinating eyewitnesses whose contradiction of what the film is purporting to sell.

Film footage ALWAYS trumps eyewitnesses when the two contradict.

That's what film doctors would like you to believe isn't it. "You gonna believe this film we sat on in our lab behind closed doors, or all these witnesses' hallucinating lying eyes?"


Now again, whether the car stops, "almost" stops, stops very briefly, or doesn't slow down at all, is irrelevant to the crime. None of those makes the shooting possible or impossible. All this tells us is that the film has been doctored. We know that because what it purports to show does not sync with aaaaaalllllll these eyewitnesses and news reports. Therefore it's been edited. The question is --- what has it been edited to hide?

You don't have the balls to address that. Because rainbows and unicorns and candy canes and shit, also the CIA is run by nuns who definitely wouldn't know anything about doctoring films, disguising evidence or any of that cloak-and-dagger stuff because what do we think they are, spies?

Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough (rode in LBJ's car)---"…When the noise of the shot was heard, the motorcade slowed to what seemed to me a complete stop (though it could have been a near stop)…After the third shot was fired, but only after the third shot was fired, the cavalcade speeded up, gained speed rapidly, and roared away to the Parkland Hospital."; "…The cars all stopped. I put in there [his affidavit], 'I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but for the protection of future Presidents, they [the Secret Service] should be trained to take off when a shot is fired." [7 H 439-440; Crossfire by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 482​

Why does the Whitewash Commission contradict 59 witnesses (10 police officers, 7 Secret Service agents, 37 spectators, 2 Presidential aides, 1 Senator, Governor Connally, and Jackie Kennedy)? Did the Whitewash Commission imbibe different hallucinogens?

I have some bridges for sale btw. I gives you a package deal.

Wrong you did not post any such number of people as I conclusively proved. You posted statements from 5 who said it stopped and that is all. The rest were debunked and many of them actually testified to the contrary of your claim.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the film was doctored making your claim that it was doctored and edited pure fiction. Sorry little boy but it was not OBVIOUSLY doctored or edited once again you must provide evidence that it was and you CANNOT do so.

You are no expert and your assertion is not valid. No one said hallucination I said they were wrong. That is fact and typical for ANY witness of any incident or event it is simple proven fact eyewitnesses are not credible or reliable, film is reliable. You whine about delusions and hallucinations because you have only a tiny numberof eyewitneesses who are clearly proven conclusively wro

Eyewitnesses are the weakest and least credible form of evidence.

I've posted maybe forty different people who all describe the same thing. And they spoke of it (and in the case of contemporary news media reported it) LOOONG before the CIA got to commandeer the narrative including with the doctored film that eventually came out obviously doctored.

Cameras do not lie or make mistakes but people do.

Especially when they try to doctor a video but forget to account for dozens upon dozens of apparently hallucinating eyewitnesses whose contradiction of what the film is purporting to sell.

Film footage ALWAYS trumps eyewitnesses when the two contradict.

That's what film doctors would like you to believe isn't it. "You gonna believe this film we sat on in our lab behind closed doors, or all these witnesses' hallucinating lying eyes?"


Now again, whether the car stops, "almost" stops, stops very briefly, or doesn't slow down at all, is irrelevant to the crime. None of those makes the shooting possible or impossible. All this tells us is that the film has been doctored. We know that because what it purports to show does not sync with aaaaaalllllll these eyewitnesses and news reports. Therefore it's been edited. The question is --- what has it been edited to hide?

You don't have the balls to address that. Because rainbows and unicorns and candy canes and shit, also the CIA is run by nuns who definitely wouldn't know anything about doctoring films, disguising evidence or any of that cloak-and-dagger stuff because what do we think they are, spies?

Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough (rode in LBJ's car)---"…When the noise of the shot was heard, the motorcade slowed to what seemed to me a complete stop (though it could have been a near stop)…After the third shot was fired, but only after the third shot was fired, the cavalcade speeded up, gained speed rapidly, and roared away to the Parkland Hospital."; "…The cars all stopped. I put in there [his affidavit], 'I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but for the protection of future Presidents, they [the Secret Service] should be trained to take off when a shot is fired." [7 H 439-440; Crossfire by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 482​

Why does the Whitewash Commission contradict 59 witnesses (10 police officers, 7 Secret Service agents, 37 spectators, 2 Presidential aides, 1 Senator, Governor Connally, and Jackie Kennedy)? Did the Whitewash Commission imbibe different hallucinogens?

I have some bridges for sale btw. I gives you a package deal.

You failed miserably which I proved and you know it so now you are simply lying like a coward.

You did not post 40 ******* witnesses BOY that claim is a cowardly and proven egregious lie.

You posted many which did not support your claim and several which contradict you and that has been proven. At best you posted 3 and only 3. You are also lying about delusions and hallucinations. Eyewitnesses are typically wrong and contradictory which doe snot mean hallucinating or delusional it simply means WRONG. The few witnesses who saw the limo stopped are proven wrong and that is fact you cannot refute or challenge.

The film was not OBVIOUSLY doctored or edited your assertions is nothing more than a fuzzy minded claim from you and you alone with no evidence of any kind to support or prove it and you are no expert nor is it obvious to anyone.

You have to provide evidence of such doctoring or editing and you cannot because no such evidence exists thus proving you to be yet more of a liar. and coward.

The film was not doctored an it proves you wrong and you really need to stop being a whiny brat when you have been debunked shredded and outclassed and YOU HAVE BEEN. Seriously boy stop being a baby.

It is not trivial or you would not be trying to lie like a ******* coward about is and you know you are lying like a little coward.

Yarborough said IT SEEMED. Do you know what the word SEEMED means? It means he was not certain and the film proves the limo did not stop and the film is legit with no evidence of being doctored or edited.

The Warren Commission contradicted no one and in fact you have no idea what their report says because you never read it.

Like most chumps that I school you only watched a few you tube films or the fictional movie JFK and think you know something.

Intelligent people ( leaving you out ) always consider both sides of a debate before judging which is correct. You will never have the guts or intellect to do so.

The crime was committed by Oswald as all of the evidence proves you cannot show any evidence to the contrary and I owned your weak ass every time you tried.

Everyone knows I shredded beat and debunked your every retarded claim to the contrary. Where is some evidence? Show some or shut up.

Of course dear.

It was a grandiose CIA experiment involving genetically modified LSD. They engineered an entire scene into the DNA of special vaporized LSD and then seeded the clouds the previous night, so that everyone would breathe it in by noon. This chemical engineering triggered a tiny little movie in everybody's head that made it look like the car stopped. And the experiment worked perfectly in 59 witnesses.

That makes way more sense than the cockamamie idea that they actually reported what actually happened. Because nobody's ever found a way to doctor a film. That's crazy talk.

Or to paraphrase a common wisdom --- "you gonna believe a cloak-and-dagger agency that the victim was out to destroy, or 118 lying eyes"?

SMH

\You do not have 118 eyewitnesses supporting you, You do not have 59 witnesses supporting you.

You have a very few uncertain witnesses.

You ignore the fact that cameras do not lie. If twenty people see a bank robbery it is COMMON for then to disagree on details. This is why banks always have security cameras. Some witnesses may remember 3 criminals others may remember 2. The camera will only record and not remember anything. Whatever number of criminals the camera records is correct and those witnesses who disagree are simply WRONG.

You fail at the numbers game as well because it is irrelevant whether it is ten or a thousand witnesses if the camera proves them wrong they are simply wrong.

That makes more sense than the stupidity you are desperately trying to defend but failing at.

No one quoted a government agency or believes one. Nothing I have said about this issue originates from a cloak and dagger agency.

The CIA has nothing to do with any of this. They did not take custody of the film or have custody of it. You stated an outright stupid lie by making such a claim and you did\ make exactly that claim in an earlier post.

Sorry little boy but you lose and are defeated.

Your only claim is that the film COULD have hypothetically been altered. However anything is hypothetically possible. What you do not have is any evidence that it WAS altered you do not even have evidence that a government agency had possession of it which would have given them an OPPORTUNITY to alter it.

Massive failure for you and you lose, The car did not stop end of story and you ******* know it.

Incredibobble. He's actually going to the "Photoshop doesn't lie" well.

Besides which, what the hell would a SPY agency know about deception.

OMFG the density.....

 

[Soupnazi630]

Eyewitnesses are the weakest and least credible form of evidence.

I've posted maybe forty different people who all describe the same thing. And they spoke of it (and in the case of contemporary news media reported it) LOOONG before the CIA got to commandeer the narrative including with the doctored film that eventually came out obviously doctored.

Cameras do not lie or make mistakes but people do.

Especially when they try to doctor a video but forget to account for dozens upon dozens of apparently hallucinating eyewitnesses whose contradiction of what the film is purporting to sell.

Film footage ALWAYS trumps eyewitnesses when the two contradict.

That's what film doctors would like you to believe isn't it. "You gonna believe this film we sat on in our lab behind closed doors, or all these witnesses' hallucinating lying eyes?"


Now again, whether the car stops, "almost" stops, stops very briefly, or doesn't slow down at all, is irrelevant to the crime. None of those makes the shooting possible or impossible. All this tells us is that the film has been doctored. We know that because what it purports to show does not sync with aaaaaalllllll these eyewitnesses and news reports. Therefore it's been edited. The question is --- what has it been edited to hide?

You don't have the balls to address that. Because rainbows and unicorns and candy canes and shit, also the CIA is run by nuns who definitely wouldn't know anything about doctoring films, disguising evidence or any of that cloak-and-dagger stuff because what do we think they are, spies?

Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough (rode in LBJ's car)---"…When the noise of the shot was heard, the motorcade slowed to what seemed to me a complete stop (though it could have been a near stop)…After the third shot was fired, but only after the third shot was fired, the cavalcade speeded up, gained speed rapidly, and roared away to the Parkland Hospital."; "…The cars all stopped. I put in there [his affidavit], 'I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but for the protection of future Presidents, they [the Secret Service] should be trained to take off when a shot is fired." [7 H 439-440; Crossfire by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 482​

Why does the Whitewash Commission contradict 59 witnesses (10 police officers, 7 Secret Service agents, 37 spectators, 2 Presidential aides, 1 Senator, Governor Connally, and Jackie Kennedy)? Did the Whitewash Commission imbibe different hallucinogens?

I have some bridges for sale btw. I gives you a package deal.

Wrong you did not post any such number of people as I conclusively proved. You posted statements from 5 who said it stopped and that is all. The rest were debunked and many of them actually testified to the contrary of your claim.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the film was doctored making your claim that it was doctored and edited pure fiction. Sorry little boy but it was not OBVIOUSLY doctored or edited once again you must provide evidence that it was and you CANNOT do so.

You are no expert and your assertion is not valid. No one said hallucination I said they were wrong. That is fact and typical for ANY witness of any incident or event it is simple proven fact eyewitnesses are not credible or reliable, film is reliable. You whine about delusions and hallucinations because you have only a tiny numberof eyewitneesses who are clearly proven conclusively wro

Eyewitnesses are the weakest and least credible form of evidence.

I've posted maybe forty different people who all describe the same thing. And they spoke of it (and in the case of contemporary news media reported it) LOOONG before the CIA got to commandeer the narrative including with the doctored film that eventually came out obviously doctored.

Cameras do not lie or make mistakes but people do.

Especially when they try to doctor a video but forget to account for dozens upon dozens of apparently hallucinating eyewitnesses whose contradiction of what the film is purporting to sell.

Film footage ALWAYS trumps eyewitnesses when the two contradict.

That's what film doctors would like you to believe isn't it. "You gonna believe this film we sat on in our lab behind closed doors, or all these witnesses' hallucinating lying eyes?"


Now again, whether the car stops, "almost" stops, stops very briefly, or doesn't slow down at all, is irrelevant to the crime. None of those makes the shooting possible or impossible. All this tells us is that the film has been doctored. We know that because what it purports to show does not sync with aaaaaalllllll these eyewitnesses and news reports. Therefore it's been edited. The question is --- what has it been edited to hide?

You don't have the balls to address that. Because rainbows and unicorns and candy canes and shit, also the CIA is run by nuns who definitely wouldn't know anything about doctoring films, disguising evidence or any of that cloak-and-dagger stuff because what do we think they are, spies?

Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough (rode in LBJ's car)---"…When the noise of the shot was heard, the motorcade slowed to what seemed to me a complete stop (though it could have been a near stop)…After the third shot was fired, but only after the third shot was fired, the cavalcade speeded up, gained speed rapidly, and roared away to the Parkland Hospital."; "…The cars all stopped. I put in there [his affidavit], 'I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but for the protection of future Presidents, they [the Secret Service] should be trained to take off when a shot is fired." [7 H 439-440; Crossfire by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 482​

Why does the Whitewash Commission contradict 59 witnesses (10 police officers, 7 Secret Service agents, 37 spectators, 2 Presidential aides, 1 Senator, Governor Connally, and Jackie Kennedy)? Did the Whitewash Commission imbibe different hallucinogens?

I have some bridges for sale btw. I gives you a package deal.

You failed miserably which I proved and you know it so now you are simply lying like a coward.

You did not post 40 ******* witnesses BOY that claim is a cowardly and proven egregious lie.

You posted many which did not support your claim and several which contradict you and that has been proven. At best you posted 3 and only 3. You are also lying about delusions and hallucinations. Eyewitnesses are typically wrong and contradictory which doe snot mean hallucinating or delusional it simply means WRONG. The few witnesses who saw the limo stopped are proven wrong and that is fact you cannot refute or challenge.

The film was not OBVIOUSLY doctored or edited your assertions is nothing more than a fuzzy minded claim from you and you alone with no evidence of any kind to support or prove it and you are no expert nor is it obvious to anyone.

You have to provide evidence of such doctoring or editing and you cannot because no such evidence exists thus proving you to be yet more of a liar. and coward.

The film was not doctored an it proves you wrong and you really need to stop being a whiny brat when you have been debunked shredded and outclassed and YOU HAVE BEEN. Seriously boy stop being a baby.

It is not trivial or you would not be trying to lie like a ******* coward about is and you know you are lying like a little coward.

Yarborough said IT SEEMED. Do you know what the word SEEMED means? It means he was not certain and the film proves the limo did not stop and the film is legit with no evidence of being doctored or edited.

The Warren Commission contradicted no one and in fact you have no idea what their report says because you never read it.

Like most chumps that I school you only watched a few you tube films or the fictional movie JFK and think you know something.

Intelligent people ( leaving you out ) always consider both sides of a debate before judging which is correct. You will never have the guts or intellect to do so.

The crime was committed by Oswald as all of the evidence proves you cannot show any evidence to the contrary and I owned your weak ass every time you tried.

Everyone knows I shredded beat and debunked your every retarded claim to the contrary. Where is some evidence? Show some or shut up.

Of course dear.

It was a grandiose CIA experiment involving genetically modified LSD. They engineered an entire scene into the DNA of special vaporized LSD and then seeded the clouds the previous night, so that everyone would breathe it in by noon. This chemical engineering triggered a tiny little movie in everybody's head that made it look like the car stopped. And the experiment worked perfectly in 59 witnesses.

That makes way more sense than the cockamamie idea that they actually reported what actually happened. Because nobody's ever found a way to doctor a film. That's crazy talk.

Or to paraphrase a common wisdom --- "you gonna believe a cloak-and-dagger agency that the victim was out to destroy, or 118 lying eyes"?

SMH

\You do not have 118 eyewitnesses supporting you, You do not have 59 witnesses supporting you.

You have a very few uncertain witnesses.

You ignore the fact that cameras do not lie. If twenty people see a bank robbery it is COMMON for then to disagree on details. This is why banks always have security cameras. Some witnesses may remember 3 criminals others may remember 2. The camera will only record and not remember anything. Whatever number of criminals the camera records is correct and those witnesses who disagree are simply WRONG.

You fail at the numbers game as well because it is irrelevant whether it is ten or a thousand witnesses if the camera proves them wrong they are simply wrong.

That makes more sense than the stupidity you are desperately trying to defend but failing at.

No one quoted a government agency or believes one. Nothing I have said about this issue originates from a cloak and dagger agency.

The CIA has nothing to do with any of this. They did not take custody of the film or have custody of it. You stated an outright stupid lie by making such a claim and you did\ make exactly that claim in an earlier post.

Sorry little boy but you lose and are defeated.

Your only claim is that the film COULD have hypothetically been altered. However anything is hypothetically possible. What you do not have is any evidence that it WAS altered you do not even have evidence that a government agency had possession of it which would have given them an OPPORTUNITY to alter it.

Massive failure for you and you lose, The car did not stop end of story and you ******* know it.

Incredibobble. He's actually going to the "Photoshop doesn't lie" well.

Besides which, what the hell would a SPY agency know about deception.

OMFG the density.....

No I clearly said cameras do not lie.

They do not.

It is you stating a baldfaced lie that the film was photo shopped or edited or altered.

I clearly addressed the fact that anything is possible what you are sensationally failing at is providing any evidence that such photoshopping or editing or alteration took place.

One more time junior, saying something could happen does not prove it DID.

You have nothing and Abraham Zapruder's camera has made you into a *****.

No spy agency is involved in this discussion.

 

[gipper]

I've posted maybe forty different people who all describe the same thing. And they spoke of it (and in the case of contemporary news media reported it) LOOONG before the CIA got to commandeer the narrative including with the doctored film that eventually came out obviously doctored.


Especially when they try to doctor a video but forget to account for dozens upon dozens of apparently hallucinating eyewitnesses whose contradiction of what the film is purporting to sell.


That's what film doctors would like you to believe isn't it. "You gonna believe this film we sat on in our lab behind closed doors, or all these witnesses' hallucinating lying eyes?"


Now again, whether the car stops, "almost" stops, stops very briefly, or doesn't slow down at all, is irrelevant to the crime. None of those makes the shooting possible or impossible. All this tells us is that the film has been doctored. We know that because what it purports to show does not sync with aaaaaalllllll these eyewitnesses and news reports. Therefore it's been edited. The question is --- what has it been edited to hide?

You don't have the balls to address that. Because rainbows and unicorns and candy canes and shit, also the CIA is run by nuns who definitely wouldn't know anything about doctoring films, disguising evidence or any of that cloak-and-dagger stuff because what do we think they are, spies?

Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough (rode in LBJ's car)---"…When the noise of the shot was heard, the motorcade slowed to what seemed to me a complete stop (though it could have been a near stop)…After the third shot was fired, but only after the third shot was fired, the cavalcade speeded up, gained speed rapidly, and roared away to the Parkland Hospital."; "…The cars all stopped. I put in there [his affidavit], 'I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but for the protection of future Presidents, they [the Secret Service] should be trained to take off when a shot is fired." [7 H 439-440; Crossfire by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 482​

Why does the Whitewash Commission contradict 59 witnesses (10 police officers, 7 Secret Service agents, 37 spectators, 2 Presidential aides, 1 Senator, Governor Connally, and Jackie Kennedy)? Did the Whitewash Commission imbibe different hallucinogens?

I have some bridges for sale btw. I gives you a package deal.

Wrong you did not post any such number of people as I conclusively proved. You posted statements from 5 who said it stopped and that is all. The rest were debunked and many of them actually testified to the contrary of your claim.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the film was doctored making your claim that it was doctored and edited pure fiction. Sorry little boy but it was not OBVIOUSLY doctored or edited once again you must provide evidence that it was and you CANNOT do so.

You are no expert and your assertion is not valid. No one said hallucination I said they were wrong. That is fact and typical for ANY witness of any incident or event it is simple proven fact eyewitnesses are not credible or reliable, film is reliable. You whine about delusions and hallucinations because you have only a tiny numberof eyewitneesses who are clearly proven conclusively wro

I've posted maybe forty different people who all describe the same thing. And they spoke of it (and in the case of contemporary news media reported it) LOOONG before the CIA got to commandeer the narrative including with the doctored film that eventually came out obviously doctored.


Especially when they try to doctor a video but forget to account for dozens upon dozens of apparently hallucinating eyewitnesses whose contradiction of what the film is purporting to sell.


That's what film doctors would like you to believe isn't it. "You gonna believe this film we sat on in our lab behind closed doors, or all these witnesses' hallucinating lying eyes?"


Now again, whether the car stops, "almost" stops, stops very briefly, or doesn't slow down at all, is irrelevant to the crime. None of those makes the shooting possible or impossible. All this tells us is that the film has been doctored. We know that because what it purports to show does not sync with aaaaaalllllll these eyewitnesses and news reports. Therefore it's been edited. The question is --- what has it been edited to hide?

You don't have the balls to address that. Because rainbows and unicorns and candy canes and shit, also the CIA is run by nuns who definitely wouldn't know anything about doctoring films, disguising evidence or any of that cloak-and-dagger stuff because what do we think they are, spies?

Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough (rode in LBJ's car)---"…When the noise of the shot was heard, the motorcade slowed to what seemed to me a complete stop (though it could have been a near stop)…After the third shot was fired, but only after the third shot was fired, the cavalcade speeded up, gained speed rapidly, and roared away to the Parkland Hospital."; "…The cars all stopped. I put in there [his affidavit], 'I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but for the protection of future Presidents, they [the Secret Service] should be trained to take off when a shot is fired." [7 H 439-440; Crossfire by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 482​

Why does the Whitewash Commission contradict 59 witnesses (10 police officers, 7 Secret Service agents, 37 spectators, 2 Presidential aides, 1 Senator, Governor Connally, and Jackie Kennedy)? Did the Whitewash Commission imbibe different hallucinogens?

I have some bridges for sale btw. I gives you a package deal.

You failed miserably which I proved and you know it so now you are simply lying like a coward.

You did not post 40 ******* witnesses BOY that claim is a cowardly and proven egregious lie.

You posted many which did not support your claim and several which contradict you and that has been proven. At best you posted 3 and only 3. You are also lying about delusions and hallucinations. Eyewitnesses are typically wrong and contradictory which doe snot mean hallucinating or delusional it simply means WRONG. The few witnesses who saw the limo stopped are proven wrong and that is fact you cannot refute or challenge.

The film was not OBVIOUSLY doctored or edited your assertions is nothing more than a fuzzy minded claim from you and you alone with no evidence of any kind to support or prove it and you are no expert nor is it obvious to anyone.

You have to provide evidence of such doctoring or editing and you cannot because no such evidence exists thus proving you to be yet more of a liar. and coward.

The film was not doctored an it proves you wrong and you really need to stop being a whiny brat when you have been debunked shredded and outclassed and YOU HAVE BEEN. Seriously boy stop being a baby.

It is not trivial or you would not be trying to lie like a ******* coward about is and you know you are lying like a little coward.

Yarborough said IT SEEMED. Do you know what the word SEEMED means? It means he was not certain and the film proves the limo did not stop and the film is legit with no evidence of being doctored or edited.

The Warren Commission contradicted no one and in fact you have no idea what their report says because you never read it.

Like most chumps that I school you only watched a few you tube films or the fictional movie JFK and think you know something.

Intelligent people ( leaving you out ) always consider both sides of a debate before judging which is correct. You will never have the guts or intellect to do so.

The crime was committed by Oswald as all of the evidence proves you cannot show any evidence to the contrary and I owned your weak ass every time you tried.

Everyone knows I shredded beat and debunked your every retarded claim to the contrary. Where is some evidence? Show some or shut up.

Of course dear.

It was a grandiose CIA experiment involving genetically modified LSD. They engineered an entire scene into the DNA of special vaporized LSD and then seeded the clouds the previous night, so that everyone would breathe it in by noon. This chemical engineering triggered a tiny little movie in everybody's head that made it look like the car stopped. And the experiment worked perfectly in 59 witnesses.

That makes way more sense than the cockamamie idea that they actually reported what actually happened. Because nobody's ever found a way to doctor a film. That's crazy talk.

Or to paraphrase a common wisdom --- "you gonna believe a cloak-and-dagger agency that the victim was out to destroy, or 118 lying eyes"?

SMH

\You do not have 118 eyewitnesses supporting you, You do not have 59 witnesses supporting you.

You have a very few uncertain witnesses.

You ignore the fact that cameras do not lie. If twenty people see a bank robbery it is COMMON for then to disagree on details. This is why banks always have security cameras. Some witnesses may remember 3 criminals others may remember 2. The camera will only record and not remember anything. Whatever number of criminals the camera records is correct and those witnesses who disagree are simply WRONG.

You fail at the numbers game as well because it is irrelevant whether it is ten or a thousand witnesses if the camera proves them wrong they are simply wrong.

That makes more sense than the stupidity you are desperately trying to defend but failing at.

No one quoted a government agency or believes one. Nothing I have said about this issue originates from a cloak and dagger agency.

The CIA has nothing to do with any of this. They did not take custody of the film or have custody of it. You stated an outright stupid lie by making such a claim and you did\ make exactly that claim in an earlier post.

Sorry little boy but you lose and are defeated.

Your only claim is that the film COULD have hypothetically been altered. However anything is hypothetically possible. What you do not have is any evidence that it WAS altered you do not even have evidence that a government agency had possession of it which would have given them an OPPORTUNITY to alter it.

Massive failure for you and you lose, The car did not stop end of story and you ******* know it.

Incredibobble. He's actually going to the "Photoshop doesn't lie" well.

Besides which, what the hell would a SPY agency know about deception.

OMFG the density.....

No I clearly said cameras do not lie.

They do not.

It is you stating a baldfaced lie that the film was photo shopped or edited or altered.

I clearly addressed the fact that anything is possible what you are sensationally failing at is providing any evidence that such photoshopping or editing or alteration took place.

One more time junior, saying something could happen does not prove it DID.

You have nothing and Abraham Zapruder's camera has made you into a *****.

No spy agency is involved in this discussion.

Cameras lie when your buddies at the CIA doctor them, like they doctored JFK’s head.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong you did not post any such number of people as I conclusively proved. You posted statements from 5 who said it stopped and that is all. The rest were debunked and many of them actually testified to the contrary of your claim.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the film was doctored making your claim that it was doctored and edited pure fiction. Sorry little boy but it was not OBVIOUSLY doctored or edited once again you must provide evidence that it was and you CANNOT do so.

You are no expert and your assertion is not valid. No one said hallucination I said they were wrong. That is fact and typical for ANY witness of any incident or event it is simple proven fact eyewitnesses are not credible or reliable, film is reliable. You whine about delusions and hallucinations because you have only a tiny numberof eyewitneesses who are clearly proven conclusively wro
You failed miserably which I proved and you know it so now you are simply lying like a coward.

You did not post 40 ******* witnesses BOY that claim is a cowardly and proven egregious lie.

You posted many which did not support your claim and several which contradict you and that has been proven. At best you posted 3 and only 3. You are also lying about delusions and hallucinations. Eyewitnesses are typically wrong and contradictory which doe snot mean hallucinating or delusional it simply means WRONG. The few witnesses who saw the limo stopped are proven wrong and that is fact you cannot refute or challenge.

The film was not OBVIOUSLY doctored or edited your assertions is nothing more than a fuzzy minded claim from you and you alone with no evidence of any kind to support or prove it and you are no expert nor is it obvious to anyone.

You have to provide evidence of such doctoring or editing and you cannot because no such evidence exists thus proving you to be yet more of a liar. and coward.

The film was not doctored an it proves you wrong and you really need to stop being a whiny brat when you have been debunked shredded and outclassed and YOU HAVE BEEN. Seriously boy stop being a baby.

It is not trivial or you would not be trying to lie like a ******* coward about is and you know you are lying like a little coward.

Yarborough said IT SEEMED. Do you know what the word SEEMED means? It means he was not certain and the film proves the limo did not stop and the film is legit with no evidence of being doctored or edited.

The Warren Commission contradicted no one and in fact you have no idea what their report says because you never read it.

Like most chumps that I school you only watched a few you tube films or the fictional movie JFK and think you know something.

Intelligent people ( leaving you out ) always consider both sides of a debate before judging which is correct. You will never have the guts or intellect to do so.

The crime was committed by Oswald as all of the evidence proves you cannot show any evidence to the contrary and I owned your weak ass every time you tried.

Everyone knows I shredded beat and debunked your every retarded claim to the contrary. Where is some evidence? Show some or shut up.

Of course dear.

It was a grandiose CIA experiment involving genetically modified LSD. They engineered an entire scene into the DNA of special vaporized LSD and then seeded the clouds the previous night, so that everyone would breathe it in by noon. This chemical engineering triggered a tiny little movie in everybody's head that made it look like the car stopped. And the experiment worked perfectly in 59 witnesses.

That makes way more sense than the cockamamie idea that they actually reported what actually happened. Because nobody's ever found a way to doctor a film. That's crazy talk.

Or to paraphrase a common wisdom --- "you gonna believe a cloak-and-dagger agency that the victim was out to destroy, or 118 lying eyes"?

SMH

\You do not have 118 eyewitnesses supporting you, You do not have 59 witnesses supporting you.

You have a very few uncertain witnesses.

You ignore the fact that cameras do not lie. If twenty people see a bank robbery it is COMMON for then to disagree on details. This is why banks always have security cameras. Some witnesses may remember 3 criminals others may remember 2. The camera will only record and not remember anything. Whatever number of criminals the camera records is correct and those witnesses who disagree are simply WRONG.

You fail at the numbers game as well because it is irrelevant whether it is ten or a thousand witnesses if the camera proves them wrong they are simply wrong.

That makes more sense than the stupidity you are desperately trying to defend but failing at.

No one quoted a government agency or believes one. Nothing I have said about this issue originates from a cloak and dagger agency.

The CIA has nothing to do with any of this. They did not take custody of the film or have custody of it. You stated an outright stupid lie by making such a claim and you did\ make exactly that claim in an earlier post.

Sorry little boy but you lose and are defeated.

Your only claim is that the film COULD have hypothetically been altered. However anything is hypothetically possible. What you do not have is any evidence that it WAS altered you do not even have evidence that a government agency had possession of it which would have given them an OPPORTUNITY to alter it.

Massive failure for you and you lose, The car did not stop end of story and you ******* know it.

Incredibobble. He's actually going to the "Photoshop doesn't lie" well.

Besides which, what the hell would a SPY agency know about deception.

OMFG the density.....

No I clearly said cameras do not lie.

They do not.

It is you stating a baldfaced lie that the film was photo shopped or edited or altered.

I clearly addressed the fact that anything is possible what you are sensationally failing at is providing any evidence that such photoshopping or editing or alteration took place.

One more time junior, saying something could happen does not prove it DID.

You have nothing and Abraham Zapruder's camera has made you into a *****.

No spy agency is involved in this discussion.

Cameras lie when your buddies at the CIA doctor them, like they doctored JFK’s head.

No they never lie.

I never met anyone working for the CIA and you have no evidence that they doctored either the film or JFK's head.

As always you are a massive failure and a very foolish person you make assertions with zero evidence of any kind to support them.

Hour assertions are idiotic and without evidence they are nothing more than your stupid fictional musings.

Where is your evidence sport?