Cant you see, hes just asking questions!!!1!!!!11!! http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/255329/preview-im-asking-questions
Where is this government report that is referenced?
Then why post it? You're saying "I don't really believe this, I just find it interesting". And, soooo, what sort of response are you expecting? People are going to come in and debunk the ideas put forth by the video and image you posted and you'll get upset "but but but, I don't actually believe this, you're taking my posts out of context!".
Quit trolling.
Interesting find :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bwrYveeF1Y
Posting disclaimer : I am simply reposting because I find it interesting. I have not posted any kind of conspiracy theories I personally believe in or endorse. If you intend to quote post this or any other of my posts, please read my entire post and make sure you comprehend all words and context before replying.
Where is this government report that is referenced?
Without rehashing what I've already stated, the feeling I get from you guys is " ho hum its the price we pay for cheap oil". Am I correct?
JFK for example, I'm sure in that time people didn't over react to the magic bullet being found completely intact on a stretcher in the hospital. People today are smart enough to second guess such improbable bs.
You've got your understanding of science turned on its head. A quick refresher on the basics:Actually, sophisticated science applied to this has failed to disprove the single bullet theory.
So, the notion that CE399 caused all those wounds is simply a hypothesis, and not only one that wreaks of misguided background research, but one which has consistently failed the test of experiment.The steps of the scientific method are to:
- Ask a Question
- Do Background Research
- Construct a Hypothesis
- Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
- Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
- Communicate Your Results
Please get back to me if anyone ever manages to get a bullet to do anything near so much damage to flesh and bone while coming out so slightly damaged itself, and free of any blood and tissue to back up your claims of physical plausibility and common sense. Of course I won't hold my breath.A little common sense suggests the unlikelihood conspirators would have has a phony bullet prepared to plant on the stretcher, giving all the risks to such a plan from knowing they'd have access to such a stretcher to plant the bullet, more importantly to knowing where the bullets would hit so that this bullet was physically plausible.
You've got your understanding of science turned on its head. [/URL]:
So, the notion that CE399 caused all those wounds is simply a hypothesis, and not only one that wreaks of misguided background research, but one which has consistently failed the test of experiment.
Please get back to me if anyone ever manages to get a bullet to do anything near so much damage to flesh and bone while coming out so slightly damaged itself, and free of any blood and tissue to back up your claims of physical plausibility and common sense. Of course I won't hold my breath.
Occam's razor has no meaning to some people - all they know are Schick and Gillette....On the issue of common sense, here is the conversation among the plotters...
Your question has it's place in science, but that does nothing to change the fact that your proclamation of "sophisticated science applied to this has failed to disprove the single bullet theory" does turn the scientific method on its head. As explained further down the page I quoted from previously:Incorrect. It's a simple question, are the facts consistent with the single-bullet theory being possible, or do they disprove it as a possibility?
However, you're not asking about something which can be observed, but rather a proposed explanation for a collection of wounds in Connolly and Kennedy; the single bullet hypothesis, which you continue to unscientifically refer to as a theory. Proper semantics aside, such questions are scientifically answered by experiment, as noted yet further down the page I've been referencing:The scientific method starts when you ask a question about something that you observe: How, What, When, Who, Which, Why, or Where?
And, in order for the scientific method to answer the question it must be about something that you can measure, preferably with a number.
Such experimental confirmation is what is what turns a hypothesis to into a proper theory, while there's nothing of the sort to substantiate the supposed "single bullet theory", is there?Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment: Your experiment tests whether your hypothesis is true or false. It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. You conduct a fair test by making sure that you change only one factor at a time while keeping all other conditions the same.
You should also repeat your experiments several times to make sure that the first results weren't just an accident.
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion: Once your experiment is complete, you collect your measurements and analyze them to see if your hypothesis is true or false.
Scientists often find that their hypothesis was false, and in such cases they will construct a new hypothesis starting the entire process of the scientific method over again. Even if they find that their hypothesis was true, they may want to test it again in a new way.
That's not common sense, that's nonsense. An example of common sense would be considering the fact that neither the doctors nor the Secret Service agents who found the bullet on the stretcher were able to identify the bullet in currently in evidence as being the same one, and coming to the conclusion that someone probably swapped a bullet which didn't match the gun connected to Oswald with one that does.On the issue of common sense, here is the conversation among the plotters:
There were continuing moments of alarm. A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post. It proved to be rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English. Fearing that it might be a truck bomb, the NYPD immediately evacuated the area, called out the bomb squad, and detained the occupants until a thorough search was made. The vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck.
That's not common sense, that's nonsense. An example of common sense would be considering the fact that neither the doctors nor the Secret Service agents who found the bullet on the stretcher were able to identify the bullet in currently in evidence as being the same one, and coming to the conclusion that someone probably swapped a bullet which didn't match the gun connected to Oswald with one that does.
also, multiple witnesses corroborate rifle smoke + sound of gunshots behind the fence (again, similar to the MLK conspiracy). easy to see why none of their accounts made it into the official lie
the witnesses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEq63vTOwcI
one m-i-s-s-i-s-s-i-p-p-i
you fail
Very telling that they all ran right over to the other side of the fence, and none of them saw anyone there, or running from there. But yet you are claiming that there was smoke, so if the gunman had time to stop and find the empty casing, and then run away without being detected by any of the four men that ran over to where they claim they heard the sound come from, but more than likely he would have used a bolt action, and the idea of seeing the smoke coming out of the non-existent ejection port is laughable. The much more likely explanation is someone smoking a cigarette, or pipe, and the heard gun shots reflecting off buildings.
Hehe, someone smoking would be less likely to duck out just after the JFK was shot than someone involved in the plot, and the only building around the knoll was the depository.The much more likely explanation is someone smoking a cigarette, or pipe, and the heard gun shots reflecting off buildings.
Yeah, this page lists many of them. Regardless, I what know of the wounds doesn't seem to line up with shots from the knoll, and it seems like a poor spot to shoot from anyway. So, I'm left suspect what happened there was just a distraction, intended to sow confusion while the real shooters got away.and yes, many witnesses saw smoke and heard shots from that area.
now, it's obvious you didn't study jack / or are just intentionally lying again.
at least one witness saw someone running away from the fence area:
Wow, you realize you just keep digging a deeper hole for yourself, and clearly demonstrating you know nothing about firearms? No, you are too stupid to realize that. Both in the unrelated video you posted earlier, and the Whitman shootings, multiple rounds were fired, the smoke is the result of a build up of carbon and gasses being burned off, the shooter at Dealy would have fired one round, maybe two, there would be almost no chance of a "lingering smoke cloud" from a single round, or even two. Even the shit old Russian ammo I use doesn't make a "smoke cloud", much less a lingering "smoke cloud" from one round. I guess the second, third, or eighteenth shooter could have been using a musket lol. This is a theory that only the true idiots, and delusional cling to, but then again, you fit both of those quite nicely.you also have no idea what type of rifle was being used behind the fence. if it was a sniper rifle, then you still have no argument:
smoke from texas tower sniping incident:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/141015/subject-texas-tower-shooting-then-vs-now/rich-lowry
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/16/national/main2689785.shtml
The comedy gold is you owning yourself pretty much every time you post giving everyone here a hearty laugh at your astounding ignorance. We are all laughing at you, well, except the other couple delusional fruitcakes.fuck you liar.
get owned harder!
Hehe, someone smoking would be less likely to duck out just after the JFK was shot than someone involved in the plot, and the only building around the knoll was the depository.
Nonsense. There is a smoke cloud after each shot in footage of the event.the Whitman shootings, multiple rounds were fired, the smoke is the result of a build up of carbon and gasses being burned off
No, that's not what I said.Somehow smoking determines whether or not someone is going to run when gunshots start going off?
Nonsense. There is a smoke cloud after each shot in footage of the event.
No, that's not what I said.
Why would someone smoking be less likely to flee the area when shooting starts than anyone else? The fact is that it's a much more likely reason for a lingering cloud of smoke than a gun shot. Unless you think that the assassins used were rank amateurs.Hehe, someone smoking would be less likely to duck out just after the JFK was shot than someone involved in the plot,
Sweet jesus, just how many conspiracies do you guys believe in?
Sure, 'cause dust tends to gather on on exterior railings, particularly ones up on a tower.Clouds that aren't "lingering", and look more like dust being pushed by the rounds than smoke from the rounds
Rather, as the shooting is over an accomplice to the murder is more likely to flee compared to a bystander, smoking or otherwise.Why would someone smoking be less likely to flee the area when shooting starts than anyone else?
Wow, it seems you must have some serious short-term memory issues. I'm sure they were professionals, and I doubt there were any gunshots from the knoll, which is why I said "I'm left suspect what happened there was just a distraction, intended to sow confusion while the real shooters got away" just a few posts back.The fact is that it's a much more likely reason for a lingering cloud of smoke than a gun shot. Unless you think that the assassins used were rank amateurs.