In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
quote:Originally posted by 84Bravo1
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by 84Bravo1
Your really not going to like my views on the moon landing.
(Lifelong photographer, Military Photographer, BFA in Photoghraphy.)
Where do the two, sometimes three, different direction shadows come from? Have you ever paid attention to/noticed that? (Single light source, the Sun?) No stars visible, ever. What about the Stars and Stripes waving in the breeze? Uhmn, there is no breeze in space.
I will not convince others otherwise. I acknowledge that. Not even worried about it, in the least.
I had a TS clearance in the Military. Oversaw and managed a TS level photo lab. (Site R/Raven Rock.) What is promogulated by our Government versus what is going on, is two different realities. I've seen it.
Argue differently all you want. I've seen and know otherwise.
I know and realize I will take major heat and ridicule for this post. I don't care. I'm intelligent, know what I've seen/see. (Can form my own opinion.) I do not believe everything I am told. I've seen things with my own eyes, that prove to me otherwise.
If you really belief the obvious myth that the moon landings were staged, there is probably little that can be done wrt to the Kennedy Assassination, Roosevelt's complicity in the Pearl Harbor attacks, Bush's complicity in the 11 September, 2001 attacks, or the current belief that the Earth is not the center of the Multi-verse.
I knew, and expected negative replies to my thoughts and opinions.
Certainly feel free to believe what you want Don. I've seen things spoken about on the "News," I know to be false. (Based on things I have personally seen.)
I'm curious Don. Have you ever studied frame by frame, the footage of the early Moon landings from a photographic standpoint? I have. There are so many photographic inconsistencies as to be damning/alarming.
I've spent hours, if not days, in Senior level Photography courses disecting and examining (frame by frame,) the Moon landing. How can you possibly have shadows coming from three different directions? How can you have Zero, (0) No, none, Stars showing in all the backgrounds, despite "High resolution," camera's? The U.S. flag visibly blowing in the "breeze?" Despite no breeze/wind being available in space.
Not all is as it seems.
Perhaps you should have thrown a little physics in your photographic immersion. Without knowing which specific frames you are referencing regarding multiple shadow directions, I obviously cannot address it, though I have seen numerous photos where such was claimed that did not exist. If you do not understand the motion of the supposed wind blown flag, you are either a superficial study, or have refused to even try to understand it.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
That head shot came from the front because it slammed JFK's head backwards. Pretty simple.
Thus, conspiracy.
Oswald was, as he said, a "Patsy."
....agreed...and was silenced when Jack Ruby pulled the trigger...Oswald was supposed to be killed in a shoot out with police...The plot thickens when Oswald is killed...
Re-creations and animation can be altered to show whatever you want them to show. I will rely on my firearms experience and the original (not an animation or re-creation,) Zapruder film. I do not need anyone to explain the frontal head shot I clearly see in the film.
Yes, I believe Oswald shot the President. (In the neck.) No, I do not believe he acted alone.
Again, if it is so cut and dried, why not de-classify the evidence, so the American People can see it, rather than keep it hidden for 60+ years?
quote:Originally posted by 84Bravo1
quote:Originally posted by kimi
Have you people even bothered to watch the three videos presented below? Oswald killed the prez.
Re-creations and animation can be altered to show whatever you want them to show. I will rely on my firearms experience and the original (not an animation or re-creation,) Zapruder film. I do not need anyone to explain the frontal head shot I clearly see in the film.
Yes, I believe Oswald shot the President. (In the neck.) No, I do not believe he acted alone.
Again, if it is so cut and dried, why not de-classify the evidence, so the American People can see it, rather than keep it hidden for 60+ years?
Oswald shot and killed Kennedy. Lots of folks believe that there were other shooters. I'm not one of them. Was Oswald connected to the Mafia, the Russians, Castro? Maybe, but I think Oswald acted alone where the shooting is concerned. The videos showing the re-creation of the event, to include, the animated one is as scientific and professional as it comes...and anyone who views them in the presence of another party would have one hell of a hard time trying to convince them that Oswald did not act alone.
quote:Originally posted by kimi
Oswald killed the prez. Photography, UFO's, and moon landings have little to nothing to do with being a good shot.
Yes. And he WAS a good shot. Before I went into service I was a good shot with my Winchester Model 67 single shot, but in service the best I could do was Marksman. Oswald made Sharpshooter in his short service in the Marines.
I like and respect you Kimi. Not looking to argue with you.
(But) To me, it all comes down to, do you believe your eyes?
That fatal head shot shown in the Zapruder film, came from the front. Others here have weighed in with their opinions and thoughts agreeing with my assessment.
It is so glaringly obvious to me when I watch that video, that it is incredulous to me, firearms experts are not up in arms about the counter Government explanations. Just my humble opinion Sir.
quote:Originally posted by 84Bravo1
I like and respect you Kimi. Not looking to argue with you.
(But) To me, it all comes down to, do you believe your eyes?
That fatal head shot shown in the Zapruder film, came from the front. Others here have weighed in with their opinions and thoughts agreeing with my assessment.
It is so glaringly obvious to me when I watch that video, that it is incredulous to me, firearms experts are not up in arms about the counter Government explanations. Just my humble opinion Sir.
I like you, too, Ken, and do not care to argue either. I think we are doing a fairly good job of getting our points across. That said, one thing worth remembering is the old saying about not believing anything you read and only half of what you see.
The Zapruder film loses credibility instantaneously once the videos I've posted have been reviewed, as I see it. You have already agreed that Oswald shot Kennedy, and the main point that most people see as supporting the Zapruder film is the dispersal of blood, brain and skull matter blowing mostly up and back, but some going forward as well. The videos that have to do with the re-creation of the event, prove that such dispersal of matter was the result of Oswald's shooting since it matches the Z-film so closely, to include, the 24-25 mph wind. That is a strong wind folks! The re-creation videos tells us that there was no grassy-knoll shooter. Let's not forget, either, that Jackie would most likely have been killed had the shot came from the grassy knoll. Also, let's not forget that the re-creation of the event was so perfect that a big chunk of skull from the dummy landed behind Kennedy as in the real deal.
Simple high school physics. For each action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Shot from the rear moved him foreward. The shot from the rear moved him backward. I recorded the film when they first released the entire film. Played with it for a long time. Stopped and backed it up repeatedly. No way he could not have been hit from the back and the front. Never figured high school physics would be of any ust to me then. Now I know.
You do understand that eye witnesses are considered the least reliable evidence in court cases?
I have walked Dealey Plaza, the only think I don't understand is why he did not shoot as the limo came around the corner from Huston on to Elm. The turn is about 120 degrees and the limo would have been moving slowest at that point. Downward shot shortest distance.
I personally do not believe the single bullet theory. Never have...
I recently read Philip Shenon's "A Cruel and Shocking Act." The author interviews staff of the Warren commission and others who were still living.
While it doesn't opine on who killed Kennedy, it details the infighting and agenda of the commission's findings. It's by no means a conspiracy novel, either...
There were as many or more leaks as is going on today! The "unanimous" finding wasn't completely unanimous and was forced on those that disagreed. Lots of "leads" were either not followed up on or were outright dismissed.
It's a good read if anyone is interested. It's even available as an (long!) audiobook.
”People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
quote:Originally posted by TrinityScrimshaw
High Impact Blood Splatter doesn't lie.
Follow the path it will show the direction the shot came from.
Trinity +++
TS,
Do you have a link that will help us better understand the effect that wind has on such blood spatter?
Here's a couple:
Effect of wind on region of origin calculations of impact bloodstain patterns: implications for bloodstain pattern analysis
Download
@phdthesis{8ee592c203374bb09708b54e64bdabe8,
title = "Effect of wind on region of origin calculations of impact bloodstain patterns: implications for bloodstain pattern analysis",
abstract = "All forensic investigators understand the relative importance of blood within a crime scene. Blood is one of the most common and important types of physical evidence present at a crime scene and an investigator can derive valuable evidence and information. The reconstruction of a bloodshed event is often used to determine physical events that have occurred. One such reconstruction tool involves the determination of the Area of Origin (AOO). The AOO is the three dimensional location from which the blood that produced a bloodstain originated. Strings or virtual strings are projected from the leading edge of the stain at the impact angle, while maintaining the gamma angle (which is along the axis through the ellipse). Extensive research has been conducted into the methodology employed to validate the accuracy of AOO determinations. However, no research has studied the effect of wind on AOO determinations that are routinely conducted in many crime scene reconstructions.The present study aims to identify if the presence and intensity of wind affects the flight path of airborne blood droplets, and therefore, the calculated AOO. A total of 70 impact bloodstain patterns were created in association with seven wind speeds ranging from 0 to 17 kph, a fan placed 90 degrees to the receiving surface was used to generate the wind source. The Tangent method was then used for AOO determinations, with Microsoft Office Excel 2003 Auto Shapes being utilised for stain measurement and angle of impact calculations. The 70 impact bloodstain patterns were divided into seven groups of 10 according to the wind speed. The known X, Y and Z coordinates were compared against the calculated X, Y and Z coordinates and the direction difference determined (positive or negative).The results of this project demonstrated that the presence and intensity of wind affects the AOO determination for impact bloodstain patterns, in 4/60 patterns this resulted in the determination of a 2nd AOO, thus indicating a second impact where there was actually none. This may have been a coincidence as there appears no reason to expect blood drops to divert in such a way to give a second convergence area. why the blood drops The research also identified that the distribution of individual bloodstains within an impact bloodstain pattern were affected by wind, with the directional features of many individual bloodstains indicating that these bloodstains were not resultant of the known impact that occurred. Forensically the latter is extremely important, because if the BPA analyst is not cognisant of the effect of wind, these individual bloodstains would be interpreted as originating from a different incident than that of the actual impact.",
keywords = "Effect of wind, Area of origin determination, Bloodstain pattern analysis",
author = "Spivey, {David Glenn}",
year = "2016",
language = "English",
school = "The University of Western Australia",
}
As to the moon landing, I don't know if we landed on the moon but we sure as hell launched.
I drove down to Cape Kennedy with 2 high school buddies from Atlanta and we watched the launch of Apollo 11.
Even with 50 years hindsight it is still one of the most spectacular things I ever have seen. Went up about 9am. We were 13 miles away.
What a fireball! But no noise. That was weird.
I took quite a few seconds for the noise to hit us, and then, it was overwhelming, it felt like the ground was shaking. The loudest, most profound noise I ever have heard.
quote:Originally posted by slumlord44
Simple high school physics. For each action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Shot from the rear moved him foreward. The shot from the rear moved him backward. I recorded the film when they first released the entire film. Played with it for a long time. Stopped and backed it up repeatedly. No way he could not have been hit from the back and the front. Never figured high school physics would be of any ust to me then. Now I know.
You meant, "shot from the front moved him backward."
quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
As to the moon landing, I don't know if we landed on the moon but we sure as hell launched.
I drove down to Cape Kennedy with 2 high school buddies from Atlanta and we watched the launch of Apollo 11.
Even with 50 years hindsight it is still one of the most spectacular things I ever have seen. Went up about 9am. We were 13 miles away.
What a fireball! But no noise. That was weird.
I took quite a few seconds for the noise to hit us, and then, it was overwhelming, it felt like the ground was shaking. The loudest, most profound noise I ever have heard.
JFK Assassination - Head shot re-creation (Part 2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RX2phbWmgA
Lots of "evidence" being ignored to come to their conclusions regarding the heat shot. For one, in the first test they do from the grassy knoll, they get head movement (back and to the left) just like in the film. Totally ignore that for some reason. Then they use other ammo, get a different result that doesn't jive with the evidence and proclaim "Yep, this proves it couldn't have happened this way" even though their first test absolutely suggested that it could have. Sorry, you can't just use two data points to prove anything, particularly when there are so many unknowns.
Then they move on to the tower location. They totally ignore how the dummy's head doesn't move like in the film but yet proclaim all the evidence fits.
Furthermore, they use a stationary target so momentum is completely ignored. Yet they can magically proclaim all the splatter evidence is identical?
Sorry, it's just not as convincing as you'd like to believe, James.
I'm one of the ones who believes Oswald shot through the neck/chest, but that someone else delivered the head shot. I could be convinced otherwise, but nothing I've seen can eliminate the possibility of a second shooter.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by kimi
Have you people even bothered to watch the three videos presented below? Oswald killed the prez.
JFK Assassination - Head shot re-creation (Part 2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RX2phbWmgA
Lots of "evidence" being ignored to come to their conclusions regarding the heat shot. For one, in the first test they do from the grassy knoll, they get head movement (back and to the left) just like in the film. Totally ignore that for some reason. Then they use other ammo, get a different result that doesn't jive with the evidence and proclaim "Yep, this proves it couldn't have happened this way" even though their first test absolutely suggested that it could have. Sorry, you can't just use two data points to prove anything, particularly when there are so many unknowns.
Then they move on to the tower location. They totally ignore how the dummy's head doesn't move like in the film but yet proclaim all the evidence fits.
Furthermore, they use a stationary target so momentum is completely ignored. Yet they can magically proclaim all the splatter evidence is identical?
Sorry, it's just not as convincing as you'd like to believe, James.
I'm one of the ones who believes Oswald shot through the neck/chest, but that someone else delivered the head shot. I could be convinced otherwise, but nothing I've seen can eliminate the possibility of a second shooter.
It suits what I have mostly always believed...not perfect, but hard to refute off hand.
Some would like to see this subject put to bed and move on.
I have found that what happened along with the video images add up to a big snake in the grass!
There were so many people who died mysterious deaths (Reporter Dorothy Kilgalen) along with lost evidence (Kennedy's brain) and pure plain and simple mistakes made during the investigation that make the OJ Simpson case look professional!
Just way too much skullduggery to point me into believing that Oswald acted alone!
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by kimi
Have you people even bothered to watch the three videos presented below? Oswald killed the prez.
JFK Assassination - Head shot re-creation (Part 2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RX2phbWmgA
Lots of "evidence" being ignored to come to their conclusions regarding the heat shot. For one, in the first test they do from the grassy knoll, they get head movement (back and to the left) just like in the film. Totally ignore that for some reason. Then they use other ammo, get a different result that doesn't jive with the evidence and proclaim "Yep, this proves it couldn't have happened this way" even though their first test absolutely suggested that it could have. Sorry, you can't just use two data points to prove anything, particularly when there are so many unknowns.
Then they move on to the tower location. They totally ignore how the dummy's head doesn't move like in the film but yet proclaim all the evidence fits.
Furthermore, they use a stationary target so momentum is completely ignored. Yet they can magically proclaim all the splatter evidence is identical?
Sorry, it's just not as convincing as you'd like to believe, James.
I'm one of the ones who believes Oswald shot through the neck/chest, but that someone else delivered the head shot. I could be convinced otherwise, but nothing I've seen can eliminate the possibility of a second shooter.
You have obviously not been paying attention to Don M. or Icerarex.
They have made it known that the Official Government explanation is conclusive. Right Don/Ice? [:0][B)][?]
quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
As to the moon landing, I don't know if we landed on the moon but we sure as hell launched.
I drove down to Cape Kennedy with 2 high school buddies from Atlanta and we watched the launch of Apollo 11.
Even with 50 years hindsight it is still one of the most spectacular things I ever have seen. Went up about 9am. We were 13 miles away.
What a fireball! But no noise. That was weird.
I took quite a few seconds for the noise to hit us, and then, it was overwhelming, it felt like the ground was shaking. The loudest, most profound noise I ever have heard.
I do not doubt we "launched." I have serious reservation as to the first "Moon landing," being nothing more than a ploy to lift our (US) spirits, and disenfranchise the Soviets, and mislead them regarding our capabilities. I'm sure YVMD. Have we landed? Yes. Did we land then? I do not believe so. (Again) YVMD.
quote:Originally posted by 84Bravo1
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by kimi
Have you people even bothered to watch the three videos presented below? Oswald killed the prez.
JFK Assassination - Head shot re-creation (Part 2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RX2phbWmgA
Lots of "evidence" being ignored to come to their conclusions regarding the heat shot. For one, in the first test they do from the grassy knoll, they get head movement (back and to the left) just like in the film. Totally ignore that for some reason. Then they use other ammo, get a different result that doesn't jive with the evidence and proclaim "Yep, this proves it couldn't have happened this way" even though their first test absolutely suggested that it could have. Sorry, you can't just use two data points to prove anything, particularly when there are so many unknowns.
Then they move on to the tower location. They totally ignore how the dummy's head doesn't move like in the film but yet proclaim all the evidence fits.
Furthermore, they use a stationary target so momentum is completely ignored. Yet they can magically proclaim all the splatter evidence is identical?
Sorry, it's just not as convincing as you'd like to believe, James.
I'm one of the ones who believes Oswald shot through the neck/chest, but that someone else delivered the head shot. I could be convinced otherwise, but nothing I've seen can eliminate the possibility of a second shooter.
You have obviously not been paying attention to Don M. or Icerarex.
They have made it known that the Official Government explanation is conclusive. Right Don/Ice? [:0][B)][?]
I don't believe I have stated the Warren Commission report was conclusive. I believe I stated, (and I quote): While I wouldn't pretend to try and convince anyone that the Warren Commission was 100% correct, there is nothing in the film that 100% discounts the single bullet theory.
I don't know whether Oswald was the only shooter. From everything I've seen, he most likely was a shooter, and very likely was the only shooter. I keep an open mind about such things; about most things, actually.
I cannot imaging being so closed-minded as to state 'you will never convinced me otherwise' as it suggest a willful ignorance of evidence that may challenge their position.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
You have obviously not been paying attention to Don M. or Icerarex.
They have made it known that the Official Government explanation is conclusive. Right Don/Ice? [:0][B)][?]
Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it?
I called your 'so called' BFA requirements 'dictated' you view the film frame by frame, BS and you had a melt down.
I offered no opinion on the "Official Government explanation".
In fact, I offered another explanation via the book "Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK."
quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
quote:Originally posted by 84Bravo1
You have obviously not been paying attention to Don M. or Icerarex.
They have made it known that the Official Government explanation is conclusive. Right Don/Ice? [:0][B)][?]
Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it?
I called your 'so called' BFA requirements 'dictated' you view the film frame by frame, BS and you had a melt down.
I offered no opinion on the "Official Government explanation".
In fact, I offered another explanation via the book "Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK."
You sir, are a PUTZ!
No "melt down," here Sir. (Obvious to most here, sadly apparently not you.) I miss-spoke on "dictated." It was Independent Studies, as I have tried to clarify. Your calling me a "Putz," shows your character, or lack therof.
I have not alluded to your character, nor have I called you any names.
Here we are talking about two topics, totally UNREALATED!
I'd say that we ( our government) did play games with the Soviet Union regarding Star Wars and our fake missile satellite BS during the Reagan administration but the moon landings were on the up and up.
Problem is, when the boy cried wolf so many times, it is very hard to believe when the wolf actually shows up!
quote:Originally posted by Brookwood
Here we are talking about two topics, totally UNREALATED!
I'd say that we ( our government) did play games with the Soviet Union regarding Star Wars and our fake missile satellite BS during the Reagan administration but the moon landings were on the up and up.
Problem is, when the boy cried wolf so many times, it is very hard to believe when the wolf actually shows up!
Yes, two different topics were warranted. I spoke to my beliefs as to the "Moon Landings," in relation to this thread. (My mistake.) I was alluding to our Governments lack of Candor and believability, in general.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by 84Bravo1
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by kimi
Have you people even bothered to watch the three videos presented below? Oswald killed the prez.
JFK Assassination - Head shot re-creation (Part 2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RX2phbWmgA
Lots of "evidence" being ignored to come to their conclusions regarding the heat shot. For one, in the first test they do from the grassy knoll, they get head movement (back and to the left) just like in the film. Totally ignore that for some reason. Then they use other ammo, get a different result that doesn't jive with the evidence and proclaim "Yep, this proves it couldn't have happened this way" even though their first test absolutely suggested that it could have. Sorry, you can't just use two data points to prove anything, particularly when there are so many unknowns.
Then they move on to the tower location. They totally ignore how the dummy's head doesn't move like in the film but yet proclaim all the evidence fits.
Furthermore, they use a stationary target so momentum is completely ignored. Yet they can magically proclaim all the splatter evidence is identical?
Sorry, it's just not as convincing as you'd like to believe, James.
I'm one of the ones who believes Oswald shot through the neck/chest, but that someone else delivered the head shot. I could be convinced otherwise, but nothing I've seen can eliminate the possibility of a second shooter.
You have obviously not been paying attention to Don M. or Icerarex.
They have made it known that the Official Government explanation is conclusive. Right Don/Ice? [:0][B)][?]
I don't believe I have stated the Warren Commission report was conclusive. I believe I stated, (and I quote): While I wouldn't pretend to try and convince anyone that the Warren Commission was 100% correct, there is nothing in the film that 100% discounts the single bullet theory.
I don't know whether Oswald was the only shooter. From everything I've seen, he most likely was a shooter, and very likely was the only shooter. I keep an open mind about such things; about most things, actually.
I cannot imaging being so closed-minded as to state 'you will never convinced me otherwise' as it suggest a willful ignorance of evidence that may challenge their position.
I stated "you will not convince me otherwise," in relation to my viewing of the Zapruder film. That fatal shot came from the front. (IMHO.) You are welcome to believe what you want.
quote:Originally posted by 84Bravo1
quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
quote:Originally posted by 84Bravo1
You have obviously not been paying attention to Don M. or Icerarex.
They have made it known that the Official Government explanation is conclusive. Right Don/Ice? [:0][B)][?]
Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it?
I called your 'so called' BFA requirements 'dictated' you view the film frame by frame, BS and you had a melt down.
I offered no opinion on the "Official Government explanation".
In fact, I offered another explanation via the book "Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK."
You sir, are a PUTZ!
No "melt down," here Sir. (Obvious to most here, sadly apparently not you.) I miss-spoke on "dictated." It was Independent Studies, as I have tried to clarify. Your calling me a "Putz," shows your character, or lack therof.
I have not alluded to your character, nor have I called you any names.
Perhaps some Civility might be in order for you.
Have a nice day.
Did you have a stroke? Do you need to get your noodle checked?
You started 'round 2' today by claiming I posted something I didn't. Was that 'civil' of you? How about calling me 'uninformed' just before I dropped my 'I too have a BFA' 'oh-poop' bomb in your lap last week?
Ken, not sure what's going on but these posts of yours don't seem to fit with what I normally see from you.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
quote:Originally posted by 84Bravo1
You have obviously not been paying attention to Don M. or Icerarex.
They have made it known that the Official Government explanation is conclusive. Right Don/Ice? [:0][B)][?]
Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it?
You sir, are a PUTZ!
My "reading comprehension" is excellent, in all regards.
Comments
Thus, conspiracy.
Oswald was, as he said, a "Patsy."
Oswald took the rap
we never been to the moon
UFO's/aliens are real
JFK Assassination Computer Animation
JFK Assassination - Head shot recreation (Part 1)
https://ruclip.com/video/9RCX3RdVHqo/jfk-assassination-head-shot-recreation-part-1.html
JFK Assassination - Head shot recreation (Part 2)
https://forums.GunBroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=697405&SearchTerms
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by 84Bravo1
Your really not going to like my views on the moon landing.
(Lifelong photographer, Military Photographer, BFA in Photoghraphy.)
Where do the two, sometimes three, different direction shadows come from? Have you ever paid attention to/noticed that? (Single light source, the Sun?) No stars visible, ever. What about the Stars and Stripes waving in the breeze? Uhmn, there is no breeze in space.
I will not convince others otherwise. I acknowledge that. Not even worried about it, in the least.
I had a TS clearance in the Military. Oversaw and managed a TS level photo lab. (Site R/Raven Rock.) What is promogulated by our Government versus what is going on, is two different realities. I've seen it.
Argue differently all you want. I've seen and know otherwise.
I know and realize I will take major heat and ridicule for this post. I don't care. I'm intelligent, know what I've seen/see. (Can form my own opinion.) I do not believe everything I am told. I've seen things with my own eyes, that prove to me otherwise.
If you really belief the obvious myth that the moon landings were staged, there is probably little that can be done wrt to the Kennedy Assassination, Roosevelt's complicity in the Pearl Harbor attacks, Bush's complicity in the 11 September, 2001 attacks, or the current belief that the Earth is not the center of the Multi-verse.
I knew, and expected negative replies to my thoughts and opinions.
Certainly feel free to believe what you want Don. I've seen things spoken about on the "News," I know to be false. (Based on things I have personally seen.)
I'm curious Don. Have you ever studied frame by frame, the footage of the early Moon landings from a photographic standpoint? I have. There are so many photographic inconsistencies as to be damning/alarming.
I've spent hours, if not days, in Senior level Photography courses disecting and examining (frame by frame,) the Moon landing. How can you possibly have shadows coming from three different directions? How can you have Zero, (0) No, none, Stars showing in all the backgrounds, despite "High resolution," camera's? The U.S. flag visibly blowing in the "breeze?" Despite no breeze/wind being available in space.
Not all is as it seems.
Perhaps you should have thrown a little physics in your photographic immersion. Without knowing which specific frames you are referencing regarding multiple shadow directions, I obviously cannot address it, though I have seen numerous photos where such was claimed that did not exist. If you do not understand the motion of the supposed wind blown flag, you are either a superficial study, or have refused to even try to understand it.
Brad Steele
Daddy, then Johnny crossed the outfit.
http://abc7chicago.com/society/feds-focused-on-chicagoans-outfit-figures-in-jfk-files/2575853/
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2017/01/26/making-mob-chicago-revealed-1960-election-vote-rigging
That head shot came from the front because it slammed JFK's head backwards. Pretty simple.
Thus, conspiracy.
Oswald was, as he said, a "Patsy."
....agreed...and was silenced when Jack Ruby pulled the trigger...Oswald was supposed to be killed in a shoot out with police...The plot thickens when Oswald is killed...
JFK Assassination Computer Animation
JFK Assassination - Head shot re-creation (Part 1)
https://ruclip.com/video/9RCX3RdVHqo/jfk-assassination-head-shot-recreation-part-1.html
JFK Assassination - Head shot re-creation (Part 2)
Have you people even bothered to watch the three videos presented below? Oswald killed the prez.
JFK Assassination Computer Animation
JFK Assassination - Head shot re-creation (Part 1)
https://ruclip.com/video/9RCX3RdVHqo/jfk-assassination-head-shot-recreation-part-1.html
JFK Assassination - Head shot re-creation (Part 2)
Re-creations and animation can be altered to show whatever you want them to show. I will rely on my firearms experience and the original (not an animation or re-creation,) Zapruder film. I do not need anyone to explain the frontal head shot I clearly see in the film.
Yes, I believe Oswald shot the President. (In the neck.) No, I do not believe he acted alone.
Again, if it is so cut and dried, why not de-classify the evidence, so the American People can see it, rather than keep it hidden for 60+ years?
Have you people even bothered to watch the three videos presented below? Oswald killed the prez.
JFK Assassination Computer Animation
JFK Assassination - Head shot re-creation (Part 1)
https://ruclip.com/video/9RCX3RdVHqo/jfk-assassination-head-shot-recreation-part-1.html
JFK Assassination - Head shot re-creation (Part 2)
Yep and a known mob associate made oswald STFU quick.
quote:Originally posted by kimi
Have you people even bothered to watch the three videos presented below? Oswald killed the prez.
JFK Assassination Computer Animation
JFK Assassination - Head shot re-creation (Part 1)
https://ruclip.com/video/9RCX3RdVHqo/jfk-assassination-head-shot-recreation-part-1.html
JFK Assassination - Head shot re-creation (Part 2)
Re-creations and animation can be altered to show whatever you want them to show. I will rely on my firearms experience and the original (not an animation or re-creation,) Zapruder film. I do not need anyone to explain the frontal head shot I clearly see in the film.
Yes, I believe Oswald shot the President. (In the neck.) No, I do not believe he acted alone.
Again, if it is so cut and dried, why not de-classify the evidence, so the American People can see it, rather than keep it hidden for 60+ years?
Oswald shot and killed Kennedy. Lots of folks believe that there were other shooters. I'm not one of them. Was Oswald connected to the Mafia, the Russians, Castro? Maybe, but I think Oswald acted alone where the shooting is concerned. The videos showing the re-creation of the event, to include, the animated one is as scientific and professional as it comes...and anyone who views them in the presence of another party would have one hell of a hard time trying to convince them that Oswald did not act alone.
Oswald killed the prez. Photography, UFO's, and moon landings have little to nothing to do with being a good shot.
Yes. And he WAS a good shot. Before I went into service I was a good shot with my Winchester Model 67 single shot, but in service the best I could do was Marksman. Oswald made Sharpshooter in his short service in the Marines.
(But) To me, it all comes down to, do you believe your eyes?
That fatal head shot shown in the Zapruder film, came from the front. Others here have weighed in with their opinions and thoughts agreeing with my assessment.
It is so glaringly obvious to me when I watch that video, that it is incredulous to me, firearms experts are not up in arms about the counter Government explanations. Just my humble opinion Sir.
I like and respect you Kimi. Not looking to argue with you.
(But) To me, it all comes down to, do you believe your eyes?
That fatal head shot shown in the Zapruder film, came from the front. Others here have weighed in with their opinions and thoughts agreeing with my assessment.
It is so glaringly obvious to me when I watch that video, that it is incredulous to me, firearms experts are not up in arms about the counter Government explanations. Just my humble opinion Sir.
I like you, too, Ken, and do not care to argue either. I think we are doing a fairly good job of getting our points across. That said, one thing worth remembering is the old saying about not believing anything you read and only half of what you see.
The Zapruder film loses credibility instantaneously once the videos I've posted have been reviewed, as I see it. You have already agreed that Oswald shot Kennedy, and the main point that most people see as supporting the Zapruder film is the dispersal of blood, brain and skull matter blowing mostly up and back, but some going forward as well. The videos that have to do with the re-creation of the event, prove that such dispersal of matter was the result of Oswald's shooting since it matches the Z-film so closely, to include, the 24-25 mph wind. That is a strong wind folks! The re-creation videos tells us that there was no grassy-knoll shooter. Let's not forget, either, that Jackie would most likely have been killed had the shot came from the grassy knoll. Also, let's not forget that the re-creation of the event was so perfect that a big chunk of skull from the dummy landed behind Kennedy as in the real deal.
You do understand that eye witnesses are considered the least reliable evidence in court cases?
I have walked Dealey Plaza, the only think I don't understand is why he did not shoot as the limo came around the corner from Huston on to Elm. The turn is about 120 degrees and the limo would have been moving slowest at that point. Downward shot shortest distance.
I recently read Philip Shenon's "A Cruel and Shocking Act." The author interviews staff of the Warren commission and others who were still living.
While it doesn't opine on who killed Kennedy, it details the infighting and agenda of the commission's findings. It's by no means a conspiracy novel, either...
There were as many or more leaks as is going on today! The "unanimous" finding wasn't completely unanimous and was forced on those that disagreed. Lots of "leads" were either not followed up on or were outright dismissed.
It's a good read if anyone is interested. It's even available as an (long!) audiobook.
Follow the path it will show the direction the shot came from.
Trinity +++
High Impact Blood Splatter doesn't lie.
Follow the path it will show the direction the shot came from.
Trinity +++
TS,
Do you have a link that will help us better understand the effect that wind has on such blood spatter?
Here's a couple:
Effect of wind on region of origin calculations of impact bloodstain patterns: implications for bloodstain pattern analysis
Download
@phdthesis{8ee592c203374bb09708b54e64bdabe8,
title = "Effect of wind on region of origin calculations of impact bloodstain patterns: implications for bloodstain pattern analysis",
abstract = "All forensic investigators understand the relative importance of blood within a crime scene. Blood is one of the most common and important types of physical evidence present at a crime scene and an investigator can derive valuable evidence and information. The reconstruction of a bloodshed event is often used to determine physical events that have occurred. One such reconstruction tool involves the determination of the Area of Origin (AOO). The AOO is the three dimensional location from which the blood that produced a bloodstain originated. Strings or virtual strings are projected from the leading edge of the stain at the impact angle, while maintaining the gamma angle (which is along the axis through the ellipse). Extensive research has been conducted into the methodology employed to validate the accuracy of AOO determinations. However, no research has studied the effect of wind on AOO determinations that are routinely conducted in many crime scene reconstructions.The present study aims to identify if the presence and intensity of wind affects the flight path of airborne blood droplets, and therefore, the calculated AOO. A total of 70 impact bloodstain patterns were created in association with seven wind speeds ranging from 0 to 17 kph, a fan placed 90 degrees to the receiving surface was used to generate the wind source. The Tangent method was then used for AOO determinations, with Microsoft Office Excel 2003 Auto Shapes being utilised for stain measurement and angle of impact calculations. The 70 impact bloodstain patterns were divided into seven groups of 10 according to the wind speed. The known X, Y and Z coordinates were compared against the calculated X, Y and Z coordinates and the direction difference determined (positive or negative).The results of this project demonstrated that the presence and intensity of wind affects the AOO determination for impact bloodstain patterns, in 4/60 patterns this resulted in the determination of a 2nd AOO, thus indicating a second impact where there was actually none. This may have been a coincidence as there appears no reason to expect blood drops to divert in such a way to give a second convergence area. why the blood drops The research also identified that the distribution of individual bloodstains within an impact bloodstain pattern were affected by wind, with the directional features of many individual bloodstains indicating that these bloodstains were not resultant of the known impact that occurred. Forensically the latter is extremely important, because if the BPA analyst is not cognisant of the effect of wind, these individual bloodstains would be interpreted as originating from a different incident than that of the actual impact.",
keywords = "Effect of wind, Area of origin determination, Bloodstain pattern analysis",
author = "Spivey, {David Glenn}",
year = "2016",
language = "English",
school = "The University of Western Australia",
}
http://research-repository.uwa.edu.au/en/publications/effect-of-wind-on-region-of-origin-calculations-of-impact-bloodstain-patterns-implications-for-bloodstain-pattern-analysis(8ee592c2-0337-4bb0-9708-b54e64bdabe8)/export.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27705829/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/tech-puts-jfk-conspiracy-theories-rest/
I drove down to Cape Kennedy with 2 high school buddies from Atlanta and we watched the launch of Apollo 11.
Even with 50 years hindsight it is still one of the most spectacular things I ever have seen. Went up about 9am. We were 13 miles away.
What a fireball! But no noise. That was weird.
I took quite a few seconds for the noise to hit us, and then, it was overwhelming, it felt like the ground was shaking. The loudest, most profound noise I ever have heard.
Simple high school physics. For each action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Shot from the rear moved him foreward. The shot from the rear moved him backward. I recorded the film when they first released the entire film. Played with it for a long time. Stopped and backed it up repeatedly. No way he could not have been hit from the back and the front. Never figured high school physics would be of any ust to me then. Now I know.
You meant, "shot from the front moved him backward."
As to the moon landing, I don't know if we landed on the moon but we sure as hell launched.
I drove down to Cape Kennedy with 2 high school buddies from Atlanta and we watched the launch of Apollo 11.
Even with 50 years hindsight it is still one of the most spectacular things I ever have seen. Went up about 9am. We were 13 miles away.
What a fireball! But no noise. That was weird.
I took quite a few seconds for the noise to hit us, and then, it was overwhelming, it felt like the ground was shaking. The loudest, most profound noise I ever have heard.
Now that had to be one unforgettable event!
Have you people even bothered to watch the three videos presented below? Oswald killed the prez.
JFK Assassination Computer Animation
JFK Assassination - Head shot re-creation (Part 1)
https://ruclip.com/video/9RCX3RdVHqo/jfk-assassination-head-shot-recreation-part-1.html
JFK Assassination - Head shot re-creation (Part 2)
Lots of "evidence" being ignored to come to their conclusions regarding the heat shot. For one, in the first test they do from the grassy knoll, they get head movement (back and to the left) just like in the film. Totally ignore that for some reason. Then they use other ammo, get a different result that doesn't jive with the evidence and proclaim "Yep, this proves it couldn't have happened this way" even though their first test absolutely suggested that it could have. Sorry, you can't just use two data points to prove anything, particularly when there are so many unknowns.
Then they move on to the tower location. They totally ignore how the dummy's head doesn't move like in the film but yet proclaim all the evidence fits.
Furthermore, they use a stationary target so momentum is completely ignored. Yet they can magically proclaim all the splatter evidence is identical?
Sorry, it's just not as convincing as you'd like to believe, James.
I'm one of the ones who believes Oswald shot through the neck/chest, but that someone else delivered the head shot. I could be convinced otherwise, but nothing I've seen can eliminate the possibility of a second shooter.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by kimi
Have you people even bothered to watch the three videos presented below? Oswald killed the prez.
JFK Assassination Computer Animation
JFK Assassination - Head shot re-creation (Part 1)
https://ruclip.com/video/9RCX3RdVHqo/jfk-assassination-head-shot-recreation-part-1.html
JFK Assassination - Head shot re-creation (Part 2)
Lots of "evidence" being ignored to come to their conclusions regarding the heat shot. For one, in the first test they do from the grassy knoll, they get head movement (back and to the left) just like in the film. Totally ignore that for some reason. Then they use other ammo, get a different result that doesn't jive with the evidence and proclaim "Yep, this proves it couldn't have happened this way" even though their first test absolutely suggested that it could have. Sorry, you can't just use two data points to prove anything, particularly when there are so many unknowns.
Then they move on to the tower location. They totally ignore how the dummy's head doesn't move like in the film but yet proclaim all the evidence fits.
Furthermore, they use a stationary target so momentum is completely ignored. Yet they can magically proclaim all the splatter evidence is identical?
Sorry, it's just not as convincing as you'd like to believe, James.
I'm one of the ones who believes Oswald shot through the neck/chest, but that someone else delivered the head shot. I could be convinced otherwise, but nothing I've seen can eliminate the possibility of a second shooter.
It suits what I have mostly always believed...not perfect, but hard to refute off hand.
I have found that what happened along with the video images add up to a big snake in the grass!
There were so many people who died mysterious deaths (Reporter Dorothy Kilgalen) along with lost evidence (Kennedy's brain) and pure plain and simple mistakes made during the investigation that make the OJ Simpson case look professional!
Just way too much skullduggery to point me into believing that Oswald acted alone!
Not on your life...
quote:Originally posted by kimi
Have you people even bothered to watch the three videos presented below? Oswald killed the prez.
JFK Assassination Computer Animation
JFK Assassination - Head shot re-creation (Part 1)
https://ruclip.com/video/9RCX3RdVHqo/jfk-assassination-head-shot-recreation-part-1.html
JFK Assassination - Head shot re-creation (Part 2)
Lots of "evidence" being ignored to come to their conclusions regarding the heat shot. For one, in the first test they do from the grassy knoll, they get head movement (back and to the left) just like in the film. Totally ignore that for some reason. Then they use other ammo, get a different result that doesn't jive with the evidence and proclaim "Yep, this proves it couldn't have happened this way" even though their first test absolutely suggested that it could have. Sorry, you can't just use two data points to prove anything, particularly when there are so many unknowns.
Then they move on to the tower location. They totally ignore how the dummy's head doesn't move like in the film but yet proclaim all the evidence fits.
Furthermore, they use a stationary target so momentum is completely ignored. Yet they can magically proclaim all the splatter evidence is identical?
Sorry, it's just not as convincing as you'd like to believe, James.
I'm one of the ones who believes Oswald shot through the neck/chest, but that someone else delivered the head shot. I could be convinced otherwise, but nothing I've seen can eliminate the possibility of a second shooter.
You have obviously not been paying attention to Don M. or Icerarex.
They have made it known that the Official Government explanation is conclusive. Right Don/Ice? [:0][B)][?]
As to the moon landing, I don't know if we landed on the moon but we sure as hell launched.
I drove down to Cape Kennedy with 2 high school buddies from Atlanta and we watched the launch of Apollo 11.
Even with 50 years hindsight it is still one of the most spectacular things I ever have seen. Went up about 9am. We were 13 miles away.
What a fireball! But no noise. That was weird.
I took quite a few seconds for the noise to hit us, and then, it was overwhelming, it felt like the ground was shaking. The loudest, most profound noise I ever have heard.
I do not doubt we "launched." I have serious reservation as to the first "Moon landing," being nothing more than a ploy to lift our (US) spirits, and disenfranchise the Soviets, and mislead them regarding our capabilities. I'm sure YVMD. Have we landed? Yes. Did we land then? I do not believe so. (Again) YVMD.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by kimi
Have you people even bothered to watch the three videos presented below? Oswald killed the prez.
JFK Assassination Computer Animation
JFK Assassination - Head shot re-creation (Part 1)
https://ruclip.com/video/9RCX3RdVHqo/jfk-assassination-head-shot-recreation-part-1.html
JFK Assassination - Head shot re-creation (Part 2)
Lots of "evidence" being ignored to come to their conclusions regarding the heat shot. For one, in the first test they do from the grassy knoll, they get head movement (back and to the left) just like in the film. Totally ignore that for some reason. Then they use other ammo, get a different result that doesn't jive with the evidence and proclaim "Yep, this proves it couldn't have happened this way" even though their first test absolutely suggested that it could have. Sorry, you can't just use two data points to prove anything, particularly when there are so many unknowns.
Then they move on to the tower location. They totally ignore how the dummy's head doesn't move like in the film but yet proclaim all the evidence fits.
Furthermore, they use a stationary target so momentum is completely ignored. Yet they can magically proclaim all the splatter evidence is identical?
Sorry, it's just not as convincing as you'd like to believe, James.
I'm one of the ones who believes Oswald shot through the neck/chest, but that someone else delivered the head shot. I could be convinced otherwise, but nothing I've seen can eliminate the possibility of a second shooter.
You have obviously not been paying attention to Don M. or Icerarex.
They have made it known that the Official Government explanation is conclusive. Right Don/Ice? [:0][B)][?]
I don't believe I have stated the Warren Commission report was conclusive. I believe I stated, (and I quote): While I wouldn't pretend to try and convince anyone that the Warren Commission was 100% correct, there is nothing in the film that 100% discounts the single bullet theory.
I don't know whether Oswald was the only shooter. From everything I've seen, he most likely was a shooter, and very likely was the only shooter. I keep an open mind about such things; about most things, actually.
I cannot imaging being so closed-minded as to state 'you will never convinced me otherwise' as it suggest a willful ignorance of evidence that may challenge their position.
Brad Steele
You have obviously not been paying attention to Don M. or Icerarex.
They have made it known that the Official Government explanation is conclusive. Right Don/Ice? [:0][B)][?]
Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it?
I called your 'so called' BFA requirements 'dictated' you view the film frame by frame, BS and you had a melt down.
I offered no opinion on the "Official Government explanation".
In fact, I offered another explanation via the book "Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK."
You sir, are a PUTZ!
quote:Originally posted by 84Bravo1
You have obviously not been paying attention to Don M. or Icerarex.
They have made it known that the Official Government explanation is conclusive. Right Don/Ice? [:0][B)][?]
Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it?
I called your 'so called' BFA requirements 'dictated' you view the film frame by frame, BS and you had a melt down.
I offered no opinion on the "Official Government explanation".
In fact, I offered another explanation via the book "Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK."
You sir, are a PUTZ!
No "melt down," here Sir. (Obvious to most here, sadly apparently not you.) I miss-spoke on "dictated." It was Independent Studies, as I have tried to clarify. Your calling me a "Putz," shows your character, or lack therof.
I have not alluded to your character, nor have I called you any names.
Perhaps some Civility might be in order for you.
Have a nice day.
I'd say that we ( our government) did play games with the Soviet Union regarding Star Wars and our fake missile satellite BS during the Reagan administration but the moon landings were on the up and up.
Problem is, when the boy cried wolf so many times, it is very hard to believe when the wolf actually shows up!
Here we are talking about two topics, totally UNREALATED!
I'd say that we ( our government) did play games with the Soviet Union regarding Star Wars and our fake missile satellite BS during the Reagan administration but the moon landings were on the up and up.
Problem is, when the boy cried wolf so many times, it is very hard to believe when the wolf actually shows up!
Yes, two different topics were warranted. I spoke to my beliefs as to the "Moon Landings," in relation to this thread. (My mistake.) I was alluding to our Governments lack of Candor and believability, in general.
I will be more careful going forward.
quote:Originally posted by 84Bravo1
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by kimi
Have you people even bothered to watch the three videos presented below? Oswald killed the prez.
JFK Assassination Computer Animation
JFK Assassination - Head shot re-creation (Part 1)
https://ruclip.com/video/9RCX3RdVHqo/jfk-assassination-head-shot-recreation-part-1.html
JFK Assassination - Head shot re-creation (Part 2)
Lots of "evidence" being ignored to come to their conclusions regarding the heat shot. For one, in the first test they do from the grassy knoll, they get head movement (back and to the left) just like in the film. Totally ignore that for some reason. Then they use other ammo, get a different result that doesn't jive with the evidence and proclaim "Yep, this proves it couldn't have happened this way" even though their first test absolutely suggested that it could have. Sorry, you can't just use two data points to prove anything, particularly when there are so many unknowns.
Then they move on to the tower location. They totally ignore how the dummy's head doesn't move like in the film but yet proclaim all the evidence fits.
Furthermore, they use a stationary target so momentum is completely ignored. Yet they can magically proclaim all the splatter evidence is identical?
Sorry, it's just not as convincing as you'd like to believe, James.
I'm one of the ones who believes Oswald shot through the neck/chest, but that someone else delivered the head shot. I could be convinced otherwise, but nothing I've seen can eliminate the possibility of a second shooter.
You have obviously not been paying attention to Don M. or Icerarex.
They have made it known that the Official Government explanation is conclusive. Right Don/Ice? [:0][B)][?]
I don't believe I have stated the Warren Commission report was conclusive. I believe I stated, (and I quote): While I wouldn't pretend to try and convince anyone that the Warren Commission was 100% correct, there is nothing in the film that 100% discounts the single bullet theory.
I don't know whether Oswald was the only shooter. From everything I've seen, he most likely was a shooter, and very likely was the only shooter. I keep an open mind about such things; about most things, actually.
I cannot imaging being so closed-minded as to state 'you will never convinced me otherwise' as it suggest a willful ignorance of evidence that may challenge their position.
I stated "you will not convince me otherwise," in relation to my viewing of the Zapruder film. That fatal shot came from the front. (IMHO.) You are welcome to believe what you want.
quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
quote:Originally posted by 84Bravo1
You have obviously not been paying attention to Don M. or Icerarex.
They have made it known that the Official Government explanation is conclusive. Right Don/Ice? [:0][B)][?]
Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it?
I called your 'so called' BFA requirements 'dictated' you view the film frame by frame, BS and you had a melt down.
I offered no opinion on the "Official Government explanation".
In fact, I offered another explanation via the book "Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK."
You sir, are a PUTZ!
No "melt down," here Sir. (Obvious to most here, sadly apparently not you.) I miss-spoke on "dictated." It was Independent Studies, as I have tried to clarify. Your calling me a "Putz," shows your character, or lack therof.
I have not alluded to your character, nor have I called you any names.
Perhaps some Civility might be in order for you.
Have a nice day.
Did you have a stroke? Do you need to get your noodle checked?
You started 'round 2' today by claiming I posted something I didn't. Was that 'civil' of you? How about calling me 'uninformed' just before I dropped my 'I too have a BFA' 'oh-poop' bomb in your lap last week?
Your narcissism is showing.
I said you were "uninformed." You call me a "Putz." Similar, in any regard? I think not.
Good luck with your "melt down" theory.
Your opinion of me, means less than nothing to me. (Just to clarify.)
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by 84Bravo1
You have obviously not been paying attention to Don M. or Icerarex.
They have made it known that the Official Government explanation is conclusive. Right Don/Ice? [:0][B)][?]
Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it?
You sir, are a PUTZ!
My "reading comprehension" is excellent, in all regards.
Your words speak for themselves.