Bush's former press secretary says Bush misled U.S. on Iraq

Sheriff Gonna Getcha · 06-08-2008, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dblanch66

My history is not "off". I suppose you believe Pearl Harbor was a "surprise attack" and that Oswald acted alone. Mine is a matter of opinion based on fact. Gee...you would't be a ....republican

You wouldn't be the stereotypical conspiracy theorist "enlightened" young college Dem?

dblanch66 · 06-08-2008, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRPLG

What does this even mean?

Are you implying that an understanding of physics would prove to someone that Kennedy was killed via conspiracy? Do you even know what you are talking about? I dare you to find one reputable, REPUTABLE, source who has done any scientific research into this topic who claims that Kennedy was killed by someone other than Oswald. I will find you numerous others to the contrary. Sure there are a bunch of crackpot semi-scientists who do this and that and bellow on about the grassy knoll but when sujected to rigorous scientific experiment it has been shown that not only was it possible for Oswald to have been the lone shooter it was actually almost impossible for him to have not been. There have been scientifically conducting recreations which exactly recreated the bullet trajectories into Kennedy and the governor.

uh...watch the film...which, by the way, is the only footage of Kennedy's assasination and probably not counted on by the architects of the conspiracy. When someone's head snaps backwards and a hunk of their head comes off from the FRONT, physics dictates that the force came from IN FRONT of the target. But hey, believe what you want. We can agree to disagree but at least watch the cleaned up version of the film (available on Netflix, by the way) and then see if you feel the same way. THEN watch extensive footage of Oswald after he was arrested. He said time and again that he was a patsy. Being in custody already, he had no reason to lie because I'm sure he knew he was pretty much ****ed regardless of what he said, so why not just admit to the crime? Who was Jack Ruby? Nah...no one wanted Oswald silenced, right? Oh pah-leeeeze. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, it might be a duck.

dblanch66 · 06-08-2008, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

You wouldn't be the stereotypical conspiracy theorist "enlightened" young college Dem?

I went to college. don't think I'm that young anymore, there ace.

FRPLG · 06-08-2008, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dblanch66

uh...watch the film...which, by the way, is the only footage of Kennedy's assasination and probably not counted on by the architects of the conspiracy. When someone's head snaps backwards and a hunk of their head comes off from the FRONT, physics dictates that the force came from IN FRONT of the target. But hey, believe what you want. We can agree to disagree but at least watch the cleaned up version of the film (available on Netflix, by the way) and then see if you feel the same way. THEN watch extensive footage of Oswald after he was arrested. He said time and again that he was a patsy. Being in custody already, he had no reason to lie because I'm sure he knew he was pretty much ****ed regardless of what he said, so why not just admit to the crime? Who was Jack Ruby? Nah...no one wanted Oswald silenced, right? Oh pah-leeeeze. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, it might be a duck.

You're are simply wrong. You are regurgitating common pop knowledge "truisms" that are simply wrong.

First of all when a high powreed rifle hits a life form, it is not only common but almost always the case that the exit wound is larger, much larger, than the entry. That is the truth. The debate about the movement of the head is just that. Most scientists who know what they' are talking about find nothing perplexing with the movement of JFK's head.

I guess I shouldn't say there wasn't a conspiracy but what I am saying is that physics in this case confirms that the bullet that killed Kennedy came from behind him. Plain and simple. And I am not basing that on me just "knowing" physics. I base that on what I have been told by actual scientists who know what they are talking about. Refer to Peter Jenkins' entire show about the assasination where they took a 3-d recreation that the gentlemen had worked for decades to perfect that proved that the bullet that went through Kennedy certainly struck the Govenro without any "magic bullet" physics.

This is a retarded argument. I am done. I'll settle for knowing I am right.

dblanch66 · 06-08-2008, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRPLG

You're are simply wrong. You are regurgitating common pop knowledge "truisms" that are simply wrong.

First of all when a high powreed rifle hits a life form, it is not only common but almost always the case that the exit wound is larger, much larger, than the entry. That is the truth. The debate about the movement of the head is just that. Most scientists who know what they' are talking about find nothing perplexing with the movement of JFK's head.

I guess I shouldn't say there wasn't a conspiracy but what I am saying is that physics in this case confirms that the bullet that killed Kennedy came from behind him. Plain and simple. And I am not basing that on me just "knowing" physics. I base that on what I have been told by actual scientists who know what they are talking about. Refer to Peter Jenkins' entire show about the assasination where they took a 3-d recreation that the gentlemen had worked for decades to perfect that proved that the bullet that went through Kennedy certainly struck the Govenro without any "magic bullet" physics.

This is a retarded argument. I am done. I'll settle for knowing I am right.

No. You are wrong. There ya go. Watch the film. Draw your own conclusions. I'm sure Oswald was so good a marksman that he could get off 3 shots with a bolt action rifle in a matter of 12 second. Bullcrap. Try it. And for argument's sake, even if the bullet came from behind, you still believe Oswald did it alone..? Go to the building in Dallas and see for yourself. Hmmmmm...why do they have the window sectioned off???? Maybe cause if you saw the view he had you'd say to yourself..."uh...there's no friggin' way!" So unless you've been there, please don't argue about something out of your tuchus.

The Goat · 06-09-2008, 12:18 AM

No intention of starting a different argument here, but even 5 years ago when I finished college (w/ a history degree) there had already been hundreds of doctoral dissertations as well as forensic investigations detailing the assassinations of the 60's. The widely accepted, and by that I mean encompassing nearly the whole profession, view is that the only assassination that was a conspiracy was MLK Jr. Read transcripts from the FBI and CIA and it becomes painfully obvious officials at the highest levels of government wanted him dead. I cannot remember the name of the book now that a visiting professor had us read but it documents, referencing primary sources, confessions from both undercover government agents and those who could get close to MLK there was an active involvement to have him killed.

steveo395 · 06-09-2008, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dblanch66

No. You are wrong. There ya go. Watch the film. Draw your own conclusions. I'm sure Oswald was so good a marksman that he could get off 3 shots with a bolt action rifle in a matter of 12 second. Bullcrap. Try it. And for argument's sake, even if the bullet came from behind, you still believe Oswald did it alone..? Go to the building in Dallas and see for yourself. Hmmmmm...why do they have the window sectioned off???? Maybe cause if you saw the view he had you'd say to yourself..."uh...there's no friggin' way!" So unless you've been there, please don't argue about something out of your tuchus.

You are wrong. The bullets came from behind. I think it was the History Channel that had a whole show proving exactly how it happened. All the wounds and exit wounds on both men lined up perfectly with how they were sitting. When Kennedy got hit in the side of his head, the part that got blown off flew forward.

And Lee Harvey Oswald was a former marine sharpshooter, so yes he was that good of a marksman. You don't know what your talking about.

dblanch66 · 06-09-2008, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveo395

You are wrong. The bullets came from behind. I think it was the History Channel that had a whole show proving exactly how it happened. All the wounds and exit wounds on both men lined up perfectly with how they were sitting. When Kennedy got hit in the side of his head, the part that got blown off flew forward.

And Lee Harvey Oswald was a former marine sharpshooter, so yes he was that good of a marksman. You don't know what your talking about.

Whatever you say, chief. Watch the movie and spin it any way you want and believe everything you see and read. Way to conform, champ.

70Chip · 06-09-2008, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dblanch66

No. You are wrong. There ya go. Watch the film. Draw your own conclusions. I'm sure Oswald was so good a marksman that he could get off 3 shots with a bolt action rifle in a matter of 12 second. Bullcrap. Try it. And for argument's sake, even if the bullet came from behind, you still believe Oswald did it alone..? Go to the building in Dallas and see for yourself. Hmmmmm...why do they have the window sectioned off???? Maybe cause if you saw the view he had you'd say to yourself..."uh...there's no friggin' way!" So unless you've been there, please don't argue about something out of your tuchus.

70Chip · 06-09-2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveo395

You are wrong. The bullets came from behind. I think it was the History Channel that had a whole show proving exactly how it happened. All the wounds and exit wounds on both men lined up perfectly with how they were sitting. When Kennedy got hit in the side of his head, the part that got blown off flew forward.

And Lee Harvey Oswald was a former marine sharpshooter, so yes he was that good of a marksman. You don't know what your talking about.

SmootSmack · 06-09-2008, 11:56 AM

I've figured it out! Didn't Dblanch say he was closely involved with the writer's strike a while back? Now we know...he's Oliver Stone!!

skinsguy · 06-09-2008, 12:17 PM

Really, where has arguing politics ever got anybody?

SmootSmack · 06-09-2008, 12:50 PM

Well, who shot Kennedy and how he was shot isn't exactly arguing politics in my opinion. As for arguing politics though, it can be done effectively but much depends on who you're arguing with.

Sheriff Gonna Getcha · 06-09-2008, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Well, who shot Kennedy and how he was shot isn't exactly arguing politics in my opinion. As for arguing politics though, it can be done effectively but much depends on who you're arguing with.

Precisely. I actually find many posts in these threads informative and interesting. I like reading posts from people like LadyBrave, JoeRedskin, 70Chip and others of all political stripes. Granted, sometimes these threads get heated and some people aren't open to different viewpoints, but the good stuff outweighs the bad IMO.

onlydarksets · 06-09-2008, 01:36 PM

How did you guys know that I started this thread with the intent of tying it back to McClellan's dad's book about the Kennedy assassination?
Upcoming book contends LBJ was behind JFK's assassination, 8/03

06-09-2008, 12:18 AM	#51
The Goat Pro Bowl Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 5,020	Re: Bush's former press secretary says Bush misled U.S. on Iraq No intention of starting a different argument here, but even 5 years ago when I finished college (w/ a history degree) there had already been hundreds of doctoral dissertations as well as forensic investigations detailing the assassinations of the 60's. The widely accepted, and by that I mean encompassing nearly the whole profession, view is that the only assassination that was a conspiracy was MLK Jr. Read transcripts from the FBI and CIA and it becomes painfully obvious officials at the highest levels of government wanted him dead. I cannot remember the name of the book now that a visiting professor had us read but it documents, referencing primary sources, confessions from both undercover government agents and those who could get close to MLK there was an active involvement to have him killed. __________________ Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes he eats you.

06-09-2008, 11:56 AM	#56
SmootSmack Mad Men Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 43,098	Re: Bush's former press secretary says Bush misled U.S. on Iraq I've figured it out! Didn't Dblanch say he was closely involved with the writer's strike a while back? Now we know...he's Oliver Stone!! __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

06-09-2008, 12:17 PM	#57
skinsguy Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Greensboro, North Carolina Posts: 5,999	Re: Bush's former press secretary says Bush misled U.S. on Iraq Really, where has arguing politics ever got anybody? __________________ Not the same Skinsguy that posts on ES.

06-09-2008, 12:50 PM	#58
SmootSmack Mad Men Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 43,098	Re: Bush's former press secretary says Bush misled U.S. on Iraq Well, who shot Kennedy and how he was shot isn't exactly arguing politics in my opinion. As for arguing politics though, it can be done effectively but much depends on who you're arguing with. __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

06-09-2008, 01:36 PM	#60
onlydarksets Playmaker Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: all up in your business Posts: 2,693	Re: Bush's former press secretary says Bush misled U.S. on Iraq How did you guys know that I started this thread with the intent of tying it back to McClellan's dad's book about the Kennedy assassination? Upcoming book contends LBJ was behind JFK's assassination, 8/03 __________________ Stop reading my signature.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Bush's former press secretary says Bush misled U.S. on Iraq

Parking Lot