Discussion:
Excellent Excerpts Proving Shots From The Front Posted By Gil Jesus
(too old to reply)
NoTrueFlags Here
2023-11-17 05:45:20 UTC
Permalink
I think most of it comes from The Men Who Killed Kennedy, something that series got right.
Gil Jesus
2023-11-17 10:00:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoTrueFlags Here
http://youtu.be/p_NHCCuTk3U I think most of it comes from The Men Who Killed Kennedy, something that series got right.
Thank You and yes you are correct about the source.
JE Corbett
2023-11-17 10:44:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by NoTrueFlags Here
http://youtu.be/p_NHCCuTk3U I think most of it comes from The Men Who Killed Kennedy, something that series got right.
Thank You and yes you are correct about the source.
One would have to be incredibly gullible to believe that series was a factual account of the assassination. All one would have
to do is look at how much credence they gave to Badgeman.
Gil Jesus
2023-11-17 10:55:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by JE Corbett
One would have to be incredibly gullible to believe that series was a factual account of the assassination. All one would have
to do is look at how much credence they gave to Badgeman.
Do you understand what consilience is?

In history, it is the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience#:~:text=In%20science%20and%20history%2C%20consilience,%22converge%22%20on%20strong%20conclusions.
JE Corbett
2023-11-17 11:15:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by JE Corbett
One would have to be incredibly gullible to believe that series was a factual account of the assassination. All one would have
to do is look at how much credence they gave to Badgeman.
Do you understand what consilience is?
Obviously, you don't.
Post by Gil Jesus
In history, it is the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience#:~:text=In%20science%20and%20history%2C%20consilience,%22converge%22%20on%20strong%20conclusions.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Chuck should be flattered.
Gil Jesus
2023-11-17 11:19:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
Do you understand what consilience is?
Obviously, you don't.
No obviously, you don't.
Independent, unrelated sources producing evidence that there was at least one shot fired from the front and you don't consider that consilience ?
ROFLMAO

You people are great with the double-standards.
Keep it up. I need a good laugh.
BT George
2023-11-17 17:48:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by JE Corbett
One would have to be incredibly gullible to believe that series was a factual account of the assassination. All one would have
to do is look at how much credence they gave to Badgeman.
Do you understand what consilience is?
Obviously, you don't.
Post by Gil Jesus
In history, it is the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience#:~:text=In%20science%20and%20history%2C%20consilience,%22converge%22%20on%20strong%20conclusions.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Chuck should be flattered.
He will be. ..Till he considers the source!
Gil Jesus
2023-11-17 19:40:52 UTC
Permalink
He will be. ..Till he considers the source!
And what year can we expect you to post some evidence instead of insults ?
Ben Holmes
2023-11-27 16:13:28 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 03:15:07 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by JE Corbett
One would have to be incredibly gullible to believe that series was a factual account of the assassination. All one would have
to do is look at how much credence they gave to Badgeman.
Do you understand what consilience is?
Logical fallacy deleted...
Bud
2023-11-17 11:18:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by JE Corbett
One would have to be incredibly gullible to believe that series was a factual account of the assassination. All one would have
to do is look at how much credence they gave to Badgeman.
Do you understand what consilience is?
You don`t. You think it means "cooperation".
Post by Gil Jesus
In history, it is the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions.
How does the autopsy report findings of two shots fired from above and behind fit into this "consilience"?
Post by Gil Jesus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience#:~:text=In%20science%20and%20history%2C%20consilience,%22converge%22%20on%20strong%20conclusions.
Gil Jesus
2023-11-17 11:20:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
You don`t. You think it means "cooperation".
Oh look the Villiage Idiot is reading my mind.
Let's all stop and bask in his genius.
Ben Holmes
2023-11-27 16:13:37 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 03:20:52 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Bud
You don`t. You think it means "cooperation".
Oh look the Villiage Idiot is reading my mind.
Let's all stop and bask in his genius.
"Independent, unrelated sources producing evidence ..." and
Chickenshit thinks that "cooperation" was anywhere implied.
Bud
2023-11-27 19:26:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 03:20:52 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Bud
You don`t. You think it means "cooperation".
Oh look the Villiage Idiot is reading my mind.
Let's all stop and bask in his genius.
"Independent, unrelated sources producing evidence ..." and
Chickenshit thinks that "cooperation" was anywhere implied.
Early morning posting before the coffee kicked in. I meant "corroboration", which I misspelled, and then took what the spell checker offered without a close reading.
Ben Holmes
2023-11-27 19:56:03 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 11:26:23 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Ben Holmes
2023-11-30 21:41:35 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 03:18:04 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Donald Willis
2023-11-17 17:45:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoTrueFlags Here
http://youtu.be/p_NHCCuTk3U I think most of it comes from The Men Who Killed Kennedy, something that series got right.
Connie Kritzberg and I exchanged emails at one point in time. The information in the above video is also contained in her book, "Secrets from the Sixth Floor Window", pages 18-19. The main subject of our e-correspondence were the evasions by Bob Jackson on why he didn't get a photo of the rifle in the window. Over the years, he came up with several explanations...
Loading...