The JFK Assassination Equivalent of the 9/11 "No Plane" Theory?
This would be the theory that Secret Service Agent William Greer (the limo driver) shot President Kennedy.
I have to say, even though both theories seem to be totally "out there" at first glance, on closer examination, both theories are supported by a surprising amount of evidence.
Personally, I don't find this frame of the Zapruder film that supposedly shows Greer shooting Kennedy very convincing*:
But the other evidence is rather striking.
*Though it seems quite possible that the Zapruder film was altered to make what Greer did less obvious.
I have to say, even though both theories seem to be totally "out there" at first glance, on closer examination, both theories are supported by a surprising amount of evidence.
Personally, I don't find this frame of the Zapruder film that supposedly shows Greer shooting Kennedy very convincing*:
But the other evidence is rather striking.
*Though it seems quite possible that the Zapruder film was altered to make what Greer did less obvious.
posted by spooked at 6:32 PM
11 Comments:
You are one impressive fruitcake...
The most respected Web site/forum for intelligent, informed discussion of the events surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy can be found at http://tinyurl.com/22sjt4
ha ha! i was going to say:
how long will it take for a pinchey to zero in on this particular post as a means of deflecting attn away from the fact that 9/11 was an obvious inside job but i see that anon @7:43p has made my point already!
"as a means of deflecting attn away"
It was your fellow short-bus member who posted this in the first place mr. clown-shoes...
"Time has blurred our memories, words have stilled our feelings; but we remember the man and the day, and feel a muted sorrow".
Harvard Crimson, 11/22/64
Greg Jenkins has written an article purporting to debunk Morgan Reynolds:
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/04/physicist-greg-jenkins-responds-to.html
Comments are welcome.
ningens, ol' buddy ol' pal....
I'll comment here because my bullshit meter is pegged whenever I go to that site of yours.
Debunking Morgan Reynolds is like taking a dump - it is the easiest thing in the world and you feel great afterwards because you've done something positive with the crap.
Reynolds has got to be the stupidest PhD in the galaxy, giving solace to those of us who ever deign to think of achieving such a lofty position in academia - "If an idiot/fool/buffoon like Morgan Reynolds can get a PhD, well I ought to be a shoo-in!".
I can't tell you how many things that clown has posted/printed/said that, on the surface, are just dumb as a rock and as you get deeper into them are dumber than a pile of rocks. Example:
"A jetliner must decelerate at impact due to the laws of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy."
Fine and dandy, but how much deceleration can one see or should one expect when an object such as an airliner collides with the glass/steel girder-framed side of a sky scraper at the speeds in question here?
The famous video of the F-4 impacting the concrete barrier test should be clear enough for anyone - get up enough speed and it doesn't matter WHAT surface you fly into - a fixed concrete barrier or a glass/steel-girder wall - you'd be hard pressed to notice *any* deceleration, laws of conservation of momentum be damned!
I don't expect a bonehead like Reynolds nor you nor Spooky nor anyone of his minions to understand that - you don't need any fancy convoluted, complicated video analysis equipment or some high-falutin' math formulae to figure that out - just look with your damn eyes.
I have been in or around aviation for much of my life, 23 of my own years associated with naval aviation and another 18 years growing up as my dad was a naval aviator. The behavior of those aircraft on Sept 11 is fully consistent with what someone who knows about aircraft performance and engineering would expect.
I know I'm arguing with a tree stump here, but your comments about Jenkins possibly proving you wrong were just too funny to pass up.
Pinch, you're not my buddy and you're not my pal. Got it?
I don't think the Sandia video is at all comparable. If it is, why did the plane penetrate the building.
I also think Reynolds has raised so many points beyond this, and he is right.
Don't bother posting at my site. My policy is that insults have to be far outweighed by substance, or I don't post them. I've only had to delete one so far, and I give one freebie, so go ahead Pinch. Make it good. You prove my point with your empty insults and appeals to your own authority.
Laugh all you want. Sleep well, and remember your oath.
Nin, OL' BUDDY OL' PAL,
God...I LOVE pissing you lunatics off!
"If it is, why did the plane penetrate the building."
What did I say? Dumb as a pile of rocks? The plane penetrated the building because all it faced was glass and steel girders and a butt load of open space behind that. Do you think the F-4 would have "bounced off" the WTC like you idiots claim the airliners should have? 500 knots is pretty damn fast and *no one*, not even the PhD of the Moonbat Brigade, can say with any shred of authority that a plane should have slowed down enough so that parts of the wing or the tail should have "bounced off".
And don't worry about my posting on your page. I try to keep from wrestling pigs as much as I can, especially if it is in their sty. I like coming here because, as I've said before, this is the funniest damn site on the Internet. I get my monthly ISP fee back in spades with what you dorkbags post here.
I sleep quiet well, thankyewverymuch, and I have taken my oath quite seriously my entire career and continue to do so. Have you ever sworn to uphold anything?
And yes, I am laughing quite robustly.
""glass/steel girder-framed side of a sky scraper ""
ha ha!
was the glass an integral component of the structural strength of a wtc or do you simply take every opportunity to insert the word "glass" into your comments?
here are 5 gratuitous "glass" that you can feel free to bandy about as if it had anything to do with reality:
- glass glass glass glass glass -
i submit that pinch does not believe the official 9/11 fairytale any more than the rest of us do!
From 2020. If you look close enough, you will notice what you are seeing is the bald spot of Secret Service agent Kellerman highlighted by the sun. It is not a handgun.
Post a Comment
<< Home