It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

JFK: The Ultimate ATS Live Radio Debate

page: 2
44
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   
A very overwhelmingly convincing collection of facts that you just cant brush aside .I was on a school bus heading home when someone stopped the bus and mentioned the assassination to the driver .. I was 10 years old and didnt know much of course .Somehow even being in a country that was once at war with you yanks never made my admiration of JFK waver ...I am sure it was a lost to the world and it must have been like loosing one of your own children when they took him out ...sad but ,...who did they pass the torch on to and just what are they conspiring to do now ..I say that because if you yanks had ever took back your country from these evil creatures we (the rest of the world) would have noticed ....peace
edit on 21-11-2013 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by OneFreeMan
 


Yes I most certainly am "one of those" who do believe that the Moon landings happened!

That particular subject has been discussed rather a lot here on ATS and I think you will find that the general consensus is that it did indeed happen.


The more pertinent question you should be asking is why we never remained on or returned to the Moon???

edit on 21-11-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Maverick7
 


Well I don't know but isn't the Mossad thing taking it a bit far at this point ...not saying it wasn't so but please please give some evidence to that part of your claim ..



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by andy06shake
 


I think that at this point in history that weather the moon landing was real or not is something we can say it doesn't matter a lot . We are talking about something that is bigger than the moon when we look at the JFK assassination . I am thinking that most people in the world would exchange every bit of moon rock and dust to have had JFK do his thing ..



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   

semperfortis
reply to post by OneFreeMan
 


What you have posted is a "Doctored" photo..

"Unretouched" photos are available



Here you can clearly see stains.. Also her skirt, not showing in the pic, is covered in blood

Sorry

Fail


I don't see much difference except a little lighting and obvious cropping.
In fact, the photo you posted looks like the one that is doctored to my eye,
but either way, the point remains the same. Where is all the blood that there
should be? Sure she had a little 'blood' on her outfit but she had her husband's massively
punctured head on her lap and next to her chest all the way from when the
'shootings' commenced to when the limo reached the hospital (except for the
time she leaped on the trunk to retrieve whatever it was she went to retrieve, of course) after all.
If Kennedy had a huge hole/holes in his head, and she was tending to him in this
emergency, where and with what do you imagine would she put pressure on the
wounds to try and stem the accompanying eruptions of liquid life from the once
closed system that was her much loved husband's pressurised blood circulation.



These are the questions that need to be asked on the show. They are very hard
to answer satisfactorily (within the bounds of all current popular JFK conspiracy theories).
edit on 21-11-2013 by OneFreeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by the2ofusr1
 


JFK did state that we should go to the Moon and he and his cabinet initiated the forerunner projects that made the Apollo program and Moon landings a reality. This was rather a large financial commitment for the US to be undertaking considering the cold war that they were engaged in at the time. Rather a lot of nefarious individuals were more interested in starting wars all over the globe! They would have had that money/resources, in their eyes, better spent on ICBMs and B-52s.

JFK choose science and endeavour over thermonuclear war that in itself was reason enough for his assassination.

Three words I feel are rather relevant when pondering his assassins, military industrial complex.

Eisenhower knew the score!

edit on 21-11-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by OneFreeMan
 


It must be difficult to engage in an investigation when ..

1. You ignore obvious evidence

2. You have your mind made up and no amount of proof will change that




posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   

andy06shake
reply to post by OneFreeMan
 


Yes I most certainly am "one of those" who do believe that the Moon landings happened!

That particular subject has been discussed rather a lot here on ATS and I think you will find that the general consensus is that it did indeed happen.


The more pertinent question you should be asking is why we never remained on or returned to the Moon???

edit on 21-11-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)


General concensus!? Don't make me laugh!
I better not comment to you too much because my last comment was removed and I
received a warning (for what, I am still in the dark about!), so I don't wish to go off
topic here.
The JFK debate has been controlled for years and the confines within which people
are coerced into operating between have been specifically scripted and well defined,
(similar to 9/11 conspiracy investigation confines!).
The vital first premise is never broached. First of all we must determine whether a
killing actually occurred. Once we can establish this beyond all doubt (and if you look
in the link I posted in my opening post here, you will see that there are solid doubts
aplenty), then we can continue.

We need to revert to the first principles of logic and investigation. This much is clearer
now than at any time before!



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   

HanzHenry
the Federal Reserve and EO 11110.

The first thing LBJ did was to repeal it.


Hippies, drugs sex and music. the whole Hippy/'___' movement was started by the CIA..

to create a massive distraction. To DRUG ADDICT the young generation --->those that ALWAYS spur revolution.


I think the JFK wanting to return to the country to the gold standard is an important point.

Your second premise I've never heard before.
Now I have someone to thank for the 60s! (kidding)

Have you a link on it?



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   

semperfortis
reply to post by OneFreeMan
 


It must be difficult to engage in an investigation when ..

1. You ignore obvious evidence

2. You have your mind made up and no amount of proof will change that



Do you think I haven't seriously entertained all the other JFK conspiracies over the
years? I have moved on to the truth after considering everything else.
It seems you haven't considered the evidence for a staged assassination that has been
put forward in spades in the link I posted.


Your answer here isn't a very confident one. I think the two points you made
above are better applied to you than to me.

Why isn't Jackie's coat and dress soaked in deep dark blood?



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Maverick7
Six shooter teams.
* Dal-Tex - he's the one the SS are looking back at in Altgens 6; mafia related
* TSBD - Mac Wallace; LBJ's man
* Top of the Records building - shot missed, hit the manhole cover platform; CIA's man
* Storm drain next to the Triple Overpass; corsican mafia
* Fake shooter at the picket fence, which missed; possibly J.D. Tippet
* North Storm Drain; possibly Mossad related


Mossad? more info please.


Why would they have a "fake" shooter at the picket fence? More than one patsy? Is that your premise?



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by OneFreeMan
 




Why isn't Jackie's coat and dress soaked in deep dark blood?


And all I'm gonna say is you don't know your Channel ....

edit on 21-11-2013 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by OneFreeMan
 

I will tell you this ...I have in the past made statements that make no sense and yours must be similar to the ones I have made ...chill out and rethink just what you are trying to say so that we can share in your sentiments ...peace

edit on 21-11-2013 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by OneFreeMan
 


You are ignoring too many factors here.

1) you use a grainy, low quality, over exposed black and white photo to point out lack of blood stains. There is even an arrow pointing to the other side of the skirt which we can't see, so it's evidence of nothing.

2) You make assumptions that the back of Mrs Kennedy's skirt should be soaked in blood, yet you haven't shown what position she was seated in, how long she had her husband close to her, how long he bled etc. The film of the day shows her perched on the front edge of the seat but with her back touching the door, the seat is angled quite sharply backward and blood or liquid could easily run toward the back of the seat.

3) You haven't identified the fabric of Mrs Kennedy's outfit and factored in whether such clothing would indeed be 'soaked' in blood or not. The suit she is wearing is a 1963 Chanel Wool suit in a boucle weave. Wool fibres can soak up alot of liquid without a stain spreading and a boucle weave is dense and thick with alot of space/air between the fibres. This suit would not be saturated in blood in the same way a thin cotton may have been and liquid may not soak through to the back. I believe their are photos of JFK's cotton shirt from the day which IS soaked in blood on the back and side. That would support that the back of his head bled alot and whilst his wife held him in the initial moments, that is where most of the blood was going.

Of course you would have to test these things, instead of coming out with a blanket statement such as ' There should have been more blood and that proves it was just a trick'!



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by OneFreeMan
 





Why isn't Jackie's coat and dress soaked in deep dark blood?



Because she had so much money she didn't have to run around
in a dress or any clothing that was soaked with her husbands
blood. In fact Samnatha Stevens didn't have nothing on her.
Jackie Kennedy could just wrinkle her nose at men at that
time and send them running after anything. It's true.

And to stage an assassination like this, is completely ludicrous
when you consider how that increases the chances of exposure.
Staged ! phhff !



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by OneFreeMan
 


Do you think Jackie was going to allow Jack's blood to ruin a perfectly fine dress? She was in a hurry to get on board the Onassis' yacht...she had money to spend...no time to waste cleaning up...



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by OneFreeMan
 


"We need to revert to the first principles of logic and investigation. This much is clearer
now than at any time before!"

However the premise of your argument that president Kennedy somehow staged and or survived his assassination in Dallas Texas does not follow any logical consistency.

Arthur Conan Doyle said "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth". Try applying his logic to your argument.


Since your post was removed for an extreme TnC violation i'm sure the Mods probably have a good reason for its removal, they generally do. I suggest if you have a problem with there censorship you take it up with them politely, i can't help you there i'm afraid.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Nobody has mentioned "The Magic Bullet Theory" much, I think that's pretty pertinent to the who killed Kennedy school of thought and whether it was a lone assassin or a conspiracy. I think it somehow says that the projectile in question after ripping through the president remained stationary for 1.5 seconds before proceeding onwards to even more severe injury!

Just like Kevin Costner said in the movie, That's some bullet!
LoL

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 21-11-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by andy06shake
 


I read somewhere that the Warren Report Magic Bullet Trajectory was so wrong as they didn't take into consideration the Governor and his wife were in a jump seat that was slightly further in and higher than John and Jackies. So it corrects the turns of the bullet when you put the seat in the correct position..

Not sure how accurate that argument is though.

One of the panelists Colin, a former Detective responsible for breaking open some of Australias' big criminal cases has focused his research on ballistics evidence, he and Sermper (former marine sniper, Police caption and Gun lovin' nincompoop) will discuss the magic bullet on the show for sure. Have you a specific question on the bullet?
edit on 21-11-2013 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


The obvious question is how the bullet remained stationary for around 1.5 seconds then regained momentum and preceded onwards. But you have suggested they had it wrong somehow and did not take into account additional passengers, fair enough point if its correct. Least it takes away some of the mystery regarding said bullet, cheers.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join