Debunk This New JFK Information

Alchemist

Banned
Banned


According CIA documents declassified under the Freedom of Information Act, CIA played an instrumental role in propagandizing the impossible conclusions of the Warren Commission as reported by the New York Times "Cable Sought to Discredit Critics of Warren Report."

It seems that even when those responsible are on record bragging about it, those subjected to the admitted CIA psyops still buy into the Commission report like obedient, unquestioning slaves. It's ironic how rather than truly being "skeptical" and questioning everything, they appear to be only concerned with defending their pre-existing beliefs no matter how impossible and outrageous they are as evidenced by their unquestioning support of the "magic bullet theory".
 
Last edited:
It's a 5 minute video from a news coverage... do you really a need a summary?

Joseph Adams Milteer was a militant activist who was reportedly one of the most violent men in the country was positively ID'd being in the same location where the assassination took place.

This is a direct interaction captured by Miami intelligence officers between FBI informant William Somersett and Miltee on November 9, 1963:

Somersett: Well how in the hell do you figure would be the best way to get him?
Milteer: From an office building with a high powered rife.
Somersett: Are they really gonna try to kill him?
Milteer: Oh yes it's in the works.
Somersett: Boy, if Kennedy's getting shot, we've got to know where we're at.
Milteer: Hell, they'll pick up somebody up within the hours after just to throw the public off

He went as far as DESCRIBING smuggling a gun into the building.

Afterwards he even BRAGGED about it... Milteer: I guess you thought I was kidding when I said he would be killed from a window with a high powered rifle.
 
Last edited:
What needs debunking? Where's the bunk? Maybe that stuff happened. Is there any reason not to believe it did?
 
What needs debunking? Where's the bunk? Maybe that stuff happened. Is there any reason not to believe it did?
The consensus here seems to be that the Warren Commission is gospel and the only truth... that's why I felt the need to bring this up... to show that the Warren Commission is bunk.
 
The consensus here seems to be that the Warren Commission is gospel and the only truth... that's why I felt the need to bring this up... to show that the Warren Commission is bunk.
Maybe you can pick one point of the Warren Commission that you feel is bunk and explain it. That is after you have made sure there isn't already a thread on that particular point.
 
Was he seen in Dallas? Did he have Dallas connections? Let's see something other than one 'tape'.

Lots of folks disliked Pres Kennedy. I was in the 6th grade when that happened. I saw the shooting of Oswald live. I live in Dallas, I have heard all the 'tales'. I expect to hear more this year.
 
I'm just saying being nice the tapes prove that they LIED.. so there is no point in even addressing them.
Was he seen in Dallas? Did he have Dallas connections? Let's see something other than one 'tape'.

Lots of folks disliked Pres Kennedy. I was in the 6th grade when that happened. I saw the shooting of Oswald live. I live in Dallas, I have heard all the 'tales'. I expect to hear more this year.
There is a picture of him in Dallas WITH Kennedy in the foreground. Watch the video.
 
What part of 'I do not watch videos' did you miss? I explained why.

There is picture of someone that sort of looks like him in Dallas. And he was on the street not in a building. Facts not speculation.
 
He obviously didn't do it himself.. but he was aware of the plot and how it was going to play out... down to how they would pin in on someone (oswald) and even bragged about being right afterwards.
 
One tape is not fool proof evidence.
Better than NO tape. And he's laughing in your face and bragging about it.. yet you continue to doubt him haha. Show me a tape or any piece of evidence for that matter which proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that Oswald did it.
 
I've yet to hear, see, or read an adequate ( and certainly not personally satisfying ) explanation of " back and to the left " by an official from any level of government whilst in their official capacity...nor in any mainstream artistic or journalistic medium whatsoever. I'm new to debunking but that seems to be the most glaring visual evidence that can be used in an adult argument or debate on this particular topic, which is certainly the watershed moment of the proletariat mistrust of the average American citizen towards their government. Is that not so?
 
I've yet to hear, see, or read an adequate ( and certainly not personally satisfying ) explanation of " back and to the left " by an official from any level of government whilst in their official capacity...nor in any mainstream artistic or journalistic medium whatsoever. I'm new to debunking but that seems to be the most glaring visual evidence that can be used in an adult argument or debate on this particular topic, which is certainly the watershed moment of the proletariat mistrust of the average American citizen towards their government. Is that not so?

It was a spasm. People sometimes thrash around when they get shot.
 
It was a spasm. People sometimes thrash around when they get shot.



With all due respect sir, retroactively proving " spasm " seems a more difficult burden, even in the spirit of debunking, then making a plausible case for straight shots being the reason a shooting victim would grab his throat, seemingly have only his head ( and perhaps his upper torso) snap straight back, and have bits of brain and skull matter spewing behind him after the head shot. Perhaps that's all speculative but I think its a fact - given the visual evidence of Emile Zapruders' film reel and the dozens of witnesses corroborating some or all of what I just wrote - that that speculation is way more credible then spasm. I'm not crazy about conspiracies theories either sir but I'm also not crazy enough to think that people don't conspire..
 
Well with that said, and again with all due respect sir, is it plausible that a skilled homicide detective with all the scientific evidence available on that murder is going to seriously entertain for long that that was a spasm? I think they may at the very least put that in the " probably not " part of their investigative mind. Yes, its not completely out of the realm of possibility but I wouldn't bet my own money on that one. This mans murder offends me sir, and I really couldn't tell you why because it happened twelve years before I was born, and for just once I'd like to see an actual homicide investigation done, where all the removal of the bunk leads to the truth. The way debunkers behave on this particular event alone (seemingly to me anyways) is overwhelmingly not productive. It seems infiltrated and incendiary and ironically conspiratorial lol. With my newbie debunking skills lol and just a cursory investigation it seems the official story is much easier to "debunk". And if I were conspiring anything of that magnitude and "debunking" is simply presenting only a plausible alternate, well then it seems clear to me that the events were conspired with the modern definition of debunking in mind, because there was an overabundance of ridiculousness going on that day in Dealy Plaza lol
 
Didn't most of the initial coroners describe the wound in the back of Kennedy's head as an exit wound? I've seen footage of coroners and examiners of Kennedy's body describing it as an exit wound, all of them making the same or a similar hand gesture to indicate the area where the wound was.
 
Didn't most of the initial coroners describe the wound in the back of Kennedy's head as an exit wound? I've seen footage of coroners and examiners of Kennedy's body describing it as an exit wound, all of them making the same or a similar hand gesture to indicate the area where the wound was.

I think a lot of people initially thought the throat wound in the front was an entrance wound.
 
Why do you say 'it was' instead of 'it could have been' if

is true? You seemed to be suggesting it was proven.

Quite right. It could have been a spasm. I don't see any physical way it could have been anything else though. But I could be missing something.
 
It could have been another shooter, that may be the 'something' you are missing:)

I mean I don't see how another shooter would have that degree of momentum imparted into his body. It seem physically impossible unless it was an elephant gun hitting a steel plate covering his face.
 
I mean I don't see how another shooter would have that degree of momentum imparted into his body. It seem physically impossible unless it was an elephant gun hitting a steel plate covering his face.
Sorry, that has gone right over my head. Can you explain it in more detail? Thanks.
 
It was a spasm. People sometimes thrash around when they get shot.
Bullets don't impart much momentum to people.
The shot to JFK's head, if the Zapruder film is any indication, killed him quite rapidly... or at least quite rapidly put him into a state in which 'thrashing' was no longer possible. If his final motion was not solely the result of the momentum of the bullet passing through both sides of his skull, then it stands to reason it was an instinctive reaction to being shot... the final concerted effort of his body and his brain to rapidly put him out of danger in the fraction of a moment before the connection between the two was severed by a bullet. That, presumably, is what you're referring to by 'thrashing'... that final hurl of his weight in one direction the moment the shot hits, prior to his slumping down motionless. If his final 'thrash' was indeed an instinctive, pre-death effort to to 'evade' the bullet which had just passed through his skull, then the direction of the motion is still of significance, isn't it? In every possible case the instinctive, pre-thought reaction to a source of bodily harm is retreat. Step on something sharp, lift the foot! Touch something that hurts/burns, draw your hand back! Something jabs you in the back, spring forward! A physical threat in front of you, spring back! These aren't conscious 'decisions' 9 times out of 10, they're instinctual, more or less instant reactions. If Kennedy's last act of instinct on this earth was to throw himself back, isn't it reasonable to theorize something struck him from the front? Isn't it fair to assume that, whether the bullet's momentum was entirely responsible for the motion or not, that Kennedy's movements would be in response to/in keeping with that momentum, and not in direct opposition too it?


Here's the film, for context.
 
Last edited:
I don't think there was much awareness even at the instinctual level, just a muscular spasm, random.
 
Seems like they wasted their time on this analysis then. Should have just said "People sometimes thrash about when they get shot... it was LHO who did it".


Yes we should just obediently accept what our officials and corporate masters tell us without skepticism because to question their gospel word would mean that we're a "conspiracy theorist." (heh this was actually a CIA psyop)
 
Last edited:
Mrs. Kennedy is trying to find out what is wrong after the first shot that hit him. If she is imparting any kind of backwards force upon him and he is resisting and the head shot kills him instantly then it is a possibility that the sudden action of him going limp caused her to push him back.

The bullet causing him to fly back is movie physics. It just doesn't happen that way in real life. No official story needed to remove that particular piece of bunk.
 
Yes we should just obediently accept what our officials and corporate masters tell us without skepticism because to question their gospel word would mean that we're a "conspiracy theorist." (heh this was actually a CIA psyop)
What isn't accurate about the term conspiracy theorist to describe someone who is speculating that there is a conspiracy to hide the truth?
And can you please control your need to spout cliched strawmen positions at everything you don't agree with, you sound like an emo teenager.
 
What isn't accurate about the term conspiracy theorist to describe someone who is speculating that there is a conspiracy to hide the truth?
And can you please control your need to spout cliched strawmen positions at everything you don't agree with, you sound like an emo teenager.
So you're saying officials only tell the truth so we might as well not question their conclusions? The term "conspiracy theory" was an admitted CIA psyop as mentioned before to make us dismiss any idea that powerful people might get together and plan something. This recorded convo proves that there was a "conspiracy" and it can't be debunked.
 
Am I? Your ability to see anything I wrote as saying that speaks poorly for your ability to comprehend what you read.

So what if it was? What would you call someone who theorises on conspiracies - an alternative historian? Is that the politically correct term?
 
Am I? Your ability to see anything I wrote as saying that speaks poorly for your ability to comprehend what you read.

So what if it was? What would you call someone who theorises on conspiracies - an alternative historian? Is that the politically correct term?
It doesn't matter ... it's besides the point. What matters is everyone needs to be treated with the same level of skepticism. Officials and politicians don't deserve a free pass.
 
It doesn't matter ... it's besides the point. What matters is everyone needs to be treated with the same level of skepticism. Officials and politicians don't deserve a free pass.
So in your 'black and white' world view if someone doesn't believe a piece of bunk or a conspiracy they are giving officials and politicians a free pass? That type of thinking is what conspiracy theorist do, they see everything as 100% for or 100% against the official story. You will find that many skeptics here have a lot more grey in their thinking than that.

You should just try and stick with the facts and that is bullets don't impart much force onto people when they are shot.
 
Back
Top