Why does JFK's Head go back after he's shot from the back? [warning: contains gore]

Status
Not open for further replies.

fonestar

Member
To start off with I do not either claim to subscribe to the majority of conspiracy theories, nor do I claim to disbelieve them either. I think each case deserves to be treated on it's own factual merits. Having said that, conspiracy has played and will continue to play a major role in the unfolding of world events. Conspiracy as I see it is really just a commonplace fact of political life, where there is motive for gain by two or more parties using subversion and manipulation, there will be conspiracy.

Many "conspiracy theories" online seem of deeply flawed logic. Eg, how could someone plant airplane parts all around the Pentagon to hide the fact it was really hit by a missile before reporters arrived? And yet other conspiracy theories seem to be very much factually grounded and very much worthy of objective investigation. Eg, was Kennedy the first victim of gunfire in history to be flung towards the direction of the projectile? Many stories as reported by the corporate press (as bonafide mouthpiece of the state) today could only be believed by the biggest ignoramus.

After a brief perusing of this site, it seems very much to be about "debunking" as opposed to critical, scientific analysis. Not surprising many in the scientific communities will err towards the "skeptical" side of the debate as most of your funding and livelihood comes from the state and corporate world. Plus it is just easier on the ego to be one of a thousand others who was wrong than the lone voice of reason in the world in many cases. Being skeptical does not equate with being scientific. Being biased towards evidence is not rational. Being deliberately dismissive of claims does science no justice and truly rational enquirers no favour.
 

FreiZeitGeist

Senior Member.
After a brief perusing of this site, it seems very much to be about "debunking" as opposed to critical, scientific analysis. Not surprising many in the scientific communities will err towards the "skeptical" side of the debate as most of your funding and livelihood comes from the state and corporate world. Plus it is just easier on the ego to be one of a thousand others who was wrong than the lone voice of reason in the world in many cases. Being skeptical does not equate with being scientific. Being biased towards evidence is not rational. Being deliberately dismissive of claims does science no justice and truly rational enquirers no favour.
Science-Officials normally ignore PSeudoscience and Conspirancy-Theories, For them their false claims are to obviously wrong to even mention them. Science is a little bit conceited on this, so somebody else has to do the job.

Some Skeptics and Debunkers are scientist, bot most aren´t. But most are common with the scientific methode and their way to argue

For the most common Conspiracy-Theories and Pseudoscience you don´t need to have an Doctor-Grade to debunk them, To "debunk" all the Haarp-Myths you just need basic knowledge about electromagnetic waves and/or the atmosphere. A Radio-Amateur has more than enough knowledge to realise that all these claims about Haarp making Earth-quakes, Mind-Control or weather-modification are pure bullshit.

Real debunking is not an ego-play "Yeah! I´ve debunked something today!!". It is more a kind of challange. There is a claim - how can I proove it with my abilities? What have I to learn to differ the Bunk from a real hypothesis or theory?!

By starting debunking the Chemtrail-Hypothesis I´ve learned really a lot about clouds, weather, climate and the atmosphere. That is the real fun to be a debunker. You´re learning something about topics you never touch before.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I agree with that, the other day when we were discussing brick buildings, I found some links to some information on firing adobe brick that I had looked for a couple of years ago. I was looking from the viewpoint of kilns and not buildings, so I missed it.
 

fonestar

Member
I believe the term itself, "debunking" in itself is quite the loaded term. Basically, what you are saying is that the person coming forwards with a theory, proposition, evidence, etc. is only filled with "bunk". Ie, they (or their thoughts) are not worthy of serious scientific inquiry and investigation. Now in the case of many of these "conspiracy theories" there are extremely serious allegations as well as victims being involved. This is not bunk. This is extremely serious. People may have met with foul play and their may be perpetrators who have yet to be held to account. In many of these cases the proponents coming forward also have a scientific background or accreditation in their respective field. To begin with an ad hominem attack is no way to investigate these serious claims.

Now, imagine for a moment a woman who comes forth with an allegation of rape. She goes to the police station, yet the officer responsible for filing the report clearly believes that the woman is just confused, or does not have her facts straight? Has that officer not done this woman a grave injustice? Is it not the job of scientific community and good, thinking citizens alike to treat all serious claims seriously?

It is not the job of science or skeptics to merely justify or parrot the viewpoints of the state and media. This seems to be what is currently popular on both this site and other "skeptical" sites. They, in effect try and add a veneer of scientific scrutiny to one side (always the statist side) and rarely investigate the actual claims. The problem can be that in many cases, the scientist or the skeptic can actually out-live their government or state. Not a position I would wish to find myself in or offering apologies for.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Maybe instead of saying why you think debunkers/skeptics are wrong, you can provide evidence why they are wrong about a particular subject.
 

fonestar

Member
"Is there actually any science type stuff you would like to discuss? Any bunk?"

Well, I think that kind of highlights the attitude right there doesn't it? I mean, I haven't yet entertained a particular theory which I believe is perhaps true and yet you have already labelled it as bunk? Does that sound very scientific or objective to you? And I didn't say all skeptics are wrong, I merely pointed out they seem to have very much statist leanings that colour their arguments and judgement. I think the two posts above help elucidate that very well.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
"Is there actually any science type stuff you would like to discuss? Any bunk?"

Well, I think that kind of highlights the attitude right there doesn't it? I mean, I haven't yet entertained a particular theory which I believe is perhaps true and yet you have already labelled it as bunk? Does that sound very scientific or objective to you? And I didn't say all skeptics are wrong, I merely pointed out they seem to have very much statist leanings that colour their arguments and judgement. I think the two posts above help elucidate that very well.
I mean anything that you consider to be bunk.

I appreciate your linguistic and stylistic concerns, but really I'd prefer to discuss actual claims and evidence. So let's move on.
 

fonestar

Member
Okay, so I will offer "theory_X" and you will then point me to a compilation of bookmarks you have assembled claiming to disprove "theory_X". Sounds more like role playing than critical debate. To begin, would you deny that conspiracies are very much real and have played a large part in political life over the past several millenia? As Judas against Christ, as Brutus against Caeser, as Hitler against Rohm? I see little point in debating with people who deny the very existence of conspiracy. It's a historical fact and will continue to be so.

FYI, I believe some conspiracies to be totally absurd, others to be plausible yet lacking evidence and yet more conspiracy theories to be undeniable facts.

Time travel - Probably not possible.
Alien visitations - Mathematical probablility would likely point to other life in the universe, same math says they're too far away to get here.
Chemtrails - Just vapour from jets engines passing most likely
The Illuminati - Historical fact, but we don't know how much influence it really has today.
Bilderberg - Alex Jones wasn't calling it a conspiracy, he was drawing attention to the conspiracy of silence in the press regarding it.
Protocols of the Elders of Zion - Probably a fake used to justify anti-semetic beliefs and violence.
9/11 False Flag - Fact. The number of short positions and life insurance policies taken out on affected companies is not possible without foreknowledge.
Kennedy Assasination Conspiracy - Fact. Made all the wrong enemies (and slept with all the wrong women) and got killed.
Gold Manipulation Conspiracy - Proven and documented fact by GATA and others.


So now you can point me to your series of bookmarks by objective investigators showing how the divine light of truth only shines through your government and out the mouths of their appointed propagandists on the 6PM news.....
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Of course conspiracies exist and have existed. Nobody has ever suggested they have not.

I think you need to get a little more specific if you want to start a discussion. Your list is a meta-Gish-Gallop.

If you'd like to discuss the 9/11 short positions, then maybe you should start a thread on it. List the evidence, and then the attempts at debunking that evidence. It might be interesting, as it's often one of the last holdouts of the 9/11 suspicious.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Of course there can and are 'conspiracies', say you have 3 kids and every time that they want pizza, it ends up being argument, because Mary wants a veggie pizza, John wants an a toppings lover pizza and Bob refuses to touch any pizza that has mushrooms on it. The parents have decided that there will not be any pizza ordered. The kids get together and 'conspire' on a pizza that all will eat. Mary gives the pepperoni to her brothers and that there will not me any mushrooms.
 

fonestar

Member
Of course there can and are 'conspiracies', say you have 3 kids and every time that they want pizza, it ends up being argument, because Mary wants a veggie pizza, John wants an a toppings lover pizza and Bob refuses to touch any pizza that has mushrooms on it. The parents have decided that there will not be any pizza ordered. The kids get together and 'conspire' on a pizza that all will eat. Mary gives the pepperoni to her brothers and that there will not me any mushrooms.

Precisely. It is easy for for people grasp at these small conspiracies and yet seemingly difficult for them to fathom the larger ones. If anything, logic should tell us the larger ones should be easier to entertain (greater profit motive, greater power consolidation, rewards, etc). I am interested in the psychology of the deniers/debunkers in general. Do they believe government, the status-quo is comprised of more intelligent people? People of higher morals? Case in point, the Kennedy assasination where the "debunkers" have gone to amazing lengths in an effort to preserve their fragile world view.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Precisely. It is easy for for people grasp at these small conspiracies and yet seemingly difficult for them to fathom the larger ones. If anything, logic should tell us the larger ones should be easier to entertain (greater profit motive, greater power consolidation, rewards, etc). I am interested in the psychology of the deniers/debunkers in general. Do they believe government, the status-quo is comprised of more intelligent people? People of higher morals? Case in point, the Kennedy assasination where the "debunkers" have gone to amazing lengths in an effort to preserve their fragile world view.

Why don't you try to be a bit more specific. Maybe discuss Kennedy's head recoil?
 

fonestar

Member
Very well then. As a technician, a rational-objectivist, hunter and gun owner I have never seen my target fly towards the direction of the projectile. Of the countless animals, targets, etc I have shot they always fly away from the projectile as Newton tells us they should.

Now in the Zapruder film we see Kennedy raise his arms towards his throat in pain seconds before he sustains another massive head wound from the front-right, throwing his head to the rear and left. I'm familiar with the "debunkers" trying to explain away the obvious and their methods of doing so. None of them that I have heard so far seem to hold any weight. Some have made fairly good assertions that the Zapruder film has been doctored. I would be more interested in hearing on that evidence but it seems the film still holds enough key information and verified by witnesses that day to tell what happened there. Shot from the rear before being hit by a massive head wound from the front.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Very well then. As a technician, a rational-objectivist, hunter and gun owner I have never seen my target fly towards the direction of the projectile. Of the countless animals, targets, etc I have shot they always fly away from the projectile as Newton tells us they should..
So why did the melon in the video fly backwards?

We should get into this in detail, because it's an important question.

Here's another:
 

fonestar

Member
Yes, the melon flies backwards (again as it should). In the video Kennedy's head is seen flying backwards (the second shot to hit him comes from the front). Now the "debunkers" have tried to claim that Kennedy's head is thrown forward. This is clearly not the case in the video for anyone willing to look and be honest, his head is thrown backwards and then comes forwards.

I've fired this shot myself several times on game. The head (being struck by projectile) is thrown away from the direction of force before the greater mass of the body/torso brings it forwards again and then earthwards.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Precisely. It is easy for for people grasp at these small conspiracies and yet seemingly difficult for them to fathom the larger ones. If anything, logic should tell us the larger ones should be easier to entertain (greater profit motive, greater power consolidation, rewards, etc). I am interested in the psychology of the deniers/debunkers in general. Do they believe government, the status-quo is comprised of more intelligent people? People of higher morals? Case in point, the Kennedy assasination where the "debunkers" have gone to amazing lengths in an effort to preserve their fragile world view.

Why is allowing facts and not fears determine your world view a bad thing. Government is not all evil or all good, it just like everyone else, HUMAN. Just because you don't get what you want or that they don't do as you think they should doesn't mean that they are evil and 'out for theirselves only'. The government of a country MUST look to the welfare of their own people first. They do have more information than we have.

I play a war/strategy MMP computer game. Where there are some large groups of players, alliances of several hundred players. The goal is for one group to work together to win the server. I have learned the hard way that you don't share everything with the alliance. And yes we see both positive and negative conspiracies.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, the melon flies backwards (again as it should). In the video Kennedy's head is seen flying backwards (the second shot to hit him comes from the front). Now the "debunkers" have tried to claim that Kennedy's head is thrown forward. This is clearly not the case in the video for anyone willing to look and be honest, his head is thrown backwards and then comes forwards.

I've fired this shot myself several times on game. The head (being struck by projectile) is thrown away from the direction of force before the greater mass of the body/torso brings it forwards again and then earthwards.
I'm a little confused, you are saying that the melon flies backwards (towards the gun) as it should. But that Kennedy's head is flying away from the gun? And that when shooting game the head goes away from the gun and then backwards?

What exactly is it about Kennedy's head motion that is inconsistent with the lone gunman theory?
 

fonestar

Member
Why is allowing facts and not fears determine your world view a bad thing. Government is not all evil or all good, it just like everyone else, HUMAN. Just because you don't get what you want or that they don't do as you think they should doesn't mean that they are evil and 'out for theirselves only'. The government of a country MUST look to the welfare of their own people first. They do have more information than we have.

I play a war/strategy MMP computer game. Where there are some large groups of players, alliances of several hundred players. The goal is for one group to work together to win the server. I have learned the hard way that you don't share everything with the alliance. And yes we see both positive and negative conspiracies.

Having been raised in a political family/environment I can tell you that politicians do not have the majorities interest at heart. I don't like to paint with a broad brush, but if I had to paint the typical politician I would say somewhat vain, self-serving, unimaginative and of mediocre intelligence.
 

fonestar

Member
"I'm a little confused, you are saying that the melon flies backwards (towards the gun) as it should. But that Kennedy's head is flying away from the gun? And that when shooting game the head goes away from the gun and then backwards?

What exactly is it about Kennedy's head motion that is inconsistent with the lone gunman theory?"


For starters, comparing the motions of a two pound melon being shot at ten yards is not comparable to a one-hundred-sixty pound human's head being shot at one hundred yards. The human has a counter-ballast (their torso and extremeties), the melon does not.

Not only does the Zapruder film rule out the lone gunman theory (as Kennedy's head is seen flying back and towards the rear) it actually substantiates what assasins and hitmen have practiced in those situations for years before. According to OSS and CIA training you would want to hit the target using triangulation for a guaranteed kill. That would mean having shots from behind and ahead of the target. Kennedy is first struck from behind causing him to lurch forward, this shot also hits Conolly. The fatal shot comes apx. two seconds later from the front right. The rear of his head is then seen flying off as is consistent with an exit wound and as confirmed by Mrs. Kennedy and others. The photos from Air Force One taken that night are also inconsistent with such a massive head wound.

Again, all very simple and demonstratable stuff.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
"I'm a little confused, you are saying that the melon flies backwards (towards the gun) as it should. But that Kennedy's head is flying away from the gun? And that when shooting game the head goes away from the gun and then backwards?

What exactly is it about Kennedy's head motion that is inconsistent with the lone gunman theory?"


For starters, comparing the motions of a two pound melon being shot at ten yards is not comparable to a one-hundred-sixty pound human's head being shot at one hundred yards. The human has a counter-ballast (their torso and extremeties), the melon does not.

Not only does the Zapruder film rule out the lone gunman theory (as Kennedy's head is seen flying back and towards the rear)
So just to be straight here, you are asserting:
  1. LHO shot at Kennedy from behind
  2. Kennedy's head moving towards LHO means that LHO did not shoot the head shot.
  3. The Melon demonstration does not apply, because the melon is not attached to a body
  4. Your personal experience shooting game shows that the head is thrown away from the gunman.
Is that what you are saying?
 

fonestar

Member
So just to be straight here, you are asserting:
  1. LHO shot at Kennedy from behind

I would be delving into supposition saying that. I do not know if LHO was envolved at all. I suspect he was just a fall guy though IMO.

  1. Kennedy's head moving towards LHO means that LHO did not shoot the head shot.

That is correct. To argue an object being struck will move towards the impact is counter-factual.

  1. The Melon demonstration does not apply, because the melon is not attached to a body

The melon will not be subject to the counter-forces of the body the way a human would. The initial impact will be the same.

  1. Your personal experience shooting game shows that the head is thrown away from the gunman.
Mine and every other shooter, hunter or just person familiar with the most basic physics.


Is that what you are saying?
 

fonestar

Member


For reference, here's the video of the headshot, showing the few frames of the impact and the motion of the head.
https://www.metabunk.org/files/JFK-Zapruder-Headshot-Frames-310-357-(HD-3D).gif

It seems to me like he was shot from behind, as the contents of his skull explode forward.

Explodes forwards? Please explain and provide reference to the frame where you see this happening? The film clearly shows he is struck from the front and the rear of his head being blown off. There's no way of arguing that one. Also, anyone wishing to dispute the Zapruder film may wish to include why those tampering with evidence would leave this most critical and blatant of evidence behind?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

fonestar

Member
Wrong. Look again, his head is thrown rearwards. Watch the full version:


Jackie even said she was trying to get parts of his brain that were blown back on the limo and many witnesses said the back of his head was missing. Magically to be repaired hours later on Air Force One.

The Kennedy assasination is actually an amazing thing. It shows just how far supposed men of science are willing to go in their state-worshipping voodoo ceremonies. As demonstrated by Asch and others.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Wrong. Look again, his head is thrown rearwards. Watch the full version:

I know, and this seems consistent with being shot from behind. Head explodes forwards, which pushes him towards the gunman (backwards).

Now you say your personal experience in shooting game differs from this. But game shooting would be rather different from this situation. There's a complex set of forces involved. We could discuss that in detail if you like.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
Precisely. It is easy for for people grasp at these small conspiracies and yet seemingly difficult for them to fathom the larger ones. If anything, logic should tell us the larger ones should be easier to entertain (greater profit motive, greater power consolidation, rewards, etc). I am interested in the psychology of the deniers/debunkers in general. Do they believe government, the status-quo is comprised of more intelligent people? People of higher morals? Case in point, the Kennedy assasination where the "debunkers" have gone to amazing lengths in an effort to preserve their fragile world view.
Heh. Reading through your posts was deja vu all over again. I just went through the same dynamic about a month ago.
 

fonestar

Member
"I know, and this seems consistent with being shot from behind. Head explodes forwards, which pushes him towards the gunman (backwards).

Now you say your personal experience in shooting game differs from this. But game shooting would be rather different from this situation. There's a complex set of forces involved. We could discuss that in detail if you like."


There's really little point in debate with people who have gone so far as to disbelieve their own five senses in the name of conformity (which is what Asch proved people do routinely). All objects being struck by another will move in the direction of the projectile if the M*A is a greater force. There are no exceptions to this rule.

Moreover, the "debunkers" have to deal with countless eyewitness testimony. I've come to form my own *opinions* (not facts) on the Kennedy case the past couple of years. It seems to me that it was not just an assassination but a coup d'etat. Many associated with the Kennedy family would meet with strange, untimely deaths in the weeks, months and years following that day in Dallas.

It is unfortunate that such a great man who asked for a nation's help has instead been met with indifference, apathy, moral and intellectual cowardliness from the subsequent generations. I don't believe the majority of Americans will ever find the courage to do the president justice. However, I still hold out hope that history and posterity in other countries and other times will give him the justice he deserves.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Incidentally I don't think the jet effect has any great bearing here. Kennedy seemed to move backward via muscle power. The key indicator is the spray of blood that comes out of the front right of his head - that indicates he was hit from behind, and all the reconstructions seem to match this.

But we should at least agree on basic physics. Was the melon an exception?
 

fonestar

Member
"So why did the melon move backwards?"

Um, because it was hit from the front? Like Kennedy's head was? Like I just said? His head was struck from the front. The first bullet hits him from behind and the second from the front. Not sure what part is not clear about that.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
"So why did the melon move backwards?"

Um, because it was hit from the front? Like Kennedy's head was? Like I just said? His head was struck from the front. The first bullet hits him from behind and the second from the front. Not sure what part is not clear about that.
The melon was hit from the back. It moved towards the gunman. In the below image the gunman is on the left. The melon explodes away from the gunman, the melon moves backwards towards the gunman.

[imgsize=100]https://www.metabunk.org/files/JFK's-Head-Movement2.gif[/imgsize]


It's not clear why you think his head was hit from the front. The video shows the front right of his head exploding outwards in a cloud of blood, which is consistent from being hit from behind.
 
Last edited:

fonestar

Member
The issue of the blood splatter is an issue of contention and is one of the reasons people believe the Zapruder film may have been doctored. What is beyond contention is Kennedy's head is thrown violently backwards in frames 315 - 319. Hit from the front and head goes to the back. Hit from the front and head goes to the back. Hit from the front and head goes to the back.

Now normally, I would see as much point to this debate as arguing with a drunk, or arguing about the Earth being 2,000 years old, or arguing if the sky is blue or not. But in the name of a murdered president and hero I will stay here all day calling a spade a spade.
 

fonestar

Member
There is a theory that his head is in fact hit twice (after the initial shot that exits the president and hits Connally) and he is struck from the rear left and then milliseconds later substains the final shot that is seen violently throwing his body towards the rear in frames 315 - 319. Again, this would support what would be expected in a high-level hit (triangulation of fire).

Now, even if you subscribe to the theory of LHO as lone gunman you still need to deal with eyewitness testimony to the contrary and the fact that the autopsy photos clearly don't support the kind of wounds seen in the Zapruder film.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West What does "Off-World" mean to the US Military? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 9
J Why Does the Sun Rise and Set In a Straight Line? Flat Earth 14
Joe Hill WTC7: Does This "Look Like" a Controlled Implosion? 9/11 45
J Does google earth pro simulate refraction [No] Flat Earth 7
brad fuller Does the inverse-square law apply to the flat-earth debunking tool chest? Flat Earth 4
creatonez Explained: Why the Earth does not look oblate in photos from space Flat Earth 0
Mick West Why Does the Atmosphere Not Fly off into the Vacuum of Space? Flat Earth 21
Mick West What does the Flat Earth Look Like From Space, with Perspective? Flat Earth 19
Tom Binney Does my FE Debunk in this case make sense to you guys? Practical Debunking 23
ConfusedHominid Need Debunking (Claim): Metabunk Curve Calculator Does Not Calculate for Angular Size Flat Earth 13
S Explained: Why does this Apollo11 photo act so weirdly? Conspiracy Theories 13
FolsomG10 Does Zooming in Change How Much of Something is Hidden by the Horizon [No] Flat Earth 54
Mick West Explained: Why a Spirit Level on a Plane Does Not Show Curvature "Corrections" Flat Earth 98
Trailblazer Why does Polaris appear stationary on a rotating Earth? Flat Earth 16
izz Does this photo show a too-small hole in the Pentagon? [No] 9/11 28
Supreme Logic Why does the equator stay warm all year? Conspiracy Theories 7
P Does Orlando victim switch legs when he switches languages [No] Conspiracy Theories 8
Rory Does the Earth's Curvature Vary with Latitude? [No, not significantly] Flat Earth 34
Z.W. Wolf Does Sundial Disprove Flat Earth? Flat Earth 17
Gamolon Does Mick West's WTC model meet the Heiwa Challenge? 9/11 25
aka How does this Domino Tower Collapse relate to 9/11 Collapses 9/11 75
mrfintoil Study: When Debunking Scientific Myths Fails (and When It Does Not) Practical Debunking 3
Tony Szamboti Does the exclusion of stiffness from Nordenson's falling girder calculations demonstrate anything? 9/11 288
william wiley Does Damage to MH17 indicate or exclude a Particular Buk Launch Location? Flight MH17 662
Hama Neggs Where does "Scientist" end and "debunker" begin? Practical Debunking 16
Steve Funk Does Guy McPherson believe in chemtrails? [No] Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Ogmion Does DNA emit light General Discussion 8
T How Does This Failed Demolition Relate to the Collapse of the WTC Towers? 9/11 14
Leifer Erin Brokovich does not believe in chemtrails. Contrails and Chemtrails 64
Trailblazer SkyderALERT: where does the money go? Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Leifer does Social Media + Ego help drive conspiracy theories ? General Discussion 63
David Fraser Super/subscript, how does one do it? Site Feedback & News 4
qed Why does the Lunar Lander leave not tracks Conspiracy Theories 44
Mick West The Johnson and Johnson Settlement, where does it fit in the conspiracy world Conspiracy Theories 13
qed Does concrete melt? 9/11 84
hiper Does Seismic Evidence Imply Controlled Demolition on 9/11 9/11 101
Mick West How Much Does Metabunk.org Cost to Run? Site Feedback & News 17
MikeC Video that does actually support hypothesis with evidence Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Cairenn How much does a storm weigh? Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Mick West Does NIST not testing for explosives and not testing WTC7 steel invalidate everything 9/11 246
Mick West How Much Money Does Alex Jones Make? People Debunked 17
Critical Thinker What does Greenpeace think about chemtrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 34
iKnowWhoYouAre why does this site even exist? General Discussion 134
Canadasix If its just contrails why does it start from the east and work it's way west? Contrails and Chemtrails 10
scombrid Does drug use cause paranoia or do paranoids seek out psychoactive drugs? General Discussion 7
Leifer Rabies does not exist. Conspiracy Theories 8
U Why does this site not debunk government and corporate wrongdoings? Site Feedback & News 4
Juror No. 8 Does the U.S. government manufacture terrorism? If so, why? General Discussion 99
firepilot Does Roxy Lopez have callers on her friday internet show? Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Pogopoint99 Does Rosalind Peterson believe in chemtrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 17
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top