Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

General Social Discussion
User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 17824
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains

Re: Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

Post by Cultured Bogan » Mon 30 Oct, 2017 9:09 am

hammertime wrote:
Sun 29 Oct, 2017 3:51 pm
Pawsandclaws wrote:
Sun 29 Oct, 2017 11:20 am
hammertime wrote:
Sat 28 Oct, 2017 8:11 pm
goldcoast tiger wrote:
Sat 28 Oct, 2017 8:17 am
To those who think the court decision is a waste of time, would they feel so benovelent if it was half a dozen Labour Pollies who got caught.
Turnbull has egg all over him ( again) for thinking that he could pick and choose which laws he could obey, and which ones he could ignore.
For him and the And the Nationals to hold out , and make it go to the high court shows their contempt towards those of us who are expected to obey all laws, whether we are aware of them or otherwise.
My only problem with it is that these people have been getting a bucketful of Taxpayers money , and will continue to do so, while they were in the parliament and voting on MANY
bills over the years.
They were not even eligible to be there!!!!!
They were taking( knowingly or not) money under illegal circumstances.
And should have to pay it back!!!
Any of us in those circumstances would have to. Wages , super, the whole lot.

Labour is Nuts if they don't use this to the hilt.
Imagine Abbot and Turnbull getting this free kick.
They'd go for the throat.
Shorten needs to do the same to them
Unfortunately Joyce will get back in, but the money he's acrued illegally shoul be paid back .
Turnbull is really squirming with this and the Cash bungle, both these things are going to hurt him for quite a long while
You've lost the plot cgt. If you really think this is a significant issue, some obscure rule that no one knew about, then the only thing it highlights is an incredible bias on your behalf.

The thing about you suggesting they paying years of wages back, when these guys have families to look after, is just stone dead cold. Why don't you go and take the food back out of his kids mouths?

Man, there are bigger things to worry about in this world than what amounts to basically admin errors!
Turnbull and the squaddies were vocal about the 2 Greens' Senators paying back the salaries they had been paid when ineligible to sit in Parliament. Now that the Conservatives have been exposed, there is hushed silence from Turnbull and Co.
You know what guys, I apologise. I actually agree with you now. I hadn't seen Turnbull's quotes on the matter about the Greens - what an absolute dropkick. I hate to say it, but he has to be nearly on last legs.

Even if it's opposition that he's trying to take down, it's just pure in-human like attacking someone like that when they've worked hard. You're talking about taking back years of salary from them for an error like that. No workplace anywhere would work like that!

Man our country is stuffed though if we keep turning over leaders like this.
We get the governments we deserve Hammer. Government since Howard has been elected on the basis of instant gratification. The parties merely react to this by pandering to the electorate. That's why leaders have been replaced of late. It's a symptom of a larger problem.
It's not cruelty to animals if you inject enough amphetamines.

Cuando llegue el día, y estoy parado a las puertas del cielo, será Dios pidiendo mi perdón...


Byron Bay Fan
Member
Member
Posts: 4827
Joined: Sat 17 Oct, 2015 2:14 pm

Post by Byron Bay Fan » Mon 30 Oct, 2017 10:16 am

magpiecol wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 9:07 am
Where are Scully and Mulder when you need them?
Gee magpie you are turning the clock back, Billy Scully died in March 1966 and he wasn't spectacular?
Malcolm Knox: What has happened this week is a pity for the Tigers, a pity for Jason Taylor and a pity for Robbie Farah, who had achieved more than the Big Four put together but was somehow turned into collateral damage. (SMH 25-26 March, 2017)

User avatar
Yossarian
Member
Member
Posts: 9666
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Central Coast

Post by Yossarian » Mon 30 Oct, 2017 11:39 am

Magnus wrote:
Sun 29 Oct, 2017 5:59 pm
Yossarian wrote:
Sun 29 Oct, 2017 4:04 pm
kevinmcguiness wrote:
Sun 29 Oct, 2017 12:44 am
GNR4LIFE wrote:
Sat 28 Oct, 2017 9:42 pm

As I'm sure anything I could present would not convince you. I'm sure you'd just say I'm a conspiracy nut.
Yoss, would you seriously like me to go through all the hard evidence? this thread would be hijacked. i doubt you'd still be convinced. you would have to be very very naive to think the president could be assassinated without help from an agency. William Greer stopped the limo, you can see it on youtube.

Yes, there were at least 8 shooters:
You brought it up. All that rubbish about Bush.

Greer didn't stop the car. It was always moving.

Of course I won't be convinced - my background is in criminal investigation. I deal with facts not conjecture. People saw Oswald in that window. There's no reliable evidence to support any other shooter. Not a single other person.

That video is pathetic - based on their yellow line the "shooter" must have been a midget in a drain. Greer screwed up but anyone who thinks he shot JFK is living in fantasy land.
I don't get it, if lho did it and he was behind JFK @ the depository why did JFKs head move violently backwards. Doesn't make any sense.
Because it jerks forward slightly then snaps back violently. That's what happens. But this man can explain it better.

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/macpher.htm

And these guys too:

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/headwnd.htm

Magnus
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon 16 Oct, 2017 7:04 pm

Post by Magnus » Mon 30 Oct, 2017 12:07 pm

Yossarian wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 11:39 am
Magnus wrote:
Sun 29 Oct, 2017 5:59 pm
Yossarian wrote:
Sun 29 Oct, 2017 4:04 pm
kevinmcguiness wrote:
Sun 29 Oct, 2017 12:44 am


Yoss, would you seriously like me to go through all the hard evidence? this thread would be hijacked. i doubt you'd still be convinced. you would have to be very very naive to think the president could be assassinated without help from an agency. William Greer stopped the limo, you can see it on youtube.

Yes, there were at least 8 shooters:
You brought it up. All that rubbish about Bush.

Greer didn't stop the car. It was always moving.

Of course I won't be convinced - my background is in criminal investigation. I deal with facts not conjecture. People saw Oswald in that window. There's no reliable evidence to support any other shooter. Not a single other person.

That video is pathetic - based on their yellow line the "shooter" must have been a midget in a drain. Greer screwed up but anyone who thinks he shot JFK is living in fantasy land.
I don't get it, if lho did it and he was behind JFK @ the depository why did JFKs head move violently backwards. Doesn't make any sense.
Because it jerks forward slightly then snaps back violently. That's what happens. But this man can explain it better.

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/macpher.htm

And these guys too:

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/headwnd.htm
i dont know who shot jfk but his head rocks backwards. That link didn't explain much though. Looks like his head rocks back 2 metres back...

has anyone ever fired an archaic 6.5×52mm Carcano Model 91/38 infantry rifle? Is it a solid gun to fire 3/4 shots in about 3 seconds?

Magnus
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon 16 Oct, 2017 7:04 pm

Post by Magnus » Mon 30 Oct, 2017 12:10 pm

Yossarian wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 11:39 am
Magnus wrote:
Sun 29 Oct, 2017 5:59 pm
Yossarian wrote:
Sun 29 Oct, 2017 4:04 pm
kevinmcguiness wrote:
Sun 29 Oct, 2017 12:44 am


Yoss, would you seriously like me to go through all the hard evidence? this thread would be hijacked. i doubt you'd still be convinced. you would have to be very very naive to think the president could be assassinated without help from an agency. William Greer stopped the limo, you can see it on youtube.

Yes, there were at least 8 shooters:
You brought it up. All that rubbish about Bush.

Greer didn't stop the car. It was always moving.

Of course I won't be convinced - my background is in criminal investigation. I deal with facts not conjecture. People saw Oswald in that window. There's no reliable evidence to support any other shooter. Not a single other person.

That video is pathetic - based on their yellow line the "shooter" must have been a midget in a drain. Greer screwed up but anyone who thinks he shot JFK is living in fantasy land.
I don't get it, if lho did it and he was behind JFK @ the depository why did JFKs head move violently backwards. Doesn't make any sense.
Because it jerks forward slightly then snaps back violently. That's what happens. But this man can explain it better.

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/macpher.htm

And these guys too:

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/headwnd.htm
actually you are correct, his head does move forward first but then another bullet comes and his head moves back. Interesting stuff, so he must have had shooters from both sides

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/headshot.htm


User avatar
Yossarian
Member
Member
Posts: 9666
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Central Coast

Post by Yossarian » Mon 30 Oct, 2017 12:27 pm

Magnus wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 12:07 pm
Yossarian wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 11:39 am
Magnus wrote:
Sun 29 Oct, 2017 5:59 pm
Yossarian wrote:
Sun 29 Oct, 2017 4:04 pm


You brought it up. All that rubbish about Bush.

Greer didn't stop the car. It was always moving.

Of course I won't be convinced - my background is in criminal investigation. I deal with facts not conjecture. People saw Oswald in that window. There's no reliable evidence to support any other shooter. Not a single other person.

That video is pathetic - based on their yellow line the "shooter" must have been a midget in a drain. Greer screwed up but anyone who thinks he shot JFK is living in fantasy land.
I don't get it, if lho did it and he was behind JFK @ the depository why did JFKs head move violently backwards. Doesn't make any sense.
Because it jerks forward slightly then snaps back violently. That's what happens. But this man can explain it better.

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/macpher.htm

And these guys too:

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/headwnd.htm
i dont know who shot jfk but his head rocks backwards. That link didn't explain much though. Looks like his head rocks back 2 metres back...

has anyone ever fired an archaic 6.5×52mm Carcano Model 91/38 infantry rifle? Is it a solid gun to fire 3/4 shots in about 3 seconds?
Yes lots of people. They even fired the actual rifle. 3 seconds? More like 8.

User avatar
Yossarian
Member
Member
Posts: 9666
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Central Coast

Post by Yossarian » Mon 30 Oct, 2017 12:34 pm

Magnus wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 12:10 pm
Yossarian wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 11:39 am
Magnus wrote:
Sun 29 Oct, 2017 5:59 pm
Yossarian wrote:
Sun 29 Oct, 2017 4:04 pm


You brought it up. All that rubbish about Bush.

Greer didn't stop the car. It was always moving.

Of course I won't be convinced - my background is in criminal investigation. I deal with facts not conjecture. People saw Oswald in that window. There's no reliable evidence to support any other shooter. Not a single other person.

That video is pathetic - based on their yellow line the "shooter" must have been a midget in a drain. Greer screwed up but anyone who thinks he shot JFK is living in fantasy land.
I don't get it, if lho did it and he was behind JFK @ the depository why did JFKs head move violently backwards. Doesn't make any sense.
Because it jerks forward slightly then snaps back violently. That's what happens. But this man can explain it better.

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/macpher.htm

And these guys too:

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/headwnd.htm
actually you are correct, his head does move forward first but then another bullet comes and his head moves back. Interesting stuff, so he must have had shooters from both sides

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/headshot.htm
Did you read the sources from my last post? That's from scientist familiar with ballistics not guys on the Internet. They clearly and very precisely explain why the Newton law doesn't apply. Thinking that movement in one direction means force from the opposite side is debunked by anyone with training or experience in that field.

Magnus
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon 16 Oct, 2017 7:04 pm

Post by Magnus » Mon 30 Oct, 2017 1:16 pm

Yossarian wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 12:34 pm
Magnus wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 12:10 pm
Yossarian wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 11:39 am
Magnus wrote:
Sun 29 Oct, 2017 5:59 pm


I don't get it, if lho did it and he was behind JFK @ the depository why did JFKs head move violently backwards. Doesn't make any sense.
Because it jerks forward slightly then snaps back violently. That's what happens. But this man can explain it better.

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/macpher.htm

And these guys too:

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/headwnd.htm
actually you are correct, his head does move forward first but then another bullet comes and his head moves back. Interesting stuff, so he must have had shooters from both sides

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/headshot.htm
Did you read the sources from my last post? That's from scientist familiar with ballistics not guys on the Internet. They clearly and very precisely explain why the Newton law doesn't apply. Thinking that movement in one direction means force from the opposite side is debunked by anyone with training or experience in that field.
yes I read it and common sense tells me he was shot from in front and behind. Some people really wanted this guy dead. I wouldn't be suprised if there were 10 shooters,

I'm always a bit skeptical of reports from the Government such as the Warren report. I guess we will have to wait and read more of the files when they are released. I read somewhere 9/10 Americans do not believe the Warren report.

goldcoast tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 6115
Joined: Sat 12 Apr, 2014 5:42 pm

Post by goldcoast tiger » Mon 30 Oct, 2017 3:24 pm

Pawsandclaws wrote:
Sun 29 Oct, 2017 11:20 am
hammertime wrote:
Sat 28 Oct, 2017 8:11 pm
goldcoast tiger wrote:
Sat 28 Oct, 2017 8:17 am
To those who think the court decision is a waste of time, would they feel so benovelent if it was half a dozen Labour Pollies who got caught.
Turnbull has egg all over him ( again) for thinking that he could pick and choose which laws he could obey, and which ones he could ignore.
For him and the And the Nationals to hold out , and make it go to the high court shows their contempt towards those of us who are expected to obey all laws, whether we are aware of them or otherwise.
My only problem with it is that these people have been getting a bucketful of Taxpayers money , and will continue to do so, while they were in the parliament and voting on MANY
bills over the years.
They were not even eligible to be there!!!!!
They were taking( knowingly or not) money under illegal circumstances.
And should have to pay it back!!!
Any of us in those circumstances would have to. Wages , super, the whole lot.

Labour is Nuts if they don't use this to the hilt.
Imagine Abbot and Turnbull getting this free kick.
They'd go for the throat.
Shorten needs to do the same to them
Unfortunately Joyce will get back in, but the money he's acrued illegally shoul be paid back .
Turnbull is really squirming with this and the Cash bungle, both these things are going to hurt him for quite a long while
You've lost the plot cgt. If you really think this is a significant issue, some obscure rule that no one knew about, then the only thing it highlights is an incredible bias on your behalf.

The thing about you suggesting they paying years of wages back, when these guys have families to look after, is just stone dead cold. Why don't you go and take the food back out of his kids mouths?

Man, there are bigger things to worry about in this world than what amounts to basically admin errors!
Turnbull and the squaddies were vocal about the 2 Greens' Senators paying back the salaries they had been paid when ineligible to sit in Parliament. Now that the Conservatives have been exposed, there is hushed silence from Turnbull and Co.
HT, if you and four or five of your mates were able to convince a govt body that you were entitled to a bucketload of money and pension or whatever payments every week, and got sprung after , let's say, 10 years.
Do you think that you should get a rap across the fingers, or do you think it would be looked at as serious,
I've seen the result , about 8 years ago, after a woman bought a house that we were selling
About six month later I had a visit from the AFP asking whether we thought she was in a relationship. I didn't have a clue either way , yet still got called as a witness. And as far as I could see , no one else had much to add to what I knew
The result on pretty flimsy evidence was .....Pay it all back + 3 years holiday.
No one cared much about her family in that case.
There's miles more evidence here that this lot have been collecting our money ( Govt have no money of their own it's OUR money , that they are throwing around ). while not being in the Parliament legally.
Funny that there's one rule forguilty people out in the public domain and one for anyone in politics. Especially Deputy PMs
Then again the Lady I mentioned wasn't needed to help keep a Govt in place , due to a permanently in crisis, PM

User avatar
Yossarian
Member
Member
Posts: 9666
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Central Coast

Post by Yossarian » Mon 30 Oct, 2017 5:10 pm

Magnus wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 1:16 pm
Yossarian wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 12:34 pm
Magnus wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 12:10 pm
Yossarian wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 11:39 am


Because it jerks forward slightly then snaps back violently. That's what happens. But this man can explain it better.

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/macpher.htm

And these guys too:

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/headwnd.htm
actually you are correct, his head does move forward first but then another bullet comes and his head moves back. Interesting stuff, so he must have had shooters from both sides

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/headshot.htm
Did you read the sources from my last post? That's from scientist familiar with ballistics not guys on the Internet. They clearly and very precisely explain why the Newton law doesn't apply. Thinking that movement in one direction means force from the opposite side is debunked by anyone with training or experience in that field.
yes I read it and common sense tells me he was shot from in front and behind. Some people really wanted this guy dead. I wouldn't be suprised if there were 10 shooters,

I'm always a bit skeptical of reports from the Government such as the Warren report. I guess we will have to wait and read more of the files when they are released. I read somewhere 9/10 Americans do not believe the Warren report.
Okay well there it is I guess. I'm talking about primary evidence and expert testimony. If you'd rather go with gut instinct and internet amateurs that's your call.

User avatar
Harvey
Member
Member
Posts: 3618
Joined: Mon 22 Jun, 2015 10:01 pm
Location: Leumeah

Post by Harvey » Mon 30 Oct, 2017 5:35 pm

Yossarian wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 5:10 pm
Magnus wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 1:16 pm
Yossarian wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 12:34 pm
Magnus wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 12:10 pm


actually you are correct, his head does move forward first but then another bullet comes and his head moves back. Interesting stuff, so he must have had shooters from both sides

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/headshot.htm
Did you read the sources from my last post? That's from scientist familiar with ballistics not guys on the Internet. They clearly and very precisely explain why the Newton law doesn't apply. Thinking that movement in one direction means force from the opposite side is debunked by anyone with training or experience in that field.
yes I read it and common sense tells me he was shot from in front and behind. Some people really wanted this guy dead. I wouldn't be suprised if there were 10 shooters,

I'm always a bit skeptical of reports from the Government such as the Warren report. I guess we will have to wait and read more of the files when they are released. I read somewhere 9/10 Americans do not believe the Warren report.
Okay well there it is I guess. I'm talking about primary evidence and expert testimony. If you'd rather go with gut instinct and internet amateurs that's your call.
"If it is on the internet, it must be true ". Abe Lincoln, 1864

Magnus
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon 16 Oct, 2017 7:04 pm

Post by Magnus » Mon 30 Oct, 2017 6:15 pm

Yossarian wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 5:10 pm
Magnus wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 1:16 pm
Yossarian wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 12:34 pm
Magnus wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 12:10 pm


actually you are correct, his head does move forward first but then another bullet comes and his head moves back. Interesting stuff, so he must have had shooters from both sides

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/headshot.htm
Did you read the sources from my last post? That's from scientist familiar with ballistics not guys on the Internet. They clearly and very precisely explain why the Newton law doesn't apply. Thinking that movement in one direction means force from the opposite side is debunked by anyone with training or experience in that field.
yes I read it and common sense tells me he was shot from in front and behind. Some people really wanted this guy dead. I wouldn't be suprised if there were 10 shooters,

I'm always a bit skeptical of reports from the Government such as the Warren report. I guess we will have to wait and read more of the files when they are released. I read somewhere 9/10 Americans do not believe the Warren report.
Okay well there it is I guess. I'm talking about primary evidence and expert testimony. If you'd rather go with gut instinct and internet amateurs that's your call.
Because politicians have never lied to us, lol I think we're both talking about primary evidence and therein lies the inaccuracies that don't make sense. Jusst because someone is sceptical it is "internet ametuers and gut instinct" LOL gtfo

Looks like other people can't even be bothered to argue and show you their evidence cause you are so close minded to counter theories. I could send you links to first hand witnesses but then again you wouldn't agree with it anyway. Debating the wind.

User avatar
Yossarian
Member
Member
Posts: 9666
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Central Coast

Post by Yossarian » Mon 30 Oct, 2017 6:19 pm

Magnus wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 6:15 pm
Yossarian wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 5:10 pm
Magnus wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 1:16 pm
Yossarian wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 12:34 pm


Did you read the sources from my last post? That's from scientist familiar with ballistics not guys on the Internet. They clearly and very precisely explain why the Newton law doesn't apply. Thinking that movement in one direction means force from the opposite side is debunked by anyone with training or experience in that field.
yes I read it and common sense tells me he was shot from in front and behind. Some people really wanted this guy dead. I wouldn't be suprised if there were 10 shooters,

I'm always a bit skeptical of reports from the Government such as the Warren report. I guess we will have to wait and read more of the files when they are released. I read somewhere 9/10 Americans do not believe the Warren report.
Okay well there it is I guess. I'm talking about primary evidence and expert testimony. If you'd rather go with gut instinct and internet amateurs that's your call.
Because politicians have never lied to us, lol I think we're both talking about primary evidence and therein lies the inaccuracies that don't make sense. Jusst because someone is sceptical it is "internet ametuers" LOL gtfo
No mate - believe what you want but it's not primary evidence. Just because someone is sceptical doesn't mean they're right. I could ask what inaccuracies you mean but if you think they're could be 10 shooters it's probably a waste of time.

Might want to watch the disguised swearing too.

tsjonathan
Member
Member
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sun 21 Mar, 2010 6:04 pm

Post by tsjonathan » Mon 30 Oct, 2017 6:39 pm

Magnus wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 6:15 pm
Yossarian wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 5:10 pm
Magnus wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 1:16 pm
Yossarian wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 12:34 pm


Did you read the sources from my last post? That's from scientist familiar with ballistics not guys on the Internet. They clearly and very precisely explain why the Newton law doesn't apply. Thinking that movement in one direction means force from the opposite side is debunked by anyone with training or experience in that field.
yes I read it and common sense tells me he was shot from in front and behind. Some people really wanted this guy dead. I wouldn't be suprised if there were 10 shooters,

I'm always a bit skeptical of reports from the Government such as the Warren report. I guess we will have to wait and read more of the files when they are released. I read somewhere 9/10 Americans do not believe the Warren report.
Okay well there it is I guess. I'm talking about primary evidence and expert testimony. If you'd rather go with gut instinct and internet amateurs that's your call.
Because politicians have never lied to us, lol I think we're both talking about primary evidence and therein lies the inaccuracies that don't make sense. Jusst because someone is sceptical it is "internet ametuers and gut instinct" LOL gtfo

Looks like other people can't even be bothered to argue and show you their evidence cause you are so close minded to counter theories. I could send you links to first hand witnesses but then again you wouldn't agree with it anyway. Debating the wind.
Stop asking so many questions and just listen to what the Government says ok? A lone nut was able to single handedly murder the most powerful man in the world. He had ALL the motives! Now shut it

User avatar
Yossarian
Member
Member
Posts: 9666
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Central Coast

Post by Yossarian » Mon 30 Oct, 2017 6:45 pm

Believe what you want Jonathan - don't let the facts get in the way.

User avatar
Geo.
Member
Member
Posts: 29177
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 10:55 pm
Location: Perugia Italy..

Post by Geo. » Mon 30 Oct, 2017 6:51 pm

Ummm...Magneto..geez...
Ivan's Laws

1. You are either on the Bus or you are off..
2. The Star of the Team is the Team
3. Be the player your teammates want to play with..

tsjonathan
Member
Member
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sun 21 Mar, 2010 6:04 pm

Post by tsjonathan » Mon 30 Oct, 2017 6:51 pm

Yossarian wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 6:45 pm
Believe what you want Jonathan - don't let the facts get in the way.
Agreed! i bellieve everything the government tells me too! Cold hard facts ! As i said nightcrawler and LHO with the assistance of teleportation.

User avatar
Yossarian
Member
Member
Posts: 9666
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Central Coast

Post by Yossarian » Mon 30 Oct, 2017 7:02 pm

Magnus wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 6:15 pm
Yossarian wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 5:10 pm
Magnus wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 1:16 pm
Yossarian wrote:
Mon 30 Oct, 2017 12:34 pm


Did you read the sources from my last post? That's from scientist familiar with ballistics not guys on the Internet. They clearly and very precisely explain why the Newton law doesn't apply. Thinking that movement in one direction means force from the opposite side is debunked by anyone with training or experience in that field.
yes I read it and common sense tells me he was shot from in front and behind. Some people really wanted this guy dead. I wouldn't be suprised if there were 10 shooters,

I'm always a bit skeptical of reports from the Government such as the Warren report. I guess we will have to wait and read more of the files when they are released. I read somewhere 9/10 Americans do not believe the Warren report.
Okay well there it is I guess. I'm talking about primary evidence and expert testimony. If you'd rather go with gut instinct and internet amateurs that's your call.
Because politicians have never lied to us, lol I think we're both talking about primary evidence and therein lies the inaccuracies that don't make sense. Jusst because someone is sceptical it is "internet ametuers and gut instinct" LOL gtfo

Looks like other people can't even be bothered to argue and show you their evidence cause you are so close minded to counter theories. I could send you links to first hand witnesses but then again you wouldn't agree with it anyway. Debating the wind.
Ive tried to be respectful to you, it'd be nice if you returned the favour. Witnesses vary in what they report. That's what they do. But as an overall collective and when considered with actual proper evidence they don't support the 35 shooter theory... if you want to put something forward that's supported by evidence and not dotted lines or fantasy stories from ex felons go for it.

Post Reply