You're wrong. The Great Ice Wall is permanently manned by blokes dressed in black, probably NASA agents, stopping people from falling off the edge of the world. Tyrion Lannister, the great explorer once went and had a look:

Back on topic [url=http://asheepnomore.net/2015/12/15/a-politician-tweeted-about-san-bernardino-terrorist-attack-on-nov-13th-before-it-happened/More Propaganda[/url

Well, again, I don't think they are, in all cases, mutually exclusive. It's a complex relationship which I could spend quite a number of pages talking about - if I had the time (hence the [ulate[/u reply to your question).



I'm not really sure why it DOESN'T matter to you.





You are right in saying I can't give you the exact names of the individual shooters in Dealey Plaza (do these even matter?). But you are wrong if you think I haven't told you who was responsible. I've repeatedly named the prime suspects who conspired to assassinate President Kennedy and provided a ton of supporting evidence.

Those names are (in no particular order):

Allen W. Dulles (former head of the CIA).
James Angleton (former head of CIA counter-intelligence division).
Guy Bannister (ex-FBI)
David W. Ferrie (CIA)
Clay Shaw (CIA/OSS)
General Curtis D. LeMay (head of Strategic Air Command)
Richard Bissell (CIA)
David Atlee Phillips (CIA)
H.L. Hunt (Big Oil)
General Edward Lansdale (CIA)
D.H. Bird (Big Oil)
Jack Ruby (CIA/mafia)
Richard Helms (CIA)
William K. Harvey (and his ZR-RIFLE company which almost certainly provided the shooters). (CIA)
McGeorge Bundy (Kennedy staff)
Bill Greer (Secret Service)
and others ...



As I've repeatedly said - I really don't see the tower question as crucial. Once you know there was significant insider trading in the days leading up to 9/11 on the very airlines involved the fate of the towers becomes a secondary issue. Had the US government possessed ANY evidence linking Bin Laden and his group to shorting the stocks of those airlines they would have published it in triple-oversized bold font. The fact that they chose instead to throw a veil of secrecy over the entire issue really doesn't leave one with a great deal of doubt as to the origins of the conspiracy.



I like the fact that you just PRESUME I automatically think everything is a conspiracy first and then (possibly) adjust my opinions in accordance with evidence. This is despite the fact that I have repeatedly told you that the only conspiracy I consistently took seriously in thirty five years was JFK...

I don't need you or anyone else to validate my opinions. I'm confident in what I know and if you want to believe something different that's your business.



Quite.

Another reasonable post ... we are on a convergent path.

Gee Whizz you're well versed with the JFK facts, although theres many key players in his death are you aware of the shooter who delivered the brutal head shot ?. Theres many theories but i was under the impression William Greer delivered it. There was also the theory Jackie Kennedy or the roadside sewage shooter pulled the fatal head shot. All i've researched on this event is the massive ritualistic side to it.

Translation: I have no comeback for that hole in the flat earth theory. You do realise, dont you, that anything as big as the earth is impossible to be flat as it would just collpase due to that thing called gravity? Or are you saying that every single scientist who has studied gravity and the earth is on the illuminati's payroll? All hundreds of thousands of them?

Regards

King James

Indoctrination.

Seriously? Are you for real? The whole process of science is to question what people have put before and not to just accept it as the norm. Thats why, you know, any research is put out there to be critiqued by their peers. I give up.

regards

King James

For such an independent news site they're more than happy to roll with the advertising click bait. The whole page is littered with it.

Greer shooting Kennedy really doesn't square with eye-witness testimony. I think it is a smokescreen and not worthy of merit. The same goes for Jackie - although I do think she was mixed up with a bunch of very strange people.

So the killer blow is still a uncertainty, the roadside sewage shooter was in a prime location especially as the motorcade slowed down directly adjacent the sewage opening. I thought the Greer shooting was the most consistent match with the trajectory of the shot, and with Jackie knowing who the killer was made her clamber the vehicle, but i accept your version of witness testimonies very inconclusive case or do i need to delve more, still scratching my head on this one.

Who actually fired the guns is pretty much irrelevant though isn't it. It was a hit sanctioned from within the American establishment and accepting that is more important in helping to understand the world today.

Gee Whizz has someone woke up with a bad hangover this morning.

The JFK case is one of the most compelling cases in history which proves not all conspiracies are theories but conspiracy realists.

With regards to world views fill your boots Sherlock.

Look, he is convinced that all hundreds of thousands of scientists are all wrong, and he knows better. There is nothing whatsoever that you could say to shake his mad conviction 1 mm. It is a waste of time. Any query is either dismissed with insults, or occasionally some garbled insane riposte.

Some moons back, I asked him a simple question - Why does the moon look upside down when viewed from Australia?". I did so in the hope that actually thinking about that rather simple conundrum would help lead him maybe a step away from his blind certainty. For ages, he refused to answer and eventually came up with a puerile example about the word "perspective" and a crescent lamp viewed from opposite ends of a room. A but like those infuriatingly stupid pseudo-science vids he swallows whole, and is so fond of linking to, but a factor or two more risible and pathetic.

And then he blocked me, because even such a simple question is delusionally perceived as some sort of stalking, unfair, attack. It's not. It's a simple question, with no baggage. But his brain can't accept that, the answer doesn't compute but his delusions convince him that cannot be the case, and so it must be the question that is at fault.

If he can't even understand such a simple critique, what is the point of talking about anything with such a person?

I consider the identities of the shooters (as well as their location) irrelevant. They were almost certainly members of William Harvey's clandestine ZR-RIFLE assassination brigade based in Oaxcha Mexico. I seriously doubt whether any of them were drawing breath 48 hours later so it's pointless pursuing the question further.

I mean, if you really want to know about bullet trajectories and such the best person to look up is police forensics expert, Sherry Feister who performed a sophisticated "bullet cone" analysis based on the autopsy reports.

She recently published an excellent book under the title [url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Enemy-Truth-Forensics-Kennedy-Assassination/dp/0988305003&ved=0ahUKEwixt7yugejJAhXKsxQKHYmTDZQQFgg3MAc&usg=AFQjCNFt17wPtPHgdkGL744KMPwIyLpzxw&sig2=acAYQrnYBHnxewiZoO4Y0wJFK Enemy of Truth: Myths, Forensics and the Kennedy Assassination[/url

Your question is as simple as "if the earth is flat, why do things appear gradually over the horizon"

Ochams razor mate

Regards

King James

Come on mods get a grip. Is there any justice

The earth does not have a "shape". It is a chaotically defined irregular object which is in a constant state of flux.

Describing it as "spherical" is as wrong as claiming it is flat.

That said, because of human cognitive limitations and relative scale we intuitively perceive it as flat even when we know it to be otherwise. It's the reason maps are rendered in two dimensions despite the fact that such are patently inaccurate and misleading.

And this is before I've even begun to talk about what form earth might take in the dizzying geometries of purported higher dimensions.

It's completely irrational to waste your time arguing about hopelessly imprecise labels.

If we suddenly discovered the earth is as flat as a snooker table (a decent metaphor and yet still a bad definition of "flat"icon_wink.gif what difference would it make? Would GPS satellites immediately cease to function?

For thousands of years humans were certain that the earth was flat. Did they change in any appreciable way when they were informed that it isn't?

I mean, I can't force you to desist chipping your IQs down to double figures but I really wish you'd invest your energies in matters that ... well ... [imatter.[/i

Like trying to find out who really shot JFK over half a century ago eh Mugwump?

Well, we could ponder the meaning of your miserable excuse for a life. Although I'm guessing few would wish to squelch into that quagmire of bitterness and self-loathing.

You don't think it matters, and has consequences that still resonate to this day?

Pillock

I would say the earth is a hell of a lot closer to being spherical than it is to being flat.

If we're going to be pedantic then nothing is perfectly spherical and nothing is perfectly flat.
I think most people can see the general idea behind the use of such terms though.

As for JFK, I agree with Charlie Sheen. I think it does matter who shot him and why. Maybe the identities of the people who physically pulled the triggers aren't that important, but the people who organised it are.
In the same way as the actual reasons for going into Iraq are important. They're about as important issues as you can get in my opinion. They're about our entire way of life.

Which is why I don't believe every conspiracy that's floated but nor do I automatically discredit such thoughts.

We know governments do secret things and can pull off secretive events. We know that the media is corrupt, in the sense of it doesn't just present with unbiased facts and information. It puts its own slant on it and selects facts and information it likes and ignores facts and information it doesn't like.

So I don't blindly trust official sources of the media any more than I would trust Flat Stanley. They're both bullsh|tters.
I look at a situation and decide whether it adds up. I try and find the other side of the story. I urge people to watch RT news channel occasionally, especially at the moment with the confrontation with the Russians. Again, don't believe it anymore or less than you would Sky News or the BBC, but it presents a different side to issues and often information that isn't presented to you by the regular media.
Look at all sides, look at as much evidence and information as possible and then think about it for a while.

In the case of JFK anyone who does that HAS to come to the conclusion that SOMETHING is wrong, even if you don't agree with various theories about it.
The same goes for me with 9/11 and at least parts of Sandy Hook though I've only seen bits on that so far.

I'm struggling to think of 2 bigger events since the end of the 2nd World War than JFK and 9/11. They both radically changed the world we live in both in a macro and micro sense. If, if it turns out those 2 events aren't how we've been told, then I think that's very very important and very relevant to myself and my family.

Trust me. You are wasting your time.