Creative Speculation

MrMickeysMom

(20,453 posts)

21. The answer is...

Reply to zappaman (Reply #20)

Sun Mar 10, 2013, 05:23 PM

Mar 2013

you love to be slapped with the truth.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

168 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Here's a correction OP for 50 Reasons, 50 Years OP [View all] MrMickeysMom Feb 2013 OP

Thanks for posting, I watched the first 9 videos from the links in your earlier posts. eomer Feb 2013 #1

I sort of see it, too... MrMickeysMom Feb 2013 #4

Introduction: Woman heard shot from grassy knoll William Seger Feb 2013 #2

Snark? MrMickeysMom Feb 2013 #3

"That's all I get from you is snark?" William Seger Feb 2013 #5

No, I read it... MrMickeysMom Feb 2013 #6

Uh-huh, "answers" and "honest discussion" and "dialog" William Seger Feb 2013 #11

Episode Two: John Armstrong speculates there were "two Oswalds" William Seger Feb 2013 #12

Episode Three: Bill Simpich speculates that Oswald was part of "false defector" program William Seger Feb 2013 #13

Episode Four: Joan Mellen speculates that Oswald was a CIA/FBI plant William Seger Feb 2013 #15

Episode Five: John Armstrong again, speculating about "two Oswalds" again William Seger Feb 2013 #16

No response from the OP yet? zappaman Mar 2013 #18

On posting the videos as they come out each week, and on your being blocked for it... eomer Feb 2013 #7

Appreciated, eomer... MrMickeysMom Feb 2013 #8

I followed the discussion and I thank you for having, by far, the more reasonable approach. NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #14

Thanks for posting and sorry for any grief you got from others. NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #9

Twas nothing... MrMickeysMom Feb 2013 #10

Will the OP be answering Seger's criticisms of the videos any time soon? zappaman Mar 2013 #17

It would appear that the poll speaks for who's more interested in the videos... MrMickeysMom Mar 2013 #19

So the answer is NO zappaman Mar 2013 #20

The answer is... MrMickeysMom Mar 2013 #21

!!! zappaman Mar 2013 #22

... MrMickeysMom Mar 2013 #23

I'm sorry you can't speak for yourself. zappaman Mar 2013 #24

They sure are... MrMickeysMom Mar 2013 #25

Seger's criticisms arguille Mar 2013 #26

I a interested in the way you addressed "c" MrMickeysMom Mar 2013 #27

One at a time: a) eyewitness reports of shot(s) from grassy knoll area William Seger Mar 2013 #28

reply to #28 arguille Mar 2013 #33

"Sorry. That does not add up." William Seger Mar 2013 #38

reply to #38 arguille Mar 2013 #43

Neither you nor Fiester have refuted what I'm saying about Zapruder William Seger Mar 2013 #46

BTW, here's a "painted over" Zapruder frame William Seger Mar 2013 #51

reply to #51 arguille Mar 2013 #52

Baloney. I DID respond to your three issues. William Seger Mar 2013 #58

reply to #58 arguille Mar 2013 #60

Timeout William Seger Mar 2013 #64

A vacation is what you needed at this point, Billy MrMickeysMom Mar 2013 #66

I'm back William Seger Apr 2013 #73

reply to #73 arguille Apr 2013 #74

I keep asking for one GOOD reason William Seger Apr 2013 #79

reply to #79 arguille Apr 2013 #82

Baloney William Seger Apr 2013 #85

reply to #85 arguille Apr 2013 #92

Sliced thin and piled high, it's still baloney William Seger Apr 2013 #93

reply to #93 arguille Apr 2013 #94

On and on William Seger Apr 2013 #95

reply to #95 arguille Apr 2013 #97

Stairway to delusion William Seger Apr 2013 #99

reply to #99 arguille Apr 2013 #100

Oh, I don't really mind arguing with a brick wall William Seger Apr 2013 #108

reply to #108 arguille Apr 2013 #110

Credibility issue William Seger Apr 2013 #115

reply to #115 arguille Apr 2013 #117

Two words: Bull. Shit. William Seger Apr 2013 #118

reply to #118 arguille Apr 2013 #119

But I DID read it, "arguille" William Seger Apr 2013 #121

reply to #121 arguille Apr 2013 #124

If you're just going to keep repeating yourself William Seger Apr 2013 #127

reply to #127 arguille Apr 2013 #129

"What's that about likely or unlikely?" William Seger Apr 2013 #133

reply to #133 arguille Apr 2013 #135

By the way, this... William Seger Apr 2013 #131

reply to #131 arguille Apr 2013 #136

Well, that's the problem MrMickeysMom Apr 2013 #84

Clicking on your posts, hoping that maybe this time there will be something William Seger Apr 2013 #86

Point by point William Seger Apr 2013 #69

reply to post #69 arguille Apr 2013 #76

In other words, speculation and spin are all you've got William Seger Apr 2013 #80

"...but the single-bullet theory remains the best explanation of the facts." MrMickeysMom Apr 2013 #87

I'm sure arguille appreciates the cheerleading, but... William Seger Apr 2013 #88

You wish a fight over what you should wish to seek... MrMickeysMom Apr 2013 #89

I've been begging for any credible FACTS that refute the WC conclusions William Seger Apr 2013 #90

Reply to #80 arguille Apr 2013 #91

No offense, of course, but so what? William Seger Apr 2013 #96

reply to #96 arguille Apr 2013 #98

Good grief William Seger Apr 2013 #112

reply to #112 arguille Apr 2013 #113

More baloney? No thanks William Seger Apr 2013 #114

reply to #114 arguille Apr 2013 #116

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush William Seger Apr 2013 #122

reply to #122 arguille Apr 2013 #130

Thanks for the video William Seger Apr 2013 #132

reply to #132 arguille Apr 2013 #137

Pointless repetition William Seger Apr 2013 #140

reply to #140 arguille Apr 2013 #142

"What fact?" William Seger Apr 2013 #144

reply to #144 arguille Apr 2013 #147

Yeaaaaaah, THAT'S the ticket William Seger Apr 2013 #148

reply to #148 arguille Apr 2013 #149

But it IS bullshit, isn't it William Seger Apr 2013 #151

reply to #151 arguille Apr 2013 #153

LMAO William Seger Apr 2013 #156

reply to #156 arguille Apr 2013 #158

In other words, you have absolutely no sound evidence or logical reason William Seger Apr 2013 #160

reply to #160 arguille Apr 2013 #161

'Round the barn again William Seger Apr 2013 #162

reply to #162 arguille Apr 2013 #165

How about this: William Seger Apr 2013 #167

b) Fletcher Prouty worked at the Pentagon William Seger Mar 2013 #29

reply to #29 arguille Mar 2013 #34

And again, my point was... William Seger Mar 2013 #40

reply to #40 arguille Mar 2013 #44

Yes, they lie a lot William Seger Mar 2013 #48

reply to #48 arguille Mar 2013 #53

Well, if you think you can prove THAT, then... William Seger Mar 2013 #59

reply to #59 arguille Mar 2013 #61

Which just goes to show... William Seger Apr 2013 #70

reply to #70 arguille Apr 2013 #77

c) Seger dismisses information on Oswald's history and background as unsubstantial William Seger Mar 2013 #30

reply to #30 arguille Mar 2013 #35

"But there was a false defector program." William Seger Mar 2013 #39

reply to #39 arguille Mar 2013 #45

"illegal operations can be understood as including false defectors" William Seger Mar 2013 #50

reply to #50 arguille Mar 2013 #54

Baloney. Here's a link to the minutes of that meeting William Seger Mar 2013 #57

reply to #57 arguille Mar 2013 #62

"*IF* that were true and it ever came out and could be established" William Seger Apr 2013 #71

reply to #71 arguille Apr 2013 #75

Actually, what I'm claiming is... William Seger Apr 2013 #83

also to #71 arguille Apr 2013 #78

The minutes of the first Commission meeting, and I provided the link (n/t) William Seger Apr 2013 #81

d) Mexico City William Seger Mar 2013 #31

reply to #31 arguille Mar 2013 #36

"the provable fact that Oswald was framed" William Seger Mar 2013 #41

e) spooky one-note music. William Seger Mar 2013 #32

reply to #32 arguille Mar 2013 #37

Sez you William Seger Mar 2013 #42

reply to #42 arguille Mar 2013 #47

But I'm giving you every opportunity to change my mind William Seger Mar 2013 #49

reply to #49 arguille Mar 2013 #55

Baloney. It's not a "rhetorical device" to demand FACT-based DEDUCTIVE reasoning William Seger Mar 2013 #56

reply to #56 arguille Mar 2013 #63

Well now... MrMickeysMom Mar 2013 #68

Prove any one of them, then William Seger Apr 2013 #72

Made it to 1:38 in first video Riftaxe Mar 2013 #65

Wow!.... MrMickeysMom Mar 2013 #67

In the intro video, they say his head moved back when he was shot, ZombieHorde Apr 2013 #101

Shhhhh! zappaman Apr 2013 #102

I have only watched the first first video and half of the second, so they might address that point. ZombieHorde Apr 2013 #103

You should check this out as well zappaman Apr 2013 #104

That does look like his head moved forward to me. ZombieHorde Apr 2013 #105

reply to ZombieHorde arguille Apr 2013 #106

"It remains a point of contention five decades later." zappaman Apr 2013 #107

It does remain a point of contention... MrMickeysMom Apr 2013 #109

Well, I suppose the earth being round remains a point of contention since some believe it is flat... zappaman Apr 2013 #111

head movement and blood spatter arguille Apr 2013 #120

In other words, Fiester has NO CLUE the 2.5" forward head-snap even happened William Seger Apr 2013 #123

reply to #123 arguille Apr 2013 #125

"move minutely into the force" is NOT a 2.5" head-snap William Seger Apr 2013 #126

reply to #126 arguille Apr 2013 #128

"swell or move minutely into the force" is NOT a 2.5" forward head-snap William Seger Apr 2013 #134

reply to #134 arguille Apr 2013 #138

Yep, that's exactly the same thing Fiester was talking about William Seger Apr 2013 #139

reply to #139 arguille Apr 2013 #141

What's refuted is your bizarre interpretation of "contemporary ballistic science" William Seger Apr 2013 #143

reply to #143 arguille Apr 2013 #150

You just keep digging your hole deeper and deeper William Seger Apr 2013 #152

Reply to #152 arguille Apr 2013 #154

I really don't understand why you keep responding if that's the best you can do William Seger Apr 2013 #155

reply to #155 arguille Apr 2013 #157

... William Seger Apr 2013 #159

"Ballistics & Forensic Experts on the JFK Head Shot" William Seger Apr 2013 #163

reply to #163 arguille Apr 2013 #164

No, this is the ticket: William Seger Apr 2013 #166

BTW, Re: Fiester as an "expert" William Seger Apr 2013 #168

"Seger refutes contemporary ballistic science" with another video William Seger Apr 2013 #146

And by the way.... William Seger Apr 2013 #145