Posted on 04/12/2002 5:21:54 PM PDT by Republican_Strategist
WRONG. Tripod sites are free to the person setting them up, 100% free. Tripod then makes their money by selling banner ads on top of the user's pages. Or, if you wish, you can get Tripod to stop putting ads on your pages for a whopping $4.95 a month. Gee, should I get that extra-large bag of Doritos, or participate in the Grand Conspiracy To Take Down Michael Rivero? Decisions, decisions...
Oh, but in his mind, he does.
Says a 'me too' little weasel. - How stupid.
I will gladly deal with the specifics if you will tell me specifically what you are claiming. You say the rifle was incapable of the shooting. Do you want to narrow that down to some specific issues?
See what I mean?
To recap: You say, "Even the warren report admits the problems with oswalds rifle, & its inability to perform as needed without a 'magic bullet' scenario."
I ask, what problems with the rifle does the WC admit?
What does its alleged "inability to perform" have to do with the single bullet theory?
Can you answer with substance instead of insults? Let's see.
Noted :-)
----------------------------------
Not really. -- This has been done, -- ad nauseum, thousands of times before, here at FR, and elsewhere.
You, -- & the WC, - claim the rifle was capable of doing all of the damage at the shooting with three shots. - The first missed, the 'magic' second, and the head shot.
This magic bullet myth has been well refuted since '64. - Yet you pretend ignorance? Why?
Do your own research if you really are confused.
I am impressed!
Two multisyllabic words in the same sentence. And it only took you 42 minutes to look them up. These long threads must be a strain for you -- all that reading, your lips getting tired, etc.
-- That oswalds rifle was a piece of junk should be beyond argument. -- The WC admitted the scope was misaligned, & the action to slow to shoot in the time alloted.
--- Can you tell me why you want to deny this reality?
Now that's the kind of witty repartée I've come to expect from the superintellectual who calls himself tpaine.
Sure I could stoop to your level and call you "tpaine in tass" or I could say that you wouldn't know "Common Sense" if you were sitting on the toilet and it came up and bit you in the brains.
But, no, I'm above all that. I'll just wait for you to come back with your . . . clever . . . insights.
Because you always do. No matter how often you are mocked or made to look the fool, you come back for more. It's sad, really.
You: Whatever. -- Dream on dude.
Yes. So very, very sad.
Tell someone who cares.
'You say the rifle was incapable of the shooting. Do you want to narrow that down to some specific issues?'
----------------------------------
Not really. -- This has been done, -- ad nauseum, thousands of times before, here at FR, and elsewhere.
People have made claims, sure. Different ones. That's why I want to know what specific ones you are relying on.
You, -- & the WC, - claim the rifle was capable of doing all of the damage at the shooting with three shots. - The first missed, the 'magic' second, and the head shot.
I haven't offered a scenario at all. As for the WC, the above scenario fits in their findings, yes. Except, they didn't specify which shot had to miss, and there is no "magic" bullet. Using the "magic" term is simply a propaganda point. The bullet is not alleged to have had any magic properties.
This magic bullet myth has been well refuted since '64. - Yet you pretend ignorance? Why?
Just because I don't accept your unfounded claims doesn't mean I'm pretending ignorance. I am disagreeing with you. You are wrong. The single bullet theory has never been refuted.
Do your own research if you really are confused.
I've done more research than you know. You should try it. BTW, "research" does not mean reading a bunch of conspiracy books.
I didn't even bring up the single bullet theory. You did. You persist in the notion that it has something to do with the rifle's performance. I don't know how you get that idea.
-- That oswalds rifle was a piece of junk should be beyond argument. -- The WC admitted the scope was misaligned, & the action to slow to shoot in the time alloted.
It was a functioning military rifle that shot bullets in a straight line. That's all it had to do. The scope was found misaligned *later*, after it had been dropped behind some boxes and handled by various people. There is no evidence it was misaligned at the time of the shooting. Anyway, it was possible to use the rifle's iron sights even with the scope mounted.
--- Can you tell me why you want to deny this reality?
I don't deny reality, that seems to be your job. To accept reality you first have to find out what it is. You won't get it by just reading all the crap that his been written about this case. People would be utterly shocked to find out how much of what they think they know about the JFK case has simply been made up at some point by some author.
Yet another myth. There are a lot of them. The bullet has only 4 grooves. The pictures show a bullet with 4 grooves. They are not equally distributed around the bullet though, and if you only look at one side you can see 3 of them. If you look at the other side you will find only 1 more. Guess which side the people who tell you there are 6 grooves show you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.