Count the witnesses who identified LHO there and its simply
overwhelming. And In Mellen's book, she produces evidence that says
LHO actually signed up that day.
I am thinking of doing a long article on Reitzes exposing him as the
disinfo artist he is. One thing, besides this Clinton BS that gets to
me is this: he says Garrison's office was not bugged.
LOL
In my book I will prove that it was bugged--twice! Once for the CIA
and once for the FBI.
<Quote off>
We have seen the sort of "evidence" Garrisonites like Mellen and
DiEugenio have.
If anybody has any real evidence that Garrison's office were bugged,
they should have long since produced it.
But in fact, they don't. Which is not to say that some "witness" will
not come forward to claim personal knowledge of such.
When people refer to someone as a "disinfo agent" do they mean this literally? That is, do they think the person is actually an agent hired to carry out an operation (usually under some kind of "cover")? Or are they just writing in hyperbole?
Of course someone could be a hired agent, although under both the large-scale conspiracy and the small-scale conspiracy theories that would seem like a big waste of time and money 50 years later (not to mention taking on the pointless risk after all these years that the agent would turn on the conspirators and disclose the "truth").
Wouldn't it be more rational to just imagine that the person being criticized is close-minded and so distorts the evidence to continue to uphold his views?
> When people refer to someone as a "disinfo agent" do they mean this
> literally? That is, do they think the person is actually an agent hired
> to carry out an operation (usually under some kind of "cover")? Or are
> they just writing in hyperbole?
> Of course someone could be a hired agent, although under both the
> large-scale conspiracy and the small-scale conspiracy theories that would
> seem like a big waste of time and money 50 years later (not to mention
> taking on the pointless risk after all these years that the agent would
> turn on the conspirators and disclose the "truth").
There are many shades of grey. Sometimes it could be a full-time job or maybe just a part-time job. Or it could be a journalist making a little extra money on the side. Or an amateur used by some intelligence agency.
> Wouldn't it be more rational to just imagine that the person being
> criticized is close-minded and so distorts the evidence to continue to
> uphold his views?
Not likely.
There is a practical limit to how stupid someone could be.
>When people refer to someone as a "disinfo agent" do they mean this >literally? That is, do they think the person is actually an agent hired >to carry out an operation (usually under some kind of "cover")? Or are >they just writing in hyperbole?
>Of course someone could be a hired agent, although under both the >large-scale conspiracy and the small-scale conspiracy theories that would >seem like a big waste of time and money 50 years later (not to mention >taking on the pointless risk after all these years that the agent would >turn on the conspirators and disclose the "truth").
>Wouldn't it be more rational to just imagine that the person being >criticized is close-minded and so distorts the evidence to continue to >uphold his views?
>Just wondering.
Of course, it's absurd to believe there are any "disinfo agents" hired
by the government to promote a "cover-up" of this case.
But if they *were* they would be conspiracists.
Nothing has been better at confusing things and throwing a fog of
insanity over the whole issue than the conspiracists.
> On 2 Oct 2012 14:58:18 -0400, Ace Kefford <bglobe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> When people refer to someone as a "disinfo agent" do they mean this
>> literally? That is, do they think the person is actually an agent hired
>> to carry out an operation (usually under some kind of "cover")? Or are
>> they just writing in hyperbole?
>> Of course someone could be a hired agent, although under both the
>> large-scale conspiracy and the small-scale conspiracy theories that would
>> seem like a big waste of time and money 50 years later (not to mention
>> taking on the pointless risk after all these years that the agent would
>> turn on the conspirators and disclose the "truth").
>> Wouldn't it be more rational to just imagine that the person being
>> criticized is close-minded and so distorts the evidence to continue to
>> uphold his views?
>> Just wondering.
> Of course, it's absurd to believe there are any "disinfo agents" hired
> by the government to promote a "cover-up" of this case.
Except for the CIA memos which mention them.
> But if they *were* they would be conspiracists.
Ok, so your conspiracy is that the CIA commissions wackos to come up with wacky conspiracy theories? For what reason? Is it you claim that the reason why they do that is just to make YOU look better?
They WANT the public to believe it was a conspiracy? Why?
This reminds me of the CIA project to promote UFO research and theories to cover up the real things happening which they did not want the public to know about, the U-2, SR-71 and other advanced aircraft.
The really hilarious thing is that there are morons in US intelligence who actually think that if they can keep it secret from the American public that means that they are successfully keeping it from our enemy's intelligence services.
Like keeping the Atom Bomb secret from the public, but the Soviets had all the secrets even before our scientists did.
In article <5071e80...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Ok, so your conspiracy is that the CIA commissions wackos to come up > with wacky conspiracy theories? For what reason? Is it you claim that > the reason why they do that is just to make YOU look better?
> They WANT the public to believe it was a conspiracy? Why?
Yet another example of Anthony acting as if another poster said something they didn't come even remotely close to saying, just like he claimed that I said JFK already had his fists up by Z225, even though he's never actually seen me say anything even remotely close to that in the past seven years at least. Then he makes it much worse by absolutely refusing to admit his obvious mistake even after it is pointed out to him repeatedly for several days in a row.
> In article <5071e80...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Ok, so your conspiracy is that the CIA commissions wackos to come up
>> with wacky conspiracy theories? For what reason? Is it you claim that
>> the reason why they do that is just to make YOU look better?
>> They WANT the public to believe it was a conspiracy? Why?
> Yet another example of Anthony acting as if another poster said something
> they didn't come even remotely close to saying, just like he claimed that
> I said JFK already had his fists up by Z225, even though he's never
> actually seen me say anything even remotely close to that in the past
> seven years at least. Then he makes it much worse by absolutely refusing
> to admit his obvious mistake even after it is pointed out to him
> repeatedly for several days in a row.
See the multiple question marks?????
That means that I am asking him if he really meant to leave that impression or if he just stated it the wrong way. Sometimes I understand what a poster meant to say even if it didn't come out the way he meant it.
You call it mind reading. I call it common sense.
> > On 2 Oct 2012 14:58:18 -0400, Ace Kefford <bglobe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> When people refer to someone as a "disinfo agent" do they mean this
> >> literally? That is, do they think the person is actually an agent hired
> >> to carry out an operation (usually under some kind of "cover")? Or are
> >> they just writing in hyperbole?
> >> Of course someone could be a hired agent, although under both the
> >> large-scale conspiracy and the small-scale conspiracy theories that would
> >> seem like a big waste of time and money 50 years later (not to mention
> >> taking on the pointless risk after all these years that the agent would
> >> turn on the conspirators and disclose the "truth").
> >> Wouldn't it be more rational to just imagine that the person being
> >> criticized is close-minded and so distorts the evidence to continue to
> >> uphold his views?
> >> Just wondering.
> > Of course, it's absurd to believe there are any "disinfo agents" hired
> > by the government to promote a "cover-up" of this case.
> Except for the CIA memos which mention them.
> > But if they *were* they would be conspiracists.
> Ok, so your conspiracy is that the CIA commissions wackos to come up
> with wacky conspiracy theories? For what reason? Is it you claim that
> the reason why they do that is just to make YOU look better?
> They WANT the public to believe it was a conspiracy? Why?
> This reminds me of the CIA project to promote UFO research and theories
> to cover up the real things happening which they did not want the public
> to know about, the U-2, SR-71 and other advanced aircraft.
> The really hilarious thing is that there are morons in US intelligence
> who actually think that if they can keep it secret from the American
> public that means that they are successfully keeping it from our enemy's
> intelligence services.
> Like keeping the Atom Bomb secret from the public, but the Soviets had
> all the secrets even before our scientists did.
<snicker> Every statement of Tony`s goes further and further off the
point until he drifts out into left field.
