This website

[dalirese...@aol.com]

Wow,this website clearly is pro Warren Commission and down right nasty to anyone who asks a critical question.No matter what facts are presented, the carnival barkers who run this sight either insult you or worse simply LIE and say that one's question or evidence is false. what apathetic bunch, most of you are. Your revisionist history turns my stomach. To say that "Kennedy was not as left wing as I think" says it all.

FACTS:

1) The CIA and military brass were pissed at JFK after the Bay of Pigs. There is wide consensus and agreement that JFK was going to get rid of many in the CIA brass.

2) NSAM 263is real pertaining to JFK's plans to withdraw from Vietnam. Yet when presented, many of you toads on this website say it does not exist. How in the hell does one have any intelligent discussion with any one who denies the existence of factual document.

3) Less than 10 days after JFK's death, LBJ reverses NSAM 26, leading us to the whole Gulf of Tonkin BS.

4) Not one of you responded to when I brought up civil rights, southern Dems verse JFK's view and direction

5) To imply that JFK was a right winger is not insulting it is laughable and more importantly, it makes the myth that Oswald the lefty wanted too to kill JFK because of conflicting views ebven more laughable to any rationale minded person

But alas, just dismiss it by saying its not true.

By the way, I believe Jesse Ventura, a Marine who along with 4 other sharp shooters could not fire accurately in less than 7 seconds when they replicated the shooting. Ventura has more credibility than any of you and the king of the toads Gerald Posner who now is part of this corrupt effort to re write history and now state that the first shot cane well before the Stemmons Freeway sign, How pathetic!

[Chad Anthony]

You left out the several marksmen that BEAT Oswald's shooting feat.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <96fe70fd-2969-49b3...@googlegroups.com>,
dalirese...@aol.com says...
>
>Wow,this website clearly is pro Warren Commission and down right nasty to a=
>nyone who asks a critical question.No matter what facts are presented, the =
>carnival barkers who run this sight either insult you or worse simply LIE a=
>nd say that one's question or evidence is false. what apathetic bunch, most=
> of you are. Your revisionist history turns my stomach. To say that "Kenned=
>y was not as left wing as I think" says it all.=20

Oh settle down my good man and let us see just who is revising history
here. Perhaps it is you! The Camelot groupies are well known as
revisionist. Are you a Camelot groupie?


>FACTS:
>
>1) The CIA and military brass were pissed at JFK after the Bay of Pigs. The=
>re is wide consensus and agreement that JFK was going to get rid of many in=
> the CIA brass.

Yes the CIA was pissed. Khrushchev thought it showed Kennedy weak. And
yes, Kennedy did in fact remove some of the top brass including Allen
Dulles. They should have been fired for the debacle at the BOP. And then
Kennedy shares in the blame since he not only allowed the operation to go
forward but also changed the location of the landing and reduced the
preliminary number of air strikes on Cuban airfields.


>2) NSAM 263is real pertaining to JFK's plans to withdraw from Vietnam. Yet =
>when presented, many of you toads on this website say it does not exist. Ho=
>w in the hell does one have any intelligent discussion with any one who den=

>ies the existence of factual document.

In many years of discussing NSAM 263 on this group I have seen many
attempt to read what they wish NSAM 263 said, not what it actually says.
Are you one of these folks? I have never seen anyone here claim that NSAM
263 does not exist, as you claim. Hyperbole? So tell us what you think
NSAM 263 said. For starters it doesn't say we will withdraw by 1965.


>3) Less than 10 days after JFK's death, LBJ reverses NSAM 26, leading us to=
> the whole Gulf of Tonkin BS.=20

A long stretch here.

>4) Not one of you responded to when I brought up civil rights, southern Dem=

>s verse JFK's view and direction

Civil Rights was like Vietnam to Kennedy. A pain in the ass that he had
rather not have to deal with.

>5) To imply that JFK was a right winger is not insulting it is laughable an=
>d more importantly, it makes the myth that Oswald the lefty wanted too to k=
>ill JFK because of conflicting views ebven more laughable to any rationale =
>minded person

No one here has claimed JFK was a right winger. Some of us merely point
out that he wasn't a far left wing whack job like his brother Teddy. JFK
was, like most politicians of the time, was a strong foe of communism. A
Cold Warrior.

>But alas, just dismiss it by saying its not true.
>

>By the way, I believe Jesse Ventura, a Marine who along with 4 other sharp =
>shooters could not fire accurately in less than 7 seconds when they replica=
>ted the shooting. Ventura has more credibility than any of you and the king=
> of the toads Gerald Posner who now is part of this corrupt effort to re wr=
>ite history and now state that the first shot cane well before the Stemmons=
> Freeway sign, How pathetic!
>

Ventura? What is he doing now days?

Bill Clarke

[Chuck Schuyler]

On May 8, 8:28 am, daliresearch2...@aol.com wrote:
> Wow,this website clearly is pro Warren Commission and down right nasty to anyone who asks a critical question.No matter what facts are presented, the carnival barkers who run this sight either insult you or worse simply LIE and say that one's question or evidence is false. what apathetic bunch, most of you are. Your revisionist history turns my stomach. To say that "Kennedy was not as left wing as I think" says it all.
>
> FACTS:
>
> 1) The CIA and military brass were pissed at JFK after the Bay of Pigs. There is wide consensus and agreement that JFK was going to get rid of many in the CIA brass.

Oswald undoubtably fired the shots that killed JFK. It was his rifle and
the bullets/fragments recovered are a ballistic match to the rifle to the
exclusion of any other. Game, set match.

>
> 2) NSAM 263is real pertaining to JFK's plans to withdraw from Vietnam. Yet when presented, many of you toads on this website say it does not exist. How in the hell does one have any intelligent discussion with any one who denies the existence of  factual document.

Oswald was a loser living in a rented room, separated from his wife and
working a low-wage job at a school book supply store. He had no knowledge
of NSAM 263.

>
> 3) Less than 10 days after JFK's death, LBJ reverses NSAM 26, leading us to the whole Gulf of Tonkin BS.

You're trying to connect dots that don't connect. Oswald had no idea
what these documents were or were not.

>
> 4) Not one of you responded to when I brought up civil rights, southern Dems verse JFK's view and direction

None of this probably played any significant role into Oswald's decision
to bring his rifle to work that morning, wrapped in a paper sack. We can
guess why Oswald killed JFK, but ultimately it was a senseless, tragic
act. Like the nuts that spray bullets around schools or leave bombs at
marathons, etc. we'll never know the complete reason this loser Oswald did
what he did.

>
> 5) To imply that JFK was a right winger is not insulting it is laughable and more importantly, it makes the myth that Oswald the lefty wanted too to kill JFK because of conflicting views ebven more laughable to any rationale minded person

JFK was most assuredly a liberal of his time, far less liberal than the
cartoon Democratic party of today. I doubt JFK would've been pro-
abortion, gay marriage, etc. He did cut taxes and got the economy jumping.
Perhaps he would've been a Republican today. I doubt it, but we'll never
know. He died almost fifty years ago.

>
> But alas, just dismiss it by saying its not true.

Science shows Oswald's rifle fired the shots. It's a real stretch to
imagine anyone but Oswald up there on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

>
> By the way, I believe Jesse Ventura, a Marine who along with 4 other sharp shooters could not fire accurately in less than 7 seconds when they replicated the shooting. Ventura has more credibility than any of you and the king of the toads Gerald Posner who now is part of this corrupt effort to re write history and now state that the first shot cane well before the Stemmons Freeway sign, How pathetic!

Ventura was in the Navy, not the Marines. He's a well known conspiracy
fruitcake, and reads the same biased stuff you probably do. Scientific
evidence shows that a man in a building shot at some men in a car. One
happened to be the President, the other Governor of Texas. The man who was
President was killed, the Governor was wounded. Case closed.

[timstter]

Well if you don't like it, mate, why don't you go away? Your grasp of the
evidence in the case could be described as rudimentary at best. You've
obviously swallowed every pathetic conspiracy factoid thats come down the
pike over the last fifty years and you can't even spell, to boot.

Your <snicker> *contribution* to the debate will be no loss.

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/8/2013 9:28 AM, dalirese...@aol.com wrote:
> Wow,this website clearly is pro Warren Commission and down right nasty to anyone who asks a critical question.No matter what facts are presented, the carnival barkers who run this sight either insult you or worse simply LIE and say that one's question or evidence is false. what apathetic bunch, most of you are. Your revisionist history turns my stomach. To say that "Kennedy was not as left wing as I think" says it all.
>

Yes, this place certainly is a horrid sight, but it is not a Web site.
It is a Usenet newgroup, not a Web page. Run by the WC defenders to
attack the conspriracy believers and protect the CIA.

> FACTS:
>
> 1) The CIA and military brass were pissed at JFK after the Bay of Pigs. There is wide consensus and agreement that JFK was going to get rid of many in the CIA brass.
>

And don't forget the Cuban Exiles who felt betrayed.
After the Bay of Pigs fiasco JFK forced out the top three CIA officers.
Just a few days before the assassination he was planning to fire the CIA
officer in charge of assassinations.

> 2) NSAM 263is real pertaining to JFK's plans to withdraw from Vietnam. Yet when presented, many of you toads on this website say it does not exist. How in the hell does one have any intelligent discussion with any one who denies the existence of factual document.
>

That's why they are here, to deny simple facts.

> 3) Less than 10 days after JFK's death, LBJ reverses NSAM 26, leading us to the whole Gulf of Tonkin BS.
>

LBJ rewrote NSAM 273 to escalate the Vietnam War.

> 4) Not one of you responded to when I brought up civil rights, southern Dems verse JFK's view and direction
>
> 5) To imply that JFK was a right winger is not insulting it is laughable and more importantly, it makes the myth that Oswald the lefty wanted too to kill JFK because of conflicting views ebven more laughable to any rationale minded person
>
> But alas, just dismiss it by saying its not true.
>
> By the way, I believe Jesse Ventura, a Marine who along with 4 other sharp shooters could not fire accurately in less than 7 seconds when they replicated the shooting. Ventura has more credibility than any of you and the king of the toads Gerald Posner who now is part of this corrupt effort to re write history and now state that the first shot cane well before the Stemmons Freeway sign, How pathetic!
>

Who cares what Ventura thinks? He is not an expert and he is not a
reseaercher. He is just a TV clown.

[John Fiorentino]

Your description of this "website" is a gross distortion.

I agree that if JFK were in politics today, he would most likely be a
Republican.

TOP PRESIDENTIAL TAX CUTTERS

Ronald Reagan - Republican
George Bush - Republican
John F. Kennedy - Democrat

John F.





<dalirese...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:96fe70fd-2969-49b3...@googlegroups.com...

[claviger]

On May 8, 8:28 am, daliresearch2...@aol.com wrote:

President Kennedy was way more conservative than his Vice President,
that much we know. Here is a book that explains why.

JFK, Conservative: Ira Stoll: 9780547585987: Amazon.com: Books
http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Conservative-Ira-Stoll/dp/0547585985

[mainframetech]

On May 8, 5:29 pm, Chad Anthony <timetravelerinfin...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> You left out the several marksmen that BEAT Oswald's shooting feat.

And all of them using a rifle that had been fixed properly, and not
the messy WW2 rifle that Oswald picked out of a magazine for it's low
cost to take pictures with, that had a sticky bolt and a scope that
wouldn't aim.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On May 8, 5:33 pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On May 8, 8:28 am, daliresearch2...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Wow,this website clearly is pro Warren Commission and down right nasty to anyone who asks a critical question.No matter what facts are presented, the carnival barkers who run this sight either insult you or worse simply LIE and say that one's question or evidence is false. what apathetic bunch, most of you are. Your revisionist history turns my stomach. To say that "Kennedy was not as left wing as I think" says it all.
>
> > FACTS:
>
> > 1) The CIA and military brass were pissed at JFK after the Bay of Pigs. There is wide consensus and agreement that JFK was going to get rid of many in the CIA brass.
>
> Oswald undoubtably fired the shots that killed JFK. It was his rifle and
> the bullets/fragments recovered are a ballistic match to the rifle to the
> exclusion of any other. Game, set match.
>
>
>
> > 2) NSAM 263is real pertaining to JFK's plans to withdraw from Vietnam. Yet when presented, many of you toads on this website say it does not exist. How in the hell does one have any intelligent discussion with any one who denies the existence of  factual document.
>
> Oswald was a loser living in a rented room, separated from his wife and
> working a low-wage job at a school book supply store. He had no knowledge
> of NSAM 263.
>
>
>
> > 3) Less than 10 days after JFK's death, LBJ reverses NSAM 26, leading us to the whole Gulf of Tonkin BS.
>
> You're trying to connect dots that don't connect. Oswald had no idea
> what these documents were or were not.
>
>
>
> > 4) Not one of you responded to when I brought up civil rights, southern Dems verse JFK's view and direction
>
> None of this probably played any significant role into Oswald's decision
> to bring his rifle to work that morning, wrapped in a paper sack. We can
> guess why Oswald killed JFK, but ultimately it was a senseless, tragic
> act. Like the nuts that spray bullets around schools or leave bombs at
> marathons, etc. we'll never know the complete reason this loser Oswald did
> what he did.
>

Since Oswald wasn't in the snipers nest in the TSBD when the shooting
started, and since he didn't hate JFK, we might want to see who DID shoot
him, and what the motives of those people were. That might make much more
sense than Oswald's sad little life. Then the Vietnam politics might have
meaning along with many of the other world affairs.

[Bud]

On May 8, 9:28 am, daliresearch2...@aol.com wrote:
> Wow,this website clearly is pro Warren Commission and down right nasty to anyone who asks a critical question.

It`s an open forum, and the opinions expressed here represent the
opinions of the people who post here.

And heres a critical question for you. How can Oswald be innocent of
killing Kennedy? How many amazing things need to be accepted as fact
for him to be considered innocent?

>No matter what facts are presented, the carnival barkers who run this sight either insult you or worse simply LIE and say that one's question or evidence is false.

Generally CTers have a skewed look at information, because they are
desperate to believe Oswald was a patsy. They want to blame other
people for his crimes.

> what apathetic bunch, most of you are. Your revisionist history turns my stomach. To say that "Kennedy was not as left wing as I think" says it all.

How left wing do you think Kennedy was?

> FACTS:
>
> 1) The CIA and military brass were pissed at JFK after the Bay of Pigs.

Did you poll them? Right off the bat you are offering an opinion as
an established fact.

>There is wide consensus and agreement that JFK was going to get rid of many in the CIA brass.
>
> 2) NSAM 263is real pertaining to JFK's plans to withdraw from Vietnam. Yet when presented, many of you toads on this website say it does not exist. How in the hell does one have any intelligent discussion with any one who denies the existence of  factual document.

Can you quote this toad saying NSAM 263 doesn`t exist?

> 3) Less than 10 days after JFK's death, LBJ reverses NSAM 26, leading us to the whole Gulf of Tonkin BS.
>
> 4) Not one of you responded to when I brought up civil rights, southern Dems verse JFK's view and direction
>
> 5) To imply that JFK was a right winger is not insulting it is laughable and more importantly, it makes the myth that Oswald the lefty wanted too to kill JFK because of conflicting views ebven more laughable to any rationale minded person

Are you saying that Oswald`s views about Cuba did not differ from
Kennedy`s? Is this a fact?

> But alas, just dismiss it by saying its not true.

It isn`t true that Oswald had the same political views as Kennedy,
so I will dismiss it.

> By the way, I believe Jesse Ventura, a Marine who along with 4 other sharp shooters could not fire accurately in less than 7 seconds when they replicated the shooting.

So Jesse is cleared of Kennedy`s murder.

I did watch the video of him shooting, it`s a wonder he didn`t shoot
himself. Has he never fired a bolt action rifle before?

> Ventura has more credibility than any of you and the king of the toads Gerald Posner who now is part of this corrupt effort to re write history and now state that the first shot cane well before the Stemmons Freeway sign, How pathetic!

No, I think the Stemmons Freeway sign was there before the first
shot.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not an uninterested and unbiased source.
A revisionist like you.

>
>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/8/2013 9:27 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Your description of this "website" is a gross distortion.
>
> I agree that if JFK were in politics today, he would most likely be a
> Republican.
>
> TOP PRESIDENTIAL TAX CUTTERS
>
> Ronald Reagan - Republican
> George Bush - Republican
> John F. Kennedy - Democrat
>
> John F.
>

Fine, so your argument is that Reagan and Bush were Liberals. Maybe
that's why the Tea Party disavows them now.
Reagan also raised taxes. Bush raised taxes and created new taxes.

[Anthony Marsh]

Science shows there was also a shot fired from the grassy knoll.
You lose again.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <518ab675$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 5/8/2013 9:28 AM, dalirese...@aol.com wrote:
>>Wow,this website clearly is pro Warren Commission and down right nasty to anyone
>>who asks a critical question.No matter what facts are presented, the carnival
>>barkers who run this sight either insult you or worse simply LIE and say that
>>one's question or evidence is false. what apathetic bunch, most of you are. Your
>>revisionist history turns my stomach. To say that "Kennedy was not as left wing
>>as I think" says it all.
>>
>
>Yes, this place certainly is a horrid sight, but it is not a Web site.
>It is a Usenet newgroup, not a Web page. Run by the WC defenders to
>attack the conspriracy believers and protect the CIA.
>
>> FACTS:
>>
>>1) The CIA and military brass were pissed at JFK after the Bay of Pigs. There is
>>wide consensus and agreement that JFK was going to get rid of many in the CIA
>>brass.
>>
>
>And don't forget the Cuban Exiles who felt betrayed.
>After the Bay of Pigs fiasco JFK forced out the top three CIA officers.
>Just a few days before the assassination he was planning to fire the CIA
>officer in charge of assassinations.

JFK should have fired him. He couldn't even kill Castro for the Kennedy
boys.

>>2) NSAM 263is real pertaining to JFK's plans to withdraw from Vietnam. Yet when
>>presented, many of you toads on this website say it does not exist. How in the
>>hell does one have any intelligent discussion with any one who denies the
>>existence of factual document.
>>
>
>That's why they are here, to deny simple facts.
>
>>3) Less than 10 days after JFK's death, LBJ reverses NSAM 26, leading us to the
>>whole Gulf of Tonkin BS.
>>
>
>LBJ rewrote NSAM 273 to escalate the Vietnam War.

Horse apples.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/8/2013 5:31 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> In article <96fe70fd-2969-49b3...@googlegroups.com>,
> dalirese...@aol.com says...
>>
>> Wow,this website clearly is pro Warren Commission and down right nasty to a=
>> nyone who asks a critical question.No matter what facts are presented, the =
>> carnival barkers who run this sight either insult you or worse simply LIE a=
>> nd say that one's question or evidence is false. what apathetic bunch, most=
>> of you are. Your revisionist history turns my stomach. To say that "Kenned=
>> y was not as left wing as I think" says it all.=20
>
> Oh settle down my good man and let us see just who is revising history
> here. Perhaps it is you! The Camelot groupies are well known as
> revisionist. Are you a Camelot groupie?
>

No, the Camelot groupies are not known as revisionists. But I have written
several times about Kennedy aides hiding the truth and lying about what
really happened. If that makes me a Camelot groupie, ok wit me.

>
>> FACTS:
>>
>> 1) The CIA and military brass were pissed at JFK after the Bay of Pigs. The=
>> re is wide consensus and agreement that JFK was going to get rid of many in=
>> the CIA brass.
>
> Yes the CIA was pissed. Khrushchev thought it showed Kennedy weak. And
> yes, Kennedy did in fact remove some of the top brass including Allen
> Dulles. They should have been fired for the debacle at the BOP. And then

No, not all of them. The one guy who screwed up was not fired. And that
was the Marine who was in charge of the invasion, not the CIA.

> Kennedy shares in the blame since he not only allowed the operation to go
> forward but also changed the location of the landing and reduced the
> preliminary number of air strikes on Cuban airfields.
>

Fair enough. The term of craft is plausible denial. The original plans
were too "noisy" and would make it too obvious that it was a US invasion
of Cuba. Kennedy accepted responsibility for the failure.

>
>> 2) NSAM 263is real pertaining to JFK's plans to withdraw from Vietnam. Yet =
>> when presented, many of you toads on this website say it does not exist. Ho=
>> w in the hell does one have any intelligent discussion with any one who den=
>> ies the existence of factual document.
>
> In many years of discussing NSAM 263 on this group I have seen many
> attempt to read what they wish NSAM 263 said, not what it actually says.
> Are you one of these folks? I have never seen anyone here claim that NSAM
> 263 does not exist, as you claim. Hyperbole? So tell us what you think
> NSAM 263 said. For starters it doesn't say we will withdraw by 1965.
>

It refers to the Taylor-McNamara report which cites that goal.

>
>> 3) Less than 10 days after JFK's death, LBJ reverses NSAM 26, leading us to=
>> the whole Gulf of Tonkin BS.=20
>
> A long stretch here.
>

He means that NSAM 273 reversed JFK's policy as embodied in NSAM 263,
but that's too technical for him to understand.

>> 4) Not one of you responded to when I brought up civil rights, southern Dem=
>> s verse JFK's view and direction
>
> Civil Rights was like Vietnam to Kennedy. A pain in the ass that he had
> rather not have to deal with.
>

It was JFK's Civil Rights bill that LBJ pushed through.

>> 5) To imply that JFK was a right winger is not insulting it is laughable an=
>> d more importantly, it makes the myth that Oswald the lefty wanted too to k=
>> ill JFK because of conflicting views ebven more laughable to any rationale =
>> minded person
>
> No one here has claimed JFK was a right winger. Some of us merely point

A certain rightwinger here has.

> out that he wasn't a far left wing whack job like his brother Teddy. JFK
> was, like most politicians of the time, was a strong foe of communism. A
> Cold Warrior.
>

Revisionism. Nixon would have nuke Cuba. That's what a Cold Warrior
does. JFK backed down.

[Marcus Hanson]

> Revisionism. Nixon would have nuke Cuba. That's what a Cold Warrior
> does. JFK backed down.

I guess JFK had more appreciation for a good cigar and a decent rum :-).
Lucky for me neither of 'em did,as my old man spent time in Cuba
50's/60's.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/9/2013 12:28 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> In article <518ab675$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 5/8/2013 9:28 AM, dalirese...@aol.com wrote:
>>> Wow,this website clearly is pro Warren Commission and down right nasty to anyone
>>> who asks a critical question.No matter what facts are presented, the carnival
>>> barkers who run this sight either insult you or worse simply LIE and say that
>>> one's question or evidence is false. what apathetic bunch, most of you are. Your
>>> revisionist history turns my stomach. To say that "Kennedy was not as left wing
>>> as I think" says it all.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, this place certainly is a horrid sight, but it is not a Web site.
>> It is a Usenet newgroup, not a Web page. Run by the WC defenders to
>> attack the conspriracy believers and protect the CIA.
>>
>>> FACTS:
>>>
>>> 1) The CIA and military brass were pissed at JFK after the Bay of Pigs. There is
>>> wide consensus and agreement that JFK was going to get rid of many in the CIA
>>> brass.
>>>
>>
>> And don't forget the Cuban Exiles who felt betrayed.
>> After the Bay of Pigs fiasco JFK forced out the top three CIA officers.
>> Just a few days before the assassination he was planning to fire the CIA
>> officer in charge of assassinations.
>
> JFK should have fired him. He couldn't even kill Castro for the Kennedy
> boys.
>

Revisionism. JFK and RFK did not order Castro's assassination.
Eisenhower did. So what you meant to say was that Eisenhower should have
fired all the top CIA officers for failing to kill Castro.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/9/2013 12:14 AM, Bud wrote:
> On May 8, 9:28 am, daliresearch2...@aol.com wrote:
>> Wow,this website clearly is pro Warren Commission and down right nasty to anyone who asks a critical question.
>
> It`s an open forum, and the opinions expressed here represent the
> opinions of the people who post here.
>
> And heres a critical question for you. How can Oswald be innocent of
> killing Kennedy? How many amazing things need to be accepted as fact
> for him to be considered innocent?
>
>> No matter what facts are presented, the carnival barkers who run this sight either insult you or worse simply LIE and say that one's question or evidence is false.
>
> Generally CTers have a skewed look at information, because they are
> desperate to believe Oswald was a patsy. They want to blame other
> people for his crimes.
>
>> what apathetic bunch, most of you are. Your revisionist history turns my stomach. To say that "Kennedy was not as left wing as I think" says it all.
>
> How left wing do you think Kennedy was?
>

Not quite as far as Adlai Stevenson and farther than his brother.

>> FACTS:
>>
>> 1) The CIA and military brass were pissed at JFK after the Bay of Pigs.
>
> Did you poll them? Right off the bat you are offering an opinion as
> an established fact.
>

Yes, we did. Thanks for asking.

>> There is wide consensus and agreement that JFK was going to get rid of many in the CIA brass.
>>
>> 2) NSAM 263is real pertaining to JFK's plans to withdraw from Vietnam. Yet when presented, many of you toads on this website say it does not exist. How in the hell does one have any intelligent discussion with any one who denies the existence of factual document.
>
> Can you quote this toad saying NSAM 263 doesn`t exist?
>

Not when he doesn't use his real name. Which alias do you want?
Drukenbum? Completeidiot? BigFart?

>> 3) Less than 10 days after JFK's death, LBJ reverses NSAM 26, leading us to the whole Gulf of Tonkin BS.
>>
>> 4) Not one of you responded to when I brought up civil rights, southern Dems verse JFK's view and direction
>>
>> 5) To imply that JFK was a right winger is not insulting it is laughable and more importantly, it makes the myth that Oswald the lefty wanted too to kill JFK because of conflicting views ebven more laughable to any rationale minded person
>
> Are you saying that Oswald`s views about Cuba did not differ from
> Kennedy`s? Is this a fact?
>
>> But alas, just dismiss it by saying its not true.
>
> It isn`t true that Oswald had the same political views as Kennedy,
> so I will dismiss it.
>
>> By the way, I believe Jesse Ventura, a Marine who along with 4 other sharp shooters could not fire accurately in less than 7 seconds when they replicated the shooting.
>
> So Jesse is cleared of Kennedy`s murder.
>
> I did watch the video of him shooting, it`s a wonder he didn`t shoot
> himself. Has he never fired a bolt action rifle before?
>

I don't think he was trained as a sniper.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Or we might want to go with the scientific evidence and dispense with
the motivations behind the assassination, because quite frankly,
you're never going to make sense of it. Ditto the Boston marathon
bombings, the Sandy Hook shootings, etc. It's all just senseless and
cruel.

> That might make much more
> sense than Oswald's sad little life.  Then the Vietnam politics might have
> meaning along with many of the other world affairs.

The fact that Oswald had a sad little life is exactly why you
conspiracists refuse to believe Oswald killed Kennedy by himself. If
only there were larger forces at play----a CIA 'hit team' in
retaliation for the Bay of Pigs, a mob hit for Bobby's pursuit of
organized crime, a military/industrial hit for denying them big glory
and war profits in Vietnam---JFK's death would be more heroic, more
meaningful. Instead, we're stuck with the truth; bullets are
nondiscriminatory, they go were you aim them. A warped loser with a
cheap rifle can end the life of the most powerful man in the world.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <518b1986$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 5/8/2013 5:31 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article <96fe70fd-2969-49b3...@googlegroups.com>,
>> dalirese...@aol.com says...
>>>
>>> Wow,this website clearly is pro Warren Commission and down right nasty to a=
>>> nyone who asks a critical question.No matter what facts are presented, the =
>>> carnival barkers who run this sight either insult you or worse simply LIE a=
>>> nd say that one's question or evidence is false. what apathetic bunch, most=
>>> of you are. Your revisionist history turns my stomach. To say that "Kenned=
>>> y was not as left wing as I think" says it all.=20
>>
>> Oh settle down my good man and let us see just who is revising history
>> here. Perhaps it is you! The Camelot groupies are well known as
>> revisionist. Are you a Camelot groupie?
>>
>
>No, the Camelot groupies are not known as revisionists. But I have written
>several times about Kennedy aides hiding the truth and lying about what
>really happened. If that makes me a Camelot groupie, ok wit me.

I didn't ask you if you were a Camelot groupie. I already knew you were
one.

>>> FACTS:
>>>
>>> 1) The CIA and military brass were pissed at JFK after the Bay of Pigs. The=
>>> re is wide consensus and agreement that JFK was going to get rid of many in=
>>> the CIA brass.
>>
>> Yes the CIA was pissed. Khrushchev thought it showed Kennedy weak. And
>> yes, Kennedy did in fact remove some of the top brass including Allen
>> Dulles. They should have been fired for the debacle at the BOP. And then
>
>No, not all of them. The one guy who screwed up was not fired. And that
>was the Marine who was in charge of the invasion, not the CIA.

Oh good god Marsh! The battle was long lost before this flap was made.

>> Kennedy shares in the blame since he not only allowed the operation to go
>> forward but also changed the location of the landing and reduced the
>> preliminary number of air strikes on Cuban airfields.
>>
>
>Fair enough. The term of craft is plausible denial. The original plans
>were too "noisy" and would make it too obvious that it was a US invasion
>of Cuba. Kennedy accepted responsibility for the failure.

JFK; "I don't want it to look like we are involved".
Admiral Burk; "Hell Mr. President, we ARE involved".

>>> 2) NSAM 263is real pertaining to JFK's plans to withdraw from Vietnam. Yet =
>>> when presented, many of you toads on this website say it does not exist. Ho=
>>> w in the hell does one have any intelligent discussion with any one who den=
>>> ies the existence of factual document.
>>
>> In many years of discussing NSAM 263 on this group I have seen many
>> attempt to read what they wish NSAM 263 said, not what it actually says.
>> Are you one of these folks? I have never seen anyone here claim that NSAM
>> 263 does not exist, as you claim. Hyperbole? So tell us what you think
>> NSAM 263 said. For starters it doesn't say we will withdraw by 1965.
>>
>
>It refers to the Taylor-McNamara report which cites that goal.

Yes, as soon as the ARVN could handle the job. We both know what NSAM 263
and the Taylor-McNamara report say.

>>> 3) Less than 10 days after JFK's death, LBJ reverses NSAM 26, leading us to=
>>> the whole Gulf of Tonkin BS.=20
>>
>> A long stretch here.
>>
>
>He means that NSAM 273 reversed JFK's policy as embodied in NSAM 263,
>but that's too technical for him to understand.

NSAM 273 did no such thing and how do you know what he meant?

>>> 4) Not one of you responded to when I brought up civil rights, southern Dem=
>>> s verse JFK's view and direction
>>
>> Civil Rights was like Vietnam to Kennedy. A pain in the ass that he had
>> rather not have to deal with.
>>
>
>It was JFK's Civil Rights bill that LBJ pushed through.

A bill that was doomed to failure under JFK. The only man that could have
got it through congress was Lyndon Johnson, the man little Bobby Kennedy
called, "Uncle Corn-pone".

>>> 5) To imply that JFK was a right winger is not insulting it is laughable an=
>>> d more importantly, it makes the myth that Oswald the lefty wanted too to k=
>>> ill JFK because of conflicting views ebven more laughable to any rationale =
>>> minded person
>>
>> No one here has claimed JFK was a right winger. Some of us merely point
>
>A certain rightwinger here has.
>
>> out that he wasn't a far left wing whack job like his brother Teddy. JFK
>> was, like most politicians of the time, was a strong foe of communism. A
>> Cold Warrior.
>>
>
>Revisionism. Nixon would have nuke Cuba. That's what a Cold Warrior
>does. JFK backed down.

Kennedy did what all politicians do; he cut a deal.

Bill Clarke

[Bud]

On May 9, 5:25 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/9/2013 12:14 AM, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 8, 9:28 am, daliresearch2...@aol.com wrote:
> >> Wow,this website clearly is pro Warren Commission and down right nasty to anyone who asks a critical question.
>
> >    It`s an open forum, and the opinions expressed here represent the
> > opinions of the people who post here.
>
> >    And heres a critical question for you. How can Oswald be innocent of
> > killing Kennedy? How many amazing things need to be accepted as fact
> > for him to be considered innocent?
>
> >> No matter what facts are presented, the carnival barkers who run this sight either insult you or worse simply LIE and say that one's question or evidence is false.
>
> >    Generally CTers have a skewed look at information, because they are
> > desperate to believe Oswald was a patsy. They want to blame other
> > people for his crimes.
>
> >> what apathetic bunch, most of you are. Your revisionist history turns my stomach. To say that "Kennedy was not as left wing as I think" says it all.
>
> >    How left wing do you think Kennedy was?
>
> Not quite as far as Adlai Stevenson

Which Adlai Stevenson?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adlai_Stevenson

> and farther than his brother.

Adlai Stevenson`s brother?

> >> FACTS:
>
> >> 1) The CIA and military brass were pissed at JFK after the Bay of Pigs.
>
> >    Did you poll them? Right off the bat you are offering an opinion as
> > an established fact.
>
> Yes, we did. Thanks for asking.

I like to ask CTers questions, they usually make things up in answer
and you can tell they have no credibility.

> >> There is wide consensus and agreement that JFK was going to get rid of many in the CIA brass.
>
> >> 2) NSAM 263is real pertaining to JFK's plans to withdraw from Vietnam. Yet when presented, many of you toads on this website say it does not exist. How in the hell does one have any intelligent discussion with any one who denies the existence of  factual document.
>
> >    Can you quote this toad saying NSAM 263 doesn`t exist?
>
> Not when he doesn't use his real name. Which alias do you want?
> Drukenbum? Completeidiot? BigFart?

Tony Marsh?

> >> 3) Less than 10 days after JFK's death, LBJ reverses NSAM 26, leading us to the whole Gulf of Tonkin BS.
>
> >> 4) Not one of you responded to when I brought up civil rights, southern Dems verse JFK's view and direction
>
> >> 5) To imply that JFK was a right winger is not insulting it is laughable and more importantly, it makes the myth that Oswald the lefty wanted too to kill JFK because of conflicting views ebven more laughable to any rationale minded person
>
> >    Are you saying that Oswald`s views about Cuba did not differ from
> > Kennedy`s? Is this a fact?
>
> >> But alas, just dismiss it by saying its not true.
>
> >    It isn`t true that Oswald had the same political views as Kennedy,
> > so I will dismiss it.
>
> >> By the way, I believe Jesse Ventura, a Marine who along with 4 other sharp shooters could not fire accurately in less than 7 seconds when they replicated the shooting.
>
> >    So Jesse is cleared of Kennedy`s murder.
>
> >    I did watch the video of him shooting, it`s a wonder he didn`t shoot
> > himself. Has he never fired a bolt action rifle before?
>
> I don't think he was trained as a sniper.

Believe it or not people who aren`t snipers use bolt action rifles.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, it wasn't. They still had a chance if they could maintain air
superiority, bomb Castro's airfields, and drop supplies on the beach.

>
>>> Kennedy shares in the blame since he not only allowed the operation to go
>>> forward but also changed the location of the landing and reduced the
>>> preliminary number of air strikes on Cuban airfields.
>>>
>>
>> Fair enough. The term of craft is plausible denial. The original plans
>> were too "noisy" and would make it too obvious that it was a US invasion
>> of Cuba. Kennedy accepted responsibility for the failure.
>
> JFK; "I don't want it to look like we are involved".
> Admiral Burk; "Hell Mr. President, we ARE involved".
>

Obviously Burke does not care about plausible denial.
The President always needs plausible denial for covert operations.

>
>>>> 2) NSAM 263is real pertaining to JFK's plans to withdraw from Vietnam. Yet =
>>>> when presented, many of you toads on this website say it does not exist. Ho=
>>>> w in the hell does one have any intelligent discussion with any one who den=
>>>> ies the existence of factual document.
>>>
>>> In many years of discussing NSAM 263 on this group I have seen many
>>> attempt to read what they wish NSAM 263 said, not what it actually says.
>>> Are you one of these folks? I have never seen anyone here claim that NSAM
>>> 263 does not exist, as you claim. Hyperbole? So tell us what you think
>>> NSAM 263 said. For starters it doesn't say we will withdraw by 1965.
>>>
>>
>> It refers to the Taylor-McNamara report which cites that goal.
>
> Yes, as soon as the ARVN could handle the job. We both know what NSAM 263
> and the Taylor-McNamara report say.
>

You didn't. I was the first to put it online.

>>>> 3) Less than 10 days after JFK's death, LBJ reverses NSAM 26, leading us to=
>>>> the whole Gulf of Tonkin BS.=20
>>>
>>> A long stretch here.
>>>
>>
>> He means that NSAM 273 reversed JFK's policy as embodied in NSAM 263,
>> but that's too technical for him to understand.
>
> NSAM 273 did no such thing and how do you know what he meant?
>

A long time ago I created an HTML color coded version of NSAM 273
highlighting the changes.

>
>>>> 4) Not one of you responded to when I brought up civil rights, southern Dem=
>>>> s verse JFK's view and direction
>>>
>>> Civil Rights was like Vietnam to Kennedy. A pain in the ass that he had
>>> rather not have to deal with.
>>>
>>
>> It was JFK's Civil Rights bill that LBJ pushed through.
>
> A bill that was doomed to failure under JFK. The only man that could have
> got it through congress was Lyndon Johnson, the man little Bobby Kennedy
> called, "Uncle Corn-pone".
>

LBJ knew how to twist arms and blackmail people. He was backed by
Hoover, who hated JFK.

>>>> 5) To imply that JFK was a right winger is not insulting it is laughable an=
>>>> d more importantly, it makes the myth that Oswald the lefty wanted too to k=
>>>> ill JFK because of conflicting views ebven more laughable to any rationale =
>>>> minded person
>>>
>>> No one here has claimed JFK was a right winger. Some of us merely point
>>
>> A certain rightwinger here has.
>>
>>> out that he wasn't a far left wing whack job like his brother Teddy. JFK
>>> was, like most politicians of the time, was a strong foe of communism. A
>>> Cold Warrior.
>>>
>>
>> Revisionism. Nixon would have nuke Cuba. That's what a Cold Warrior
>> does. JFK backed down.
>
> Kennedy did what all politicians do; he cut a deal.
>

He blinked first.

> Bill Clarke
>

[Bill Clarke]

In article <518bad27$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

I meant to say exactly what I said Marsh. The Kennedy boys might not have been
the first to order it but they damn sure didn't stop it. In fact they put much
heat on the CIA to get it done.

Save your Camelot crap for others like yourself.

Bill Clarke

[Bill Clarke]

In article <518bafb9$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 5/9/2013 12:14 AM, Bud wrote:
>> On May 8, 9:28 am, daliresearch2...@aol.com wrote:
>>>Wow,this website clearly is pro Warren Commission and down right nasty to anyone
>>>who asks a critical question.
>>
>> It`s an open forum, and the opinions expressed here represent the
>> opinions of the people who post here.
>>
>> And heres a critical question for you. How can Oswald be innocent of
>> killing Kennedy? How many amazing things need to be accepted as fact
>> for him to be considered innocent?
>>
>>>No matter what facts are presented, the carnival barkers who run this sight
>>>either insult you or worse simply LIE and say that one's question or evidence is
>>>false.
>>
>> Generally CTers have a skewed look at information, because they are
>> desperate to believe Oswald was a patsy. They want to blame other
>> people for his crimes.
>>
>>>what apathetic bunch, most of you are. Your revisionist history turns my
>>>stomach. To say that "Kennedy was not as left wing as I think" says it all.
>>
>> How left wing do you think Kennedy was?
>>
>
>Not quite as far as Adlai Stevenson and farther than his brother.

Which brother?

Bill Clarke

[mainframetech]

No 'cold warrior' ever nuked anyone, they were too wise for that.
So they're all on the same footing in that arena.

Chris

[Ace Kefford]

Suggestion: Do more than just watch Oliver Stone's "JFK" and maybe read Prouty and websites. Do some real research on the other side of your "facts" and what they could possibly mean with respect to the assassination. You might find out that the folks you are aping are, um, a little distorting in how they present things and make ridiculous logical leaps.


On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 9:28:13 AM UTC-4, dalirese...@aol.com wrote:
> Wow,this website clearly is pro Warren Commission and down right nasty to anyone who asks a critical question.No matter what facts are presented, the carnival barkers who run this sight either insult you or worse simply LIE and say that one's question or evidence is false. what apathetic bunch, most of you are. Your revisionist history turns my stomach. To say that "Kennedy was not as left wing as I think" says it all.
>
>
>
> FACTS:
>
>
>
> 1) The CIA and military brass were pissed at JFK after the Bay of Pigs. There is wide consensus and agreement that JFK was going to get rid of many in the CIA brass.

>
>
>
> 2) NSAM 263is real pertaining to JFK's plans to withdraw from Vietnam. Yet when presented, many of you toads on this website say it does not exist. How in the hell does one have any intelligent discussion with any one who denies the existence of factual document.
>
>
>

> 3) Less than 10 days after JFK's death, LBJ reverses NSAM 26, leading us to the whole Gulf of Tonkin BS.
>
>
>
> 4) Not one of you responded to when I brought up civil rights, southern Dems verse JFK's view and direction
>
>
>
> 5) To imply that JFK was a right winger is not insulting it is laughable and more importantly, it makes the myth that Oswald the lefty wanted too to kill JFK because of conflicting views ebven more laughable to any rationale minded person
>
>
>

> But alas, just dismiss it by saying its not true.

> D

[claviger]

Anthony,

> > out that he wasn't a far left wing whack job like his brother Teddy.  JFK
> > was, like most politicians of the time, was a strong foe of communism.  A
> > Cold Warrior.
>
> Revisionism. Nixon would have nuke Cuba. That's what a Cold Warrior
> does. JFK backed down.

Reagan was a Cold Warrior. In fact he won the Cold War, but I don't
remember him nuking anybody. Seems like he used a defensive system as
leverage to convince the Soviets peace is a better way to prosperity.

[mainframetech]

Actually, science (FBI testing) suggests that Oswald not only didn't
fire the shots, but had a rifle that was not in any condition to shoot
anyone, since the scope didn't work and the bolt was sticky, slowing
down any attempt at 'speed' shooting in the time allotted. Logic
suggests that Oswald wasn't anywhere near the 6th floor when shots
rang out either.

> > > > By the way, I believe Jesse Ventura, a Marine who along with 4 other sharp shooters could not fire accurately in less than 7 seconds when they replicated the shooting. Ventura has more credibility than any of you and the king of the toads Gerald Posner who now is part of this corrupt effort to re write history and now state that the first shot cane well before the Stemmons Freeway sign, How pathetic!
>

Thank you! You've proved my case. Oswald didn't do the shooting.

> > > Ventura was in the Navy, not the Marines. He's a well known conspiracy
> > > fruitcake, and reads the same biased stuff you probably do. Scientific
> > > evidence shows that a man in a building shot at some men in a car. One
> > > happened to be the President, the other Governor of Texas. The man who was
> > > President was killed, the Governor was wounded. Case closed.

Naah. Case opened, given all the evidence of a conspiracy. Not
theories, evidence.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/10/2013 9:45 AM, Ace Kefford wrote:
> Suggestion: Do more than just watch Oliver Stone's "JFK" and maybe read Prouty and websites. Do some real research on the other side of your "facts" and what they could possibly mean with respect to the assassination. You might find out that the folks you are aping are, um, a little distorting in how they present things and make ridiculous logical leaps.
>

The same is applicable to you, Sir. Put down your WC report and read the
original documents.

[Anthony Marsh]

I am saying what Nixon WOULD have done had he been President.
Conditional past tense. Learn English.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, they didn't. And I notice that you never bring up Eisenhower who
initiated the Castro assassination plots. Because he was a Republican.
Just like the Liberals who complained about Bush and then give Obama when
he does exactly the same things and much worse.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <518c681f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

The damn fool operation was doomed before it began. Most of all it
depended on the Cuban people rising up to rebel and that had zero chance
of happening. Richard Goodwin reported that for weeks they wonder how they
had let such a operation go forward.

>>>> Kennedy shares in the blame since he not only allowed the operation to go
>>>> forward but also changed the location of the landing and reduced the
>>>> preliminary number of air strikes on Cuban airfields.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Fair enough. The term of craft is plausible denial. The original plans
>>> were too "noisy" and would make it too obvious that it was a US invasion
>>> of Cuba. Kennedy accepted responsibility for the failure.
>>
>> JFK; "I don't want it to look like we are involved".
>> Admiral Burk; "Hell Mr. President, we ARE involved".
>>
>
>Obviously Burke does not care about plausible denial.
>The President always needs plausible denial for covert operations.

Obviously Burke cared more about the people on the ground that he did the
political bullshit. You don't seem to remember plausible denial when it
comes to the assassination of Castro. Why is that?

>>>>>2) NSAM 263is real pertaining to JFK's plans to withdraw from Vietnam. Yet =
>>>>>when presented, many of you toads on this website say it does not exist. Ho=
>>>>>w in the hell does one have any intelligent discussion with any one who den=
>>>>> ies the existence of factual document.
>>>>
>>>> In many years of discussing NSAM 263 on this group I have seen many
>>>> attempt to read what they wish NSAM 263 said, not what it actually says.
>>>> Are you one of these folks? I have never seen anyone here claim that NSAM
>>>> 263 does not exist, as you claim. Hyperbole? So tell us what you think
>>>> NSAM 263 said. For starters it doesn't say we will withdraw by 1965.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It refers to the Taylor-McNamara report which cites that goal.
>>
>> Yes, as soon as the ARVN could handle the job. We both know what NSAM 263
>> and the Taylor-McNamara report say.
>>
>
>You didn't. I was the first to put it online.

Good for you. That still doesn't change what it says.

>>>>>3) Less than 10 days after JFK's death, LBJ reverses NSAM 26, leading us to=
>>>>> the whole Gulf of Tonkin BS.=20
>>>>
>>>> A long stretch here.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He means that NSAM 273 reversed JFK's policy as embodied in NSAM 263,
>>> but that's too technical for him to understand.
>>
>> NSAM 273 did no such thing and how do you know what he meant?
>>
>
>A long time ago I created an HTML color coded version of NSAM 273
>highlighting the changes.

I don't need your color coed version. I can read both of them and have.

>>>>>4) Not one of you responded to when I brought up civil rights, southern Dem=
>>>>> s verse JFK's view and direction
>>>>
>>>> Civil Rights was like Vietnam to Kennedy. A pain in the ass that he had
>>>> rather not have to deal with.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It was JFK's Civil Rights bill that LBJ pushed through.
>>
>> A bill that was doomed to failure under JFK. The only man that could have
>> got it through congress was Lyndon Johnson, the man little Bobby Kennedy
>> called, "Uncle Corn-pone".
>>
>
>LBJ knew how to twist arms and blackmail people. He was backed by
>Hoover, who hated JFK.

Johnson knew how the Senate worked, Carno titled one of his volumes
"Master of the Senate". Your boy didn't know crap about the Senate
because he spent his time there running for president while in the Senate.

>>>>>5) To imply that JFK was a right winger is not insulting it is laughable an=
>>>>>d more importantly, it makes the myth that Oswald the lefty wanted too to k=
>>>>>ill JFK because of conflicting views ebven more laughable to any rationale =
>>>>> minded person
>>>>
>>>> No one here has claimed JFK was a right winger. Some of us merely point
>>>
>>> A certain rightwinger here has.
>>>
>>>> out that he wasn't a far left wing whack job like his brother Teddy. JFK
>>>> was, like most politicians of the time, was a strong foe of communism. A
>>>> Cold Warrior.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Revisionism. Nixon would have nuke Cuba. That's what a Cold Warrior
>>> does. JFK backed down.
>>
>> Kennedy did what all politicians do; he cut a deal.
>>
>
>He blinked first.

Funny, I didn't see JFK turn his ships around. We know who blinked Marsh.
Save this crap for others of you ink.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

Ah, maybe you didn't realize it, but that rifle can be fired without using
the scope. Maybe because the rifle was defective the shooter missed two
out of three shots.

[Anthony Marsh]

Take an English class. I did not say anyone did nuke. I said WOULD. Reagan
threatened to nuke Russia. The way Reagan brought down the Soviets was a
combination of proxy wars and sabotage. Such as arming al Qaeda with
Stinger missiles. Such as providing the Russian Mafia with intelligence
and secure communications. Such as his fake Star Wars program to wreck
their economy.

[Chuck Schuyler]

And yet science shows the bullet/fragments recovered, and the shells on
the 6th floor, match Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of any other. How did
the conspiracy magicians manage that feat, Chris?

>
> > > > > By the way, I believe Jesse Ventura, a Marine who along with 4 other sharp shooters could not fire accurately in less than 7 seconds when they replicated the shooting. Ventura has more credibility than any of you and the king of the toads Gerald Posner who now is part of this corrupt effort to re write history and now state that the first shot cane well before the Stemmons Freeway sign, How pathetic!
>
>   Thank you!  You've proved my case.  Oswald didn't do the shooting.

You're responding to the wrong guy, more proof of why conspiracists
with an internet connection should be the last people tasked with
figuring out a murder.

>
> > > > Ventura was in the Navy, not the Marines. He's a well known conspiracy
> > > > fruitcake, and reads the same biased stuff you probably do. Scientific
> > > > evidence shows that a man in a building shot at some men in a car. One
> > > > happened to be the President, the other Governor of Texas. The man who was
> > > > President was killed, the Governor was wounded. Case closed.
>
>   Naah.  Case opened, given all the evidence of a conspiracy.  Not
> theories, evidence.
>
> Chris

JFK Truthers arguing about who killed JFK on a discussion board
doesn't mean the case is open.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <518d152e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

I'm saying you don't know what Nixon WOULD have done.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

By using Oswald's rifle and ammo.

[Anthony Marsh]

It did not depend on the Cubans rising up. That would be only after the
exiles secured the beachhead. But they never did because they lost air
superiority. The Cubans were rounded up and jailed just before the
invasion, because Castro knew all about the invasion plans from his
spies infiltrating the training camps and the CIA.

>
>>>>> Kennedy shares in the blame since he not only allowed the operation to go
>>>>> forward but also changed the location of the landing and reduced the
>>>>> preliminary number of air strikes on Cuban airfields.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fair enough. The term of craft is plausible denial. The original plans
>>>> were too "noisy" and would make it too obvious that it was a US invasion
>>>> of Cuba. Kennedy accepted responsibility for the failure.
>>>
>>> JFK; "I don't want it to look like we are involved".
>>> Admiral Burk; "Hell Mr. President, we ARE involved".
>>>
>>
>> Obviously Burke does not care about plausible denial.
>> The President always needs plausible denial for covert operations.
>
> Obviously Burke cared more about the people on the ground that he did the
> political bullshit. You don't seem to remember plausible denial when it
> comes to the assassination of Castro. Why is that?
>

Burke followed orders.
JFK tinkered with the invasion plans to maintain plausible denial. That
is why they used the wrong model bombers.

>
>>>>>> 2) NSAM 263is real pertaining to JFK's plans to withdraw from Vietnam. Yet =
>>>>>> when presented, many of you toads on this website say it does not exist. Ho=
>>>>>> w in the hell does one have any intelligent discussion with any one who den=
>>>>>> ies the existence of factual document.
>>>>>
>>>>> In many years of discussing NSAM 263 on this group I have seen many
>>>>> attempt to read what they wish NSAM 263 said, not what it actually says.
>>>>> Are you one of these folks? I have never seen anyone here claim that NSAM
>>>>> 263 does not exist, as you claim. Hyperbole? So tell us what you think
>>>>> NSAM 263 said. For starters it doesn't say we will withdraw by 1965.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It refers to the Taylor-McNamara report which cites that goal.
>>>
>>> Yes, as soon as the ARVN could handle the job. We both know what NSAM 263
>>> and the Taylor-McNamara report say.
>>>
>>
>> You didn't. I was the first to put it online.
>
> Good for you. That still doesn't change what it says.
>

It proves that I knew about it and you didn't.

>
>>>>>> 3) Less than 10 days after JFK's death, LBJ reverses NSAM 26, leading us to=
>>>>>> the whole Gulf of Tonkin BS.=20
>>>>>
>>>>> A long stretch here.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He means that NSAM 273 reversed JFK's policy as embodied in NSAM 263,
>>>> but that's too technical for him to understand.
>>>
>>> NSAM 273 did no such thing and how do you know what he meant?
>>>
>>
>> A long time ago I created an HTML color coded version of NSAM 273
>> highlighting the changes.
>
> I don't need your color coed version. I can read both of them and have.
>
>>>>>> 4) Not one of you responded to when I brought up civil rights, southern Dem=
>>>>>> s verse JFK's view and direction
>>>>>
>>>>> Civil Rights was like Vietnam to Kennedy. A pain in the ass that he had
>>>>> rather not have to deal with.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It was JFK's Civil Rights bill that LBJ pushed through.
>>>
>>> A bill that was doomed to failure under JFK. The only man that could have
>>> got it through congress was Lyndon Johnson, the man little Bobby Kennedy
>>> called, "Uncle Corn-pone".
>>>
>>
>> LBJ knew how to twist arms and blackmail people. He was backed by
>> Hoover, who hated JFK.
>
> Johnson knew how the Senate worked, Carno titled one of his volumes
> "Master of the Senate". Your boy didn't know crap about the Senate
> because he spent his time there running for president while in the Senate.
>

Silly.
What the Hell did you think LBJ was doing? He was running for President
against JFK.

>
>>>>>> 5) To imply that JFK was a right winger is not insulting it is laughable an=
>>>>>> d more importantly, it makes the myth that Oswald the lefty wanted too to k=
>>>>>> ill JFK because of conflicting views ebven more laughable to any rationale =
>>>>>> minded person
>>>>>
>>>>> No one here has claimed JFK was a right winger. Some of us merely point
>>>>
>>>> A certain rightwinger here has.
>>>>
>>>>> out that he wasn't a far left wing whack job like his brother Teddy. JFK
>>>>> was, like most politicians of the time, was a strong foe of communism. A
>>>>> Cold Warrior.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Revisionism. Nixon would have nuke Cuba. That's what a Cold Warrior
>>>> does. JFK backed down.
>>>
>>> Kennedy did what all politicians do; he cut a deal.
>>>
>>
>> He blinked first.
>
> Funny, I didn't see JFK turn his ships around. We know who blinked Marsh.
> Save this crap for others of you ink.
>

JFK back down. He agreed to remove his missiles and promised to not
invade Cuba.

> Bill Clarke
>
>

[mainframetech]

Well of course it can. The scope being there is a bit of a
distraction though. And as you say, the iron sights aren't set for
the shot that you want Oswald to make (from the 3nd floor
lunchroom)...:) I'd say whoever the shooter was, all 3 were misses.
But it didn't matter. The idea was for shots to come from the TSBD
where Oswald worked.

>
>
> >>>>> By the way, I believe Jesse Ventura, a Marine who along with 4 other sharp shooters could not fire accurately in less than 7 seconds when they replicated the shooting. Ventura has more credibility than any of you and the king of the toads Gerald Posner who now is part of this corrupt effort to re write history and now state that the first shot cane well before the Stemmons Freeway sign, How pathetic!
>
> >    Thank you!  You've proved my case.  Oswald didn't do the shooting.
>
> >>>> Ventura was in the Navy, not the Marines. He's a well known conspiracy
> >>>> fruitcake, and reads the same biased stuff you probably do. Scientific
> >>>> evidence shows that a man in a building shot at some men in a car. One
> >>>> happened to be the President, the other Governor of Texas. The man who was
> >>>> President was killed, the Governor was wounded. Case closed.
>

Think of all the responsibility you've just shrugged off! Nothing
more to do, just watch the TV sitcoms and be comfortable that your
government wouldn't lie to you. Like the Gulf of Tonkin episode.

[mainframetech]

You might want to consider that Reagan outspent the Russians. His
'star wars' defense was a big boondoggle and would have cost an arm
and a leg, but the Russians were worried about it and couldn't keep up
with the costs. That was the beginning of the end for them.

Chris

[mainframetech]

I hadn't heard that the casings on the 6th floor matched barring all
other rifles to Oswald's rifle, but Oswald was still on the 2nd floor when
shots rang out, so he didn't fire anything. The rifle was found on the
6th floor and Oswald was on the 2nd. I've explained how they got the MC
bullets into the hands of authorities many times now. The CE3999 bullet
was dropped off at Parkland just after they knew that was where JFK was
taken. It was dropped in an area where anyone had access. Fortunately,
it was dropped on the wrong stretcher, and it became immediately
suspicious. Later 4 of the people that handled that bullet refused to
identified it, and one of them said the bullet he handled had a pointy
nose, not a round nose. Obviously the bullet that was planted was
replaced later with a bullet from the MC rifle, now that it was in custody
and had tests run on it, giving them a number of test bullets from it.
If you look at the CE399 'magic' bullet you see that it looks just like
the test bullet pictured next to it:

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/5e/Photo_hsca_ex_294.jpg

The saw guy that was responsible for keeping the bullets also went to
the W.H. and in the middle of the night found 2 fragments of some kind,
which could later be also switched with a test fragments. Easy.

>
>
> > > > > > By the way, I believe Jesse Ventura, a Marine who along with 4 other sharp shooters could not fire accurately in less than 7 seconds when they replicated the shooting. Ventura has more credibility than any of you and the king of the toads Gerald Posner who now is part of this corrupt effort to re write history and now state that the first shot cane well before the Stemmons Freeway sign, How pathetic!
>
> >   Thank you!  You've proved my case.  Oswald didn't do the shooting.
>
> You're responding to the wrong guy, more proof of why conspiracists
> with an internet connection should be the last people tasked with
> figuring out a murder.
>

If you mean me, I'll respond to anyone depending on what they
say.

>
>
> > > > > Ventura was in the Navy, not the Marines. He's a well known conspiracy
> > > > > fruitcake, and reads the same biased stuff you probably do. Scientific
> > > > > evidence shows that a man in a building shot at some men in a car. One
> > > > > happened to be the President, the other Governor of Texas. The man who was
> > > > > President was killed, the Governor was wounded. Case closed.
>
> >   Naah.  Case opened, given all the evidence of a conspiracy.  Not
> > theories, evidence.
>
Chris
>
> JFK Truthers arguing about who killed JFK on a discussion board
> doesn't mean the case is open.

Or closed either...:) I find it humorous that the HSCA that decided
that it was probably a conspiracy, never recommended that the case be
reopened and a search be begun to find the other conspirators...maybe it
was never the intent of the HSCA, that they were only there as one more
effort to shut people up about the con job.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <518de072$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

The overall success of the operation depended on a popular uprising.
That is unless you think 1,400 people was going to defeat the Cuban
military. Oh god, you probably think that.

>>>>>> Kennedy shares in the blame since he not only allowed the operation to go
>>>>>> forward but also changed the location of the landing and reduced the
>>>>>> preliminary number of air strikes on Cuban airfields.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Fair enough. The term of craft is plausible denial. The original plans
>>>>> were too "noisy" and would make it too obvious that it was a US invasion
>>>>> of Cuba. Kennedy accepted responsibility for the failure.
>>>>
>>>> JFK; "I don't want it to look like we are involved".
>>>> Admiral Burk; "Hell Mr. President, we ARE involved".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Obviously Burke does not care about plausible denial.
>>> The President always needs plausible denial for covert operations.
>>
>> Obviously Burke cared more about the people on the ground that he did the
>> political bullshit. You don't seem to remember plausible denial when it
>> comes to the assassination of Castro. Why is that?
>>
>
>Burke followed orders.
>JFK tinkered with the invasion plans to maintain plausible denial. That
>is why they used the wrong model bombers.

Changing the location was not a mere "tinkering". Canceling the 2nd air
strike was damn sure not "tinkering".

Silly? Johnson was already the master of the Senate before the 1960
election. Your boy never came close.

>>>>>>>5) To imply that JFK was a right winger is not insulting it is laughable an=
>>>>>>>d more importantly, it makes the myth that Oswald the lefty wanted too to k=
>>>>>>>ill JFK because of conflicting views ebven more laughable to any rationale =
>>>>>>> minded person
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No one here has claimed JFK was a right winger. Some of us merely point
>>>>>
>>>>> A certain rightwinger here has.
>>>>>
>>>>>> out that he wasn't a far left wing whack job like his brother Teddy. JFK
>>>>>> was, like most politicians of the time, was a strong foe of communism. A
>>>>>> Cold Warrior.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Revisionism. Nixon would have nuke Cuba. That's what a Cold Warrior
>>>>> does. JFK backed down.
>>>>
>>>> Kennedy did what all politicians do; he cut a deal.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He blinked first.
>>
>> Funny, I didn't see JFK turn his ships around. We know who blinked Marsh.
>> Save this crap for others of you ink.
>>
>
>JFK back down. He agreed to remove his missiles and promised to not
>invade Cuba.

As far as I know you are the only one that applauds this nonsense.
Another Marshism.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

You hadn't heard, because you are not familiar with the evidence in this
case. Because you refuse to read the evidence and you refuse to learn. The
empty shells have fired primers and those primers have marks left by the
unique firing pin of only Oswald's rifle.

> other rifles to Oswald's rifle, but Oswald was still on the 2nd floor when
> shots rang out, so he didn't fire anything. The rifle was found on the
> 6th floor and Oswald was on the 2nd. I've explained how they got the MC
> bullets into the hands of authorities many times now. The CE3999 bullet

You have no bona fides to explain anything to anyone.

The HSCA recommended a lot and the DOJ officially closed the case.

> reopened and a search be begun to find the other conspirators...maybe it
> was never the intent of the HSCA, that they were only there as one more
> effort to shut people up about the con job.
>
>

That was the goal of the second committee, but they accidentally found
conspiracy.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <518d1775$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Yes they did.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/11/2013 8:32 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> On May 10, 11:14 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 5/10/2013 4:39 PM, claviger wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Anthony,
>>
>>>>> out that he wasn't a far left wing whack job like his brother Teddy. JFK
>>>>> was, like most politicians of the time, was a strong foe of communism. A
>>>>> Cold Warrior.
>>
>>>> Revisionism. Nixon would have nuke Cuba. That's what a Cold Warrior
>>>> does. JFK backed down.
>>
>>> Reagan was a Cold Warrior. In fact he won the Cold War, but I don't
>>> remember him nuking anybody. Seems like he used a defensive system as
>>> leverage to convince the Soviets peace is a better way to prosperity.
>>
>> Take an English class. I did not say anyone did nuke. I said WOULD. Reagan
>> threatened to nuke Russia. The way Reagan brought down the Soviets was a
>> combination of proxy wars and sabotage. Such as arming al Qaeda with
>> Stinger missiles. Such as providing the Russian Mafia with intelligence
>> and secure communications. Such as his fake Star Wars program to wreck
>> their economy.
>
> You might want to consider that Reagan outspent the Russians. His

That was exactly the plan. To bankrupt the Soviets who were trying to keep
up with our defense spending so they wouldn't have any money to spend on
consumer goods.

> 'star wars' defense was a big boondoggle and would have cost an arm
> and a leg, but the Russians were worried about it and couldn't keep up
> with the costs. That was the beginning of the end for them.
>

Yes, but the whole thing was a hoax. Read the book The Cuckoo's Egg.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/11/2013 8:32 AM, mainframetech wrote:

Yes, it is a distraction. Failure Analysis pointed that out in the ABA
mock trial (q.v.)

> distraction though. And as you say, the iron sights aren't set for
> the shot that you want Oswald to make (from the 3nd floor

The iron sights will never be set for the exact distance of any shot in
Dealey Plaza. You don't have 200 meters of room to play with. You can't
get the limo to stop exactly 200 meters away from the sniper's nest.
So with perfect aim the rifle is ALWAYS going to miss the bullseye.

> lunchroom)...:) I'd say whoever the shooter was, all 3 were misses.

Maybe the shooter had never used that type of rifle before.

> But it didn't matter. The idea was for shots to come from the TSBD
> where Oswald worked.

You're preaching to the choir again. I am not impressed by effusive
flattery.
At least you don't go completely Lifton and claim that only blanks were
fired from the TSBD.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, I do.

> Bill Clarke
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/11/2013 8:25 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:

Nixon was the person who designed the Bay of Pigs invasion using US
forces.

> Bill Clarke
>
>

[Chuck Schuyler]

Yes, Chris, the shells are a match to Oswald's rifle, too.

> The rifle was found on the
> 6th floor and Oswald was on the 2nd.  I've explained how they got the MC
> bullets into the hands of authorities many times now.  The CE3999 bullet
> was dropped off at Parkland just after they knew that was where JFK was
> taken.

Awfully quick work by the evil doers. When was CE399 recovered? Such
silliness. Then again, you believe Larry Silverstein and Osama bin Laden
were in cahoots to help Larry collect insurance money on his failing WTC
investment. I guess if you believe WTC 1 and 2 and 7 could be wired to
collapse, and that the event could be timed with bin Laden's agenda, you
can believe any fantastic thing you want.

 It was dropped in an area where anyone had access.  Fortunately,
> it was dropped on the wrong stretcher, and it became immediately
> suspicious.  Later 4 of the people that handled that bullet refused to
> identified it, and one of them said the bullet he handled had a pointy
> nose, not a round nose. Obviously the bullet that was planted was
> replaced later with a bullet from the MC rifle, now that it was in custody
> and had tests run on it, giving them a number of test bullets from it.
> If you look at the CE399 'magic' bullet you see that it looks just like
> the test bullet pictured next to it:
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/5e/Photo_hsca_ex_294.jpg
>
>    The saw guy that was responsible for keeping the bullets also went to
> the W.H. and in the middle of the night found 2 fragments of some kind,
> which could later be also switched with a test fragments. Easy.

How would they know---they weren't "switching" for the wrong rifle? After
all, you guys don't think Oswald's rifle could fire the bullets and
believe a Mauser was involved, and an unknown rifle from the grassy knoll.

>
>
>
> > > > > > > By the way, I believe Jesse Ventura, a Marine who along with 4 other sharp shooters could not fire accurately in less than 7 seconds when they replicated the shooting. Ventura has more credibility than any of you and the king of the toads Gerald Posner who now is part of this corrupt effort to re write history and now state that the first shot cane well before the Stemmons Freeway sign, How pathetic!
>
> > >   Thank you!  You've proved my case.  Oswald didn't do the shooting.
>
> > You're responding to the wrong guy, more proof of why conspiracists
> > with an internet connection should be the last people tasked with
> > figuring out a murder.
>
>   If you mean me, I'll respond to anyone depending on what they
> say.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > Ventura was in the Navy, not the Marines. He's a well known conspiracy
> > > > > > fruitcake, and reads the same biased stuff you probably do. Scientific
> > > > > > evidence shows that a man in a building shot at some men in a car. One
> > > > > > happened to be the President, the other Governor of Texas. The man who was
> > > > > > President was killed, the Governor was wounded. Case closed.
>
> > >   Naah.  Case opened, given all the evidence of a conspiracy.  Not
> > > theories, evidence.
>
> Chris
>
> > JFK Truthers arguing about who killed JFK on a discussion board
> > doesn't mean the case is open.
>
>   Or closed either...:)  I find it humorous that the HSCA that decided
> that it was probably a conspiracy, never recommended that the case be
> reopened and a search be begun to find the other conspirators...maybe it
> was never the intent of the HSCA, that they were only there as one more
> effort to shut people up about the con job.

More people against JFK.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/10/2013 9:38 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> In article <518bafb9$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 5/9/2013 12:14 AM, Bud wrote:

>>> On May 8, 9:28 am, daliresearch2...@aol.com wrote:
>>>> Wow,this website clearly is pro Warren Commission and down right nasty to anyone
>>>> who asks a critical question.
>>>

>>> It`s an open forum, and the opinions expressed here represent the
>>> opinions of the people who post here.
>>>
>>> And heres a critical question for you. How can Oswald be innocent of
>>> killing Kennedy? How many amazing things need to be accepted as fact
>>> for him to be considered innocent?

>>>
>>>> No matter what facts are presented, the carnival barkers who run this sight
>>>> either insult you or worse simply LIE and say that one's question or evidence is
>>>> false.
>>>

>>> Generally CTers have a skewed look at information, because they are
>>> desperate to believe Oswald was a patsy. They want to blame other
>>> people for his crimes.

>>>
>>>> what apathetic bunch, most of you are. Your revisionist history turns my
>>>> stomach. To say that "Kennedy was not as left wing as I think" says it all.
>>>

>>> How left wing do you think Kennedy was?
>>>
>>
>> Not quite as far as Adlai Stevenson and farther than his brother.
>
> Which brother?
>

RFK. Midway between RFK and Teddy.

> Bill Clarke

>
>
>>>> FACTS:
>>>>
>>>> 1) The CIA and military brass were pissed at JFK after the Bay of Pigs.
>>>

>>> Did you poll them? Right off the bat you are offering an opinion as
>>> an established fact.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, we did. Thanks for asking.

>>
>>>> There is wide consensus and agreement that JFK was going to get rid of many in
>>>> the CIA brass.
>>>>

>>>> 2) NSAM 263is real pertaining to JFK's plans to withdraw from Vietnam. Yet when
>>>> presented, many of you toads on this website say it does not exist. How in the
>>>> hell does one have any intelligent discussion with any one who denies the
>>>> existence of factual document.
>>>

>>> Can you quote this toad saying NSAM 263 doesn`t exist?
>>>
>>
>> Not when he doesn't use his real name. Which alias do you want?
>> Drukenbum? Completeidiot? BigFart?

>>
>>>> 3) Less than 10 days after JFK's death, LBJ reverses NSAM 26, leading us to the
>>>> whole Gulf of Tonkin BS.
>>>>

>>>> 4) Not one of you responded to when I brought up civil rights, southern Dems
>>>> verse JFK's view and direction
>>>>

>>>> 5) To imply that JFK was a right winger is not insulting it is laughable and
>>>> more importantly, it makes the myth that Oswald the lefty wanted too to kill JFK
>>>> because of conflicting views ebven more laughable to any rationale minded person
>>>

>>> Are you saying that Oswald`s views about Cuba did not differ from
>>> Kennedy`s? Is this a fact?

>>>
>>>> But alas, just dismiss it by saying its not true.
>>>

>>> It isn`t true that Oswald had the same political views as Kennedy,
>>> so I will dismiss it.

>>>
>>>> By the way, I believe Jesse Ventura, a Marine who along with 4 other sharp
>>>> shooters could not fire accurately in less than 7 seconds when they replicated
>>>> the shooting.
>>>

>>> So Jesse is cleared of Kennedy`s murder.
>>>
>>> I did watch the video of him shooting, it`s a wonder he didn`t shoot
>>> himself. Has he never fired a bolt action rifle before?
>>>
>>
>> I don't think he was trained as a sniper.

>>
>>>> Ventura has more credibility than any of you and the king of the toads Gerald
>>>> Posner who now is part of this corrupt effort to re write history and now state
>>>> that the first shot cane well before the Stemmons Freeway sign, How pathetic!
>>>

>>> No, I think the Stemmons Freeway sign was there before the first
>>> shot.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Bill Clarke]

In article <518e80dc$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Sure you do. Just like you think you know everything about everything.
It is to laugh.

Bill Clarke

[Bill Clarke]

In article <518e8129$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

So?

Bill Clarke

[Canuck]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 9:29:22 PM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 5/8/2013 5:31 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
> > In article <96fe70fd-2969-49b3...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> > dalirese...@aol.com says...
>
> >>
>
> >> Wow,this website clearly is pro Warren Commission and down right nasty to a=
>
> >> nyone who asks a critical question.No matter what facts are presented, the =
>
> >> carnival barkers who run this sight either insult you or worse simply LIE a=
>
> >> nd say that one's question or evidence is false. what apathetic bunch, most=
>
> >> of you are. Your revisionist history turns my stomach. To say that "Kenned=
>
> >> y was not as left wing as I think" says it all.=20
>
> >
>
> > Oh settle down my good man and let us see just who is revising history
>
> > here. Perhaps it is you! The Camelot groupies are well known as
>
> > revisionist. Are you a Camelot groupie?
>
> >
>
>
>
> No, the Camelot groupies are not known as revisionists. But I have written
>
> several times about Kennedy aides hiding the truth and lying about what
>
> really happened. If that makes me a Camelot groupie, ok wit me.
>

Are you talking to me, Tony? - prwhitmey

[Anthony Marsh]

That proves that he was a Hawk. You have to be a Hawk to deliberately
invade another country. Like Bush.
A Dove seeks peace.

> Bill Clarke
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

No, it did not. They had 50,000 Marines off shore to mop up. Success
depended on air superiority. JFK had cut the number of bombers to make
it seem plausible.

Bay of Pigs: The Untold Story by Peter Wyden, page 163:

Much of the discussion centered on the noise of the air strikes.
Earlier, Bissell said he preferred an all-out strike on D-Day, rather
than limited strikes on D minus 2 and on D-Day. It was felt that an
all-out strike would involvs so many planes that the fiction of their
departure from Cuban bases would fall apart. The President wondered
whether the strikes, even as modified, were still too noisy.
________________________________________________________

Hawkins "Said that he and project director Esterline learned only
recently from declassified documents that Bissell had agreed with
Kennedy to cut the number of CIA-supplied B-26 planes from 16 --
considered the minimum necessary to knock out Castro's air force on the
ground -- to eight, but he did not tell them of the decision until days
later, on the eve of the first air attack before the landing."

> That is unless you think 1,400 people was going to defeat the Cuban
> military. Oh god, you probably think that.
>

100 B-26 bombers could have destroyed all of Castro's planes and tanks,
giving the exiles air superiority. But it's hard to sell the story that
they were all defections from the Cuban Air Force when Castro did not
have 100 B-26s. The most B-26 bombers that Castro had available was 16,
so the CIA planned to have 16 B-26s for the exiles. But at least 3 of
them would land or crash in the US to support the cover story that they
had defected from Cuba. How many battles did you win without air
superiority, Major?

Where did I say I applauded JFK making the secret deal? I think it was
better than all-out nuclear war. You would have prefer all-out nuclear war.

> Bill Clarke
>

[Anthony Marsh]

No, I am replying to Bill Clarke.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <5191...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Well now, 50,000 Marines OFFSHORE is not a lot of help. You agree with that one
General?

>Bay of Pigs: The Untold Story by Peter Wyden, page 163:
>
>Much of the discussion centered on the noise of the air strikes.
>Earlier, Bissell said he preferred an all-out strike on D-Day, rather
>than limited strikes on D minus 2 and on D-Day. It was felt that an
>all-out strike would involvs so many planes that the fiction of their
>departure from Cuban bases would fall apart. The President wondered
>whether the strikes, even as modified, were still too noisy.
>________________________________________________________
>
>Hawkins "Said that he and project director Esterline learned only
>recently from declassified documents that Bissell had agreed with
>Kennedy to cut the number of CIA-supplied B-26 planes from 16 --
>considered the minimum necessary to knock out Castro's air force on the
>ground -- to eight, but he did not tell them of the decision until days
>later, on the eve of the first air attack before the landing."
>
>
>
>
>> That is unless you think 1,400 people was going to defeat the Cuban
>> military. Oh god, you probably think that.
>>
>
>100 B-26 bombers could have destroyed all of Castro's planes and tanks,
>giving the exiles air superiority. But it's hard to sell the story that
>they were all defections from the Cuban Air Force when Castro did not
>have 100 B-26s. The most B-26 bombers that Castro had available was 16,
>so the CIA planned to have 16 B-26s for the exiles. But at least 3 of
>them would land or crash in the US to support the cover story that they
>had defected from Cuba. How many battles did you win without air
>superiority, Major?

Holy smokes, I've got a military genius here. My Dear Marsh, we had complete
air superiority in Vietnam. Do you remember how that one came out or are you
like Shelia Jackson Lee?

Bill Clarke

[Bill Clarke]

In article <519136d8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

He justifiably excoriates the sycophantic courtier Schlesinger, whose histories
�repeatedly manipulated and obscured the facts� and whose accounts��profoundly
misleading if not out-and-out deceptive��were written to serve not scholarship
but the Kennedys.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/01/the-real-cuban-missile-crisis/309190/

Wow Marsh! Looks like one of the biggest Camelot goupie revised the hell out of
history. Many of them do, you know.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/13/2013 6:31 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> In article <519136d8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 5/12/2013 3:11 PM, Canuck wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 9:29:22 PM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/2013 5:31 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <96fe70fd-2969-49b3...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>
>>>>> dalirese...@aol.com says...
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Wow,this website clearly is pro Warren Commission and down right nasty to a=
>>>>
>>>>>> nyone who asks a critical question.No matter what facts are presented, the =
>>>>
>>>>>> carnival barkers who run this sight either insult you or worse simply LIE a=
>>>>
>>>>>> nd say that one's question or evidence is false. what apathetic bunch, most=
>>>>
>>>>>> of you are. Your revisionist history turns my stomach. To say that "Kenned=
>>>>
>>>>>> y was not as left wing as I think" says it all.=20
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Oh settle down my good man and let us see just who is revising history
>>>>
>>>>> here. Perhaps it is you! The Camelot groupies are well known as
>>>>
>>>>> revisionist. Are you a Camelot groupie?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, the Camelot groupies are not known as revisionists. But I have written
>>>>
>>>> several times about Kennedy aides hiding the truth and lying about what
>>>>
>>>> really happened. If that makes me a Camelot groupie, ok wit me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you talking to me, Tony? - prwhitmey
>>>
>>
>>
>> No, I am replying to Bill Clarke.
>>
>>
>
> He justifiably excoriates the sycophantic courtier Schlesinger, whose histories

> �repeatedly manipulated and obscured the facts� and whose accounts��profoundly
> misleading if not out-and-out deceptive��were written to serve not scholarship

> but the Kennedys.
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/01/the-real-cuban-missile-crisis/309190/
>
> Wow Marsh! Looks like one of the biggest Camelot goupie revised the hell out of
> history. Many of them do, you know.
>

I have written about that several times before.

> Bill Clarke
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, it's not up to me. We know what your plan would have been. Nuke
everything.

I notice that you didn't answer my question. Your Republicans
surrendered in Vietnam. We ran away with our tail between our legs.

[claviger]

Anthony,

> I notice that you didn't answer my question. Your Republicans
> surrendered in Vietnam. We ran away with our tail between our legs.

According to you President Kennedy was going to pull out of Vietnam
after the 1964 elections. Had he done so would you claim "We ran away
with our tail between our legs."?

[Bill Clarke]

In article <51917381$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

As you like to snort; you know nothing.

Bill Clarke

[Bill Clarke]

In article <51916f95$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 5/13/2013 6:31 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article <519136d8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>
>>> On 5/12/2013 3:11 PM, Canuck wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 9:29:22 PM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>> On 5/8/2013 5:31 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <96fe70fd-2969-49b3...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>
>>>>>> dalirese...@aol.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Wow,this website clearly is pro Warren Commission and down right nasty to a=
>>>>>
>>>>>>>nyone who asks a critical question.No matter what facts are presented, the =
>>>>>
>>>>>>>carnival barkers who run this sight either insult you or worse simply LIE a=
>>>>>
>>>>>>>nd say that one's question or evidence is false. what apathetic bunch, most=
>>>>>
>>>>>>>of you are. Your revisionist history turns my stomach. To say that "Kenned=
>>>>>
>>>>>>> y was not as left wing as I think" says it all.=20
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh settle down my good man and let us see just who is revising history
>>>>>
>>>>>> here. Perhaps it is you! The Camelot groupies are well known as
>>>>>
>>>>>> revisionist. Are you a Camelot groupie?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the Camelot groupies are not known as revisionists. But I have written
>>>>>
>>>>> several times about Kennedy aides hiding the truth and lying about what
>>>>>
>>>>> really happened. If that makes me a Camelot groupie, ok wit me.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you talking to me, Tony? - prwhitmey
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, I am replying to Bill Clarke.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>He justifiably excoriates the sycophantic courtier Schlesinger, whose histories

>>�repeatedly manipulated and obscured the facts� and whose accounts��profoundly
>>misleading if not out-and-out deceptive��were written to serve not scholarship

>> but the Kennedys.
>>
>>http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/01/the-real-cuban-missile-crisis/309190/
>>
>>Wow Marsh! Looks like one of the biggest Camelot goupie revised the hell out of
>> history. Many of them do, you know.
>>
>
>I have written about that several times before.

Have you also written about Ted Sorensen several times before?

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/14/2013 7:42 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> In article <51916f95$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 5/13/2013 6:31 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <519136d8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>
>>>> On 5/12/2013 3:11 PM, Canuck wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 9:29:22 PM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/8/2013 5:31 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <96fe70fd-2969-49b3...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dalirese...@aol.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wow,this website clearly is pro Warren Commission and down right nasty to a=
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> nyone who asks a critical question.No matter what facts are presented, the =
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> carnival barkers who run this sight either insult you or worse simply LIE a=
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> nd say that one's question or evidence is false. what apathetic bunch, most=
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> of you are. Your revisionist history turns my stomach. To say that "Kenned=
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> y was not as left wing as I think" says it all.=20
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh settle down my good man and let us see just who is revising history
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> here. Perhaps it is you! The Camelot groupies are well known as
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> revisionist. Are you a Camelot groupie?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, the Camelot groupies are not known as revisionists. But I have written
>>>>>>
>>>>>> several times about Kennedy aides hiding the truth and lying about what
>>>>>>
>>>>>> really happened. If that makes me a Camelot groupie, ok wit me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you talking to me, Tony? - prwhitmey
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, I am replying to Bill Clarke.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> He justifiably excoriates the sycophantic courtier Schlesinger, whose histories

>>> �repeatedly manipulated and obscured the facts� and whose accounts��profoundly
>>> misleading if not out-and-out deceptive��were written to serve not scholarship

>>> but the Kennedys.
>>>
>>> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/01/the-real-cuban-missile-crisis/309190/
>>>
>>> Wow Marsh! Looks like one of the biggest Camelot goupie revised the hell out of
>>> history. Many of them do, you know.
>>>
>>
>> I have written about that several times before.
>
> Have you also written about Ted Sorensen several times before?
>
> Bill Clarke
>
>

Yes.

[Anthony Marsh]

I never said that.
We wanted to pull out by the end of 1965.
The way Obama pulled out of Iraq. Slowly, carefully.

[claviger]

On May 14, 7:00 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/14/2013 7:40 AM, claviger wrote:
>
> > Anthony,
>
> >> I notice that you didn't answer my question. Your Republicans
> >> surrendered in Vietnam. We ran away with our tail between our legs.
>
> > According to you President Kennedy was going to pull out of Vietnam
> > after the 1964 elections.  Had he done so would you claim "We ran away
> > with our tail between our legs."?
>
> I never said that.
> We wanted to pull out by the end of 1965.

So 12 months after the 1964 elections.

> The way Obama pulled out of Iraq. Slowly, carefully.

How slowly and carefully was President Kennedy going to do it? Why
aren't we pulling out of Afghanistan, slowly and carefully? In the
Benghazi terrorist attack Hillary slowly and carefully allowed 4 brave
men die in a flaming inferno.

[Anthony Marsh]

In Iraq and Afghanistan we had established times tables.
JFK said the time table was aobout 1,000 men per month. You do the math.
His goal was to have everyone out by the end of 1965.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Bill Clarke]

In article <51950b1f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

That isn't true and you know it. He hoped to have the BULK (not everyone
as you claim) out by the end of 65. McNamara told JFK that we would have
around 3,500 men left in country. To anyone but you, Marsh, this would
mean that these 3,500 men would be secure in a still standing South
Vietnam.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

How many men are still in Iraq after the US pulled out officially?
Thousands. How many men are still in Japan, Germany, long after the end
of the war. Don't even get me started on South Korea.

July 6, 2011:

Yesterday Mr. Surge, Senator John McCain, said that the United States
ought to keep at least 13,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely. �I�m talking
10,000�13,000 specifically for intelligence capabilities, air
capabilities and also as a peacekeeping force up in the disputed areas
around Kirkuk and that area. I think there is a compelling case.�

> Bill Clarke
>
>

[Bill Clarke]

In article <51961f9b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

I've never heard anyone dumb enough to say that "everyone" (your word) is
out of Iraq, Japan, Germany and even, Marsh, South Korea. So your crap
here is besides the point and simply a diversion attempt by you.

What you did was misstate Kennedy's Vietnam policy even though you knew
better. You have a habit of claiming a document says what you wish it said
instead of what it actually says. This was your attempt in your "everyone
out by the end of 1965". It simply wasn't true.

I also doubt you can furnish a reference for your supposed "time table" of
about 1,000 each month coming home. The draw-down was based on the
success of ARVN, NOT some set schedule. Had you ever worked with ARVN you
would understand how "ify" this condition was.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

You have that 180 degrees backwards as usual. My point is that we still
have troops in Iraq, Japan, Germany and even South Korea.

> What you did was misstate Kennedy's Vietnam policy even though you knew
> better. You have a habit of claiming a document says what you wish it said
> instead of what it actually says. This was your attempt in your "everyone
> out by the end of 1965". It simply wasn't true.
>
> I also doubt you can furnish a reference for your supposed "time table" of
> about 1,000 each month coming home. The draw-down was based on the
> success of ARVN, NOT some set schedule. Had you ever worked with ARVN you
> would understand how "ify" this condition was.
>

I am talking about what the plan was, not what was actually done.

> Bill Clarke
>

[Bill Clarke]

In article <51970076$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Your point was that after the wars we still had people stationed in these
countries. You hoped that would lead us to believe that is somehow
related to your false claim of everyone home by 65. I've seen your dance
before.

>> What you did was misstate Kennedy's Vietnam policy even though you knew
>> better. You have a habit of claiming a document says what you wish it said
>> instead of what it actually says. This was your attempt in your "everyone
>> out by the end of 1965". It simply wasn't true.
>>
>> I also doubt you can furnish a reference for your supposed "time table" of
>> about 1,000 each month coming home. The draw-down was based on the
>> success of ARVN, NOT some set schedule. Had you ever worked with ARVN you
>> would understand how "ify" this condition was.
>>
>
>I am talking about what the plan was, not what was actually done.

Well then, why did you misstate the plan? The plan never said anything
about everyone home by 65. That was a big one on your part. I also see
no defense of your "about 1,000 each month" crap. Another big one.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

I never said everyone home by 65. When you lose an argument, you
misrepresent what I say.

>
>>> What you did was misstate Kennedy's Vietnam policy even though you knew
>>> better. You have a habit of claiming a document says what you wish it said
>>> instead of what it actually says. This was your attempt in your "everyone
>>> out by the end of 1965". It simply wasn't true.
>>>
>>> I also doubt you can furnish a reference for your supposed "time table" of
>>> about 1,000 each month coming home. The draw-down was based on the
>>> success of ARVN, NOT some set schedule. Had you ever worked with ARVN you
>>> would understand how "ify" this condition was.
>>>
>>
>> I am talking about what the plan was, not what was actually done.
>
> Well then, why did you misstate the plan? The plan never said anything
> about everyone home by 65. That was a big one on your part. I also see
> no defense of your "about 1,000 each month" crap. Another big one.
>

I posted the document on my Web site, but you refused to read it.

> Bill Clarke
>
>

[Bill Clarke]

In article <519826e6$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

This is exactly what you said;

>>>>>>> In Iraq and Afghanistan we had established times tables.
>>>>>>> JFK said the time table was aobout 1,000 men per month. You do the math.
>>>>>>> His goal was to have everyone out by the end of 1965.

I suppose you'll debate the difference in "everyone home by 65" and
"everyone out" but that would even be more silly.

Here it is in a nutshell Marsh. You made a statement (everyone out by the
end of 1965) that was incorrect. Since you know the policy there is only
one explanation of why you did this. And it takes much of the shine off
anything you might have to say about the subject.

The fact that you fail to discuss this about 1,000 men a month crap you
posted is a good indication also of the accuracy of this statement of
yours.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

No. You suffer from Temporal Displacement Disorder, or TDD. You can't
tell the difference between past and future.

>>>>>>>> In Iraq and Afghanistan we had established times tables.
>>>>>>>> JFK said the time table was aobout 1,000 men per month. You do the math.
>>>>>>>> His goal was to have everyone out by the end of 1965.
>
> I suppose you'll debate the difference in "everyone home by 65" and
> "everyone out" but that would even be more silly.
>

The difference is between what JFK planned and wanted versus what was
done. You know they killed him before he could reach his goal.

> Here it is in a nutshell Marsh. You made a statement (everyone out by the
> end of 1965) that was incorrect. Since you know the policy there is only

I never promised that everyone would be out by 65. Neither did JFK. He
said he wanted everyone out by the end of 1965. That was his goal. Your
buddies made sure he did not accomplish it.

> one explanation of why you did this. And it takes much of the shine off
> anything you might have to say about the subject.
>
> The fact that you fail to discuss this about 1,000 men a month crap you
> posted is a good indication also of the accuracy of this statement of
> yours.
>

Read the damn document.

> Bill Clarke
>

[Bill Clarke]

In article <519a6ee1$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Well Marsh, I can cut and past exactly what you said as shown below. So
yes, this is exactly what you said.

>>>>>>>>> In Iraq and Afghanistan we had established times tables.
>>>>>>>>>JFK said the time table was aobout 1,000 men per month. You do the math.
>>>>>>>>> His goal was to have everyone out by the end of 1965.
>>
>> I suppose you'll debate the difference in "everyone home by 65" and
>> "everyone out" but that would even be more silly.
>>
>
>The difference is between what JFK planned and wanted versus what was
>done.

He wasn't going to get what he "wanted". Any fool should have known this
the day Bundy signed the NSAM.

>You know they killed him before he could reach his goal.

As far as Vietnam is concerned it didn't make any difference if they
killed him or not; his goal was unobtainable. He and the rest of the
fools forgot the communists had a card to play.

>> Here it is in a nutshell Marsh. You made a statement (everyone out by the
>> end of 1965) that was incorrect. Since you know the policy there is only
>
>I never promised that everyone would be out by 65. Neither did JFK. He
>said he wanted everyone out by the end of 1965. That was his goal. Your
>buddies made sure he did not accomplish it.

I never knew Oswald and we certainly wasn't buddies.

>> one explanation of why you did this. And it takes much of the shine off
>> anything you might have to say about the subject.
>>
>> The fact that you fail to discuss this about 1,000 men a month crap you
>> posted is a good indication also of the accuracy of this statement of
>> yours.
>>
>
>Read the damn document.

I've been asking for evidence. Post the evidence.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

No, you've already demonstrated that you can't cut and paste [sic].
And you still don't know know the difference between present and past.

>
>>>>>>>>>> In Iraq and Afghanistan we had established times tables.
>>>>>>>>>> JFK said the time table was aobout 1,000 men per month. You do the math.
>>>>>>>>>> His goal was to have everyone out by the end of 1965.
>>>
>>> I suppose you'll debate the difference in "everyone home by 65" and
>>> "everyone out" but that would even be more silly.
>>>
>>
>> The difference is between what JFK planned and wanted versus what was
>> done.
>
> He wasn't going to get what he "wanted". Any fool should have known this
> the day Bundy signed the NSAM.
>

Again for the millionth time, he was killed before he could reach the
goal. I didn't say what he actually accomplished. I said what his goal
was. I also said a few years ago that Obama had a goal to pull all the
combat troops out of Iraq. You could likewise claim that goal was
unrealistic just because you oppose it. Maybe if your buddies had also
been able to assassinate him then he would not have been able to
accomplish his goal. So how many Americans are still in Iraq?

>> You know they killed him before he could reach his goal.
>
> As far as Vietnam is concerned it didn't make any difference if they
> killed him or not; his goal was unobtainable. He and the rest of the
> fools forgot the communists had a card to play.
>

So we're still in Vietnam?

>>> Here it is in a nutshell Marsh. You made a statement (everyone out by the
>>> end of 1965) that was incorrect. Since you know the policy there is only
>>
>> I never promised that everyone would be out by 65. Neither did JFK. He
>> said he wanted everyone out by the end of 1965. That was his goal. Your
>> buddies made sure he did not accomplish it.
>
> I never knew Oswald and we certainly wasn't buddies.
>
>>> one explanation of why you did this. And it takes much of the shine off
>>> anything you might have to say about the subject.
>>>
>>> The fact that you fail to discuss this about 1,000 men a month crap you
>>> posted is a good indication also of the accuracy of this statement of
>>> yours.
>>>
>>
>> Read the damn document.
>
> I've been asking for evidence. Post the evidence.
>

I did many times, but you refused to read it.

> Bill Clarke
>
>

[Bill Clarke]

In article <519c46fb$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

You can play your word games until hell freezes over. The fact remains
that you made a statement that wasn't true. You knew it wasn't true when
you made it. You got called on it. The honorable thing for you to do is
admit your "mistake" but I realize you can never do this. Sad.

>>>>>>>>>>> In Iraq and Afghanistan we had established times tables.
>>>>>>>>>>>JFK said the time table was aobout 1,000 men per month. You do the math.
>>>>>>>>>>> His goal was to have everyone out by the end of 1965.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose you'll debate the difference in "everyone home by 65" and
>>>> "everyone out" but that would even be more silly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The difference is between what JFK planned and wanted versus what was
>>> done.
>>
>> He wasn't going to get what he "wanted". Any fool should have known this
>> the day Bundy signed the NSAM.
>>
>
>Again for the millionth time, he was killed before he could reach the
>goal. I didn't say what he actually accomplished. I said what his goal
>was. I also said a few years ago that Obama had a goal to pull all the
>combat troops out of Iraq. You could likewise claim that goal was
>unrealistic just because you oppose it. Maybe if your buddies had also
>been able to assassinate him then he would not have been able to
>accomplish his goal. So how many Americans are still in Iraq?

For the millionth time his goal was never to have everyone out by 65 as
you stated. His goal was to have the bulk of the troops home and he
THOUGHT he could accomplish this by 65. 1965 was NOT a set date and it
certainly became an illusion when he approved the removal of Diem.
McNamara estimated that 3,500 troops would be LEFT in Vietnam. That is
roughly 20% of the troops being left in Vietnam. Hardly "everyone" don't
you think?

>>> You know they killed him before he could reach his goal.
>>
>> As far as Vietnam is concerned it didn't make any difference if they
>> killed him or not; his goal was unobtainable. He and the rest of the
>> fools forgot the communists had a card to play.
>>
>
>So we're still in Vietnam?

>>>> Here it is in a nutshell Marsh. You made a statement (everyone out by the
>>>> end of 1965) that was incorrect. Since you know the policy there is only
>>>
>>> I never promised that everyone would be out by 65. Neither did JFK. He
>>> said he wanted everyone out by the end of 1965. That was his goal. Your
>>> buddies made sure he did not accomplish it.
>>
>> I never knew Oswald and we certainly wasn't buddies.
>>
>>>> one explanation of why you did this. And it takes much of the shine off
>>>> anything you might have to say about the subject.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that you fail to discuss this about 1,000 men a month crap you
>>>> posted is a good indication also of the accuracy of this statement of
>>>> yours.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Read the damn document.
>>
>> I've been asking for evidence. Post the evidence.
>>
>
>I did many times, but you refused to read it.

Sure you have. A statement in which JFK says "about 1,000 per month".
Sure you have.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

The honorable thing is for you to stop misrepresenting what I say to
push a rightwing agenda.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <519d...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

How can I misrepresent what you say when it was a cut and paste of what
you said?

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

As you just did by snipping out the context. And misinterpreting my words.

[dalirese...@aol.com]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 5:29:48 PM UTC-4, Chad Anthony wrote:
> You left out the several marksmen that BEAT Oswald's shooting feat.

I also left out five "Expert" shooters ( that is 2 ranks ahead of
marksman) who could not fire off Oswald's alleged rounds in less than 8
seconds! This is before, Jesse Ventura's experts attempted and failed to
to do it in less than 7.5 seconds

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe because the gun jammed?
It jammed about 1/3rd of the time.

[Chad Anthony]

Correct me if I'm wrong but Oswald's rifle never jammed during tests by
the FBI. The action was well worn which would have made cycling the bolt
smoother.That can't for all carcanos used for simulations over the years.

[Anthony Marsh]

We don't know if Frazier brought up the subject in his WC testimony,
because there was a lot of this going on:

Mr. Eisenberg.
Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

But your point is a little naive. They did not run that many rapid
shooting tests, so the odds were in their favor. In the CBS tests with a
similar rifle it jammed about 1/3 of the time.
In the future please quote my message so that people will know what we
are talking about.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

There, I fixed it for you.

-Ramon

ps: I pretty much agree with the rest of your post.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

Hi Tony:

I will soon post a thread with a question for you. The reason I give
you a heads up is my attempt to overcome Prof. McAdams censorship, as
he tends not to allow original threads from yours truly, only follow
ups.

-Ramon

[claviger]

On May 26, 1:21 pm, Chad Anthony <timetravelerinfin...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Correct me if I'm wrong but Oswald's rifle never jammed during tests by
> the FBI. The action was well worn which would have made cycling the bolt
> smoother.That can't for all carcanos used for simulations over the years.

Chad,

I counted 74 rounds fired from LHO's rifle in testing done by the FBI.
No mention of any jams during this live firing testing. The fact LHO
worked the bolt so often at home, much to Marina's annoyance, no doubt had
a lot to do with improving the bolt action.

FBI Firearms Expert Robert A Frazier
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/310c73d7ad046e37#

[John Blubaugh]

That is BS. The republicans cut all moneys for embassy support. There was
no way for Hillary to send any help.

JB

[Anthony Marsh]

I didn't claim it jammed during the tests. Maybe they were trying to
reload as quickly as possible. In the CBS tests their Carcano jammed

[mainframetech]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...

If you check Frazier's WC testimony, you will find that the FBI
testers he spoke of got the rifle that night after the murder. His
comment was that the rifle was "worn and corroded". If you also read
Ronald Simmons' (of the FBI) testimony, you find that the rifle had to
be taken to the gunsmith before they could do anything with it. The
gunsmith had to shim up the scope so that it could be adjusted to
aim. The bolt was sticky and didn't work fast and had a tendency to
force resighting after working the bolt. All-in-all it sounded like
the rifle was still in the same condition it was in when it was a
surplus weapon, probably from WW2.

As to Marina talking about Oswald working the bolt on the rifle in
her presence, she had nothing of that type to say earlier in WC
testimony. At that time Oswald kept most things he was doing away
from her. But after the many errors the WC made, by the time an
opportunity to question Marina again came around, they had a chance to
do some fence mending for their previous errors. I believe they
intimidated Marina (maybe send her back to Russia?) into saying what
they wanted to her to.

Chris

[claviger]

Chris,

We can read what Frazier had to say. Maybe you should too. As for Marina
she mentions her husband's fascination with his mail order rifle in more
than one testimony. That testimony is believable knowing that her husband
served in the military and enjoyed hunting with his older brother, before
he became a political hunter of fascists. If JFK had a youthful
admiration for Adolph Hitler does that make him a fascist too? Evidently
capitalism + free enterprise = fascism to a true believer like LHO. We
have one regular on this newsgroup who seems to agree with LHO on that
equation.

[Anthony Marsh]

False equation. Capitalism IS Fascism. And there is no such thing as
free enterprise. Only the exploiation of the poor.
Keep you wacky comparisons to yourself.

[claviger]

Anthony,

> False equation. Capitalism IS Fascism. And there is no such thing as
> free enterprise. Only the exploiation of the poor.
> Keep you wacky comparisons to yourself.

Talk about wacky! Capitalism defeated all three models of pernicious
Socialism in WWII. After that grueling experience the Brits voted
for........Socialism. Go figure. Thankfully, Margaret Thatcher turned
that bad decision around, but then the EU goes Socialist too. Look what a
mess they're in now. Misery loves company so the US is headed in the same
direction, while China and Russia have discovered there are significant
free market advantages after all. When people have jobs it takes enormous
pressure off the government to support large portions of the population.
EU Socialism doesn't work because it lowers national productivity to the
bare minimum, and sometimes not even that. The national currency becomes
worthless when governments try to fake prosperity by printing too much
paper money, but that scam only works for a little while before the
population and the World wake up to the reality there's no economic value
to back it up.

[mainframetech]

As a "hunter of fascists", one wonders why you think he took after
JFK. My comments come from reading Frazier's and Simmons' WC testimony.
If you go back to those passages, you will see that all the terminology
and rifle circumstances I use come from their testimony. Perhaps you
should check me on that by reading their testimony to the WC.

Marina's first time 'at bat' with the WC was her affidavit, which gives
little information about the rifle. it was as if she knew nothing much
about it. Then when she testifies for the WC, she knows all about it and
how Oswald thought it would be good for hunting, and how he cleaned it a
number of times, and how he was out practicing with it. At a place where
no one would see him practice, of course. A shame we weren't able to find
the receipt or order from some gun shop in Dallas for the clip and 4
rounds of ammo. Which doesn't fit with the FBI descriptions of the care
of the weapon. Since the FBI found that the rifle couldn't be aimed
because the scope needed to be shimmed and was "worn and corroded" it
doesn't fit with the description from Marina, of Oswald cleaning it or
'practicing' with it. Marina gives us an excuse as to why she never
mentioned many things in previous questioning sessions, that this time she
is protected from prosecution. She says: "Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I said before
I had never seen it before. But I think you understand. I want to help
you, and that is why there is no reason for concealing anything. I will
not be charged with anything."

So she tells us she lied before, meaning she is capable of lying for
her own safety. Being from Russia at that time it was probably an
automatic trait for most people there. She is giving an excuse for
telling these things this time and not before, though all of it wasn't
liable to get her into any trouble. Of course, to get things into the
'lone nut' scenario, they may well have intimidated her with being
deported.

Chris

[mainframetech]

> > Chris,
>
> > We can read what Frazier had to say.  Maybe you should too.  As for Marina
> > she mentions her husband's fascination with his mail order rifle in more
> > than one testimony.  That testimony is believable knowing that her husband
> > served in the military and enjoyed hunting with his older brother, before
> > he became a political hunter of fascists.  If JFK had a youthful
> > admiration for Adolph Hitler does that make him a fascist too?  Evidently
> > capitalism + free enterprise = fascism to a true believer like LHO.  We
> > have one regular on this newsgroup who seems to agree with LHO on that
> > equation.
>
> False equation. Capitalism IS Fascism. And there is no such thing as
> free enterprise. Only the exploiation of the poor.
> Keep you wacky comparisons to yourself.

And you feel that "capitalism is fascism" isn't wacky? I can easily
believe that the wealthy are slowly moving back to a 'feudal system' as in
merry olde England with the poor being the serfs, but fascism as we've
seen it usually has single person at the top that is really a dictator,
and an extremely organized (and often military) society.

Look up the 2 definitions and see what you think.

Chris

[mainframetech]

In the USA many people want to support the homeless, the aged and the
unemployed (toward getting jobs). The job can only be done in a slapdash
way by even large organizations, who receive less donations in hard times.
The aid people want to give is done by selecting a tool called government,
which CAN do a good job of these things. The problem comes in when the
people, who are ultimately in charge, fail in their duty to oversee
government and see to it that it does the job honestly and correctly.
Too many people have gone back to their TV sitcoms and pizza and don't
want to be bothered. In France they live very well (better than us in
some ways) and are constantly at their government to do better and to
straighten up. It seems to work for them if you look into the benefits
they get as citizens.

Chris

[Sandy McCroskey]

(I know you're alluding to the fact that Oswald considered himself a
"hunter of fascists," but grammatically, the "hunter of fascists" in
your sentence is "one." Your modifying phrase is dangling.)

> why you think he took after
> JFK.

Kennedy's well-known antagonism to Castro and his position as head of
the world's only capitalist superpower easily made him eligible for the
label "fascist" as typically applied by a communist, which Oswald
considered himself to be.

It seems claviger said something like that already and somehow you
missed it.

/sandy

[Sandy McCroskey]

The "hunter of fascists" sobriquet comes from the back of one of the
backyard photos Marina took of Lee holding an issue of the communist
newspaper THE MILITANT in which Edwin Walker was called a "fascist."

Just in case you don't know.

/sm