DiEugenio whines about McAdams
Dave Reitzes
<QUOTE ON>----------------------------
The Lies of Wikipedia, Gamaliel--or John McAdams?
Jim DiEugenio
Posted Today, 03:26 AM
As most people know, if one Googles the name Lee Harvey Oswald, the
Wikipedia entry comes up first.
Which is unfortunate for all involved. The administrator who runs that
page is code named Gamaliel. Wikipedia disguises who their real admins
are. But this piece of work is a guy named Fernandez from Florida. (As
we will soon see, one has to wonder if he is a relative of Alpha 66
survivors.)
In JP Mroz' upcoming article about Wikipedia at CTKA, this page is
analyzed. It is so one sided it lacks credibility. About 90% of all
the footnotes are from the Warren Report, Warren Commission, or its
allies e.g. Vince Bugliosi, Tracy Parnell, Jerry "the plagiarist"
Posner.
There are about 14 references to the HSCA. Two to the acoustics work
of Don Thomas. And two to Summers' Not in Your Lifetime.
This last leads us to a rather surprising discovery: the Summers book
is the only book critical of the Commission that is sourced at all. Go
ahead and see for yourself.
Which is ahistorical. Almost 1984 ish. One of the main reasons the
Warren Report is discredited today is the work of the first and second
generation of critics i.e. Meagher, Roffman, Popkin, Thompson, and the
like. Well, for Fernandez/Wikipedia, none of that exists when it comes
to Oswald. It has been eliminated from the record. Further, none of
the fine work done on Oswald after the propaganda tracts of the likes
of Johnson and Epstein are included either e.g. Melanson, Newman, and
Armstrong. In other words, the portrait of Oswald is pretty much what
the Commission painted. Which is sort of like going out and buying a
Model T crank up.
Len Osanic has done some work on this guy, since he has had some run
ins with him over the Fletcher Prouty entry. He surfaced evidence that
one of the citizen contributors with the most frequent record of
inserting rewrites is John McAdams. Even though he was officially
flagged as a biased contributor with a conflict of interest. But
clearly, Fernandez allows McAdams much freedom to rewrite and source.
I think the following strongly hints at how much Fernandez allows
McAdams to get away with. Two days ago as I read the entry, something
shocking appeared in the text. It acknowledged that the rifle
allegedly ordered by Oswald was ordered in the name Hidell. But it
said that it was delivered to his P O box anyway since Oswald listed
both names on the box application. I did a double take on this since I
knew this was wrong information. As can be seen by going to Cadigan
Exhibit 13 in WC Vol. 19. But Fernandez, or McAdams, were really in
high propaganda gear--Hurricane Katrina level 5. They provided a
footnote, no. 115, that clicked through to a DIFFERENT exhibit. This
is in Volume 17, p. 697. Sure enough you will see a P O box
application signed by Oswald with the names of Marina and Hidell on
it. But its for the New Orleans box. Big reality problem: the rifle
went to the Dallas box. Now, in the footnote, they label this as CE
697--which is wrong, That is the page number. The exhibit is 818. I
strongly suspect this is deliberate, meant to mislead the casual
reader. For if you read the Contents of the volume at the right
exhibit number, it is clearly labeled as the NEW ORLEANS P O Box
application.
By planting false evidence, Fernandez/Gamaliel dodges the question of
how a rifle mailed to one person, Hidell, was delivered to another
person, Oswald's PO Box.
I strongly suspect this was MacAdams handiwork. It has all his
ruthless hallmarks about it. SInce he tries to find the holes in the
Commission that are brought up, and then does all he can, including
lying, to patch them up. For Fernandez to allow this is in perfect
fitting with some of the comments he has made in the past. He's as bad
as Dan Rather.
Wikipedia is more proof that the New Media is looking a lot like the
Old Media. Jimmy Wales is the new David Sarnoff, at least on this
case.
This post has been edited by Jim DiEugenio: Today, 03:29 AM
<QUOTE OFF>---------------------------
John McAdams
I'm afraid crackpots like the ones he names simply don't make the cut.
Is Wikipedia supposed to seriously explain about "Lee" and "Harvey,"
his evil twin.
>
>Len Osanic has done some work on this guy, since he has had some run
>ins with him over the Fletcher Prouty entry. He surfaced evidence that
>one of the citizen contributors with the most frequent record of
>inserting rewrites is John McAdams. Even though he was officially
>flagged as a biased contributor with a conflict of interest. But
>clearly, Fernandez allows McAdams much freedom to rewrite and source.
This is bizarre.
Nowhere does it say I'm a "biased contributor."
Odd that Jim should say this, since he had no problem with Osanic
writing about Prouty!
I think he's talking about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_C._McAdams
<quote on>
A Wikipedia contributor, 134.48.30.18 (talk · contribs), may be
personally connected to the subject of the article. Relevant
guidelines covering this situation include Wikipedia:Conflict of
interest, Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
<quote off>
But since my entry in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._McAdams
. . . is all about my JFK assassination web site, it's not exactly a
secret that I'm "connected."
Indeed, since I posted on the "talk" page as "John McAdams," how
idiotic is it to think this is sinister?
>
>I think the following strongly hints at how much Fernandez allows
>McAdams to get away with. Two days ago as I read the entry, something
>shocking appeared in the text. It acknowledged that the rifle
>allegedly ordered by Oswald was ordered in the name Hidell. But it
>said that it was delivered to his P O box anyway since Oswald listed
>both names on the box application. I did a double take on this since I
>knew this was wrong information. As can be seen by going to Cadigan
>Exhibit 13 in WC Vol. 19. But Fernandez, or McAdams, were really in
>high propaganda gear--Hurricane Katrina level 5. They provided a
>footnote, no. 115, that clicked through to a DIFFERENT exhibit. This
>is in Volume 17, p. 697. Sure enough you will see a P O box
>application signed by Oswald with the names of Marina and Hidell on
>it. But its for the New Orleans box. Big reality problem: the rifle
>went to the Dallas box. Now, in the footnote, they label this as CE
>697--which is wrong, That is the page number. The exhibit is 818. I
>strongly suspect this is deliberate, meant to mislead the casual
>reader. For if you read the Contents of the volume at the right
>exhibit number, it is clearly labeled as the NEW ORLEANS P O Box
>application.
>
If I had supplied that link, I would have linked to the order that
Oswald sent to Kleins Sporting Goods, which gave his address as the
Dallas box.
His handwriting was on the order, the return address on the envelope
and the money order sent in payment.
>By planting false evidence, Fernandez/Gamaliel dodges the question of
>how a rifle mailed to one person, Hidell, was delivered to another
>person, Oswald's PO Box.
Oh, gee. This is kook stuff. Jim appears not to have caught on that
"Hidell" was in fact Oswald.
>
>I strongly suspect this was MacAdams handiwork.
McAdams is the name. And if I had done it, I would have gotten the
citation right.
This guy sees spooks everywhere.
>It has all his
>ruthless hallmarks about it. SInce he tries to find the holes in the
>Commission that are brought up, and then does all he can, including
>lying, to patch them up. For Fernandez to allow this is in perfect
>fitting with some of the comments he has made in the past. He's as bad
>as Dan Rather.
>
>Wikipedia is more proof that the New Media is looking a lot like the
>Old Media. Jimmy Wales is the new David Sarnoff, at least on this
>case.
>
>This post has been edited by Jim DiEugenio: Today, 03:29 AM
>
><QUOTE OFF>---------------------------
>
What a kook.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bill Kelly
John,
Is the Kook right in that you monitor and edit the Wiki entry on LHO?
And is Hidell's name on the PO Box order form that the rifle was sent
to in Dallas?
Thanks,
BK
David Von Pein
>>> "What a kook." <<<
LOL.
And I see Jimbo goes has decided to harp on McAdams' "making stuff up"
again.
Jim gets closer to the Liftons and Fetzers every day, it seems. I love
it.
His "Frazier & Randle Made Up The Paper Bag Out Of Thin Air"
crackpottery is a recent highlight of hilarity from Jim's delusional
mind.
I'd sure like to know how DiEugenio can get around all of this "There
Really Was A Bag" FIRST-DAY verification?:
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-26.html
John McAdams
No, I don't monitor any such entry. I have edited Wikipedia entries,
but don't remember if I have ever edited the LHO entry.
Your conspiracy friends have no compunctions at all about removing
information that they don't like.
I just checked, and found that one of the Prouty kooks removed a link
to my web page critical of Prouty from the Prouty entry on Wikepedia.
What do you think of that?
Do you think it's sinister to try and conceal information?
>And is Hidell's name on the PO Box order form that the rifle was sent
>to in Dallas?
>
No, that part of the form had been discarded.
And as I POSTED IN MY LAST POST, Oswald's handwriting was on the order
form to Klein's Sporting Goods, on the return address space of the
envelope in which he mailed the order form, and on the money order.
You *do* know that Alec Hidell was an alias of Oswald's, don't you?
Seriously. I'm wondering whether you will admit that.
And Bill, you need to understand that your conspiracist friends do
sound like kooks when they see some nefarious conspiracy behind every
Wikipedia entry. Or at least, every Wikepedia entry that has
information that they don't like.
.John
--
Anthony Marsh
So the moderators here now approve of reposting messages from other
newsgroups?
claviger
Why is it whenever I read something DiEugenio writes I can hear "They're
Coming to Take Me Away, Ha-Haaa" playing in the background? Is that his
theme song or what?
Bill Kelly
>
> - Show quoted text -
John,
No, I don't think it is right to conceal information. Have you seen
the profile of LHO called The Strange Life of Lee Harvey Oswald?
http://www.school-for-champions.com/biographies/lee_harvey_oswald.htm
Do you think that is an accurate portrait of Oswald?
Although I don't think Prouty is a great source, he is reliable in
that he was there - in an office in the Pentagon and had access to the
JCS and the Bay of Pigs inquiry. And Prouty was the first to mention
Gen. Krulak, who it turns out, was the point man in the Pentagon to
provide assistance to the approved CIA Maritime Raiders from JMWAVE.
I'm not a Conspiracy Theorists, as the assassination only happened one
way, and that's the way I am trying to figure out, so all those idiots
who blame the Mafia or CIA or Castro or even Oswald, all have it
figured out, and leave out all the rest of the information that
doesn't suit their theory.
Of course I'm friendly with many CTs, including Jimmy D, who was one
of the fellow co-founders of COPA, but I also get along with a few
Lone Nutters, and many of my friends are conservative Republicans, so
it's hard to pin me down, if that's what you want to do.
So the Kook is right and you do try to keep up with Wiki and alter it
to suit your fancy. And he is right about the name Hidel not being on
the PO box order form, because you say the form was discarded?
I don't doubt that it's Oswald's handwriting, or that he used the
alias Hidell. Why wouldn't I admit that?
At one time I thought that using an alias was an indication that
someone had something to hide or was engaged in nefarious, covert or
criminal activity.
What was the alias you used to infiltrate the COPA conference in DC,
and why did you do that?
Bill Kelly
John McAdams
>On Jul 8, 2:31 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 8 Jul 2010 17:03:38 -0400, Bill Kelly <billkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Is the Kook right in that you monitor and edit the Wiki entry on LHO?
>>
>> No, I don't monitor any such entry. I have edited Wikipedia entries,
>> but don't remember if I have ever edited the LHO entry.
>>
>> Your conspiracy friends have no compunctions at all about removing
>> information that they don't like.
>>
>> I just checked, and found that one of the Prouty kooks removed a link
>> to my web page critical of Prouty from the Prouty entry on Wikepedia.
>>
>> What do you think of that?
>>
>> Do you think it's sinister to try and conceal information?
>>
>> >And is Hidell's name on the PO Box order form that the rifle was sent
>> >to in Dallas?
>>
>> No, that part of the form had been discarded.
>>
>> And as I POSTED IN MY LAST POST, Oswald's handwriting was on the order
>> form to Klein's Sporting Goods, on the return address space of the
>> envelope in which he mailed the order form, and on the money order.
>>
>> You *do* know that Alec Hidell was an alias of Oswald's, don't you?
>>
>> Seriously. I'm wondering whether you will admit that.
>>
>> And Bill, you need to understand that your conspiracist friends do
>> sound like kooks when they see some nefarious conspiracy behind every
>> Wikipedia entry. Or at least, every Wikepedia entry that has
>> information that they don't like.
>>
>
>No, I don't think it is right to conceal information. Have you seen
>the profile of LHO called The Strange Life of Lee Harvey Oswald?
>
>http://www.school-for-champions.com/biographies/lee_harvey_oswald.htm
>
>Do you think that is an accurate portrait of Oswald?
I don't have time to read the whole thing, but it seems a lot better
than any conspiracy treatment.
The first paragraph has a howler, claiming that Lee confessed to
Robert that he shot Kennedy.
But what's your point?
>
>Although I don't think Prouty is a great source, he is reliable in
>that he was there - in an office in the Pentagon and had access to the
>JCS and the Bay of Pigs inquiry. And Prouty was the first to mention
>Gen. Krulak, who it turns out, was the point man in the Pentagon to
>provide assistance to the approved CIA Maritime Raiders from JMWAVE.
>
No, he's not reliable about anything.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/prouty.htm
Do you really believe that KAL 007 was downed by an explosive device
planted by the CIA?
Do you really believe that oil is not a fossil fuel?
Do you really buy the "George Bush named three ships" business?
>I'm not a Conspiracy Theorists, as the assassination only happened one
>way, and that's the way I am trying to figure out, so all those idiots
>who blame the Mafia or CIA or Castro or even Oswald, all have it
>figured out, and leave out all the rest of the information that
>doesn't suit their theory.
>
>Of course I'm friendly with many CTs, including Jimmy D, who was one
>of the fellow co-founders of COPA, but I also get along with a few
>Lone Nutters, and many of my friends are conservative Republicans, so
>it's hard to pin me down, if that's what you want to do.
>
>So the Kook is right and you do try to keep up with Wiki and alter it
>to suit your fancy.
You really are pulling a Harris!
I tell you something, and you ignore it.
I checked out the Prouty entry *in response* to this thread.
But would it be sinister if I *did* try to "keep up with Wiki?"
Your buff buddies certainly do, and try to alter it to their fancy.
>And he is right about the name Hidel not being on
>the PO box order form, because you say the form was discarded?
>
But he's being silly to claim that that one footnote is sinister.
There is plenty of evidence that Oswald ordered the rifle, and if I
had written the footnote, it would point to the correct sources.
DiEugenio sees a conspirator behind every bush and under every bed.
>I don't doubt that it's Oswald's handwriting, or that he used the
>alias Hidell. Why wouldn't I admit that?
>
Well if you'll admit that, you are admitting that the Wikipedia entry
is correct, even if the footnote doesn't point to the right document.
>At one time I thought that using an alias was an indication that
>someone had something to hide or was engaged in nefarious, covert or
>criminal activity.
>
>What was the alias you used to infiltrate the COPA conference in DC,
>and why did you do that?
>
Infiltrate? You mean there was all sorts of sinister and secret stuff
going on?
It's your buff buddies who had no compunctions about harassing me, and
I wasn't going to bother with dealing with harassment at COPA.
If your buff buddies were decent people, no pseudonym would have been
necessary.
But in fact, they are nasty and mean spirited.
And your accusatory tone here looks uncomfortably like them.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bill Kelly
>
> - Show quoted text -
John,
You should have introduced yourself to me and we could have had a beer
and bonded.
Instead, you use a fake name to enter the conference because you were
afraid you would be hassled by mean spirited CTs?
Almost all of COPA are lawyers, doctors, academics and students -
mainly decent people as far as I know. John Judge is very good at
keeping most of the kooks and troublemakers out, as well as CT's like
Fetzer, Judyth, Gus Russo, and the Mafia did it crowd, though Russo
was at early meetings before he started having lunch with CIA
officers. Max Holland has addressed a DC conference co-sponsored by
COPA, and Ken Rahn was at one too, and I don't think either were
subjected to any ridicule
What pissed me off about you is the fact that the Washington Post
actually sent a reporter over to cover the conference and you were one
of the only participants (I won't call you a COPA member) to be
interviewed in the article that appeared the next day.
I'm sure that was just a coincidence, and not an example of
MOCKINGBIRD in action, but picking you out of the entire crowd was not
a true representation of COPA.
So if it sound sinster or accusitory, so be it, that's the main
problem I have with you. Otherwise you seem like a decent enough guy
who judges people pretty quick as to whether they're your stripe of
leftist, CT, decent person or whatever other categories you like to
put people in.
What was the name you used anyway, and how did you come to chose it?
Does it rhime with Fidel?
Bill Kelly
Dave Reitzes
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16168
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------
Jim DiEugenio
Posted Yesterday, 07:05 AM
I strongly suspect its him because of :
1. His ties to Fernandez
2. His hyperactivity at Wiki
3. His insane desire to neutralize the holes in the Warren Report
4. His absolute amorality about employing any means necessary to do
so.
I found about this firsthand during my debate with him when he started
making stuff up. He did this so nonchalantly, without any qualms that
I actually had to look this stuff up to see if i was right. I did and
I was. That is how easily the guy can lie and fabricate.
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------
John Simkin
Posted Yesterday, 07:28 AM
When I first discovered the internet in early 1997 I realized that we
were about to experience a communication revolution. That in the
future, people would get their information from the web. The good
thing about this was that it would undermine traditional media that
was under the control of the multinational corporations.
I therefore decided to create a website that would provide an anti-
establishment view of the past. At the time, very few people were
doing this and virtually every time I created a page it went to number
one in the search-engines. This situation was reinforced by the
arrival of Google, a search-engine that placed the emphasis on the
number of links you received from other websites. In fact, when Google
first started it paid me to link to their site.
However, the arrival of Wikipedia, knocked me off the top spot. (I am
still number two when you type in “Lee Harvey Oswald”). The main
problem is that a large percentage of people believe the Wikipedia
myth that it is possible to create “objective” history. They are not
aware of the struggle that goes on behind the scenes at Wikipedia.
We have now reached the stage in history where if we want to know
anything we type it into a Google search-box. It is almost certain
that Wikipedia will be at number one. I would like to think that
people will also look at other websites but I fear that they only opt
to look at Wikipedia’s “objective” account of the subject.
Wikipedia is a major problem. However, sometimes you can have success.
For example, the original entry for “Operation Mockingbird” said it
was an urban myth. I rewrote it but it was immediately removed. When I
complained they said that I had not added references to my article. I
did that and it was accepted as being an academic article. This page
is now one at Google whereas my Spartacus page on the subject is at
number 3. However, I am not complaining as I have been able to get my
version of the subject into the public domain.
The real problem with the Google system of search-rankings (all the
other search-engines now use the Google model) is that its emphasis on
links provides a terrible disadvantage to new websites. For example,
if you create a new page on Lee Harvey Oswald, it does not matter how
good it is, it will not appear on the first couple of search pages and
will not be read unless it is linked via something like this forum.
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------
Jim DiEugenio
Posted Yesterday, 10:23 AM
What you say about the battle behind the scenes at Wikipedia is really
interesting.
In JP Mroz' upcoming article, he takes us behind the scenes on that.
Really interesting how Fernandez regulates even the links at the Lee
Harvey Oswald entry.
He also explains how some of the admins there hide behind false names
and then lie about their academic credentials.
The Oswald entry is just terrible.
John, can you tell us something about McAdams and Wikipedia?
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------
John Simkin
Posted Today, 06:43 AM
I have no evidence if it is John McAdams who is controlling the JFK
assassination entries at Wikipedia. However, it is clearly someone who
is a McAdams supporter. You can tell this by the “External Links” that
appear on the relevant pages. What I do know is that the person in
charge of these pages are hostile to the Spartacus Educational
website. I have two emails from editors complaining that the person in
charge has deleted their passages and the links to my website that was
used as “Notes”. The same thing has happened to me and so I have given
up “correcting” Wikipedia mistakes. One of these editors, who
complained about this clear case of bias, was banned from “editing”
any page.
There have been claims that senior editing people at Wikipedia have
links to the CIA. See for example these articles from the BBC and
Reuters about CIA and FBI computers being involved in Wikipedia edits:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6947532.stm
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1642896020070816
This article on CIA influence at Wikipedia is well worth reading:
http://www.banned-in-america.net/wikipedia-us-govt-fraud.html
Operation Mockingbird, an attempt to control the world media, was
launched soon after the CIA was created in 1947. I suspect that its
codename has been changed but it must still be a major part of its
work. As search-engines and Wikipedia are the most important factors
in the way we obtain information today, the CIA will definitely be
playing a role in controlling this information. Of course, they
concentrate on current issues but of course they will do what they
need to do to protect their image concerning past events. The
assassination of JFK is one example of this.
It is also important that the CIA controls Google. In 2004, the
Director of Technology Assessment at In-Q-Tel, Rob Painter, moved from
his old job directly serving the CIA to become 'Senior Federal
Manager' at Google. As Robert Steele, a former CIA case officer has
put it: Google is "in bed with" the the CIA.
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------
Dave
John McAdams
>On Jul 8, 9:04=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 8 Jul 2010 23:46:02 -0400, Bill Kelly <billkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Infiltrate? You mean there was all sorts of sinister and secret stuff
>> going on?
>>
>> It's your buff buddies who had no compunctions about harassing me, and
>> I wasn't going to bother with dealing with harassment at COPA.
>>
>> If your buff buddies were decent people, no pseudonym would have been
>> necessary.
>>
>> But in fact, they are nasty and mean spirited.
>>
>> And your accusatory tone here looks uncomfortably like them.
>>
>> .John
>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>John,
>
>You should have introduced yourself to me and we could have had a beer
>and bonded.
>
I only introduced myself to people I knew to be decent people: Steve
Bochan, Barb Junkkarinen, Tony (who didn't have such a bug up his ass
then) and Deborah Conway.
>Instead, you use a fake name to enter the conference because you were
>afraid you would be hassled by mean spirited CTs?
>
Exactly.
>Almost all of COPA are lawyers, doctors, academics and students -
>mainly decent people as far as I know. John Judge is very good at
>keeping most of the kooks and troublemakers out, as well as CT's like
>Fetzer, Judyth, Gus Russo, and the Mafia did it crowd, though Russo
>was at early meetings before he started having lunch with CIA
>officers. Max Holland has addressed a DC conference co-sponsored by
>COPA, and Ken Rahn was at one too, and I don't think either were
>subjected to any ridicule
>
Unfortunately, Toodd Wayne Vaughan had a rather nasty experience with
Wecht at a conference.
And a fellow named Eric Chomko was regularly sending me e-mails every
Monday harassing me. That stopped when I reported him to the folks at
the University of Maryland.
And then there was Aguilar, the nastiest person on the face of the
earth calling people around Marquette and harassing them.
So you sound naive about this.
>What pissed me off about you is the fact that the Washington Post
>actually sent a reporter over to cover the conference and you were one
>of the only participants (I won't call you a COPA member) to be
>interviewed in the article that appeared the next day.
>
>I'm sure that was just a coincidence, and not an example of
>MOCKINGBIRD in action, but picking you out of the entire crowd was not
>a true representation of COPA.
>
It was the CITY PAPER.
But do you see why you sound a crackpot? You don't believe that a
reporter, who thought the assembly was a bunch of crackpots, would
interview me and then quote me?
You see some sinister CIA conspiracy behind everything in the world
that doesn't suit you perfectly.
>So if it sound sinster or accusitory, so be it, that's the main
>problem I have with you.
The main problem I have with you is that you sound like a crackpot,
seeing spooks behind every bush and under every bed.
You have hung out with buffs too long. You don't know how bizarre
that sounds to normal folks.
John McAdams
Do you accept any of that stuff from Prouty, Bill?
Anthony Marsh
Not bloody likely. I did meet him at a COPA conference.
> Instead, you use a fake name to enter the conference because you were
> afraid you would be hassled by mean spirited CTs?
>
Lisa Pease.
> Almost all of COPA are lawyers, doctors, academics and students -
> mainly decent people as far as I know. John Judge is very good at
> keeping most of the kooks and troublemakers out, as well as CT's like
> Fetzer, Judyth, Gus Russo, and the Mafia did it crowd, though Russo
> was at early meetings before he started having lunch with CIA
> officers. Max Holland has addressed a DC conference co-sponsored by
> COPA, and Ken Rahn was at one too, and I don't think either were
> subjected to any ridicule
During one COPA conference Gus Russo was having lunch with a bunch of
retired CIA officers planning ways to disrupt the JFK research.
>
> What pissed me off about you is the fact that the Washington Post
> actually sent a reporter over to cover the conference and you were one
> of the only participants (I won't call you a COPA member) to be
> interviewed in the article that appeared the next day.
>
> I'm sure that was just a coincidence, and not an example of
> MOCKINGBIRD in action, but picking you out of the entire crowd was not
> a true representation of COPA.
>
It wasn't intended to represent COPA. It was their attempt to be "fair
and balanced" like FOX News.
> So if it sound sinster or accusitory, so be it, that's the main
> problem I have with you. Otherwise you seem like a decent enough guy
> who judges people pretty quick as to whether they're your stripe of
> leftist, CT, decent person or whatever other categories you like to
> put people in.
>
So, you don't mind his Red baiting?
> What was the name you used anyway, and how did you come to chose it?
>
Paul Nolan.
> Does it rhime with Fidel?
>
Do you remember what Ned Dolan's alias was before I outed him?
> Bill Kelly
>
Bill Kelly
> On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 23:04:12 -0500, John McAdams
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, I don't accept all of the stuff from Prouty, but he was a Col. in
the Air Force and liason to the CIA and had an office at the Pentagon
and worked under General Krulak, who I had never heard of until Prouty
mentioned him. Prouty was a major player, not a pawn like Oswald.
Do I accept all that stuff from LeMay?
No, but I read what I can of him and what he has to say - and try to
understand where he's coming from because he's a major player, but I
don't accept it all.
BK
Bud
> On 9 Jul 2010 08:50:08 -0400, Bill Kelly <billkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 8, 9:04=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >> On 8 Jul 2010 23:46:02 -0400, Bill Kelly <billkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Infiltrate? You mean there was all sorts of sinister and secret stuff
> >> going on?
>
> >> It's your buff buddies who had no compunctions about harassing me, and
> >> I wasn't going to bother with dealing with harassment at COPA.
>
> >> If your buff buddies were decent people, no pseudonym would have been
> >> necessary.
>
> >> But in fact, they are nasty and mean spirited.
>
> >> And your accusatory tone here looks uncomfortably like them.
>
> >> .John
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >John,
>
> >You should have introduced yourself to me and we could have had a beer
> >and bonded.
> I only introduced myself to people I knew to be decent people: Steve
> Bochan, Barb Junkkarinen, Tony (who didn't have such a bug up his ass
> then) and Deborah Conway.
>
> >Instead, you use a fake name to enter the conference because you were
> >afraid you would be hassled by mean spirited CTs?
>
> Exactly.
My guess is not entirely. I think I would want to be a fly on the
wall, observing the opposition anonymously.
Once you are "made" they will demand answers to their pet ideas, like
"When did Oswald first decide to assassinate Kennedy, .John?"
> >Almost all of COPA are lawyers, doctors, academics and students -
> >mainly decent people as far as I know. John Judge is very good at
> >keeping most of the kooks and troublemakers out, as well as CT's like
> >Fetzer, Judyth, Gus Russo, and the Mafia did it crowd, though Russo
> >was at early meetings before he started having lunch with CIA
> >officers. Max Holland has addressed a DC conference co-sponsored by
> >COPA, and Ken Rahn was at one too, and I don't think either were
> >subjected to any ridicule
>
> Unfortunately, Toodd Wayne Vaughan had a rather nasty experience with
> Wecht at a conference.
>
> And a fellow named Eric Chomko was regularly sending me e-mails every
> Monday harassing me. That stopped when I reported him to the folks at
> the University of Maryland.
>
> And then there was Aguilar, the nastiest person on the face of the
> earth calling people around Marquette and harassing them.
>
> So you sound naive about this.
>
> >What pissed me off about you is the fact that the Washington Post
> >actually sent a reporter over to cover the conference and you were one
> >of the only participants (I won't call you a COPA member) to be
> >interviewed in the article that appeared the next day.
>
> >I'm sure that was just a coincidence, and not an example of
> >MOCKINGBIRD in action, but picking you out of the entire crowd was not
> >a true representation of COPA.
>
> It was the CITY PAPER.
They`re EVERYWHERE!
> But do you see why you sound a crackpot? You don't believe that a
> reporter, who thought the assembly was a bunch of crackpots, would
> interview me and then quote me?
You were probably both on the perimeter, observing the CTer it`s natural
environment. I do the same thing at the monkey cage at the zoo, just out
of range of the shit they are throwing.
> You see some sinister CIA conspiracy behind everything in the world
> that doesn't suit you perfectly.
>
> >So if it sound sinster or accusitory, so be it, that's the main
> >problem I have with you.
>
> The main problem I have with you is that you sound like a crackpot,
> seeing spooks behind every bush and under every bed.
>
> You have hung out with buffs too long.
I think he wandered here because The Education Forum was down for a
while. Very little real thinking goes on in that place, and dissenters and
naysayers are thrown out on the weakest of premises.
Bill Kelly
> On Jul 9, 3:40 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9 Jul 2010 08:50:08 -0400, Bill Kelly <billkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Jul 8, 9:04=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> > >> On 8 Jul 2010 23:46:02 -0400, Bill Kelly <billkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Infiltrate? You mean there was all sorts of sinister and secret stuff
> > >> going on?
>
> > >> It's your buff buddies who had no compunctions about harassing me, and
> > >> I wasn't going to bother with dealing with harassment at COPA.
>
> > >> If your buff buddies were decent people, no pseudonym would have been
> > >> necessary.
>
> > >> But in fact, they are nasty and mean spirited.
>
> > >> And your accusatory tone here looks uncomfortably like them.
>
> > >> .John
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John, Do you have a copy of the DC City Paper on the COPA conference
in which you are featured? Could you post it?
Thanks,
Bill Kelly
Bill Kelly
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9 Jul 2010 08:50:08 -0400, Bill Kelly <billkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Jul 8, 9:04=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> > >> On 8 Jul 2010 23:46:02 -0400, Bill Kelly <billkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Infiltrate? You mean there was all sorts of sinister and secret stuff
> > >> going on?
>
> > >> It's your buff buddies who had no compunctions about harassing me, and
> > >> I wasn't going to bother with dealing with harassment at COPA.
>
> > >> If your buff buddies were decent people, no pseudonym would have been
> > >> necessary.
>
> > >> But in fact, they are nasty and mean spirited.
>
> > >> And your accusatory tone here looks uncomfortably like them.
>
> > >> .John
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > >John,
>
> > >You should have introduced yourself to me and we could have had a beer
> > >and bonded.
> > I only introduced myself to people I knew to be decent people: Steve
> > Bochan, Barb Junkkarinen, Tony (who didn't have such a bug up his ass
> > then) and Deborah Conway.
>
> > >Instead, you use a fake name to enter the conference because you were
> > >afraid you would be hassled by mean spirited CTs?
>
> > Exactly.
>
> My guess is not entirely. I think I would want to be a fly on the
> wall, observing the opposition anonymously.
>
> Once you are "made" they will demand answers to their pet ideas, like
> "When did Oswald first decide to assassinate Kennedy, .John?"
>
AS TO WHEN THEY THINK OSWALD DECIDED TO KILL JFK.
>
>
>
> > >Almost all of COPA are lawyers, doctors, academics and students -
> > >mainly decent people as far as I know. John Judge is very good at
> > >keeping most of the kooks and troublemakers out, as well as CT's like
> > >Fetzer, Judyth, Gus Russo, and the Mafia did it crowd, though Russo
> > >was at early meetings before he started having lunch with CIA
> > >officers. Max Holland has addressed a DC conference co-sponsored by
> > >COPA, and Ken Rahn was at one too, and I don't think either were
> > >subjected to any ridicule
>
> > Unfortunately, Toodd Wayne Vaughan had a rather nasty experience with
> > Wecht at a conference.
BK: AND DR. WECHT DOES HAVE A NASTY TEMPER, WHICH CAME OUT WHEN HE
CALLED OUT GUS RUSSO, AND WE HAVEN'T SEE GUS SINCE. I GET ALONG OKAY
WITH TWV, WHO POSTS ON OCCASSION AT ED FORUM AND IS TREATED WITH
DIGNITY BECAUSE OF THE WAY HE TREATS PEOPLE. TODD ONCE SHARED A TRAIN
RIDE WITH ME AFTER A DALLAS CONFERENCE AND OBTAINED SOME RECORDS FOR
ME FROM THE FORD LIBRARY, AND WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM EVEN THOUGH HE
'S PALS WITH SOME RADICAL LONE NUTTERS.
>
> > And a fellow named Eric Chomko was regularly sending me e-mails every
> > Monday harassing me. That stopped when I reported him to the folks at
> > the University of Maryland.
BK: NEVER HEARD OF ERIC CHOMKO BUT STARTED A FILE ON HIM AND WILL
CHECK HIM OUT. HE SOUNDS LIKE ONE OF THE DERELICKS WHO SPIT ON PEOPLE
AT THE GRASSY KNOLL AND CALL THEMSELVES CONSPIRACY THEORISTS.
>
> > And then there was Aguilar, the nastiest person on the face of the
> > earth calling people around Marquette and harassing them.
BK: I KNOW GARY AGUILAR, AND ALWAYS FOUND HIM STIMULATING. ALTHOUGH I
DON'T THINK HE SHOULD HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO FETZER'S ANTHOLOGY, HE DID
ME A FAVOR BY VOTING NOT TO DISBAND COPA WHEN THAT WAS A SERIOUS
POSSIBILTIY. I THINK HE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE AND I
TRUST HIM AND WECHT ON THOSE ISSUES.
>
> > So you sound naive about this.
BK: COME TO THINK ABOUT IT, I AM NAIVE ABOUT THIS, AND NOW UNDERSTAND
WHY YOU HAD TO USE AN ALIAS TO ATTEND A CONFERNCE OF OTHERS INTERESTED
IN POLITICAL ASSASSINATIONS, BECAUSE YOU DESERVE TO BE ABUSED.
>
> > >What pissed me off about you is the fact that the Washington Post
> > >actually sent a reporter over to cover the conference and you were one
> > >of the only participants (I won't call you a COPA member) to be
> > >interviewed in the article that appeared the next day.
>
> > >I'm sure that was just a coincidence, and not an example of
> > >MOCKINGBIRD in action, but picking you out of the entire crowd was not
> > >a true representation of COPA.
>
> > It was the CITY PAPER.
>
> They`re EVERYWHERE!
>
> > But do you see why you sound a crackpot? You don't believe that a
> > reporter, who thought the assembly was a bunch of crackpots, would
> > interview me and then quote me?
>
BK: WELL A REAL REPORTER WHO WOULD WANT TO KNOW ABOUT POLITICAL
ASSASSINATIONS WOULD ALSO KNOW THAT THOSE PEOPLE WHO STUDY THEM ARE
NOT A BUNCH A CRACKPOTS. 80% OF THE PEOPLE ARE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS,
AND NORMAL PEOPLE, AND YOU AND THE LONE NUTTERS ARE THE 20% FRINGE
LUNATICKS.
MEMBERS OF COPA ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF SOCIETY AS A WHOLE - SOME ARE
RIGHT WINGERS, SOME LEFT, SOME CONSERVATIVE, SOME LIBERAL, SOME GAY,
SOME IDIOTS, BUT ALL BELIVE THAT POLITICAL ASSASSINATIONS SHOULD NOT
HAVE A ROLE IN OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT.
> You were probably both on the perimeter, observing the CTer it`s natural
> environment. I do the same thing at the monkey cage at the zoo, just out
> of range of the shit they are throwing.
BK: WELL, NOW I'M HERE, THROWING YOUR SHIT BACK AT YOU.
> > You see some sinister CIA conspiracy behind everything in the world
> > that doesn't suit you perfectly
BK: I THINK THE CIA IS AS MUCH A SCAPEGOAT AND PATSY AS OSWALD, SO YOU
DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ME AND WHAT I THINK SUITS ME PERFECTLY.
>
> > >So if it sound sinster or accusitory, so be it, that's the main
> > >problem I have with you.
BK: YEA, WHAT HAPPENED AT DEALEY PLAZA WAS SINSTER, AND I ACCUSE YOU
OF TRYING TO INHIBIT THE REAL TRUTH BY SUPPORTING THE BOGUS OFFICIAL
COVER STORY OF WHAT HAPPENED THERE.
>
> > The main problem I have with you is that you sound like a crackpot,
> > seeing spooks behind every bush and under every bed.
BK: I DON'T SEE SPOOKS BEHIND EVERY BUSH AND UNDER EVER BED, I JUST
SEE THEM IN THE SIXTH FLOOR SNIPER'S NEST AND THE GRASSY KNOLL, AND
LIKE 80% OF THE PEOPLE WHO ALSO THINK ALONG SIMILAR LINES, IF YOU CALL
US CRACKPOTS, THEN YOU ARE THE ONE THROWING SHIT.
>
> > You have hung out with buffs too long.
BK: I HANG OUT WITH ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE AND GET ALONG WITH MOST ALL OF
THEM.
>
> I think he wandered here because The Education Forum was down for a
> while
BK: YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S CORRECT. I CAME OVER LAST WEEK WHEN THE
ED FORUM WAS HACKED AND DOWN FOR A FEW DAYS AND WAS SURPRISED TO FIND
MY NAME UP IN LIGHTS ON THE MARQUE - AS ABOUT A HALF DOZEN POSTS FROM
THE ED FORUM WERE TRANSPOSED HERE. WHY DON'T YOU JUST JOIN THE ED
FORUM AND STRAIGHTEN THOSE PEOPLE OUT? IT'S CALLED THE JFK
ASSASSINATION DEBATE, BUT NOBODY WANTS TO DEBATE ANYTHING BUT
PICTURES.
Very little real thinking goes on in that place, and dissenters and
> naysayers are thrown out on the weakest of premises.
BK; IN FACT, RATHER THAN DEBATE, MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ARE
ANSWERED THERE, AND IF YOU BOTHER TO STICK AROUND YOU WILL LEARN A
LOT.
>
> > You don't know how bizarre
> > that sounds to normal folks.
BK: YOU TALK ABOUT NORMAL FOLKS? LONE NUTTERS ARE 20% OF THE
POPULATION OF THE USA, AND THIS STAT HAS NOT CHANGED IN 20 YEARS AND
WON'T CHANGE, EVEN AFTER BUGLIOSI'S BOOK WAS PUBLISHED, AND EVEN AFTER
HIS BOOK IS MADE INTO A DRAMA MINI SERIES ON HBO, AS YOU CAN'T FOOL
MOST OF THE PEOPLE MOST OF THE TIME. JUST FACE IT, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO
USES ALIASES, THINKS OSWALD DECIDED TO KILL THE PERSIDENT AND
ENGINEERED THE DEALEY PLAZA OPERATION ALL BY HIS LONESOME.
MOST PEOPLE, MOST NORMAL PEOPLE, UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED IN DALLAS
EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T KNOW AS MUCH AS YOU DO, WHICH DOESN'T GIVE YOU
AN EXCUSE.
BK
>
> > .John
>
> > --
> > The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
> On Jul 10, 7:33 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 9, 3:40 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>
> > > On 9 Jul 2010 08:50:08 -0400, Bill Kelly <billkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >On Jul 8, 9:04=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> > > >> On 8 Jul 2010 23:46:02 -0400, Bill Kelly <billkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> Infiltrate? You mean there was all sorts of sinister and secret stuff
> > > >> going on?
>
> > > >> It's your buff buddies who had no compunctions about harassing me, and
> > > >> I wasn't going to bother with dealing with harassment at COPA.
>
> > > >> If your buff buddies were decent people, no pseudonym would have been
> > > >> necessary.
>
> > > >> But in fact, they are nasty and mean spirited.
>
> > > >> And your accusatory tone here looks uncomfortably like them.
>
> > > >> .John
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >John,
>
> > > >You should have introduced yourself to me and we could have had a beer
> > > >and bonded.
> > > I only introduced myself to people I knew to be decent people: Steve
> > > Bochan, Barb Junkkarinen, Tony (who didn't have such a bug up his ass
> > > then) and Deborah Conway.
>
> > > >Instead, you use a fake name to enter the conference because you were
> > > >afraid you would be hassled by mean spirited CTs?
>
> > > Exactly.
>
> > My guess is not entirely. I think I would want to be a fly on the
> > wall, observing the opposition anonymously.
>
> > Once you are "made" they will demand answers to their pet ideas, like
> > "When did Oswald first decide to assassinate Kennedy, .John?"
>
> BK: I'M NOT DEMANDING ANYTING. I'M JUST TAKING A POLL OF LONE NUTTERS
> AS TO WHEN THEY THINK OSWALD DECIDED TO KILL JFK.
Who said you, Bill? If I was talking about you specifically I would
have said "hounded".
> > > >Almost all of COPA are lawyers, doctors, academics and students -
> > > >mainly decent people as far as I know. John Judge is very good at
> > > >keeping most of the kooks and troublemakers out, as well as CT's like
> > > >Fetzer, Judyth, Gus Russo, and the Mafia did it crowd, though Russo
> > > >was at early meetings before he started having lunch with CIA
> > > >officers. Max Holland has addressed a DC conference co-sponsored by
> > > >COPA, and Ken Rahn was at one too, and I don't think either were
> > > >subjected to any ridicule
>
> > > Unfortunately, Toodd Wayne Vaughan had a rather nasty experience with
> > > Wecht at a conference.
>
> BK: AND DR. WECHT DOES HAVE A NASTY TEMPER, WHICH CAME OUT WHEN HE
> CALLED OUT GUS RUSSO, AND WE HAVEN'T SEE GUS SINCE. I GET ALONG OKAY
> WITH TWV, WHO POSTS ON OCCASSION AT ED FORUM AND IS TREATED WITH
> DIGNITY BECAUSE OF THE WAY HE TREATS PEOPLE. TODD ONCE SHARED A TRAIN
> RIDE WITH ME AFTER A DALLAS CONFERENCE AND OBTAINED SOME RECORDS FOR
> ME FROM THE FORD LIBRARY, AND WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM EVEN THOUGH HE
> 'S PALS WITH SOME RADICAL LONE NUTTERS.
Is it standard form in the Education Forum to respond to multiple
people in one response?
> > > And a fellow named Eric Chomko was regularly sending me e-mails every
> > > Monday harassing me. That stopped when I reported him to the folks at
> > > the University of Maryland.
>
> BK: NEVER HEARD OF ERIC CHOMKO BUT STARTED A FILE ON HIM AND WILL
> CHECK HIM OUT. HE SOUNDS LIKE ONE OF THE DERELICKS WHO SPIT ON PEOPLE
> AT THE GRASSY KNOLL AND CALL THEMSELVES CONSPIRACY THEORISTS.
You got all this by the way his name is spelled, did you?
> > > And then there was Aguilar, the nastiest person on the face of the
> > > earth calling people around Marquette and harassing them.
>
> BK: I KNOW GARY AGUILAR, AND ALWAYS FOUND HIM STIMULATING.
Don`t ask, don`t tell.
> ALTHOUGH I
> DON'T THINK HE SHOULD HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO FETZER'S ANTHOLOGY, HE DID
> ME A FAVOR BY VOTING NOT TO DISBAND COPA WHEN THAT WAS A SERIOUS
> POSSIBILTIY. I THINK HE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE AND I
> TRUST HIM AND WECHT ON THOSE ISSUES.
>
>
>
> > > So you sound naive about this.
>
> BK: COME TO THINK ABOUT IT, I AM NAIVE ABOUT THIS, AND NOW UNDERSTAND
> WHY YOU HAD TO USE AN ALIAS TO ATTEND A CONFERNCE OF OTHERS INTERESTED
> IN POLITICAL ASSASSINATIONS, BECAUSE YOU DESERVE TO BE ABUSED.
This is why leftists should be prevented from attaining power, they
often think they are smart enough to decide who should be abused.
> > > >What pissed me off about you is the fact that the Washington Post
> > > >actually sent a reporter over to cover the conference and you were one
> > > >of the only participants (I won't call you a COPA member) to be
> > > >interviewed in the article that appeared the next day.
>
> > > >I'm sure that was just a coincidence, and not an example of
> > > >MOCKINGBIRD in action, but picking you out of the entire crowd was not
> > > >a true representation of COPA.
>
> > > It was the CITY PAPER.
>
> > They`re EVERYWHERE!
>
> > > But do you see why you sound a crackpot? You don't believe that a
> > > reporter, who thought the assembly was a bunch of crackpots, would
> > > interview me and then quote me?
>
> BK: WELL A REAL REPORTER WHO WOULD WANT TO KNOW ABOUT POLITICAL
> ASSASSINATIONS WOULD ALSO KNOW THAT THOSE PEOPLE WHO STUDY THEM ARE
> NOT A BUNCH A CRACKPOTS. 80% OF THE PEOPLE ARE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS,
> AND NORMAL PEOPLE, AND YOU AND THE LONE NUTTERS ARE THE 20% FRINGE
> LUNATICKS.
Now he assumes to know that that the reporter shared his
misunderstanding of poll results.
> MEMBERS OF COPA ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF SOCIETY AS A WHOLE - SOME ARE
> RIGHT WINGERS, SOME LEFT, SOME CONSERVATIVE, SOME LIBERAL, SOME GAY,
> SOME IDIOTS, BUT ALL BELIVE THAT POLITICAL ASSASSINATIONS SHOULD NOT
> HAVE A ROLE IN OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT.
They even felt so strongly about it that they broadened that stance
to include imaginary assassinations.
> > You were probably both on the perimeter, observing the CTer it`s natural
> > environment. I do the same thing at the monkey cage at the zoo, just out
> > of range of the shit they are throwing.
>
> BK: WELL, NOW I'M HERE, THROWING YOUR SHIT BACK AT YOU.
Don`t holler, you`ll wake the baby.
> > > You see some sinister CIA conspiracy behind everything in the world
> > > that doesn't suit you perfectly
>
> BK: I THINK THE CIA IS AS MUCH A SCAPEGOAT AND PATSY AS OSWALD, SO YOU
> DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ME AND WHAT I THINK SUITS ME PERFECTLY.
>
>
>
> > > >So if it sound sinster or accusitory, so be it, that's the main
> > > >problem I have with you.
>
> BK: YEA, WHAT HAPPENED AT DEALEY PLAZA WAS SINSTER, AND I ACCUSE YOU
> OF TRYING TO INHIBIT THE REAL TRUTH BY SUPPORTING THE BOGUS OFFICIAL
> COVER STORY OF WHAT HAPPENED THERE.
<snicker> Yah, he inhibits it by running a newsgroup where people can
write their ideas about what occurred, even silly ideas like he has the
ability to inhibit the real truth.
> > > The main problem I have with you is that you sound like a crackpot,
> > > seeing spooks behind every bush and under every bed.
>
> BK: I DON'T SEE SPOOKS BEHIND EVERY BUSH AND UNDER EVER BED, I JUST
> SEE THEM IN THE SIXTH FLOOR SNIPER'S NEST AND THE GRASSY KNOLL, AND
> LIKE 80% OF THE PEOPLE WHO ALSO THINK ALONG SIMILAR LINES, IF YOU CALL
> US CRACKPOTS, THEN YOU ARE THE ONE THROWING SHIT.
When it comes to shit slinging, it`s definitely better to be the
thrower than the catcher.
> > > You have hung out with buffs too long.
>
> BK: I HANG OUT WITH ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE AND GET ALONG WITH MOST ALL OF
> THEM.
Can they stand you? [Your honor, he opened the door on this line of
questioning]
> > I think he wandered here because The Education Forum was down for a
> > while
>
> BK: YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S CORRECT. I CAME OVER LAST WEEK WHEN THE
> ED FORUM WAS HACKED AND DOWN FOR A FEW DAYS
Some heroin addicts will turn to crack if they can`t get smack. Or
so David Healy tells me.
> AND WAS SURPRISED TO FIND
> MY NAME UP IN LIGHTS ON THE MARQUE - AS ABOUT A HALF DOZEN POSTS FROM
> THE ED FORUM WERE TRANSPOSED HERE. WHY DON'T YOU JUST JOIN THE ED
> FORUM AND STRAIGHTEN THOSE PEOPLE OUT?
You assume I care that they are crooked.
> IT'S CALLED THE JFK
> ASSASSINATION DEBATE, BUT NOBODY WANTS TO DEBATE ANYTHING BUT
> PICTURES.
>
> Very little real thinking goes on in that place, and dissenters and
>
> > naysayers are thrown out on the weakest of premises.
>
> BK; IN FACT, RATHER THAN DEBATE, MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ARE
> ANSWERED THERE, AND IF YOU BOTHER TO STICK AROUND YOU WILL LEARN A
> LOT.
What happens when a bunch of deluded people who desperately want to
believe something get together?
> > > You don't know how bizarre
> > > that sounds to normal folks.
>
> BK: YOU TALK ABOUT NORMAL FOLKS? LONE NUTTERS ARE 20% OF THE
> POPULATION OF THE USA, AND THIS STAT HAS NOT CHANGED IN 20 YEARS AND
> WON'T CHANGE,
Lets see you back up this claim up with polls.
> EVEN AFTER BUGLIOSI'S BOOK WAS PUBLISHED, AND EVEN AFTER
> HIS BOOK IS MADE INTO A DRAMA MINI SERIES ON HBO, AS YOU CAN'T FOOL
> MOST OF THE PEOPLE MOST OF THE TIME. JUST FACE IT, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO
> USES ALIASES, THINKS OSWALD DECIDED TO KILL THE PERSIDENT AND
> ENGINEERED THE DEALEY PLAZA OPERATION ALL BY HIS LONESOME.
And out the the two of you, he is the one who is right.
> MOST PEOPLE, MOST NORMAL PEOPLE, UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED IN DALLAS
> EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T KNOW AS MUCH AS YOU DO, WHICH DOESN'T GIVE YOU
> AN EXCUSE.
Most people don`t have a clue what happened in Dallas. Thanks to
HBO, they might.
> BK
>
>
>
>
>
> > > .John
>
> > > --
> > > The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm-Hide quoted text -
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Jul 10, 7:33 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
No, at least not that I know where to find. I vaguely remember
somebody sending it to me.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bill Kelly
> On 11 Jul 2010 08:53:09 -0400, Bill Kelly <billkel...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jul 10, 7:33 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> On Jul 9, 3:40 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>
> >John, Do you have a copy of the DC City Paper on the COPA conference
> >in which you are featured? Could you post it?
>
> No, at least not that I know where to find. I vaguely remember
> somebody sending it to me.
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Thanks John,
I'll see if I can dig one up from the COPA archives. In retrospect it
might be good for a hoot.
So there really is a reason why people choose certain fake names.
And John, thanks for having a usefull website, especially witness
testimony, and whenever I use it I try to give you a tip of the hat
and credit as the source.
I guess I'll have to read your book, but like Bugliosi, and a few
others, what's irritating the most is that, like Conservative Op Ed
Columnists who can't write a paragraph without first bashing liberals,
you can't write about the simple truth of the assassination without
first presenting some bogus conspiracy theory. Proving assassine
conspiracy theories wrong is not the way to solve a homicide.
And if, as you say, it is already solved, then you should be able to
answer a few of the outstanding questions, like when the Lone Nut
decided to kill the president.
I will get the public opinion poll and its source, and will take
wagers on whether or not the HBO special puts a dent in that poll at
all. I say no.
BK
Bill Kelly
Okay John, You asked for it.
How can Conspiracy Theorists all be Kooks if public opinion polls
consistantly show that 70-80% of the citizens of the United States
don't believe Oswald did it alone? That means Lone Nutters are and
always have been only 20% of the people, so who are the kooks?
Here's four polls, the last one, the Pew poll, is the most important
because they started taking it in 1964 shortly after the
assassination, and it is the trust in government issue that has been
driving Congress to release assassination records.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16209
http://jfkcountercoup.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/confidence-in-government/
BK
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Jul 12, 6:21=A0am, Bill Kelly <billkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 11, 7:33=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thanks John,
>>
>> I'll see if I can dig one up from the COPA archives. In retrospect it
>> might be good for a hoot.
>>
>> So there really is a reason why people choose certain fake names.
>>
>> And John, thanks for having a usefull website, especially witness
>> testimony, and whenever I use it I try to give you a tip of the hat
>> and credit as the source.
>>
>> I guess I'll have to read your book, but like Bugliosi, and a few
>> others, what's irritating the most is that, like Conservative Op Ed
>> Columnists who can't write a paragraph without first bashing liberals,
>> you can't write about the simple truth of the assassination without
>> first presenting some bogus conspiracy theory. Proving assassine
>> conspiracy theories wrong is not the way to solve a homicide.
>>
>> And if, as you say, it is already solved, then you should be able to
>> answer a few of the outstanding questions, like when the Lone Nut
>> decided to kill the president.
>>
>> I will get the public opinion poll and its source, and will take
>> wagers on whether or not the HBO special puts a dent in that poll at
>> all. I say no.
>>
>> BK
>
>Okay John, You asked for it.
>
Huh?
I didn't ask for anything.
>How can Conspiracy Theorists all be Kooks if public opinion polls
>consistantly show that 70-80% of the citizens of the United States
>don't believe Oswald did it alone? That means Lone Nutters are and
>always have been only 20% of the people, so who are the kooks?
>
I didn't say *all* were kooks.
But to a mainstream journalist going to a conspiracy convention, the
whole proceedings and most of the people there seem kooky.
>Here's four polls, the last one, the Pew poll, is the most important
>because they started taking it in 1964 shortly after the
>assassination, and it is the trust in government issue that has been
>driving Congress to release assassination records.
>
>http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3D16209
>
>http://jfkcountercoup.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/confidence-in-government/
>
I've known about these polls essentially forever.
You need to understand that the vast majority of people who believe in
a conspiracy know and care little about the assassination. They have
just read a conspiracy book or two or seen "The Men Who Killed
Kennedy."
Or they simply pride themselves on being "sophisticated" and not
believing what the government tells them.
Hard core buffs are a different matter.
BTW, the "trust in government" variable has way more to do with things
other than the JFK assassination (Vietnam, race riots in the 60s,
apparent government incompetence).
.John
Grizzlie Antagonist
wrote:
>On Jul 12, 6:21 am, Bill Kelly <billkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
The conspiracy theorists, beyond all doubt. The kooks took over the
asylum a long time ago.
>Here's four polls, the last one, the Pew poll, is the most important
>because they started taking it in 1964 shortly after the
>assassination, and it is the trust in government issue that has been
>driving Congress to release assassination records.
>
>http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16209
>
>http://jfkcountercoup.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/confidence-in-government/
>
>BK
Your reliance on majority opinion is misplaced.
First of all, the people are a great beast. It doesn't matter what they
believe. The earth revolved around the sun long before the majority of
the populace was willing to accept that fact.
There is only one objective truth regarding issues that are entirely
matters of fact. That objective truth exists regardless of what a
majority believes.
Second of all, conspiracy theorism is "easy". It's the couch potato's way
out of his dilemna. Why take responsibility for one's life if everything
is run by an invisible conspiracy anyway? You might as well just remain
on your couch and click to a rerun of "Baywatch". There's your majority
opinion for you.
Third of all, the hard-core conspiracy theorist's hope that universal
realization of a MIC conspiracy will bring about some sort of left-wing
autocracy is also pointless.
The left-wing autocracy has been around for a number of years. In one way
or another, it's been around at least since Woodrow Wilson's presidency.
lIt might have crested in November 2008, but who knows? It might still be
cresting.
The left-wing autocracy that runs western democracies isn't a secret
conspiracy; it's an open conformity of media, academic, and popular
culture that shapes public opinion.
Think about that, Bill Kelly. You're part of the ruling class that you
are posturing against.
All of the so-called evil reactionary institutions that supposedly run on
their own tracks (the military, intelligence agencies, etc.) and who are
supposed to have killed JFK and bombed the WTC, etc., are really just
adjuncts of that left-wing autocracy.
But what if the conspiracy theorist's dreams were fully realized? What if
a huge majority of the population really really really REALLY believed
with all of i's heart and soul that JFK's assassination (and every other
REALLY BAD THING that's ever happened) was the product of some
military-industrial complex conspiracy residing in Washington?
And what if they were REALLY REALLY aroused by that fact? What would
happen then?
Maybe not the leftist Renaissance that the conspiracy theorists hope for.
In "Suicide of the West" (John Day Company, 1964), James Burnham remarks,
"When the rural population becomes 'radical' in large numbers, it does not
turn typically to liberalism in the modern sense but to less polished,
wilder and more violent doctrines and programs: to cheap money panaceas,
rural anarchism, communism, vigilantism, racial and religious 'hate'
movements, and for that matter fascism."
He might have extended that analysis to the population at large and not
just the "rural" population.
The burgeoning of conspiracy theorism could lead, for example, to some
sort of renewal of Lyndon LaRouche and the U.S. Labor Party.
GV
wrote:
> On 17 Jul 2010 10:37:53 -0400, Bill Kelly <billkel...@gmail.com>
GA
Very interesting read and very well formulated.
I must say it has crossed my mind as to what all this energy spent on
the JFK assassination could have achieved, spent instead on, for
example, the intelligence community's role in society. Both in the US
and globally.
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16200&view=findpost&p=197565
Time to straighten out some of Jim DiEugenio's bullshit (yet again).
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID (ON THE EDUCATION FORUM):
>>> "DVP was promoting that Dale Myers goofiness [in July 2006, during my
4-day tenure at The Education Forum]. BTW, McAdams' forum is so bereft of
any ideas or new info that what they do is not just reattach posts from
here, they also post articles from CTKA, almost as soon as they go up. For
example, Reitzes just posted the Wikipedia article there. In the following
discussion, McAdams (who DVP said hardly ever posts there--what a liar)
tried to concentrate on the Tague hit. Saying that somehow it really was
not a bullet. LOL." <<<
DVP SAYS:
DiEugenio is the liar when it come to John McAdams' posting frequency. I
never once said that Professor McAdams "hardly ever posts" at the
alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup, which is the forum moderated (in large
part) by Mr. McAdams.
I have fully explained to DiEugenio in past posts (which I know he's seen,
he just doesn't seem to comprehend the fact that ACJ and AAJ are two
separate forums entirely) that McAdams hardly ever posts at the ACJ
newsgroup.
And my guess is that the only reason any of John's posts ever show up at
the now-nearly-deserted asylum known as alt.conspiracy.jfk is due to the
fact that John just simply doesn't want to take the time to delete the
group "alt.conspiracy.jfk" from the box marked "Newsgroups" when he's
sending a post that just happens to be cross-posted to both forums.
Therefore, that post will show up at both aaj and acj. But John probably
couldn't care less if it shows up at the acj asylum or not.
Below is an excerpt of what I said to DiEugenio in April of this year
concerning Mr. McAdams' posting habits at the newsgroups (and, btw,
contrary to what my quote says below, I later learned that DiEugenio does
seem to know that acj is unmoderated, but he still seems to believe it is
totally "controlled" by John McAdams, which always makes me smile broadly
when I hear Jimbo say such garbage):
"In addition to believing in some very curious things regarding
President Kennedy's assassination, Mr. DiEugenio is also of the false
impression that the alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup is a MODERATED group that
is completely controlled by Professor John McAdams. Jim, of course, has
his Usenet newsgroups mixed up, because alt.conspiracy.jfk is not a
moderated group at all; and, in fact, Mr. McAdams very rarely ever even
makes a post on that forum. It's at the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup
where McAdams serves as moderator. I find it quite funny that Jim
DiEugenio seems to think that I have to have all of my Internet posts
screened (and hence, approved) by Mr. McAdams. Hilarious." -- DVP; April
13, 2010
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a3ac48b4703ba1b1
DiEUGENIO SAID:
>>> "These guys, like I said elsewhere in speaking of Duncan M[acRae],
like to rearrange scenarios so often that you really don't know what their
case is. The WC, Posner, and VB have all said this Tague hit was generated
by a bullet. And those are the leading lights of the SBF [Jim's shorthand
for "Single Bullet Fantasy"] club. So what does McAdams do? (And he does
this every so often) He goes over to the WC critics' side and borrows
[Josiah] Thompson's idea about the Tague hit maybe being made by a
fragment from the head shot. This was always, I thought, one of the worst
parts of SSD ["Six Seconds In Dallas"]. The idea that a fragment would go
that far, and have the kinetic energy to displace a chunk of curbstone and
then in turn, the curbstone would have the torque to jump up in the air
and hit Tague in the face? Uh uh." <<<
DVP SAYS:
I could be wrong about this, but my guess is that John McAdams has likely
believed in the possibility of a head-shot fragment causing the slight
injury to James Tague's cheek for quite some time now. And it's also very
likely that Jim DiEugenio doesn't know what the hell he's babbling about
(yet again).
In any event, such a theory about Tague's injury resulting in a fragment
from the head shot is certainly NOT going over to "the WC critics' side"
at all. In fact, right there on Page 117 of the Warren Report itself, the
Warren Commission acknowledges the possibility of the Main St. curb damage
(and, hence, Tague's injury too) being a result of a stray bullet fragment
that exited JFK's head.
I wonder if DiEugenio has ever read Page 117 of the WCR. It's a great
page, because it's a page that destroys multiple conspiracy myths,
including the myth that still persists among many conspiracy theorists
about how the Warren Commission was hogtied to a 5.6-second timeframe for
the assassination, which is just simply not true at all, as Page 117 amply
illustrates:
WR; Page 117:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm
DiEUGENIO SAID:
>>> "But its actually worse than that. Because if you go with the Clark
Panel, just where did the chunk of bullet come from? The head and tail
were supposed to be in the car. The middle of the bullet was supposed to
be in JFK's skull. Where did one get the chunk to deflect that far, from
what is already, as I described elsewhere, this second magic bullet. (BTW,
this is why more sensible WC advocates, like John Canal, reject the Clark
Panel. They know its untenable.) But McAdams wants this second magic
bullet to be even more magical than it is already and pull of another
miracle. Just incredible. And this kind of crackpot reasoning passes
without notice at what I call the Pigpen." <<<
DVP SAYS:
DiEugenio, as usual, is nuts. And he's not following through on this
matter with any common sense at all -- unless Jimbo really wants to
believe that the unknown artifact that we see in one of JFK's autopsy
X-rays is really a metal fragment that weighs upwards of 100 grains!
We know that the two largest bullet fragments recovered from the front
seat of the Presidential limousine (CE567 and CE569) weighed a total of
only 65.6 grains (CE567 weighed 44.6 grains, and CE569 weighed 21.0
grains). [See Warren Commission testimony of Robert A. Frazier.]
And the other smaller fragments that are associated with also coming from
the head shot (CE840 and CE843) weighed very little altogether.
So, that leaves approximately 90 to 95 grains of the head-shot bullet
unaccounted for. And even if we are to believe that the "6.5- millimeter
object" on JFK's X-ray is really a bullet fragment (which I have serious
doubts about; I doubt it's a bullet fragment at all), unless that fragment
on the X-ray weighs nearly 100 grains itself, then there would still be
plenty of unaccounted-for bullet fragments from the head-shot bullet to
have caused the damage to the curb on Main Street and Tague's cheek
injury.
I personally don't think a head-shot fragment caused the curb damage or
Tague's nick on the cheek. I think it was probably Oswald's first bullet
fired (which missed the limousine entirely) that was the bullet that did
the damage to both Tague and the curb on Main Street.
But, to stress again, the idea of a head-shot fragment causing the Main
St./Tague damage is certainly not an idea that comes from only "WC
critics", as DiEugenio suggested above. And Page 117 of the Warren Report
proves my point quite well. Maybe Jim D. ought to read that page more
closely sometime. Perhaps it would dispel another myth or two if he did.
David Von Pein
July 18, 2010
Grizzlie Antagonist
Thank you, GV.
I have been thinking the same thing but slightly different.
Our system of justice is not perfect. It's not entirely clear what it
might be replaced with, but it's not perfect, if for no other reason than
the fact that it's administered by human beings.
If conspiracy theorists are motivated by a genuine passion for justice,
why spend time on THIS case? Yeah, it involves a former POTUS. But it's
half a century old, and everyone initially involved is either dead or very
old.
An individual motivated by a genuine passion for justice would certainly
never be an advocate for Lee Harvey Oswald.
He or she would be, for example, an advocate for the people living in the
here and now who were or who may have been wrongfully convicted and would
expend his or her energies on behalf of foundations such as the Innocence
Project.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
No. Members of the Lee Harvey Oswald Marching and Chowder Society don't
become so out of a genuine passion for justice. That's just the excuse,
not the motivation. They do so for reasons that are purely personal and
political.
Anthony Marsh
What about all the money that has been wasted by speculators and
profiteers such as the investors who paid millions of dollars for fake
Marilyn Monroe/JFK letters or the Zapruder family being given $16M by the
US government for the Zapruder film?
The HSCA ran out of money before they could double check the acoustical
evidence. BBN estimated that it would take $50,000 to produce a computer
simulation program to rerun the echo pattern matching that W&A did on the
grassy knoll shot to apply the same method to the three TSBD shots. The
DOJ refused to spend that $50,000. They said they didn't have the money.
Yet they had $6M to spend on a further cover-up.
Anthony Marsh
Your rant is intriguing, but you seem to have overlooked one minor factor.
There was no copper in the smear on the curb, so it was hit by a fragment
composed only of bullet lead core.
So it is unlikely that a third large fragment weighing 95.5 grains was
what hit the curb. More likely it was the lead core which was squeezed out
of the base of the bullet. We know the base fragment which weighed only
21.0 grains was only the hollow copper jacket. The whole bullet lead core
had been squeezed out. So let's see how well you know the bullet evidence
in this case. Tell us how much that piece of squeezed out lead core would
have weighed. And how fast it would have been going when it hit the curb.
> And the other smaller fragments that are associated with also coming from
> the head shot (CE840 and CE843) weighed very little altogether.
>
> So, that leaves approximately 90 to 95 grains of the head-shot bullet
> unaccounted for. And even if we are to believe that the "6.5- millimeter
> object" on JFK's X-ray is really a bullet fragment (which I have serious
> doubts about; I doubt it's a bullet fragment at all), unless that fragment
> on the X-ray weighs nearly 100 grains itself, then there would still be
> plenty of unaccounted-for bullet fragments from the head-shot bullet to
> have caused the damage to the curb on Main Street and Tague's cheek
> injury.
>
> I personally don't think a head-shot fragment caused the curb damage or
> Tague's nick on the cheek. I think it was probably Oswald's first bullet
> fired (which missed the limousine entirely) that was the bullet that did
> the damage to both Tague and the curb on Main Street.
>
Impossible. There was no copper in the smear on the curb.
A direct hit would have deposited copper, but no lead.
> But, to stress again, the idea of a head-shot fragment causing the Main
> St./Tague damage is certainly not an idea that comes from only "WC
> critics", as DiEugenio suggested above. And Page 117 of the Warren Report
> proves my point quite well. Maybe Jim D. ought to read that page more
> closely sometime. Perhaps it would dispel another myth or two if he did.
>
Maybe you ought to read the FBI reports.
David Von Pein
>>> "There was no copper in the smear on the curb, so it was hit by a
fragment composed only of bullet lead core." <<<
We have no idea how large of a fragment hit the Main St. curb. And we
can't know the chemical make-up of that fragment either.
Why couldn't a portion of the bullet (after striking the tree and
fragmenting) have hit the curb and just simply not left any copper trace
elements? Why is that totally impossible?
You seem to know for a fact that copper had to have been deposited on the
curb by a stray fragment.
But...why?
Given all of the "unknowns" and "unknowables" surrounding the shot that
missed, you're putting to much of a "IT HAD TO BE THIS WAY" stamp on
things, Tony.
GV
wrote:
This is one example of what I mean, fresh out of Washington Post today:
"The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist
attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so
secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it
employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do
the same work.
These are some of the findings of a two-year investigation by The
Washington Post that discovered what amounts to an alternative geography
of the United States, a Top Secret America hidden from public view and
lacking in thorough oversight. After nine years of unprecedented spending
and growth, the result is that the system put in place to keep the United
States safe is so massive that its effectiveness is impossible to
determine.
The investigation's other findings include:
* Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on
programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence
in about 10,000 locations across the United States.
* An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in
Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.
* In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for
top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built
since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three
Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings - about 17 million square feet of
space."
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-wor
ld-growing-beyond-control/
This seems to be something that has more or less spun out of control, if
I'd been an American citizen this would certainly be of concern. In fact
it is, even though I'm a Swedish citizen. Moreover, even if there was a
conspiracy that killed JFK, which is doubtful in my view, the above most
likely carry the potential to affect peoples lives much more than the JFK
assassination ever could, 1963 or 2010.
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "There was no copper in the smear on the curb, so it was hit by a
> fragment composed only of bullet lead core."<<<
>
> We have no idea how large of a fragment hit the Main St. curb. And we
> can't know the chemical make-up of that fragment either.
>
You mean YOU have no idea of anything. And you can't answer my question,
because you don't know what the Hell you are talking about. But you love
to guess at things. We DO know the chemical make-up of whatever hit the
curb and left that smear. Lead with traces of antimony. No copper.
Maybe you never read Shaneyfelt's exhibit which contained Hoover's letter
of August 12, 1964 to Rankin. Obviously you never read it in Six Seconds
in Dallas because you refuse to read conspiracy books. And obviously you
never read the original letter. Here is the pertinent portion of Hoover's
letter:
The piece of curbing containing the mark was removed on August 5, 1964,
and examined in the FBI Laboratory. This curbing has been designated as
Item C321 by the Laboratory. Small foreign metal smears were found
adhering to the curbing section within the area of the mark. These metal
smears were spectrographically determined to be essentially lead with a
trace of antimony. No copper was found. The lead could have originated
from the lead core of a mutilated metal- jacketed bullet such as the type
of bullet loaded into 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano cartridges or from
some other source having the same composition.
The absence of copper precludes the possibility that the mark on the
curbing section was made by an unmutilated military-type full
metal-jacketed bullet such as the bullet from Governor Connally's
stretcher, CI, or the bullet or bullets represented by the jacket
fragments, C2 and C3, found in the Presidential limousine. Further, the
damage to the curbing would have been much more extensive if a rifle
bullet had struck the curbing without first having struck some other
object. Therefore, this mark could not have been made by the first impact
of a high velocity rifle bullet.
It was also determined from a microscopic study that the lead object that
struck the curbing causing the mark was moving in a general direction away
from the Texas School Book Depository Building.
> Why couldn't a portion of the bullet (after striking the tree and
> fragmenting) have hit the curb and just simply not left any copper trace
> elements? Why is that totally impossible?
>
Because the jacket wraps the whole bullet except for the base. And even
then the base is partially covered by copper.
> You seem to know for a fact that copper had to have been deposited on the
> curb by a stray fragment.
>
No, not what I said. I said not a direct hit with an intact bullet and not
a hit by the middle section of the bullet with an intact jacket. Only lead
core. So, how much would the lead core have weighed after being squeezed
out of the base?
> But...why?
>
> Given all of the "unknowns" and "unknowables" surrounding the shot that
> missed, you're putting to much of a "IT HAD TO BE THIS WAY" stamp on
> things, Tony.
>
Simple facts. Lead with antimony. No copper.
David Von Pein
>>> "Simple facts. Lead with antimony. No copper." <<<
So what?
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "Simple facts. Lead with antimony. No copper."<<<
>
> So what?
>
So it disproves your wacky idea.
And you didn't know the evidence.
David Von Pein
Just because there was no copper found on the curb doesn't mean there
was positively no copper in every single portion of the fragment that
struck the curb.
You should have been able to figure that out, Anthony.
Anthony Marsh
Why don't you explain to everyone how that would work. A spinning bullet
or fragment wholely covered by a copper jacket and yet no copper is found
in the smear. Or maybe you're calling Hoover a liar.
David Von Pein
>>> "Why don't you explain to everyone how that would work. A spinning
My theory doesn't necessarily have the bullet fragment that hit Main St.
being "wholly covered by a copper jacket".
Oswald's first bullet hit the tree and fragmented in a wholly unknown
fashion, with a portion of that fragmented bullet then hitting the Main
St. curb, while another portion of that bullet hit Elm St., causing sparks
to fly behind JFK's limousine, accounting for the sparks being seen by
Mrs. Baker, et al.
Now, tell me how that theory is totally out of the realm of possibility,
Tony.
Anthony Marsh
Did you steal that theory from Posner? In the first place a FMJ M-C can
not go through a tree and have only and all of its jacket ripped off
leaving only the lead core to go on to hit the curb. If you think it is
possible do your own shooting tests to duplicate and find the original
pieces of the bullet's copper jacket stuck in the oak tree.
Bud
In other words, you have nothing to offer against the idea that DVP
suggested.
Anthony Marsh
I just did and I did so at the time with Posner. You WC defenders need
to come up with kooky theories and Magic Bullets and now Magic Twigs to
try to explain away the evidence of conspiracy. His idea, which he stole
from Posner, is physically impossible. The WCC copper jacket is
unusually thick and you can't just peel it off the lead core. What you
can do is SQUEEZE the lead core out of the base jacket portion and we
already have one fragment found which indicates that is exactly what
happened to one bullet. THAT lead core was never found and I suggest
that we don't need any other fragment to hit the curb, just that one. No
second Magic Bullet, no Magic Twig.
David Von Pein
Bottom Line (re: the "missed" shot):
Nobody can know for certain what happened to that bullet. And nobody
can know for certain whether the "oak tree" theory is accurate or not.
But, given the overall evidence (which certainly indicates that three
shots and only three shots were fired during the assassination, with
all three of those shots coming from Oswald's Sniper's Nest in the
TSBD and from Oswald's MC rifle, with two of those three bullets
striking the victims in the limousine), I think the best guess re: the
one missed shot is that that bullet did, indeed, hit the oak tree
(which is a tree, btw, that was located to the RIGHT of Oswald at the
time he fired that shot at approx. Z160 [see photo from CE875 below],
which fits in pretty well with a misaligned scope that might very well
have been aiming "HIGH AND TO THE RIGHT" during the shooting, although
that's another thing we'll never know for sure; it's quite possible
that the scope became misaligned when Oswald dropped the gun amongst
the boxes after the assassination).
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0454a.htm
I certainly think the "oak tree" theory is better than Vincent
Bugliosi's "bouncing bullet" theory. Vince has Oswald's first bullet
hitting Elm Street (but not the oak tree), and then the same bullet
bounces all the way over to Main Street to strike that curb and cause
the small wound on James Tague's face.
That theory, in my opinion, isn't as plausible as the "oak tree"
theory. (Unless perhaps the WCC/MC bullets that Oswald was using that
day had a little bit of rubber in them too.)
From Gerald Posner's book:
"Art Pence, a competition firearms expert, told [Gerald Posner],
"If a 6.5mm bullet struck a hard tree branch, it could tear itself
apart by its own rotational speed. It would then fragment, with maybe
the largest fragment, the tip, being up to one-third of the bullet,
flying off. And if the tree was oak--[it was]--it has tremendous
compressive strength, and the wood could easily suffer less damage
than the bullet that hit it."" -- Page 325 of "Case Closed: Lee Harvey
Oswald And The Assassination Of JFK" (Via an interview author Gerald
Posner had with Art Pence on February 21, 1992)
Posner also adds this:
"When Dr. John Lattimer performed shooting experiments with the
same 6.5mm ammunition as that used by Oswald, he discovered that the
lead core "often" separated from the jacket." -- Gerald Posner; Page
325 of "Case Closed" (footnote)
David Von Pein
"Copper/Lead Separating" Addendum:
We also know that the lead core and the copper jacket of a 6.5mm WCC/ MC
bullet will, in fact, separate after hitting a hard object -- because that
exact thing did occur on 11/22/63 with CE567 and CE569.
One of those two pieces of bullet contained no lead at all, and hence it
could not be used for NAA testing by Dr. Vincent Guinn during his tests
for the HSCA.
Anthony Marsh
Jeez, thanks for paroting everything I say.
I just got finished telling you that the lead core from the base fragment
is what most likely hit the curb near Tague. That is not what we call one
of the missed shots. WC defenders think it was left over from the head
shot. I think it was left over from the bullet hitting Connally's wrist.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> Bottom Line (re: the "missed" shot):
>
> Nobody can know for certain what happened to that bullet. And nobody
> can know for certain whether the "oak tree" theory is accurate or not.
>
I do. I know it is physically impossible.
> But, given the overall evidence (which certainly indicates that three
> shots and only three shots were fired during the assassination, with
> all three of those shots coming from Oswald's Sniper's Nest in the
> TSBD and from Oswald's MC rifle, with two of those three bullets
Begging the question.
> striking the victims in the limousine), I think the best guess re: the
> one missed shot is that that bullet did, indeed, hit the oak tree
> (which is a tree, btw, that was located to the RIGHT of Oswald at the
> time he fired that shot at approx. Z160 [see photo from CE875 below],
Nonsense. Anything to defend the indefensible WC.
I don't mind you coming up with kooky theories. You need to since you are
a WC defender. But at least have the guts to think up your own and then
defend them and demonstrate how it would work. Don't just steal it from
Posner's book, ignoring the fact that we shot it full of holes so many
years ago.
FYI the copper jacket of the WCC bullet is extremely thick at the tip and
it is physically impossible for the lead core to drive through the tip and
out.
FYI most long and heavy FMJ bullets usually break apart at the cannelure.
Not the tip.