Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Anthony Marsh still won't admit he said CIA ;-)
70 views
Skip to first unread message
John Reagor King
Oct 5, 2012, 10:33:39 AM10/5/12
to
In another thread from about September 20 to 25, Mr. Marsh kept claiming
to me that he has never said that the CIA hassled him. Instead he said
once that it was only the Secret Service and then on another day he said
it was only the FBI. Lol. He continued to say this even after I quoted
his 4-8-2001 article to him in which he said it was the CIA. When I
quoted it again on September 25, he abruptly fell silent, and as is so
often the case, he absolutely refused to apologize to me and admit his
mistake. So I will repost that 9-25 article again here.
In article <5060af5a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 9/23/2012 6:57 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <505e...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/22/2012 5:18 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> >>> In article <505ba347$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> >>> Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 9/20/2012 6:02 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Speaking of the CIA, I think they were bothering you back in 2001 or
> >>>>> whenever. Have they still been bothering you recently?
> >>>>
> >>>> Not CIA. Can't you get anything straight or do you just like to make up
> >>>> false claims from your imagination? I had a visit by a couple of Secret
> >>>> Service agents in April of 2000 asking me how I knew so much about
> >>>> assassinations.
> >>>
> >>> You, on April 8, 2001:
> >>>
> >>> **********
> >>>
> >>> Just for the record I was kicked off CompuServe by the CIA. Dolan, their
> >>> resident spook, had threatened to sue everyone on CompuServe for
> >>> allowing me to speculate that the CIA was responsible for the JFK
> >>> assassination (hey why not sue 50% of the American public according to
> >>> the CBS poll?). Interestingly anyone I had mentioned had long been dead,
> >>> so there was no possible libel. But that didn't stop Dolan. He was going
> >>> to get Frank Bender out of his grave to sue me and finance it through
> >>> his front group Challenge, Inc. This is yet another example of how the
> >>> CIA uses millions of our tax dollars to harass anyone seeking the truth
> >>> about the JFK assassination. For many years I ran my own local BBS, but
> >>> FIDO squabbles made a mess of that and eventually the Internet became
> >>> cheap enough.
> >>
> >> CompuServe was pre-2001.
> >> CIA was not hassling me in 2001. You got the stories mixed up.
> >
> > Read what I wrote more carefully. You yourself quoted it above. My
> > exact words were, "Speaking of the CIA, I think they were bothering you
> > back in 2001 or whenever." I didn't say in 2001, period. I said in
> > 2001 *or* *whenever*. You *reported* it in 2001, so naturally I already
>
> What did I report in 2001? To whom. Quote please and source.
Lol, you yourself requoted it above. You really thought you could get
by me on *that*? Bwaaahahahahahahahahahaha! And as for the source, you
ought to know perfectly well that I gave on on Saturday. You replied on
the same day and *quoted* my source, harharharharharharharharharhar!
Here it is again for the second time:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/116d3d19750a8884?dm
ode=source
Gawd, you have got to be the funniest poster in this newsgroup.
> > knew that it had supposedly happened before you had reported it,
> > otherwise you wouldn't be able to report it yet. And it is hardly my
> > fault that in that article you made no mention of how long ago this had
> > occurred. ;-)
>
> You stated out with a false assumption that I was talking about the CIA.
You on September 20:
"They're not black. Their dark green. And they do regularly fly over
cities on training missions. Who says you have to go outside to be
captured in a CIA video? And it does not have to originate with the CIA
for them to see it."
I see "CIA" *twice* in *your* text. How on earth was a making a false
assumption? ROFL!
Me, on the following day, referring to *that* text in which you said
"CIA" twice and had not yet said anything about the Secret Service for
the first time in this discussion:
"Speaking of the CIA, I think they were bothering you back in 2001 or
whenever. Have they still been bothering you recently?"
You brought up the CIA, so I replied about the CIA.
Lordy, Anthony, all I had to do was go back up and look at them. Why
can't you do that as easily as me?
And you say I'm the one who doesn't know how to use the Internet.
Hehehehehehehehehehe!
> That is conflation. I was talking about the Secret Service.
No you weren't:
"They're not black. Their dark green. And they do regularly fly over
cities on training missions. Who says you have to go outside to be
captured in a CIA video? And it does not have to originate with the CIA
for them to see it."
Secret Service doesn't appear there. CIA appears twice. Your exact
words. I didn't make them up.
> And it was the FBI who tried to shut down my Web site.
Was that website hosted at the time on Compuserve?
> > And you said above that the SS thing happened before 2001 as well. You
>
> As well? There is no "as well." There is only the one incident, the SS
> incident.
Then why did you post this text on April 8, 2001?
"Just for the record I was kicked off CompuServe by the CIA. Dolan,
their resident spook, had threatened to sue everyone on CompuServe for
allowing me to speculate that the CIA was responsible for the JFK
assassination (hey why not sue 50% of the American public according to
the CBS poll?)."
And I saw later articles by you in which you were replying to Mr. Nolan
when he quoted this same text, and in those you did not deny posting
that text. Would you like me to quote those here as well?
> > said 2000. So since I said CIA in 2001 *or* *whenever*, your reply that
>
> You should have said "CIA or whatever" just to make it clear that you
> didn't know what the Hell you were talking about.
You can dance around this all you want, Anthony. You can even do a
Broadway show. But you just can't make your text in the archives go
away:
"Just for the record I was kicked off CompuServe by the CIA. Dolan,
their resident spook, had threatened to sue everyone on CompuServe for
allowing me to speculate that the CIA was responsible for the JFK
assassination (hey why not sue 50% of the American public according to
the CBS poll?)."
And when you replied to my quotation of that text this past Saturday,
you did not deny having posted that text in 2001. You instead said this
right below the text that I quoted, and that you had requoted:
"CompuServe was pre-2001. CIA was not hassling me in 2001."
> > other year. Fascinating that your *first* response wasn't to say, no,
> > the CIA was before 2001. But instead you acted as if it was *only* the
>
> No, I did not say it was the CIA before 2001. You got confused.
True, you said Compuserve was pre-2001, as I quoted above, but then said
CIA was not hassling you in 2001 WITHOUT saying CIA had never hassled
you. But on Saturday you did not deny posting this text in 2001:
"Just for the record I was kicked off CompuServe by the CIA."
> > SS you had an encounter with. Only after I produced your 2001 article
> > did you suddenly pirouette around and admit, oh yeah, the CIA also was
> > before 2001.
>
> I never said that I had a confrontation with the CIA.
> You are making up crap. Why? Anything to attack me?
"Just for the record I was kicked off CompuServe by the CIA." Your
exact words on April 8, 2001. And this past Saturday you did NOT deny
having posted those words in 2001. So quite obviously, even according
to you, I made up nothing. Otherwise you would have denied posting
those words on Saturday when you first replied to my quotation of your
April 8, 2001 article, in which you yourself said you were kicked off
Compuserve by the CIA.
Really, Anthony, why do you still think you can get by me with stuff
like this? Lol!
to me that he has never said that the CIA hassled him. Instead he said
once that it was only the Secret Service and then on another day he said
it was only the FBI. Lol. He continued to say this even after I quoted
his 4-8-2001 article to him in which he said it was the CIA. When I
quoted it again on September 25, he abruptly fell silent, and as is so
often the case, he absolutely refused to apologize to me and admit his
mistake. So I will repost that 9-25 article again here.
In article <5060af5a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 9/23/2012 6:57 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <505e...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/22/2012 5:18 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> >>> In article <505ba347$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> >>> Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 9/20/2012 6:02 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Speaking of the CIA, I think they were bothering you back in 2001 or
> >>>>> whenever. Have they still been bothering you recently?
> >>>>
> >>>> Not CIA. Can't you get anything straight or do you just like to make up
> >>>> false claims from your imagination? I had a visit by a couple of Secret
> >>>> Service agents in April of 2000 asking me how I knew so much about
> >>>> assassinations.
> >>>
> >>> You, on April 8, 2001:
> >>>
> >>> **********
> >>>
> >>> Just for the record I was kicked off CompuServe by the CIA. Dolan, their
> >>> resident spook, had threatened to sue everyone on CompuServe for
> >>> allowing me to speculate that the CIA was responsible for the JFK
> >>> assassination (hey why not sue 50% of the American public according to
> >>> the CBS poll?). Interestingly anyone I had mentioned had long been dead,
> >>> so there was no possible libel. But that didn't stop Dolan. He was going
> >>> to get Frank Bender out of his grave to sue me and finance it through
> >>> his front group Challenge, Inc. This is yet another example of how the
> >>> CIA uses millions of our tax dollars to harass anyone seeking the truth
> >>> about the JFK assassination. For many years I ran my own local BBS, but
> >>> FIDO squabbles made a mess of that and eventually the Internet became
> >>> cheap enough.
> >>
> >> CompuServe was pre-2001.
> >> CIA was not hassling me in 2001. You got the stories mixed up.
> >
> > Read what I wrote more carefully. You yourself quoted it above. My
> > exact words were, "Speaking of the CIA, I think they were bothering you
> > back in 2001 or whenever." I didn't say in 2001, period. I said in
> > 2001 *or* *whenever*. You *reported* it in 2001, so naturally I already
>
> What did I report in 2001? To whom. Quote please and source.
Lol, you yourself requoted it above. You really thought you could get
by me on *that*? Bwaaahahahahahahahahahaha! And as for the source, you
ought to know perfectly well that I gave on on Saturday. You replied on
the same day and *quoted* my source, harharharharharharharharharhar!
Here it is again for the second time:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/116d3d19750a8884?dm
ode=source
Gawd, you have got to be the funniest poster in this newsgroup.
> > knew that it had supposedly happened before you had reported it,
> > otherwise you wouldn't be able to report it yet. And it is hardly my
> > fault that in that article you made no mention of how long ago this had
> > occurred. ;-)
>
> You stated out with a false assumption that I was talking about the CIA.
You on September 20:
"They're not black. Their dark green. And they do regularly fly over
cities on training missions. Who says you have to go outside to be
captured in a CIA video? And it does not have to originate with the CIA
for them to see it."
I see "CIA" *twice* in *your* text. How on earth was a making a false
assumption? ROFL!
Me, on the following day, referring to *that* text in which you said
"CIA" twice and had not yet said anything about the Secret Service for
the first time in this discussion:
"Speaking of the CIA, I think they were bothering you back in 2001 or
whenever. Have they still been bothering you recently?"
You brought up the CIA, so I replied about the CIA.
Lordy, Anthony, all I had to do was go back up and look at them. Why
can't you do that as easily as me?
And you say I'm the one who doesn't know how to use the Internet.
Hehehehehehehehehehe!
> That is conflation. I was talking about the Secret Service.
No you weren't:
"They're not black. Their dark green. And they do regularly fly over
cities on training missions. Who says you have to go outside to be
captured in a CIA video? And it does not have to originate with the CIA
for them to see it."
Secret Service doesn't appear there. CIA appears twice. Your exact
words. I didn't make them up.
> And it was the FBI who tried to shut down my Web site.
Was that website hosted at the time on Compuserve?
> > And you said above that the SS thing happened before 2001 as well. You
>
> As well? There is no "as well." There is only the one incident, the SS
> incident.
Then why did you post this text on April 8, 2001?
"Just for the record I was kicked off CompuServe by the CIA. Dolan,
their resident spook, had threatened to sue everyone on CompuServe for
allowing me to speculate that the CIA was responsible for the JFK
assassination (hey why not sue 50% of the American public according to
the CBS poll?)."
And I saw later articles by you in which you were replying to Mr. Nolan
when he quoted this same text, and in those you did not deny posting
that text. Would you like me to quote those here as well?
> > said 2000. So since I said CIA in 2001 *or* *whenever*, your reply that
>
> You should have said "CIA or whatever" just to make it clear that you
> didn't know what the Hell you were talking about.
You can dance around this all you want, Anthony. You can even do a
Broadway show. But you just can't make your text in the archives go
away:
"Just for the record I was kicked off CompuServe by the CIA. Dolan,
their resident spook, had threatened to sue everyone on CompuServe for
allowing me to speculate that the CIA was responsible for the JFK
assassination (hey why not sue 50% of the American public according to
the CBS poll?)."
And when you replied to my quotation of that text this past Saturday,
you did not deny having posted that text in 2001. You instead said this
right below the text that I quoted, and that you had requoted:
"CompuServe was pre-2001. CIA was not hassling me in 2001."
> > other year. Fascinating that your *first* response wasn't to say, no,
> > the CIA was before 2001. But instead you acted as if it was *only* the
>
> No, I did not say it was the CIA before 2001. You got confused.
True, you said Compuserve was pre-2001, as I quoted above, but then said
CIA was not hassling you in 2001 WITHOUT saying CIA had never hassled
you. But on Saturday you did not deny posting this text in 2001:
"Just for the record I was kicked off CompuServe by the CIA."
> > SS you had an encounter with. Only after I produced your 2001 article
> > did you suddenly pirouette around and admit, oh yeah, the CIA also was
> > before 2001.
>
> I never said that I had a confrontation with the CIA.
> You are making up crap. Why? Anything to attack me?
"Just for the record I was kicked off CompuServe by the CIA." Your
exact words on April 8, 2001. And this past Saturday you did NOT deny
having posted those words in 2001. So quite obviously, even according
to you, I made up nothing. Otherwise you would have denied posting
those words on Saturday when you first replied to my quotation of your
April 8, 2001 article, in which you yourself said you were kicked off
Compuserve by the CIA.
Really, Anthony, why do you still think you can get by me with stuff
like this? Lol!
Anthony Marsh
Oct 5, 2012, 9:02:52 PM10/5/12
to
On 10/5/2012 10:33 AM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In another thread from about September 20 to 25, Mr. Marsh kept claiming
> to me that he has never said that the CIA hassled him. Instead he said
> once that it was only the Secret Service and then on another day he said
> it was only the FBI. Lol. He continued to say this even after I quoted
> his 4-8-2001 article to him in which he said it was the CIA. When I
> quoted it again on September 25, he abruptly fell silent, and as is so
> often the case, he absolutely refused to apologize to me and admit his
> mistake. So I will repost that 9-25 article again here.
>
You got all the events jumbled up in your mind. A CIA agent hassled me
> In another thread from about September 20 to 25, Mr. Marsh kept claiming
> to me that he has never said that the CIA hassled him. Instead he said
> once that it was only the Secret Service and then on another day he said
> it was only the FBI. Lol. He continued to say this even after I quoted
> his 4-8-2001 article to him in which he said it was the CIA. When I
> quoted it again on September 25, he abruptly fell silent, and as is so
> often the case, he absolutely refused to apologize to me and admit his
> mistake. So I will repost that 9-25 article again here.
>
while on CompuServe. The FBI called up my ISP and asked them to take down
my Web site. Two Secret Service agents visited my home to ask me why I
knew so much about assassinations.
I had the some confusion when I told one of my bridge partners that Frank
Olsen was killed by the CIA and my father was injured by the CIA in the
same drug experiments. So he started telling people that the reason why I
hate the CIA is because they killed my father. This is the same guy who
always falls for the Chinese Finesse.
John Reagor King
Oct 6, 2012, 4:43:40 PM10/6/12
to
In article <506f20e8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
you, lol.
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> You got all the events jumbled up in your mind. A CIA agent hassled me
But in that other thread you at first said the CIA had never hassled
> You got all the events jumbled up in your mind. A CIA agent hassled me
you, lol.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 6, 2012, 9:06:39 PM10/6/12
to
Dave Yandell
Oct 7, 2012, 11:09:56 AM10/7/12
to
Best,
Dave
John Reagor King
Oct 7, 2012, 5:55:17 PM10/7/12
to
In article <5070b32f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
carefully. When I first asked you if the CIA was still hassling you, in
your first reply you acted as if you had never had *any* problems with the
CIA, and mentioned only the SS. Those exchanges were all quoted verbatim
in the first article in this thread.
And I see you still refuse to admit that I never said that JFK already had
his fists up by Z225. ;-)
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/6/2012 4:43 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <506f20e8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> You got all the events jumbled up in your mind. A CIA agent hassled me
> >
> > But in that other thread you at first said the CIA had never hassled
> > you, lol.
>
> No, you don't read carefully. I said a CIA agent.
Lol, you keep twisting around on this. It is you who don't read
> On 10/6/2012 4:43 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <506f20e8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> You got all the events jumbled up in your mind. A CIA agent hassled me
> >
> > But in that other thread you at first said the CIA had never hassled
> > you, lol.
>
> No, you don't read carefully. I said a CIA agent.
carefully. When I first asked you if the CIA was still hassling you, in
your first reply you acted as if you had never had *any* problems with the
CIA, and mentioned only the SS. Those exchanges were all quoted verbatim
in the first article in this thread.
And I see you still refuse to admit that I never said that JFK already had
his fists up by Z225. ;-)
Anthony Marsh
Oct 8, 2012, 12:05:25 AM10/8/12
to
CompuServe. The retired CIA officer gave me $500 to start up a local BBS
to make his files available for downloading. That was someone else.
Back then all we had was FIDOnet. This was before Al Gore invented the
InterNet.
Most people used local BBSes and then dialups like Prodigy and CompuServe.
> Best,
> Dave
>
John Reagor King
Oct 8, 2012, 9:00:45 PM10/8/12
to
In article <5071d5af$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
CIA had never bothered you in any context whatsoever, not even a retired
CIA officer. Here's the exchange again:
Me on September 20:
**********
Speaking of the CIA, I think they were bothering you back in 2001 or
whenever. Have they still been bothering you recently?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/3134402ad78b2541
?dmode=source
**********
I said in 2001 *or* *whenever*, not in 2001, period, so you had no
excuse to believe that I was talking *only* about the year 2001 and no
other year. I was obviously saying that the CIA had bothered you *at*
*some* *point*, not in any one specific year.
Your reply on the same day:
**********
Not CIA. Can't you get anything straight or do you just like to make up
false claims from your imagination? I had a visit by a couple of Secret
Service agents in April of 2000 asking me how I knew so much about
assassinations.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/80bb0134a9bff429
?dmode=source
**********
You didn't say it was not the CIA in 2001. You simply said not CIA,
period, as if nothing had ever happened between you and the CIA in any
context whatsoever. And even you quite obviously knew from the
beginning that I was not necessarily talking about the year 2001 only,
because you yourself gave an *earlier* year for the encounter with the
SS. Only in later replies in that thread did you then try to wriggle
out of this by saying, oh, the CIA wasn't in 2001, even though you
already knew before you said that that I wasn't referring to only that
year anyway.
Btw, Anthony, why are you still afraid to admit that you were wrong when
you falsely claimed that I had ever said that JFK already had his fists
up by Z225, when in actual truth you have never once seen me say that in
the past seven years at least?
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/7/2012 11:09 AM, Dave Yandell wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 6, 2012 8:06:40 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 10/6/2012 4:43 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> >>> In article <506f20e8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> >>> Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> You got all the events jumbled up in your mind. A CIA agent hassled me
> >>>
> >>> But in that other thread you at first said the CIA had never hassled
> >>> you, lol.
> >>
> >> No, you don't read carefully. I said a CIA agent.
> >
> > Was it the retired agent who hired you to upload files for him?
>
> No, the retired CIA officer, by then agent was Ned Dolan. That was on
> CompuServe. The retired CIA officer gave me $500 to start up a local BBS
> to make his files available for downloading. That was someone else.
>
> Back then all we had was FIDOnet. This was before Al Gore invented the
> InterNet.
>
> Most people used local BBSes and then dialups like Prodigy and CompuServe.
On September 20 in your first reply on this issue you acted as if the
> On 10/7/2012 11:09 AM, Dave Yandell wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 6, 2012 8:06:40 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 10/6/2012 4:43 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> >>> In article <506f20e8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> >>> Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> You got all the events jumbled up in your mind. A CIA agent hassled me
> >>>
> >>> But in that other thread you at first said the CIA had never hassled
> >>> you, lol.
> >>
> >> No, you don't read carefully. I said a CIA agent.
> >
> > Was it the retired agent who hired you to upload files for him?
>
> No, the retired CIA officer, by then agent was Ned Dolan. That was on
> CompuServe. The retired CIA officer gave me $500 to start up a local BBS
> to make his files available for downloading. That was someone else.
>
> Back then all we had was FIDOnet. This was before Al Gore invented the
> InterNet.
>
> Most people used local BBSes and then dialups like Prodigy and CompuServe.
CIA had never bothered you in any context whatsoever, not even a retired
CIA officer. Here's the exchange again:
Me on September 20:
**********
Speaking of the CIA, I think they were bothering you back in 2001 or
whenever. Have they still been bothering you recently?
?dmode=source
**********
I said in 2001 *or* *whenever*, not in 2001, period, so you had no
excuse to believe that I was talking *only* about the year 2001 and no
other year. I was obviously saying that the CIA had bothered you *at*
*some* *point*, not in any one specific year.
Your reply on the same day:
**********
Not CIA. Can't you get anything straight or do you just like to make up
false claims from your imagination? I had a visit by a couple of Secret
Service agents in April of 2000 asking me how I knew so much about
assassinations.
?dmode=source
**********
You didn't say it was not the CIA in 2001. You simply said not CIA,
period, as if nothing had ever happened between you and the CIA in any
context whatsoever. And even you quite obviously knew from the
beginning that I was not necessarily talking about the year 2001 only,
because you yourself gave an *earlier* year for the encounter with the
SS. Only in later replies in that thread did you then try to wriggle
out of this by saying, oh, the CIA wasn't in 2001, even though you
already knew before you said that that I wasn't referring to only that
year anyway.
Btw, Anthony, why are you still afraid to admit that you were wrong when
you falsely claimed that I had ever said that JFK already had his fists
up by Z225, when in actual truth you have never once seen me say that in
the past seven years at least?
Anthony Marsh
Oct 8, 2012, 9:22:47 PM10/8/12
to
was in 2001 and was the Secret Service not the CIA. But you get easily
confused.
> Your reply on the same day:
>
> **********
>
> Not CIA. Can't you get anything straight or do you just like to make up
> false claims from your imagination? I had a visit by a couple of Secret
> Service agents in April of 2000 asking me how I knew so much about
> assassinations.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/80bb0134a9bff429
> ?dmode=source
>
> **********
>
> You didn't say it was not the CIA in 2001. You simply said not CIA,
> period, as if nothing had ever happened between you and the CIA in any
> context whatsoever. And even you quite obviously knew from the
> beginning that I was not necessarily talking about the year 2001 only,
> because you yourself gave an *earlier* year for the encounter with the
> SS. Only in later replies in that thread did you then try to wriggle
because you got confused. I said something, but you can't remember that
I said so you think you can just make up anything and claim that's it.
> out of this by saying, oh, the CIA wasn't in 2001, even though you
> already knew before you said that that I wasn't referring to only that
> year anyway.
>
> Btw, Anthony, why are you still afraid to admit that you were wrong when
> you falsely claimed that I had ever said that JFK already had his fists
> up by Z225, when in actual truth you have never once seen me say that in
> the past seven years at least?
>
Ace Kefford
Oct 9, 2012, 9:55:16 AM10/9/12
to
And the cover-up continues?!
John Reagor King
Oct 9, 2012, 9:04:18 PM10/9/12
to
In article <50737b4e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
See this everybody? Anthony is ***STILL*** trying to wriggle out of this
by acting as if he "still doesn't realize" that I was NEVER referring to a
single year only. He is still acting as if he "can't see" the words "or
whenever," even though he himself quoted them above. He is STILL trying
to make it out as if I was talking ONLY about the year 2001.
Yet again, Anthony falsely claims I said something I never said.
> > Your reply on the same day:
> >
> > **********
> >
> > Not CIA. Can't you get anything straight or do you just like to make up
> > false claims from your imagination? I had a visit by a couple of Secret
> > Service agents in April of 2000 asking me how I knew so much about
> > assassinations.
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/80bb0134a9bff429
> > ?dmode=source
> >
> > **********
> >
> > You didn't say it was not the CIA in 2001. You simply said not CIA,
> > period, as if nothing had ever happened between you and the CIA in any
> > context whatsoever. And even you quite obviously knew from the
>
> Wrong. We were only talking about one specific incident.
Wrong. I asked you if the CIA had EVER bothered you in ANY year. Here
it is again:
"Speaking of the CIA, I think they were bothering you back in 2001 or
whenever. Have they still been bothering you recently?"
"2001 or whenever" quite obviously means 2001 or any other year, not 2001
only. And you've already known for quite a few days now that the only
reason I even mentioned that year at all was because your article about
the CIA and Dolan was posted that year. I never once suggested that the
incident *occurred* in that year.
Yet another strawman from you, Anthony. ;-)
> > beginning that I was not necessarily talking about the year 2001 only,
> > because you yourself gave an *earlier* year for the encounter with the
> > SS. Only in later replies in that thread did you then try to wriggle
>
> Exactly what "earlier" date did I give?
ROFL, are you for real? You just *quoted* *yourself* above giving a
year earlier than 2001 for your SS incident. Here it is again in your
exact words:
"I had a visit by a couple of Secret Service agents in April of 2000
asking me how I knew so much about assassinations."
Um, Anthony? Hhheeelllooo??? 2000 is indeed an earlier year than 2001.
:D
> You are making up crap again
> because you got confused. I said something, but you can't remember that
> I said so you think you can just make up anything and claim that's it.
You are quite obviously the one who can't remember what you yourself
said, lol.
> > out of this by saying, oh, the CIA wasn't in 2001, even though you
> > already knew before you said that that I wasn't referring to only that
> > year anyway.
>
> You were referring to one specific event.
Yes, an event which I *never* said occurred in 2001 and no other year.
> > Btw, Anthony, why are you still afraid to admit that you were wrong when
> > you falsely claimed that I had ever said that JFK already had his fists
> > up by Z225, when in actual truth you have never once seen me say that in
> > the past seven years at least?
>
> Why are you so afraid to name your SBT frame?
Ah yes, trying to deflect this again, I see. How does my supposed failure
to name an exact frame for when the two men were hit excuse you from
stooping to the level of trying to win an argument with me by claiming I
said something I never said, and then refusing to admit the obvious
mistake even after it has been pointed out to you? My supposed failure to
name my SBT frame doesn't have anything to do with claiming another poster
said something they never said, Anthony. You are comparing apples and
oranges. And even if you were to make the argument that I too am
deliberately avoiding an admission, so what? You can't do the right thing
even when other people don't? You can't admit your own mistakes even when
other people won't admit theirs? That is playground logic.
If you really cared about your credibility you would unhesitatingly admit
you made a mistake, regardless of what anyone else does or does not admit.
What other people do or do not admit is irrelevant to your failure to
admit your obvious mistake.
But ok, fine. The only reason I have been reluctant to name an exact
frame, and I am being completely honest about this, is that I do not
believe there is any way to conclusively establish that. This is very
different from the head shot where we can see JFK's head explode open,
making it obvious what the exact frame is when the bullet struck. The
second shot is very different, because we do not see any wounding or
damage or blood immediately appear on either man. It would thus depend on
how long, exactly, it would take them to visibly react to the sensation of
the bullet striking them and/or passing through them. Yet another
disadvantage we have is that there was only one surviving witness who was
struck by this bullet, Connally, so we only have his statements regarding
when he felt himself to be struck, but not those of JFK.
The single frame I *have* been firmly committed to here for several years
is Z226, not for when both men were struck by the bullet, but for the
beginning of both of their visible reactions to it. Exactly how many
frames prior to that were they actually struck? I don't see how anyone
could ever be absolutely certain that they have pinpointed that precisely,
because there isn't any way to know for certain exactly how many seconds
or fractions of seconds it took for the sensations to reach their brains
and then for their brains to respond with signals to their muscles. I
would think they couldn't have been struck any later than three frames
prior to when they began to react, which would be Z223. But there is no
possible way any of us will ever know for certain that that is the correct
frame. It could have instead been Z222 or Z221 or Z220, though I very
much doubt any earlier than that.
So, I have just been totally honest about this. You might *disagree* with
my argument, but you can no longer truthfully claim that I have not made
my position plain on this.
Now, I am asking you again, nicely: would you please admit that you made a
mistake when a week ago you said this?
"You have JFK"s fists up by Z-225 and then the bullet hitting Connally at
Z-226."
No. I've never said that. Ever. I have been saying for years that both
men begin to react in Z226. That is the frame in which JFK's hands first
begin to rise. It is obviously later than that before his fists are up.
And I never said Connally was hit at Z226. I have for years said he
begins to react at Z226.
by acting as if he "still doesn't realize" that I was NEVER referring to a
single year only. He is still acting as if he "can't see" the words "or
whenever," even though he himself quoted them above. He is STILL trying
to make it out as if I was talking ONLY about the year 2001.
Yet again, Anthony falsely claims I said something I never said.
> > Your reply on the same day:
> >
> > **********
> >
> > Not CIA. Can't you get anything straight or do you just like to make up
> > false claims from your imagination? I had a visit by a couple of Secret
> > Service agents in April of 2000 asking me how I knew so much about
> > assassinations.
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/80bb0134a9bff429
> > ?dmode=source
> >
> > **********
> >
> > You didn't say it was not the CIA in 2001. You simply said not CIA,
> > period, as if nothing had ever happened between you and the CIA in any
> > context whatsoever. And even you quite obviously knew from the
>
> Wrong. We were only talking about one specific incident.
it is again:
"Speaking of the CIA, I think they were bothering you back in 2001 or
whenever. Have they still been bothering you recently?"
only. And you've already known for quite a few days now that the only
reason I even mentioned that year at all was because your article about
the CIA and Dolan was posted that year. I never once suggested that the
incident *occurred* in that year.
Yet another strawman from you, Anthony. ;-)
> > beginning that I was not necessarily talking about the year 2001 only,
> > because you yourself gave an *earlier* year for the encounter with the
> > SS. Only in later replies in that thread did you then try to wriggle
>
> Exactly what "earlier" date did I give?
year earlier than 2001 for your SS incident. Here it is again in your
exact words:
"I had a visit by a couple of Secret Service agents in April of 2000
asking me how I knew so much about assassinations."
:D
> You are making up crap again
> because you got confused. I said something, but you can't remember that
> I said so you think you can just make up anything and claim that's it.
said, lol.
> > out of this by saying, oh, the CIA wasn't in 2001, even though you
> > already knew before you said that that I wasn't referring to only that
> > year anyway.
>
> You were referring to one specific event.
> > Btw, Anthony, why are you still afraid to admit that you were wrong when
> > you falsely claimed that I had ever said that JFK already had his fists
> > up by Z225, when in actual truth you have never once seen me say that in
> > the past seven years at least?
>
> Why are you so afraid to name your SBT frame?
to name an exact frame for when the two men were hit excuse you from
stooping to the level of trying to win an argument with me by claiming I
said something I never said, and then refusing to admit the obvious
mistake even after it has been pointed out to you? My supposed failure to
name my SBT frame doesn't have anything to do with claiming another poster
said something they never said, Anthony. You are comparing apples and
oranges. And even if you were to make the argument that I too am
deliberately avoiding an admission, so what? You can't do the right thing
even when other people don't? You can't admit your own mistakes even when
other people won't admit theirs? That is playground logic.
If you really cared about your credibility you would unhesitatingly admit
you made a mistake, regardless of what anyone else does or does not admit.
What other people do or do not admit is irrelevant to your failure to
admit your obvious mistake.
But ok, fine. The only reason I have been reluctant to name an exact
frame, and I am being completely honest about this, is that I do not
believe there is any way to conclusively establish that. This is very
different from the head shot where we can see JFK's head explode open,
making it obvious what the exact frame is when the bullet struck. The
second shot is very different, because we do not see any wounding or
damage or blood immediately appear on either man. It would thus depend on
how long, exactly, it would take them to visibly react to the sensation of
the bullet striking them and/or passing through them. Yet another
disadvantage we have is that there was only one surviving witness who was
struck by this bullet, Connally, so we only have his statements regarding
when he felt himself to be struck, but not those of JFK.
The single frame I *have* been firmly committed to here for several years
is Z226, not for when both men were struck by the bullet, but for the
beginning of both of their visible reactions to it. Exactly how many
frames prior to that were they actually struck? I don't see how anyone
could ever be absolutely certain that they have pinpointed that precisely,
because there isn't any way to know for certain exactly how many seconds
or fractions of seconds it took for the sensations to reach their brains
and then for their brains to respond with signals to their muscles. I
would think they couldn't have been struck any later than three frames
prior to when they began to react, which would be Z223. But there is no
possible way any of us will ever know for certain that that is the correct
frame. It could have instead been Z222 or Z221 or Z220, though I very
much doubt any earlier than that.
So, I have just been totally honest about this. You might *disagree* with
my argument, but you can no longer truthfully claim that I have not made
my position plain on this.
Now, I am asking you again, nicely: would you please admit that you made a
mistake when a week ago you said this?
"You have JFK"s fists up by Z-225 and then the bullet hitting Connally at
Z-226."
No. I've never said that. Ever. I have been saying for years that both
men begin to react in Z226. That is the frame in which JFK's hands first
begin to rise. It is obviously later than that before his fists are up.
And I never said Connally was hit at Z226. I have for years said he
begins to react at Z226.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 10, 2012, 3:13:04 PM10/10/12
to
said 2001 or some other year.
> reason I even mentioned that year at all was because your article about
> the CIA and Dolan was posted that year. I never once suggested that the
> incident *occurred* in that year.
>
> Yet another strawman from you, Anthony. ;-)
>
>>> beginning that I was not necessarily talking about the year 2001 only,
>>> because you yourself gave an *earlier* year for the encounter with the
>>> SS. Only in later replies in that thread did you then try to wriggle
>>
>> Exactly what "earlier" date did I give?
>
> ROFL, are you for real? You just *quoted* *yourself* above giving a
> year earlier than 2001 for your SS incident. Here it is again in your
> exact words:
>
> "I had a visit by a couple of Secret Service agents in April of 2000
> asking me how I knew so much about assassinations."
>
> Um, Anthony? Hhheeelllooo??? 2000 is indeed an earlier year than 2001.
> :D
>
>> You are making up crap again
>> because you got confused. I said something, but you can't remember that
>> I said so you think you can just make up anything and claim that's it.
>
> You are quite obviously the one who can't remember what you yourself
> said, lol.
>
>>> out of this by saying, oh, the CIA wasn't in 2001, even though you
>>> already knew before you said that that I wasn't referring to only that
>>> year anyway.
>>
>> You were referring to one specific event.
>
> Yes, an event which I *never* said occurred in 2001 and no other year.
>
>>> Btw, Anthony, why are you still afraid to admit that you were wrong when
>>> you falsely claimed that I had ever said that JFK already had his fists
>>> up by Z225, when in actual truth you have never once seen me say that in
>>> the past seven years at least?
>>
>> Why are you so afraid to name your SBT frame?
>
> Ah yes, trying to deflect this again, I see. How does my supposed failure
> to name an exact frame for when the two men were hit excuse you from
> stooping to the level of trying to win an argument with me by claiming I
> said something I never said, and then refusing to admit the obvious
> mistake even after it has been pointed out to you? My supposed failure to
> name my SBT frame doesn't have anything to do with claiming another poster
> said something they never said, Anthony. You are comparing apples and
> oranges. And even if you were to make the argument that I too am
> deliberately avoiding an admission, so what? You can't do the right thing
> even when other people don't? You can't admit your own mistakes even when
> other people won't admit theirs? That is playground logic.
>
> If you really cared about your credibility you would unhesitatingly admit
> you made a mistake, regardless of what anyone else does or does not admit.
> What other people do or do not admit is irrelevant to your failure to
> admit your obvious mistake.
>
only in attacking me.
> But ok, fine. The only reason I have been reluctant to name an exact
> frame, and I am being completely honest about this, is that I do not
> believe there is any way to conclusively establish that. This is very
talking about.
> different from the head shot where we can see JFK's head explode open,
> making it obvious what the exact frame is when the bullet struck. The
> second shot is very different, because we do not see any wounding or
> damage or blood immediately appear on either man. It would thus depend on
> how long, exactly, it would take them to visibly react to the sensation of
> the bullet striking them and/or passing through them. Yet another
> disadvantage we have is that there was only one surviving witness who was
> struck by this bullet, Connally, so we only have his statements regarding
> when he felt himself to be struck, but not those of JFK.
>
That's what he told the WC.
> The single frame I *have* been firmly committed to here for several years
> is Z226, not for when both men were struck by the bullet, but for the
> beginning of both of their visible reactions to it. Exactly how many
frame 226 and you ignore the reactions which other WC defenders claim
for frame 224.
> frames prior to that were they actually struck? I don't see how anyone
> could ever be absolutely certain that they have pinpointed that precisely,
> because there isn't any way to know for certain exactly how many seconds
> or fractions of seconds it took for the sensations to reach their brains
frames earlier.
> and then for their brains to respond with signals to their muscles. I
> would think they couldn't have been struck any later than three frames
> prior to when they began to react, which would be Z223. But there is no
> possible way any of us will ever know for certain that that is the correct
> frame. It could have instead been Z222 or Z221 or Z220, though I very
> much doubt any earlier than that.
>
refuse all help and keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper and deeper.
> So, I have just been totally honest about this. You might *disagree* with
> my argument, but you can no longer truthfully claim that I have not made
> my position plain on this.
>
hour? I would consider that a major victory.
John Reagor King
Oct 10, 2012, 9:50:17 PM10/10/12
to
In article <f35f6cbb-fd5a-4b24...@googlegroups.com>,
Ace Kefford <bglo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And the cover-up continues?!
I know!
(Ok, actually, I'm gonna come clean on this. I talked to one of my
fellow spooks today and asked her if we had a file on an Anthony Marsh.
After a few minutes she got back to me and said no, and that as far as
she knows no one in the Agency even knows who Anthony Marsh is.)
Ah, I'm sooo glad I got that off my chest.
Ace Kefford <bglo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And the cover-up continues?!
I know!
(Ok, actually, I'm gonna come clean on this. I talked to one of my
fellow spooks today and asked her if we had a file on an Anthony Marsh.
After a few minutes she got back to me and said no, and that as far as
she knows no one in the Agency even knows who Anthony Marsh is.)
Ah, I'm sooo glad I got that off my chest.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 11, 2012, 4:03:20 PM10/11/12
to
0 new messages