Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Another Silly Post on the Education Forum
69 views
Skip to first unread message
John McAdams
Oct 1, 2012, 9:12:32 PM10/1/12
to
This from Garrisonite Jim DiEugenio:
<Quote on>
Reitzes is such a goon.
Count the witnesses who identified LHO there and its simply
overwhelming. And In Mellen's book, she produces evidence that says
LHO actually signed up that day.
I am thinking of doing a long article on Reitzes exposing him as the
disinfo artist he is. One thing, besides this Clinton BS that gets to
me is this: he says Garrison's office was not bugged.
LOL
In my book I will prove that it was bugged--twice! Once for the CIA
and once for the FBI.
<Quote off>
We have seen the sort of "evidence" Garrisonites like Mellen and
DiEugenio have.
If anybody has any real evidence that Garrison's office were bugged,
they should have long since produced it.
But in fact, they don't. Which is not to say that some "witness" will
not come forward to claim personal knowledge of such.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
<Quote on>
Reitzes is such a goon.
Count the witnesses who identified LHO there and its simply
overwhelming. And In Mellen's book, she produces evidence that says
LHO actually signed up that day.
I am thinking of doing a long article on Reitzes exposing him as the
disinfo artist he is. One thing, besides this Clinton BS that gets to
me is this: he says Garrison's office was not bugged.
LOL
In my book I will prove that it was bugged--twice! Once for the CIA
and once for the FBI.
<Quote off>
We have seen the sort of "evidence" Garrisonites like Mellen and
DiEugenio have.
If anybody has any real evidence that Garrison's office were bugged,
they should have long since produced it.
But in fact, they don't. Which is not to say that some "witness" will
not come forward to claim personal knowledge of such.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ace Kefford
Oct 2, 2012, 2:58:18 PM10/2/12
to
When people refer to someone as a "disinfo agent" do they mean this
literally? That is, do they think the person is actually an agent hired
to carry out an operation (usually under some kind of "cover")? Or are
they just writing in hyperbole?
Of course someone could be a hired agent, although under both the
large-scale conspiracy and the small-scale conspiracy theories that would
seem like a big waste of time and money 50 years later (not to mention
taking on the pointless risk after all these years that the agent would
turn on the conspirators and disclose the "truth").
Wouldn't it be more rational to just imagine that the person being
criticized is close-minded and so distorts the evidence to continue to
uphold his views?
Just wondering.
literally? That is, do they think the person is actually an agent hired
to carry out an operation (usually under some kind of "cover")? Or are
they just writing in hyperbole?
Of course someone could be a hired agent, although under both the
large-scale conspiracy and the small-scale conspiracy theories that would
seem like a big waste of time and money 50 years later (not to mention
taking on the pointless risk after all these years that the agent would
turn on the conspirators and disclose the "truth").
Wouldn't it be more rational to just imagine that the person being
criticized is close-minded and so distorts the evidence to continue to
uphold his views?
Just wondering.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 2, 2012, 7:18:55 PM10/2/12
to
On 10/2/2012 2:58 PM, Ace Kefford wrote:
> When people refer to someone as a "disinfo agent" do they mean this
> literally? That is, do they think the person is actually an agent hired
> to carry out an operation (usually under some kind of "cover")? Or are
> they just writing in hyperbole?
>
> Of course someone could be a hired agent, although under both the
> large-scale conspiracy and the small-scale conspiracy theories that would
> seem like a big waste of time and money 50 years later (not to mention
> taking on the pointless risk after all these years that the agent would
> turn on the conspirators and disclose the "truth").
>
There are many shades of grey. Sometimes it could be a full-time job or
> When people refer to someone as a "disinfo agent" do they mean this
> literally? That is, do they think the person is actually an agent hired
> to carry out an operation (usually under some kind of "cover")? Or are
> they just writing in hyperbole?
>
> Of course someone could be a hired agent, although under both the
> large-scale conspiracy and the small-scale conspiracy theories that would
> seem like a big waste of time and money 50 years later (not to mention
> taking on the pointless risk after all these years that the agent would
> turn on the conspirators and disclose the "truth").
>
maybe just a part-time job. Or it could be a journalist making a little
extra money on the side. Or an amateur used by some intelligence agency.
> Wouldn't it be more rational to just imagine that the person being
> criticized is close-minded and so distorts the evidence to continue to
> uphold his views?
>
There is a practical limit to how stupid someone could be.
John McAdams
Oct 6, 2012, 8:44:18 PM10/6/12
to
On 2 Oct 2012 14:58:18 -0400, Ace Kefford <bglo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>When people refer to someone as a "disinfo agent" do they mean this
>literally? That is, do they think the person is actually an agent hired
>to carry out an operation (usually under some kind of "cover")? Or are
>they just writing in hyperbole?
>
>Of course someone could be a hired agent, although under both the
>large-scale conspiracy and the small-scale conspiracy theories that would
>seem like a big waste of time and money 50 years later (not to mention
>taking on the pointless risk after all these years that the agent would
>turn on the conspirators and disclose the "truth").
>
>Wouldn't it be more rational to just imagine that the person being
>criticized is close-minded and so distorts the evidence to continue to
>uphold his views?
>
>Just wondering.
Of course, it's absurd to believe there are any "disinfo agents" hired
>When people refer to someone as a "disinfo agent" do they mean this
>literally? That is, do they think the person is actually an agent hired
>to carry out an operation (usually under some kind of "cover")? Or are
>they just writing in hyperbole?
>
>Of course someone could be a hired agent, although under both the
>large-scale conspiracy and the small-scale conspiracy theories that would
>seem like a big waste of time and money 50 years later (not to mention
>taking on the pointless risk after all these years that the agent would
>turn on the conspirators and disclose the "truth").
>
>Wouldn't it be more rational to just imagine that the person being
>criticized is close-minded and so distorts the evidence to continue to
>uphold his views?
>
>Just wondering.
by the government to promote a "cover-up" of this case.
But if they *were* they would be conspiracists.
Nothing has been better at confusing things and throwing a fog of
insanity over the whole issue than the conspiracists.
>
>On Monday, October 1, 2012 9:12:29 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>> This from Garrisonite Jim DiEugenio:
>>
>>
>>
>> <Quote on>
>>
>>
>>
>> Reitzes is such a goon.
>>
>>
>>
>> Count the witnesses who identified LHO there and its simply
>>
>> overwhelming. And In Mellen's book, she produces evidence that says
>>
>> LHO actually signed up that day.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am thinking of doing a long article on Reitzes exposing him as the
>>
>> disinfo artist he is. One thing, besides this Clinton BS that gets to
>>
>> me is this: he says Garrison's office was not bugged.
>>
>>
>>
>> LOL
>>
>>
>>
>> In my book I will prove that it was bugged--twice! Once for the CIA
>>
>> and once for the FBI.
>>
>>
>>
>> <Quote off>
>>
>>
>>
>> We have seen the sort of "evidence" Garrisonites like Mellen and
>>
>> DiEugenio have.
>>
>>
>>
>> If anybody has any real evidence that Garrison's office were bugged,
>>
>> they should have long since produced it.
>>
>>
>>
>> But in fact, they don't. Which is not to say that some "witness" will
>>
>> not come forward to claim personal knowledge of such.
>>
>>
>>
>> .John
>>
>> --------------
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Oct 8, 2012, 12:15:24 AM10/8/12
to
On 10/6/2012 8:44 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 2 Oct 2012 14:58:18 -0400, Ace Kefford <bglo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> When people refer to someone as a "disinfo agent" do they mean this
>> literally? That is, do they think the person is actually an agent hired
>> to carry out an operation (usually under some kind of "cover")? Or are
>> they just writing in hyperbole?
>>
>> Of course someone could be a hired agent, although under both the
>> large-scale conspiracy and the small-scale conspiracy theories that would
>> seem like a big waste of time and money 50 years later (not to mention
>> taking on the pointless risk after all these years that the agent would
>> turn on the conspirators and disclose the "truth").
>>
>> Wouldn't it be more rational to just imagine that the person being
>> criticized is close-minded and so distorts the evidence to continue to
>> uphold his views?
>>
>> Just wondering.
>
> Of course, it's absurd to believe there are any "disinfo agents" hired
> by the government to promote a "cover-up" of this case.
>
Except for the CIA memos which mention them.
> On 2 Oct 2012 14:58:18 -0400, Ace Kefford <bglo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> When people refer to someone as a "disinfo agent" do they mean this
>> literally? That is, do they think the person is actually an agent hired
>> to carry out an operation (usually under some kind of "cover")? Or are
>> they just writing in hyperbole?
>>
>> Of course someone could be a hired agent, although under both the
>> large-scale conspiracy and the small-scale conspiracy theories that would
>> seem like a big waste of time and money 50 years later (not to mention
>> taking on the pointless risk after all these years that the agent would
>> turn on the conspirators and disclose the "truth").
>>
>> Wouldn't it be more rational to just imagine that the person being
>> criticized is close-minded and so distorts the evidence to continue to
>> uphold his views?
>>
>> Just wondering.
>
> Of course, it's absurd to believe there are any "disinfo agents" hired
> by the government to promote a "cover-up" of this case.
>
> But if they *were* they would be conspiracists.
>
with wacky conspiracy theories? For what reason? Is it you claim that
the reason why they do that is just to make YOU look better?
They WANT the public to believe it was a conspiracy? Why?
This reminds me of the CIA project to promote UFO research and theories
to cover up the real things happening which they did not want the public
to know about, the U-2, SR-71 and other advanced aircraft.
The really hilarious thing is that there are morons in US intelligence
who actually think that if they can keep it secret from the American
public that means that they are successfully keeping it from our enemy's
intelligence services.
Like keeping the Atom Bomb secret from the public, but the Soviets had
all the secrets even before our scientists did.
John Reagor King
Oct 8, 2012, 8:59:19 PM10/8/12
to
In article <5071e806$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
they didn't come even remotely close to saying, just like he claimed that
I said JFK already had his fists up by Z225, even though he's never
actually seen me say anything even remotely close to that in the past
seven years at least. Then he makes it much worse by absolutely refusing
to admit his obvious mistake even after it is pointed out to him
repeatedly for several days in a row.
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Ok, so your conspiracy is that the CIA commissions wackos to come up
> with wacky conspiracy theories? For what reason? Is it you claim that
> the reason why they do that is just to make YOU look better?
> They WANT the public to believe it was a conspiracy? Why?
Yet another example of Anthony acting as if another poster said something
> Ok, so your conspiracy is that the CIA commissions wackos to come up
> with wacky conspiracy theories? For what reason? Is it you claim that
> the reason why they do that is just to make YOU look better?
> They WANT the public to believe it was a conspiracy? Why?
they didn't come even remotely close to saying, just like he claimed that
I said JFK already had his fists up by Z225, even though he's never
actually seen me say anything even remotely close to that in the past
seven years at least. Then he makes it much worse by absolutely refusing
to admit his obvious mistake even after it is pointed out to him
repeatedly for several days in a row.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 9, 2012, 9:49:17 AM10/9/12
to
That means that I am asking him if he really meant to leave that
impression or if he just stated it the wrong way. Sometimes I understand
what a poster meant to say even if it didn't come out the way he meant it.
You call it mind reading. I call it common sense.
Bud
Oct 9, 2012, 9:54:18 AM10/9/12
to
point until he drifts out into left field.
0 new messages