Why hasn't anyone credible talked in 46 years?
Steve
student asked me this morning. In the Kennedy assassinatino plot you
nuts have created in your own minds there had to be dozens and dozens
and dozens of individuals involved, associated, and aware of the
plans. You nuts claim:
1. Paper bags were planted
2. Fingerprints were added post mortem
3. Ruby was "allowed" into the basement of the DP station
4. Oswald's job was "arranged" so that he would be in a position to
murder Kennedy when the time arrived
5. Someone stole Oswald's rifle out of the Paine's garage
6. Someone planted a rifle in the TSBD to frame Oswald
7. Some unidentified person murdered Officer Tippit
8. Someone fabricated one or more bags that would frame Oswald
9. Someone aided Oswald in getting from the TSBD to his apartment in
the presumed amount of time needed to murder Tippit
10. Someone traveled to Mexico City to impersonate Oswald (even
though he looked nothing on earth like him)
And on and on and on....
O.K. nuts. Please explain why none of these hundreds of co-
conspirators have ever broken their silence in their advancing years
to write a book, grant an exclusive interview, or participate in a
documentary. Any such revelation would fetch millions that would
belss the lives of not only them but their family and their family's
family. Why no deathbed confessions that can be supported by hard
evidence (that leaves Howard Hunt and Roscoe White out doesn't it.)
C'mon nuts, let's hear it.
(cue David Healy's incoherent profanity and non-sensical comment)
(cue Rosstard accusation that I run away from the evidence)
(cue Giltard's link to the video of the totally unsupported interview
of the "Ruby note")
For the rest, where are the confessors?
MSwanberg
So let me get this straight. Your saying that if people conspired to
murder a president and/or a Dallas policeman, that they should come
forward and write a book?!?!?!? Do they have logic on your planet?
Look up James Files. Lucien Sarti. David Ferrie. All made non-
deathbed confessions. And Marita Lorenz testified under oath about
confessions made to her by Frank Sturgis.
And while we're talking about it, what makes deathbed confessions
inadmissable? In fact, I think they're all the more compelling
because they no longer have anything to lose or gain.
See the thing is this... you ignore those that have come forth or
somehow pretend that they don't count, and then cry out "why hasn't
ANYone come forth?" It's ludicrous.
-Mike
tomnln
"Steve" <sahi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e24b4bdf-905b-46ac...@m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
aeffects
...
hang in there hon, we CT's have only been at this for 40+ years.
Somehow we've managed to keep you (and other lone nut-troll
imbeciles) jumping through hoops since you (particularly) grew hair on
that tiny pair of noobies ya got there.
Want me to clear that so you can lay the above on your students,
shithead?
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -
James Files. Lucien Sarti. David Ferrie???????????? Those are your
individuals in which you place the conspiracy? Are you nuts? Of ALL
the people involved THOSE are the three? Not one educated person on
the planet takes James Files confession seriously. I don't even need
to respond to that one. Just because someone confesses doesn't mean
theyr confession has merit.
You avoided my question by ignoring the literally dozens and dozens
and dozens of individuals that would have had to have been involved in
this non-existent conspiracy and you instead pick three that have
nothing of merit to contribute.
Just as I suspected.
Incidentally, their "confessions" bump into one another don't they?
Are you really implying that Frank Sturgis and David Ferrie and James
Files were all involved in the murder together?
You my friend are an idiot. I can't even respond to your ridiculous
claims.
MSwanberg
I am implying nothing. You asked for people who have stepped forth
and said that they were themselves involved.
So what's your point here. Are you asking for who I believe was
involved and what was their roles? Or are you, as your initial post
strongly suggests (by stating it outright), asking for the names of
people who have claimed personal involvement.
You stated that there were none... I gave you three off the top of my
head, plus an additional second-hand admission. I believe that
satisfies your query. If you'd like to institute a new line of
questions, by all means go for it. But don't ask for A and then
complain that I didn't give you B.
-Mike
Steve
That being said you didn't answer my question at all. I asked fior
"A" and you responded with nothing. I asked for individuals that were
involved with the assassination and then later offered a deathbed
confession that AGREED with the known evidence. None of the names you
provided offered ANY information that can be backed up with forensic
evidence. There is not one speck of evidence that ANY of the people
you mentioned were involved in any way with the assassination.
What I would like to hear is why none of the conspirators have broken
their silence in later years. Speaking of death bed confessions I'm
sure you are aware that one of the last things Jack Ruby stated to his
rabbi Hilel Silverman was that he was NOT involved in any conspiracy
involving him and Oswald. He stated over and over that he NEVER knew
Oswald or even met him prior to the moment he shot and killed him.
So it seems that the ONLY legitimate deathbed confession to come forth
in 45+ years actually dispels one of the oldest and least supportest
theories--namely that there was a Ruby-Oswald connection.
Ben Holmes
MSwanberg says...
>
>On Sep 11, 1:28=A0pm, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> All right you bunch of nuts please help me answer this question that a
>> nuts have created in your own minds there had to be dozens and dozens
>> and dozens of individuals involved, associated, and aware of the
>> 1. =A0Paper bags were planted
>> 2. =A0Fingerprints were added post mortem
>> 3. =A0Ruby was "allowed" into the basement of the DP station
>> 4. =A0Oswald's job was "arranged" so that he would be in a position to
>> murder Kennedy when the time arrived
>> 6. =A0Someone planted a rifle in the TSBD to frame Oswald
>> 7. =A0Some unidentified person murdered Officer Tippit
>> 8. =A0Someone fabricated one or more bags that would frame Oswald
>> 9. =A0Someone aided Oswald in getting from the TSBD to his apartment in
>> the presumed amount of time needed to murder Tippit
>> though he looked nothing on earth like him)
>>
>> And on and on and on....
>>
>> conspirators have ever broken their silence in their advancing years
>> to write a book, grant an exclusive interview, or participate in a
>> belss the lives of not only them but their family and their family's
>> evidence (that leaves Howard Hunt and Roscoe White out doesn't it.)
>>
>> C'mon nuts, let's hear it.
>>
>> (cue David Healy's incoherent profanity and non-sensical comment)
>> (cue Rosstard accusation that I run away from the evidence)
>> (cue Giltard's link to the video of the totally unsupported interview
>> of the "Ruby note")
>>
>> For the rest, where are the confessors?
>
>So let me get this straight. Your saying that if people conspired to
>murder a president and/or a Dallas policeman, that they should come
>forward and write a book?!?!?!? Do they have logic on your planet?
>
>Look up James Files. Lucien Sarti. David Ferrie. All made non-
>deathbed confessions. And Marita Lorenz testified under oath about
>confessions made to her by Frank Sturgis.
>
>And while we're talking about it, what makes deathbed confessions
>inadmissable? In fact, I think they're all the more compelling
>because they no longer have anything to lose or gain.
>
>See the thing is this... you ignore those that have come forth or
>somehow pretend that they don't count, and then cry out "why hasn't
>ANYone come forth?" It's ludicrous.
>
>-Mike
This is always the problem with the kooks. They demand evidence, and when it's
presented to them, it's "not credible." Or it's "years later", as if a thorough
investigation (and honest one!) wouldn't have revealed such information.
Faith is a wonderful thing, but it *should* be reconcilable with the evidence.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
MSwanberg
Alright, you're going in circles. First you say you don't want to
hear about deathbed confessions, and now you say you want to hear ONLY
about deathbed confessions. Let's get on a program and stick with it,
shall we?
As for "forensic evidence," you are only revealing that you have no
clue what the best conspiracy theories are saying. Namely, the so-
called evidence was controlled by like-minded people in the FBI, CIA,
and DPD (although, I believe much less the DPD than the others). This
is why chains of evidence frequently are very suspect. The evidence
collected at the scene never makes it to those that are examining it
(WC and HSCA). That's the very essence of all of this.
If we spend (waste) our time chasing down ONLY forensic evidence
that's been presented officially, we arrive at one pre-ordained
conclusion... as you surely have. But CTers realize and understand
that much of that is smoke and mirrors and look for that which ISN'T
official. And that's the crux of the whole thing.
You can either believe that peripheral stuff or not. It makes no
difference, really, because the truth will never out because any and
all TRUE evidence in the crime has assuredly been destroyed.
Here's an example. The CIA will release a document that is redacted
to hell and back. The LNer will look at that and say, "see? Nothing
here indicates anyone other than Oswald was involved." But the CTer
will look at that same piece of paper and ask, "okay, if Oswald was
just a loner loser with no ties to any intelligence organization, then
why does the CIA feel the need to redact 95% of the document in the
name of National Security?"
That's the essence of our differences here. You may look at something
and see nothing (much as your diatribes in this thread bear out),
whereas the CTers see what's there, read between the lines to see also
what's NOT there and what that really means.
Now, to your question... here's the logic of it. If I were involved
in the crime of the century, I would NEVER in a million years confess
to such a thing. NEVER. It would mean the end of my life as I know
it. Only if I had a sudden attack of conscience (extremely rare
amongst those that are willing to undergo political assassination to
further their aims) would I remotely consider spilling the beans. But
even then, I would probably stay quiet so as not to put my family
through hell.
So there it is. You ask why they're not coming forth... that is why.
It's because they participated in some way in a terrible crime. A
CRIME! And they are getting away with it... so there's no point in
confessing now. You are asking why these people who have done one
thing are not suddenly doing the opposite.
So, your question is laughably silly. You may as well ask why aliens
haven't landed to tell us what happened on 11/22/63. Or even ask why
psychics aren't telling us what happened.
-Mike
tomnln
Because it was "Speculation" that SUNK the lies of the WCR, Only idiots
would "Speculate".
EXAMPLE:
page 541 of the WCR is discussing the back/throat wounds on JFK;
"presumably of entrance/presumably of exit".
The EXACT opposite of the Truth ! ! !
When one engages in Speculation, they're talking about a subject that they
can't Prove ! ! !
Which in turn rightfully destroys their credibility.
Steve RUNS from the evidence/testimony within the 26 volumes.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
"Steve" <sahi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d6e8a345-25d1-4e9f...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
lazu...@webtv.net
MSwanberg
> It's up to each person to decide who's credible...
That is exactly correct. And I would like to extend that a tad to say
"no one can dictate to another who is or is not credible."
-Mike
Walt
Nobody but a nut would want to admit that he was part of the
conspiracy to murder the President of the United States. Everybody
knows that it was a dispicable, treasonous act, of extreme cowardice.
What person in his right mind would want to bring shame and disgrace
to himself and his family?? Howard Hunt, and Roscoe White wanted to
reveal the truth, and clear their conscientious before going to meet
their maker but neither could quite muster the courage to tell all in
plain language.
Walt
Hoorah!!.... Ya slapped him upside the head with the truth, Mike...but
the stupid bastard probably doesn't even see how ridiculous he is.
Walt
Ya know, I find it kinda ironic that almost everybody thinks that this
case is so complicated. It's not at all complicated, once an
individual can face the FACT that his government is no better than
Hitler or Stalin's government. As someone a hell of a lot smarter
than me observed .... Absolute power corrupts absolutely.....and
J.Edgar Hoover was the most powerful man in the world in 1963.
If you believe that JFK was murdered as the result of a conspiracy
then you have only two choices....
A) That Hoover's FBI was so inept that they couldn't uncover the
truth.....Or
B) Hoover covered up the truth....
Personally I believe Hoover covered up the truth..... And therefore he
was the most culpable person in the conspiracy. If he wasn't involved
in the planning he damned sure was involved in hiding the truth....
WHY???
Most American's are smart enough to know they were lied to about the
assassination of John Kennedy......They just don't have the time or
resources to dig out the truth.
Steve
Walt is correct; this IS a simple murder. All the conspirators needed
to pull this off is the following:
1. Invisible gunmen who were not seen by nearly 500 witnesses in
Dealey Plaza.
2. Rifles that left no bullets or fragments behind after they killed
the President.
3. Assassins who were able to slip out of Dealey Plaza undetected,
and not ONE assassin but several from different locations, all without
leaving any fingerprints, shell casings, rifles, or other evidence
behind.
4. A fall guy (Oswald) who will guarantee that at the time of the
assassination he will NOT have a credible alibi, and will follow
orders immediately afterwards to flee Dealey Plaza, go to his boarding
house and pick up a pistol, then head to a movie theater and duck
inside without paying (all to look guilty of a crime he didn't commit)
and then vocally and physically resist arrest and even attempt to
murder a police officer (for which he could get life in prison in
Texas) all to go along with these invisible conspirators plans.
5. Then they need someone else who is willing to murder Officer J.D.
Tippit for no apparant reason and also manage to escape clear
identification even though nearly a dozen people witnessed the
shooting. The bullets also have to show characteristics of having
been fired from Oswald's revolver even though Oswald wasn't even at
the corner of 10th and Patton at the time of the shooting.
6. They they need to either get the autopsy surgeons to lie about
what the wounds looked like in Maryland later that night OR they need
a crack team of surgeons who can do what no team of surgeons has ever
done in the history of the planet--namely to alter wounds to the point
that trained medical doctors will be fooled into believing that the
trajectory was different than originally surmised, OR they have to
have a team who have managed to steal the official autopsy photographs
and x-rays and somehow alter them (rather than simply destroy them or
"lose" them) so that the autopsy photographs APPEAR to show a rear
entrance wound and a right front exit wound, and also to have the x-
rays match PERFECTLY these altered photographs.
7. Then they need to find a team that can steal the closely-guarded
Zapruder film, the most valuable reel of film shot in the history of
the planet, they have to steal it within the first few days, secret it
off to a hidden location and alter the film so that it APPEARS that
shots came from the rear (but forgetting that Kennedy's head moved
backwards after the final shot) and then return the film to its
rightful owners (Time-Life) before anyone knows this invaluable piece
of film is missing in the first place.
8. Then they have to assemble a team of trained assassins who travel
the country (and world) to track down key witnesses (many of whom
actually thought OSWALD did it) and murder them before they tell their
story to the press(many times YEARS after they had already told all
they knew) and never get caught for a single one of these murders.
9. Yet this crack team of assassins never quite manages to figure out
that they should also kill the ground-breaking scholars who are
seeking to expose their very devious acts of nefarious murder and
mayhem. Penn Jones is never harmed, Jim Marrs survives, Robert Groden
poses no threat, Josiah Thompson is alive and well, Harold Weisberg
dies peacefully after a lifetime of "exposing" the conspiracy, Jimmy
Fetzer still walks the street, David Healy is still with us (insert
joke here), Jack White is still wearing depends and drinking Ensure,
Tom Rossley is still having mush spooned into his mouth by his
Jamaican nurse in between diaper changes, Gil Jesus freely roams the
streets of Maryland (when he can chew through his restraints) and on
and on and on.
So Walt IS right. It IS a pretty simple murder. Probably not more
than two or three hundred people tops needed to pull off the murder of
the century and not one of these people has ever talked.
MSwanberg
Not at all... all they REALLY need is to be able to control the
investigation afterwards, particularly the evidence.
Oh, and of course, they need the general populace to act like dullard
sheep and believe their "official" findings.
-Mike
Walt
men in positons of power to control the investigation, and lie to the
public via gullible and cooperative reporters. And of course they
needed a populace that had been frightened into allowing those
ruthless powerful men to do whatever they deemed necessary to prevent
the world from being engulfed in a nuclear inferno.
Even most of the men on the Warren Commission felt that they were
doing the right thing by hiding the facts from the public. Most of
them had been told privately that Hoover knew that Castro and the
communists was behind the murder of JFK but to openly confront the
Commies would start the nuclear missles flying. They thought they
were doing the right thing to protect themselves and us from nuclear
annilation.
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I noticed you both ignored the claims that YOU nuts are always
making. That is hilarious. I restate YOUR arguments that YOU nuts
have made over the years and then once you hear how stupid they sound
you suddenly claim that none of those steps are really necessary but
that a conspiracy would be relatively simple to pull off. The irony
of conspiracy nuts stating that their own arguments are superfluous
has made my whole week!!
Walt
Any person who appears to be "normal" can become "invisible. And we
know that there were gun toting men who had credentials as being with
the Secret Service in Dealey Plaza at the time of the murder.
> 2. Rifles that left no bullets or fragments behind after they killed
> the President.
There are bullets and fragments of bullets that J.Edna hoover's FBI
claimed had been fired from the mannlicher Carcano that was left
COMPLETELY HIDDEN in a cavern of boxes on the sixth floor. However
NONE.... NONE ...of them are solidly connected to the victims... ie
NONE of them were recovered from a victim's body.
> 3. Assassins who were able to slip out of Dealey Plaza undetected,
> and not ONE assassin but several from different locations, all without
> leaving any fingerprints, shell casings, rifles, or other evidence
> behind.
What's so difficult about a man with Secret service credentials
departing the scene??
> 4. A fall guy (Oswald) who will guarantee that at the time of the
> assassination he will NOT have a credible alibi, and will follow
> orders immediately afterwards to flee Dealey Plaza, go to his boarding
> house and pick up a pistol, then head to a movie theater and duck
> inside without paying (all to look guilty of a crime he didn't commit)
> and then vocally and physically resist arrest and even attempt to
> murder a police officer (for which he could get life in prison in
> Texas) all to go along with these invisible conspirators plans.
You are merely regurgitating the official government line.... Learn
the FACTS.
> 5. Then they need someone else who is willing to murder Officer J.D.
> Tippit for no apparant reason and also manage to escape clear
> identification even though nearly a dozen people witnessed the
> shooting. The bullets also have to show characteristics of having
> been fired from Oswald's revolver even though Oswald wasn't even at
> the corner of 10th and Patton at the time of the shooting.
> 6. They they need to either get the autopsy surgeons to lie about
> what the wounds looked like in Maryland later that night OR they need
> a crack team of surgeons who can do what no team of surgeons has ever
> done in the history of the planet--namely to alter wounds to the point
> that trained medical doctors will be fooled into believing that the
> trajectory was different than originally surmised, OR they have to
> have a team who have managed to steal the official autopsy photographs
> and x-rays and somehow alter them (rather than simply destroy them or
> "lose" them) so that the autopsy photographs APPEAR to show a rear
> entrance wound and a right front exit wound, and also to have the x-
> rays match PERFECTLY these altered photographs.
You nuttier than a pistachio tree
> the century and not one of these people has ever talked.- Hide quoted text -
MSwanberg
Actually, you are cherry-picking a few theories on how things COULD
have happened, and asking for better explanations. That's all just
window-dressing and is all immaterial. All of those things you listed
could easily be confounded on the back-end by controlling the
investigation and the evidence.
So, let's say a crap-ton of people say they saw a gunman on the GK.
They all give their testimony but somehow the testimony comes out
different. Or the conclusion is that anyone who said they saw a GK
gunman was just mistaken. In the end, you have a report that says,
"no one saw a GK gunman" and then you have a bunch of people, much
like yourself, who say, "no one saw a GK gunman, don't you get it?"
But the conclusion is flawed.
So we are at an impasse. ANYthing you come up with, I could refute by
saying the evidence was tampered with and the investigation was
controlled. So what we really need to do is look for the
possibilities of that being true or false. So, what's your take on
that? I mean, we can't talk about anything else until we resolve this
issue, don't you agree?
So, on my side of this fence, we have the WC, which was hand-picked by
JFK's successor, who reversed many of JFK's policies. This commission
was formed illegally, which is to say that murder is a State crime, so
should have been investigated within Texas, but was taken from them.
This sure seems like someone is controlling the investigation, doesn't
it?
As well, there are many accounts, unfortunately I am not sure if any
of them were done under oath, of testimony being altered. Julia Ann
Mercer comes to mind on this one. There are also many dubious chains
of evidence... such as the etched initials disappearing from the spent
casings found at the scene of Tippit's murder. This sure seems to
point to evidence tampering.
In fact, nearly everything in connection to this case seems to have
doubt on both sides. Witnesses either changing their minds (some of
them after having been shot in the head) about what they saw, or even
saying that they testified a certain way because they were told that's
the best way to go (Kenny O'Donnell comes to mind on that one). So if
we throw out everything that's ever been in question, what are we left
with? Is there any hard evidence out there that simply could NOT have
been tampered with?
Seems to me like anything released post-1991 might fit that bill. So
let's think... is there anything in there that might seem to point us
one way or another?
-Mike
Walt
Hi Mike....I really enjoy reading your calm, rational, and lucid,
replies to Steve on the murder of President Kennedy.
On the subect of witnessess who changed their minds...... Orville Nix
has to take the blue ribbon for "best of class" .... Orville was
standing on a high pedestal near the corner of Housaton and Main
street about a half block from the shooting scene. He filmed the
shooting and his home movie is an important piece of the evidence.
However..good ol Orville was not a man of steel....
On the day of the assination he told authorities that he thought the
shots had been fired from behind the picket fence on the Grassy Knoll.
He based that deduction on what his SENSE told him. He had seen, heard
and filmed the event...and his senses told him the shots had came from
behind the fence, but a couple of days later he abandoned his good
sense and claimed that the authories had better senses than he when
he said...."I now know that the shots came from up there in that book
buliding because they found all of that evidence up there"
MSwanberg
> shots had been fired from behind the picket fence on the Grassy Knoll.
> He based that deduction on what his SENSE told him. He had seen, heard
> and filmed the event...and his senses told him the shots had came from
> behind the fence, but a couple of days later he abandoned his good
> sense and claimed that the authories had better senses than he when
> he said...."I now know that the shots came from up there in that book
> buliding because they found all of that evidence up there"
Yes, there seems to be many accounts of people who deferred to what
"officials" told them. Phrases like, "well, they said the shots came
from the book depository so I guess that's where they came from"
suddenly become a check mark on the LHO-Did-It side.
Thanks for the compliment. I try to remain level-headed. It's tough
sometimes, though :-)
-Mike
Gil Jesus
> All right you bunch of nuts please help me answer this question that a
> student asked me this morning. �In the Kennedy assassinatino plot you
> nuts have created in your own minds there had to be dozens and dozens
> and dozens of individuals involved, associated, and aware of the
> plans. �You nuts claim:
> 1. �Paper bags were planted
> 2. �Fingerprints were added post mortem
> 3. �Ruby was "allowed" into the basement of the DP station
> 4. �Oswald's job was "arranged" so that he would be in a position to
> murder Kennedy when the time arrived
> 5. �Someone stole Oswald's rifle out of the Paine's garage
> 6. �Someone planted a rifle in the TSBD to frame Oswald
> 7. �Some unidentified person murdered Officer Tippit
> 8. �Someone fabricated one or more bags that would frame Oswald
> 9. �Someone aided Oswald in getting from the TSBD to his apartment in
> the presumed amount of time needed to murder Tippit
> 10. �Someone traveled to Mexico City to impersonate Oswald (even
> though he looked nothing on earth like him)
>
> And on and on and on....
>
> O.K. nuts. �Please explain why none of these hundreds of co-
> conspirators have ever broken their silence in their advancing years
> to write a book, grant an exclusive interview, or participate in a
> C'mon nuts, let's hear it.
There is no staute of limitations for murder.
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -
In this case however your point is moot giltard since the guilty
person is already dead. What is the point of bringing up the statute
of limitations? Are you also going to bring up the statute of
limitations in the Lincoln assassination you big dummy?
Walt
Well if you can remain unruffled while debating with an egotistical
idiot like "Steve".....You're ready for the next level of
challenge...Try talking sense to Rob Caprio. THAT is the ultimate
challenge.
>
> -Mike
MSwanberg
> making. That is hilarious. I restate YOUR arguments that YOU nuts
> have made over the years and then once you hear how stupid they sound
> you suddenly claim that none of those steps are really necessary but
> that a conspiracy would be relatively simple to pull off. The irony
> of conspiracy nuts stating that their own arguments are superfluous
> has made my whole week!!
Would you really like people's ideas on the points you listed? You've
said that you aren't interested in speculation... but all of these
points sit firmly in the "what do you think happened" area of all of
this.
So what I see is you attempting to set us up. You are asking
questions, the answers to which you are already prepared to refute
with "but that's only speculation."
I mean, if you're going to be that transparent about your plan, just
drop the attempts at novelty and ask us if we've stopped beating our
wives.
-Mike
Walt
Precisely!!.......Or as the old saying goes .... Why didn't the dog
bark??
side note here.... One of the things that convinced me that OJ Sipmson
was guilty of murdering Nicole...was the fact that the killer wasn't
attacked by her Akita dog.
I've owned several Akita's and I know that they are a very protective
breed of dog.... Anybody outside of the family has to be wary if there
is an Akita present, because any sudden move toward a family member
can trigger the natural protective instincts in the dog. If an
outsider had murdered Nicole he surely would have been attacked by
that Akita.
MSwanberg
Heh, sounds like a challenge.
Honestly, I am not trying to talk sense into anyone. Each will have
to find what makes sense to themselves. The aggravating part is that
people think that what makes sense to one should make sense to all.
That's just not so. If it were, this would be a boring world to live
in.
I also get a kick out of how passionate people get about this stuff.
I myself have bigger fish to fry in my life than to let this make me
cuss out a fellow human being, question their parentage, berate and
belittle their IQ.
I was thinking this morning... when trying to convince someone of a
point, it's best to think about it as though you are trying to
convince a pretty girl to go on a date with you. Would you try to
catch them in a lie? Cuss at them? Call them names? Bombard them
with semantics? Trick them? Of course not. Those tactics won't
work... and they likewise won't work when trying to make a point to
someone.
But then I backed off and pondered... anyone who takes this stuff so
seriously that they hurl insults at others probably never talked to a
girl without having to give their credit card number first.
-Mike
Walt
You're right Mike.... A good salesman will kiss his customers ass, to
make a sale. That's why I never was a salesman. I prefer to show
people and let them decide for themselves. BUT that's just not
possible with the elitisist assholes who think they are superior
because they have the official government lie to support them. I hold
them in contempt, for being too gutless to challenge the "boss' and
failing to use their God given brains.
I'm disappointed that you don't think the murder of the president of
the United states is anything to be taken"seriously". The godamned
liars handed us a dog turd and told us it was a candy bar......Only a
completely gutless fool wouldn't be insulted..... and only an even
bigger fool would accept that dog turd and eat it.
MSwanberg
Well, let me refine my point.
It's not that I think the murder of the president by forces within the
government isn't important. I'm just of the mind that we will
probably never know the full truth (that satisfies everyone), will
never get a good (read: acceptable to all) confession out of any
guilty party, will never be able to prosecute anyone, so it's an
academic pursuit at best. At least for me. There are those in more
powerful positions who could assuredly do more. And if they require
my assistance, then they'll have it. But I am not a politician, nor
do I have the ear of any significant number of people, so my influence
is pitiably small.
And I guess what I meant to say was that I don't find this personally
important enough to get all twisted up and start insulting people. I
have far more pressing worries in my life that I need to tend to
first. I am glad, however, that there are some people whose lives are
so secure and rich that they can spend considerable amounts of their
energy trying to convince others what they think is true. I actually
envy them.
My best guess at how we can make this work for the better good is to
understand it, understand what goes on in governmental circles, and
try to prevent future misdeeds. After all, we can't bring JFK back to
life. We can't undo what we did in Vietnam. And we can't impeach
Johnson or Nixon anymore. So we have to look to the future to see how
we can make THAT better.
Just my $0.02.
-Mike
Walt
Mike, I'm one of those who has an obsession ...... I don't like
being treated like an addled brained fool. I may not have the best
nose of the all of the dogs in the hunt, but I damned sure know a
skunk when I smell one. I've spent many years studying this
case....and believe me it's not nearly as complicated as the
government would like us to believe. In fact if the authorities had
been honest and conducted a real investigation, Hoover and Johnson
would have been swinging at the end of a hemp neck tie. ( along with
the people who actively participated in the murder.)
There are many erstwhile CT's who claim that they would like to know
the truth, but they enjoy playing "Who-Done-It" more than sticking to
reality.
Perhaps we can't undo that which has been done.... but we owe it to
posterity to expose the culprits so that our grandchildren won't some
day say..." What a bunch of fools our grandparents were. We now know
the truth and it's as obvious as the nose on your face.....How could
they have allowed their elected officials to hand them such an obvious
lie"
MSwanberg
> being treated like an addled brained fool. I may not have the best
> nose of the all of the dogs in the hunt, but I damned sure know a
> skunk when I smell one. I've spent many years studying this
> case....and believe me it's not nearly as complicated as the
> government would like us to believe.
I wholeheartedly agree. The complexity is in the smokescreen, and
it's easy to get bogged down in it.
> There are many erstwhile CT's who claim that they would like to know
> the truth, but they enjoy playing "Who-Done-It" more than sticking to
> reality.
>
Well, in their defense, aren't the LNers constantly asking the CTers
whodunnit?
Of course, I am playing devil's advocate here, but I think it's
necessary to formulate theories as to who was responsible. That could
lead to speculation which could lead to investigation which could lead
to new truth.
> Perhaps we can't undo that which has been done.... but we owe it to
> posterity to expose the culprits so that our grandchildren won't some
> day say..." What a bunch of fools our grandparents were. We now know
> the truth and it's as obvious as the nose on your face.....How could
> they have allowed their elected officials to hand them such an obvious
> lie"
>
Good point. But if after this long nothing has been truly revealed,
chances are it never will. But I can be pessimistic sometimes.
And, after Watergate and Iran-Contra, I think our eyes are at least a
little open to the crap our government sometimes peddles.
Don't get me wrong... I'm the proudest of the proud Americans... USA
do or die all the way... the best nation on earth. But it's not
perfect... not yet.
-Mike
Richard
Domingo) Benavides, Eladio Del Valle, Betty McDonald, Gary Underhill,
William Whaley, Lee Bowers, William Pitzer, Dave Ferrie, Buddy Walthers,
Hale Boggs, John Roselli, George De Mohrenschildt, and last but first, Lee
Harvey Oswald.
That's why.
Richard
That's why. Just for openers.
Richard
lazu...@webtv.net
truth...whatever one believes or disbelieves on a certain witness, there
is no honest way you can lump them all together and say they are all
lying...on most of these we just don't know..could anyone say with
certainty Giancana and Roselli were not murdered in regards to the JFK
Assasination? No, they are unsolved murders, so it's speculation...I am
very interested in Underhill's death he talked about" the far eastern
division of the CIA being involved, and his death was within a few
months of JFK's...and he was in a position to know...
MSwanberg
Stay on target, Laz! Let's solve one murder at a time!!! ;-)
I'm kidding. You always seem to raise interesting side-notes in all
of this. I wish I had the time and energy to keep up.
-Mike
Ben Holmes
MSwanberg says...
>
>On Sep 18, 3:12=A0pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>> Exactly, and that's why lone nutters have no interest in finding the
>> truth...whatever one believes or disbelieves on a certain witness, there
>> is no honest way you can lump them all together and say they are all
>> lying...on most of these we just don't know..could anyone say with
>> certainty Giancana and Roselli were not murdered in regards to the JFK
>> Assasination? No, they are unsolved murders, so it's speculation...I am
>> very interested in Underhill's death he talked about" the far eastern
>> division of the CIA being involved, and his death was within a few
>> months of JFK's...and he was in a position to know...
>
>
>Stay on target, Laz! Let's solve one murder at a time!!! ;-)
Laz *is* on target... his target just happens to be bigger than most other
people... :)
>I'm kidding. You always seem to raise interesting side-notes in all
>of this. I wish I had the time and energy to keep up.
>
>-Mike
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
arch_stanton
That's why. And them's just for openers.
Richard
Pitzer, Dave Ferrie, Buddy Walthers, Hale Boggs, John Roselli, George De
Mohrenschildt, and last but first, Lee Harvey Oswald.
That's why. And that's jost for Openers.
Richard
That's why. And thems just for Openers.
lazu...@webtv.net
lurking under the "buzz words" for many interesting controversial
aspects on all this... that isn't brought up by the MSM, or by
researchers often enough.. and that no one simple theory fits all the
evidence, whther LHO alone, mob, CIA, LBJ etc likewise. along with the
basic flaws in logic in the diehard nutters position...
Richard
Domingo) Benavides, Eladio Del Valle, Betty McDonald, Gary Underhill,
William Whaley, Lee Bowers, William Pitzer, Dave Ferrie, Buddy
Walthers, Hale Boggs, John Roselli, George De Mohrenschildt, and last
but first, Lee Harvey Oswald.
That's why. For openers.