Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Oswalds VD "In the line of duty"
28 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Harris
May 12, 2012, 2:22:11 PM5/12/12
to
In a recent exchange with john mcadams and jean davison, I pointed out
examples of Oswald's anti-communist activities, which included his
apparent involvement with a prostitute in Atsugi Japan for the purpose of
trying to find out about them passing information from their Marine
customers to communists.
This activity was corroborated by a fellow marine, David Bucknell, who was
told by Oswald that he was assigned this task by military intelligence and
given money to pay the prostitute.
It was also confirmed by Captain Paul Deranian who treated Oswald's
venereal disease and reported that the infection was was acquired "in line
of duty".
Mcadams replied to this in the way he always has since the mid 1990's, by
posting a link to this article at his website,
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm
But Zaid's ancient article contains no sources for his claims about
military law and he himself admitted that Oswald violated no rules, which
only required him to promptly report the infection and get it treated.
And so I asked John to clarify Zaid's argument and explain why military
law required doctors to falsely claim that venereal infections were
acquired in the line of duty.
John replied as he does to most tough questions, stating that he just
didn't want to waste his time:-)
This was my reply and questions. Since john can't be bothered to waste his
time on such things, perhaps some other nutter who has a more open
calendar will help him out.
(quote)
I read this article before and I reread it just now. Maybe you could help
me out here, because I honestly don't understand Zaid's argument. He said,
"The reason for this speculation is a diagnosis by Captain Paul Deranian,
the senior medical officer at Atsugi, that Oswald contracted 'Urethritis,
Acute, due to gonococcus #0303.' The Captain noted its origin as being 'In
line of duty, not due to own misconduct.'"
So, us CT's suffer under the wild and crazy delusion that when the doctor
said, in the line of duty, he actually meant in the line of duty. Zaid
continues,
"However, the statement of origin, which is actually a legal determination
pertaining to the allocation of future benefits, is entirely innocuous and
absolutely provides no substantive proof of intelligence activities on the
part of Oswald."
I'm not sure what he meant by "statement of origin", but if he was
referring to Dr. Deranian's report, how did he come to believe that it was
about Oswald losing his benefits?
He himself acknowledged that LHO didn't break any rules. Getting a
venereal infection was not in violation of any Navy regs. The rule was
that he was supposed to report it promptly, which he did.
So how was he at risk of losing his benefits? It was never necessary in
the Navy, for an injury to have been inflicted while "in the line of
duty". If you break your leg after you've gone home for the day, or catch
a cold, you suffer no penalties and will get medical treatment just as you
would if it had happened while on guard duty.
And how was the doctor's statement a "legal determination"? It is
disappointing that Zaid never documents any of his claims about Naval
regulations.
Can you do that for him? You've referenced Zaid's article many times and
you feature it at your website. On an issue of such importance, I would
certainly hope that you've verified his statements.
Can you show me verbatim cites from the UCMJ or anywhere else, which cause
doctors to falsely claim that military personnel can get VD "in the line
of duty."
In fact, lets settle this thing before continuing.
(unquote)
For those who are considering coming to john's aide, it should be quite
easy to take care of this. If indeed, the doctor claimed that Lee got his
VD in the line of duty, for some reason other than that he really did,
then all of the hundreds of thousands of military, VD cases during the
time period must have been documented the same way.
That should be quite easy to prove.
But if they were not, then you will need to find another explanation. No
vulgar jokes, please:-)
Robert Harris
examples of Oswald's anti-communist activities, which included his
apparent involvement with a prostitute in Atsugi Japan for the purpose of
trying to find out about them passing information from their Marine
customers to communists.
This activity was corroborated by a fellow marine, David Bucknell, who was
told by Oswald that he was assigned this task by military intelligence and
given money to pay the prostitute.
It was also confirmed by Captain Paul Deranian who treated Oswald's
venereal disease and reported that the infection was was acquired "in line
of duty".
Mcadams replied to this in the way he always has since the mid 1990's, by
posting a link to this article at his website,
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm
But Zaid's ancient article contains no sources for his claims about
military law and he himself admitted that Oswald violated no rules, which
only required him to promptly report the infection and get it treated.
And so I asked John to clarify Zaid's argument and explain why military
law required doctors to falsely claim that venereal infections were
acquired in the line of duty.
John replied as he does to most tough questions, stating that he just
didn't want to waste his time:-)
This was my reply and questions. Since john can't be bothered to waste his
time on such things, perhaps some other nutter who has a more open
calendar will help him out.
(quote)
I read this article before and I reread it just now. Maybe you could help
me out here, because I honestly don't understand Zaid's argument. He said,
"The reason for this speculation is a diagnosis by Captain Paul Deranian,
the senior medical officer at Atsugi, that Oswald contracted 'Urethritis,
Acute, due to gonococcus #0303.' The Captain noted its origin as being 'In
line of duty, not due to own misconduct.'"
So, us CT's suffer under the wild and crazy delusion that when the doctor
said, in the line of duty, he actually meant in the line of duty. Zaid
continues,
"However, the statement of origin, which is actually a legal determination
pertaining to the allocation of future benefits, is entirely innocuous and
absolutely provides no substantive proof of intelligence activities on the
part of Oswald."
I'm not sure what he meant by "statement of origin", but if he was
referring to Dr. Deranian's report, how did he come to believe that it was
about Oswald losing his benefits?
He himself acknowledged that LHO didn't break any rules. Getting a
venereal infection was not in violation of any Navy regs. The rule was
that he was supposed to report it promptly, which he did.
So how was he at risk of losing his benefits? It was never necessary in
the Navy, for an injury to have been inflicted while "in the line of
duty". If you break your leg after you've gone home for the day, or catch
a cold, you suffer no penalties and will get medical treatment just as you
would if it had happened while on guard duty.
And how was the doctor's statement a "legal determination"? It is
disappointing that Zaid never documents any of his claims about Naval
regulations.
Can you do that for him? You've referenced Zaid's article many times and
you feature it at your website. On an issue of such importance, I would
certainly hope that you've verified his statements.
Can you show me verbatim cites from the UCMJ or anywhere else, which cause
doctors to falsely claim that military personnel can get VD "in the line
of duty."
In fact, lets settle this thing before continuing.
(unquote)
For those who are considering coming to john's aide, it should be quite
easy to take care of this. If indeed, the doctor claimed that Lee got his
VD in the line of duty, for some reason other than that he really did,
then all of the hundreds of thousands of military, VD cases during the
time period must have been documented the same way.
That should be quite easy to prove.
But if they were not, then you will need to find another explanation. No
vulgar jokes, please:-)
Robert Harris
John McAdams
May 12, 2012, 2:31:55 PM5/12/12
to
On 12 May 2012 14:22:11 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>In a recent exchange with john mcadams and jean davison, I pointed out
>examples of Oswald's anti-communist activities, which included his
>apparent involvement with a prostitute in Atsugi Japan for the purpose of
>trying to find out about them passing information from their Marine
>customers to communists.
>
You have no evidence it was a prostitute.
>This activity was corroborated by a fellow marine, David Bucknell, who was
>told by Oswald that he was assigned this task by military intelligence and
>given money to pay the prostitute.
>
Post a source for that.
>It was also confirmed by Captain Paul Deranian who treated Oswald's
>venereal disease and reported that the infection was was acquired "in line
>of duty".
>
Which report did not mean anything like you claim it means.
>Mcadams replied to this in the way he always has since the mid 1990's, by
>posting a link to this article at his website,
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm
>
>But Zaid's ancient article contains no sources for his claims about
>military law and he himself admitted that Oswald violated no rules, which
>only required him to promptly report the infection and get it treated.
>
That's the point!
Since he reported it promptly, he was not guilty of any misconduct.
>And so I asked John to clarify Zaid's argument and explain why military
>law required doctors to falsely claim that venereal infections were
>acquired in the line of duty.
>
>John replied as he does to most tough questions, stating that he just
>didn't want to waste his time:-)
>
Bob, you are ignoring the post where I replied to you.
>This was my reply and questions. Since john can't be bothered to waste his
>time on such things, perhaps some other nutter who has a more open
>calendar will help him out.
>
>(quote)
>
>I read this article before and I reread it just now. Maybe you could help
>me out here, because I honestly don't understand Zaid's argument. He said,
>
>"The reason for this speculation is a diagnosis by Captain Paul Deranian,
>the senior medical officer at Atsugi, that Oswald contracted 'Urethritis,
>Acute, due to gonococcus #0303.' The Captain noted its origin as being 'In
>line of duty, not due to own misconduct.'"
>
>So, us CT's suffer under the wild and crazy delusion that when the doctor
>said, in the line of duty, he actually meant in the line of duty. Zaid
>continues,
>
You can't be this naive.
>"However, the statement of origin, which is actually a legal determination
>pertaining to the allocation of future benefits, is entirely innocuous and
>absolutely provides no substantive proof of intelligence activities on the
>part of Oswald."
>
>I'm not sure what he meant by "statement of origin", but if he was
>referring to Dr. Deranian's report, how did he come to believe that it was
>about Oswald losing his benefits?
>
>He himself acknowledged that LHO didn't break any rules. Getting a
>venereal infection was not in violation of any Navy regs. The rule was
>that he was supposed to report it promptly, which he did.
>
Which is why it was ruled "in the line of duty" and "not due to own
misconduct."
>So how was he at risk of losing his benefits? It was never necessary in
>the Navy, for an injury to have been inflicted while "in the line of
>duty". If you break your leg after you've gone home for the day, or catch
>a cold, you suffer no penalties and will get medical treatment just as you
>would if it had happened while on guard duty.
>
>And how was the doctor's statement a "legal determination"? It is
>disappointing that Zaid never documents any of his claims about Naval
>regulations.
>
This is just flatly untrue, Bob.
Anybody can see the citations in the article.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm
Pretending that the article isn't properly cited is going to get you
nowhere, since anybody can see that's untrue.
>Can you do that for him? You've referenced Zaid's article many times and
>you feature it at your website. On an issue of such importance, I would
>certainly hope that you've verified his statements.
>
>Can you show me verbatim cites from the UCMJ or anywhere else, which cause
>doctors to falsely claim that military personnel can get VD "in the line
>of duty."
>
>In fact, lets settle this thing before continuing.
>
>(unquote)
>
>For those who are considering coming to john's aide, it should be quite
>easy to take care of this. If indeed, the doctor claimed that Lee got his
>VD in the line of duty, for some reason other than that he really did,
>then all of the hundreds of thousands of military, VD cases during the
>time period must have been documented the same way.
>
>That should be quite easy to prove.
>
You prove it *wasn't* true, Bob.
You silly notions are not assumed to be true until disproved.
>But if they were not, then you will need to find another explanation. No
>vulgar jokes, please:-)
>
>
You are ignoring the material I posted in a later post.
How about explaining how, when Oswald shot himself with a pistol he
wasn't supposed to have, it was ruled "in the line of duty," and "not
due to own misconduct."
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>In a recent exchange with john mcadams and jean davison, I pointed out
>examples of Oswald's anti-communist activities, which included his
>apparent involvement with a prostitute in Atsugi Japan for the purpose of
>trying to find out about them passing information from their Marine
>customers to communists.
>
>This activity was corroborated by a fellow marine, David Bucknell, who was
>told by Oswald that he was assigned this task by military intelligence and
>given money to pay the prostitute.
>
>It was also confirmed by Captain Paul Deranian who treated Oswald's
>venereal disease and reported that the infection was was acquired "in line
>of duty".
>
>Mcadams replied to this in the way he always has since the mid 1990's, by
>posting a link to this article at his website,
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm
>
>But Zaid's ancient article contains no sources for his claims about
>military law and he himself admitted that Oswald violated no rules, which
>only required him to promptly report the infection and get it treated.
>
Since he reported it promptly, he was not guilty of any misconduct.
>And so I asked John to clarify Zaid's argument and explain why military
>law required doctors to falsely claim that venereal infections were
>acquired in the line of duty.
>
>John replied as he does to most tough questions, stating that he just
>didn't want to waste his time:-)
>
>This was my reply and questions. Since john can't be bothered to waste his
>time on such things, perhaps some other nutter who has a more open
>calendar will help him out.
>
>(quote)
>
>I read this article before and I reread it just now. Maybe you could help
>me out here, because I honestly don't understand Zaid's argument. He said,
>
>"The reason for this speculation is a diagnosis by Captain Paul Deranian,
>the senior medical officer at Atsugi, that Oswald contracted 'Urethritis,
>Acute, due to gonococcus #0303.' The Captain noted its origin as being 'In
>line of duty, not due to own misconduct.'"
>
>So, us CT's suffer under the wild and crazy delusion that when the doctor
>said, in the line of duty, he actually meant in the line of duty. Zaid
>continues,
>
>"However, the statement of origin, which is actually a legal determination
>pertaining to the allocation of future benefits, is entirely innocuous and
>absolutely provides no substantive proof of intelligence activities on the
>part of Oswald."
>
>I'm not sure what he meant by "statement of origin", but if he was
>referring to Dr. Deranian's report, how did he come to believe that it was
>about Oswald losing his benefits?
>
>He himself acknowledged that LHO didn't break any rules. Getting a
>venereal infection was not in violation of any Navy regs. The rule was
>that he was supposed to report it promptly, which he did.
>
misconduct."
>So how was he at risk of losing his benefits? It was never necessary in
>the Navy, for an injury to have been inflicted while "in the line of
>duty". If you break your leg after you've gone home for the day, or catch
>a cold, you suffer no penalties and will get medical treatment just as you
>would if it had happened while on guard duty.
>
>And how was the doctor's statement a "legal determination"? It is
>disappointing that Zaid never documents any of his claims about Naval
>regulations.
>
Anybody can see the citations in the article.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm
Pretending that the article isn't properly cited is going to get you
nowhere, since anybody can see that's untrue.
>Can you do that for him? You've referenced Zaid's article many times and
>you feature it at your website. On an issue of such importance, I would
>certainly hope that you've verified his statements.
>
>Can you show me verbatim cites from the UCMJ or anywhere else, which cause
>doctors to falsely claim that military personnel can get VD "in the line
>of duty."
>
>In fact, lets settle this thing before continuing.
>
>(unquote)
>
>For those who are considering coming to john's aide, it should be quite
>easy to take care of this. If indeed, the doctor claimed that Lee got his
>VD in the line of duty, for some reason other than that he really did,
>then all of the hundreds of thousands of military, VD cases during the
>time period must have been documented the same way.
>
>That should be quite easy to prove.
>
You silly notions are not assumed to be true until disproved.
>But if they were not, then you will need to find another explanation. No
>vulgar jokes, please:-)
>
>
How about explaining how, when Oswald shot himself with a pistol he
wasn't supposed to have, it was ruled "in the line of duty," and "not
due to own misconduct."
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
May 12, 2012, 2:48:48 PM5/12/12
to
of the record. Someone trying to cover up.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
May 12, 2012, 6:26:37 PM5/12/12
to
On 5/12/2012 2:22 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In a recent exchange with john mcadams and jean davison, I pointed out
> examples of Oswald's anti-communist activities, which included his
> apparent involvement with a prostitute in Atsugi Japan for the purpose of
> trying to find out about them passing information from their Marine
> customers to communists.
>
> This activity was corroborated by a fellow marine, David Bucknell, who was
> told by Oswald that he was assigned this task by military intelligence and
> given money to pay the prostitute.
>
Hearsay.
> In a recent exchange with john mcadams and jean davison, I pointed out
> examples of Oswald's anti-communist activities, which included his
> apparent involvement with a prostitute in Atsugi Japan for the purpose of
> trying to find out about them passing information from their Marine
> customers to communists.
>
> This activity was corroborated by a fellow marine, David Bucknell, who was
> told by Oswald that he was assigned this task by military intelligence and
> given money to pay the prostitute.
>
> It was also confirmed by Captain Paul Deranian who treated Oswald's
> venereal disease and reported that the infection was was acquired "in line
> of duty".
>
trouble getting clearances if he has a bad record.
> Mcadams replied to this in the way he always has since the mid 1990's, by
> posting a link to this article at his website,
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm
>
> But Zaid's ancient article contains no sources for his claims about
> military law and he himself admitted that Oswald violated no rules, which
> only required him to promptly report the infection and get it treated.
>
> And so I asked John to clarify Zaid's argument and explain why military
> law required doctors to falsely claim that venereal infections were
> acquired in the line of duty.
>
expunge it from the files.
> John replied as he does to most tough questions, stating that he just
> didn't want to waste his time:-)
>
> This was my reply and questions. Since john can't be bothered to waste his
> time on such things, perhaps some other nutter who has a more open
> calendar will help him out.
>
> (quote)
>
> I read this article before and I reread it just now. Maybe you could help
> me out here, because I honestly don't understand Zaid's argument. He said,
>
> "The reason for this speculation is a diagnosis by Captain Paul Deranian,
> the senior medical officer at Atsugi, that Oswald contracted 'Urethritis,
> Acute, due to gonococcus #0303.' The Captain noted its origin as being 'In
> line of duty, not due to own misconduct.'"
>
truth.
Bill Clarke
May 12, 2012, 6:29:19 PM5/12/12
to
In article <4fae...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
for a bit. Did Oswald get a Purple Heart from his wound by a hostile
force? Could one get a Silver Star for attacking that whore house single
handed, without concern for his own safety and to save his men from the
claps? Why not?
Bill Clarke
>
>On 5/12/2012 2:31 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 12 May 2012 14:22:11 -0400, Robert Harris<bobha...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
Top post. Claps in the line of duty. I've got to thank about that one
>On 5/12/2012 2:31 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 12 May 2012 14:22:11 -0400, Robert Harris<bobha...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
for a bit. Did Oswald get a Purple Heart from his wound by a hostile
force? Could one get a Silver Star for attacking that whore house single
handed, without concern for his own safety and to save his men from the
claps? Why not?
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
May 12, 2012, 6:35:18 PM5/12/12
to
In article <bobharris77-4251...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris says...
Top Post. Claps in the line of duty. I'll have to think about that one a
bit. Did Oswald receive a Purple Heart for his wounds inflicted by a
hostile force?
Bill Clarke
Robert Harris says...
Top Post. Claps in the line of duty. I'll have to think about that one a
bit. Did Oswald receive a Purple Heart for his wounds inflicted by a
hostile force?
Bill Clarke
Robert Harris
May 12, 2012, 10:24:59 PM5/12/12
to
In article <6latq79pe8n5gh40b...@4ax.com>,
the PBS documentary, "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald". In it, they interviewed
Marines who knew Oswald and confirmed that he went into areas that were
off limits, escorting an obvious prostitute. That fact was also confirmed
by Epstein. You can see some of the relevant citations in this video
presentation which I made several years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD9wrSM8bwo
>
>
> >This activity was corroborated by a fellow marine, David Bucknell, who was
> >told by Oswald that he was assigned this task by military intelligence and
> >given money to pay the prostitute.
> >
>
> Post a source for that.
Tell me something John, are you REALLY unaware that Bucknell stated this
in an interview conducted by Mark Lane?
If you didn't know that and didn't know about the PBS documentary, then
why do you bother posting about the JFK case:-)
>
>
> >It was also confirmed by Captain Paul Deranian who treated Oswald's
> >venereal disease and reported that the infection was was acquired "in line
> >of duty".
> >
>
> Which report did not mean anything like you claim it means.
I claim it means exactly what the man said.
If you think he lied, then you have some proving to do.
>
>
> >Mcadams replied to this in the way he always has since the mid 1990's, by
> >posting a link to this article at his website,
> >
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm
> >
> >But Zaid's ancient article contains no sources for his claims about
> >military law and he himself admitted that Oswald violated no rules, which
> >only required him to promptly report the infection and get it treated.
> >
>
> That's the point!
>
> Since he reported it promptly, he was not guilty of any misconduct.
That is correct. So why was it necessary for the doctor to have lied
about how he got the infection?
>
>
> >And so I asked John to clarify Zaid's argument and explain why military
> >law required doctors to falsely claim that venereal infections were
> >acquired in the line of duty.
> >
> >John replied as he does to most tough questions, stating that he just
> >didn't want to waste his time:-)
> >
>
> Bob, you are ignoring the post where I replied to you.
That's because you posted your reply, *after* I posted the message,
starting this thread:-)
>
>
> >This was my reply and questions. Since john can't be bothered to waste his
> >time on such things, perhaps some other nutter who has a more open
> >calendar will help him out.
> >
> >(quote)
> >
> >I read this article before and I reread it just now. Maybe you could help
> >me out here, because I honestly don't understand Zaid's argument. He said,
> >
> >"The reason for this speculation is a diagnosis by Captain Paul Deranian,
> >the senior medical officer at Atsugi, that Oswald contracted 'Urethritis,
> >Acute, due to gonococcus #0303.' The Captain noted its origin as being 'In
> >line of duty, not due to own misconduct.'"
> >
> >So, us CT's suffer under the wild and crazy delusion that when the doctor
> >said, in the line of duty, he actually meant in the line of duty. Zaid
> >continues,
> >
>
> You can't be this naive.
Great reply, John - right up there with, "Bob there was no shot at 285".
>
>
> >"However, the statement of origin, which is actually a legal determination
> >pertaining to the allocation of future benefits, is entirely innocuous and
> >absolutely provides no substantive proof of intelligence activities on the
> >part of Oswald."
> >
> >I'm not sure what he meant by "statement of origin", but if he was
> >referring to Dr. Deranian's report, how did he come to believe that it was
> >about Oswald losing his benefits?
> >
> >He himself acknowledged that LHO didn't break any rules. Getting a
> >venereal infection was not in violation of any Navy regs. The rule was
> >that he was supposed to report it promptly, which he did.
> >
>
> Which is why it was ruled "in the line of duty" and "not due to own
> misconduct."
The fact that an act does not violate regulations does not mean it was
carried out "in the line of duty".
>
>
> >So how was he at risk of losing his benefits? It was never necessary in
> >the Navy, for an injury to have been inflicted while "in the line of
> >duty". If you break your leg after you've gone home for the day, or catch
> >a cold, you suffer no penalties and will get medical treatment just as you
> >would if it had happened while on guard duty.
> >
> >And how was the doctor's statement a "legal determination"? It is
> >disappointing that Zaid never documents any of his claims about Naval
> >regulations.
> >
>
> This is just flatly untrue, Bob.
>
> Anybody can see the citations in the article.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm
I've read the article several times over the years, but never seen a
source listed for his claims about military law. Why don't you help me out
John, and just cut 'n paste one or two??
I'm sure others would like to see it as much as I would:-)
>
> Pretending that the article isn't properly cited is going to get you
> nowhere, since anybody can see that's untrue.
Then you should have no problem pasting at least one of those cites in
this thread. Please do so.
>
>
> >Can you do that for him? You've referenced Zaid's article many times and
> >you feature it at your website. On an issue of such importance, I would
> >certainly hope that you've verified his statements.
> >
> >Can you show me verbatim cites from the UCMJ or anywhere else, which cause
> >doctors to falsely claim that military personnel can get VD "in the line
> >of duty."
> >
> >In fact, lets settle this thing before continuing.
> >
> >(unquote)
> >
> >For those who are considering coming to john's aide, it should be quite
> >easy to take care of this. If indeed, the doctor claimed that Lee got his
> >VD in the line of duty, for some reason other than that he really did,
> >then all of the hundreds of thousands of military, VD cases during the
> >time period must have been documented the same way.
> >
> >That should be quite easy to prove.
> >
>
> You prove it *wasn't* true, Bob.
I'm sorry John, but my position is that the doctor was correct in claiming
that Oswald acquired a venereal infection in the line of duty.
Your claim is that the doctor was incorrect, therefore you bear the burden
of proof.
>
> You silly notions are not assumed to be true until disproved.
It is not my "silly notion". It is your silly notion that the doctor was
wrong in stating that Oswald got that disease, in the line of duty.
Bucknell confirmed that Oswald said he was instructed to hire that
prostitute and given money to do so, by Naval intelligence. That was
obviously, how he acquired the VD in the line of duty.
>
>
> >But if they were not, then you will need to find another explanation. No
> >vulgar jokes, please:-)
> >
> >
>
> You are ignoring the material I posted in a later post.
>
> How about explaining how, when Oswald shot himself with a pistol he
> wasn't supposed to have, it was ruled "in the line of duty," and "not
> due to own misconduct."
That event happened on a Marine base, and it was not the determination of
a doctor. It was the decision of the Judge Advocate General who presided
over a court martial hearing.
It makes sense to conclude that he was accidentally wounded while in the
line of duty, but found separately guilty of owning an illegal firearm.
Getting wounded "in the line of duty" is a pretty common thing.
Fornicating "in the line of duty", is quite different, and would only
apply in very rare situations - such as Oswald's at the time.
The bottom line is that if it was SOP to document cases of VD in the
military as "in the line of duty", then ALL such cases, excepting those
that were not promptly reported, would have been documented that way.
And I think we both know that that was not the case.
Robert Harris
John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 12 May 2012 14:22:11 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In a recent exchange with john mcadams and jean davison, I pointed out
> >examples of Oswald's anti-communist activities, which included his
> >apparent involvement with a prostitute in Atsugi Japan for the purpose of
> >trying to find out about them passing information from their Marine
> >customers to communists.
> >
>
> You have no evidence it was a prostitute.
I'm afraid I do John. I find it hard to believe that you have never seen
> On 12 May 2012 14:22:11 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In a recent exchange with john mcadams and jean davison, I pointed out
> >examples of Oswald's anti-communist activities, which included his
> >apparent involvement with a prostitute in Atsugi Japan for the purpose of
> >trying to find out about them passing information from their Marine
> >customers to communists.
> >
>
> You have no evidence it was a prostitute.
the PBS documentary, "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald". In it, they interviewed
Marines who knew Oswald and confirmed that he went into areas that were
off limits, escorting an obvious prostitute. That fact was also confirmed
by Epstein. You can see some of the relevant citations in this video
presentation which I made several years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD9wrSM8bwo
>
>
> >This activity was corroborated by a fellow marine, David Bucknell, who was
> >told by Oswald that he was assigned this task by military intelligence and
> >given money to pay the prostitute.
> >
>
> Post a source for that.
in an interview conducted by Mark Lane?
If you didn't know that and didn't know about the PBS documentary, then
why do you bother posting about the JFK case:-)
>
>
> >It was also confirmed by Captain Paul Deranian who treated Oswald's
> >venereal disease and reported that the infection was was acquired "in line
> >of duty".
> >
>
> Which report did not mean anything like you claim it means.
If you think he lied, then you have some proving to do.
>
>
> >Mcadams replied to this in the way he always has since the mid 1990's, by
> >posting a link to this article at his website,
> >
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm
> >
> >But Zaid's ancient article contains no sources for his claims about
> >military law and he himself admitted that Oswald violated no rules, which
> >only required him to promptly report the infection and get it treated.
> >
>
> That's the point!
>
> Since he reported it promptly, he was not guilty of any misconduct.
about how he got the infection?
>
>
> >And so I asked John to clarify Zaid's argument and explain why military
> >law required doctors to falsely claim that venereal infections were
> >acquired in the line of duty.
> >
> >John replied as he does to most tough questions, stating that he just
> >didn't want to waste his time:-)
> >
>
> Bob, you are ignoring the post where I replied to you.
starting this thread:-)
>
>
> >This was my reply and questions. Since john can't be bothered to waste his
> >time on such things, perhaps some other nutter who has a more open
> >calendar will help him out.
> >
> >(quote)
> >
> >I read this article before and I reread it just now. Maybe you could help
> >me out here, because I honestly don't understand Zaid's argument. He said,
> >
> >"The reason for this speculation is a diagnosis by Captain Paul Deranian,
> >the senior medical officer at Atsugi, that Oswald contracted 'Urethritis,
> >Acute, due to gonococcus #0303.' The Captain noted its origin as being 'In
> >line of duty, not due to own misconduct.'"
> >
> >So, us CT's suffer under the wild and crazy delusion that when the doctor
> >said, in the line of duty, he actually meant in the line of duty. Zaid
> >continues,
> >
>
> You can't be this naive.
>
>
> >"However, the statement of origin, which is actually a legal determination
> >pertaining to the allocation of future benefits, is entirely innocuous and
> >absolutely provides no substantive proof of intelligence activities on the
> >part of Oswald."
> >
> >I'm not sure what he meant by "statement of origin", but if he was
> >referring to Dr. Deranian's report, how did he come to believe that it was
> >about Oswald losing his benefits?
> >
> >He himself acknowledged that LHO didn't break any rules. Getting a
> >venereal infection was not in violation of any Navy regs. The rule was
> >that he was supposed to report it promptly, which he did.
> >
>
> Which is why it was ruled "in the line of duty" and "not due to own
> misconduct."
carried out "in the line of duty".
>
>
> >So how was he at risk of losing his benefits? It was never necessary in
> >the Navy, for an injury to have been inflicted while "in the line of
> >duty". If you break your leg after you've gone home for the day, or catch
> >a cold, you suffer no penalties and will get medical treatment just as you
> >would if it had happened while on guard duty.
> >
> >And how was the doctor's statement a "legal determination"? It is
> >disappointing that Zaid never documents any of his claims about Naval
> >regulations.
> >
>
> This is just flatly untrue, Bob.
>
> Anybody can see the citations in the article.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm
source listed for his claims about military law. Why don't you help me out
John, and just cut 'n paste one or two??
I'm sure others would like to see it as much as I would:-)
>
> Pretending that the article isn't properly cited is going to get you
> nowhere, since anybody can see that's untrue.
this thread. Please do so.
>
>
> >Can you do that for him? You've referenced Zaid's article many times and
> >you feature it at your website. On an issue of such importance, I would
> >certainly hope that you've verified his statements.
> >
> >Can you show me verbatim cites from the UCMJ or anywhere else, which cause
> >doctors to falsely claim that military personnel can get VD "in the line
> >of duty."
> >
> >In fact, lets settle this thing before continuing.
> >
> >(unquote)
> >
> >For those who are considering coming to john's aide, it should be quite
> >easy to take care of this. If indeed, the doctor claimed that Lee got his
> >VD in the line of duty, for some reason other than that he really did,
> >then all of the hundreds of thousands of military, VD cases during the
> >time period must have been documented the same way.
> >
> >That should be quite easy to prove.
> >
>
> You prove it *wasn't* true, Bob.
that Oswald acquired a venereal infection in the line of duty.
Your claim is that the doctor was incorrect, therefore you bear the burden
of proof.
>
> You silly notions are not assumed to be true until disproved.
wrong in stating that Oswald got that disease, in the line of duty.
Bucknell confirmed that Oswald said he was instructed to hire that
prostitute and given money to do so, by Naval intelligence. That was
obviously, how he acquired the VD in the line of duty.
>
>
> >But if they were not, then you will need to find another explanation. No
> >vulgar jokes, please:-)
> >
> >
>
> You are ignoring the material I posted in a later post.
>
> How about explaining how, when Oswald shot himself with a pistol he
> wasn't supposed to have, it was ruled "in the line of duty," and "not
> due to own misconduct."
a doctor. It was the decision of the Judge Advocate General who presided
over a court martial hearing.
It makes sense to conclude that he was accidentally wounded while in the
line of duty, but found separately guilty of owning an illegal firearm.
Getting wounded "in the line of duty" is a pretty common thing.
Fornicating "in the line of duty", is quite different, and would only
apply in very rare situations - such as Oswald's at the time.
The bottom line is that if it was SOP to document cases of VD in the
military as "in the line of duty", then ALL such cases, excepting those
that were not promptly reported, would have been documented that way.
And I think we both know that that was not the case.
Robert Harris
John McAdams
May 12, 2012, 10:42:57 PM5/12/12
to
On 12 May 2012 22:24:59 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
Eurasian woman, a "roundeye."
"Prostitute" is your interpretation, Bob.
>
>>
>>
>> >This activity was corroborated by a fellow marine, David Bucknell, who was
>> >told by Oswald that he was assigned this task by military intelligence and
>> >given money to pay the prostitute.
>> >
>>
>> Post a source for that.
>
>Tell me something John, are you REALLY unaware that Bucknell stated this
>in an interview conducted by Mark Lane?
>
Post the interview, Bob. My copy of RUSH TO JUDGMENT is at work.
But I don't trust you to properly interpret what Lane said, and I
don't trust Lane not to lie about Bucknell.
So how about posting the *exact* text from Lane.
>If you didn't know that and didn't know about the PBS documentary, then
>why do you bother posting about the JFK case:-)
>
Did you not know about the Summers interview, and about the document
explaining that ordinary negligence would be dismissed as "in the line
of duty?"
>
>>
>>
>> >It was also confirmed by Captain Paul Deranian who treated Oswald's
>> >venereal disease and reported that the infection was was acquired "in line
>> >of duty".
>> >
>>
>> Which report did not mean anything like you claim it means.
>
>I claim it means exactly what the man said.
>
>If you think he lied, then you have some proving to do.
>
You are just IGNORING the document I posted!
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=141517
<Quote on>
Misconduct is wrongful conduct. Simple or ordinary negligence, however,
does not constitute misconduct. The fact that an act violates a law,
regulation or order does not, of itself, constitute misconduct. In order
to support a determination of misconduct, it must be found that the injury
was intentionally incurred, or resulted from negligence that was so gross
as to demonstrate a reckless disregard of the consequences.
<Quote off>
>
>>
>>
>> >Mcadams replied to this in the way he always has since the mid 1990's, by
>> >posting a link to this article at his website,
>> >
>> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm
>> >
>> >But Zaid's ancient article contains no sources for his claims about
>> >military law and he himself admitted that Oswald violated no rules, which
>> >only required him to promptly report the infection and get it treated.
>> >
>>
>> That's the point!
>>
>> Since he reported it promptly, he was not guilty of any misconduct.
>
>That is correct. So why was it necessary for the doctor to have lied
>about how he got the infection?
>
You just don't understand when you are begging the question.
You are *assuming* that the bureaucratic language means what you want
it to mean, and the doctor is lying otherwise.
But you are ignorant of Corps legalistic terms.
>
>>
>>
>> >And so I asked John to clarify Zaid's argument and explain why military
>> >law required doctors to falsely claim that venereal infections were
>> >acquired in the line of duty.
>> >
>> >John replied as he does to most tough questions, stating that he just
>> >didn't want to waste his time:-)
>> >
>>
>> Bob, you are ignoring the post where I replied to you.
>
>
>That's because you posted your reply, *after* I posted the message,
>starting this thread:-)
>
>
Then read my message.
>
>>
>>
>> >This was my reply and questions. Since john can't be bothered to waste his
>> >time on such things, perhaps some other nutter who has a more open
>> >calendar will help him out.
>> >
>> >(quote)
>> >
>> >I read this article before and I reread it just now. Maybe you could help
>> >me out here, because I honestly don't understand Zaid's argument. He said,
>> >
>> >"The reason for this speculation is a diagnosis by Captain Paul Deranian,
>> >the senior medical officer at Atsugi, that Oswald contracted 'Urethritis,
>> >Acute, due to gonococcus #0303.' The Captain noted its origin as being 'In
>> >line of duty, not due to own misconduct.'"
>> >
>> >So, us CT's suffer under the wild and crazy delusion that when the doctor
>> >said, in the line of duty, he actually meant in the line of duty. Zaid
>> >continues,
>> >
>>
>> You can't be this naive.
>
>Great reply, John - right up there with, "Bob there was no shot at 285".
>
>
What am I *supposed* to say when you say "the sky is red?"
>>
>>
>> >"However, the statement of origin, which is actually a legal determination
>> >pertaining to the allocation of future benefits, is entirely innocuous and
>> >absolutely provides no substantive proof of intelligence activities on the
>> >part of Oswald."
>> >
>> >I'm not sure what he meant by "statement of origin", but if he was
>> >referring to Dr. Deranian's report, how did he come to believe that it was
>> >about Oswald losing his benefits?
>> >
>> >He himself acknowledged that LHO didn't break any rules. Getting a
>> >venereal infection was not in violation of any Navy regs. The rule was
>> >that he was supposed to report it promptly, which he did.
>> >
>>
>> Which is why it was ruled "in the line of duty" and "not due to own
>> misconduct."
>
>The fact that an act does not violate regulations does not mean it was
>carried out "in the line of duty".
>
>
Right. But you somehow are not getting the point.
>>
>>
>> >So how was he at risk of losing his benefits? It was never necessary in
>> >the Navy, for an injury to have been inflicted while "in the line of
>> >duty". If you break your leg after you've gone home for the day, or catch
>> >a cold, you suffer no penalties and will get medical treatment just as you
>> >would if it had happened while on guard duty.
>> >
>> >And how was the doctor's statement a "legal determination"? It is
>> >disappointing that Zaid never documents any of his claims about Naval
>> >regulations.
>> >
>>
>> This is just flatly untrue, Bob.
>>
>> Anybody can see the citations in the article.
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm
>
>I've read the article several times over the years, but never seen a
>source listed for his claims about military law. Why don't you help me out
>John, and just cut 'n paste one or two??
>
>I'm sure others would like to see it as much as I would:-)
>
Anybody can see that the article is well-sounced, and you are looking
silly by denying that.
>
>
>>
>> Pretending that the article isn't properly cited is going to get you
>> nowhere, since anybody can see that's untrue.
>
>Then you should have no problem pasting at least one of those cites in
>this thread. Please do so.
>
Here are the cites, Bob:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm#N_1_
>
>
>>
>>
>> >Can you do that for him? You've referenced Zaid's article many times and
>> >you feature it at your website. On an issue of such importance, I would
>> >certainly hope that you've verified his statements.
>> >
>> >Can you show me verbatim cites from the UCMJ or anywhere else, which cause
>> >doctors to falsely claim that military personnel can get VD "in the line
>> >of duty."
>> >
>> >In fact, lets settle this thing before continuing.
>> >
>> >(unquote)
>> >
>> >For those who are considering coming to john's aide, it should be quite
>> >easy to take care of this. If indeed, the doctor claimed that Lee got his
>> >VD in the line of duty, for some reason other than that he really did,
>> >then all of the hundreds of thousands of military, VD cases during the
>> >time period must have been documented the same way.
>> >
>> >That should be quite easy to prove.
>> >
>>
>> You prove it *wasn't* true, Bob.
>
>I'm sorry John, but my position is that the doctor was correct in claiming
>that Oswald acquired a venereal infection in the line of duty.
>
No, your position is that "in the line of duty" means he was acting at
express military orders in getting VD. But that's not true.
>Your claim is that the doctor was incorrect, therefore you bear the burden
>of proof.
>
No, my claim is that the doctor was telling the precise truth, given
Marine rules and regulations.
>
>>
>> You silly notions are not assumed to be true until disproved.
>
>It is not my "silly notion". It is your silly notion that the doctor was
>wrong in stating that Oswald got that disease, in the line of duty.
>
Bob, you can't be this dense.
It's clear what the terms meant *in the context of Marine usage.*
You can refuse to believe that, but it just makes you look silly.
>Bucknell confirmed that Oswald said he was instructed to hire that
>prostitute and given money to do so, by Naval intelligence. That was
>obviously, how he acquired the VD in the line of duty.
>
>
I want the precise source on this, Bob.
>>
>>
>> >But if they were not, then you will need to find another explanation. No
>> >vulgar jokes, please:-)
>> >
>> >
>>
>> You are ignoring the material I posted in a later post.
>>
>> How about explaining how, when Oswald shot himself with a pistol he
>> wasn't supposed to have, it was ruled "in the line of duty," and "not
>> due to own misconduct."
>
>That event happened on a Marine base, and it was not the determination of
>a doctor. It was the decision of the Judge Advocate General who presided
>over a court martial hearing.
>
And the same rules applied to the doctors.
>It makes sense to conclude that he was accidentally wounded while in the
>line of duty, but found separately guilty of owning an illegal firearm.
>
>Getting wounded "in the line of duty" is a pretty common thing.
>Fornicating "in the line of duty", is quite different, and would only
>apply in very rare situations - such as Oswald's at the time.
>
>The bottom line is that if it was SOP to document cases of VD in the
>military as "in the line of duty", then ALL such cases, excepting those
>that were not promptly reported, would have been documented that way.
>
>And I think we both know that that was not the case.
>
>
You know no such thing, Bob. You are blowing smoke.
You are ignoring what the doctor himself told Tony Summers, and what
Zaid documented.
This is like the Z-285 thing, Bob. You just flat refuse to see what
you don't want to see.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>In article <6latq79pe8n5gh40b...@4ax.com>,
> John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 12 May 2012 14:22:11 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In a recent exchange with john mcadams and jean davison, I pointed out
>> >examples of Oswald's anti-communist activities, which included his
>> >apparent involvement with a prostitute in Atsugi Japan for the purpose of
>> >trying to find out about them passing information from their Marine
>> >customers to communists.
>> >
>>
>> You have no evidence it was a prostitute.
>
>I'm afraid I do John. I find it hard to believe that you have never seen
>the PBS documentary, "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald". In it, they interviewed
>Marines who knew Oswald and confirmed that he went into areas that were
>off limits, escorting an obvious prostitute. That fact was also confirmed
>by Epstein. You can see some of the relevant citations in this video
>presentation which I made several years ago.
>
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD9wrSM8bwo
>
>
He never says she was a prostitute. He said she is a beautiful
>In article <6latq79pe8n5gh40b...@4ax.com>,
> John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 12 May 2012 14:22:11 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In a recent exchange with john mcadams and jean davison, I pointed out
>> >examples of Oswald's anti-communist activities, which included his
>> >apparent involvement with a prostitute in Atsugi Japan for the purpose of
>> >trying to find out about them passing information from their Marine
>> >customers to communists.
>> >
>>
>> You have no evidence it was a prostitute.
>
>I'm afraid I do John. I find it hard to believe that you have never seen
>the PBS documentary, "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald". In it, they interviewed
>Marines who knew Oswald and confirmed that he went into areas that were
>off limits, escorting an obvious prostitute. That fact was also confirmed
>by Epstein. You can see some of the relevant citations in this video
>presentation which I made several years ago.
>
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD9wrSM8bwo
>
>
Eurasian woman, a "roundeye."
"Prostitute" is your interpretation, Bob.
>
>>
>>
>> >This activity was corroborated by a fellow marine, David Bucknell, who was
>> >told by Oswald that he was assigned this task by military intelligence and
>> >given money to pay the prostitute.
>> >
>>
>> Post a source for that.
>
>Tell me something John, are you REALLY unaware that Bucknell stated this
>in an interview conducted by Mark Lane?
>
But I don't trust you to properly interpret what Lane said, and I
don't trust Lane not to lie about Bucknell.
So how about posting the *exact* text from Lane.
>If you didn't know that and didn't know about the PBS documentary, then
>why do you bother posting about the JFK case:-)
>
explaining that ordinary negligence would be dismissed as "in the line
of duty?"
>
>>
>>
>> >It was also confirmed by Captain Paul Deranian who treated Oswald's
>> >venereal disease and reported that the infection was was acquired "in line
>> >of duty".
>> >
>>
>> Which report did not mean anything like you claim it means.
>
>I claim it means exactly what the man said.
>
>If you think he lied, then you have some proving to do.
>
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=141517
<Quote on>
Misconduct is wrongful conduct. Simple or ordinary negligence, however,
does not constitute misconduct. The fact that an act violates a law,
regulation or order does not, of itself, constitute misconduct. In order
to support a determination of misconduct, it must be found that the injury
was intentionally incurred, or resulted from negligence that was so gross
as to demonstrate a reckless disregard of the consequences.
<Quote off>
>
>>
>>
>> >Mcadams replied to this in the way he always has since the mid 1990's, by
>> >posting a link to this article at his website,
>> >
>> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm
>> >
>> >But Zaid's ancient article contains no sources for his claims about
>> >military law and he himself admitted that Oswald violated no rules, which
>> >only required him to promptly report the infection and get it treated.
>> >
>>
>> That's the point!
>>
>> Since he reported it promptly, he was not guilty of any misconduct.
>
>That is correct. So why was it necessary for the doctor to have lied
>about how he got the infection?
>
You are *assuming* that the bureaucratic language means what you want
it to mean, and the doctor is lying otherwise.
But you are ignorant of Corps legalistic terms.
>
>>
>>
>> >And so I asked John to clarify Zaid's argument and explain why military
>> >law required doctors to falsely claim that venereal infections were
>> >acquired in the line of duty.
>> >
>> >John replied as he does to most tough questions, stating that he just
>> >didn't want to waste his time:-)
>> >
>>
>> Bob, you are ignoring the post where I replied to you.
>
>
>That's because you posted your reply, *after* I posted the message,
>starting this thread:-)
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> >This was my reply and questions. Since john can't be bothered to waste his
>> >time on such things, perhaps some other nutter who has a more open
>> >calendar will help him out.
>> >
>> >(quote)
>> >
>> >I read this article before and I reread it just now. Maybe you could help
>> >me out here, because I honestly don't understand Zaid's argument. He said,
>> >
>> >"The reason for this speculation is a diagnosis by Captain Paul Deranian,
>> >the senior medical officer at Atsugi, that Oswald contracted 'Urethritis,
>> >Acute, due to gonococcus #0303.' The Captain noted its origin as being 'In
>> >line of duty, not due to own misconduct.'"
>> >
>> >So, us CT's suffer under the wild and crazy delusion that when the doctor
>> >said, in the line of duty, he actually meant in the line of duty. Zaid
>> >continues,
>> >
>>
>> You can't be this naive.
>
>Great reply, John - right up there with, "Bob there was no shot at 285".
>
>
>>
>>
>> >"However, the statement of origin, which is actually a legal determination
>> >pertaining to the allocation of future benefits, is entirely innocuous and
>> >absolutely provides no substantive proof of intelligence activities on the
>> >part of Oswald."
>> >
>> >I'm not sure what he meant by "statement of origin", but if he was
>> >referring to Dr. Deranian's report, how did he come to believe that it was
>> >about Oswald losing his benefits?
>> >
>> >He himself acknowledged that LHO didn't break any rules. Getting a
>> >venereal infection was not in violation of any Navy regs. The rule was
>> >that he was supposed to report it promptly, which he did.
>> >
>>
>> Which is why it was ruled "in the line of duty" and "not due to own
>> misconduct."
>
>The fact that an act does not violate regulations does not mean it was
>carried out "in the line of duty".
>
>
>>
>>
>> >So how was he at risk of losing his benefits? It was never necessary in
>> >the Navy, for an injury to have been inflicted while "in the line of
>> >duty". If you break your leg after you've gone home for the day, or catch
>> >a cold, you suffer no penalties and will get medical treatment just as you
>> >would if it had happened while on guard duty.
>> >
>> >And how was the doctor's statement a "legal determination"? It is
>> >disappointing that Zaid never documents any of his claims about Naval
>> >regulations.
>> >
>>
>> This is just flatly untrue, Bob.
>>
>> Anybody can see the citations in the article.
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm
>
>I've read the article several times over the years, but never seen a
>source listed for his claims about military law. Why don't you help me out
>John, and just cut 'n paste one or two??
>
>I'm sure others would like to see it as much as I would:-)
>
silly by denying that.
>
>
>>
>> Pretending that the article isn't properly cited is going to get you
>> nowhere, since anybody can see that's untrue.
>
>Then you should have no problem pasting at least one of those cites in
>this thread. Please do so.
>
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm#N_1_
>
>
>>
>>
>> >Can you do that for him? You've referenced Zaid's article many times and
>> >you feature it at your website. On an issue of such importance, I would
>> >certainly hope that you've verified his statements.
>> >
>> >Can you show me verbatim cites from the UCMJ or anywhere else, which cause
>> >doctors to falsely claim that military personnel can get VD "in the line
>> >of duty."
>> >
>> >In fact, lets settle this thing before continuing.
>> >
>> >(unquote)
>> >
>> >For those who are considering coming to john's aide, it should be quite
>> >easy to take care of this. If indeed, the doctor claimed that Lee got his
>> >VD in the line of duty, for some reason other than that he really did,
>> >then all of the hundreds of thousands of military, VD cases during the
>> >time period must have been documented the same way.
>> >
>> >That should be quite easy to prove.
>> >
>>
>> You prove it *wasn't* true, Bob.
>
>I'm sorry John, but my position is that the doctor was correct in claiming
>that Oswald acquired a venereal infection in the line of duty.
>
express military orders in getting VD. But that's not true.
>Your claim is that the doctor was incorrect, therefore you bear the burden
>of proof.
>
Marine rules and regulations.
>
>>
>> You silly notions are not assumed to be true until disproved.
>
>It is not my "silly notion". It is your silly notion that the doctor was
>wrong in stating that Oswald got that disease, in the line of duty.
>
It's clear what the terms meant *in the context of Marine usage.*
You can refuse to believe that, but it just makes you look silly.
>Bucknell confirmed that Oswald said he was instructed to hire that
>prostitute and given money to do so, by Naval intelligence. That was
>obviously, how he acquired the VD in the line of duty.
>
>
>>
>>
>> >But if they were not, then you will need to find another explanation. No
>> >vulgar jokes, please:-)
>> >
>> >
>>
>> You are ignoring the material I posted in a later post.
>>
>> How about explaining how, when Oswald shot himself with a pistol he
>> wasn't supposed to have, it was ruled "in the line of duty," and "not
>> due to own misconduct."
>
>That event happened on a Marine base, and it was not the determination of
>a doctor. It was the decision of the Judge Advocate General who presided
>over a court martial hearing.
>
>It makes sense to conclude that he was accidentally wounded while in the
>line of duty, but found separately guilty of owning an illegal firearm.
>
>Getting wounded "in the line of duty" is a pretty common thing.
>Fornicating "in the line of duty", is quite different, and would only
>apply in very rare situations - such as Oswald's at the time.
>
>The bottom line is that if it was SOP to document cases of VD in the
>military as "in the line of duty", then ALL such cases, excepting those
>that were not promptly reported, would have been documented that way.
>
>And I think we both know that that was not the case.
>
>
You are ignoring what the doctor himself told Tony Summers, and what
Zaid documented.
This is like the Z-285 thing, Bob. You just flat refuse to see what
you don't want to see.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
aeffects
May 13, 2012, 10:57:11 AM5/13/12
to
On May 12, 3:29 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <4faea...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
it... anyway, keep coming back we need lone nut, .john inspired
wingnuts of your caliber (pardon the pun).
> In article <4faea...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
>
>
> >On 5/12/2012 2:31 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 12 May 2012 14:22:11 -0400, Robert Harris<bobharri...@yahoo.com>
>
>
> >On 5/12/2012 2:31 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> Top post. Claps in the line of duty. I've got to thank about that one
> for a bit. Did Oswald get a Purple Heart from his wound by a hostile
> force? Could one get a Silver Star for attacking that whore house single
> handed, without concern for his own safety and to save his men from the
> claps? Why not?
have you suffered senility long, hopefully not, there's no reversing
>
> Top post. Claps in the line of duty. I've got to thank about that one
> for a bit. Did Oswald get a Purple Heart from his wound by a hostile
> force? Could one get a Silver Star for attacking that whore house single
> handed, without concern for his own safety and to save his men from the
> claps? Why not?
it... anyway, keep coming back we need lone nut, .john inspired
wingnuts of your caliber (pardon the pun).
Jean Davison
May 13, 2012, 5:07:41 PM5/13/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On May 12, 1:22 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Google turned up several articles showing that "in the line
of duty" is an common designation in the military. Here are two
examples. I'm sure you could find many more, if you want to look.
QUOTE:
>>>>
Misconduct rarely found in servicemember deaths
ByLisa M. Novak
Stars and Stripes
Published: March 15, 2010
NAPLES, Italy — More than two years ago, two U.S. sailors were found
dead in a hotel room in Ghana, each lying unresponsive on a double bed
after a night spent ringing in the New Year.
Autopsies blamed the deaths on “mixed drug and alcohol intoxication”
and indicated the presence of heroin and cocaine. A command
investigation determined it was “highly probable” the sailors acquired
and ingested the illegal narcotics.
It also ruled that Petty Officer 1st Class Patrick Brendan Mack, 22,
and Seaman Lonnie Davis Jr., 35, died in the line of duty.
Such line-of-duty findings are not unusual, officials say, because the
military sets a very high bar for ruling that troops died of their own
misconduct — a practice that allows families to collect full survivor
benefits but can leave them struggling to understand the circumstances
of their loved one’s death.
[....]
>>>
UNQUOTE
http://www.stripes.com/news/misconduct-rarely-found-in-servicemember-deaths-1.100000
* * * * * * * *
QUOTE:
>>>>
Military Line of Duty (LOD) Investigations
What Are They, How Can They Affect You?
Guide Note: This article is written from the point of view of the
Army, but applies equally to all of the services.
You decide to go to Pamplona, Spain and run with the bulls. It was
great fun until you got gored in the chest and trampled over by a
thousand-pound angry steer. You wake up in the hospital. When you
start to regain consciousness, you thank God that you are alive. After
speaking with the doctor, you realize how fortunate you are that you
don't have permanent injuries. [....]
Once you are back at your unit, your platoon sergeant tells you to see
1st Lt. Jones from Alpha Company about an investigation he is doing.
You don't know what kind of investigation you could be involved in,
but you and your squad leader go over to 1st Lt. Jones' office. After
he introduces himself, he tells you he is doing a Line of Duty
investigation concerning your bull injuries. You ask yourself, "What
is a LOD investigation?"
A LOD investigation is generally conducted whenever a soldier acquires
a disease, incurs a significant injury or is injured under unusual
circumstances. There is a presumption that all diseases, injuries or
deaths occur "in the line of duty - not due to own misconduct." A LOD
investigation helps determine a soldier's entitlement to pay and
allowances, accrual of service and leave time and, in some cases,
disability retirement. A soldier receives these benefits only if the
final determination is "in line of duty - not due to own misconduct."
The investigating officer begins the investigation by getting a copy
of the Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status from the
appointing authority, along with any available documentary evidence
(witness statements, medical records, police reports, etc.). The IO
collects other documentary evidence concerning the injury and the
circumstances surrounding it. The IO conducts witness interviews,
including one with the soldier who was injured. The IO may read the
soldier his or her rights and must inform the soldier that any
statements given concerning "the origin, incurrence or aggravation of
an injury" must be voluntary.
Once all of the evidence is gathered, the IO reviews it carefully and
is required to make one of three determinations concerning your
status- (1) "in the line of duty- not due to own misconduct"; (2) "not
in the line of duty- not due to own misconduct"; or, (3) "not in the
line of duty- due to own misconduct."
If the injury or disease is caused by the soldier's intentional
misconduct or willful negligence, the IO may determine the soldier's
injury or disease to be "not in the line of duty - due to own
misconduct." "Willful negligence" is the conscious and intentional
omission of the proper degree of care under the circumstances.
Factors leading to adverse determinations include: whether the soldier
was under the influence of alcohol or drugs; whether he was the
aggressor or voluntarily participated in a fight; or whether he acted
in a manner considered extremely erratic or reckless without regard
for his personal safety or the safety of others.
An investigating officer may determine that running with the bulls is
extremely reckless and therefore, find the soldier to be, "not in line
of duty — due to own misconduct."
The consequences of this determination can be significant. Any time
the soldier was not present for duty due to hospitalization, being on
quarters or being on convalescent leave is counted as bad time. Bad
time has to be made up. This means that a soldier's ETS date will be
moved back one day for every day the soldier is not present for duty.
[....]
Above Article by LeeAnna George, III Corps Legal Assitance Office,
Fort Hood
UNQUOTE
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/milarticles/bllod.htm
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jean
Google turned up several articles showing that "in the line
of duty" is an common designation in the military. Here are two
examples. I'm sure you could find many more, if you want to look.
QUOTE:
>>>>
Misconduct rarely found in servicemember deaths
ByLisa M. Novak
Stars and Stripes
Published: March 15, 2010
NAPLES, Italy — More than two years ago, two U.S. sailors were found
dead in a hotel room in Ghana, each lying unresponsive on a double bed
after a night spent ringing in the New Year.
Autopsies blamed the deaths on “mixed drug and alcohol intoxication”
and indicated the presence of heroin and cocaine. A command
investigation determined it was “highly probable” the sailors acquired
and ingested the illegal narcotics.
It also ruled that Petty Officer 1st Class Patrick Brendan Mack, 22,
and Seaman Lonnie Davis Jr., 35, died in the line of duty.
Such line-of-duty findings are not unusual, officials say, because the
military sets a very high bar for ruling that troops died of their own
misconduct — a practice that allows families to collect full survivor
benefits but can leave them struggling to understand the circumstances
of their loved one’s death.
[....]
>>>
UNQUOTE
http://www.stripes.com/news/misconduct-rarely-found-in-servicemember-deaths-1.100000
* * * * * * * *
QUOTE:
>>>>
Military Line of Duty (LOD) Investigations
What Are They, How Can They Affect You?
Guide Note: This article is written from the point of view of the
Army, but applies equally to all of the services.
You decide to go to Pamplona, Spain and run with the bulls. It was
great fun until you got gored in the chest and trampled over by a
thousand-pound angry steer. You wake up in the hospital. When you
start to regain consciousness, you thank God that you are alive. After
speaking with the doctor, you realize how fortunate you are that you
don't have permanent injuries. [....]
Once you are back at your unit, your platoon sergeant tells you to see
1st Lt. Jones from Alpha Company about an investigation he is doing.
You don't know what kind of investigation you could be involved in,
but you and your squad leader go over to 1st Lt. Jones' office. After
he introduces himself, he tells you he is doing a Line of Duty
investigation concerning your bull injuries. You ask yourself, "What
is a LOD investigation?"
A LOD investigation is generally conducted whenever a soldier acquires
a disease, incurs a significant injury or is injured under unusual
circumstances. There is a presumption that all diseases, injuries or
deaths occur "in the line of duty - not due to own misconduct." A LOD
investigation helps determine a soldier's entitlement to pay and
allowances, accrual of service and leave time and, in some cases,
disability retirement. A soldier receives these benefits only if the
final determination is "in line of duty - not due to own misconduct."
The investigating officer begins the investigation by getting a copy
of the Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status from the
appointing authority, along with any available documentary evidence
(witness statements, medical records, police reports, etc.). The IO
collects other documentary evidence concerning the injury and the
circumstances surrounding it. The IO conducts witness interviews,
including one with the soldier who was injured. The IO may read the
soldier his or her rights and must inform the soldier that any
statements given concerning "the origin, incurrence or aggravation of
an injury" must be voluntary.
Once all of the evidence is gathered, the IO reviews it carefully and
is required to make one of three determinations concerning your
status- (1) "in the line of duty- not due to own misconduct"; (2) "not
in the line of duty- not due to own misconduct"; or, (3) "not in the
line of duty- due to own misconduct."
If the injury or disease is caused by the soldier's intentional
misconduct or willful negligence, the IO may determine the soldier's
injury or disease to be "not in the line of duty - due to own
misconduct." "Willful negligence" is the conscious and intentional
omission of the proper degree of care under the circumstances.
Factors leading to adverse determinations include: whether the soldier
was under the influence of alcohol or drugs; whether he was the
aggressor or voluntarily participated in a fight; or whether he acted
in a manner considered extremely erratic or reckless without regard
for his personal safety or the safety of others.
An investigating officer may determine that running with the bulls is
extremely reckless and therefore, find the soldier to be, "not in line
of duty — due to own misconduct."
The consequences of this determination can be significant. Any time
the soldier was not present for duty due to hospitalization, being on
quarters or being on convalescent leave is counted as bad time. Bad
time has to be made up. This means that a soldier's ETS date will be
moved back one day for every day the soldier is not present for duty.
[....]
Above Article by LeeAnna George, III Corps Legal Assitance Office,
Fort Hood
UNQUOTE
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/milarticles/bllod.htm
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jean
Robert Harris
May 13, 2012, 5:14:41 PM5/13/12
to
In article <0t6uq7tfmlmkeebhi...@4ax.com>,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/transcripts/1205.html
NARRATOR: One day, a fellow Marine noticed Oswald heading off limits
with a Eurasian woman he assumed was a prostitute.
OWEN DEJANOWCH, U.S. Marine: There was a small business section across one
bridge that was called "Skivvy Bridge." We were allowed, as Americans, to
go into that sector of the residential portion of Iwakuni. The other
sector was considered to be communist, Japanese communists, and we were --
it was an off-limits area that we were not allowed to go in, as Americans.
The first time I saw Oswald with the round-eye -- she was a beautiful
White Russian -- he was walking with her. They were going across the
bridge into the section that was off limits to us.
(unquote)
It was called "scivvy" bridge for a reason John:-)
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >This activity was corroborated by a fellow marine, David Bucknell, who
> >> >was
> >> >told by Oswald that he was assigned this task by military intelligence
> >> >and
> >> >given money to pay the prostitute.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Post a source for that.
> >
> >Tell me something John, are you REALLY unaware that Bucknell stated this
> >in an interview conducted by Mark Lane?
> >
>
> Post the interview, Bob. My copy of RUSH TO JUDGMENT is at work.
I can't believe you didn't even read the article that you always cite:-)
This is from the article by Zaid, which you just sent me to,
"In an interview with author Mark Lane, one of Oswald's former Marine
buddies related a story supporting this theory. According to David
Bucknell, while both men were stationed in California in 1959 the men were
approached by two women in a bar looking for conversation. This incident
led Oswald to relate a similar experience he encountered in Atsugi.(18)
Oswald stated that, while in a Japanese bar, he had been been approached
by an attractive woman who was asking questions regarding U-2 flights.
After reporting this to a superior officer, Oswald was informed by a man
dressed in civilian clothes to deliver false information to this woman.
Thus, Oswald was encouraged to continue seeing this woman and supposedly
was given the money to do so"
And this is from an article by Lane which appeared in Hustler magazine in
Oct. of 1978
" Recently, a former Marine who had served with Oswald in Santa Ana,
California, after Oswald had returned from Atsugi, began to talk about his
discussions with him. His name is David Bucknell...
Bucknell told me that one day he and Oswald went to a tavern near the
base to drink a few beers. Two women approached them. Later that day
Oswald told Bucknell the incident with the women reminded him of a
experience he had had at Atsugi. Oswald had been alone in a bar when an
attractive Japanese woman approached him, he told Bucknell. She asked him
some questions about his work on the base. That work was, of course, with
the supersecret U-2 program. Oswald,predictably, reported that
conversation to his superior officer, who then arranged for a meeting on
the base between Oswald and a man dressed in civilian clothes.
The man, a "security" or "security-intelligence" operator, explained
to Oswald that he could do his country a great service. Oswald was told
that the woman was a KGB contact and that he would be given false
information to pass on to her. Oswald agreed, and while still a teenager
in the Marine Corps he became an intelligence operative. His liaison with
the woman continued; he was given money to spend at the Queen Bee, and
apparently encouraged by American intelligence to enter into a sexual
relationship with the woman
. ........
Regarding Oswald's tour of duty in Japan, Bucknell can only report
what Oswald recounted to him. However, he was involved directly with
Oswald in an intelligence effort when they both were at MACS-9. In1959
Oswald, Bucknell and others were ordered to report to the Criminal
Investigation (CID) at the base. There a civilian began an effort aimed at
recruiting those present for an intelligence operation against
"Communists" in Cuba. Oswald was selected to make several additional trips
to CID. Later he told Bucknell that the civilian who served as his contact
or control at Atsugi had taken over the same job at Santa Ana. Still
later, Oswald confided to Bucknell that he, Oswald was to be discharged
from the Marine Corps very soon and that he would surface in the Soviet
Union. Oswald told Bucknell that he was being sent there on assignment by
American intelligence and that he would return to the United States in
1961 as a hero."
>
> But I don't trust you to properly interpret what Lane said, and I
> don't trust Lane not to lie about Bucknell.
Well John, that's your problem, not mine:-)
>
> So how about posting the *exact* text from Lane.
I just did. But be sure to ask me a few more times:-)
>
>
> >If you didn't know that and didn't know about the PBS documentary, then
> >why do you bother posting about the JFK case:-)
> >
>
> Did you not know about the Summers interview, and about the document
> explaining that ordinary negligence would be dismissed as "in the line
> of duty?"
Nope, why don't you cite the relevant parts of it?
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >It was also confirmed by Captain Paul Deranian who treated Oswald's
> >> >venereal disease and reported that the infection was was acquired "in
> >> >line
> >> >of duty".
> >> >
> >>
> >> Which report did not mean anything like you claim it means.
> >
> >I claim it means exactly what the man said.
> >
> >If you think he lied, then you have some proving to do.
> >
>
> You are just IGNORING the document I posted!
>
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=141517
I'm not at all sure that the two cases are analagous, or that a doctor
could render a decision like that. I think you need to prove it.
>
> <Quote on>
>
> Misconduct is wrongful conduct. Simple or ordinary negligence, however,
> does not constitute misconduct. The fact that an act violates a law,
> regulation or order does not, of itself, constitute misconduct. In order
> to support a determination of misconduct, it must be found that the injury
> was intentionally incurred, or resulted from negligence that was so gross
> as to demonstrate a reckless disregard of the consequences.
>
> <Quote off>
If what you claim is true, then all cases of a VD in the military would be
documented as in the line of duty.
Maybe they are. Have you confirmed that?
>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >Mcadams replied to this in the way he always has since the mid 1990's, by
> >> >posting a link to this article at his website,
> >> >
> >> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm
> >> >
> >> >But Zaid's ancient article contains no sources for his claims about
> >> >military law and he himself admitted that Oswald violated no rules, which
> >> >only required him to promptly report the infection and get it treated.
> >> >
> >>
> >> That's the point!
> >>
> >> Since he reported it promptly, he was not guilty of any misconduct.
> >
> >That is correct. So why was it necessary for the doctor to have lied
> >about how he got the infection?
> >
>
> You just don't understand when you are begging the question.
>
> You are *assuming* that the bureaucratic language means what you want
> it to mean, and the doctor is lying otherwise.
>
> But you are ignorant of Corps legalistic terms.
Probably so, but you have yet to prove that it was SOP for doctors to
document VD cases that way, or that they had a right to unless the disease
really was acquired in the line of duty.
If I say the sky is red, you better put on a good pair of sunglasses:-)
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >"However, the statement of origin, which is actually a legal
> >> >determination
> >> >pertaining to the allocation of future benefits, is entirely innocuous
> >> >and
> >> >absolutely provides no substantive proof of intelligence activities on
> >> >the
> >> >part of Oswald."
> >> >
> >> >I'm not sure what he meant by "statement of origin", but if he was
> >> >referring to Dr. Deranian's report, how did he come to believe that it
> >> >was
> >> >about Oswald losing his benefits?
> >> >
> >> >He himself acknowledged that LHO didn't break any rules. Getting a
> >> >venereal infection was not in violation of any Navy regs. The rule was
> >> >that he was supposed to report it promptly, which he did.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Which is why it was ruled "in the line of duty" and "not due to own
> >> misconduct."
> >
> >The fact that an act does not violate regulations does not mean it was
> >carried out "in the line of duty".
> >
> >
>
> Right. But you somehow are not getting the point.
Sigh..
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >So how was he at risk of losing his benefits? It was never necessary in
> >> >the Navy, for an injury to have been inflicted while "in the line of
> >> >duty". If you break your leg after you've gone home for the day, or catch
> >> >a cold, you suffer no penalties and will get medical treatment just as
> >> >you
> >> >would if it had happened while on guard duty.
> >> >
> >> >And how was the doctor's statement a "legal determination"? It is
> >> >disappointing that Zaid never documents any of his claims about Naval
> >> >regulations.
> >> >
> >>
> >> This is just flatly untrue, Bob.
> >>
> >> Anybody can see the citations in the article.
> >>
> >> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm
> >
> >I've read the article several times over the years, but never seen a
> >source listed for his claims about military law. Why don't you help me out
> >John, and just cut 'n paste one or two??
> >
> >I'm sure others would like to see it as much as I would:-)
> >
>
> Anybody can see that the article is well-sounced, and you are looking
> silly by denying that.
No John, you are looking worse than silly by refusing to cut 'n paste
these citations, none of which support the notion that doctors were
supposed to document cases of VD as "in the line of duty".
Or to make it easier for you, just cite another case or two related to VD
in the military. If they are also documented as in the line of duty, then
I will promptly acknowledge that you are right.
>
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Pretending that the article isn't properly cited is going to get you
> >> nowhere, since anybody can see that's untrue.
> >
> >Then you should have no problem pasting at least one of those cites in
> >this thread. Please do so.
> >
>
> Here are the cites, Bob:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm#N_1_
I don't need a laundry list John. Just cite the one that directs doctors
to document normal cases of VD as "in the line of duty".
Or show me other regular cases that were documented that way.
I'm making this very easy for you.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >Can you do that for him? You've referenced Zaid's article many times and
> >> >you feature it at your website. On an issue of such importance, I would
> >> >certainly hope that you've verified his statements.
> >> >
> >> >Can you show me verbatim cites from the UCMJ or anywhere else, which
> >> >cause
> >> >doctors to falsely claim that military personnel can get VD "in the line
> >> >of duty."
> >> >
> >> >In fact, lets settle this thing before continuing.
> >> >
> >> >(unquote)
> >> >
> >> >For those who are considering coming to john's aide, it should be quite
> >> >easy to take care of this. If indeed, the doctor claimed that Lee got his
> >> >VD in the line of duty, for some reason other than that he really did,
> >> >then all of the hundreds of thousands of military, VD cases during the
> >> >time period must have been documented the same way.
> >> >
> >> >That should be quite easy to prove.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You prove it *wasn't* true, Bob.
> >
> >I'm sorry John, but my position is that the doctor was correct in claiming
> >that Oswald acquired a venereal infection in the line of duty.
> >
>
> No, your position is that "in the line of duty" means he was acting at
> express military orders in getting VD. But that's not true.
Then prove it.
>
> >Your claim is that the doctor was incorrect, therefore you bear the burden
> >of proof.
> >
>
> No, my claim is that the doctor was telling the precise truth, given
> Marine rules and regulations.
Then prove it John. If you are correct, it should be easy.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> You silly notions are not assumed to be true until disproved.
> >
> >It is not my "silly notion". It is your silly notion that the doctor was
> >wrong in stating that Oswald got that disease, in the line of duty.
> >
>
> Bob, you can't be this dense.
Thank you John. I only wish I could say the same for you:-)
But rather than continue to exchange insults, why don't you just go
ahead and document your claims about military procedures?
I will look forward to seeing what you come up with.
Robert Harris
John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 12 May 2012 22:24:59 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <6latq79pe8n5gh40b...@4ax.com>,
> > John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> On 12 May 2012 14:22:11 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In a recent exchange with john mcadams and jean davison, I pointed out
> >> >examples of Oswald's anti-communist activities, which included his
> >> >apparent involvement with a prostitute in Atsugi Japan for the purpose of
> >> >trying to find out about them passing information from their Marine
> >> >customers to communists.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You have no evidence it was a prostitute.
> >
> >I'm afraid I do John. I find it hard to believe that you have never seen
> >the PBS documentary, "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald". In it, they interviewed
> >Marines who knew Oswald and confirmed that he went into areas that were
> >off limits, escorting an obvious prostitute. That fact was also confirmed
> >by Epstein. You can see some of the relevant citations in this video
> >presentation which I made several years ago.
> >
> >
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD9wrSM8bwo
> >
> >
>
> He never says she was a prostitute. He said she is a beautiful
> Eurasian woman, a "roundeye."
>
> "Prostitute" is your interpretation, Bob.
This is verbatim from the transcript. You can read it at:
> On 12 May 2012 22:24:59 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <6latq79pe8n5gh40b...@4ax.com>,
> > John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> On 12 May 2012 14:22:11 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In a recent exchange with john mcadams and jean davison, I pointed out
> >> >examples of Oswald's anti-communist activities, which included his
> >> >apparent involvement with a prostitute in Atsugi Japan for the purpose of
> >> >trying to find out about them passing information from their Marine
> >> >customers to communists.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You have no evidence it was a prostitute.
> >
> >I'm afraid I do John. I find it hard to believe that you have never seen
> >the PBS documentary, "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald". In it, they interviewed
> >Marines who knew Oswald and confirmed that he went into areas that were
> >off limits, escorting an obvious prostitute. That fact was also confirmed
> >by Epstein. You can see some of the relevant citations in this video
> >presentation which I made several years ago.
> >
> >
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD9wrSM8bwo
> >
> >
>
> He never says she was a prostitute. He said she is a beautiful
> Eurasian woman, a "roundeye."
>
> "Prostitute" is your interpretation, Bob.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/transcripts/1205.html
NARRATOR: One day, a fellow Marine noticed Oswald heading off limits
with a Eurasian woman he assumed was a prostitute.
OWEN DEJANOWCH, U.S. Marine: There was a small business section across one
bridge that was called "Skivvy Bridge." We were allowed, as Americans, to
go into that sector of the residential portion of Iwakuni. The other
sector was considered to be communist, Japanese communists, and we were --
it was an off-limits area that we were not allowed to go in, as Americans.
The first time I saw Oswald with the round-eye -- she was a beautiful
White Russian -- he was walking with her. They were going across the
bridge into the section that was off limits to us.
(unquote)
It was called "scivvy" bridge for a reason John:-)
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >This activity was corroborated by a fellow marine, David Bucknell, who
> >> >was
> >> >told by Oswald that he was assigned this task by military intelligence
> >> >and
> >> >given money to pay the prostitute.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Post a source for that.
> >
> >Tell me something John, are you REALLY unaware that Bucknell stated this
> >in an interview conducted by Mark Lane?
> >
>
> Post the interview, Bob. My copy of RUSH TO JUDGMENT is at work.
This is from the article by Zaid, which you just sent me to,
"In an interview with author Mark Lane, one of Oswald's former Marine
buddies related a story supporting this theory. According to David
Bucknell, while both men were stationed in California in 1959 the men were
approached by two women in a bar looking for conversation. This incident
led Oswald to relate a similar experience he encountered in Atsugi.(18)
Oswald stated that, while in a Japanese bar, he had been been approached
by an attractive woman who was asking questions regarding U-2 flights.
After reporting this to a superior officer, Oswald was informed by a man
dressed in civilian clothes to deliver false information to this woman.
Thus, Oswald was encouraged to continue seeing this woman and supposedly
was given the money to do so"
And this is from an article by Lane which appeared in Hustler magazine in
Oct. of 1978
" Recently, a former Marine who had served with Oswald in Santa Ana,
California, after Oswald had returned from Atsugi, began to talk about his
discussions with him. His name is David Bucknell...
Bucknell told me that one day he and Oswald went to a tavern near the
base to drink a few beers. Two women approached them. Later that day
Oswald told Bucknell the incident with the women reminded him of a
experience he had had at Atsugi. Oswald had been alone in a bar when an
attractive Japanese woman approached him, he told Bucknell. She asked him
some questions about his work on the base. That work was, of course, with
the supersecret U-2 program. Oswald,predictably, reported that
conversation to his superior officer, who then arranged for a meeting on
the base between Oswald and a man dressed in civilian clothes.
The man, a "security" or "security-intelligence" operator, explained
to Oswald that he could do his country a great service. Oswald was told
that the woman was a KGB contact and that he would be given false
information to pass on to her. Oswald agreed, and while still a teenager
in the Marine Corps he became an intelligence operative. His liaison with
the woman continued; he was given money to spend at the Queen Bee, and
apparently encouraged by American intelligence to enter into a sexual
relationship with the woman
. ........
Regarding Oswald's tour of duty in Japan, Bucknell can only report
what Oswald recounted to him. However, he was involved directly with
Oswald in an intelligence effort when they both were at MACS-9. In1959
Oswald, Bucknell and others were ordered to report to the Criminal
Investigation (CID) at the base. There a civilian began an effort aimed at
recruiting those present for an intelligence operation against
"Communists" in Cuba. Oswald was selected to make several additional trips
to CID. Later he told Bucknell that the civilian who served as his contact
or control at Atsugi had taken over the same job at Santa Ana. Still
later, Oswald confided to Bucknell that he, Oswald was to be discharged
from the Marine Corps very soon and that he would surface in the Soviet
Union. Oswald told Bucknell that he was being sent there on assignment by
American intelligence and that he would return to the United States in
1961 as a hero."
>
> But I don't trust you to properly interpret what Lane said, and I
> don't trust Lane not to lie about Bucknell.
>
> So how about posting the *exact* text from Lane.
>
>
> >If you didn't know that and didn't know about the PBS documentary, then
> >why do you bother posting about the JFK case:-)
> >
>
> Did you not know about the Summers interview, and about the document
> explaining that ordinary negligence would be dismissed as "in the line
> of duty?"
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >It was also confirmed by Captain Paul Deranian who treated Oswald's
> >> >venereal disease and reported that the infection was was acquired "in
> >> >line
> >> >of duty".
> >> >
> >>
> >> Which report did not mean anything like you claim it means.
> >
> >I claim it means exactly what the man said.
> >
> >If you think he lied, then you have some proving to do.
> >
>
> You are just IGNORING the document I posted!
>
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=141517
could render a decision like that. I think you need to prove it.
>
> <Quote on>
>
> Misconduct is wrongful conduct. Simple or ordinary negligence, however,
> does not constitute misconduct. The fact that an act violates a law,
> regulation or order does not, of itself, constitute misconduct. In order
> to support a determination of misconduct, it must be found that the injury
> was intentionally incurred, or resulted from negligence that was so gross
> as to demonstrate a reckless disregard of the consequences.
>
> <Quote off>
documented as in the line of duty.
Maybe they are. Have you confirmed that?
>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >Mcadams replied to this in the way he always has since the mid 1990's, by
> >> >posting a link to this article at his website,
> >> >
> >> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm
> >> >
> >> >But Zaid's ancient article contains no sources for his claims about
> >> >military law and he himself admitted that Oswald violated no rules, which
> >> >only required him to promptly report the infection and get it treated.
> >> >
> >>
> >> That's the point!
> >>
> >> Since he reported it promptly, he was not guilty of any misconduct.
> >
> >That is correct. So why was it necessary for the doctor to have lied
> >about how he got the infection?
> >
>
> You just don't understand when you are begging the question.
>
> You are *assuming* that the bureaucratic language means what you want
> it to mean, and the doctor is lying otherwise.
>
> But you are ignorant of Corps legalistic terms.
document VD cases that way, or that they had a right to unless the disease
really was acquired in the line of duty.
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >"However, the statement of origin, which is actually a legal
> >> >determination
> >> >pertaining to the allocation of future benefits, is entirely innocuous
> >> >and
> >> >absolutely provides no substantive proof of intelligence activities on
> >> >the
> >> >part of Oswald."
> >> >
> >> >I'm not sure what he meant by "statement of origin", but if he was
> >> >referring to Dr. Deranian's report, how did he come to believe that it
> >> >was
> >> >about Oswald losing his benefits?
> >> >
> >> >He himself acknowledged that LHO didn't break any rules. Getting a
> >> >venereal infection was not in violation of any Navy regs. The rule was
> >> >that he was supposed to report it promptly, which he did.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Which is why it was ruled "in the line of duty" and "not due to own
> >> misconduct."
> >
> >The fact that an act does not violate regulations does not mean it was
> >carried out "in the line of duty".
> >
> >
>
> Right. But you somehow are not getting the point.
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >So how was he at risk of losing his benefits? It was never necessary in
> >> >the Navy, for an injury to have been inflicted while "in the line of
> >> >duty". If you break your leg after you've gone home for the day, or catch
> >> >a cold, you suffer no penalties and will get medical treatment just as
> >> >you
> >> >would if it had happened while on guard duty.
> >> >
> >> >And how was the doctor's statement a "legal determination"? It is
> >> >disappointing that Zaid never documents any of his claims about Naval
> >> >regulations.
> >> >
> >>
> >> This is just flatly untrue, Bob.
> >>
> >> Anybody can see the citations in the article.
> >>
> >> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm
> >
> >I've read the article several times over the years, but never seen a
> >source listed for his claims about military law. Why don't you help me out
> >John, and just cut 'n paste one or two??
> >
> >I'm sure others would like to see it as much as I would:-)
> >
>
> Anybody can see that the article is well-sounced, and you are looking
> silly by denying that.
these citations, none of which support the notion that doctors were
supposed to document cases of VD as "in the line of duty".
Or to make it easier for you, just cite another case or two related to VD
in the military. If they are also documented as in the line of duty, then
I will promptly acknowledge that you are right.
>
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Pretending that the article isn't properly cited is going to get you
> >> nowhere, since anybody can see that's untrue.
> >
> >Then you should have no problem pasting at least one of those cites in
> >this thread. Please do so.
> >
>
> Here are the cites, Bob:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm#N_1_
to document normal cases of VD as "in the line of duty".
Or show me other regular cases that were documented that way.
I'm making this very easy for you.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >Can you do that for him? You've referenced Zaid's article many times and
> >> >you feature it at your website. On an issue of such importance, I would
> >> >certainly hope that you've verified his statements.
> >> >
> >> >Can you show me verbatim cites from the UCMJ or anywhere else, which
> >> >cause
> >> >doctors to falsely claim that military personnel can get VD "in the line
> >> >of duty."
> >> >
> >> >In fact, lets settle this thing before continuing.
> >> >
> >> >(unquote)
> >> >
> >> >For those who are considering coming to john's aide, it should be quite
> >> >easy to take care of this. If indeed, the doctor claimed that Lee got his
> >> >VD in the line of duty, for some reason other than that he really did,
> >> >then all of the hundreds of thousands of military, VD cases during the
> >> >time period must have been documented the same way.
> >> >
> >> >That should be quite easy to prove.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You prove it *wasn't* true, Bob.
> >
> >I'm sorry John, but my position is that the doctor was correct in claiming
> >that Oswald acquired a venereal infection in the line of duty.
> >
>
> No, your position is that "in the line of duty" means he was acting at
> express military orders in getting VD. But that's not true.
>
> >Your claim is that the doctor was incorrect, therefore you bear the burden
> >of proof.
> >
>
> No, my claim is that the doctor was telling the precise truth, given
> Marine rules and regulations.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> You silly notions are not assumed to be true until disproved.
> >
> >It is not my "silly notion". It is your silly notion that the doctor was
> >wrong in stating that Oswald got that disease, in the line of duty.
> >
>
> Bob, you can't be this dense.
But rather than continue to exchange insults, why don't you just go
ahead and document your claims about military procedures?
I will look forward to seeing what you come up with.
Robert Harris
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
May 13, 2012, 6:09:07 PM5/13/12
to
On May 12, 10:24 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <6latq79pe8n5gh40bel6l690sruvh23...@4ax.com>,
There must be a long line of applicants for that job.
What you are quoting is clearly just hearsay.
> In article <6latq79pe8n5gh40bel6l690sruvh23...@4ax.com>,
> John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Bucknell confirmed that Oswald said he was instructed to hire that
> prostitute and given money to do so, by Naval intelligence. That was
> obviously, how he acquired the VD in the line of duty.
>
Great job if you can get it. Somebody else pays, you get to have sex.
>
>
> Bucknell confirmed that Oswald said he was instructed to hire that
> prostitute and given money to do so, by Naval intelligence. That was
> obviously, how he acquired the VD in the line of duty.
>
There must be a long line of applicants for that job.
What you are quoting is clearly just hearsay.
Bill Clarke
May 13, 2012, 6:13:18 PM5/13/12
to
In article <509c70bb-a57d-4530...@w24g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison says...
>
>[....]
>>>>
>UNQUOTE
>
>http://www.stripes.com/news/misconduct-rarely-found-in-servicemember-deaths=
>of duty =97 due to own misconduct."
offense. I did a quick check to see when the military changed this policy
and began pushing for a prompt report and treatment of the disease instead
of disciplinary action. I didn't have any luck finding this but I'll
check again. I believe it was at the end of WWII but am not sure.
As always there is some command influence in these things that shouldn't
be ignored. The general usually gets his way.
Bill Clarke
Jean Davison says...
>
>On May 12, 1:22=A0pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Google turned up several articles showing that "in the line
>of duty" is an common designation in the military. Here are two
>examples. I'm sure you could find many more, if you want to look.
>
>QUOTE:
>>>>>
>Misconduct rarely found in servicemember deaths
>
>ByLisa M. Novak
>Stars and Stripes
>
>Published: March 15, 2010
>
>NAPLES, Italy =97 More than two years ago, two U.S. sailors were found
>On May 12, 1:22=A0pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Google turned up several articles showing that "in the line
>of duty" is an common designation in the military. Here are two
>examples. I'm sure you could find many more, if you want to look.
>
>QUOTE:
>>>>>
>Misconduct rarely found in servicemember deaths
>
>ByLisa M. Novak
>Stars and Stripes
>
>Published: March 15, 2010
>
>dead in a hotel room in Ghana, each lying unresponsive on a double bed
>after a night spent ringing in the New Year.
>
>Autopsies blamed the deaths on =93mixed drug and alcohol intoxication=94
>after a night spent ringing in the New Year.
>
>and indicated the presence of heroin and cocaine. A command
>investigation determined it was =93highly probable=94 the sailors acquired
>and ingested the illegal narcotics.
>
>It also ruled that Petty Officer 1st Class Patrick Brendan Mack, 22,
>and Seaman Lonnie Davis Jr., 35, died in the line of duty.
>
>Such line-of-duty findings are not unusual, officials say, because the
>military sets a very high bar for ruling that troops died of their own
>misconduct =97 a practice that allows families to collect full survivor
>
>It also ruled that Petty Officer 1st Class Patrick Brendan Mack, 22,
>and Seaman Lonnie Davis Jr., 35, died in the line of duty.
>
>Such line-of-duty findings are not unusual, officials say, because the
>military sets a very high bar for ruling that troops died of their own
>benefits but can leave them struggling to understand the circumstances
>of their loved one=92s death.
>
>[....]
>>>>
>UNQUOTE
>
>http://www.stripes.com/news/misconduct-rarely-found-in-servicemember-deaths=
>
>The consequences of this determination can be significant. Any time
>the soldier was not present for duty due to hospitalization, being on
>quarters or being on convalescent leave is counted as bad time. Bad
>time has to be made up. This means that a soldier's ETS date will be
>moved back one day for every day the soldier is not present for duty.
>[....]
>
>
>Above Article by LeeAnna George, III Corps Legal Assitance Office,
>Fort Hood
>UNQUOTE
>
> http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/milart=
>The consequences of this determination can be significant. Any time
>the soldier was not present for duty due to hospitalization, being on
>quarters or being on convalescent leave is counted as bad time. Bad
>time has to be made up. This means that a soldier's ETS date will be
>moved back one day for every day the soldier is not present for duty.
>[....]
>
>
>Above Article by LeeAnna George, III Corps Legal Assitance Office,
>Fort Hood
>UNQUOTE
>
>icles/bllod.htm
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>Jean
At one time being infected with VD was a Article 15 or even Court Martial
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>Jean
offense. I did a quick check to see when the military changed this policy
and began pushing for a prompt report and treatment of the disease instead
of disciplinary action. I didn't have any luck finding this but I'll
check again. I believe it was at the end of WWII but am not sure.
As always there is some command influence in these things that shouldn't
be ignored. The general usually gets his way.
Bill Clarke
John McAdams
May 13, 2012, 6:17:35 PM5/13/12
to
On 13 May 2012 17:07:41 -0400, Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Excellent work (as usual) Jean.
I'm sure Bob will now entirely ignore this.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
I'm sure Bob will now entirely ignore this.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
aeffects
May 13, 2012, 6:45:21 PM5/13/12
to
On May 13, 3:13 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
...
aaj excuse these days?)
> Bill Clarke
...
> As always there is some command influence in these things that shouldn't
> be ignored. The general usually gets his way.
lest we forget, so does the CIA.... far and balanced on acj. (what's
> be ignored. The general usually gets his way.
aaj excuse these days?)
> Bill Clarke
John McAdams
May 13, 2012, 6:49:32 PM5/13/12
to
On 13 May 2012 17:14:41 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
Do you understand the word *assumed,* Bob?
So all *assumptions* are considered to be true.
Oswald told Priscilla McMillan that he made connection with some
Japanese Communists in Japan, and this may have been part of that.
Or perhaps the women simply wanted a date with an American soldier.
At any rate, *assumed* does not mean "proven."
OIC. A late arriving "witness" who told wild things to Mark Lane.
There is no mention of David Bucknell in the WC Report, Exhibits or
Documents.
Then we have this:
<Quote on>
After Legend's publication, one David Bucknell, an alleged fellow
Marine of Oswald's, told Mark Lane that Oswald had established US
intelligence contacts while frequenting the Queen Bee (Russell, 146).
No David Bucknell is listed among Oswald's USMC unit (Epstein, 657-8).
<Quote off>
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nagell3.htm
You *do* understand that Lane lacks credibility, don't you?
>
>
>>
>> But I don't trust you to properly interpret what Lane said, and I
>> don't trust Lane not to lie about Bucknell.
>
>
>Well John, that's your problem, not mine:-)
>
>
>
>>
>> So how about posting the *exact* text from Lane.
>
>
>I just did. But be sure to ask me a few more times:-)
>
>
>>
>>
>> >If you didn't know that and didn't know about the PBS documentary, then
>> >why do you bother posting about the JFK case:-)
>> >
>>
>> Did you not know about the Summers interview, and about the document
>> explaining that ordinary negligence would be dismissed as "in the line
>> of duty?"
>
>Nope, why don't you cite the relevant parts of it?
I have already. You ignored that post.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >It was also confirmed by Captain Paul Deranian who treated Oswald's
>> >> >venereal disease and reported that the infection was was acquired "in
>> >> >line
>> >> >of duty".
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Which report did not mean anything like you claim it means.
>> >
>> >I claim it means exactly what the man said.
>> >
>> >If you think he lied, then you have some proving to do.
>> >
>>
>> You are just IGNORING the document I posted!
>>
>>
>> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=141517
>
>I'm not at all sure that the two cases are analagous, or that a doctor
>could render a decision like that. I think you need to prove it.
>
>
The doctor told Tony Summers he did.
And it's not *my* responsibility to "prove it." It's your
responsibility to prove the wild stuff you assert.
>
>>
>> <Quote on>
>>
>> Misconduct is wrongful conduct. Simple or ordinary negligence, however,
>> does not constitute misconduct. The fact that an act violates a law,
>> regulation or order does not, of itself, constitute misconduct. In order
>> to support a determination of misconduct, it must be found that the injury
>> was intentionally incurred, or resulted from negligence that was so gross
>> as to demonstrate a reckless disregard of the consequences.
>>
>> <Quote off>
>
>
>If what you claim is true, then all cases of a VD in the military would be
>documented as in the line of duty.
>
>Maybe they are. Have you confirmed that?
>
>
I don't have access to all cases of VD in the military.
But Jean posted a couple of very interesting pieces on the meaning of
the phrase "in the line of duty."
Did you see that post?
Are you going to ignore it?
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Mcadams replied to this in the way he always has since the mid 1990's, by
>> >> >posting a link to this article at his website,
>> >> >
>> >> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm
>> >> >
>> >> >But Zaid's ancient article contains no sources for his claims about
>> >> >military law and he himself admitted that Oswald violated no rules, which
>> >> >only required him to promptly report the infection and get it treated.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> That's the point!
>> >>
>> >> Since he reported it promptly, he was not guilty of any misconduct.
>> >
>> >That is correct. So why was it necessary for the doctor to have lied
>> >about how he got the infection?
>> >
>>
>> You just don't understand when you are begging the question.
>>
>> You are *assuming* that the bureaucratic language means what you want
>> it to mean, and the doctor is lying otherwise.
>>
>> But you are ignorant of Corps legalistic terms.
>
>
>Probably so, but you have yet to prove that it was SOP for doctors to
>document VD cases that way, or that they had a right to unless the disease
>really was acquired in the line of duty.
>
>
You have to prove that all the sources (including the doctor who made
the notation, whom Tony Summers talked to) are wrong.
You *have* said the equivalent.
Did you think you could bluff this?
From the article:
"Any disability resulting from venereal diseases shall not support a
misconduct finding if the member has complied with regulations
requiring him to report and receive treatment for such disease."
(emphasis added)
The citation is Manual of the Judge Advocate General, Section 0809
(b).
Did you read the article or not?
>Or to make it easier for you, just cite another case or two related to VD
>in the military. If they are also documented as in the line of duty, then
>I will promptly acknowledge that you are right.
>
>
No, you would not.
But I'm sure you are aware that military records are usually
confidential, and released only to family members.
So you are making a demand you know to be impossible.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Pretending that the article isn't properly cited is going to get you
>> >> nowhere, since anybody can see that's untrue.
>> >
>> >Then you should have no problem pasting at least one of those cites in
>> >this thread. Please do so.
>> >
>>
>> Here are the cites, Bob:
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm#N_1_
>
>I don't need a laundry list John. Just cite the one that directs doctors
>to document normal cases of VD as "in the line of duty".
>
Did you think you could bluff this?
From the article:
"Any disability resulting from venereal diseases shall not support a
misconduct finding if the member has complied with regulations
requiring him to report and receive treatment for such disease."
(emphasis added)
The citation is Manual of the Judge Advocate General, Section 0809
(b).
>Or show me other regular cases that were documented that way.
>
>I'm making this very easy for you.
>
The quotation above is directly from the Manual of the JAG.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Can you do that for him? You've referenced Zaid's article many times and
>> >> >you feature it at your website. On an issue of such importance, I would
>> >> >certainly hope that you've verified his statements.
>> >> >
>> >> >Can you show me verbatim cites from the UCMJ or anywhere else, which
>> >> >cause
>> >> >doctors to falsely claim that military personnel can get VD "in the line
>> >> >of duty."
>> >> >
>> >> >In fact, lets settle this thing before continuing.
>> >> >
>> >> >(unquote)
>> >> >
>> >> >For those who are considering coming to john's aide, it should be quite
>> >> >easy to take care of this. If indeed, the doctor claimed that Lee got his
>> >> >VD in the line of duty, for some reason other than that he really did,
>> >> >then all of the hundreds of thousands of military, VD cases during the
>> >> >time period must have been documented the same way.
>> >> >
>> >> >That should be quite easy to prove.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> You prove it *wasn't* true, Bob.
>> >
>> >I'm sorry John, but my position is that the doctor was correct in claiming
>> >that Oswald acquired a venereal infection in the line of duty.
>> >
>>
>> No, your position is that "in the line of duty" means he was acting at
>> express military orders in getting VD. But that's not true.
>
>
>Then prove it.
>
I have.
>
>
>>
>> >Your claim is that the doctor was incorrect, therefore you bear the burden
>> >of proof.
>> >
>>
>> No, my claim is that the doctor was telling the precise truth, given
>> Marine rules and regulations.
>
>Then prove it John. If you are correct, it should be easy.
>
I have. It's not my problem if you refuse to accept it.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> You silly notions are not assumed to be true until disproved.
>> >
>> >It is not my "silly notion". It is your silly notion that the doctor was
>> >wrong in stating that Oswald got that disease, in the line of duty.
>> >
>>
>> Bob, you can't be this dense.
>
>
>Thank you John. I only wish I could say the same for you:-)
>
>But rather than continue to exchange insults, why don't you just go
>ahead and document your claims about military procedures?
>
>I will look forward to seeing what you come up with.
>
>
No, you will ignore it and continue with your wacky theory.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
So all *assumptions* are considered to be true.
Oswald told Priscilla McMillan that he made connection with some
Japanese Communists in Japan, and this may have been part of that.
Or perhaps the women simply wanted a date with an American soldier.
At any rate, *assumed* does not mean "proven."
There is no mention of David Bucknell in the WC Report, Exhibits or
Documents.
Then we have this:
<Quote on>
After Legend's publication, one David Bucknell, an alleged fellow
Marine of Oswald's, told Mark Lane that Oswald had established US
intelligence contacts while frequenting the Queen Bee (Russell, 146).
No David Bucknell is listed among Oswald's USMC unit (Epstein, 657-8).
<Quote off>
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nagell3.htm
You *do* understand that Lane lacks credibility, don't you?
>
>
>>
>> But I don't trust you to properly interpret what Lane said, and I
>> don't trust Lane not to lie about Bucknell.
>
>
>Well John, that's your problem, not mine:-)
>
>
>
>>
>> So how about posting the *exact* text from Lane.
>
>
>I just did. But be sure to ask me a few more times:-)
>
>
>>
>>
>> >If you didn't know that and didn't know about the PBS documentary, then
>> >why do you bother posting about the JFK case:-)
>> >
>>
>> Did you not know about the Summers interview, and about the document
>> explaining that ordinary negligence would be dismissed as "in the line
>> of duty?"
>
>Nope, why don't you cite the relevant parts of it?
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >It was also confirmed by Captain Paul Deranian who treated Oswald's
>> >> >venereal disease and reported that the infection was was acquired "in
>> >> >line
>> >> >of duty".
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Which report did not mean anything like you claim it means.
>> >
>> >I claim it means exactly what the man said.
>> >
>> >If you think he lied, then you have some proving to do.
>> >
>>
>> You are just IGNORING the document I posted!
>>
>>
>> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=141517
>
>I'm not at all sure that the two cases are analagous, or that a doctor
>could render a decision like that. I think you need to prove it.
>
>
And it's not *my* responsibility to "prove it." It's your
responsibility to prove the wild stuff you assert.
>
>>
>> <Quote on>
>>
>> Misconduct is wrongful conduct. Simple or ordinary negligence, however,
>> does not constitute misconduct. The fact that an act violates a law,
>> regulation or order does not, of itself, constitute misconduct. In order
>> to support a determination of misconduct, it must be found that the injury
>> was intentionally incurred, or resulted from negligence that was so gross
>> as to demonstrate a reckless disregard of the consequences.
>>
>> <Quote off>
>
>
>If what you claim is true, then all cases of a VD in the military would be
>documented as in the line of duty.
>
>Maybe they are. Have you confirmed that?
>
>
But Jean posted a couple of very interesting pieces on the meaning of
the phrase "in the line of duty."
Did you see that post?
Are you going to ignore it?
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Mcadams replied to this in the way he always has since the mid 1990's, by
>> >> >posting a link to this article at his website,
>> >> >
>> >> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm
>> >> >
>> >> >But Zaid's ancient article contains no sources for his claims about
>> >> >military law and he himself admitted that Oswald violated no rules, which
>> >> >only required him to promptly report the infection and get it treated.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> That's the point!
>> >>
>> >> Since he reported it promptly, he was not guilty of any misconduct.
>> >
>> >That is correct. So why was it necessary for the doctor to have lied
>> >about how he got the infection?
>> >
>>
>> You just don't understand when you are begging the question.
>>
>> You are *assuming* that the bureaucratic language means what you want
>> it to mean, and the doctor is lying otherwise.
>>
>> But you are ignorant of Corps legalistic terms.
>
>
>Probably so, but you have yet to prove that it was SOP for doctors to
>document VD cases that way, or that they had a right to unless the disease
>really was acquired in the line of duty.
>
>
the notation, whom Tony Summers talked to) are wrong.
From the article:
"Any disability resulting from venereal diseases shall not support a
misconduct finding if the member has complied with regulations
requiring him to report and receive treatment for such disease."
(emphasis added)
The citation is Manual of the Judge Advocate General, Section 0809
(b).
Did you read the article or not?
>Or to make it easier for you, just cite another case or two related to VD
>in the military. If they are also documented as in the line of duty, then
>I will promptly acknowledge that you are right.
>
>
But I'm sure you are aware that military records are usually
confidential, and released only to family members.
So you are making a demand you know to be impossible.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Pretending that the article isn't properly cited is going to get you
>> >> nowhere, since anybody can see that's untrue.
>> >
>> >Then you should have no problem pasting at least one of those cites in
>> >this thread. Please do so.
>> >
>>
>> Here are the cites, Bob:
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm#N_1_
>
>I don't need a laundry list John. Just cite the one that directs doctors
>to document normal cases of VD as "in the line of duty".
>
From the article:
"Any disability resulting from venereal diseases shall not support a
misconduct finding if the member has complied with regulations
requiring him to report and receive treatment for such disease."
(emphasis added)
The citation is Manual of the Judge Advocate General, Section 0809
(b).
>Or show me other regular cases that were documented that way.
>
>I'm making this very easy for you.
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Can you do that for him? You've referenced Zaid's article many times and
>> >> >you feature it at your website. On an issue of such importance, I would
>> >> >certainly hope that you've verified his statements.
>> >> >
>> >> >Can you show me verbatim cites from the UCMJ or anywhere else, which
>> >> >cause
>> >> >doctors to falsely claim that military personnel can get VD "in the line
>> >> >of duty."
>> >> >
>> >> >In fact, lets settle this thing before continuing.
>> >> >
>> >> >(unquote)
>> >> >
>> >> >For those who are considering coming to john's aide, it should be quite
>> >> >easy to take care of this. If indeed, the doctor claimed that Lee got his
>> >> >VD in the line of duty, for some reason other than that he really did,
>> >> >then all of the hundreds of thousands of military, VD cases during the
>> >> >time period must have been documented the same way.
>> >> >
>> >> >That should be quite easy to prove.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> You prove it *wasn't* true, Bob.
>> >
>> >I'm sorry John, but my position is that the doctor was correct in claiming
>> >that Oswald acquired a venereal infection in the line of duty.
>> >
>>
>> No, your position is that "in the line of duty" means he was acting at
>> express military orders in getting VD. But that's not true.
>
>
>Then prove it.
>
>
>
>>
>> >Your claim is that the doctor was incorrect, therefore you bear the burden
>> >of proof.
>> >
>>
>> No, my claim is that the doctor was telling the precise truth, given
>> Marine rules and regulations.
>
>Then prove it John. If you are correct, it should be easy.
>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> You silly notions are not assumed to be true until disproved.
>> >
>> >It is not my "silly notion". It is your silly notion that the doctor was
>> >wrong in stating that Oswald got that disease, in the line of duty.
>> >
>>
>> Bob, you can't be this dense.
>
>
>Thank you John. I only wish I could say the same for you:-)
>
>But rather than continue to exchange insults, why don't you just go
>ahead and document your claims about military procedures?
>
>I will look forward to seeing what you come up with.
>
>
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Jean Davison
May 13, 2012, 7:04:50 PM5/13/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
Earlier you wrote:
> > >> >For those who are considering coming to john's aide, it should be quite
> > >> >easy to take care of this. If indeed, the doctor claimed that Lee got his
> > >> >VD in the line of duty, for some reason other than that he really did,
> > >> >then all of the hundreds of thousands of military, VD cases during the
> > >> >time period must have been documented the same way.
>
> > >> >That should be quite easy to prove.
MISCONDUCT:
QUOTE
>>>>
(a) An injury or disease incurred during active military, naval, or air
service will be deemed to have been incurred in line of duty and not the
result of the veteran’s own misconduct when the person on whose account
benefits are claimed was, at the time the injury was suffered or disease
contracted, in active military, naval, or air service, whether on active
duty or on authorized leave, unless such injury or disease was a result of
the person’s own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs. ***
Venereal disease shall not be presumed to be due to willful misconduct if
the person in service complies with the regulations of the appropriate
service department requiring the person to report and receive treatment
for such disease.***
<<<<
UNQUOTE [my emphasis]
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/105
Jean
Jean Davison
May 13, 2012, 7:12:04 PM5/13/12
to
On May 13, 5:17 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 13 May 2012 17:07:41 -0400, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com>
> >http://www.stripes.com/news/misconduct-rarely-found-in-servicemember-...
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
All credit to Google, which apparently knows
everything. :-)
Jean
> On 13 May 2012 17:07:41 -0400, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com>
>
All credit to Google, which apparently knows
everything. :-)
Jean
aeffects
May 13, 2012, 7:14:39 PM5/13/12
to
On May 13, 3:17 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 13 May 2012 17:07:41 -0400, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com>
> >http://www.stripes.com/news/misconduct-rarely-found-in-servicemember-...
like you with those pesky 45 questions, so ya, probably.
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
> On 13 May 2012 17:07:41 -0400, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Jean Davison
May 13, 2012, 7:43:10 PM5/13/12
to
On May 13, 5:13 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <509c70bb-a57d-4530-b19e-674db22ac...@w24g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
> >http://www.stripes.com/news/misconduct-rarely-found-in-servicemember-...
Hi Bill,
According to one article I found (which may or may not be
accurate), since the 1970s many veterans have been getting disability
checks because of STDs they contracted while in the service.
http://www.seattlepi.com/lifestyle/health/article/Vets-with-STDs-getting-disability-payments-1236052.php
I'm definitely in favor of supporting U.S. veterans, but ....?
Jean
> In article <509c70bb-a57d-4530-b19e-674db22ac...@w24g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
According to one article I found (which may or may not be
accurate), since the 1970s many veterans have been getting disability
checks because of STDs they contracted while in the service.
http://www.seattlepi.com/lifestyle/health/article/Vets-with-STDs-getting-disability-payments-1236052.php
I'm definitely in favor of supporting U.S. veterans, but ....?
Jean
aeffects
May 13, 2012, 8:14:02 PM5/13/12
to
>
> I'm definitely in favor of supporting U.S. veterans, but ....?
perhaps you'd promote as well as support whore houses on every US
> I'm definitely in favor of supporting U.S. veterans, but ....?
military base then, eh, nutter? Where do they find these lone nut
trolls?
> Jean
Anthony Marsh
May 13, 2012, 9:59:59 PM5/13/12
to
Robert Harris
May 13, 2012, 10:06:09 PM5/13/12
to
In article <9oc0r7l1jqv995hf7...@4ax.com>,
First, you need to confirm that you were wrong in stating, "'Prostitute'
is your interpretation, Bob."
"NARRATOR: One day, a fellow Marine noticed Oswald heading off limits with
a Eurasian woman he assumed was a prostitute."
This was obviously, what the ex-marine told the people who made the
documentary.
At a military base like Atsugi, it is not hard to identify prostitutes
like the one Oswald was seen going across "scivvy" bridge with. And the
bridge, by its very name was undoubtedly, a place where Marines connected
with these ladies.
It is unrealistic to believe and highly improbable that this was not a
prostitute. You need to get serious John.
>
> Oswald told Priscilla McMillan that he made connection with some
> Japanese Communists in Japan, and this may have been part of that.
Ah yes!!
This is the Oswald who cannot tell a lie, right?
Strange isn't it, how these "Japanese communists" gave him the clap:-)
>
> Or perhaps the women simply wanted a date with an American soldier.
>
> At any rate, *assumed* does not mean "proven."
I don't think that assumptions are the problem John. I think the problem
is being in denial.
This was a prostitute - probably the same one that Oswald told Bucknell
about.
You seem to thrive on spin. Bucknell's story is totally consistent with
what the PBS people discovered and the fact that Oswald acquired a VD.
Oswald was having sex with somebody. You just don't want it to be a
prostitute because you know he couldn't have afforded to hire one like
that on his meager income.
And you can't have him helping out the Marines because that means he was
an anti-communist - just like I've been telling your for 15 years and just
like his hero, Herbert Philbrick.
Communists don't join the Marine corps John. And when they flaunt their
"communism" they don't get security clearances and they don't get to deal
with things like the U2 program.
>
> There is no mention of David Bucknell in the WC Report, Exhibits or
> Documents.
So what?
Are you claiming that the WC found every relevant witness??
>
> Then we have this:
>
> <Quote on>
>
> After Legend's publication, one David Bucknell, an alleged fellow
> Marine of Oswald's, told Mark Lane that Oswald had established US
> intelligence contacts while frequenting the Queen Bee (Russell, 146).
> No David Bucknell is listed among Oswald's USMC unit (Epstein, 657-8).
>
> <Quote off>
Bucknell never claimed to have been at Atsugi with Oswald. He met him
later in California. Did Epstein check the roster of Oswald's unit in Ca?
And in fact, there is no mention in Lane's article, of Bucknell even being
in the same unit with Oswald.
This is a non sequitar.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nagell3.htm
>
> You *do* understand that Lane lacks credibility, don't you?on
I think he made mistakes but was overall, honest. You used to say the same
thing about the La Fontaines, butC when I asked you to prove that they
ever lied about anything, you got very quiet.
But tell me John, can you find a single case in which Lane fabricated or
substantially altered an interview??
Can you come up with even one?
Cite him.
>
> And it's not *my* responsibility to "prove it." It's your
> responsibility to prove the wild stuff you assert.
The "wild stuff" I assert is that when the doctor said "in the line of
duty", he meant in the line of duty, which is exactly how Oswald got the
clap.
You are claiming that he meant something much different, so you are the
one who needs to prove it.
Have you found confirmation that it is SOP for military doctors to
document VD cases as in the line of duty?
>
> >
> >>
> >> <Quote on>
> >>
> >> Misconduct is wrongful conduct. Simple or ordinary negligence, however,
> >> does not constitute misconduct. The fact that an act violates a law,
> >> regulation or order does not, of itself, constitute misconduct. In order
> >> to support a determination of misconduct, it must be found that the injury
> >> was intentionally incurred, or resulted from negligence that was so gross
> >> as to demonstrate a reckless disregard of the consequences.
> >>
> >> <Quote off>
> >
> >
> >If what you claim is true, then all cases of a VD in the military would be
> >documented as in the line of duty.
> >
> >Maybe they are. Have you confirmed that?
> >
> >
>
> I don't have access to all cases of VD in the military.
Ok, then I'll settle for just one or two.
Just be sure to document them so they can be verified.
>
> But Jean posted a couple of very interesting pieces on the meaning of
> the phrase "in the line of duty."
>
> Did you see that post?
I will take a look at it.
>
> Are you going to ignore it?
LOL!!
Are you really trying to imply that I am the one whose favorite tactic
is evasion:-)
>
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Mcadams replied to this in the way he always has since the mid 1990's,
> >> >> >by
> >> >> >posting a link to this article at his website,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm
> >> >> >
> >> >> >But Zaid's ancient article contains no sources for his claims about
> >> >> >military law and he himself admitted that Oswald violated no rules,
> >> >> >which
> >> >> >only required him to promptly report the infection and get it treated.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> That's the point!
> >> >>
> >> >> Since he reported it promptly, he was not guilty of any misconduct.
> >> >
> >> >That is correct. So why was it necessary for the doctor to have lied
> >> >about how he got the infection?
> >> >
> >>
> >> You just don't understand when you are begging the question.
> >>
> >> You are *assuming* that the bureaucratic language means what you want
> >> it to mean, and the doctor is lying otherwise.
> >>
> >> But you are ignorant of Corps legalistic terms.
> >
> >
> >Probably so, but you have yet to prove that it was SOP for doctors to
> >document VD cases that way, or that they had a right to unless the disease
> >really was acquired in the line of duty.
> >
> >
>
> You have to prove that all the sources (including the doctor who made
> the notation, whom Tony Summers talked to) are wrong.
The original medical report correctly states that Oswald got the VD while
in the line of duty. Why are you pretending that this supports your
denials?
As for this other citation, why do you keep referring to it but fail to
post it?
Yawn..
Duh... I've only said that three or four times. The fact that an action is
not deemed to be "misconduct" does not mean it was carried out in the line
of duty.
If I am a marine and on a day off, play basketball with some friends, that
is also not a form of "misconduct". But that does not mean that I was
playing basketball "in the line of duty".
Now, I am totally open to the possibility that military regulations might
claim otherwise. That's why i asked you over and over to prove your claim.
That should be an easy task.
>
> The citation is Manual of the Judge Advocate General, Section 0809
> (b).
>
> Did you read the article or not?
John, why do you continue to pretend that your citation requires doctors
to document the treatment of VD as in the line of duty. There is nothing
in it which even hints at such a thing. In fact, that term doesn't even
appear in it:-)
>
>
> >Or to make it easier for you, just cite another case or two related to VD
> >in the military. If they are also documented as in the line of duty, then
> >I will promptly acknowledge that you are right.
> >
> >
>
> No, you would not.
Really? How many times in the last 16 years have you caught me telling
lies John?
Please be specific.
>
> But I'm sure you are aware that military records are usually
> confidential, and released only to family members.
Ok then, find a military doctor, active or retired, who will tell us
that he was required to document cases that way.
>
> So you are making a demand you know to be impossible.
I think the problem here is not me setting the bar too high. I think
it's you, running out of excuses.
>
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Pretending that the article isn't properly cited is going to get you
> >> >> nowhere, since anybody can see that's untrue.
> >> >
> >> >Then you should have no problem pasting at least one of those cites in
> >> >this thread. Please do so.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Here are the cites, Bob:
> >>
> >> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm#N_1_
> >
> >I don't need a laundry list John. Just cite the one that directs doctors
> >to document normal cases of VD as "in the line of duty".
> >
>
> Did you think you could bluff this?
>
> From the article:
>
> "Any disability resulting from venereal diseases shall not support a
> misconduct finding if the member has complied with regulations
> requiring him to report and receive treatment for such disease."
> (emphasis added)
John, you seem to be repeating yourself:-)
Robert Harris
is your interpretation, Bob."
"NARRATOR: One day, a fellow Marine noticed Oswald heading off limits with
a Eurasian woman he assumed was a prostitute."
documentary.
At a military base like Atsugi, it is not hard to identify prostitutes
like the one Oswald was seen going across "scivvy" bridge with. And the
bridge, by its very name was undoubtedly, a place where Marines connected
with these ladies.
It is unrealistic to believe and highly improbable that this was not a
prostitute. You need to get serious John.
>
> Oswald told Priscilla McMillan that he made connection with some
> Japanese Communists in Japan, and this may have been part of that.
This is the Oswald who cannot tell a lie, right?
Strange isn't it, how these "Japanese communists" gave him the clap:-)
>
> Or perhaps the women simply wanted a date with an American soldier.
>
> At any rate, *assumed* does not mean "proven."
is being in denial.
This was a prostitute - probably the same one that Oswald told Bucknell
about.
what the PBS people discovered and the fact that Oswald acquired a VD.
Oswald was having sex with somebody. You just don't want it to be a
prostitute because you know he couldn't have afforded to hire one like
that on his meager income.
And you can't have him helping out the Marines because that means he was
an anti-communist - just like I've been telling your for 15 years and just
like his hero, Herbert Philbrick.
Communists don't join the Marine corps John. And when they flaunt their
"communism" they don't get security clearances and they don't get to deal
with things like the U2 program.
>
> There is no mention of David Bucknell in the WC Report, Exhibits or
> Documents.
Are you claiming that the WC found every relevant witness??
>
> Then we have this:
>
> <Quote on>
>
> After Legend's publication, one David Bucknell, an alleged fellow
> Marine of Oswald's, told Mark Lane that Oswald had established US
> intelligence contacts while frequenting the Queen Bee (Russell, 146).
> No David Bucknell is listed among Oswald's USMC unit (Epstein, 657-8).
>
> <Quote off>
later in California. Did Epstein check the roster of Oswald's unit in Ca?
And in fact, there is no mention in Lane's article, of Bucknell even being
in the same unit with Oswald.
This is a non sequitar.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nagell3.htm
>
> You *do* understand that Lane lacks credibility, don't you?on
I think he made mistakes but was overall, honest. You used to say the same
thing about the La Fontaines, butC when I asked you to prove that they
ever lied about anything, you got very quiet.
But tell me John, can you find a single case in which Lane fabricated or
substantially altered an interview??
Can you come up with even one?
>
> And it's not *my* responsibility to "prove it." It's your
> responsibility to prove the wild stuff you assert.
duty", he meant in the line of duty, which is exactly how Oswald got the
clap.
You are claiming that he meant something much different, so you are the
one who needs to prove it.
Have you found confirmation that it is SOP for military doctors to
document VD cases as in the line of duty?
>
> >
> >>
> >> <Quote on>
> >>
> >> Misconduct is wrongful conduct. Simple or ordinary negligence, however,
> >> does not constitute misconduct. The fact that an act violates a law,
> >> regulation or order does not, of itself, constitute misconduct. In order
> >> to support a determination of misconduct, it must be found that the injury
> >> was intentionally incurred, or resulted from negligence that was so gross
> >> as to demonstrate a reckless disregard of the consequences.
> >>
> >> <Quote off>
> >
> >
> >If what you claim is true, then all cases of a VD in the military would be
> >documented as in the line of duty.
> >
> >Maybe they are. Have you confirmed that?
> >
> >
>
> I don't have access to all cases of VD in the military.
Just be sure to document them so they can be verified.
>
> But Jean posted a couple of very interesting pieces on the meaning of
> the phrase "in the line of duty."
>
> Did you see that post?
>
> Are you going to ignore it?
Are you really trying to imply that I am the one whose favorite tactic
is evasion:-)
>
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Mcadams replied to this in the way he always has since the mid 1990's,
> >> >> >by
> >> >> >posting a link to this article at his website,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm
> >> >> >
> >> >> >But Zaid's ancient article contains no sources for his claims about
> >> >> >military law and he himself admitted that Oswald violated no rules,
> >> >> >which
> >> >> >only required him to promptly report the infection and get it treated.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> That's the point!
> >> >>
> >> >> Since he reported it promptly, he was not guilty of any misconduct.
> >> >
> >> >That is correct. So why was it necessary for the doctor to have lied
> >> >about how he got the infection?
> >> >
> >>
> >> You just don't understand when you are begging the question.
> >>
> >> You are *assuming* that the bureaucratic language means what you want
> >> it to mean, and the doctor is lying otherwise.
> >>
> >> But you are ignorant of Corps legalistic terms.
> >
> >
> >Probably so, but you have yet to prove that it was SOP for doctors to
> >document VD cases that way, or that they had a right to unless the disease
> >really was acquired in the line of duty.
> >
> >
>
> You have to prove that all the sources (including the doctor who made
> the notation, whom Tony Summers talked to) are wrong.
in the line of duty. Why are you pretending that this supports your
denials?
As for this other citation, why do you keep referring to it but fail to
post it?
not deemed to be "misconduct" does not mean it was carried out in the line
of duty.
If I am a marine and on a day off, play basketball with some friends, that
is also not a form of "misconduct". But that does not mean that I was
playing basketball "in the line of duty".
Now, I am totally open to the possibility that military regulations might
claim otherwise. That's why i asked you over and over to prove your claim.
That should be an easy task.
>
> The citation is Manual of the Judge Advocate General, Section 0809
> (b).
>
> Did you read the article or not?
to document the treatment of VD as in the line of duty. There is nothing
in it which even hints at such a thing. In fact, that term doesn't even
appear in it:-)
>
>
> >Or to make it easier for you, just cite another case or two related to VD
> >in the military. If they are also documented as in the line of duty, then
> >I will promptly acknowledge that you are right.
> >
> >
>
> No, you would not.
lies John?
Please be specific.
>
> But I'm sure you are aware that military records are usually
> confidential, and released only to family members.
that he was required to document cases that way.
>
> So you are making a demand you know to be impossible.
it's you, running out of excuses.
>
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Pretending that the article isn't properly cited is going to get you
> >> >> nowhere, since anybody can see that's untrue.
> >> >
> >> >Then you should have no problem pasting at least one of those cites in
> >> >this thread. Please do so.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Here are the cites, Bob:
> >>
> >> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm#N_1_
> >
> >I don't need a laundry list John. Just cite the one that directs doctors
> >to document normal cases of VD as "in the line of duty".
> >
>
> Did you think you could bluff this?
>
> From the article:
>
> "Any disability resulting from venereal diseases shall not support a
> misconduct finding if the member has complied with regulations
> requiring him to report and receive treatment for such disease."
> (emphasis added)
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
May 13, 2012, 10:07:21 PM5/13/12
to
In article
<03f3290d-9591-4383...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
When I made my video presentation in this subject, I left out the "in line
of duty" part after reading Zaid's article, but I could never find
documentation that solidly resolved the issue.
But this does exactly. Thanks again.
Robert Harris
<03f3290d-9591-4383...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Earlier you wrote:
>
> > > >> >For those who are considering coming to john's aide, it should be
> > > >> >quite
> > > >> >easy to take care of this. If indeed, the doctor claimed that Lee got
> > > >> >his
> > > >> >VD in the line of duty, for some reason other than that he really
> > > >> >did,
> > > >> >then all of the hundreds of thousands of military, VD cases during
> > > >> >the
> > > >> >time period must have been documented the same way.
> >
> > > >> >That should be quite easy to prove.
>
>
> From the US Code, Title 38, on LINE OF DUTY AND
> MISCONDUCT:
>
> QUOTE
> >>>>
>
> (a) An injury or disease incurred during active military, naval, or air
> service will be deemed to have been incurred in line of duty and not the
> result of the veteran?s own misconduct when the person on whose account
> Earlier you wrote:
>
> > > >> >For those who are considering coming to john's aide, it should be
> > > >> >quite
> > > >> >easy to take care of this. If indeed, the doctor claimed that Lee got
> > > >> >his
> > > >> >VD in the line of duty, for some reason other than that he really
> > > >> >did,
> > > >> >then all of the hundreds of thousands of military, VD cases during
> > > >> >the
> > > >> >time period must have been documented the same way.
> >
> > > >> >That should be quite easy to prove.
>
>
> From the US Code, Title 38, on LINE OF DUTY AND
> MISCONDUCT:
>
> QUOTE
> >>>>
>
> (a) An injury or disease incurred during active military, naval, or air
> service will be deemed to have been incurred in line of duty and not the
> benefits are claimed was, at the time the injury was suffered or disease
> contracted, in active military, naval, or air service, whether on active
> duty or on authorized leave, unless such injury or disease was a result of
> the person?s own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs. ***
> contracted, in active military, naval, or air service, whether on active
> duty or on authorized leave, unless such injury or disease was a result of
> Venereal disease shall not be presumed to be due to willful misconduct if
> the person in service complies with the regulations of the appropriate
> service department requiring the person to report and receive treatment
> for such disease.***
Thank you Jean. This is what I was practically begging John to post.
> the person in service complies with the regulations of the appropriate
> service department requiring the person to report and receive treatment
> for such disease.***
When I made my video presentation in this subject, I left out the "in line
of duty" part after reading Zaid's article, but I could never find
documentation that solidly resolved the issue.
But this does exactly. Thanks again.
Robert Harris
Sandy McCroskey
May 14, 2012, 12:47:26 AM5/14/12
to
argument about Oswald's contracting an STD "in the line of duty" utterly
fatuous (which is to say,... silly) ??
/sandy
Bill Clarke
May 14, 2012, 12:49:52 AM5/14/12
to
In article <36f04242-c691-4e27...@e20g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison says...
>
>On May 13, 5:13=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <509c70bb-a57d-4530-b19e-674db22ac...@w24g2000vby.googlegroups=
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Google turned up several articles showing that "in t=
>he line
>> >of duty" is an common designation in the military. =A0Here are two
>> >examples. =A0I'm sure you could find many more, if you want to look.
>=3D94
>> >QUOTE:
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Military Line of Duty (LOD) Investi=
>gations
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 What Are They, How Can They Affect =
>> >of duty =3D97 due to own misconduct."
>com/library/milinfo/milart=3D
>> >icles/bllod.htm
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>icy
>> and began pushing for a prompt report and treatment of the disease instea=
>d
>> of disciplinary action. =A0I didn't have any luck finding this but I'll
through non-sexual means, or through normal human relations," said Davis,
whose organization has represented veterans with venereal diseases in
their appeals to the VA for more benefits.
After I?d been home for a while after my tour in Vietnam I went back to
Texas A&M to work on a Masters in Medical Microbiology. Worked for a
great old professor and we drank a good bit of beer together. He said
every semester a student will always ask if you can get VD from the toilet
seat. The old Doc said he always wanted to tell them, ?no, not unless
you?re having sex with it?. Except he used a rougher word or two. So
Davis?s defense is on very weak ground here I think.
I was shocked at veterans being paid disability for catching a VD. The
program is much abused by many (phony Agent Orange claims, Saigon clerks
claiming PTSD and so on) but this one takes the cake. What I don?t
understand though is that to receive a disability your injury has to be
service connected. Now how they can justify having the claps by claiming
it was service connected is a long stretch. But if our Congress did it
what can we expect! I?d like to more about this. The article seems
legit.
The sickening thing here is that I see more and more young men and women
at my VA clinic. We don?t need to be wasting money on duds when these
young people really need help.
Bill Clarke
Jean Davison says...
>
>On May 13, 5:13=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <509c70bb-a57d-4530-b19e-674db22ac...@w24g2000vby.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Jean Davison says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 12, 1:22=3DA0pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Jean Davison says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Google turned up several articles showing that "in t=
>he line
>> >of duty" is an common designation in the military. =A0Here are two
>> >examples. =A0I'm sure you could find many more, if you want to look.
>>
>> >QUOTE:
>>
>> >Misconduct rarely found in servicemember deaths
>>
>> >ByLisa M. Novak
>> >Stars and Stripes
>>
>> >Published: March 15, 2010
>>
>> >NAPLES, Italy =3D97 More than two years ago, two U.S. sailors were found
>> >QUOTE:
>>
>> >Misconduct rarely found in servicemember deaths
>>
>> >ByLisa M. Novak
>> >Stars and Stripes
>>
>> >Published: March 15, 2010
>>
>> >dead in a hotel room in Ghana, each lying unresponsive on a double bed
>> >after a night spent ringing in the New Year.
>>
>> >Autopsies blamed the deaths on =3D93mixed drug and alcohol intoxication=
>> >after a night spent ringing in the New Year.
>>
>=3D94
>> >and indicated the presence of heroin and cocaine. A command
>> >investigation determined it was =3D93highly probable=3D94 the sailors ac=
>quired
>> >and ingested the illegal narcotics.
>>
>> >It also ruled that Petty Officer 1st Class Patrick Brendan Mack, 22,
>> >and Seaman Lonnie Davis Jr., 35, died in the line of duty.
>>
>> >Such line-of-duty findings are not unusual, officials say, because the
>> >military sets a very high bar for ruling that troops died of their own
>> >misconduct =3D97 a practice that allows families to collect full survivo=
>> >and ingested the illegal narcotics.
>>
>> >It also ruled that Petty Officer 1st Class Patrick Brendan Mack, 22,
>> >and Seaman Lonnie Davis Jr., 35, died in the line of duty.
>>
>> >Such line-of-duty findings are not unusual, officials say, because the
>> >military sets a very high bar for ruling that troops died of their own
>r
>> >benefits but can leave them struggling to understand the circumstances
>> >of their loved one=3D92s death.
>> >benefits but can leave them struggling to understand the circumstances
>>
>> >[....]
>>
>> >UNQUOTE
>>
>> >http://www.stripes.com/news/misconduct-rarely-found-in-servicemember-...
>> >-1.100000
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 * * * * * * * *
>> >[....]
>>
>> >UNQUOTE
>>
>> >http://www.stripes.com/news/misconduct-rarely-found-in-servicemember-...
>> >-1.100000
>>
>> >QUOTE:
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Military Line of Duty (LOD) Investi=
>gations
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 What Are They, How Can They Affect =
>>
>> >The consequences of this determination can be significant. Any time
>> >the soldier was not present for duty due to hospitalization, being on
>> >quarters or being on convalescent leave is counted as bad time. Bad
>> >time has to be made up. This means that a soldier's ETS date will be
>> >moved back one day for every day the soldier is not present for duty.
>> >[....]
>>
>> >Above Article by LeeAnna George, III Corps Legal Assitance Office,
>> >Fort Hood
>> >UNQUOTE
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://usmilitary.about.=
>> >The consequences of this determination can be significant. Any time
>> >the soldier was not present for duty due to hospitalization, being on
>> >quarters or being on convalescent leave is counted as bad time. Bad
>> >time has to be made up. This means that a soldier's ETS date will be
>> >moved back one day for every day the soldier is not present for duty.
>> >[....]
>>
>> >Above Article by LeeAnna George, III Corps Legal Assitance Office,
>> >Fort Hood
>> >UNQUOTE
>>
>com/library/milinfo/milart=3D
>> >icles/bllod.htm
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>>
>> >Jean
>>
>> At one time being infected with VD was a Article 15 or even Court Martial
>> offense. =A0I did a quick check to see when the military changed this pol=
>> >Jean
>>
>> At one time being infected with VD was a Article 15 or even Court Martial
>icy
>> and began pushing for a prompt report and treatment of the disease instea=
>d
>> of disciplinary action. =A0I didn't have any luck finding this but I'll
>> check again. I believe it was at the end of WWII but am not sure.
>>
>> As always there is some command influence in these things that shouldn't
>> be ignored. =A0The general usually gets his way.
>>
>> As always there is some command influence in these things that shouldn't
>>
>> Bill Clarke
>
>Hi Bill,
>
> According to one article I found (which may or may not be
>accurate), since the 1970s many veterans have been getting disability
>checks because of STDs they contracted while in the service.
>
>http://www.seattlepi.com/lifestyle/health/article/Vets-with-STDs-getting-di=
>> Bill Clarke
>
>Hi Bill,
>
> According to one article I found (which may or may not be
>accurate), since the 1970s many veterans have been getting disability
>checks because of STDs they contracted while in the service.
>
>sability-payments-1236052.php
>
> I'm definitely in favor of supporting U.S. veterans, but ....?
>
>Jean
This one really caught my eye; "Some of the maladies ... can be contracted
>
> I'm definitely in favor of supporting U.S. veterans, but ....?
>
>Jean
through non-sexual means, or through normal human relations," said Davis,
whose organization has represented veterans with venereal diseases in
their appeals to the VA for more benefits.
After I?d been home for a while after my tour in Vietnam I went back to
Texas A&M to work on a Masters in Medical Microbiology. Worked for a
great old professor and we drank a good bit of beer together. He said
every semester a student will always ask if you can get VD from the toilet
seat. The old Doc said he always wanted to tell them, ?no, not unless
you?re having sex with it?. Except he used a rougher word or two. So
Davis?s defense is on very weak ground here I think.
I was shocked at veterans being paid disability for catching a VD. The
program is much abused by many (phony Agent Orange claims, Saigon clerks
claiming PTSD and so on) but this one takes the cake. What I don?t
understand though is that to receive a disability your injury has to be
service connected. Now how they can justify having the claps by claiming
it was service connected is a long stretch. But if our Congress did it
what can we expect! I?d like to more about this. The article seems
legit.
The sickening thing here is that I see more and more young men and women
at my VA clinic. We don?t need to be wasting money on duds when these
young people really need help.
Bill Clarke
Jean
May 14, 2012, 12:53:21 AM5/14/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
> <03f3290d-9591-4383-afbb-d581bc607...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Harris-
You're welcome. However, it wasn't John who needed to verify
this, but rather the countless CT authors who've claimed that the phrase
"in the line of duty" meant that Oswald was a spy who was ordered to
consort with prostitutes. Wouldn't you agree that the CTs got that wrong?
Jean
You're welcome. However, it wasn't John who needed to verify
this, but rather the countless CT authors who've claimed that the phrase
"in the line of duty" meant that Oswald was a spy who was ordered to
consort with prostitutes. Wouldn't you agree that the CTs got that wrong?
Jean
Jean Davison
May 14, 2012, 1:24:15 AM5/14/12
to
On May 13, 11:49 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <36f04242-c691-4e27-8291-717fb2731...@e20g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
> >http://www.seattlepi.com/lifestyle/health/article/Vets-with-STDs-gett...
> Bill Clarke-
I agree with you, Bill. Since Google turned up only that one
article I'm hoping it's an error, but I haven't researched it enough to be
sure.
Jean
> In article <36f04242-c691-4e27-8291-717fb2731...@e20g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
I agree with you, Bill. Since Google turned up only that one
article I'm hoping it's an error, but I haven't researched it enough to be
sure.
Jean
Ben Holmes
May 14, 2012, 9:56:40 AM5/14/12
to
In article <bobharris77-CFF6...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris says...
What it "does exactly" is to demolish Robert's silly claim about Oswald's
contraction of VD being "in the line of duty".
Robert simply didn't have a clue what "in the line of duty" means - and like
many kooks, simply put his own spin on it.
Shades of Robert Caprio!!!
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Robert Harris says...
contraction of VD being "in the line of duty".
Robert simply didn't have a clue what "in the line of duty" means - and like
many kooks, simply put his own spin on it.
Shades of Robert Caprio!!!
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Robert Harris
May 14, 2012, 6:06:00 PM5/14/12
to
In article
<955dcd89-371c-47b9...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
Jean <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 13, 9:07?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <03f3290d-9591-4383-afbb-d581bc607...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> > ?Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think we all have an obligation to support our claims - something John
rarely does, at least on the few occasions in which he engaged me in
debate.
And in a case like this in which a statement meant something much
different than what it appeared to mean, I think the burden rests with
your "side".
If a witness said something happened on Monday, but I think he really
meant Sunday, who bears the burden of proving that it was Sunday - me or
those who disagree with me?
Robert Harris
<955dcd89-371c-47b9...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
Jean <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 13, 9:07?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <03f3290d-9591-4383-afbb-d581bc607...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > ? ? ? ?Earlier you wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> >For those who are considering coming to john's aide, it should be
> > > > > >> >quite
> > > > > >> >easy to take care of this. If indeed, the doctor claimed that Lee
> > > > > >> >got
> > > > > >> >his
> > > > > >> >VD in the line of duty, for some reason other than that he really
> > > > > >> >did,
> > > > > >> >then all of the hundreds of thousands of military, VD cases
> > > > > >> >during
> > > > > >> >the
> > > > > >> >time period must have been documented the same way.
> >
> > > > > >> >That should be quite easy to prove.
> >
> > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ?From the US Code, Title 38, on LINE OF DUTY AND
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > ? ? ? ?Earlier you wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> >For those who are considering coming to john's aide, it should be
> > > > > >> >quite
> > > > > >> >easy to take care of this. If indeed, the doctor claimed that Lee
> > > > > >> >got
> > > > > >> >his
> > > > > >> >VD in the line of duty, for some reason other than that he really
> > > > > >> >did,
> > > > > >> >then all of the hundreds of thousands of military, VD cases
> > > > > >> >during
> > > > > >> >the
> > > > > >> >time period must have been documented the same way.
> >
> > > > > >> >That should be quite easy to prove.
> >
> > > MISCONDUCT:
> >
> > > QUOTE
> >
> > > (a) An injury or disease incurred during active military, naval, or air
> > > service will be deemed to have been incurred in line of duty and not the
> > > result of the veteran?s own misconduct when the person on whose account
> > > benefits are claimed was, at the time the injury was suffered or disease
> > > contracted, in active military, naval, or air service, whether on active
> > > duty or on authorized leave, unless such injury or disease was a result
> > > of
> > > the person?s own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs. ?***
> >
> > > QUOTE
> >
> > > (a) An injury or disease incurred during active military, naval, or air
> > > service will be deemed to have been incurred in line of duty and not the
> > > result of the veteran?s own misconduct when the person on whose account
> > > benefits are claimed was, at the time the injury was suffered or disease
> > > contracted, in active military, naval, or air service, whether on active
> > > duty or on authorized leave, unless such injury or disease was a result
> > > of
> > > Venereal disease shall not be presumed to be due to willful misconduct if
> > > the person in service complies with the regulations of the appropriate
> > > service department requiring the person to report and receive treatment
> > > for such disease.***
> >
> > Thank you Jean. This is what I was practically begging John to post.
> >,
> > > the person in service complies with the regulations of the appropriate
> > > service department requiring the person to report and receive treatment
> > > for such disease.***
> >
> > Thank you Jean. This is what I was practically begging John to post.
> > When I made my video presentation in this subject, I left out the "in line
> > of duty" part after reading Zaid's article, but I could never find
> > documentation that solidly resolved the issue.
> >
> > But this does exactly. Thanks again.
> >
> > Robert Harris-
>
> You're welcome. However, it wasn't John who needed to verify
> this, but rather the countless CT authors who've claimed that the phrase
> "in the line of duty" meant that Oswald was a spy who was ordered to
> consort with prostitutes. Wouldn't you agree that the CTs got that wrong?
Of course they, and I were wrong.
> > of duty" part after reading Zaid's article, but I could never find
> > documentation that solidly resolved the issue.
> >
> > But this does exactly. Thanks again.
> >
> > Robert Harris-
>
> You're welcome. However, it wasn't John who needed to verify
> this, but rather the countless CT authors who've claimed that the phrase
> "in the line of duty" meant that Oswald was a spy who was ordered to
> consort with prostitutes. Wouldn't you agree that the CTs got that wrong?
I think we all have an obligation to support our claims - something John
rarely does, at least on the few occasions in which he engaged me in
debate.
And in a case like this in which a statement meant something much
different than what it appeared to mean, I think the burden rests with
your "side".
If a witness said something happened on Monday, but I think he really
meant Sunday, who bears the burden of proving that it was Sunday - me or
those who disagree with me?
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
May 14, 2012, 6:10:09 PM5/14/12
to
In article <4fb07a66$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
There is nothing silly about assuming that a statement means what any sane
person would believe that it means.
In another forum, Rob DiCaprio was trying to squirm out of his claim that
based on the Zapruder film, Howard Brennan was proven to have lied about
looking upward and seeing a sniper on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
Of course, he had been proven flatly wrong throughout the thread, but
refused to admit it and was trying rather desperately to change the
subject. I replied to him as follows:
"It's happened to me too Rob. I make mistakes, but I have a tricky tactic
I use to get out of the situation.
I state that I was "wrong".
First, it shocks everyone and for a brief time, leaves my adversaries
speechless:-)
And second, it supports my primary agenda, which is not to "win" debates
but to get this stuff right. So, when I get outed, my adversaries are
unwittingly supporting me, more than they could ever realize. It is not
whether an issue supports us or them, it's about whether the issue can be
legitimately resolved. Each time that happens, we move that much closer to
the truth."
I doubt that DiCaprio got that any more than you did, but hopefully, there
are a few lurkers out there who will.
Robert Harris
person would believe that it means.
In another forum, Rob DiCaprio was trying to squirm out of his claim that
based on the Zapruder film, Howard Brennan was proven to have lied about
looking upward and seeing a sniper on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
Of course, he had been proven flatly wrong throughout the thread, but
refused to admit it and was trying rather desperately to change the
subject. I replied to him as follows:
"It's happened to me too Rob. I make mistakes, but I have a tricky tactic
I use to get out of the situation.
I state that I was "wrong".
First, it shocks everyone and for a brief time, leaves my adversaries
speechless:-)
And second, it supports my primary agenda, which is not to "win" debates
but to get this stuff right. So, when I get outed, my adversaries are
unwittingly supporting me, more than they could ever realize. It is not
whether an issue supports us or them, it's about whether the issue can be
legitimately resolved. Each time that happens, we move that much closer to
the truth."
I doubt that DiCaprio got that any more than you did, but hopefully, there
are a few lurkers out there who will.
Robert Harris
Sandy McCroskey
May 14, 2012, 7:10:39 PM5/14/12
to
of duty" is. You only had to be told several times.
I *am* amazed that you finally admitted you were wrong.
/sm
Bud
May 14, 2012, 8:06:03 PM5/14/12
to
On May 14, 6:10 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <4fb07a6...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > > Jean Davison<jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Many conspiracy monger ideas rest on poor assumptions. The challenge by
the conspiracy monger is often for others to prove their assumptions
wrong. It`s a flawed approach, but one favored by many conspiracy
hobbyists for decades. Of course they have to rely heavily on such an
approach because their ideas aren`t valid and they cannot show things that
exist only in their imagination.
> In another forum, Rob DiCaprio was trying to squirm out of his claim that
> based on the Zapruder film, Howard Brennan was proven to have lied about
> looking upward and seeing a sniper on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
>
> Of course, he had been proven flatly wrong throughout the thread, but
> refused to admit it and was trying rather desperately to change the
> subject. I replied to him as follows:
>
> "It's happened to me too Rob. I make mistakes, but I have a tricky tactic
> I use to get out of the situation.
>
> I state that I was "wrong".
>
> First, it shocks everyone and for a brief time, leaves my adversaries
> speechless:-)
>
> And second, it supports my primary agenda, which is not to "win" debates
> but to get this stuff right. So, when I get outed, my adversaries are
> unwittingly supporting me, more than they could ever realize. It is not
> whether an issue supports us or them, it's about whether the issue can be
> legitimately resolved. Each time that happens, we move that much closer to
> the truth."
>
> I doubt that DiCaprio got that any more than you did, but hopefully, there
> are a few lurkers out there who will.
I doubt that Harris will get that what Jean produced put distance
between his ideas and the truth, but hopefully, there are a few lurkers
out there, who will (I see your comma and raise you a comma).
> Robert Harris
> In article <4fb07a6...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/13/12 10:07 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <03f3290d-9591-4383-afbb-d581bc607...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/13/12 10:07 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> > > In article
> > > Jean Davison<jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
the conspiracy monger is often for others to prove their assumptions
wrong. It`s a flawed approach, but one favored by many conspiracy
hobbyists for decades. Of course they have to rely heavily on such an
approach because their ideas aren`t valid and they cannot show things that
exist only in their imagination.
> In another forum, Rob DiCaprio was trying to squirm out of his claim that
> based on the Zapruder film, Howard Brennan was proven to have lied about
> looking upward and seeing a sniper on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
>
> Of course, he had been proven flatly wrong throughout the thread, but
> refused to admit it and was trying rather desperately to change the
> subject. I replied to him as follows:
>
> "It's happened to me too Rob. I make mistakes, but I have a tricky tactic
> I use to get out of the situation.
>
> I state that I was "wrong".
>
> First, it shocks everyone and for a brief time, leaves my adversaries
> speechless:-)
>
> And second, it supports my primary agenda, which is not to "win" debates
> but to get this stuff right. So, when I get outed, my adversaries are
> unwittingly supporting me, more than they could ever realize. It is not
> whether an issue supports us or them, it's about whether the issue can be
> legitimately resolved. Each time that happens, we move that much closer to
> the truth."
>
> I doubt that DiCaprio got that any more than you did, but hopefully, there
> are a few lurkers out there who will.
between his ideas and the truth, but hopefully, there are a few lurkers
out there, who will (I see your comma and raise you a comma).
> Robert Harris
Robert Harris
May 14, 2012, 8:51:36 PM5/14/12
to
In article <4fb185a5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
LOL!! Being "told" is light years from seeing something proven, as you
and your friends have confirmed a zillion times.
> I *am* amazed that you finally admitted you were wrong.
You need to realize that you and I think MUCH differently Sandy - and
not just about the JFK case.
Robert Harris
and your friends have confirmed a zillion times.
> I *am* amazed that you finally admitted you were wrong.
not just about the JFK case.
Robert Harris
Sandy McCroskey
May 14, 2012, 10:04:49 PM5/14/12
to
>> I *am* amazed that you finally admitted you were wrong.
>
> You need to realize that you and I think MUCH differently Sandy - and
> not just about the JFK case.
>
/sm
John McAdams
May 14, 2012, 10:16:48 PM5/14/12
to
On 14 May 2012 18:06:00 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>In article
><955dcd89-371c-47b9...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
> Jean <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> You're welcome. However, it wasn't John who needed to verify
>> this, but rather the countless CT authors who've claimed that the phrase
>> "in the line of duty" meant that Oswald was a spy who was ordered to
>> consort with prostitutes. Wouldn't you agree that the CTs got that wrong?
>
>Of course they, and I were wrong.
>
>I think we all have an obligation to support our claims - something John
>rarely does, at least on the few occasions in which he engaged me in
>debate.
>
I certainly did support my "claims," but you simply ignored the
evidence.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>In article
><955dcd89-371c-47b9...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
> Jean <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> You're welcome. However, it wasn't John who needed to verify
>> this, but rather the countless CT authors who've claimed that the phrase
>> "in the line of duty" meant that Oswald was a spy who was ordered to
>> consort with prostitutes. Wouldn't you agree that the CTs got that wrong?
>
>Of course they, and I were wrong.
>
>I think we all have an obligation to support our claims - something John
>rarely does, at least on the few occasions in which he engaged me in
>debate.
>
evidence.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
aeffects
May 15, 2012, 12:06:24 AM5/15/12
to
On May 14, 7:16 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 14 May 2012 18:06:00 -0400, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article
> ><955dcd89-371c-47b9-9645-2269d06b9...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
> On 14 May 2012 18:06:00 -0400, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article
> ><955dcd89-371c-47b9-9645-2269d06b9...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
> > Jean <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> You're welcome. However, it wasn't John who needed to verify
> >> this, but rather the countless CT authors who've claimed that the phrase
> >> "in the line of duty" meant that Oswald was a spy who was ordered to
> >> consort with prostitutes. Wouldn't you agree that the CTs got that wrong?
>
> >Of course they, and I were wrong.
>
> >I think we all have an obligation to support our claims - something John
> >rarely does, at least on the few occasions in which he engaged me in
> >debate.
>
> I certainly did support my "claims," but you simply ignored the
> evidence.
rotflmfao.... now THAT, is rich....
>
> >> You're welcome. However, it wasn't John who needed to verify
> >> this, but rather the countless CT authors who've claimed that the phrase
> >> "in the line of duty" meant that Oswald was a spy who was ordered to
> >> consort with prostitutes. Wouldn't you agree that the CTs got that wrong?
>
> >Of course they, and I were wrong.
>
> >I think we all have an obligation to support our claims - something John
> >rarely does, at least on the few occasions in which he engaged me in
> >debate.
>
> I certainly did support my "claims," but you simply ignored the
> evidence.
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Jean Davison
May 15, 2012, 12:46:33 AM5/15/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
> <955dcd89-371c-47b9-9645-2269d06b9...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
Good for you, Robert.
>
> I think we all have an obligation to support our claims - something John
> rarely does, at least on the few occasions in which he engaged me in
> debate.
>
John presented evidence on this issue at least 15 years ago,
when he pointed out that Oswald's accident with a pistol was also ruled
"in the line of duty" and cited a WC document that explained why. See the
first post here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_frm/thread/35b98c1caef62497/ea27d604cdc7803b?hl=en&q=oswald+%22in+the+line+of+duty%22+group:alt.assassination.jfk
> And in a case like this in which a statement meant something much
> different than what it appeared to mean, I think the burden rests with
> your "side
No way. Someone making a claim should support that claim. It's
not up to us to do the CTs' homework, though it often works out that way,
have you noticed?
>
> If a witness said something happened on Monday, but I think he really
> meant Sunday, who bears the burden of proving that it was Sunday - me or
> those who disagree with me?
Bad analogy. The Marines didn't have a special definition
for days of the week. "In the line of duty" has a specific military
meaning, as shown by the pistol incident.
The entire CT case is based on errors and false assumptions
like this one. Time to wake up.
Jean
>
> I think we all have an obligation to support our claims - something John
> rarely does, at least on the few occasions in which he engaged me in
> debate.
>
when he pointed out that Oswald's accident with a pistol was also ruled
"in the line of duty" and cited a WC document that explained why. See the
first post here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_frm/thread/35b98c1caef62497/ea27d604cdc7803b?hl=en&q=oswald+%22in+the+line+of+duty%22+group:alt.assassination.jfk
> And in a case like this in which a statement meant something much
> different than what it appeared to mean, I think the burden rests with
> your "side
not up to us to do the CTs' homework, though it often works out that way,
have you noticed?
>
> If a witness said something happened on Monday, but I think he really
> meant Sunday, who bears the burden of proving that it was Sunday - me or
> those who disagree with me?
for days of the week. "In the line of duty" has a specific military
meaning, as shown by the pistol incident.
The entire CT case is based on errors and false assumptions
like this one. Time to wake up.
Jean
Ben Holmes
May 15, 2012, 9:40:32 AM5/15/12
to
In article <633fd896-55b8-44e6...@n42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>needed to verify
>> >> this, but rather the countless CT authors who've claimed that the phra=
>se
>> >> "in the line of duty" =A0meant that Oswald was a spy who was ordered t=
>o
>> >> consort with prostitutes. =A0Wouldn't you agree that the CTs got that =
size in an X-ray or photograph was to simply censor me, claiming that I was
harassing him when asking him to support his silly assertion.
John McAdams is a yellow coward.
>> .John
>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
aeffects says...
>
>On May 14, 7:16=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 14 May 2012 18:06:00 -0400, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article
>> ><955dcd89-371c-47b9-9645-2269d06b9...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Jean <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0You're welcome. =A0However, it wasn't John who =
>On May 14, 7:16=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 14 May 2012 18:06:00 -0400, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article
>> ><955dcd89-371c-47b9-9645-2269d06b9...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Jean <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>needed to verify
>> >> this, but rather the countless CT authors who've claimed that the phra=
>se
>> >> "in the line of duty" =A0meant that Oswald was a spy who was ordered t=
>o
>> >> consort with prostitutes. =A0Wouldn't you agree that the CTs got that =
>wrong?
>>
>> >Of course they, and I were wrong.
>>
>> >I think we all have an obligation to support our claims - something John
>> >rarely does, at least on the few occasions in which he engaged me in
>> >debate.
>>
>> I certainly did support my "claims," but you simply ignored the
>> evidence.
>
>rotflmfao.... now THAT, is rich....
Yep... he supported his claim that "sensible" people use "mass" to determine
>>
>> >Of course they, and I were wrong.
>>
>> >I think we all have an obligation to support our claims - something John
>> >rarely does, at least on the few occasions in which he engaged me in
>> >debate.
>>
>> I certainly did support my "claims," but you simply ignored the
>> evidence.
>
>rotflmfao.... now THAT, is rich....
size in an X-ray or photograph was to simply censor me, claiming that I was
harassing him when asking him to support his silly assertion.
John McAdams is a yellow coward.
>> .John
>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Sandy McCroskey
May 15, 2012, 12:54:12 PM5/15/12
to
to point out your lack of understanding of a bit of military
bureaucratese. How else were you going to find out?
> If a witness said something happened on Monday, but I think he really
> meant Sunday, who bears the burden of proving that it was Sunday - me or
> those who disagree with me?
We've set aside impossible or wildly improbable witness claims, such as
attestations that water turned into wine or reindeer flew, which are
always the burden of the claimant to prove. You're talking about an
instance where what happened isn't in doubt but only when it happened.
Obviously, in such a case the person disputing the witness would bear the
responsibility of demonstrating why the witness's statement (that it
happened on Monday) cannot be true, as well as the reason why it must have
happened on Sunday.
But I don't see how this relates to the issue at hand. You're not a
"witness" to anything here and no one contradicted a witness. The dispute
was over your interpretation of "line of duty," in ignorance of its
specific military usage.
/sandy
Robert Harris
May 15, 2012, 6:24:38 PM5/15/12
to
In article
<f56a8770-7974-4f64...@i19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ? ? ? ? ? ?You're welcome. ?However, it wasn't John who needed to verify
> > > consort with prostitutes. ?Wouldn't you agree that the CTs got that
thing as a medical report.
As I told you before, I omitted the "in line of duty" argument in my video
presentations, because I had doubts that it actually meant what it
appeared to mean. I was never certain however, and I look at ALL evidence
with a healthy amount of skepticism.
What you probably don't realize is that you and your buds suffer pretty
much the same flaws that the most radical of the conspiracy people do. You
blithely accept anything that seems to support you and auto-reject
anything which does not.
I think if you ask any good scientist or criminologist, they will tell you
that objectivity is critical to any good analysis.
I don't claim to be 100% open minded, but I try to be. Can you say the
same, Jean?
Robert Harris
<f56a8770-7974-4f64...@i19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > this, but rather the countless CT authors who've claimed that the phrase
> > > "in the line of duty" ?meant that Oswald was a spy who was ordered to
> > > consort with prostitutes. ?Wouldn't you agree that the CTs got that
> > > wrong?
> >
> > Of course they, and I were wrong.
>
> Good for you, Robert.
>
> >
> > I think we all have an obligation to support our claims - something John
> > rarely does, at least on the few occasions in which he engaged me in
> > debate.
> >
>
> John presented evidence on this issue at least 15 years ago,
> when he pointed out that Oswald's accident with a pistol was also ruled
> "in the line of duty" and cited a WC document that explained why. See the
> first post here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_frm/thread/35b98c1
> caef62497/ea27d604cdc7803b?hl=en&q=oswald+%22in+the+line+of+duty%22+group:alt.
> assassination.jfk
I understand that, but a ruling by a judge is not necessarily the same
> >
> > Of course they, and I were wrong.
>
> Good for you, Robert.
>
> >
> > I think we all have an obligation to support our claims - something John
> > rarely does, at least on the few occasions in which he engaged me in
> > debate.
> >
>
> John presented evidence on this issue at least 15 years ago,
> when he pointed out that Oswald's accident with a pistol was also ruled
> "in the line of duty" and cited a WC document that explained why. See the
> first post here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_frm/thread/35b98c1
> caef62497/ea27d604cdc7803b?hl=en&q=oswald+%22in+the+line+of+duty%22+group:alt.
> assassination.jfk
thing as a medical report.
As I told you before, I omitted the "in line of duty" argument in my video
presentations, because I had doubts that it actually meant what it
appeared to mean. I was never certain however, and I look at ALL evidence
with a healthy amount of skepticism.
What you probably don't realize is that you and your buds suffer pretty
much the same flaws that the most radical of the conspiracy people do. You
blithely accept anything that seems to support you and auto-reject
anything which does not.
I think if you ask any good scientist or criminologist, they will tell you
that objectivity is critical to any good analysis.
I don't claim to be 100% open minded, but I try to be. Can you say the
same, Jean?
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
May 15, 2012, 6:26:21 PM5/15/12
to
In article <v2f3r7d41tcsfj6dp...@4ax.com>,
Then why did Jean feel compelled to go out and find something which
actually proved the point?
It is only your interpretation of the evidence that I rejected as
conclusive. And your interpretations are frequently biased to the point of
absurdity.
I only asked for evidence that was specific to the issue of venereal
disease - something you said was too difficult:-)
Robert Harris
actually proved the point?
It is only your interpretation of the evidence that I rejected as
conclusive. And your interpretations are frequently biased to the point of
absurdity.
I only asked for evidence that was specific to the issue of venereal
disease - something you said was too difficult:-)
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
May 15, 2012, 7:40:27 PM5/15/12
to
nor the WC defenders.
Anthony Marsh
May 15, 2012, 7:41:31 PM5/15/12
to
>
> Robert Harris
Jason Burke
May 15, 2012, 8:06:10 PM5/15/12
to
You're still, a fucking, idiot.
Jason Burke
May 15, 2012, 8:44:41 PM5/15/12
to
On 5/15/2012 3:26 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
You're ALMOST as big a fucking idiot as Healy.
Jason Burke
May 15, 2012, 8:49:15 PM5/15/12
to
with, your fantasy.
>
> What you probably don't realize is that you and your buds suffer pretty
> much the same flaws that the most radical of the conspiracy people do. You
> blithely accept anything that seems to support you and auto-reject
> anything which does not.
for themselves after, 49 years. Know, why asswipe? Because there, was
no, conspiracy. Deal with, it.
>
> I think if you ask any good scientist or criminologist, they will tell you
> that objectivity is critical to any good analysis.
>
> I don't claim to be 100% open minded, but I try to be. Can you say the
> same, Jean?
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
Jean Davison
May 15, 2012, 9:20:04 PM5/15/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
> <f56a8770-7974-4f64-85ba-2d9f27545...@i19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_frm/threa...
> > caef62497/ea27d604cdc7803b?hl=en&q=oswald+%22in+the+line+of+duty%22+group:alt.
ruling.
>
> As I told you before, I omitted the "in line of duty" argument in my video
> presentations, because I had doubts that it actually meant what it
> appeared to mean. I was never certain however, and I look at ALL evidence
> with a healthy amount of skepticism.
>
> What you probably don't realize is that you and your buds suffer pretty
> much the same flaws that the most radical of the conspiracy people do. You
> blithely accept anything that seems to support you and auto-reject
> anything which does not.
It may appear that way to you, but .... no. I've spent a
lot of time trying to determine whether Oswald was what he appeared to
be. You can't find this out from conspiracy books. He's not there.
>
> I think if you ask any good scientist or criminologist, they will tell you
> that objectivity is critical to any good analysis.
>
> I don't claim to be 100% open minded, but I try to be. Can you say the
> same, Jean?
Of course. Everybody thinks he's open-minded. This issue isn't
about open-mindedness, though, it's about distinguishing between evidence
and assumptions, imo.
Jean
> > caef62497/ea27d604cdc7803b?hl=en&q=oswald+%22in+the+line+of+duty%22+group:alt.
> > assassination.jfk
>
> I understand that, but a ruling by a judge is not necessarily the same
> thing as a medical report.
Huh? It was the Judge Advocate who made the "line of duty"
>
> I understand that, but a ruling by a judge is not necessarily the same
> thing as a medical report.
ruling.
>
> As I told you before, I omitted the "in line of duty" argument in my video
> presentations, because I had doubts that it actually meant what it
> appeared to mean. I was never certain however, and I look at ALL evidence
> with a healthy amount of skepticism.
>
> What you probably don't realize is that you and your buds suffer pretty
> much the same flaws that the most radical of the conspiracy people do. You
> blithely accept anything that seems to support you and auto-reject
> anything which does not.
lot of time trying to determine whether Oswald was what he appeared to
be. You can't find this out from conspiracy books. He's not there.
>
> I think if you ask any good scientist or criminologist, they will tell you
> that objectivity is critical to any good analysis.
>
> I don't claim to be 100% open minded, but I try to be. Can you say the
> same, Jean?
about open-mindedness, though, it's about distinguishing between evidence
and assumptions, imo.
Jean
Ben Holmes
May 15, 2012, 11:18:58 PM5/15/12
to
In article <573d2ee0-4a4e-465a...@em1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison says...
>
>On May 15, 5:24=A0pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snipped]
>> I don't claim to be 100% open minded, but I try to be. Can you say the
>> same, Jean?
>
> Of course. Everybody thinks he's open-minded. This issue isn't
>about open-mindedness, though, it's about distinguishing between evidence
>and assumptions, imo.
>
>Jean
If only this were true.
Then all the kooks would have no problems admitting that Bugliosi simply lied
about the description of the original bullet wound in JFK's throat.
For there is neither evidence nor "assumptions" about that wound being "ragged",
yet no kook yet has admitted that Bugliosi simply lied.
And probably never will...
Jean Davison says...
>
>On May 15, 5:24=A0pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snipped]
>> I don't claim to be 100% open minded, but I try to be. Can you say the
>> same, Jean?
>
> Of course. Everybody thinks he's open-minded. This issue isn't
>about open-mindedness, though, it's about distinguishing between evidence
>and assumptions, imo.
>
>Jean
Then all the kooks would have no problems admitting that Bugliosi simply lied
about the description of the original bullet wound in JFK's throat.
For there is neither evidence nor "assumptions" about that wound being "ragged",
yet no kook yet has admitted that Bugliosi simply lied.
And probably never will...
aeffects
May 16, 2012, 4:10:53 AM5/16/12
to
On May 15, 8:18 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <573d2ee0-4a4e-465a-89c4-38e2eb6cf...@em1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> In article <573d2ee0-4a4e-465a-89c4-38e2eb6cf...@em1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> Jean Davison says...
>
>
>
> >On May 15, 5:24=A0pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [snipped]
>
> >> I don't claim to be 100% open minded, but I try to be. Can you say the
> >> same, Jean?
>
> > Of course. Everybody thinks he's open-minded. This issue isn't
> >about open-mindedness, though, it's about distinguishing between evidence
> >and assumptions, imo.
>
> >Jean
>
> If only this were true.
>
> Then all the kooks would have no problems admitting that Bugliosi simply lied
> about the description of the original bullet wound in JFK's throat.
she thinks she's taking the high road, another lone nut fantasy....
>
>
>
> >On May 15, 5:24=A0pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [snipped]
>
> >> I don't claim to be 100% open minded, but I try to be. Can you say the
> >> same, Jean?
>
> > Of course. Everybody thinks he's open-minded. This issue isn't
> >about open-mindedness, though, it's about distinguishing between evidence
> >and assumptions, imo.
>
> >Jean
>
> If only this were true.
>
> Then all the kooks would have no problems admitting that Bugliosi simply lied
> about the description of the original bullet wound in JFK's throat.
Bud
May 16, 2012, 11:15:13 AM5/16/12
to
>
> >> And in a case like this in which a statement meant something much
> >> different than what it appeared to mean, I think the burden rests with
> >> your "side
>
> > No way. Someone making a claim should support that claim. It's
> > not up to us to do the CTs' homework, though it often works out that way,
> > have you noticed?
>
> Funny how all the documents are uploaded by the conspiracy believers,
> nor the WC defenders.
The documents rarely support the claims made by "the conspiracy
> >> And in a case like this in which a statement meant something much
> >> different than what it appeared to mean, I think the burden rests with
> >> your "side
>
> > No way. Someone making a claim should support that claim. It's
> > not up to us to do the CTs' homework, though it often works out that way,
> > have you noticed?
>
> Funny how all the documents are uploaded by the conspiracy believers,
> nor the WC defenders.
believers".
Bud
May 16, 2012, 11:16:02 AM5/16/12
to
On May 15, 6:26 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <v2f3r7d41tcsfj6dpcvmm9no6o85nop...@4ax.com>,
> John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14 May 2012 18:06:00 -0400, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com>
> In article <v2f3r7d41tcsfj6dpcvmm9no6o85nop...@4ax.com>,
> John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14 May 2012 18:06:00 -0400, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >In article
> > ><955dcd89-371c-47b9-9645-2269d06b9...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > >In article
> > ><955dcd89-371c-47b9-9645-2269d06b9...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Jean <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> You're welcome. However, it wasn't John who needed to verify
> > >> this, but rather the countless CT authors who've claimed that the phrase
> > >> "in the line of duty" meant that Oswald was a spy who was ordered to
> > >> consort with prostitutes. Wouldn't you agree that the CTs got that wrong?
>
> > >Of course they, and I were wrong.
>
> > >I think we all have an obligation to support our claims - something John
> > >rarely does, at least on the few occasions in which he engaged me in
> > >debate.
>
> > I certainly did support my "claims," but you simply ignored the
> > evidence.
>
> Then why did Jean feel compelled to go out and find something which
> actually proved the point?
Why weren`t you?
>
> > >> You're welcome. However, it wasn't John who needed to verify
> > >> this, but rather the countless CT authors who've claimed that the phrase
> > >> "in the line of duty" meant that Oswald was a spy who was ordered to
> > >> consort with prostitutes. Wouldn't you agree that the CTs got that wrong?
>
> > >Of course they, and I were wrong.
>
> > >I think we all have an obligation to support our claims - something John
> > >rarely does, at least on the few occasions in which he engaged me in
> > >debate.
>
> > I certainly did support my "claims," but you simply ignored the
> > evidence.
>
> Then why did Jean feel compelled to go out and find something which
> actually proved the point?
Anthony Marsh
May 16, 2012, 11:45:03 PM5/16/12
to
site.
Bud
May 17, 2012, 10:30:01 AM5/17/12
to
Most times it isn`t the information that is the problem, it`s the
conspiracy monger`s take on what the information means that is the
problem, so I object to your implication that information is tainted just
because it`s found on a pro-conspiracy website.
Anthony Marsh
May 17, 2012, 4:10:36 PM5/17/12
to
difference is that the conspiracy web sites get their information from
official government documents.
> Most times it isn`t the information that is the problem, it`s the
> conspiracy monger`s take on what the information means that is the
> problem, so I object to your implication that information is tainted just
> because it`s found on a pro-conspiracy website.
>
hypocritical it is of WC defenders to attack conspiracy believers and then
rely on them for documents.
You want to shut down my web site because it promotes conspiracy, whatever
you think that means, and then you have to find the documents on my web
site because WC defenders don't care enough about the facts to post the
documents on their web sites. Or they don't know how to file FOIA requests
to get the documents declassified.
Bud
May 17, 2012, 5:49:36 PM5/17/12
to
information from?
> The
> difference is that the conspiracy web sites get their information from
> official government documents.
misunderstand them. Or just flat out lie about them.
> > Most times it isn`t the information that is the problem, it`s the
> > conspiracy monger`s take on what the information means that is the
> > problem, so I object to your implication that information is tainted just
> > because it`s found on a pro-conspiracy website.
>
> That was not my implication. My implication was to point out how
> hypocritical it is of WC defenders to attack conspiracy believers and then
> rely on them for documents.
gathered information all the time.
> You want to shut down my web site because it promotes conspiracy,
promote stupidity.
Anthony Marsh
May 17, 2012, 7:32:36 PM5/17/12
to
>> The
>> difference is that the conspiracy web sites get their information from
>> official government documents.
>
> After which they usually misinterpret or misrepresent then. Or
> misunderstand them. Or just flat out lie about them.
>
about each page of all the millions of documents.
>>> Most times it isn`t the information that is the problem, it`s the
>>> conspiracy monger`s take on what the information means that is the
>>> problem, so I object to your implication that information is tainted just
>>> because it`s found on a pro-conspiracy website.
>>
>> That was not my implication. My implication was to point out how
>> hypocritical it is of WC defenders to attack conspiracy believers and then
>> rely on them for documents.
>
> It`s hypocritical that you would find this hypocritical. You use WC
> gathered information all the time.
>
>> You want to shut down my web site because it promotes conspiracy,
>
> I`d like to see all the conspiracy sites shut down because they
> promote stupidity.
>
Bud
May 17, 2012, 8:47:57 PM5/17/12
to
> >> The
> >> difference is that the conspiracy web sites get their information from
> >> official government documents.
>
> > After which they usually misinterpret or misrepresent then. Or
> > misunderstand them. Or just flat out lie about them.
>
> After which?
> It is physically impossible for us to write an article
> about each page of all the millions of documents.
> >>> Most times it isn`t the information that is the problem, it`s the
> >>> conspiracy monger`s take on what the information means that is the
> >>> problem, so I object to your implication that information is tainted just
> >>> because it`s found on a pro-conspiracy website.
>
> >> That was not my implication. My implication was to point out how
> >> hypocritical it is of WC defenders to attack conspiracy believers and then
> >> rely on them for documents.
>
> > It`s hypocritical that you would find this hypocritical. You use WC
> > gathered information all the time.
>
> >> You want to shut down my web site because it promotes conspiracy,
>
> > I`d like to see all the conspiracy sites shut down because they
> > promote stupidity.
>
> No, because they challenge the government lies.
Robert Harris
May 19, 2012, 8:08:39 PM5/19/12
to
Sorry, Jean, but john is hijacking all of my replies to you, even when
there isn't the faintest possibility of a rules violation.
I think he needs to have more faith in you:-)
Maybe you could send him an email.
Robert Harris
In article
<573d2ee0-4a4e-465a...@em1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
John McAdams
May 19, 2012, 8:23:36 PM5/19/12
to
On 19 May 2012 20:08:39 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
by Peter and me.
Aren't you glad you brought that up on the newsgroup, Bob?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>
>Sorry, Jean, but john is hijacking all of my replies to you, even when
>there isn't the faintest possibility of a rules violation.
>
>I think he needs to have more faith in you:-)
>
>Maybe you could send him an email.
>
>
>
Translation: Harris sent a couple of abusive posts that were rejected
>there isn't the faintest possibility of a rules violation.
>
>I think he needs to have more faith in you:-)
>
>Maybe you could send him an email.
>
>
>
by Peter and me.
Aren't you glad you brought that up on the newsgroup, Bob?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
0 new messages