Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Five LNT Factoids...
33 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Dec 1, 2012, 4:24:11 PM12/1/12
to
Despite the enduring popularity of conspiracy theories about President John F.
Kennedy's death on November 22, 1963, it's a mainstream consensus that these
theories have always been essentially the work of cranks, popularized by a
national appetite for mystery and entertainment. In recent years, this consensus
has been reinforced by Vincent Bugliosi's massive, critically acclaimed book,
Reclaiming History, along with Tom Hanks's related HBO special.
But for all the crazy ideas out there, there remain sober and careful
alternative views of the assassination. These theories may or may not ultimately
be right, but they represent the continuation of serious discussion of the
subject. As the debate continues past the 47th anniversary of President
Kennedy's death, let's take stock of five common myths about the state of the
debate itself.
1. The belief that secret plotters killed Kennedy was first made popular by
Oliver Stone's 1992 movie, JFK.
Popular belief in a conspiracy was widespread within a week of Kennedy's murder.
Between November 25 and 29, 1963, University of Chicago pollsters asked more
than 1,000 Americans whom they thought was responsible for the president's
death. By then, the chief suspect, Oswald -- a leftist who had lived for a time
in Soviet Union -- had been shot dead while in police custody by Jack Ruby, a
local hoodlum with organized crime connections.
While the White House, the FBI, and the Dallas Police Department all affirmed
that Oswald had acted alone, 62 percent of respondents said they believed that
more than one person was involved in the assassination. Only 24 percent thought
Oswald had acted alone. Another poll taken in Dallas during the same week found
66 percent of respondents believing that there had been a plot. There were no
JFK conspiracy theories in print at that time. Oliver Stone was in high school.
2. All serious historians believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy,
alone and unaided.
Since 2000, five tenured academic historians have published books on JFK's
assassination. Four of the five concluded that a conspiracy was behind the 35th
president's murder.
David Kaiser, a diplomatic historian at the Naval War College, and the author of
a 2008 book, The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy, concluded
that Kennedy was killed in plot involving disgruntled CIA operatives and
organized crime figures. Michael Kurtz of Southeastern Louisiana University came
to the same conclusion in his 2006 book, The JFK Assassination Debates: Lone
Gunman Versus Conspiracy.
In a 2005 book, Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and
Why, Gerald McKnight of Hood College suggested that a high-level plot involving
senior U.S. intelligence officials was probably responsible for the president's
death. In his 2003 book about photographic evidence, The Zapruder Film:
Reframing JFK's Assassination, David Wrone of the University of
Wisconsin-Stevens Point argued that the famous amateur film footage of the
assassination proves that Kennedy was hit by gunfire from two different
directions. Wrone did not advocate a theory of who was responsible.
A fifth historian, Robert Dallek of UCLA, wrote a 2003 biography of Kennedy, An
Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963. While not about the assassination
as such, An Unfinished Life embraced the Warren Commission's lone-gunman
finding, relying squarely on Gerald Posner's 1994 anti-conspiratorial
best-seller Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK.
3. No one high-up in the U.S. government ever thought there was a conspiracy
behind JFK's murder.
In fact, many senior U.S. officials concluded that there had been a plot but
rarely talked about it openly.
Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Johnson, publicly endorsed the Warren Commissions
conclusion that Oswald acted alone. Privately, LBJ told many people, ranging
from Atlantic contributor Leo Janos to CIA director Richard Helms, that he did
not believe the lone-gunman explanation.
The president's brother Robert and widow Jacqueline also believed that he had
been killed by political enemies, according to historians Aleksandr Fursenko and
Tim Naftali. In their 1999 book on the Cuban missile crisis, One Hell of a
Gamble: Khrushchev, Castro, and Kennedy, 1958-1964, they reported that William
Walton -- a friend of the First Lady -- went to Moscow on a previously scheduled
trip a week after JFK's murder. Walton carried a message from RFK and Jackie for
their friend, Georgi Bolshakov, a Russian diplomat who had served as a
back-channel link between the White House and the Kremlin during the October
1962 crisis: RFK and Jackie wanted the Soviet leadership to know that "despite
Oswald's connections to the communist world, the Kennedys believed that the
president was felled by domestic opponents."
In the Senate, Democrats Richard Russell of Georgia and Russell Long of
Louisiana both rejected official accounts of the assassination. In the executive
branch, Joseph Califano, the General Counsel of Army in 1963 and later Secretary
of Health Education and Welfare, concluded that Kennedy had been killed by a
conspiracy.* In the White House, H.R. Haldeman, chief of staff to President
Richard Nixon, wanted to reopen the JFK investigation in 1969. Nixon wasn't
interested.
Suspicion persisted in the upper echelons of the U.S. national security
agencies, as well. Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, chief of Pentagon special operations
in 1963 (and later an adviser to Stone), believed that there had been a plot.
Winston Scott, chief of the CIA's station in Mexico City at the time of
Kennedy's murder and an ultra-conservative Agency loyalist, rejected the Warren
Commission's findings about a trip that Oswald had taken to Mexico six weeks
before the assassination. Scott concluded in an unpublished memoir that Oswald
had, indeed, been just a patsy.
None of these figures was a paranoid fantasist. To the contrary, they
constituted a cross section of the American power elite in 1963. Neither did
they talk about a JFK conspiracy for public consumption; they talked about it
only reservedly, in confined circles.
4. Former Los Angeles County prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi refuted all JFK
conspiracy theories in Reclaiming History.
In the course of 1,600 pages Bugliosi effectively refuted many unfounded
conspiracy scenarios and reasserted the lone gunman conclusions of the Warren
Commission. But he has never engaged the extensive scholarship of Commission
skeptics such as journalist David Talbot, historian Kaiser, historian John
Newman, or biographer Anthony Summers, or analyzed the innovative research of
attorney William Simpich.
Kaiser, author of seven books on U.S. history, notes that Bugliosi's
prosecutorial approach limits the scope of his historical analysis: "He falls
back on the old argument 'no one could have ever used Ruby and Oswald in a
conspiracy' which relieves him of the necessity of addressing any of the
conspiracy evidence seriously."
5. All the CIA's records related to the Kennedy assassination have been made
public.
The agency acknowledges that it currently holds thousands of pages on Kennedy's
murder that the public has never seen. The CIA disclosed the existence of the
still-secret JFK files while responding to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit,
filed as it happens by me, seeking the release of other records related to the
assassination.
In a sworn affidavit, Delores Nelson, the CIA's chief information officer,
stated that the Agency has approximately 1,100 assassination-related documents
that it plans to keep under wraps until 2017, if not longer. These files --
containing more than 2,000 pages of material -- cannot be made public for
reasons, Nelson says, of national security.
In other words, somewhere in the Washington metropolitan area there is a
collection of CIA documents related to JFK's murder that, if collated, would
stand about ten inches tall. None of those documents has ever been seen by the
U.S. Congress or the National Archives, let alone by journalists, historians,
bloggers, Oliver Stone, Tom Hanks, or the general public.
That's not a conspiracy theory or a myth. It's a fact.
[Taken from:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/the-kennedy-assassination-47-years-later-what-do-we-really-know/66722/]
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Kennedy's death on November 22, 1963, it's a mainstream consensus that these
theories have always been essentially the work of cranks, popularized by a
national appetite for mystery and entertainment. In recent years, this consensus
has been reinforced by Vincent Bugliosi's massive, critically acclaimed book,
Reclaiming History, along with Tom Hanks's related HBO special.
But for all the crazy ideas out there, there remain sober and careful
alternative views of the assassination. These theories may or may not ultimately
be right, but they represent the continuation of serious discussion of the
subject. As the debate continues past the 47th anniversary of President
Kennedy's death, let's take stock of five common myths about the state of the
debate itself.
1. The belief that secret plotters killed Kennedy was first made popular by
Oliver Stone's 1992 movie, JFK.
Popular belief in a conspiracy was widespread within a week of Kennedy's murder.
Between November 25 and 29, 1963, University of Chicago pollsters asked more
than 1,000 Americans whom they thought was responsible for the president's
death. By then, the chief suspect, Oswald -- a leftist who had lived for a time
in Soviet Union -- had been shot dead while in police custody by Jack Ruby, a
local hoodlum with organized crime connections.
While the White House, the FBI, and the Dallas Police Department all affirmed
that Oswald had acted alone, 62 percent of respondents said they believed that
more than one person was involved in the assassination. Only 24 percent thought
Oswald had acted alone. Another poll taken in Dallas during the same week found
66 percent of respondents believing that there had been a plot. There were no
JFK conspiracy theories in print at that time. Oliver Stone was in high school.
2. All serious historians believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy,
alone and unaided.
Since 2000, five tenured academic historians have published books on JFK's
assassination. Four of the five concluded that a conspiracy was behind the 35th
president's murder.
David Kaiser, a diplomatic historian at the Naval War College, and the author of
a 2008 book, The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy, concluded
that Kennedy was killed in plot involving disgruntled CIA operatives and
organized crime figures. Michael Kurtz of Southeastern Louisiana University came
to the same conclusion in his 2006 book, The JFK Assassination Debates: Lone
Gunman Versus Conspiracy.
In a 2005 book, Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and
Why, Gerald McKnight of Hood College suggested that a high-level plot involving
senior U.S. intelligence officials was probably responsible for the president's
death. In his 2003 book about photographic evidence, The Zapruder Film:
Reframing JFK's Assassination, David Wrone of the University of
Wisconsin-Stevens Point argued that the famous amateur film footage of the
assassination proves that Kennedy was hit by gunfire from two different
directions. Wrone did not advocate a theory of who was responsible.
A fifth historian, Robert Dallek of UCLA, wrote a 2003 biography of Kennedy, An
Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963. While not about the assassination
as such, An Unfinished Life embraced the Warren Commission's lone-gunman
finding, relying squarely on Gerald Posner's 1994 anti-conspiratorial
best-seller Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK.
3. No one high-up in the U.S. government ever thought there was a conspiracy
behind JFK's murder.
In fact, many senior U.S. officials concluded that there had been a plot but
rarely talked about it openly.
Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Johnson, publicly endorsed the Warren Commissions
conclusion that Oswald acted alone. Privately, LBJ told many people, ranging
from Atlantic contributor Leo Janos to CIA director Richard Helms, that he did
not believe the lone-gunman explanation.
The president's brother Robert and widow Jacqueline also believed that he had
been killed by political enemies, according to historians Aleksandr Fursenko and
Tim Naftali. In their 1999 book on the Cuban missile crisis, One Hell of a
Gamble: Khrushchev, Castro, and Kennedy, 1958-1964, they reported that William
Walton -- a friend of the First Lady -- went to Moscow on a previously scheduled
trip a week after JFK's murder. Walton carried a message from RFK and Jackie for
their friend, Georgi Bolshakov, a Russian diplomat who had served as a
back-channel link between the White House and the Kremlin during the October
1962 crisis: RFK and Jackie wanted the Soviet leadership to know that "despite
Oswald's connections to the communist world, the Kennedys believed that the
president was felled by domestic opponents."
In the Senate, Democrats Richard Russell of Georgia and Russell Long of
Louisiana both rejected official accounts of the assassination. In the executive
branch, Joseph Califano, the General Counsel of Army in 1963 and later Secretary
of Health Education and Welfare, concluded that Kennedy had been killed by a
conspiracy.* In the White House, H.R. Haldeman, chief of staff to President
Richard Nixon, wanted to reopen the JFK investigation in 1969. Nixon wasn't
interested.
Suspicion persisted in the upper echelons of the U.S. national security
agencies, as well. Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, chief of Pentagon special operations
in 1963 (and later an adviser to Stone), believed that there had been a plot.
Winston Scott, chief of the CIA's station in Mexico City at the time of
Kennedy's murder and an ultra-conservative Agency loyalist, rejected the Warren
Commission's findings about a trip that Oswald had taken to Mexico six weeks
before the assassination. Scott concluded in an unpublished memoir that Oswald
had, indeed, been just a patsy.
None of these figures was a paranoid fantasist. To the contrary, they
constituted a cross section of the American power elite in 1963. Neither did
they talk about a JFK conspiracy for public consumption; they talked about it
only reservedly, in confined circles.
4. Former Los Angeles County prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi refuted all JFK
conspiracy theories in Reclaiming History.
In the course of 1,600 pages Bugliosi effectively refuted many unfounded
conspiracy scenarios and reasserted the lone gunman conclusions of the Warren
Commission. But he has never engaged the extensive scholarship of Commission
skeptics such as journalist David Talbot, historian Kaiser, historian John
Newman, or biographer Anthony Summers, or analyzed the innovative research of
attorney William Simpich.
Kaiser, author of seven books on U.S. history, notes that Bugliosi's
prosecutorial approach limits the scope of his historical analysis: "He falls
back on the old argument 'no one could have ever used Ruby and Oswald in a
conspiracy' which relieves him of the necessity of addressing any of the
conspiracy evidence seriously."
5. All the CIA's records related to the Kennedy assassination have been made
public.
The agency acknowledges that it currently holds thousands of pages on Kennedy's
murder that the public has never seen. The CIA disclosed the existence of the
still-secret JFK files while responding to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit,
filed as it happens by me, seeking the release of other records related to the
assassination.
In a sworn affidavit, Delores Nelson, the CIA's chief information officer,
stated that the Agency has approximately 1,100 assassination-related documents
that it plans to keep under wraps until 2017, if not longer. These files --
containing more than 2,000 pages of material -- cannot be made public for
reasons, Nelson says, of national security.
In other words, somewhere in the Washington metropolitan area there is a
collection of CIA documents related to JFK's murder that, if collated, would
stand about ten inches tall. None of those documents has ever been seen by the
U.S. Congress or the National Archives, let alone by journalists, historians,
bloggers, Oliver Stone, Tom Hanks, or the general public.
That's not a conspiracy theory or a myth. It's a fact.
[Taken from:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/the-kennedy-assassination-47-years-later-what-do-we-really-know/66722/]
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Bud
Dec 1, 2012, 7:04:52 PM12/1/12
to
information. How many people thought Oswald killed Kennedy?
> 2. All serious historians believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy,
> alone and unaided.
>
> Since 2000, five tenured academic historians have published books on JFK's
> assassination. Four of the five concluded that a conspiracy was behind the 35th
> president's murder.
>
> David Kaiser, a diplomatic historian at the Naval War College, and the author of
> a 2008 book, The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy, concluded
> that Kennedy was killed in plot involving disgruntled CIA operatives and
> organized crime figures. Michael Kurtz of Southeastern Louisiana University came
> to the same conclusion in his 2006 book, The JFK Assassination Debates: Lone
> Gunman Versus Conspiracy.
>
> In a 2005 book, Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and
> Why, Gerald McKnight of Hood College suggested that a high-level plot involving
> senior U.S. intelligence officials was probably responsible for the president's
> death. In his 2003 book about photographic evidence, The Zapruder Film:
> Reframing JFK's Assassination, David Wrone of the University of
> Wisconsin-Stevens Point argued that the famous amateur film footage of the
> assassination proves that Kennedy was hit by gunfire from two different
> directions. Wrone did not advocate a theory of who was responsible.
>
> A fifth historian, Robert Dallek of UCLA, wrote a 2003 biography of Kennedy, An
> Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963. While not about the assassination
> as such, An Unfinished Life embraced the Warren Commission's lone-gunman
> finding, relying squarely on Gerald Posner's 1994 anti-conspiratorial
> best-seller Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK.
> 3. No one high-up in the U.S. government ever thought there was a conspiracy
> behind JFK's murder.
>
> In fact, many senior U.S. officials concluded that there had been a plot but
> rarely talked about it openly.
can come out and say what they think, it has to go through secondary
sources first.
could be no conspiracy. This relieves the necessity of barking up the
wrong trees for all eternity.
> 5. All the CIA's records related to the Kennedy assassination have been made
> public.
>
> The agency acknowledges that it currently holds thousands of pages on Kennedy's
> murder that the public has never seen. The CIA disclosed the existence of the
> still-secret JFK files while responding to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit,
> filed as it happens by me, seeking the release of other records related to the
> assassination.
>
> In a sworn affidavit, Delores Nelson, the CIA's chief information officer,
> stated that the Agency has approximately 1,100 assassination-related documents
> that it plans to keep under wraps until 2017, if not longer. These files --
> containing more than 2,000 pages of material -- cannot be made public for
> reasons, Nelson says, of national security.
>
> In other words, somewhere in the Washington metropolitan area there is a
> collection of CIA documents related to JFK's murder that, if collated, would
> stand about ten inches tall. None of those documents has ever been seen by the
> U.S. Congress or the National Archives, let alone by journalists, historians,
> bloggers, Oliver Stone, Tom Hanks, or the general public.
>
> That's not a conspiracy theory or a myth. It's a fact.
> [Taken from:http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/the-kennedy-assas...]
timstter
Dec 1, 2012, 7:13:26 PM12/1/12
to
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
Benny has gone into cut & paste mode!
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
A full melt down appears just around the corner...
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
aeffects
Dec 1, 2012, 11:03:58 PM12/1/12
to
boggles the mind why silly moron's from aaj support the idiotic
assumption LHO killed JFK alone... Rush to Judgement written in 1967,
stands as testament to the lies of the WCR.
130+ threads (re Rush to Judgement) on this USENET board, ALONE and
the best lone nuts have is adoration from Tim Brennan (aka Tim Shell--
failed standup comic for Ben Holmes constant reminder that lone nuts
can't mount a defense of the WCR...
Carry on Dud, great to see you haven't forgot your ineptitude...
Saintly Oswald
Dec 2, 2012, 2:52:03 AM12/2/12
to
This is one of Filter Boy's better postings lately. Good to see him take some time off from the Lane fetish.
Bud
Dec 2, 2012, 6:38:57 AM12/2/12
to
> Rush to Judgement written in 1967,
> stands as testament to the lies of the WCR.
lies he told.
> 130+ threads (re Rush to Judgement) on this USENET board,
> ALONE and
> the best lone nuts have is adoration from Tim Brennan (aka Tim Shell--
> failed standup comic for Ben Holmes constant reminder that lone nuts
> can't mount a defense of the WCR...
investigation must come to.
Ben Holmes
Dec 2, 2012, 10:35:10 AM12/2/12
to
In article <ca1de43e-d137-405f...@r10g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On Dec 1, 4:04=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 1, 4:24=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Despite the enduring popularity of conspiracy theories about President =
>John F.
>> > Kennedy's death on November 22, 1963, it's a mainstream consensus that =
>these
>> > theories have always been essentially the work of cranks, popularized b=
>y a
>> > national appetite for mystery and entertainment. In recent years, this =
>consensus
>> > has been reinforced by Vincent Bugliosi's massive, critically acclaimed=
>ltimately
>> > be right, but they represent the continuation of serious discussion of =
>of the
>> > debate itself.
>>
>> > 1. The belief that secret plotters killed Kennedy was first made popula=
>s murder.
>> > Between November 25 and 29, 1963, University of Chicago pollsters asked=
> more
>> > than 1,000 Americans whom they thought was responsible for the presiden=
>t's
>> > death. By then, the chief suspect, Oswald -- a leftist who had lived fo=
>r a time
>> > in Soviet Union -- had been shot dead while in police custody by Jack R=
>firmed
>> > that Oswald had acted alone, 62 percent of respondents said they believ=
>ed that
>> > more than one person was involved in the assassination. Only 24 percent=
> thought
>> > Oswald had acted alone. Another poll taken in Dallas during the same we=
>ek found
>> > 66 percent of respondents believing that there had been a plot. There w=
>ere no
>> > JFK conspiracy theories in print at that time. Oliver Stone was in high=
>> > 2. All serious historians believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot President=
> Kennedy,
>> > alone and unaided.
>>
>> > Since 2000, five tenured academic historians have published books on JF=
>K's
>> > assassination. Four of the five concluded that a conspiracy was behind =
>author of
>> > a 2008 book, The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy, =
>concluded
>> > that Kennedy was killed in plot involving disgruntled CIA operatives an=
>d
>> > organized crime figures. Michael Kurtz of Southeastern Louisiana Univer=
>sity came
>> > to the same conclusion in his 2006 book, The JFK Assassination Debates:=
> Lone
>> > Gunman Versus Conspiracy.
>>
>> > In a 2005 book, Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the N=
>ation and
>> > Why, Gerald McKnight of Hood College suggested that a high-level plot i=
>nvolving
>> > senior U.S. intelligence officials was probably responsible for the pre=
>nedy, An
>> > Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963. While not about the assass=
>ination
>> > as such, An Unfinished Life embraced the Warren Commission's lone-gunma=
once again, you've demonstrated either your ignorance or your cowardice in
refusing to address the actual topic.
>> > 3. No one high-up in the U.S. government ever thought there was a consp=
actual point... probably because you *KNOW* that you can't refute it.
Which, of course, simply underlines the accuracy of the original post.
>> > Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Johnson, publicly endorsed the Warren Commi=
>ssions
>> > conclusion that Oswald acted alone. Privately, LBJ told many people, ra=
>nging
>> > from Atlantic contributor Leo Janos to CIA director Richard Helms, that=
>he had
>> > been killed by political enemies, according to historians Aleksandr Fur=
>senko and
>> > Tim Naftali. In their 1999 book on the Cuban missile crisis, One Hell o=
>f a
>> > Gamble: Khrushchev, Castro, and Kennedy, 1958-1964, they reported that =
>William
>> > Walton -- a friend of the First Lady -- went to Moscow on a previously =
>scheduled
>> > trip a week after JFK's murder. Walton carried a message from RFK and J=
>tober
>> > 1962 crisis: RFK and Jackie wanted the Soviet leadership to know that "=
>despite
>> > Oswald's connections to the communist world, the Kennedys believed that=
>executive
>> > branch, Joseph Califano, the General Counsel of Army in 1963 and later =
>Secretary
>> > of Health Education and Welfare, concluded that Kennedy had been killed=
> by a
>> > conspiracy.* In the White House, H.R. Haldeman, chief of staff to Presi=
>dent
>> > Richard Nixon, wanted to reopen the JFK investigation in 1969. Nixon wa=
>perations
>> > in 1963 (and later an adviser to Stone), believed that there had been a=
>e Warren
>> > Commission's findings about a trip that Oswald had taken to Mexico six =
>weeks
>> > before the assassination. Scott concluded in an unpublished memoir that=
>r did
>> > they talk about a JFK conspiracy for public consumption; they talked ab=
>d
>> > conspiracy scenarios and reasserted the lone gunman conclusions of the =
>Warren
>> > Commission. But he has never engaged the extensive scholarship of Commi=
>ssion
>> > skeptics such as journalist David Talbot, historian Kaiser, historian J=
>ohn
>> > Newman, or biographer Anthony Summers, or analyzed the innovative resea=
> falls
>> > back on the old argument 'no one could have ever used Ruby and Oswald i=
>n a
>> > conspiracy' which relieves him of the necessity of addressing any of th=
Are you trying to outdo Billy in the cowardice department?
>> > 5. All the CIA's records related to the Kennedy assassination have been=
> made
>> > public.
>>
>> > The agency acknowledges that it currently holds thousands of pages on K=
>ennedy's
>> > murder that the public has never seen. The CIA disclosed the existence =
>of the
>> > still-secret JFK files while responding to a Freedom of Information Act=
> lawsuit,
>> > filed as it happens by me, seeking the release of other records related=
> to the
>> > assassination.
>>
>> > In a sworn affidavit, Delores Nelson, the CIA's chief information offic=
>er,
>> > stated that the Agency has approximately 1,100 assassination-related do=
>cuments
>> > that it plans to keep under wraps until 2017, if not longer. These file=
>s --
>> > containing more than 2,000 pages of material -- cannot be made public f=
>a
>> > collection of CIA documents related to JFK's murder that, if collated, =
>would
>> > stand about ten inches tall. None of those documents has ever been seen=
> by the
>> > U.S. Congress or the National Archives, let alone by journalists, histo=
>yep, this is the best .john(aka lone nut) troll's can produce... It
>boggles the mind why silly moron's from aaj support the idiotic
>assumption LHO killed JFK alone... Rush to Judgement written in 1967,
>stands as testament to the lies of the WCR.
>
>130+ threads (re Rush to Judgement) on this USENET board, ALONE and
>the best lone nuts have is adoration from Tim Brennan (aka Tim Shell--
>failed standup comic for Ben Holmes constant reminder that lone nuts
>can't mount a defense of the WCR...
>
>Carry on Dud, great to see you haven't forgot your ineptitude...
I thought "Bud" would at least address the topics in this thread... instead he's
emulating Billy "The Coward" Clarke.
Not even a *SINGLE* LNT'er factoid was refuted, or even seriously threatened by
the kook's response.
>> > [Taken from:http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/the-ken=
aeffects says...
>
>On Dec 1, 4:04=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 1, 4:24=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Despite the enduring popularity of conspiracy theories about President =
>John F.
>> > Kennedy's death on November 22, 1963, it's a mainstream consensus that =
>these
>> > theories have always been essentially the work of cranks, popularized b=
>y a
>> > national appetite for mystery and entertainment. In recent years, this =
>consensus
>> > has been reinforced by Vincent Bugliosi's massive, critically acclaimed=
> book,
>> > Reclaiming History, along with Tom Hanks's related HBO special.
>>
>> > But for all the crazy ideas out there, there remain sober and careful
>> > alternative views of the assassination. These theories may or may not u=
>> > Reclaiming History, along with Tom Hanks's related HBO special.
>>
>> > But for all the crazy ideas out there, there remain sober and careful
>ltimately
>> > be right, but they represent the continuation of serious discussion of =
>the
>> > subject. As the debate continues past the 47th anniversary of President
>> > Kennedy's death, let's take stock of five common myths about the state =
>> > subject. As the debate continues past the 47th anniversary of President
>of the
>> > debate itself.
>>
>> > 1. The belief that secret plotters killed Kennedy was first made popula=
>r by
>> > Oliver Stone's 1992 movie, JFK.
>>
>> > Popular belief in a conspiracy was widespread within a week of Kennedy'=
>> > Oliver Stone's 1992 movie, JFK.
>>
>s murder.
>> > Between November 25 and 29, 1963, University of Chicago pollsters asked=
> more
>> > than 1,000 Americans whom they thought was responsible for the presiden=
>t's
>> > death. By then, the chief suspect, Oswald -- a leftist who had lived fo=
>r a time
>> > in Soviet Union -- had been shot dead while in police custody by Jack R=
>uby, a
>> > local hoodlum with organized crime connections.
>>
>> > While the White House, the FBI, and the Dallas Police Department all af=
>> > local hoodlum with organized crime connections.
>>
>firmed
>> > that Oswald had acted alone, 62 percent of respondents said they believ=
>ed that
>> > more than one person was involved in the assassination. Only 24 percent=
> thought
>> > Oswald had acted alone. Another poll taken in Dallas during the same we=
>ek found
>> > 66 percent of respondents believing that there had been a plot. There w=
>ere no
>> > JFK conspiracy theories in print at that time. Oliver Stone was in high=
> school.
>>
>> Conspiracy retards never seemed to be interested in pertinent
>> information. How many people thought Oswald killed Kennedy?
The point was the LNT'er factoid that "The belief that secret plotters killed
>>
>> Conspiracy retards never seemed to be interested in pertinent
>> information. How many people thought Oswald killed Kennedy?
Kennedy was first made popular by Oliver Stone's 1992 movie, JFK"
I can understand your cowardice in addressing what you cannot refute.
>> > 2. All serious historians believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot President=
> Kennedy,
>> > alone and unaided.
>>
>> > Since 2000, five tenured academic historians have published books on JF=
>K's
>> > assassination. Four of the five concluded that a conspiracy was behind =
>the 35th
>> > president's murder.
>>
>> > David Kaiser, a diplomatic historian at the Naval War College, and the =
>> > president's murder.
>>
>author of
>> > a 2008 book, The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy, =
>concluded
>> > that Kennedy was killed in plot involving disgruntled CIA operatives an=
>d
>> > organized crime figures. Michael Kurtz of Southeastern Louisiana Univer=
>sity came
>> > to the same conclusion in his 2006 book, The JFK Assassination Debates:=
> Lone
>> > Gunman Versus Conspiracy.
>>
>> > In a 2005 book, Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the N=
>ation and
>> > Why, Gerald McKnight of Hood College suggested that a high-level plot i=
>nvolving
>> > senior U.S. intelligence officials was probably responsible for the pre=
>sident's
>> > death. In his 2003 book about photographic evidence, The Zapruder Film:
>> > Reframing JFK's Assassination, David Wrone of the University of
>> > Wisconsin-Stevens Point argued that the famous amateur film footage of =
>> > death. In his 2003 book about photographic evidence, The Zapruder Film:
>> > Reframing JFK's Assassination, David Wrone of the University of
>the
>> > assassination proves that Kennedy was hit by gunfire from two different
>> > directions. Wrone did not advocate a theory of who was responsible.
>>
>> > A fifth historian, Robert Dallek of UCLA, wrote a 2003 biography of Ken=
>> > assassination proves that Kennedy was hit by gunfire from two different
>> > directions. Wrone did not advocate a theory of who was responsible.
>>
>nedy, An
>> > Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963. While not about the assass=
>ination
>> > as such, An Unfinished Life embraced the Warren Commission's lone-gunma=
>n
>> > finding, relying squarely on Gerald Posner's 1994 anti-conspiratorial
>> > best-seller Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK=
>> > finding, relying squarely on Gerald Posner's 1994 anti-conspiratorial
>.
>>
>> Conspiracy books have a better market, fools with money.
Of course, the topic is "serious historians", you know, academic types... so
>>
>> Conspiracy books have a better market, fools with money.
once again, you've demonstrated either your ignorance or your cowardice in
refusing to address the actual topic.
>> > 3. No one high-up in the U.S. government ever thought there was a consp=
>iracy
>> > behind JFK's murder.
>>
>> > In fact, many senior U.S. officials concluded that there had been a plo=
>> > behind JFK's murder.
>>
>t but
>> > rarely talked about it openly.
>>
>> In other words, hearsay reports of their opinions. Apparently nobody
>> can come out and say what they think, it has to go through secondary
>> sources first.
This seems to be a pattern with you... yet again you refuse to address the
>> > rarely talked about it openly.
>>
>> In other words, hearsay reports of their opinions. Apparently nobody
>> can come out and say what they think, it has to go through secondary
>> sources first.
actual point... probably because you *KNOW* that you can't refute it.
Which, of course, simply underlines the accuracy of the original post.
>> > Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Johnson, publicly endorsed the Warren Commi=
>ssions
>> > conclusion that Oswald acted alone. Privately, LBJ told many people, ra=
>nging
>> > from Atlantic contributor Leo Janos to CIA director Richard Helms, that=
> he did
>> > not believe the lone-gunman explanation.
>>
>> > The president's brother Robert and widow Jacqueline also believed that =
>> > not believe the lone-gunman explanation.
>>
>he had
>> > been killed by political enemies, according to historians Aleksandr Fur=
>senko and
>> > Tim Naftali. In their 1999 book on the Cuban missile crisis, One Hell o=
>f a
>> > Gamble: Khrushchev, Castro, and Kennedy, 1958-1964, they reported that =
>William
>> > Walton -- a friend of the First Lady -- went to Moscow on a previously =
>scheduled
>> > trip a week after JFK's murder. Walton carried a message from RFK and J=
>ackie for
>> > their friend, Georgi Bolshakov, a Russian diplomat who had served as a
>> > back-channel link between the White House and the Kremlin during the Oc=
>> > their friend, Georgi Bolshakov, a Russian diplomat who had served as a
>tober
>> > 1962 crisis: RFK and Jackie wanted the Soviet leadership to know that "=
>despite
>> > Oswald's connections to the communist world, the Kennedys believed that=
> the
>> > president was felled by domestic opponents."
>>
>> > In the Senate, Democrats Richard Russell of Georgia and Russell Long of
>> > Louisiana both rejected official accounts of the assassination. In the =
>> > president was felled by domestic opponents."
>>
>> > In the Senate, Democrats Richard Russell of Georgia and Russell Long of
>executive
>> > branch, Joseph Califano, the General Counsel of Army in 1963 and later =
>Secretary
>> > of Health Education and Welfare, concluded that Kennedy had been killed=
> by a
>> > conspiracy.* In the White House, H.R. Haldeman, chief of staff to Presi=
>dent
>> > Richard Nixon, wanted to reopen the JFK investigation in 1969. Nixon wa=
>sn't
>> > interested.
>>
>> > Suspicion persisted in the upper echelons of the U.S. national security
>> > agencies, as well. Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, chief of Pentagon special o=
>> > interested.
>>
>> > Suspicion persisted in the upper echelons of the U.S. national security
>perations
>> > in 1963 (and later an adviser to Stone), believed that there had been a=
> plot.
>>
>> > Winston Scott, chief of the CIA's station in Mexico City at the time of
>> > Kennedy's murder and an ultra-conservative Agency loyalist, rejected th=
>>
>> > Winston Scott, chief of the CIA's station in Mexico City at the time of
>e Warren
>> > Commission's findings about a trip that Oswald had taken to Mexico six =
>weeks
>> > before the assassination. Scott concluded in an unpublished memoir that=
> Oswald
>> > had, indeed, been just a patsy.
>>
>> > None of these figures was a paranoid fantasist. To the contrary, they
>> > constituted a cross section of the American power elite in 1963. Neithe=
>> > had, indeed, been just a patsy.
>>
>> > None of these figures was a paranoid fantasist. To the contrary, they
>r did
>> > they talk about a JFK conspiracy for public consumption; they talked ab=
>out it
>> > only reservedly, in confined circles.
>>
>> > 4. Former Los Angeles County prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi refuted all JF=
>> > only reservedly, in confined circles.
>>
>K
>> > conspiracy theories in Reclaiming History.
>>
>> > In the course of 1,600 pages Bugliosi effectively refuted many unfounde=
>> > conspiracy theories in Reclaiming History.
>>
>d
>> > conspiracy scenarios and reasserted the lone gunman conclusions of the =
>Warren
>> > Commission. But he has never engaged the extensive scholarship of Commi=
>ssion
>> > skeptics such as journalist David Talbot, historian Kaiser, historian J=
>ohn
>> > Newman, or biographer Anthony Summers, or analyzed the innovative resea=
>rch of
>> > attorney William Simpich.
>>
>> > Kaiser, author of seven books on U.S. history, notes that Bugliosi's
>> > prosecutorial approach limits the scope of his historical analysis: "He=
>> > attorney William Simpich.
>>
>> > Kaiser, author of seven books on U.S. history, notes that Bugliosi's
> falls
>> > back on the old argument 'no one could have ever used Ruby and Oswald i=
>n a
>> > conspiracy' which relieves him of the necessity of addressing any of th=
>e
>> > conspiracy evidence seriously."
>>
>> If nobody could have used Ruby or Oswald in a conspiracy then there
>> could be no conspiracy. This relieves the necessity of barking up the
>> wrong trees for all eternity.
A complete non-sequitor.... once again, you refuse to address the topic.
>> > conspiracy evidence seriously."
>>
>> If nobody could have used Ruby or Oswald in a conspiracy then there
>> could be no conspiracy. This relieves the necessity of barking up the
>> wrong trees for all eternity.
Are you trying to outdo Billy in the cowardice department?
>> > 5. All the CIA's records related to the Kennedy assassination have been=
> made
>> > public.
>>
>> > The agency acknowledges that it currently holds thousands of pages on K=
>ennedy's
>> > murder that the public has never seen. The CIA disclosed the existence =
>of the
>> > still-secret JFK files while responding to a Freedom of Information Act=
> lawsuit,
>> > filed as it happens by me, seeking the release of other records related=
> to the
>> > assassination.
>>
>> > In a sworn affidavit, Delores Nelson, the CIA's chief information offic=
>er,
>> > stated that the Agency has approximately 1,100 assassination-related do=
>cuments
>> > that it plans to keep under wraps until 2017, if not longer. These file=
>s --
>> > containing more than 2,000 pages of material -- cannot be made public f=
>or
>> > reasons, Nelson says, of national security.
>>
>> > In other words, somewhere in the Washington metropolitan area there is =
>> > reasons, Nelson says, of national security.
>>
>a
>> > collection of CIA documents related to JFK's murder that, if collated, =
>would
>> > stand about ten inches tall. None of those documents has ever been seen=
> by the
>> > U.S. Congress or the National Archives, let alone by journalists, histo=
>rians,
>> > bloggers, Oliver Stone, Tom Hanks, or the general public.
>>
>> > That's not a conspiracy theory or a myth. It's a fact.
>>
>> The dog ate my evidence.
The truth remains unrefuted by you... rather cowardly, aren't you?
>> > bloggers, Oliver Stone, Tom Hanks, or the general public.
>>
>> > That's not a conspiracy theory or a myth. It's a fact.
>>
>> The dog ate my evidence.
>yep, this is the best .john(aka lone nut) troll's can produce... It
>boggles the mind why silly moron's from aaj support the idiotic
>assumption LHO killed JFK alone... Rush to Judgement written in 1967,
>stands as testament to the lies of the WCR.
>
>130+ threads (re Rush to Judgement) on this USENET board, ALONE and
>the best lone nuts have is adoration from Tim Brennan (aka Tim Shell--
>failed standup comic for Ben Holmes constant reminder that lone nuts
>can't mount a defense of the WCR...
>
>Carry on Dud, great to see you haven't forgot your ineptitude...
emulating Billy "The Coward" Clarke.
Not even a *SINGLE* LNT'er factoid was refuted, or even seriously threatened by
the kook's response.
>> > [Taken from:http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/the-ken=
Bud
Dec 2, 2012, 3:59:02 PM12/2/12
to
On Dec 2, 10:35 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <ca1de43e-d137-405f-ab9c-913ef14ee...@r10g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
I was making my own point, don`t be alarmed. My point was if the
majority thought that Oswald killed Kennedy then any conspiracy must
include him. But conspiracy retards show no interest in barking up
that tree.
> I can understand your cowardice in addressing what you cannot refute.
I can understand why you would run from the point that I made.
I made the points I wanted to make, retard. Feel free to run from
them if you like.
> >> > 3. No one high-up in the U.S. government ever thought there was a consp=
> >iracy
> >> > behind JFK's murder.
>
> >> > In fact, many senior U.S. officials concluded that there had been a plo=
> >t but
> >> > rarely talked about it openly.
>
> >> In other words, hearsay reports of their opinions. Apparently nobody
> >> can come out and say what they think, it has to go through secondary
> >> sources first.
>
> This seems to be a pattern with you...
With you also. You seem to think you can dictate what I can write
about. Strange behavior for someone who is always touting the openness
of this forum.
>yet again you refuse to address the
> actual point... probably because you *KNOW* that you can't refute it.
I can refute every one of these points very easily. I can point out
that the person who wrote the article failed to show that these
beliefs were widely held by people who believe that Oswald killed
Kennedy alone. He started at step two, as if his claims were
established, and you were too stupid to figure that out.
I addressed what he said. He said that Bugliousi uses that argument
that "no one could ever have used Ruby and Oswald in a conspiracy".
Since the author of the article didn`t even try to refute that
argument means that the argument holds, and since the argument holds
nothing else is needed.
> Are you trying to outdo Billy in the cowardice department?
Says the pussy cowering behind his killfilter. Why not come out and
play with the big boys, Nancy?
What truth? That you don`t have the evidence? How does lack of
evidence take you anywhere?
> >yep, this is the best .john(aka lone nut) troll's can produce... It
> >boggles the mind why silly moron's from aaj support the idiotic
> >assumption LHO killed JFK alone... Rush to Judgement written in 1967,
> >stands as testament to the lies of the WCR.
>
> >130+ threads (re Rush to Judgement) on this USENET board, ALONE and
> >the best lone nuts have is adoration from Tim Brennan (aka Tim Shell--
> >failed standup comic for Ben Holmes constant reminder that lone nuts
> >can't mount a defense of the WCR...
>
> >Carry on Dud, great to see you haven't forgot your ineptitude...
>
> I thought "Bud" would at least address the topics in this thread...
What you call "topics" were meaningless, unsupported claims about
what LNers believe. It looked to me that the author propped up some
strawmen and had at them.
> instead he's
> emulating Billy "The Coward" Clarke.
>
> Not even a *SINGLE* LNT'er factoid was refuted,
Or established.
> or even seriously threatened by
> the kook's response.
My ideas were safe from you, weren`t they Nancy?
> In article <ca1de43e-d137-405f-ab9c-913ef14ee...@r10g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
majority thought that Oswald killed Kennedy then any conspiracy must
include him. But conspiracy retards show no interest in barking up
that tree.
> I can understand your cowardice in addressing what you cannot refute.
them if you like.
> >> > 3. No one high-up in the U.S. government ever thought there was a consp=
> >iracy
> >> > behind JFK's murder.
>
> >> > In fact, many senior U.S. officials concluded that there had been a plo=
> >t but
> >> > rarely talked about it openly.
>
> >> In other words, hearsay reports of their opinions. Apparently nobody
> >> can come out and say what they think, it has to go through secondary
> >> sources first.
>
> This seems to be a pattern with you...
about. Strange behavior for someone who is always touting the openness
of this forum.
>yet again you refuse to address the
> actual point... probably because you *KNOW* that you can't refute it.
that the person who wrote the article failed to show that these
beliefs were widely held by people who believe that Oswald killed
Kennedy alone. He started at step two, as if his claims were
established, and you were too stupid to figure that out.
that "no one could ever have used Ruby and Oswald in a conspiracy".
Since the author of the article didn`t even try to refute that
argument means that the argument holds, and since the argument holds
nothing else is needed.
> Are you trying to outdo Billy in the cowardice department?
play with the big boys, Nancy?
evidence take you anywhere?
> >yep, this is the best .john(aka lone nut) troll's can produce... It
> >boggles the mind why silly moron's from aaj support the idiotic
> >assumption LHO killed JFK alone... Rush to Judgement written in 1967,
> >stands as testament to the lies of the WCR.
>
> >130+ threads (re Rush to Judgement) on this USENET board, ALONE and
> >the best lone nuts have is adoration from Tim Brennan (aka Tim Shell--
> >failed standup comic for Ben Holmes constant reminder that lone nuts
> >can't mount a defense of the WCR...
>
> >Carry on Dud, great to see you haven't forgot your ineptitude...
>
> I thought "Bud" would at least address the topics in this thread...
what LNers believe. It looked to me that the author propped up some
strawmen and had at them.
> instead he's
> emulating Billy "The Coward" Clarke.
>
> Not even a *SINGLE* LNT'er factoid was refuted,
> or even seriously threatened by
> the kook's response.
aeffects
Dec 2, 2012, 8:53:31 PM12/2/12
to
Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement just keeps on steamrolling over lone nuts, like they weren't even there....
Not one (so called educated) nutter can touch him!
Jason Burke
Dec 2, 2012, 9:10:55 PM12/2/12
to
Bud
Dec 2, 2012, 9:18:48 PM12/2/12
to
> Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement just keeps on steamrolling over lone nuts, like they weren't even there....
fool all the people all the time.
> Not one (so called educated) nutter can touch him!
aeffects
Dec 3, 2012, 6:54:20 PM12/3/12
to
aeffects
Dec 3, 2012, 6:57:15 PM12/3/12
to
Bud
Dec 3, 2012, 7:00:42 PM12/3/12
to
nerve, and choked on his response. He probably sleeps in bed with
Lane`s book as a security blanket, while you just wet yours..
aeffects
Dec 3, 2012, 8:00:33 PM12/3/12
to
Ben Holmes
Dec 3, 2012, 9:13:00 PM12/3/12
to
In article <4353c944-be42-42bc...@googlegroups.com>, aeffects
says...
Actually, let's examine the kook's claim that "that's all you have". He's quite
clearly responding to your statement that "Not one (so called educated) nutter
can touch him!" - referring to my quoting of Mark Lane.
So the kook is admitting the truth of that statement, and claiming that this is
all David has - that the kooks can't refute what Mark Lane said so long ago...
Of course, if the kooks can't refute the evidence, which is what I'm posting
Mark Lane saying, then they've basically admitted that they have an opinion
contrary to the known evidence.
Which is what we've known all along.
says...
clearly responding to your statement that "Not one (so called educated) nutter
can touch him!" - referring to my quoting of Mark Lane.
So the kook is admitting the truth of that statement, and claiming that this is
all David has - that the kooks can't refute what Mark Lane said so long ago...
Of course, if the kooks can't refute the evidence, which is what I'm posting
Mark Lane saying, then they've basically admitted that they have an opinion
contrary to the known evidence.
Which is what we've known all along.
Bud
Dec 4, 2012, 2:50:14 AM12/4/12
to
support it?
Bud
Dec 4, 2012, 2:52:21 AM12/4/12
to
it.
Baron Wrangle
Jan 1, 2013, 6:13:46 PM1/1/13
to
On Saturday, December 1, 2012 3:24:11 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Despite the enduring popularity of conspiracy theories about President John F.
>
> Kennedy's death on November 22, 1963, it's a mainstream consensus that these
>
> theories have always been essentially the work of cranks, popularized by a
>
> national appetite for mystery and entertainment. In recent years, this consensus
>
> has been reinforced by Vincent Bugliosi's massive, critically acclaimed book,
>
> Reclaiming History, along with Tom Hanks's related HBO special.
>
Ben:
> Despite the enduring popularity of conspiracy theories about President John F.
>
> Kennedy's death on November 22, 1963, it's a mainstream consensus that these
>
> theories have always been essentially the work of cranks, popularized by a
>
> national appetite for mystery and entertainment. In recent years, this consensus
>
> has been reinforced by Vincent Bugliosi's massive, critically acclaimed book,
>
> Reclaiming History, along with Tom Hanks's related HBO special.
>
As you must have heard by now, there ain't gonna be no "related HBO special." You may also have heard that shooting on Hanks's "Parkland" commences later this month. You may not have seen the movie's Full Cast and Crew page on IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2345112/fullcredits#cast. There's no mention of Bugliosi. If this is correct, then the movie will not be based on "Reclaiming History." We'll have to wait for it to be released to know for sure. The movie doesn't have a distributor yet, so this is not a sure thing.
BW
0 new messages