Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The things CTs ***STILL*** believe in!!!
6 views
Skip to first unread message
John King
Aug 20, 2012, 11:26:29 PM8/20/12
to
After yet another of my long absences from newsgroups, I came back
yesterday to find possibly the most laughable claims I've ever seen from
any CT, on the Internet or off of it.
First of all, although this doesn't have anything to do with the
assassination, a person going by the pseudonym of "Research," posting
from IP 172.162.223.211 which is A-O-Hell, made this jaw-dropping
statement:
"The Europerians [sic] was [sic] just to [sic] scared to venture out.
Even before Queen Issibella [sic] commissioned the 3 ships, Columbus had
to prove to her the world was not flat."
This myth originated with Washington Irving's 1828 biography of
Columbus, and was conclusively debunked ages ago (even the ancient
Greeks knew the earth is a sphere at least 16 centuries before Columbus
was born; in other words the myth was debunked *before* the myth was
created), and here we have yet another example, to be added to thousands
of other examples, of a CT still in 2012 mindlessly repeating a myth
without even *trying* to find out the truth, just like some LNs still
mindlessly repeat the Thorburn myth. No wonder these CTs subscribe to
wacky conspiracy theories; after reading no more than one or two pages
out of no more than one or two books, or no more than one or two
webpages, they will instantly decide that they've Got The Truth, hands
down, and they'll absolutely refuse, ever, ever, ever, to read even one
page of additional material on the subject. Back to the JFK
assassination, this same poster in the same article also had the
unmitigated gall to tell another poster (not me) that they needed to
read history.
Pot/kettle.
Oh, but it gets better. And *this* most *definitely* is directly
related to the JFK assassination.
It's a thread that's several weeks old, but as I said, I'm just now
catching up. Before today, I thought that all CTs worldwide had finally
abandoned this myth. Sadly (or hilariously) it is not so. I would have
that any self-respecting CT would rather slit her/his own wrists rather
than admit to even one other human that he/she still believes this
absurd myth. But on August 4, one "Ralph Cinque," using IP 72.179.15.53
which is Road Runner in Austin, dared to post that he STILL BELIEVES
THAT'S OSWALD AND NOT BILLY LOVELADY IN THE TSBD DOORWAY IN THE ALTGENS
PHOTO!!!!!!!!!!
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
Can you believe it??? I didn't think there was anyone left on this
***PLANET*** who still subscribed to that hogwash, not anyone, of either
gender, of any race, of any nationality, of any ethnicity, of any
linguistic group, of any political affiliation, of any religious sect,
of any sexual orientation.
I was wrong.
Of course I shouldn't be surprised. I also yesterday saw people on
Youtube still mindlessly repeating the myth that the reflection on top
of Will Greer's head is a pistol pointed at JFK...
And some of these same CTs accuse LNs of ignoring the evidence, and then
turn around and do exactly the same thing, with no difference
whatsoever, that they accuse others of doing.
I may have to file a lawsuite [sic] (betcha no one here knows the origin
of that improper spelling) against Mr. Cinque to pay for the operation I
might have to undergo for ruptured internal organs due to excessive
helpless laughter.
:P
yesterday to find possibly the most laughable claims I've ever seen from
any CT, on the Internet or off of it.
First of all, although this doesn't have anything to do with the
assassination, a person going by the pseudonym of "Research," posting
from IP 172.162.223.211 which is A-O-Hell, made this jaw-dropping
statement:
"The Europerians [sic] was [sic] just to [sic] scared to venture out.
Even before Queen Issibella [sic] commissioned the 3 ships, Columbus had
to prove to her the world was not flat."
This myth originated with Washington Irving's 1828 biography of
Columbus, and was conclusively debunked ages ago (even the ancient
Greeks knew the earth is a sphere at least 16 centuries before Columbus
was born; in other words the myth was debunked *before* the myth was
created), and here we have yet another example, to be added to thousands
of other examples, of a CT still in 2012 mindlessly repeating a myth
without even *trying* to find out the truth, just like some LNs still
mindlessly repeat the Thorburn myth. No wonder these CTs subscribe to
wacky conspiracy theories; after reading no more than one or two pages
out of no more than one or two books, or no more than one or two
webpages, they will instantly decide that they've Got The Truth, hands
down, and they'll absolutely refuse, ever, ever, ever, to read even one
page of additional material on the subject. Back to the JFK
assassination, this same poster in the same article also had the
unmitigated gall to tell another poster (not me) that they needed to
read history.
Pot/kettle.
Oh, but it gets better. And *this* most *definitely* is directly
related to the JFK assassination.
It's a thread that's several weeks old, but as I said, I'm just now
catching up. Before today, I thought that all CTs worldwide had finally
abandoned this myth. Sadly (or hilariously) it is not so. I would have
that any self-respecting CT would rather slit her/his own wrists rather
than admit to even one other human that he/she still believes this
absurd myth. But on August 4, one "Ralph Cinque," using IP 72.179.15.53
which is Road Runner in Austin, dared to post that he STILL BELIEVES
THAT'S OSWALD AND NOT BILLY LOVELADY IN THE TSBD DOORWAY IN THE ALTGENS
PHOTO!!!!!!!!!!
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
Can you believe it??? I didn't think there was anyone left on this
***PLANET*** who still subscribed to that hogwash, not anyone, of either
gender, of any race, of any nationality, of any ethnicity, of any
linguistic group, of any political affiliation, of any religious sect,
of any sexual orientation.
I was wrong.
Of course I shouldn't be surprised. I also yesterday saw people on
Youtube still mindlessly repeating the myth that the reflection on top
of Will Greer's head is a pistol pointed at JFK...
And some of these same CTs accuse LNs of ignoring the evidence, and then
turn around and do exactly the same thing, with no difference
whatsoever, that they accuse others of doing.
I may have to file a lawsuite [sic] (betcha no one here knows the origin
of that improper spelling) against Mr. Cinque to pay for the operation I
might have to undergo for ruptured internal organs due to excessive
helpless laughter.
:P
Research
Aug 21, 2012, 11:06:53 AM8/21/12
to
"John King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:caeruleo-B1390F...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
WCR. You don't have any material we haven't seen in the past. You only
took out a couple lines out of the statement and pounced. Typical LNer
nonsence. Typical gas bag expunging smells and thinking he accomplishing
something. When some point is made you LNers claim it was only a small
mistake. When is the LNers going to explain WHY there were so MANY
mistakes made? Yeah, they may have been Oswald's prints. But just how did
Day get them. I say Day took the prints off Oswald's dead body and planted
the evidence. You say whatever.
Jason Burke
Aug 21, 2012, 11:25:49 PM8/21/12
to
up,) whatever you want. Don't have to deal with anything like truth,
evidence, reasoning, that sort of annoying stuff. Must be fun!
John King
Aug 21, 2012, 11:30:23 PM8/21/12
to
In article <5033...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
I have done nothing even remotely like merely vomiting up the WCR, and
there's nothing about the WCR in my article to which you were here
responding. I was instead pointing out how laughable, and provably
untrue your claim is that Columbus had to prove to Isabella that the
world is flat.
> You don't have any material we haven't seen in the past.
What does that have to do with your gaffe about Columbus and Isabella?
> You only
> took out a couple lines out of the statement and pounced.
Nonsense. I responded far more extensively in that other thread, "3
shots," in a direct reply to the same article in which you made that
absurd claim about Columbus, and I do not yet see any reply to me from
you there.
> Typical LNer
> nonsence.
Typical CTer nonsense is more like it. You failed to come anywhere
close to getting your facts straight before you posted your claims; the
nonsense about Columbus is just one example.
> Typical gas bag expunging smells and thinking he accomplishing
> something.
That is certainly a pot/kettle statement. You are quite obviously far
more guilty of that than I am with your astonishing Columbus gaffe.
> When some point is made you LNers claim it was only a small
> mistake. When is the LNers going to explain WHY there were so MANY
> mistakes made? Yeah, they may have been Oswald's prints. But just how did
> Day get them. I say Day took the prints off Oswald's dead body and planted
> the evidence. You say whatever.
Why on earth are you addressing this to me, of all people? I said
nothing about Day or Oswald's prints in this thread *or* in my replies
to you in "3 shots." For all you knew at the time you posted this
article I might *agree* with you about that. I don't, but you had no
possible way of knowing that before you posted this article.
And notice, everyone, how the CT utterly fails to address anything I
actually *did* say, and acts as if no mention was even made of his
obvious mistake about Columbus, and even worse, does not admit his
error. In stark contrast I have admitted my errors many times in this
newsgroup.
there's nothing about the WCR in my article to which you were here
responding. I was instead pointing out how laughable, and provably
untrue your claim is that Columbus had to prove to Isabella that the
world is flat.
> You don't have any material we haven't seen in the past.
> You only
> took out a couple lines out of the statement and pounced.
shots," in a direct reply to the same article in which you made that
absurd claim about Columbus, and I do not yet see any reply to me from
you there.
> Typical LNer
> nonsence.
Typical CTer nonsense is more like it. You failed to come anywhere
close to getting your facts straight before you posted your claims; the
nonsense about Columbus is just one example.
> Typical gas bag expunging smells and thinking he accomplishing
> something.
more guilty of that than I am with your astonishing Columbus gaffe.
> When some point is made you LNers claim it was only a small
> mistake. When is the LNers going to explain WHY there were so MANY
> mistakes made? Yeah, they may have been Oswald's prints. But just how did
> Day get them. I say Day took the prints off Oswald's dead body and planted
> the evidence. You say whatever.
nothing about Day or Oswald's prints in this thread *or* in my replies
to you in "3 shots." For all you knew at the time you posted this
article I might *agree* with you about that. I don't, but you had no
possible way of knowing that before you posted this article.
And notice, everyone, how the CT utterly fails to address anything I
actually *did* say, and acts as if no mention was even made of his
obvious mistake about Columbus, and even worse, does not admit his
error. In stark contrast I have admitted my errors many times in this
newsgroup.
aeffects
Aug 22, 2012, 3:47:04 AM8/22/12
to
On Aug 21, 8:25 pm, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 8/21/2012 8:06 AM, Research wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "John King" <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> On 8/21/2012 8:06 AM, Research wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
ROTFLMFAO! ! ! sitdown moron. Your making an ass out of yourself!
Jason Burke
Aug 22, 2012, 11:20:07 AM8/22/12
to
yet? No? Well, it's only been 50 years. You'll come up with something
Real Soon Now! Oh, wait. No you won't. 'Cause your fantasy didn't happen.
Oh well. Why don't you and you little band of idiots just keep pissing
into the wind, ok?
Research
Aug 22, 2012, 11:26:34 AM8/22/12
to
news:caeruleo-F2482D...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Not FLAT, John!!! NOT FLAT. ;-) But thanks for your throncing. You
commented so many times, I thought I'd make it clear that you twisted the
thread to mean the opposite of what I said. That is another typical LNer
strategy. Until now I didn't know who you were. Because I never seen any
post from you. Some of your post seem to make sence. I can tell you are
intelligent. But this type of behavior deminishes the goal of discuessing
the MORE important issues and distrasts from, well you know. Like you said
in another post, people have told you before.
>
>> You don't have any material we haven't seen in the past.
>
> What does that have to do with your gaffe about Columbus and Isabella?
>
>> You only
>> took out a couple lines out of the statement and pounced.
>
> Nonsense. I responded far more extensively in that other thread, "3
> shots," in a direct reply to the same article in which you made that
> absurd claim about Columbus, and I do not yet see any reply to me from
> you there.
SO SOOOORRY. I'm not hanging on your every word. I left that post because
of all the childish back and forth comments and quibabling.
>
>
>> When some point is made you LNers claim it was only a small
>> mistake. When is the LNers going to explain WHY there were so MANY
>> mistakes made? Yeah, they may have been Oswald's prints. But just how did
>> Day get them. I say Day took the prints off Oswald's dead body and
>> planted
>> the evidence. You say whatever.
>
> Why on earth are you addressing this to me, of all people? I said
> nothing about Day or Oswald's prints in this thread *or* in my replies
> to you in "3 shots." For all you knew at the time you posted this
> article I might *agree* with you about that. I don't, but you had no
> possible way of knowing that before you posted this article.
Get'em up there partner. Reach for the sky. :-) Yeah I addressed it to you
"of all people." Cause it was to point out that the LNers are always
making excuses and calling disinformation as mistakes. Not that the faked
Oswald prints had anything to do with anything. Maybe just my opinion, not
fact. I did go back to the other post you claimed to post to and I didn't
see any comments worth replying to. Like I said there is to much back and
forth. I get bored. If they want to argue back and forth about something
I'm not intrested in, why waste time on some trivial point?
>
> And notice, everyone, how the CT utterly fails to address anything I
> actually *did* say, and acts as if no mention was even made of his
> obvious mistake about Columbus, and even worse, does not admit his
> error. In stark contrast I have admitted my errors many times in this
> newsgroup.
>
Again you pounce on an insufficient comment. Making some sort of
controversy out of nothing. I think you are well educated. And I would
like to learn from you and the other who might actually know something.
Afterall that is why I joined the group. So I can learn. Not to sneer down
on those who don't know. I don't provide essay evidence on every post like
it is a class project. I don't footnote and very seldom quote. I'm not
here to provide evidence. It's not a Congressional hearing, you know?
commented so many times, I thought I'd make it clear that you twisted the
thread to mean the opposite of what I said. That is another typical LNer
strategy. Until now I didn't know who you were. Because I never seen any
post from you. Some of your post seem to make sence. I can tell you are
intelligent. But this type of behavior deminishes the goal of discuessing
the MORE important issues and distrasts from, well you know. Like you said
in another post, people have told you before.
>
>> You don't have any material we haven't seen in the past.
>
> What does that have to do with your gaffe about Columbus and Isabella?
>
>> You only
>> took out a couple lines out of the statement and pounced.
>
> Nonsense. I responded far more extensively in that other thread, "3
> shots," in a direct reply to the same article in which you made that
> absurd claim about Columbus, and I do not yet see any reply to me from
> you there.
of all the childish back and forth comments and quibabling.
>
>
>> When some point is made you LNers claim it was only a small
>> mistake. When is the LNers going to explain WHY there were so MANY
>> mistakes made? Yeah, they may have been Oswald's prints. But just how did
>> Day get them. I say Day took the prints off Oswald's dead body and
>> planted
>> the evidence. You say whatever.
>
> Why on earth are you addressing this to me, of all people? I said
> nothing about Day or Oswald's prints in this thread *or* in my replies
> to you in "3 shots." For all you knew at the time you posted this
> article I might *agree* with you about that. I don't, but you had no
> possible way of knowing that before you posted this article.
"of all people." Cause it was to point out that the LNers are always
making excuses and calling disinformation as mistakes. Not that the faked
Oswald prints had anything to do with anything. Maybe just my opinion, not
fact. I did go back to the other post you claimed to post to and I didn't
see any comments worth replying to. Like I said there is to much back and
forth. I get bored. If they want to argue back and forth about something
I'm not intrested in, why waste time on some trivial point?
>
> And notice, everyone, how the CT utterly fails to address anything I
> actually *did* say, and acts as if no mention was even made of his
> obvious mistake about Columbus, and even worse, does not admit his
> error. In stark contrast I have admitted my errors many times in this
> newsgroup.
>
controversy out of nothing. I think you are well educated. And I would
like to learn from you and the other who might actually know something.
Afterall that is why I joined the group. So I can learn. Not to sneer down
on those who don't know. I don't provide essay evidence on every post like
it is a class project. I don't footnote and very seldom quote. I'm not
here to provide evidence. It's not a Congressional hearing, you know?
John King
Aug 22, 2012, 11:00:09 PM8/22/12
to
In article <5034...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Thank you. ;-)
Btw, when will you finally, at long last, admit that you were wrong
about Columbus and Isabella?
> But thanks for your throncing. You
> commented so many times, I thought I'd make it clear that you twisted the
> thread to mean the opposite of what I said.
And yet you do not explain how I did so. Curious.
Btw, when will you finally, at long last, admit that you were wrong
about Columbus and Isabella?
> That is another typical LNer
> strategy.
Nonsense. CTs use exactly the same strategy just as often.
Btw, when will you finally, at long last, admit that you were wrong
about Columbus and Isabella?
> Until now I didn't know who you were. Because I never seen any
> post from you. Some of your post seem to make sence. I can tell you are
> intelligent. But this type of behavior deminishes the goal of discuessing
> the MORE important issues and distrasts from, well you know. Like you said
> in another post, people have told you before.
Whatever...
Btw, when will you finally, at long last, admit that you were wrong
> >> You only
> >> took out a couple lines out of the statement and pounced.
> >
> > Nonsense. I responded far more extensively in that other thread, "3
> > shots," in a direct reply to the same article in which you made that
> > absurd claim about Columbus, and I do not yet see any reply to me from
> > you there.
>
> SO SOOOORRY. I'm not hanging on your every word. I left that post because
> of all the childish back and forth comments and quibabling.
Much of which was initiated by you.
Btw, when will you finally, at long last, admit that you were wrong
about Columbus and Isabella?
> >> When some point is made you LNers claim it was only a small
> >> mistake. When is the LNers going to explain WHY there were so MANY
> >> mistakes made? Yeah, they may have been Oswald's prints. But just how did
> >> Day get them. I say Day took the prints off Oswald's dead body and
> >> planted
> >> the evidence. You say whatever.
> >
> > Why on earth are you addressing this to me, of all people? I said
> > nothing about Day or Oswald's prints in this thread *or* in my replies
> > to you in "3 shots." For all you knew at the time you posted this
> > article I might *agree* with you about that. I don't, but you had no
> > possible way of knowing that before you posted this article.
>
> Get'em up there partner. Reach for the sky. :-) Yeah I addressed it to you
> "of all people." Cause it was to point out that the LNers are always
> making excuses and calling disinformation as mistakes.
CTs are guilty of that just as often.
Btw, when will you finally, at long last, admit that you were wrong
about Columbus and Isabella?
> Not that the faked
> Oswald prints had anything to do with anything. Maybe just my opinion, not
> fact. I did go back to the other post you claimed to post to and I didn't
> see any comments worth replying to. Like I said there is to much back and
> forth. I get bored. If they want to argue back and forth about something
> I'm not intrested in, why waste time on some trivial point?
That's fine. But why can't you still at least admit you were wrong
about Columbus and Isabella? Why is that so hard? Had I made that
error I would have admitted it in my very next reply.
> > And notice, everyone, how the CT utterly fails to address anything I
> > actually *did* say, and acts as if no mention was even made of his
> > obvious mistake about Columbus, and even worse, does not admit his
> > error. In stark contrast I have admitted my errors many times in this
> > newsgroup.
>
> Again you pounce on an insufficient comment. Making some sort of
> controversy out of nothing.
Translation: you're going to refuse to ever, ever, ever admit that you
were wrong about what you said about Columbus and Isabella. And remember
you used that argument about them in the context of an argument about the
assassination.
> I think you are well educated. And I would
> like to learn from you and the other who might actually know something.
> Afterall that is why I joined the group. So I can learn. Not to sneer down
> on those who don't know. I don't provide essay evidence on every post like
> it is a class project. I don't footnote and very seldom quote. I'm not
> here to provide evidence. It's not a Congressional hearing, you know?
That's fine. But you can still admit you were wrong, can't you? Why is
that so hard? I've admitted I've been wrong about certain things hundreds
of times in this and many other newsgroups. I just did so again today in
another thread regarding my earlier claim about Kent Biffle, which I now
realize was erroneous. If it's so easy for me to admit I'm wrong, why
can't you show me the same courtesy, even if it did have to do with a
trivial comment unrelated to the JFK assassination?
You see, the problem I have with you refusing to admit you were wrong
about Columbus and Isabella is it makes me wonder how many times you've
been wrong about the JFK assassination and also refused to admit it. If
you refuse to admit you're wrong about one thing, you might also refuse to
admit you're wrong about another. Why can't you show us that you can
admit it when you're clearly wrong about something *besides* the
assassination so that we can trust you more when you say things that *are*
about the assassination?
Btw, when will you finally, at long last, admit that you were wrong
about Columbus and Isabella?
> But thanks for your throncing. You
> commented so many times, I thought I'd make it clear that you twisted the
> thread to mean the opposite of what I said.
Btw, when will you finally, at long last, admit that you were wrong
about Columbus and Isabella?
> That is another typical LNer
> strategy.
Btw, when will you finally, at long last, admit that you were wrong
about Columbus and Isabella?
> Until now I didn't know who you were. Because I never seen any
> post from you. Some of your post seem to make sence. I can tell you are
> intelligent. But this type of behavior deminishes the goal of discuessing
> the MORE important issues and distrasts from, well you know. Like you said
> in another post, people have told you before.
Btw, when will you finally, at long last, admit that you were wrong
about Columbus and Isabella?
> >> You don't have any material we haven't seen in the past.
> >
> > What does that have to do with your gaffe about Columbus and Isabella?
I see you didn't answer that. Fascinating. ;-)
> >> You don't have any material we haven't seen in the past.
> >
> > What does that have to do with your gaffe about Columbus and Isabella?
> >> You only
> >> took out a couple lines out of the statement and pounced.
> >
> > Nonsense. I responded far more extensively in that other thread, "3
> > shots," in a direct reply to the same article in which you made that
> > absurd claim about Columbus, and I do not yet see any reply to me from
> > you there.
>
> SO SOOOORRY. I'm not hanging on your every word. I left that post because
> of all the childish back and forth comments and quibabling.
Btw, when will you finally, at long last, admit that you were wrong
about Columbus and Isabella?
> >> When some point is made you LNers claim it was only a small
> >> mistake. When is the LNers going to explain WHY there were so MANY
> >> mistakes made? Yeah, they may have been Oswald's prints. But just how did
> >> Day get them. I say Day took the prints off Oswald's dead body and
> >> planted
> >> the evidence. You say whatever.
> >
> > Why on earth are you addressing this to me, of all people? I said
> > nothing about Day or Oswald's prints in this thread *or* in my replies
> > to you in "3 shots." For all you knew at the time you posted this
> > article I might *agree* with you about that. I don't, but you had no
> > possible way of knowing that before you posted this article.
>
> Get'em up there partner. Reach for the sky. :-) Yeah I addressed it to you
> "of all people." Cause it was to point out that the LNers are always
> making excuses and calling disinformation as mistakes.
Btw, when will you finally, at long last, admit that you were wrong
about Columbus and Isabella?
> Not that the faked
> Oswald prints had anything to do with anything. Maybe just my opinion, not
> fact. I did go back to the other post you claimed to post to and I didn't
> see any comments worth replying to. Like I said there is to much back and
> forth. I get bored. If they want to argue back and forth about something
> I'm not intrested in, why waste time on some trivial point?
about Columbus and Isabella? Why is that so hard? Had I made that
error I would have admitted it in my very next reply.
> > And notice, everyone, how the CT utterly fails to address anything I
> > actually *did* say, and acts as if no mention was even made of his
> > obvious mistake about Columbus, and even worse, does not admit his
> > error. In stark contrast I have admitted my errors many times in this
> > newsgroup.
>
> Again you pounce on an insufficient comment. Making some sort of
> controversy out of nothing.
were wrong about what you said about Columbus and Isabella. And remember
you used that argument about them in the context of an argument about the
assassination.
> I think you are well educated. And I would
> like to learn from you and the other who might actually know something.
> Afterall that is why I joined the group. So I can learn. Not to sneer down
> on those who don't know. I don't provide essay evidence on every post like
> it is a class project. I don't footnote and very seldom quote. I'm not
> here to provide evidence. It's not a Congressional hearing, you know?
that so hard? I've admitted I've been wrong about certain things hundreds
of times in this and many other newsgroups. I just did so again today in
another thread regarding my earlier claim about Kent Biffle, which I now
realize was erroneous. If it's so easy for me to admit I'm wrong, why
can't you show me the same courtesy, even if it did have to do with a
trivial comment unrelated to the JFK assassination?
You see, the problem I have with you refusing to admit you were wrong
about Columbus and Isabella is it makes me wonder how many times you've
been wrong about the JFK assassination and also refused to admit it. If
you refuse to admit you're wrong about one thing, you might also refuse to
admit you're wrong about another. Why can't you show us that you can
admit it when you're clearly wrong about something *besides* the
assassination so that we can trust you more when you say things that *are*
about the assassination?
John King
Aug 22, 2012, 11:11:14 PM8/22/12
to
Oh, and by the way, you made this provably false claim about me
personally:
"I don't have the time to reply to yet another LNer who only vomits up the
WCR."
You very badly need to learn not to jump to unfounded conclusions about
the posters you're replying to, most especially when it is the first time
in your life that you have replied to the poster. Had you bothered to
check out even one percent of the articles I have posted in this
newsgroup, you would have found that for almost a decade I have been
soundly criticizing LNs (and the WCR) for their ridiculous assertion that
the majority of them have made that there wasn't any hole in the back of
JFK's head, even though the majority of witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda
reported exactly that, a few of whom were the same people in both
locations, and the witnesses who saw his head at both Parkland and
Bethesda reported the same thing. You will find, for example, that for
years I have been taunting LNs, when they make statements like this,
"The Parkland people were wrong,"
with this sort of reply:
'The average ten-year-old child, without a day of medical training, can
easily identify which part of a person's head is the "back" or "rear"
without the slightest possibility of being even slightly mistaken.'
The Google Groups archives prove beyond all possible doubt that I have
been posting that sentence, or very similarly-worded sentences, in
response to these silly LN claims, in many different articles since at
least November, 2002. Isn't that correct, Dr. McAdams? Isn't that
correct, Peter Fokes?
This is 2012, and I posted it again *today*.
Don't believe me? Do a Google groups search on these two keywords:
"caeruleo questionnaire"
You'll find that I did a lot more LN-taunting than just that one sentence.
Of the twenty questions I posed in those two questionnaires alone, not
one LN, not one, gave any sort of answer, plausible or implausible, to
even half of them.
You owe me a gigantic apology, Research.
personally:
"I don't have the time to reply to yet another LNer who only vomits up the
WCR."
the posters you're replying to, most especially when it is the first time
in your life that you have replied to the poster. Had you bothered to
check out even one percent of the articles I have posted in this
newsgroup, you would have found that for almost a decade I have been
soundly criticizing LNs (and the WCR) for their ridiculous assertion that
the majority of them have made that there wasn't any hole in the back of
JFK's head, even though the majority of witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda
reported exactly that, a few of whom were the same people in both
locations, and the witnesses who saw his head at both Parkland and
Bethesda reported the same thing. You will find, for example, that for
years I have been taunting LNs, when they make statements like this,
"The Parkland people were wrong,"
with this sort of reply:
'The average ten-year-old child, without a day of medical training, can
easily identify which part of a person's head is the "back" or "rear"
without the slightest possibility of being even slightly mistaken.'
The Google Groups archives prove beyond all possible doubt that I have
been posting that sentence, or very similarly-worded sentences, in
response to these silly LN claims, in many different articles since at
least November, 2002. Isn't that correct, Dr. McAdams? Isn't that
correct, Peter Fokes?
This is 2012, and I posted it again *today*.
Don't believe me? Do a Google groups search on these two keywords:
"caeruleo questionnaire"
You'll find that I did a lot more LN-taunting than just that one sentence.
Of the twenty questions I posed in those two questionnaires alone, not
one LN, not one, gave any sort of answer, plausible or implausible, to
even half of them.
You owe me a gigantic apology, Research.
John King
Aug 22, 2012, 11:58:29 PM8/22/12
to
Oops, no, you're not the one in Austin. That's Ralph Cinque, the CT who
claims that Billy Lovelady is Lee Oswald, even though that was proven in
1964 to be Lovelady. This is 2012. If I was a self-respecting CT, I
would rather slit my wrists than tell even one other human, publicly or
privately, that that is Oswald in the Altgens photo. I'm not sure I wanna
have a beer with him just yet. ;-)
claims that Billy Lovelady is Lee Oswald, even though that was proven in
1964 to be Lovelady. This is 2012. If I was a self-respecting CT, I
would rather slit my wrists than tell even one other human, publicly or
privately, that that is Oswald in the Altgens photo. I'm not sure I wanna
have a beer with him just yet. ;-)
Sandy McCroskey
Aug 23, 2012, 4:02:54 PM8/23/12
to
Recently, after the second message in which I showed that "Research" was
wrong to believe Mark Lane's lie about the WC shooting tests and that
Lane had studiously ignored the Xs on the target indicating hits (and I
really don't see how he could still fail to understand after I explained
that the second time), there was no reply, no acknowledgement that he
had been wrong.
Unless I missed it...?
/sandy
John King
Aug 23, 2012, 9:16:56 PM8/23/12
to
In article <50364044$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
to reading every article in the group.
Sandy McCroskey <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Recently, after the second message in which I showed that "Research" was
> wrong to believe Mark Lane's lie about the WC shooting tests and that
> Lane had studiously ignored the Xs on the target indicating hits (and I
> really don't see how he could still fail to understand after I explained
> that the second time), there was no reply, no acknowledgement that he
> had been wrong.
>
> Unless I missed it...?
I certainly do not recall seeing it, but I have not come anywhere close
> Recently, after the second message in which I showed that "Research" was
> wrong to believe Mark Lane's lie about the WC shooting tests and that
> Lane had studiously ignored the Xs on the target indicating hits (and I
> really don't see how he could still fail to understand after I explained
> that the second time), there was no reply, no acknowledgement that he
> had been wrong.
>
> Unless I missed it...?
to reading every article in the group.
curtjester1
Aug 24, 2012, 1:42:09 PM8/24/12
to
The last part isn't nice either.
.John
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012, curtjester1 wrote:
>
>> Pot/kettle.
>>
> snip posting retardation
> and issues they are speaking of instead of acting like a
> kindergartner??
>
> http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/01/25/jfk-special-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/
>
> CJ
>
0 new messages