BASHING A KOOK NAMED HEALY -- PERT-NEAR AS MUCH FUN AS A DAY AT THE BEACH (AND EVERY BIT AS EASY AND RELAXING)
David Von Pein
>>> "I've read a considerable amount here and elsewhere, and the best I can surmise is, quite simply: there are a lot of WC apers hereabouts. Simple as that. Nothing original. Same old mantra for the last 10 years." <<<
<laugh>
As if the LN position NEEDS anything "original".
Are you serious??
The WC got it RIGHT from the get-go, for Christ sake. LNers know this.
So why would LNers need to search for anything "original"? Just for
the sport of it?
I can use my "car keys" analogy again here (it seems to fit) --- i.e.,
An LNer searching for something "new" or "original" in the JFK case
would be akin to an LNer continuing to search for his missing set of
car keys in the chair cushions after he's already found them.
Will all the Oswald-implicating evidence suddenly CHANGE into evidence
favoring--say--James E. Files if I say something "original" and non-
WC-
based?
Now, that's not to say that some new WC-supporting things haven't been
utilized by lone-assassin advocates since 1964 to enhance the
Commission's LN conclusion. (See next section of comments.)
But these new and better advancements in technology have all only
AIDED the "original" bottom-line WC-backed conclusion of "OSWALD
KILLED KENNEDY".
And I wonder what the odds are of having all of this newer modern-day
digital technology providing further indications of the likelihood of
Oswald being able to do just what the WC said he did....and yet having
Oswald actually being NOT GUILTY of shooting John F. Kennedy in the
manner laid out by the Warren Commission?
If the "plotters" were smart enough to think 30 to 40 years into the
future when they "framed" Lee Harvey Oswald for murder (in
anticipation of the "Digital Age"), then I guess those incredibly-
prescient conspirators deserve to get away with it!
>>> "I suspect you couldn't deliver 5-8 minutes of *finished* rightside script material (15 pages) concerning the advancement of the Lone Nut position since the '64 Warren Commission Report." <<<
Are you serious? Or just a complete dope?
There are several WC-supporting "advancements" that bolster the
Commission's final "LN/LHO/SBT" conclusions:
The Clark Panel and HSCA to name two (the acoustics business not
included; because it's been totally trashed; so the HSCA fully backs
up the WC scenario in the FINAL analysis).
Another advancement being the clearer, digital enhancements made to
the Zapruder Film.
Dale Myers' work and the 2004 Discovery Channel SBT test, to name two
more "advancements" that buttress the WC version of events.....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/69758897e673c5a2
John K. Lattimer's work for yet another.....
Gerald Posner's very good book...to name another pro-LN bright spot
(CTer criticism notwithstanding, of course).....
And for yet another, there's Jean Davison's fabulous look at Lee
Harvey Oswald and what made him tick (and kill).....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9c2238388f0a72c3
And the biggest "LN" shot in the arm of them all will be....you
guessed it...."Reclaiming History":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cfb02505fe1534df
Now, what was it you were saying about "WC advancements"?? Maybe I
didn't hear your seemingly-silly question accurately. (Ya think?) ;)
>>> "Oh David, you're not talking to one of the minions that follow you about..." <<<
Yes, actually, I think I am. ;)
>>> "Drop me those 15 pages..." <<<
I did it in a lot less than 15 (above).
>>> "Sure, a Dallas jury would of [sic] sentenced Oswald to death." <<<
<laugh>
Where's that "2nd-year law student" when you need him? (You know,
Dave, the 2nd-year law student who you said "could get Oswald to walk,
with or without daBugliosi opposing".)
That law student must've been out of town when the Dallas jury would
have convicted Oswald, huh?
>>> "A revolver or automatic...?" <<<
You're not REALLY going down this worn-out path (again), are you?
The "automatic" reference originally stemmed from Ted Callaway's
description of the weapon to the police (merely because of the "raised
pistol position" in which Callaway observed Oswald carrying the gun).
If you want to contend the shells were from an automatic...then
produce those shells. Where are they? Just one will suffice.
>>> "Who ID'd positively Oswald as the 10th St. trigger man?" <<<
Again....are you serious???? Somebody pinch me.
Are you really saying you have no idea who the SEVERAL persons were
who positively IDed Oswald as Tippit's killer?
Or is this one of those crazy "NONE OF THOSE MANY WITNESSES IS THE
LEAST BIT RELIABLE" types of questions/gripes posted regularly by the
CT-Kook brigade?
Todd has been taking you (Mr. Healy) apart in a neighboring thread;
and now I have to do the same in this one.
And you said you have "40 years in the business" (D. Healy;
04/05/07)??
I assume you mean 40 years studying the evidence surrounding the JFK
murder case, correct?
Based on your posts today, it would appear that perhaps 39.5 of those
40 years were spent merely watching the paint dry in your CT BatCave.
In Todd's thread you also seemed to have no idea that Will Fritz even
testified in front of the Warren Commission.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fritz1.htm
No wonder you usually keep your mouth shut around here and choose only
to perform lapdog duties for Ben and/or Walt. ;)
>>> "You going to launch into a William Manchester-like description -- Have no fear in my challenging Manchester's feeble work of alleged history, either." <<<
WTF? Why is Mr. Manchester suddenly brought into a discussion about
the hard, raw evidence of Oswald's guilt?
Did your mind wander?
>>> "Deal with Mark Lane's defense of LHO {re. Tippit's murder}. Be an upright Nutter, tell us." <<<
I already have -- right here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8a64790b792f771f
Now, if you want to know how I'd deal with Mr. Lane's defense of
Oswald in other "Tippit murder" areas (the above Lane-destroying
example deals only with the disgraceful way Lane treated Helen
Markham) -- I would, of course, call to the witness stand the several
witnesses who positively identified Oswald as Tippit's killer (or IDed
Oswald as the only man who was running away from the crime scene with
a gun).....
Davis, Davis, Markham, Scoggins, Tatum, Callaway, Reynolds, and
Patterson.
I'd then call to the stand the many law-enforcements officers who
would testify to the fact that the four bullet shells in evidence
matched Oswald's .38 revolver "to the exclusion".
I'd then recall Joseph Nicol to the stand, who would say.....
"On specimen 603, which I have designated as Q-502, I found sufficient
individual characteristics to lead me to the conclusion that that
projectile was fired in the same weapon {Oswald's .38 revolver} that
fired the projectiles in 606."
In my final arguments to the jury I would remind the jury that
Oswald's gun (the one that Nicol linked one of the Tippit bullets to)
was the same gun that Oswald had ON HIM in the theater as he tried to
use it on Officer McDonald during the wild scuffle within the theater.
I'd also remind the jury about Johnny Brewer's observations.....
"He just looked funny to me. Well, in the first place, I had seen him
some place before. I think he had been in my store before. And when
you wait on somebody, you recognize them, and he just seemed funny.
His hair was sort of messed up and looked like he had been running,
and he looked scared, and he looked funny." -- J.C. Brewer
What's Mr. Lane going to do after all of the above people testify?
Will he try to make them ALL out to be liars, or cover-up agents? All
of them?
Lane wouldn't stand a chance in court re. the Tippit matter. The
reason being, of course.....Oswald was guilty; and the evidence proves
it.
>>> "Everywhere the Nutters turn, a plethora of questions..." <<<
Of course there are "questions". And almost all of them are being
asked by inventive "I NEED A CONSPIRACY" conspiracists, whose
imaginations rival Walt Disney's. Jim Garrison being a prime example
(among many).
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7e730615fc2a0a14
Is this the best your "40 years in the business" can muster?
If so, it would seem as if Vince Bugliosi is home free before Page 1
of "RH" is even examined.
======================================================
MORE CONSPIRACY-BASHING FUN:
======================================================
aeffects
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e8f3935e...
damn Davey, ho many times did you quote yourself in this one?
<snip the Nutter nonseense>
David Von Pein
You can always rely on con-kooks (i.e., Conspiracy Kooks) for a good
hearty laugh.
Per Healy (a kook of the "Mega" persuasion, of course), I'm a [quote]
"fraud" [unquote] by merely re-posting MY OWN VERBATIM WORDS -- i.e.,
words that I MYSELF have written.
Tell us, O Lord Kook, how does my re-posting my OWN material turn me
into a "fraud"?
IOW -- In order to NOT be a "fraud", I should be relying on somebody
ELSE'S material written about the JFK case (vs. my own words and
opinions)? Is that about it, Mister K-Word?
If you can manage to skip your 4:00 AM dose of illegal crack, maybe
you can string together a coherent sentence (lacking the words "hon",
"carry on, troop", and "tuna crotch") which could possibly explain
your idiotic "He's A Fraud" posts.
I won't count on the dose of crack being skipped though. So I'll
understand if you're not up to the mission, Mr. Kook.
aeffects
Dave, how is Tim by-the-way?
Gil Jesus
David Von Pein
>>> "Dave, how is Tim by-the-way?" <<<
How would I know? My real name is supposed to be
"Reitzes"....remember?
I've decided that I'm going to be "VB" tomorrow, btw....so address me
accordingly on 03/09/08.
Ten-Four, Mr. Healy-Kook?
aeffects
> >>> "Dave, how is Tim by-the-way?" <<<
>
> How would I know? My real name is supposed to be
> "Reitzes"....remember?
Of course you are...... don't let me get you confused.... LMAO
> I've decided that I'm going to be "VB" tomorrow, btw....so address me
> accordingly on 03/09/08.
even reitzes can't pull that off -- I do understand that you think
you're impervious, however I also understand that sinking feeling in
your stomach when you know, KNOW you've failed....
> Ten-Four, Mr. Healy-Kook?
Now about Tim, you gay, Dave?
David Von Pein
>>> "even [sic] reitzes [sic] can't pull that off..." <<<
I thought I WAS Reitzes, Mr. Mega-K?
Try to keep your kooky "alias" remarks straight, will ya, Healy?
But, then too, expecting consistency from a conspiracy-happy kook/
moron is like expecting loyalty from an alley cat.
David Von Pein
>>> "Now about Tim, you gay, Dave?" <<<
No, that's me too. I was just using another of my many aliases in the
Switchboard/Phone Book directory that you were obviously looking
through (seeing as how you have this fascination for me). (Yikes.)
Talk about "gay"....it would seem Healy's Internet interest/
(stalking?) could elicit a similar question aimed at "him" (or maybe
he's a "her" in disguise).
Phil Ossofee
Gil Jesus
> Where the hell is MOORESVILLE iNDIANA? Must be Kooksville USA.
by Von Pein's definition, 80% or more of Americans are "kooks" because
they don't believe JFK was killed by a single shooter.
Must be tough living in a country like that.
David Von Pein
Once again, a kook gets something.....wrong! What a shocker.
In point of fact (per the 2003 poll numbers below, based on the only
poll listed which breaks things down in such a detailed manner
regarding "gunmen"), only 7% of Americans -- not the 80% spouted by
the kook named Gil above -- would qualify as "kooks" via my "Anybody
But Oswald" definition, with 83% of the 1,031 people polled being of
the opinion that LHO was firing a gun at JFK on 11/22/63.
What pct. of the CTers around here are amongst that 83%, do ya think?
0.5% perhaps, if that?:
http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
POLL QUESTION:
"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the
Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in
addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not
involved in the assassination at all?".....
ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
NO OPINION ------------- 10%
Walt
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e8f3935e...
>
> >>> "I've read a considerable amount here and elsewhere, and the best I can surmise is, quite simply: there are a lot of WC apers hereabouts. Simple as that. Nothing original. Same old mantra for the last 10 years." <<<
>
> <laugh>
>
> As if the LN position NEEDS anything "original".
>
> Are you serious??
>
> The WC got it RIGHT from the get-go, for Christ sake. LNers know this.
> So why would LNers need to search for anything "original"? Just for
> the sport of it?
You're a fool.... Somewhere in the future Historians will be shaking
their heads in disbelief, wondering how so many people could be duped
into believing such a silly theory (The SBT) The Historians will
have to go to the psychologists to learn that some people's ego get in
the way of their common sense. There are some people so insecure, and
unsure of their own ability to reason, that they will allow others to
"think" for them. In their insecurity they find security in the
opinions of "experts". They then become arrogant and proclaim that
anybody who doesn't accept their "expert's" opinion is simply a
"kook". Lucky for us Americans ..... Columbus was a "kook" who
refused to accept the opinion of the "experts" that had the arrogant
assholes of the world convinced thar the earth was flat.
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.ht...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/69758897e673c5a2
>
> John K. Lattimer's work for yet another.....
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.ht...
>
> Gerald Posner's very good book...to name another pro-LN bright spot
> (CTer criticism notwithstanding, of course).....
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.ht...
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.ht...
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.ht...
>
> ======================================================
David Von Pein
>>> "You're a fool." <<<
But that's still better than being an ABO nuthatch, isn't it?
>>> "Somewhere in the future Historians will be shaking their heads in disbelief, wondering how so many people could be duped into believing such a silly theory (The SBT) The Historians will have to go to the psychologists to learn that some people's ego get in the way of their common sense. There are some people so insecure, and unsure of their own ability to reason, that they will allow others to "think" for them. In their insecurity they find security in the opinions of "experts". They then become arrogant and proclaim that anybody who doesn't accept their "expert's" opinion is simply a "kook". Lucky for us Americans ..... Columbus was a "kook" who refused to accept the opinion of the "experts" that had the arrogant assholes of the world convinced thar the earth was flat." <<<
I feel like I'm going to puddle up. Another "Flat Earth" reference.
Imagine the originality of that?
~sniff~
BTW, Walt (before I break into a full-fledged crying jag after reading
your latest tripe), what about that Croft picture, man? Have you
caught the dude with the felt-tipped pen yet? Let me know when you
catch the bastard. He's got no right to go around marking up
photographs that prove JFK was shot in the throat from the front.
Dammit.
~sniff (again)~
Bud
Walt wrote:
> On 8 Mar, 02:34, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e8f3935e...
> >
> > >>> "I've read a considerable amount here and elsewhere, and the best I can surmise is, quite simply: there are a lot of WC apers hereabouts. Simple as that. Nothing original. Same old mantra for the last 10 years." <<<
> >
> > <laugh>
> >
> > As if the LN position NEEDS anything "original".
> >
> > Are you serious??
> >
> > The WC got it RIGHT from the get-go, for Christ sake. LNers know this.
> > So why would LNers need to search for anything "original"? Just for
> > the sport of it?
>
> You're a fool.... Somewhere in the future Historians will be shaking
> their heads in disbelief, wondering how so many people could be duped
> into believing such a silly theory (The SBT)
Right after they give dogs the right to vote.
> The Historians will
> have to go to the psychologists to learn that some people's ego get in
> the way of their common sense.
Yah, Walt, it`s my ego that tells me the guy people say shot the cop
and was caught with a gun in the area of the murder, and tried to kill
the arresting officers might in some way be responsible for the cop`s
death. Common sense should tell me that Oz was tricked into going to
the Texas Theater (with no support whatsoever), Tippit was out to kill
Oz (with no support whatsoever), that Oz wasn`t trying to kill the
arresting police, but was merely protecting his balls (with no support
whatsoever), and just anything else that can pop in to the minds of
idiots.
> There are some people so insecure, and
> unsure of their own ability to reason, that they will allow others to
> "think" for them.
<snicker> Yah, they will all someday be lining up behind you, Walt,
an idiot who can`t even figure out which window of the TSBD the shots
were fired from.
> In their insecurity they find security in the
> opinions of "experts".
They can find solace in the ramblings of idiots? I suppose there in
a Zen-like quality to nullifying all rational thought and expert
opinion, and rely totally on instinct and imagination. It`s the sound
of one hand clapping.
> They then become arrogant and proclaim that
> anybody who doesn't accept their "expert's" opinion is simply a
> "kook". Lucky for us Americans ..... Columbus was a "kook" who
> refused to accept the opinion of the "experts" that had the arrogant
> assholes of the world convinced thar the earth was flat.
Stellar kook thinking. "Because someone centuries ago was thought
to be wrong and turned out to be right, that is some way indicates
that I must be right".
muc...@gmail.com
> On 8 Mar, 02:34, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e8f3935e...
>
> > >>> "I've read a considerable amount here and elsewhere, and the best I can surmise is, quite simply: there are a lot of WC apers hereabouts. Simple as that. Nothing original. Same old mantra for the last 10 years." <<<
>
> > <laugh>
>
> > As if the LN position NEEDS anything "original".
>
> > Are you serious??
>
> > The WC got it RIGHT from the get-go, for Christ sake. LNers know this.
> > So why would LNers need to search for anything "original"? Just for
> > the sport of it?
>
> You're a fool.... Somewhere in the future Historians will be shaking
> their heads in disbelief, wondering how so many people could be duped
> into believing such a silly theory (The SBT) The Historians will
> have to go to the psychologists to learn that some people's ego get in
> the way of their common sense. There are some people so insecure, and
> unsure of their own ability to reason, that they will allow others to
> "think" for them. In their insecurity they find security in the
> opinions of "experts". They then become arrogant and proclaim that
> anybody who doesn't accept their "expert's" opinion is simply a
> "kook". Lucky for us Americans ..... Columbus was a "kook" who
> refused to accept the opinion of the "experts" that had the arrogant
> assholes of the world convinced thar the earth was flat.
I'm not sure Columbus Vs. Flat Earthers is as appropriate a metaphor
as you seem to think. Historian Christine Garwood argues in Flat Earth
(2007) that "educated medieval people did not believe the earth to be
flat, and it was neither Columbus's intention nor the outcome of his
voyage to demonstrate to doubters that it was a globe."
See review here:
http://www.amazon.ca/Flat-Earth-Christine-Garwood/dp/customer-reviews/0330432893/
-Mark
(snip)
aeffects
> On 8 Mar, 02:34, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e8f3935e...
>
> > >>> "I've read a considerable amount here and elsewhere, and the best I can surmise is, quite simply: there are a lot of WC apers hereabouts. Simple as that. Nothing original. Same old mantra for the last 10 years." <<<
>
> > <laugh>
>
> > As if the LN position NEEDS anything "original".
>
> > Are you serious??
>
> > The WC got it RIGHT from the get-go, for Christ sake. LNers know this.
> > So why would LNers need to search for anything "original"? Just for
> > the sport of it?
>
> You're a fool.... Somewhere in the future Historians will be shaking
> their heads in disbelief, wondering how so many people could be duped
> into believing such a silly theory (The SBT) The Historians will
> have to go to the psychologists to learn that some people's ego get in
> the way of their common sense. There are some people so insecure, and
> unsure of their own ability to reason, that they will allow others to
> "think" for them. In their insecurity they find security in the
> opinions of "experts". They then become arrogant and proclaim that
> anybody who doesn't accept their "expert's" opinion is simply a
> "kook". Lucky for us Americans ..... Columbus was a "kook" who
> refused to accept the opinion of the "experts" that had the arrogant
> assholes of the world convinced thar the earth was flat.
>
simple Walt -- they're either paid or working off fines - that's how
*smart* they are, no great secret! :)
<snip>
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walt? Do you ever read the crap you post before pressing the send
button? Unvelieveable.
The following describes lunatics like you Walt, to a tee. Take a
gander:
The conspiracy theory is the bastion of shadows and little or no
evidence. It explains a famous or known event by appealing to the
leftist dictum of "follow the money" or "look who benefits" as if
actual evidence is irrelevant and personal ethics are just a farcical
way for the rich and powerful to pull the wool over the eyes of
everyone else. Whether it is the Kennedy assassination or the 9/11
attacks, conspiracy theories which pop up to counter the "official"
tale of events share common characteristics.
As a historian, I come across conspiracy theories all the time.
"Progressive" historians like Charles and Mary Beard made the
conspiracy theory view of history a popular vogue for a while. They
contended that the founders plotted the constitution as a way of
aggrandizing their power and property at the expense of common folk,
the evidence being that nearly all of the men at the convention were
wealthy property owners and remained so afterwards, or became richer
under the new system. Of course, this case is circumstantial at best
and ignores the actual debates which occurred at the convention and
afterwards on real political and philosophical issues.
Beard's assertions inspired other historians to go into other
historical episodes and see greedy conspiracies. The War of 1812 is a
topic I study quite a bit and a topic with a historiography full of
conspiracy theories, whether to steal Canada, Indian land, or whatever
else, as opposed to the real issues of free trade and sailor's rights
which actually sparked the conflict. The conspiracy theory today is
usually a way to cast the darkest aspersions upon the government in
general and certain officers of the government in particular. I am no
fan of the government in most of its actions. It is too big, too
powerful, does a whole host of unconstitutional and immoral things,
and is generally wasteful and inept. That does not mean I (or anyone
else) should automatically buy into every conspiracy theory people
come up with to explain events. I am not concerned here with delving
into the specifics of these conspiracy theories to dispute their
specific claims, there are experts and scholars already doing that in
professional journals all over the country. I am more interested in
the implications of conspiracy theories in general what one has to
accept in order to buy one of these conspiracy theories.
To accept a conspiracy theory that the government or certain of its
officers killed President Kennedy or carried out the 9/11 attacks,
without overwhelming evidence (as in a criminal conspiracy case),
requires the acceptance of certain other implausible facts. For
instance, one would have to accept that scores of people in the
government are able, at will, to plan secretly large scale attacks or
plots and maintain operational security against leaks. This makes a
good movie plot, but a rather alarming fact of reality if one accepts
it. To accept this idea though, one has to ignore clear evidence that
other plots and schemes by government officials including the "most
powerful man on earth," the President, have not succeeded and have
been uncovered. The list of these is a long list of scandals from
efforts to have the CIA kill Castro (a noble effort if ill-conceived)
to Watergate, Whitewater, Travel Gate, the Iran-Contra scandal,
Clinton's efforts to cover up the Lewinsky affair and on and on. But
for the person who accepts the conspiracy theory view of reality, the
government is able to keep omniscient control of diabolical plots
which are much more complex, require far more people, and involve the
killing of perfectly innocent Americans.
Another point which the person who accepts these conspiracy theories
much accept, at least implicitly, is that all people, particularly
government officials, are evil incarnate. This may sound almost like
common sense at first. How many of us don't think the vast majority of
officials and government employees are jerks at one point or another?
But this belief is far more serious than frustration with the post
office or genuine disgust with hated political foes. It means that you
seriously believe that the vast majority of government officials are,
on the whole, willing to kill anyone they have to in order to add to
their own power or achieve certain goals, whether that means winning
an election or, far more diabolical, toppling the republic to
establish a despotism. As citizens we must always be wary and on guard
against Catilines, men willing to scheme to overthrow the republic,
but these men are rare (hence the name Catiline still rings down
through history from ancient Rome). For one man to undo a political
system and instate his own person rule is exceedingly difficult, the
examples of it in all history are all too numerous but sufficiently
small to make the threat real while rare. If we honestly believe that
the majority or even a minority of our government is made up of
genuine Catilines and Cromwells then we should give up on self-
government altogether for it will prove nothing but a pipedream. We've
had two large examples of purely evil governments in the 20th century,
with hordes of evil henchmen, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Those
governments were not brought about by shadowy conspiracies, but by
very public leaders and their followers, along with the surrender and
impotence of their opposition.
People who believe 9/11 was an "inside job" say Bush wanted a
rationale for war or a way to win the next election, etc. So aside
from the first two points (the government is capable of keeping such a
plot secret and government is run by men of pure evil) one must also
accept that Bush is a diabolical genius. He had to formulate and
execute a perfectly secure plan to attack his own country in nine
months in order to gather a rationale to attack Afghanistan and Iraq
and win re-election in 2004. Since every new development, from the
foiled plot in England to the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, can be added
to the conspiracy, Bush's tremendous mind and evil genius become
magnified over and over again. He makes Lex Luther look retarded in
the conspiracy theory universe. He sees things so far in advance he is
almost prophetic. Of course, questions are being begged left and
right. For instance, given that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had already
attacked the United States numerous times, why plot such an elaborate
and traitorous scheme that, if discovered, would mean the utter
contempt of people today and all posterity, not to mention sure death
for treason? Also, Iraq was invaded under the auspices of the United
Nations and their resolutions. Bush purposely and foolishly went out
of his way to wrap all the rationale for the Iraq war in United
Nations priorities and bromides, not 9/11. How did 9/11 help that? How
did Bush know he could win in 2004, even with the terrorist attacks?
His re-election was not automatic, and had the Democrats nominated
someone competent they may well have won. Of course the conspiracy
theory answers to these questions are predictable. Bush is evil; the
attack created an environment to make the Iraq war acceptable; and
Bush conspired to and stole the '04 election. The evidence is that the
event occurred and thus was in the interest of the subject of the
conspiracy theory.
I will end this essay by creating my own conspiracy theory, using the
conspiracy theory methods. Unfortunately it is all too easy.
"George Washington, widely regarded as the father of his country and a
great man, was in fact an evil genius bent on domination and tyranny.
He callously egged on revolution and war with England and then
purposely went out of his way to become commander of the continental
army by shamelessly coming to the second continental congress in his
uniform. When he relinquished his sword at the end of the war it was
but a brilliant avaricious calculation for future power which worked
perfectly as he chaired the constitutional convention and steered the
proceedings to make the presidency powerful because he wanted to be
the first one and knew the others would make him so. He also made sure
Madison's and the other delegates notes on the convention left his
role of active manipulation out of the 'official' record. When he
became President he found the job not as powerful as he liked and
wanted to quit which he did after two terms. As he was about to make
his comeback as the commanding general of a huge army to, on paper,
fend of French invasion (but really he was going to use it to kill
President Adams and declare himself dictator), he caught pneumonia and
died. Lucky for his country too, because he would have destroyed it as
his whole malign career says he would."
These are all horrible lies about Washington's great career designed
to manipulate the various events of that career to fit an evil
storyline. Because the events happened to his interest in this
storyline it almost sounds plausible, but the evidence is very
decidedly against all of it and historians are, on the whole, more
than honest enough to tell it the way it was, not the way paranoid
conspiracy theorists would have it. Bush is certainly no Washington,
but with no evidence to the contrary, he is also no Stalin, Catiline,
Cromwell, or Lex Luther.
About the Author
Alexander Marriott is currently a graduate student of the early
republic at Clark University in Worcester, MA. He earned his B.A. in
history in 2004 from the University of Nevada - Las Vegas, where he
was an Op-Ed columnist for the UNLV Rebel Yell. Marriott grew up in
Chicago and lived in Saudi Arabia for four and a half years and has
resided in Las Vegas since 1996.
Author Archives / Write Us / Printer-friendly / Email This / Discuss
in Forum / Donations
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not
necessarily represent the views of Capitalism Magazine. Excerpts are
limited to 200 words, so long as the source and link are provided to
the original article. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited.
See our terms of use for details.
Learn Science The Proper Way
David Harriman, philosopher and historian of physics, is the
originator of VanDamme Academy's revolutionary science curriculum. An
expert both in physics and in proper pedagogy, Mr Harriman developed
and taught a two-year course on the history of physics for VanDamme
Academy. VanDamme Academy is now making this revolutionary physics
course, "Introduction to Physical Science," available to the public.
Related Articles on Sept 11th:
Conspiracy Theories: Was 9/11 An "Inside Job" and Other Stories
Sept 11th: An Attack On Our Values
September 11th: Where Have Our Leaders Gone Wrong?
September 11th: Five Years Later
The World Trade Center Memorial -- A Platform for America's Enemies?
Columbus Day: The Cure for 9/11
WTC Rises Again: Rebuilding A National Monument
Rebuilding the American Spirit
The Triumph Of the 9/11 Commission
Preventing 9/11: "A Failure of Imagination"?
9/11 Commission Reflects Terrorisms Cause
9/11 Commission's Titanic Irresponsibility
Diverting the Blame for September 11th
Reflecting America: World Trade Center Memorial Should Celebrate
America's Producers
Why and How to Remember September 11
More Articles on Sept 11th
aeffects
> Where the hell is MOORESVILLE iNDIANA? Must be Kooksville USA.
where Vin Bugliosi's biggest fan and internet supporter hails from. I
suggest you ask Von Pein where it is.... :)
YoHarvey
Healy? Admiration is a wonderful thing. Kinda like the way you smile
when you think about Holmes, huh toots?
Gil Jesus
> > I'd then call to the stand the many law-enforcements officers who
> > would testify to the fact that the four bullet shells in evidence
> > matched Oswald's .38 revolver "to the exclusion".
>
> > I'd then recall Joseph Nicol to the stand, who would say.....
>
> > "On specimen 603, which I have designated as Q-502, I found sufficient
> > individual characteristics to lead me to the conclusion that that
> > projectile was fired in the same weapon {Oswald's .38 revolver} that
> > fired the projectiles in 606."
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, were you able to determine whether those bullets
have been fired in this weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; I was not.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
First of all, Commission Exhibit No. 602 was too mutilated. There were
not sufficient microscopic marks remaining on the surface of this
bullet, due to the mutilation, to determine whether or not it had been
fired from this weapon.
However, Commission Exhibits 603, 604, and 605 do bear microscopic
marks for comparison purposes, but it was not possible from an
examination and comparison of these bullets to determine whether or
not they had been fired--these bullets themselves--had been fired from
one weapon, or whether or not they had been fired from Oswald's
revolver.
Further, it was not possible, using .38 Special ammunition, to
determine whether or not consecutive test bullets obtained from this
revolver had been fired in this weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have an opinion as to why it was impossible to
make either type of determination?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; this weapon, using .38 Special bullets, was
not producing marks consistent with each other. Each time it was
fired, the bullet would seem to pass down the barrel in a different
way, which could be due to the slightly undersized bullets in the
oversized .38 S&W barrel. It would cause an erratic passage down the
barrel, and thereby, cause inconsistent individual characteristic
marks to be impressed or scratched into the surface of the bullets.
(Volume 3, pg 475 )
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e9f262f6-d97f-4c67...@c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Bud
Theres something new, a kook with a crackpot theory.
>
> <snip>
David Von Pein
>>> "Von Pein, your man Bugliosi tells us that Lifton is one of the best researchers around..." <<<
Yeah, I noticed that VB comment too. It's one of the few mistakes
Vince made in "Reclaiming History". ~wink~
>>> "In this instance Lifton accused Bugliosi of using a team of ghostwriters, and then researched it to see if it was true. He came back with a post stating it was partially true, and that Bugliosi had used two co-writers, and then paid them off to take their names off the book, making them, effectively, ghostwriters." <<<
And then Vince decides to FULLY ACKNOWLEDGE the "noteworthy writing
contributions" of both of these so-called "ghostwriters" on Page 1515
of "Reclaiming History", in the "Acknowledgments" section of the
book???
A ghostwriter wouldn't get ANY CREDIT at all. Lifton's full of
shit...as usual. He's just pissed because of the chapter in "RH" which
effectively shreds Lifton's idiotic body-stealing nonsense.
>>> "I find his {Lifton's} account believable, and credible." <<<
Lifton hasn't proven a damn thing in his "ghostwriting" regard. And he
certainly hasn't shown, in any way, that "at least one-
third" (Lifton's exact quote) of VB's book was written by Haines and
Myers instead of Vince. That's a crock if I ever heard one.
And another Lifton "crock" is when he was PROVEN dead-wrong regarding
Pat Lambert having written pretty much the ENTIRE "RH" chapter
concerning Garrison/Stone.
And yet people STILL find Mr. Lifton "believable" and "credible" on
this SAME "ghostwriting of RH" subject even after such a proven-wrong
allegation regarding Ms. Lambert??!!
INcredible is more like it.