Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

The Waters of Knowledge vs. The Waters of Uncertainty

5 views

Skip to first unread message

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,

Feb 5, 2008, 5:55:54 PM2/5/08

Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedy

by E. Martin Schotz

INTRODUCTION

My task this afternoon is to explore with you the reasons the American
people do not know who killed President Kennedy and why. In order to
do this we will have to deal with three interdependent conspiracies
which developed in the course of the assassination and its aftermath.
These are (1) the criminal conspiracy to murder the President by a
cabal of militarists at the highest echelons of power in the United
States; (2) the conspiracy which aided and abetted these murderers
after the fact, by covering for the assassins, also a true criminal
conspiracy involving an extremely wide circle of government officials
across the entire political spectrum and at all levels of government;
and (3) a conspiracy of ignorance, denial, confusion, and silence
which has pervaded our entire public.

The major focus of my talk today is this third conspiracy on the part
of the public, which includes our so-called "critical community". I
want to show you that our failure to know is not based on any lack of
data or because the data is ambiguous. It is all extremely simple and
obvious. Rather we don't know because we are deeply emotionally
resistant to what such knowledge tells us about ourselves and our
society. Furthermore the powers-that-be do not reward people for such
knowledge. Indeed if a person is willing to acknowledge the truth, is
in a position to share such knowledge with the public, and wishes to
do so, then the organized institutions of our society will turn
sharply against such a person.

The struggle for truth in the assassination of President Kennedy
confronts us with the problem of the "waters of knowledge" versus "the
waters of uncertainty." Let me give you an example involving two
important individuals who attempted to bring the truth before the
American people. I am speaking of New Orleans District Attorney Jim
Garrison and filmmaker Oliver Stone.

Both Garrison and Stone knew that the President was the victim of a
conspiracy by high level US military intelligence officials. Each in
his own way tried to bring such knowledge to the attention of the
American people. In the case of Oliver Stone, even before his film JFK
had received its final cut there developed an unprecedented campaign
of slander against Stone, that he was a madman, that he was a drunk.
In the face of this attack Stone was advised to compromise and did so.
He backed off from telling the American people that his film was the
truth, and instead claimed that his film, JFK, was "my myth". In other
words Stone said "I have my myth and you are entitled to yours. I'm
not saying I know what happened here. There is uncertainty." The
instant Stone did that, the campaign of slander ended. He was again
acceptable. He was invited to address Congress and was permitted to
ask the government to release more information so as to help us clear
up the supposed mystery.

Jim Garrison's story is different. In the face of his effort to reveal
the true nature of the assassination there was a campaign to discredit
him. It was claimed that he was a drug addict, that he had ties to the
Mafia, that he was grandstanding and self seeking. But Garrison never
backed down. And because of that, even today a noted biographer cannot
get a major publisher to enter into a contract to do an honest
biography of the man. He is still an outcast, a madman as far as the
society is concerned. Stone agreed to drink the waters of uncertainty
and society recognized him as having miraculously recovered his
sanity. Garrison refused, insisting on continuing to drink the waters
of knowledge, and for this he suffered accordingly.

Not too long ago I received a letter from a lawyer and leading human
rights activist in Bangladesh. Her name is Sultana Kamal, and in
commenting on my book, History Will Not Absolve Us, she wrote the
following: "There are so many ways human beings invent to humiliate
their basic sense of dignity --- the sense of dignity which comes from
the courage to acknowledge the truth. Instead we choose to live in
falsehood to make ourselves instrumental in remaking conditions which
bring us indignity, loss of self esteem and again bind us to the task
of reconditioning the evil cycles of denial of truth and justice to
ourselves."

WHAT THE WATERS OF KNOWLEDGE TELL US

Over and over again we hear people asking for more and more
information from the government. I suggest to you that the problem is
not that we have insufficient data. The problem is that we dare not
analyze the data we have had all along. In fact we need very little
data. Honestly, as far as I'm concerned you can throw almost the whole
26 volumes of the Warren Commission in the trash can. All you need to
do is look at this.

Picture by WC of Magic Bullet path Picture of JFK's Jacket

Here [left] is the Warren Commission drawing of the path of the
"magic" bullet. And here is a photograph of the hole in the
President's jacket.

Now what does this tell us? It tells us without a shadow of a doubt
that the President's throat wound was an entry wound, and that there
was a conspiracy without any question. But it tells us much more. It
tells us that the Warren Commission knew that the conspiracy was
obvious and that the Commission was engaged in a criminal conspiracy
after the fact to obstruct justice. The Chief Justice of the United
States was a criminal accessory to the murder of the President.
Senator Arlen Specter is a criminal accessory to murder. **The Warren
Report was not a mistake; it was and is an obvious act of criminal
fraud.**

Think of this for a moment. The Warren Report is an obvious criminal
act of fraud and no history department in any college or university is
willing to say so. What does such silence mean?

It means that we are dealing with something that has effected every
history department of every college and university in our society,
every major newspaper and magazine, and all means of mass
communication. It has effected virtually every "loyal American." This
phenomenon is what George Orwell in his novel 1984 called "crimestop"
or "protective stupidity".

According to Orwell, "crimestop" is really a form of self mind control
in which we find the effected individual "stopping short, as if by
instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought... not grasping
analogies... failing to perceive logical errors... misunderstanding
the simplest arguments... and being bored or repelled by any train of
thought" if such is inimicable to the powers that be.

As a clinician, I look at "crimestop" as a mass psychological illness,
an involuntay intellectual emotional and spiritual illness, part of
the psychology of war which has pervaded our society.

So let us go on and ask who was Lee Harvey Oswald. I suggest to you
that it is equally obvious that Oswald was a CIA agent from the data
the Warren Commission provided to us. Look at the relevant chapter in
Sylvia Meagher's Accessories After the Fact, which was published in
1967. Indeed, what Meagher did was to confirm what Harold Feldman,
with the help of Vincent Salandria, had already suggested in The
Nation magazine even before the release of the Warren Report. If you
look at History Will Not Absolve Us, you will find that Castro could
see this immediately by knowing how to read our press. And Castro was
not the only one who saw this.

The following is the text of an internal memorandum from the Assistant
Attorney General of the United States to President Johnson's press
secretary Bill Moyers, written just three days after the
assassination:

Memorandum for Mr. Moyers

It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's
assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the
United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a
statement to this effect be made now.

1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he
did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the
evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.

2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we
should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist
conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing
conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately the facts on
Oswald seem about too pat --- too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian
wife, etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements on the
Communist conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when
he was shot and thus silenced.

3. The matter has been handled thus far with neither dignity nor
conviction. Facts have been mixed with rumor and speculation. We can
scarcely let the world see us totally in the image of the Dallas
police when our President is murdered.

I think this objective may be satisfied by making public as soon as
possible a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the
assassination. **This may run into the difficulty of pointing to
inconsistencies between this report and statements by Dallas police
officials.** But the reputatlon of the Bureau is such that it may do
the whole job.

The only other step would be the appointment of a Presidential
Commission of unimpeachable personnel to review and examine the
evidence and announce its conclusions. This has both advantages and
disadvantages. I think it can await publication of the FBI report and
public reaction to it here and abroad.

I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made
public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now.
We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional
hearings of the wrong sort.

Nicholas deB. Katzenbach
Deputy Attorney General

There are two aspects of this memorandum to which I want to draw your
attention. First we see written proof that Attorney General Robert
Kennedy's aide was engaged in a criminal conspiracy to cover up the
crime three days after the fact. But there is another aspect. Look
what Katzenbach says about the frame-up of Oswald. "Unfortunately the
facts on Oswald seem about too pat -- too obvious..." What does this
mean? It means Katzenbach can see that this guy has been set up.

So we have to ask ourselves, "Who can murder the President, frame a
CIA agent, and command this kind of cover?" I am not going to
reiterate what Vince Salandria has presented to you. As we knew at the
time, Kennedy had begun a process of rapprochement with the USSR and
had been making clear moves away from the Cold War. The very simple
and obvious question is, Who had the means and motive to organize a
conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy, frame in advance a CIA
agent for the murder, use immediately all media channels to spill the
frame-up of Oswald to the world, have the White House radioing Air
Force One on the way back from Dallas that Oswald was it before the
Dallas police had anything on him? Who can do all this and command a
complete cover-up by all our society's institutions? Only one
institution had the means and motive to accomplish all this, an
element of the United States government that is so necessary to the
"defense" of the nation that to expose it would be unthinkable -- the
answer is obvious -- high US military intelligence.

But I want to take us a step further, because today the truth is not
just that our military intelligence assassinated our President. Today,
thirty-five years later, such an assertion is a half-truth. The full
truth today must include an acknowledgment that the source of the
assassination conspiracy was knowable and known at the time, and
continues to be. The full truth requires that we acknowledge that
every leading institution of this society has cooperated in covering
up the President's murder.

The rest of the article can be found here:

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/35th_Issue/schotz.html

cdddraftsman

unread,

Feb 5, 2008, 6:20:02 PM2/5/08

On Feb 5, 2:55 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
wrote:

> Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedy
>

> by Robocrap aka Gilstapo

http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=4kx4hap
I really think this friendship between these guys has gone too far !

***********************************************
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=54jamxc
***********************************************
Home Page :
http://www.reclaiminghistory.com/
Latest Updates :
http://www.reclaiminghistory.com/?pagename=posts
Reviews :
http://www.reclaiminghistory.com/?page_id=8
Media :
http://www.reclaiminghistory.com/?page_id=10
Da Bugs Book :
http://www.reclaiminghistory.com/?page_id=11
The Author :
http://www.reclaiminghistory.com/?page_id=7

***********************************************************
Wow ! What's Yo Gonna Do When Da Bugs Flyswatta
Hits Yo ! .........tl Hahahahahahaha !
Bye Bye ! Conspiracy !

Don't worry big fella , you'll find another hobby . Hopefully one
that doesn't involve treason and conspiracy against the country
you live in ..........................tl

**********************************************************************
And Now On To The Phony Files Of Tom Rossley , Gilstapo's
main sqeeze :

curtjester1

unread,

Feb 5, 2008, 7:42:16 PM2/5/08

On Feb 5, 5:55 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
wrote:

I think it's fair to assume that it's just not about killing a
President and changing the course of policy; it's about the Orwellian
control of the individual. If you control the banking, and the
policies, and have control over the media and programming, you
basically have people that spit our robotically their desires. It's
not popular to be a CT in many circles because they are all branded as
eccentric, ill-directed, alarmists. It's part of their ad campaign
just like a company would take the airwaves and instill how good
looking and necessary a product is. Even people in the know, in high
position can feel what rocks the boat, and how a career can yaw very
quickly, so they are hardened not to go against the tide. It's really
what the Conspirators wanted all along, or maybe they wanted it
quicker with JFK out of the way. Whatever, the case, it gives a
satanic ambience that their tenacles are squeezing and squeezing for
all they can get.

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,

Feb 5, 2008, 7:52:59 PM2/5/08

CJ"

When one reads about the empires of the past, one realizes the
military is key in all of those societies. To me the military being
involved in the JFK killing is beyond doubt, as they are the tool of
the mega-elite of the world. We began militarizing in 1898 and have
not looked back since. Look at all the conflicts the U.S. has been in
during its 231 years of existence, probably right up there with the
most militaristic countries/empires of all time.

One has to have the military on its side to complete a coup like this,
and most coups in democratic or non-dictorial countries are done by
the military. Hitler sacrificed his beloved SA to win over the Heere,
as he knew without the Heere (Army) on his side he stood no chance of
keeping power. To me, the CIA, Hoover, Johnson, the mob, etc... all
fall under this umbrella at much lower levels. The international
bankers are partners, but the military are the essential partners in
this killing. Look at all the conflicts we have had since JFK's
death. We have never left Germany or Japan after 63 years, why?
Empire building is why. Add Iraq and Afghanistan to the list now.

curtjester1

unread,

Feb 5, 2008, 8:29:54 PM2/5/08

On Feb 5, 7:52 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
wrote:

Well said, but I think of the CIA as upper military instead of lower.
They control the coup's in other countries, and even lay the
groundwork beforehand, and the propaganda afterwards. The military
isn't allowed to do this, because they can't be by law an aggressor.
It was that way in Cuba, as the CIA and the Cuban-anti-Castroists, and
other groups were wanting to get enough pressure on Cuba for the U.S.
to retalliate with it's military (all against JFK's policy). The CIA
is just a rich man's army, and without any budget restraints or little
policy restraint over them. It's with that mindset, that they didn't
care what JFK said or did to them, because they had others above JFK
power-wise that would be on their side. Some of these CIA people were
just people who came from the German conflict and did the same bidding
as they were doing for or against the Nazi's. And many of those
people were loyal to Dulles, and Cabell who they still viewed as
they're superiors even though they were fired by JFK. The CIA had the
M, M, and O too, with the disgruntled, and the resources to plan the
innerworkings for the patsy, and to cover it up, especially with
Dulles and the controls, and LBJ and Dallas at the other controls.

YoHarvey

unread,

Feb 5, 2008, 8:50:04 PM2/5/08

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Jim Garrison's story is different. In the face of his effort to
reveal
the true nature of the assassination there was a campaign to
discredit
him. It was claimed that he was a drug addict, that he had ties to
the
Mafia, that he was grandstanding and self seeking. But Garrison never
backed down. And because of that, even today a noted biographer
cannot
get a major publisher to enter into a contract to do an honest
biography of the man. He is still an outcast, a madman as far as the
society is concerned. Stone agreed to drink the waters of uncertainty
and society recognized him as having miraculously recovered his
sanity. Garrison refused, insisting on continuing to drink the waters
of knowledge, and for this he suffered accordingly.

Are you saying to this NG you support Garrison and his
efforts??????????? Want an honest look at Garrison?

The real Jim Garrison

On the evening of June 19, 1967, NBC devoted an hour to a critical
examination of Garrison's investigation, entitled "The JFK Conspiracy:
The case of Jim Garrison." The first part of the program dealt with
Russo's allegation that he had seen Oswald, Shaw and Ferrie plotting
the assassiantion at a party in Ferrie's apartment in September 1963.
The NBC reporters demonstrated that at least one other person present
at the party had not seen Shaw or Oswald there, and that Ferrie's
bearded roomate, who Russo claimed was Oswald, had been identified by
other people at the party as James Lewallen. The program then
concentrated on Garrison's investigative methods, and a parade of
witnesses was presented to allege that Garrison representatives had
attempted to bribe or intimidate them. In addition, NBC revealed that
both of Garrison's key witnesses, Russo and Vernon Bundy, had failed
lie-detector tests before testifying at the preliminary hearing...
During the time I studied Garrison's investigation and had access to
his office, the only evidence I saw or heard about that could connect
Clay Shaw with the assassiantion was fraudulent -some devised by
Garrison himself and some cynically culled from criminals or the
emotionally unstable.

On January 21, 1969, after nearly two years of concocting and playing
out his charges in the national media, Jim Garrison finally tried the
accused, Clay Shaw, in a court of law in New Orleans.
The delay is inexplicable given the fact that on February 24, 1967,
Jim Garrison claimed that he had "positively solved the assassination
of President John F. Kennedy" and one week later, arrested Clay Shaw
for conspiring to kill the president.

If Garrison had a case, his actions would be excusable and
understandable, but the fact is, the conspiracy that Garrison laid out
in court took place at a single meeting in late September 1963 in the
apartment of David Ferrie in which three conspirators, Clay Shaw,
David Ferrie, and Lee Harvey Oswald, allegedly plotted the "cross
fire" and triangulation of fire" in Dallas, and the disconnect between
his sensational allegations and the substance behind them was clearly
what Jay Epstein appropriately called "staged ineptitude".

Sensational allegations are designed to dominate publicity, not to
solve a murder mystery, and Jim Garrison's actions speak for
themselves. Clearly, he did nothing more than advance the opportunity
to cover up the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy and
Jim Garrison was too intelligent to suggest that he did not
deliberately intend to bury the truth about the Kennedy assassination
by dominating the circus he produced.

The last known person to speak to Ferrie was George Lardner, Jr., of
the Washington Post, whom Ferrie had met with from midnight to 4:00
a.m. on February 22, 1967. During this interview, Ferrie described
Garrison as "a joke". Several hours later, Ferrie died of a cerebral
hemorrhage. [But he was probably murdered because "the joke" needed a
corpse like Lee Harvey Oswald, to get away with promoting bizarre
allegations that were supposed to provide the opportunity to cover up
rather than to expose the truth.]

Jim Garrison was obviously not the heroic character that Oliver Stone
made him out to be. Indeed, he was merely one of many villains who
deliberately covered up the truth about the Kennedy assassination. If
we are not attuned to the historical record, we can fall prey to the
silly claim that Jim Garrison had struggled to exose the truth about
the assassination of John F. Kennedy. In fact, the exact opposite is
true.

The media got it right and according to the New Orleans States-Item,
once a key supporter of Jim Garrison, "This travesty of justice is a
reproach to the conscience of all good men...Garrison stands revealed
for what he is: a man without principle who would pervert the legal
process to his own ends." Assassination buffs began to accuse Garrison
of staging the Shaw affair as a red herring to divert attention away
from more salient leads in New Orleans, and they were absolutely
correct.

When anybody exposes the real Jim Garrison, imposter assassination
buffs continue to promote the hollywood version of Jim Garrison, but
there is no real evidence to substantiate this delusion. In
particular, Garrison was caught lying during a Playboy interview on
October 1967, wherein he exposed the following:

GARRISON: Until as recently as November of 1966, I had complete faith
in the Warren Report. As a matter of fact, I viewed its most vocal
critics with the same skepticism that much of the press now views me
--- which is why I can't condemn the mass media too harshly for their
cynical approach, except in the handful of cases where newsmen seem to
be in active collusion with Washington to torpedo our investigation.
Of course, my faith in the Report was grounded in ignorance, since I
had never read it; as Mark Lane says, "The only way you can believe
the Report is not to have read it."

But then, in November, I visited New York City with Senator Russell
Long; and when the subject of the assassination came up, he expressed
grave doubts about the Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey
Oswald was the lone assassin...

PLAYBOY: So you began your investigation of the President's
assassination on nothing stronger than you own doubts and the theories
of the Commission's critics?

GARRISON: No, please don't put words in my mouth. The works of the
critics --- particularly Edward Epstein, Harold Weisberg and Mark Lane
--- sparked my general doubts about the assassination; but more
importantly, they led me into specific areas of inquiry.

PLAYBOY: Why did you become interested in Ferrie and his associates in
November 1963?

GARRISON: To explain that, I'll have to tell you something about the
operation of our office. I believe we have one of the best district
attorney's offices in the country. We have no political appointments
and, as a result, there's a tremendous amount of esprit among our
staff and an enthusiasm for looking into unanswered questions. That's
why we got together the day after the assassination and began
examining our files and checking out every political extremist,
religious fanatic and kook who had ever come to our attention. And one
of the names that sprang into prominence was that of David Ferrie.
When we checked him out, as we were doing with innumerable other
suspicious characters, we discovered that on November 22nd he had
traveled to Texas to go "duck hunting" and "ice skating."

Well, naturally, this sparked our interest. We staked out his house
and we questioned his friends, and when he came back --- the first
thing he did on his return, incidentally, was to contact a lawyer and
then hide out for the night at a friend's room in another town --- we
pulled him and his two companions in for questioning. The story of
Ferrie's activities that emerged was rather curious. He drove nine
hours through a furious thunderstorm to Texas, then apparently gave up
his plans to go duck hunting and instead went to an ice-skating rink
in Houston and stood waiting beside a pay telephone for two hours; he
never put the skates on. We felt his movements were suspicious enough
to justify his arrest and that of his friends, and we took them into
custody. When we alerted the FBI, they expressed interest and asked us
to turn the three men over to them for questioning. We did, but Ferrie
was released soon afterward and most of its report on him was
classified top secret and secreted in the National Archives, where it
will remain inaccessible to the public until September 2038 A.D. No
one, including me, can see those pages.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Garrison creatively danced around the truth that is not supposed
to be exposed, but the fact is, Garrison was in on the cover up with
J. Edgar Hoover from day ONE! How could Jim Garrison possibly have
faith in the Warren commission until 1966, when he knew that Hoover
deliberately made the truth inaccessible? As a matter of fact, as
early as November 1963, Dorothy Kilgallen had managed to expose
everything about the assassination of John F. Kennedy that Jim
Garrison relentlessly covered up.

MORE EVIDENCE THAT JIM GARRISON WAS DELIBERATELY COVERING UP, RATHER
THAN EXPOSING THE TRUTH.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS
NAME: Jim Garrison Date: 11/8/78 Time: 11:00 am
Address: Federal Court House Place: New Orleans, La.

Interview:
Gary Cornwell, Bob Buras, and myself (Mike Ewing) interviewed Garrison
for approximately 45 minutes in his office at the Federal Courthouse
in New Orleans.

Garrison began the conversation with a lengthy recounting of his
efforts during 1967-69 to re-investigate the Kennedy assassination and
prosecute Clay Shaw. Garrison spoke in general terms about the power
of the CIA and FBI and their ability to "control and evade" the
investigative resources of any other body, including a District
Attorney's office or a Congressional committee. Garrison stated that
he assumes that the Select Committee has learned of this
unchallengeable power and has met with the same frustration that he
did.

Garrison spoke in somber tones about his investigation, saying that he
had done his best under very difficult circumstances, and had of
course made a few mistakes in the process.

During the course of Garrison's long monologue about the power of the
federal government, particularly the CIA, it was most difficult to ask
him specific questions; Garrison would continue to talk without
responding to a question on most occasions when they were asked.

In response to the question of exactly when and why he first began re-
investigating the Kennedy assassination in 1966, Garrison gave a very
vague answer, stating that he simply became interested in some manner
with David Ferrie and Dean Andrews' 1964 story about a mysterious
"Clem Bertrand." Garrison would not elaborate.

In response to the question of how he came to obtain David Ferrie's
phone records of January to October of 1963, Garrison stated that he
asked for and received them from Marcello's attorney G. Wray Gill. He
indicated that he had long known Gill. He stated that Gill drew a line
through his own calls listed on the bills, and thus Ferrie's calls
were the other ones listed on the bill; as they had not shared an
office. When asked if he had ever asked Gill why he had not turned
over Ferrie's calls from November 1963 (which were not included)
Garrison at first stated "I don't know." When the question was
repeated, with the comment that he must have viewed the absence of the
November 1963 calls disturbing, Garrison stated that he thinks that he
did ask Gill about the missing November billing, and that Gill stated
that they were missing. When asked if he followed it up, perhaps by
asking Gill to make a further search for the records, Garrison said he
couldn't recall.

It's called deliberate amnesia, whose purpose was, to cover this
up.

curtjester1

unread,

Feb 6, 2008, 1:42:07 PM2/6/08

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Jim Garrison was proved to be a total buffoon, he would still be
light years ahead of any LNT mentality.

YoHarvey

unread,

Feb 6, 2008, 5:44:42 PM2/6/08

Your task? Your task is to sell used car parts out of your backyard.
Get busy.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Feb 7, 2008, 5:19:05 AM2/7/08

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e9270fad53ecbfa0

>>> "Now what does this tell us? It tells us without a shadow of a doubt that the President's throat wound was an entry wound, and that there was a conspiracy without any question. But it tells us much more. It tells us that the Warren Commission knew that the conspiracy was obvious and that the Commission was engaged in a criminal conspiracy after the fact to obstruct justice. The Chief Justice of the United States was a criminal accessory to the murder of the President. Senator Arlen Specter is a criminal accessory to murder. **The Warren Report was not a mistake; it was and is an obvious act of criminal fraud.**" <<<

No need to read any further. The above paragraph of conjecture-filled
and evidence-skewing idiocy is enough to firmly establish the fact
that Mr. Schotz is a member of the "Krazy Konspiracy Kook Kommunity".

So, naturally, Mr. Schotz is to be admired and propped up for his
kookiness by the likes of thread-starter Robert Caprio. We wouldn't
expect anything less from shadow-chasing conspiracy theorists.

Let's revisit this lovely hunk of nuttiness authored by Mr. Schotz
just one more time (for the laughs):

"The Chief Justice of the United States was a criminal accessory
to the murder of the President."

Isn't it nice how kooks don't feel the slightest twinge of
embarrassment or self-doubt when they accuse the CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE
UNITED STATES of being a "criminal accessory to the murder of the
President"?

But many of the same conspiracy-happy nuts who believe that such a
vile charge is 100% accurate just can't seem to wrap their minds
around the idea that "Patsy" Oswald could be the slightest bit guilty
of killing EITHER of the men he so obviously murdered in 1963.

Doesn't that type of thinking/mindset seem a tad bit ODD to anyone
else?

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

www.JFK-Audio-Video-Page.blogspot.com

aeffects

unread,

Feb 7, 2008, 11:38:41 AM2/7/08

On Feb 7, 2:19 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e9270fad...

>
> >>> "Now what does this tell us? It tells us without a shadow of a doubt that the President's throat wound was an entry wound, and that there was a conspiracy without any question. But it tells us much more. It tells us that the Warren Commission knew that the conspiracy was obvious and that the Commission was engaged in a criminal conspiracy after the fact to obstruct justice. The Chief Justice of the United States was a criminal accessory to the murder of the President. Senator Arlen Specter is a criminal accessory to murder. **The Warren Report was not a mistake; it was and is an obvious act of criminal fraud.**" <<<
>
> No need to read any further. The above paragraph of conjecture-filled
> and evidence-skewing idiocy is enough to firmly establish the fact
> that Mr. Schotz is a member of the "Krazy Konspiracy Kook Kommunity".

oh really....? here we go AGAIN..... LMAO

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with
authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and
"minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it
isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or
citing sources.

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,

Feb 7, 2008, 11:55:57 AM2/7/08

I totally agree with you, but you can't take over America without the
military. The CIA could not do this by themselves. You cannot build
an empire without the military as the CIA could NOT take Iraq by
themselves. They are partners and the truth is they became one, look
at the military's repsonse to to NSAM 55 when JFK tried to give them
the CIA's counterinsurgency duties, they were mad. I don't think you
can seperate the two any longer. The CIA goes in and prepares the
area for the military and then the politicians send in the military
for the actual takeover. Meanwhile, the other important cohort, the
media, feeds us a bunch of lies about why we should be doing what we
are doing.

The P.O.T.U.S. is just that, he should be worried about this country
and the issues that face it, not building "democracies" elsewhere.

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,

Feb 7, 2008, 12:06:27 PM2/7/08

On Feb 7, 5:19 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e9270fad...
>

> >>> "Now what does this tell us? It tells us without a shadow of a doubt that the President's throat wound was an entry wound, and that there was a conspiracy without any question. But it tells us much more. It tells us that the Warren Commission knew that the conspiracy was obvious and that the Commission was engaged in a criminal conspiracy after the fact to obstruct justice. The Chief Justice of the United States was a criminal accessory to the murder of the President. Senator Arlen Specter is a criminal accessory to murder. **The Warren Report was not a mistake; it was and is an obvious act of criminal fraud.**" <<<

"No need to read any further. The above paragraph of conjecture-filled
and evidence-skewing idiocy is enough to firmly establish the fact
that Mr. Schotz is a member of the "Krazy Konspiracy Kook Kommunity"."

Conjecture????? You obviously haven't read what ALL the doctors and
nurses who treated the president at Parkland said (and this wouldn't
surprise me as it is easier to stay clueless by NOT exposing yourself
to things that may make you think) about this wound, have you? What a
joke. Good one.

"So, naturally, Mr. Schotz is to be admired and propped up for his
kookiness by the likes of thread-starter Robert Caprio. We wouldn't
expect anything less from shadow-chasing conspiracy theorists."

It is Dr. to you. How about rebutting this charge the doctors at
Parkland made? I notice the WC didn't, they just acted like it never
existed.

> Let's revisit this lovely hunk of nuttiness authored by Mr. Schotz
> just one more time (for the laughs):

"The Chief Justice of the United States was a criminal accessory to
the murder of the President."

"Isn't it nice how kooks don't feel the slightest twinge of
embarrassment or self-doubt when they accuse the CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE
UNITED STATES of being a "criminal accessory to the murder of the
President"?"

Covering up a crime is an accessory to the crime, and it is usually
called a "Conspiracy to commit a crime" by the way, thus, the term
Conspiracy. Warren covered the true nature of the crimes, therefore,
he is a criminal. What is so shocking about that?

"But many of the same conspiracy-happy nuts who believe that such a
vile charge is 100% accurate just can't seem to wrap their minds
around the idea that "Patsy" Oswald could be the slightest bit guilty
of killing EITHER of the men he so obviously murdered in 1963."

Vile? What is vile is a citizen of the U.S., who just happens to be
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, conspired to hide the true nature
of the duly elected president's death. His main duty is to the
constitution, not the ruling powers desires, you should learn about
our country's laws and responsibilities since you are living here.

"Doesn't that type of thinking/mindset seem a tad bit ODD to anyone
else?"

ONLY to men who support treason and won't accept their
responsibilities as outlined in the Bill of rights and the
Constitution. It takes far more effort by each and every citizen to
be a member of a democracy than a dictatorship, that is why most
countries have never gone the way of freedom as the people do not want
it. They rather have the government do everything for them, including
think for them, thus you wind up with a country full of LNers.

curtjester1

unread,

Feb 7, 2008, 1:52:42 PM2/7/08

On 7 Feb, 11:55, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>

I think what your trying to say is that one can't do a coup,
especially here in the ol' U.S.of A without at least tacit approval
from the military. I think there were waffling opinions as far as
some generals who were telling JFK to bring em home from Viet Nam as
in Maxwell Taylor, which he was going to do (probably after the start
of 1964). After the assassination, I think Taylor just went the
opposite way about Viet Nam and the eventual buildup. The point
being, that they usually or probably at many times just doing what the
politicans want. Of course the CIA, once it got going was not just
about other countries, as it was instrumental in making policy as
well, and even into Media handling, and into assassination negativity
handling.

0 new messages