Harris and His "Sh*tman" JFK Conspiracy Theory
Chuck Schuyler
Self-described JFK conspiracy researcher (note for Bob: Keep that bit
of information off your next job application...even Walmart has
standards for their greeters) believes a man, possibly Johnny Roselli,
hid in the Elm St. storm drain and fired a small caliber weapon at
JFK.
(Quick side note, overheard at a party:)
Attractive female: "So what do you do, Mr. Harris?"
Harris: "I'm a JFK conspiracy researcher."
Attractive female: "Security, please!"
I digress...
This man in the sewer, dubbed "Sh*tman", apparently got away-just like
the rest of the krazy, kookie, konspirators that supposedly were
firing at JFK from the Knoll, Dal-Tex building, limo (researcher Gil
Jesus 'implies' that John Connally whipped a pistol out of his boot
and joined in on the fun) and so on.
The question for Bob is this:
Why hide a guy in the sewer, Bob? I mean, really...you're too smart to
believe this baloney. Some of the CT'ers here, like Rossley and Healy,
are obviously a few rounds short of a full clip, but you actually have
some smarts.
I know this is a great hobby and all, and it sounds awfully important
to tell your neighbors that those lights burn late at your home
because you are investigating a Presidential Murder, but do you really
think an assassin was hiding in the Elm St. storm drain?
Bob Harris
Poor Chuck. This is what happened when he actually tried to debate this
issue. All he achieved was to confirm that he was a liar and was
desperately trying to make legitimate, common crime scenarios into the
equivalent of a UFO abduction case.
Chuck's motto, "If you can't refute em, ridicule em!"
> I don't "see" any of the things you purport, and I watched all 10
> minutes of the video.
Sure you did, Chuck.
You saw the same thing I saw and the same thing that Larry Sturdevan and
a dozen other conspiracy deniers have already confirmed, back in the
days when some of your predecessors at least had the courage to try to
explain away those reactions.
Sorry, my friend, but your own people blew it for you a long time ago.
You can't get away with the "see no evil" pitch anymore:-)
>
> Bugliosi is right...CT'ers have made this murder into the most complex
> crime of all time.
There is nothing even slightly complex about a handful of guys taking
part in an attack like that. It happens every day or so in Iraq, and
it's happened a zillion times before, all over the world.
>
> ...and a shooter in the Dal-Tex building? Is this in addition to a guy
> on the knoll and your pet theory that some poor schlub squatting in
> the Elm St. sewer took a shot at JFK?
I don't know what a schlub is, Chuck, but Johnny Roselli claimed he shot
JFK from that storm drain. He was one of the heads of Op Mongoose, and
told a senate committee a great deal about the JFK assassination, as
well as Jack Anderson.
Shortly thereafter, he was chopped up and stuffed in an oildrum.
Is that what you mean by a "poor schlub", Chuck?
Robert Harris
(back to the present)
Chuck, why do you think a shot from the storm drain is preposterous?
Please be specific.
In article
<c4d21ed0-1c42-4d9f...@28g2000hsw.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein
>>> "Why do you think a shot from the storm drain is preposterous?" <<<
For one thing, because King Kook Jim Garrison believed in such a
thing.
That would make any sensible person think twice about that theory, due
to the fact that Garrison got NOTHING right about the assassination.
YoHarvey
don't know what a schlub is, Chuck, but Johnny Roselli claimed he
shot
JFK from that storm drain. He was one of the heads of Op Mongoose,
and
told a senate committee a great deal about the JFK assassination, as
well as Jack Anderson.
Mr. Harris? You show an astounding lack of knowledge about Johnny
Roselli. Johnny Roselli, if compared to corporate America was an
executive within the mafia. He was above middle management or blue
collar. Roselli wore $2000 dollar suits and $500 dollar shoes....back
in 1963. Adjusted for inflation, his suits would cost $10,000 today.
Roselli preferred and enjoyed the finer things in life and could
afford them. Were you to do a bit of actual research, you'd find out
Mr. Roselli NEVER did anything he could "order" somebody to do...and
that involves climbing into a storm drain. Give it a rest and do the
work.
David Von Pein
STORM DRAIN ADDENDUM......
Plus there's the fact that there isn't a shred, scrap, sliver, or a
proverbial "iota" of evidence to even SUGGEST that a shot came from
any storm drain on Elm Street (especially a shot from there that is
purported by some CTers to have actually made contact with the body of
one of the limo victims).
But, then again, a CTer never lets the evidence (or total lack
thereof) stand in the way of a good theory.
robcap...@netscape.com
Answer the man's question then Dave, we ALL know you have NO sense,
common or otherwise. You are way off base again, Garrison was really
close and the powers that be knew it, that is why they attacked him so
much.
robcap...@netscape.com
Mr. Whatever your real name is? You show a complete lack of knowledge
about all aspects of this case. Roselli was tight with Mr. William
Harvey, CIA senior field agent and head of "Operaton Mongoose" so it
is not a stretch to think Roselli was there that day. Whether he was
in the storm drain or not, I don't know for sure, but he was brutally
murdered for some really important reason.
YoHarvey
wrote:
Johnny Roselli on 11/22/63 was under constant surveillence by the FBI
in Las Vegas. On the afternoon of the assassination, he received a
phone call from Los Angeles. It was Judith Campbell. She was
devastated by the days events and a good friend of Roselli's. Roselli
boarded a plane and immediately flew to LA to comfort her.
Any story about Roselli being in Dallas on 11/22/63 is just that. A
story. Just more BS from the CT's.
YoHarvey
Garrison was close allright....close to an idiot. And you Chico/
Robcap are right in that league.
YoHarvey
Mr. Whatever your real name is? You show a complete lack of
knowledge
about all aspects of this case. Roselli was tight with Mr. William
Harvey, CIA senior field agent and head of "Operaton Mongoose" so it
is not a stretch to think Roselli was there that day. Whether he was
in the storm drain or not, I don't know for sure, but he was brutally
murdered for some really important reason.
Are YOU truly this ignorant? Good lord. There is NO documented
evidence whatsoever that Roselli was in Dallas AT ALL. Once again,
Jesus/Robcap uses the word "stretch". That is exactly what CT's do.
They STRETCH believeability to enormous extremes. And this idiot
AGAIN, shows his total and complete lack of knowledge about KNOWN
facts. You are one sick puppy Jesus. Boring, inappropriate and
totally ignorant to the
events. Know why he was murdered? BECAUSE HE WAS IN THE MAFIA.
People are murdered all the time in organized crime. Unless YOU can
produce EVIDENCE that Roselli was MURDERED because of involvement in
the JFK case, stfu with your speculation and conjecture and do some
ACTUAL RESEARCH. I have emails and correspondence with Tosh Plumblee,
the CIA pilot who purported to have flown an abort team into Dallas
the evening of 11/21. I have email and correspondence with Gus Russo,
a good friend mine and author of "Live By the Sword". What have you
got besides speculation, conjecture and opinion? You're an idiot
Jesus. You keep proving it.
robcap...@netscape.com
This sounds like a soap-opera plot, how about a citation for this
stuff?
robcap...@netscape.com
"Garrison was close allright....close to an idiot. And you Robcap are
right in that league."
Unfortuately for you, many of the things he brought out have been
confirmed, and in some cases by the CIA themselves. You and Mr.
Epstein are out of luck.
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Whether he was
in the storm drain or not, I don't know for sure, but he was brutally
murdered for some really important reason.
Read the above words. "Brutally murdered for some really important
reason". Does this indicate to anybody this individual has a fucking
clue what he's talking about? Is this NOT typical of Jesus/Robcap?
Type for the sake of typing...as long as it promotes conspiracy.
Truth be damned. He, as he states doesn't have any knowledge of
Roselli being in Dallas BUT, because Roselli was "brutally" (is there
any other kind?) murdered, this is enough for a moron like Jesus/
Robcap to ASSUME it had to be because of the events 11/22/63. This
people is the essence of the conspiracy community. They can't be
thrlled having a misfit like Jesus/Robcap representing them.
Frightening.
David Von Pein
>>> "You are way off base again, Garrison was really close and the powers that be knew it, that is why they attacked him so much." <<<
Yeah....everybody knows that framing and "sheep-dipping" a "patsy"
like Oswald (as Kook Garrison fervently believed occurred in '63) by
utilizing FIVE different gunmen (including Sewer Man) is a walk in the
park and is the ideal way to set up a lone patsy for a Presidential
killing.
EVERYBODY should frame their patsies in such a haphazard manner, by
letting FIVE shooters pop away at the target (and not a one of them
even bothered using the "patsy's" gun, per Garrison, btw) and then try
to lay the whole 9 yards at the feet of one guy whom the plotters let
wander around anyplace on his own during the shooting and whose rifle
wasn't even used during the murder.
And then, on top of the above cakewalk of a patsy scenario, the
goofball plotters (per Super-Kook Jimbo) decided they'd frame Oswald
for yet another 11/22 murder by using TWO killers to plug Tippit at
virtually point-blank range and in front of several witnesses (all of
whom had the same mirage of seeing ONLY PATSY OSWALD at the scene of
the crime).
Praise the Lord, ye plotters! It's a miracle!
(Somebody give me an "Amen!")
Yeah....Garrison was a Super-Genius alright.
Well, at least he got Oliver Stone (and millions of movie-watchers
since 1991) to believe him (well, for the most part anyway; although
even Stone didn't buy into the "sewer/storm drain" shooter, so Oliver
decided to reduce the number of make-believe non-Oswald gunmen to
three).
YoHarvey
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "You are way off base again, Garrison was really close and the powers that be knew it, that is why they attacked him so much." <<<
"Yeah....everybody knows that framing and "sheep-dipping" a "patsy"
like Oswald (as Kook Garrison fervently believed occurred in '63) by
utilizing FIVE different gunmen (including Sewer Man) is a walk in the
park and is the ideal way to set up a lone patsy for a Presidential
killing."
Funny how he leaves out Clay Shaw being a CIA asset, admitted by
Richard Helms on the stand; the ties between a front company called
Permindex and the FBI, CIA, the mob, Hoover, major bankers and the
Mossad; the set-up and continual use of fake LHO's dating back to 1961
when the real LHO was in Russia; the connections between New Orleans
and Dallas in terms of the participants in the killing; the additional
rifle found on the roof, which was filmed, shortly after the shooting;
the presentation of the Zapruder film to the people in the courtroom
(who were the only Americans to see it at that point even though this
is a democratic country) so they could see for themselves what
happened that day; many of the moves made by LHO prior to the
assassination (I think you called it the "sheep-dipping" phase); the
selection of the of the motorcade route being altered 3 days before
the assassination to include illegal turns; and many other things. You
can downplay him all you want, but the work he did against the forces
he had to face was pretty incredible. Sure he got some things wrong,
but researchers still get things wrong with 44 years of history to
look at.
"EVERYBODY should frame their patsies in such a haphazard manner, by
letting FIVE shooters pop away at the target (and not a one of them
even bothered using the "patsy's" gun, per Garrison, btw) and then try
to lay the whole 9 yards at the feet of one guy whom the plotters let
wander around anyplace on his own during the shooting and whose rifle
wasn't even used during the murder."
You never prove anything do you? I guess I can't blame you since the
FBI and the WC never investigated anyone beyond LHO how could they
know how many shooters there were, right? Luckily for us,
professional surveyors have looked at the shots and determined many
more came from the areas of the Dal-Tex bldg and the grassy knoll
areas. Some even feel the records bldg. is a likely spot for a shot
or two.
"And then, on top of the above cakewalk of a patsy scenario, the
goofball plotters (per Super-Kook Jimbo) decided they'd frame Oswald
for yet another 11/22 murder by using TWO killers to plug Tippit at
virtually point-blank range and in front of several witnesses (all of
whom had the same mirage of seeing ONLY PATSY OSWALD at the scene of
the crime)."
It makes as much sense as us being told to believe that the violation
of the SS protocol in Dallas was just a tragic mistake, at exactly the
wrong spot, which accidentally left JFK a sitting duck for a man who
took his rifle to work with him that day, just in case the Secret
Service screwed up and the President's car passed right below the
building he worked in? Sure, that's the ticket.
"Praise the Lord, ye plotters! It's a miracle!"
You took the words right out of my mouth.
(Somebody give me an "Amen!")
"Yeah....Garrison was a Super-Genius alright.
Well, at least he got Oliver Stone (and millions of movie-watchers
since 1991) to believe him (well, for the most part anyway; although
even Stone didn't buy into the "sewer/storm drain" shooter, so Oliver
decided to reduce the number of make-believe non-Oswald gunmen to
three)."
Stone's movie used him as the central character, but it relied on many
of the early researchers' work, not just Garrison's. People believe
it because it rings true, unlike the fantasy stories the government
wants them to believe.
David Von Pein
Worth repeating (monthly, if not weekly)......
Robcap is a complete idiot/moron when it comes to the events in Dallas
on Friday, November 22nd, 1963 AD.
robcap...@netscape.com
This is a compliment from a man who NEVER supports his assertions with
proof or evidence. Never. Nothing but hot air and his wierd ideas
that he can't back up. You are the one who doesn't know what happened
that day as you choose to believe in science fiction and fantasy
bedtime stories.
YoHarvey
Thousands of travelling Americans were CIA assets. Where all of them
involved in killing Kennedy?
One question? Does common sense EVER play a role in anything you
say? Anything whatsoever? Von Pein stresses critical thinking and
common sense. NO CT on earth has EVER exhibited the ability to do the
same.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Feb 15, 9:15 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Worth repeating (monthly, if not weekly)......
>
> > Robcap is a complete idiot/moron when it comes to the events in Dallas
> > on Friday, November 22nd, 1963 AD.
>
"Thousands of travelling Americans were CIA assets. Where all of them
involved in killing Kennedy?"
Of course not, but yet again your ingnorance is showing. How many of
those thousands of CIA assets had a relationship with LHO? Why don't
you read about Mr. Shaw's background before you make more ignorant
comments.
"One question? Does common sense EVER play a role in anything you
say? Anything whatsoever? Von Pein stresses critical thinking and
common sense. NO CT on earth has EVER exhibited the ability to do the
same."
This is two questions actually, but who's counting. IF Von Pein
stresses critical thinking this world is in trouble. He expresses his
unsupported opinion from a source that was shown to be inaccurate 40
years ago. The rest is hot air.
YoHarvey
Motive is NOT evidence. Motive is NOT evidence. You produce as
always speculation and conjecture. Nothing more. This is YOUR
history and why you are laughed at. I know Shaw's background as I do
everything else about the events of 11/22. I assure you, you are a
grade school student of this assassination compared to me. You have
NO idea who you are attempting to discuss this subject with. Because
A knows B and B knows C does NOT mean, unless you're a CT of course
that A knows C. Then again, when one uses continued speculation and
conjecture A always knows C. This is the problem the conspiracy
community has demonstrated over 44 years. No evidence of course.
That would be asking to much of sheer idiots.
Chuck Schuyler
> Johnny Roselli on 11/22/63 was under constant surveillence by the FBI
> in Las Vegas. On the afternoon of the assassination, he received a
> phone call from Los Angeles. It was Judith Campbell. She was
> devastated by the days events and a good friend of Roselli's. Roselli
> boarded a plane and immediately flew to LA to comfort her.
> Any story about Roselli being in Dallas on 11/22/63 is just that. A
> story. Just more BS from the CT's.
Be careful not to throw too much cold water on Harris's Roselli
theory, Yo.
We'll soon be treated to the "two Rosellis" theory.
cdddraftsman
I'm still having nightmares about Gistapo cloning into robocrap . How
many times
can a person split his personality , so to speak . One things for
certain , if anyone
gave a shit , they'd be the first to get it . .................tl
aeffects
> We have Badgeman. Black Dog Man. Umbrella Man.
>
oh really.....?
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your
opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself
look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you
may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/
opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the
weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way
which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike,
while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
you're a fool Chuckie daShoe -- but we love you just the same,
actually we NEED you. No one other than YOU has the stupidity to reach
DVP levels -- he be da-king of latter-day Nutter disinformation...
Carry on toots-e-roll
aeffects
oh really?
ya gotta forget about those 10,000+ posts you been copying and pasting
Dave ole Pal, the assassination has passed you and daBug by, long
ago.... that AD (anno domIni) necessary, Dave. You get the date
confused with 1963 BC? Might want to consider CE (common era)
here ya go just for you Davey (your whole life, son):
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and
instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being
critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also
known as the "How dare you!" gambit.
Gil Jesus
>
> The question for Bob is this:
>
> Why hide a guy in the sewer, Bob? I mean, really...you're too smart to
> believe this baloney.
You can't see the advantage of having your shooter fire at a target
advancing towards him, with an unobstructed view, from safe cover and
then escape undetected ?
You really don't have a clue, do you Chuckles ?
Chuck Schuyler
No, I think it is ridiculous.
Hitting a moving target from below, in a cramped storm drain, with
unknown variables such as motorcycle cops possibly flanking the
sh*tman shooter or the limo speeding up or slowing down, or the
potential for being spotted, etc. is goofy and kooky.
Why would they need a guy in the sewer when the had JBC in on the
plot, as you imply, whipping out a pistol and joining in on the
action?
(Silence from Gil, cue cricket chirps.)
You imply that Governor Connally shot at Kennedy, and you call me
clueless for questioning the sanity of an Apple-Dumpling gang of boobs
that would actually think planting someone in the storm drain to shoot
at a side-to-side moving target as being a good idea.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
YoHarvey
Chuck? Your singular mistake was to believe any of Jesus/Robcaps ilk
is capable of logical thought. He's a psychological and pathological
misfit. Simply read what he types....you'll laugh your ass off.
Robert Harris
<581cb6d4-656e-42d9...@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Why do you think a shot from the storm drain is preposterous?" <<<
>
> For one thing, because King Kook Jim Garrison believed in such a
> thing.
So, you have no legitimate argument against the idea of storm drain
shooter David?
>
> That would make any sensible person think twice about that theory, due
> to the fact that Garrison got NOTHING right about the assassination.
Nonsense, he did more than anyone to discover evidence of conspiracy and
the connection to Ferrie and Banister, and perhaps, Shaw.
He was also wrong about some things, which we know now, with benefit of
hindsight.
But the bottom line here is that you have NO that is, ZERO justification
for dismissing the possibility of a shot from the storm drain - correct
David?
BTW, David. Did you ever wonder why Oswald and Ferrie were in Clinton La.
checking out the CORE?
And why Oswald falsely claimed on his post office box application, that he
was authorized to collect mail for the ACLU?
And why he single handedly, destroyed the FPCC which permanently shut down
within 90 days after he made them appear to be a commie organization?
David, did you know that the FPCC, the CORE and the ACLU were all at the
very TOP of Hoover's hate list?
Funny coincidence, eh David:-)
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "He {King Kook Garrison} did more than anyone to discover evidence of conspiracy and the connection to Ferrie and Banister, and perhaps, Shaw." <<<
Except for the fact that none of those men (Ferrie, Banister, Shaw)
was involved in any way in any "plot" to murder John Kennedy. And
you'll never be able to prove any of them were guilty of such
conspiratorial plotting.
Will you now, Robert?
>>> "He {King Kook Garrison} was also wrong about some things, which we know now, with benefit of hindsight." <<<
Yeah, like thinking that Ferrie, Banister, and Shaw were part of some
devious plot to kill JFK.
>>> "But the bottom line here is that you have NO that is, ZERO justification for dismissing the possibility of a shot from the storm drain - correct David?" <<<
Except for the things I mentioned previously.....
1.) Not a single person in DP ran up to a cop or anyone else and
claimed to hear a shot from any storm drain. Nor did any witness (that
I'm aware of) say anything about the possibility of any "storm drain
sniper" in their WC testimony, or any affidavit.
2.) Nobody but Oswald and Oswald's bullets hit any victims.
3.) Placing a killer in the storm drain within a pre-arranged "Let's
Frame LHO" plot is just...well...idiotic. Period.*
* = And let's face it -- most of the kooks around here believe that Oz
was indeed being "set up" well in advance of Nov. 22. Don't you, Bob?
If so, you can't possibly believe that any Grand Poobah of Frame-Ups
would be stupid enough to put ANY shooters to the FRONT of the
President while attempting to frame ONLY Oswald from behind the limo.
You're left with naked speculation and guesswork, Bob. (As per
always.)
Robert Harris
<c86887a3-25b1-4920...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
YoHarvey <bail...@gmail.com> wrote:
Would you mind posting a citation on that?
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<c4d21ed0-1c42-4d9f...@28g2000hsw.googlegroups.com>,
Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
<snipping drivel and sewage>
>
> This man in the sewer, dubbed "Sh*tman", apparently got away-just like
> the rest of the krazy, kookie, konspirators that supposedly were
> firing at JFK from the Knoll, Dal-Tex building, limo (researcher Gil
> Jesus 'implies' that John Connally whipped a pistol out of his boot
> and joined in on the fun) and so on.
Do you have any idea what a babbling idiot you are Chuck?
>
> The question for Bob is this:
>
> Why hide a guy in the sewer, Bob?
I never hid anyone anywhere.
> I mean, really...you're too smart to
> believe this baloney. Some of the CT'ers here, like Rossley and Healy,
> are obviously a few rounds short of a full clip, but you actually have
> some smarts.
Are you EVER going to say or ask something of substance, Chuck?
Do you go around talking like this to people in real life??
I have no idea how intelligent individuals around here are, but I assure
you, the Conspiracy people sure as hell SOUND a hundred times brighter
than you guys.
You just babble endlessly and say absolutely nothing. Do you think you
are selling any lurkers on your theory??
>
> I know this is a great hobby and all, and it sounds awfully important
> to tell your neighbors that those lights burn late at your home
> because you are investigating a Presidential Murder, but do you really
> think an assassin was hiding in the Elm St. storm drain?
Yes I do, Chuck.
Over the years, the notion that a shot was fired from the storm drain
has been dismissed because it was impossible for a shooter there, to see
JFK at 312. And that was the ONLY logical reason to reject it.
But that is NOT when that shot was fired.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ
The last shot was fired within the same fraction of a second that JFK
first pulled into the view of that shooter, Chuck.
Go to DP like I did and check it out for yourself.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<cb5dba19-a437-4791...@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "He {King Kook Garrison} did more than anyone to discover evidence of
> >>> conspiracy and the connection to Ferrie and Banister, and perhaps, Shaw."
> >>> <<<
>
>
> Except for the fact that none of those men (Ferrie, Banister, Shaw)
> was involved in any way in any "plot" to murder John Kennedy. And
> you'll never be able to prove any of them were guilty of such
> conspiratorial plotting.
>
> Will you now, Robert?
Well, let's put it this way, David.
At least in the case of Ferrie, I can come 50 times closer than you can
in proving the SA theory:-)
We KNOW he called the place where Lawrence Myers was staying, who was
with Braden and Ruby at the Cabana hotel on the eve of the assassination.
And we know he was with Oswald in Clinton, La, where they were checking
out the CORE, which was near the top of Hoover's hate list.
And we KNOW that Oswald passed out leaflets with the address where
Ferrie and Banister worked.
And we know that Oswald and Ferrie were together in the CAP.
And we know that when Ferrie heard that the cops found his library card
on Oswald, that he rushed out to grill Oswald's landlady and the
neighbors.
And we know that Ferrie lied about nearly everything he said about
Oswald.
And we know that both he and his boss, Marcellos hated JFK and stated
that they wanted him dead.
But is that "proof"? Well, maybe not. But then, the FBI let him off the
hook after he showed them what was likely, a replacement library card
and like Roselli and Giancanni, Ferrie didn't last long enough to get to
the really important questions.
>
>
> >>> "He {King Kook Garrison} was also wrong about some things, which we know
> >>> now, with benefit of hindsight." <<<
Sorry David, but altering my statements is a huge violation of usenet
rules and displays a horrible lack of integrity.
You've been doing this stuff too long, David. I wonder if you were like
this before you agreed to be a promoter for whomever recruited you.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "Sorry David, but altering my statements is a huge violation of usenet rules and displays a horrible lack of integrity." <<<
I didn't "alter" a thing. I used brackets to insert my addition/
clarification. Funny, though, that you (Bob) can't realize the
difference. Then too, you miss a lot of things....and add quite a few
which aren't there (or needed) as well.
Addendum:
The only thing I ever "alter" when it comes to a direct quote from
somebody is to sometimes change the horrid punctuation that some
people use.
Bob Harris' specialty, btw, is inserting useless/needless commas into
almost every sentence he pens. Many times I'll remove these needless
hunks of punctuation, and correct other similar errors of that nature,
before placing a quote into a post of mine, which, most of the time,
I'm planning to archive for my files. Therefore, I even want the
punctuation of the kooks to be accurate before I "archive".
(It's an 'anal' type of thing, I know.)
Chuck Schuyler
> In article
>
> Do you have any idea what a babbling idiot you are Chuck?
Babble, babble.
>
> > The question for Bob is this:
>
> > Why hide a guy in the sewer, Bob?
>
> I never hid anyone anywhere.
Does it sound like I'm accusing you of personally hiding Roselli in
the sewer? You may have MENSA level smarts, but your reading
comprehension skills rank right up there with Tom Rossley's. Besides,
I've seen your picture. You're too fat to crawl through any sewer.
>
> > I mean, really...you're too smart to
> > believe this baloney. Some of the CT'ers here, like Rossley and Healy,
> > are obviously a few rounds short of a full clip, but you actually have
> > some smarts.
>
> Are you EVER going to say or ask something of substance, Chuck?
I'm ready when you are.
>
> Do you go around talking like this to people in real life??
Good of you to differentiate the silliness that is acj. from "real
life". Rest assured that I generally reserve the word "kook" for you
and the other CT psychos that post here.
>
> I have no idea how intelligent individuals around here are, but I assure
> you, the Conspiracy people sure as hell SOUND a hundred times brighter
> than you guys.
You're kidding, right? Gil Jesus implies that John Connally whipped a
pistol out of his boot and shot JFK. David Healy thinks that Abe
Zapruder was faked. Robcap thinks every single aspect of the case is
falsified. You're all nuts.
>
> You just babble endlessly and say absolutely nothing. Do you think you
> are selling any lurkers on your theory??
Don't really care, and it is not my theory. I just enjoy hearing all
of your theories and pointing out how ridiculous they are. It's fun
and relaxing, and after a serious day in the office, it's a bit of a
stress reliever to come here and call you names.
>
> > I know this is a great hobby and all, and it sounds awfully important
> > to tell your neighbors that those lights burn late at your home
> > because you are investigating a Presidential Murder, but do you really
> > think an assassin was hiding in the Elm St. storm drain?
>
> Yes I do, Chuck.
Have you sold anyone else on this theory? With all of this dynamite
evidence you've developed, have you approached anyone important in an
attempt to reopen the case? Anyone in the Kennedy family? Or are you
finally ready to admit that this is just a hobby.
>
> Over the years, the notion that a shot was fired from the storm drain
> has been dismissed because it was impossible for a shooter there, to see
> JFK at 312. And that was the ONLY logical reason to reject it.
>
> But that is NOT when that shot was fired.
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ
>
> The last shot was fired within the same fraction of a second that JFK
> first pulled into the view of that shooter, Chuck.
Bullsh*t. Three shots, Bob. Almost certainly an early shot at around
160 that missed, and two shots that hit...around 224 and the headshot
at 312/313.
>
> Go to DP like I did and check it out for yourself.
Been there. The average sane person that goes there would immediately
realize how untenable hiding people in sewers, on knolls, etc. really
is. You're delusional-but apparently happy-pursuing your hobby.
>
> Robert Harris
How's the UFO research goin'?
Robert Harris
<c4b36687-ef0c-49c8...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
YoHarvey <bail...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 7:37 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >>> "Why do you think a shot from the storm drain is preposterous?" <<<
> >
> > For one thing, because King Kook Jim Garrison believed in such a
> > thing.
> >
> > That would make any sensible person think twice about that theory, due
> > to the fact that Garrison got NOTHING right about the assassination.
>
> don't know what a schlub is, Chuck, but Johnny Roselli claimed he
> shot
> JFK from that storm drain. He was one of the heads of Op Mongoose,
> and
> told a senate committee a great deal about the JFK assassination, as
> well as Jack Anderson.
>
> Mr. Harris? You show an astounding lack of knowledge about Johnny
> Roselli. Johnny Roselli, if compared to corporate America was an
> executive within the mafia. He was above middle management or blue
> collar. Roselli wore $2000 dollar suits and $500 dollar shoes....back
> in 1963. Adjusted for inflation, his suits would cost $10,000 today.
> Roselli preferred and enjoyed the finer things in life and could
> afford them. Were you to do a bit of actual research, you'd find out
> Mr. Roselli NEVER did anything he could "order" somebody to do...and
> that involves climbing into a storm drain. Give it a rest and do the
> work.
I'm not so sure about that. To a lifelong egotistical criminal, killing
a deserving President would have been like winning the Super Bowl and
the Masters on the same day. It would make him a legend among fellow
mafioso, which perhaps is why he told them about it.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
> In article
> <581cb6d4-656e-42d9...@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> "Why do you think a shot from the storm drain is preposterous?" <<<
>> For one thing, because King Kook Jim Garrison believed in such a
>> thing.
>
> So, you have no legitimate argument against the idea of storm drain
> shooter David?
>
Because it was physically impossible to hit JFK in the head from there.
The side glass was in the way.
>> That would make any sensible person think twice about that theory, due
>> to the fact that Garrison got NOTHING right about the assassination.
>
> Nonsense, he did more than anyone to discover evidence of conspiracy and
> the connection to Ferrie and Banister, and perhaps, Shaw.
>
He was only going after the little fish as a way to get to the big fish.
Thats is often how you must attack a conspiracy. Work your way up. No
one started by indicting Nixon.
Gil Jesus
> >>>>> "Why do you think a shot from the storm drain is preposterous?" <<<
>
> Because it was physically impossible to hit JFK in the head from there.
> The side glass was in the way.
You can't be serious, right ?
Since when is glass "in the way" of a bullet ?
Robert Harris
<7eb858ed-3d80-46d9...@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 6:26 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> >
> > Do you have any idea what a babbling idiot you are Chuck?
>
> Babble, babble.
> >
> > > The question for Bob is this:
> >
> > > Why hide a guy in the sewer, Bob?
> >
> > I never hid anyone anywhere.
>
> Does it sound like I'm accusing you of personally hiding Roselli in
> the sewer?
LOL!!
Read your own statement Chuck. Why don't you try actually saying what
you mean sometime:-)
> You may have MENSA level smarts, but your reading
> comprehension skills rank right up there with Tom Rossley's. Besides,
> I've seen your picture. You're too fat to crawl through any sewer.
I'm sorry you are so bitter Chuck. But when you have to resort to
personal insults all you really prove is that you can't handle the facts
and evidence.
> >
> > > I mean, really...you're too smart to
> > > believe this baloney. Some of the CT'ers here, like Rossley and Healy,
> > > are obviously a few rounds short of a full clip, but you actually have
> > > some smarts.
> >
> > Are you EVER going to say or ask something of substance, Chuck?
>
> I'm ready when you are.
> >
> > Do you go around talking like this to people in real life??
>
> Good of you to differentiate the silliness that is acj. from "real
> life". Rest assured that I generally reserve the word "kook" for you
> and the other CT psychos that post here.
Chuck, why don't you just go kill everybody who disagrees with you?
I have never seen so much vitriol and anger from anyone, since I had the
stomach wrenching experience of visiting a skinhead website.
This is not a religion Chuck, or at least it shouldn't be. This is a
criminal case, which needs to be analyzed logically and unemotionally.
And we need to base our conclusions purely on evidence and reason. If
you are incapable of doing that, as you obviously are, then you really
need to find a new hobby or perhaps, get some kind of personal help.
The facts are not going to change, Chuck, no matter how much you hate
and insult me, or the vast majority of the civilized world that
disagrees with you.
Robert Harris
Chuck Schuyler
> In article
> > > Do you have any idea what a babbling idiot you are Chuck?
>
> > Babble, babble.
>
> > > > The question for Bob is this:
>
> > > > Why hide a guy in the sewer, Bob?
>
> > > I never hid anyone anywhere.
>
> > Does it sound like I'm accusing you of personally hiding Roselli in
> > the sewer?
>
> LOL!!
>
> Read your own statement Chuck. Why don't you try actually saying what
> you mean sometime:-)
I'll dumb things down a little more for you the next time.
> > You may have MENSA level smarts, but your reading
> > comprehension skills rank right up there with Tom Rossley's. Besides,
> > I've seen your picture. You're too fat to crawl through any sewer.
>
> I'm sorry you are so bitter Chuck. But when you have to resort to
> personal insults all you really prove is that you can't handle the facts
> and evidence.
So I'm a "babbling idiot", but when I say you are too fat to fit
through the sewer it becomes "personal insults", right?
>
>
>
> > > > I mean, really...you're too smart to
> > > > believe this baloney. Some of the CT'ers here, like Rossley and Healy,
> > > > are obviously a few rounds short of a full clip, but you actually have
> > > > some smarts.
>
> > > Are you EVER going to say or ask something of substance, Chuck?
>
> > I'm ready when you are.
>
> > > Do you go around talking like this to people in real life??
>
> > Good of you to differentiate the silliness that is acj. from "real
> > life". Rest assured that I generally reserve the word "kook" for you
> > and the other CT psychos that post here.
>
> Chuck, why don't you just go kill everybody who disagrees with you?
Because I believe in your right to say what you wish. It is a
cherished freedom paid for by the blood of many. I also believe that
people like you make the case for Oswald as the lone shooter more
effectively than the Warren Commission ever did. You hang yourself
every day with the silliness that passes for CT 'research'.
>
> I have never seen so much vitriol and anger from anyone, since I had the
> stomach wrenching experience of visiting a skinhead website.
Visit Rossley's website.
>
> This is not a religion Chuck, or at least it shouldn't be. This is a
> criminal case, which needs to be analyzed logically and unemotionally.
> And we need to base our conclusions purely on evidence and reason. If
> you are incapable of doing that, as you obviously are, then you really
> need to find a new hobby or perhaps, get some kind of personal help.
It WAS a criminal case. The perp was killed by Ruby. It's rapidly
becoming ancient history. Your side treats it like a religion. You
have your religious artifacts like CE399, and your Mecca, Dealey
Plaza. JFK was this Messiah-like God instead of a flawed politician.
Let's get "logical" for just a second...
If the President's assassin or co-conspirators were at large, the case
would still be open.
If you or Tony Marsh or Gil Jesus had evidence that pointed to someone
else, the case would be reopened.
Fair enough?
>
> The facts are not going to change, Chuck, no matter how much you hate
> and insult me, or the vast majority of the civilized world that
> disagrees with you.
>
> Robert Harris
Let me get my violin out for poor, misunderstood Bob Harris, who has
been "fighting the good fight" to bring JFK's killers to justice.
Poor Bob. Aggrieved genius. Crime-fighting Camelot Crusader. Righter
of Wrongs.
Bob, you are a smart guy that believes dumb things.
Robert Harris
<be89fee9-ebb4-4904...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 11:05 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
>
> > > > Do you have any idea what a babbling idiot you are Chuck?
> >
> > > Babble, babble.
> >
> > > > > The question for Bob is this:
> >
> > > > > Why hide a guy in the sewer, Bob?
> >
> > > > I never hid anyone anywhere.
> >
> > > Does it sound like I'm accusing you of personally hiding Roselli in
> > > the sewer?
> >
> > LOL!!
> >
> > Read your own statement Chuck. Why don't you try actually saying what
> > you mean sometime:-)
>
> I'll dumb things down a little more for you the next time.
Chuck, we both know that the reason you phrased it that way, was that
you wanted to ridicule me.
You want to manipulate *WORDS* and insults Chuck. That's all you do
around. You want to promote hate and express your bitterness.
>
> > > You may have MENSA level smarts, but your reading
> > > comprehension skills rank right up there with Tom Rossley's. Besides,
> > > I've seen your picture. You're too fat to crawl through any sewer.
> >
> > I'm sorry you are so bitter Chuck. But when you have to resort to
> > personal insults all you really prove is that you can't handle the facts
> > and evidence.
>
> So I'm a "babbling idiot", but when I say you are too fat to fit
> through the sewer it becomes "personal insults", right?
I'm sorry, Chuck but if you post something with a little substance you
will get my full respect. But when you go on with lunacy about Walmart
or whatever, I will label you as babbling.
Christ, your stuff isn't even funny.
Check out some of Jim Rathman's posts satirizing "conspiracy buffs" back
in the 90's. He was hilarious and extremely witty. I couldn't help but
laugh, even though I was one of his targets.
Jim was a professor at Ohio State and one of the first people I debated
on the Z285 issue. LIke any nutter, he could be slippery at times but he
tried to argue that the reactions were caused by something other than a
gunshot.
He just kept running into the minor problem that he could never come up
with any alternative explanations. Shortly afterward, Jim disappeared
from the newsgroup.
It wasn't long after that, that mcadams and co decided to pretend that
they saw no reactions at all:-)
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > I mean, really...you're too smart to
> > > > > believe this baloney. Some of the CT'ers here, like Rossley and Healy,
> > > > > are obviously a few rounds short of a full clip, but you actually have
> > > > > some smarts.
> >
> > > > Are you EVER going to say or ask something of substance, Chuck?
> >
> > > I'm ready when you are.
> >
> > > > Do you go around talking like this to people in real life??
> >
> > > Good of you to differentiate the silliness that is acj. from "real
> > > life". Rest assured that I generally reserve the word "kook" for you
> > > and the other CT psychos that post here.
> >
> > Chuck, why don't you just go kill everybody who disagrees with you?
>
> Because I believe in your right to say what you wish. It is a
> cherished freedom paid for by the blood of many. I also believe that
> people like you make the case for Oswald as the lone shooter more
> effectively than the Warren Commission ever did. You hang yourself
> every day with the silliness that passes for CT 'research'.
Prove it Chuck.
Anybody can blurt out anything.
But the difference between the honest folks and the babblers is that the
latter can never support their claims with evidence.
Does the shoe fit?
Robert Harris
Chuck Schuyler
> In article
> Chuck, we both know that the reason you phrased it that way, was that
> you wanted to ridicule me.
Guilty!
>
> You want to manipulate *WORDS* and insults Chuck. That's all you do
> around. You want to promote hate and express your bitterness.
Not true. I regard this as silly and fun-and sometimes serious-but
mostly a diversion. As I've said, its great entertainement to hear all
of your (meaning you, Healy, Jesus, Marsh, etc.) theories about
mystery shooters and forged photos and so on. You all have different
theories about who was behind it, who did it, who covered it up, etc.
>
> > > > You may have MENSA level smarts, but your reading
> > > > comprehension skills rank right up there with Tom Rossley's. Besides,
> > > > I've seen your picture. You're too fat to crawl through any sewer.
>
> > > I'm sorry you are so bitter Chuck. But when you have to resort to
> > > personal insults all you really prove is that you can't handle the facts
> > > and evidence.
>
> > So I'm a "babbling idiot", but when I say you are too fat to fit
> > through the sewer it becomes "personal insults", right?
>
> I'm sorry, Chuck but if you post something with a little substance you
> will get my full respect. But when you go on with lunacy about Walmart
> or whatever, I will label you as babbling.
You don't owe me an apology, and I'm not trying to earn your respect.
>
> Christ, your stuff isn't even funny.
I amuse myself. If someone else gets a laugh or two out of it, fine.
Your stuff is hilarious, though.
>
> Check out some of Jim Rathman's posts satirizing "conspiracy buffs" back
> in the 90's. He was hilarious and extremely witty. I couldn't help but
> laugh, even though I was one of his targets.
I'll see if I can find some of his retorts.
>
> Jim was a professor at Ohio State and one of the first people I debated
> on the Z285 issue. LIke any nutter, he could be slippery at times but he
> tried to argue that the reactions were caused by something other than a
> gunshot.
Smart man.
>
> He just kept running into the minor problem that he could never come up
> with any alternative explanations.
You mean any explanations that satisfied you, a kook.
>Shortly afterward, Jim disappeared from the newsgroup.
Good for him!
>
> It wasn't long after that, that mcadams and co decided to pretend that
> they saw no reactions at all:-)
I don't see the reactions, and yes, I've watched your clips. People
tire over your inability to come to grips with the fact that your
'evidence' is highly subjective and divorced from any tangible,
physical evidence.
Robert Harris
<27eaab12-cbcd-4a27...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 4:12 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
>
> > Chuck, we both know that the reason you phrased it that way, was that
> > you wanted to ridicule me.
>
> Guilty!
> >
> > You want to manipulate *WORDS* and insults Chuck. That's all you do
> > around. You want to promote hate and express your bitterness.
>
> Not true.
Yes it is, Chuck.
I see nothing but bitterness and ad hominem attacks from you.
At least some of the others *try* to discuss evidence once in a great
while, but you avert it all costs. You only promote hate and anger,
Chuck.
> I regard this as silly and fun-and sometimes serious-but
> mostly a diversion.
Interesting, and will you see it the same way if someday one of your
close family members are murdered - even one that does not affect the
lives of several billion people?
Would your attitude then, be "silly and fun"??
> As I've said, its great entertainement to hear all
> of your (meaning you, Healy, Jesus, Marsh, etc.) theories about
> mystery shooters and forged photos and so on. You all have different
> theories about who was behind it, who did it, who covered it up, etc.
Yes and you have your "theory" as well, which in spite of being rejected
by most analysts, should be given fair consideration.
It should that is, if you or your friends can ever post evidence that
supports it. When do you intend to do that?
> >
> > > > > You may have MENSA level smarts, but your reading
> > > > > comprehension skills rank right up there with Tom Rossley's. Besides,
> > > > > I've seen your picture. You're too fat to crawl through any sewer.
> >
> > > > I'm sorry you are so bitter Chuck. But when you have to resort to
> > > > personal insults all you really prove is that you can't handle the facts
> > > > and evidence.
> >
> > > So I'm a "babbling idiot", but when I say you are too fat to fit
> > > through the sewer it becomes "personal insults", right?
> >
> > I'm sorry, Chuck but if you post something with a little substance you
> > will get my full respect. But when you go on with lunacy about Walmart
> > or whatever, I will label you as babbling.
>
> You don't owe me an apology, and I'm not trying to earn your respect.
> >
> > Christ, your stuff isn't even funny.
>
> I amuse myself. If someone else gets a laugh or two out of it, fine.
>
> Your stuff is hilarious, though.
If it's that bad, then you should have no problem debunking it, right
Chuck?
Why can't you do that?
> >
> > Check out some of Jim Rathman's posts satirizing "conspiracy buffs" back
> > in the 90's. He was hilarious and extremely witty. I couldn't help but
> > laugh, even though I was one of his targets.
>
> I'll see if I can find some of his retorts.
> >
> > Jim was a professor at Ohio State and one of the first people I debated
> > on the Z285 issue. LIke any nutter, he could be slippery at times but he
> > tried to argue that the reactions were caused by something other than a
> > gunshot.
>
> Smart man.
> >
> > He just kept running into the minor problem that he could never come up
> > with any alternative explanations.
>
> You mean any explanations that satisfied you, a kook.
No, that's not what I said, Chuck.
I said he could "never come up with any alternative explanations", and
that's exactly what I meant.
You see, most people who hold Phd's have their limits. They do not
conjure up things that insult people's intelligence, or their own.
Ray Hixon, who was an engineer at NASA likewise, acknowledged the
reactions and for a short time, took the position that there must be
another explanation, although like Rathman, he could never offer one.
Cary Zeitlin held a Phd in Physics and we went round and round on this.
He NEVER addressed the reactions of the limo passengers, though to his
credit, he never tried to deny their existence. Instead, he claimed that
there was no shot at 285 because the shock wave of the passing bullet
should have physically moved Zapruder's camera and caused an immediate
blurred frame.
Of course, from that distance the force was not nearly strong enough to
do such a thing, and within a short time, he dropped that argument and
replaced it with the lame, "you can't trust the witnesses", followed
shortly thereafter by his demise from the newsgroup.
So you see Chuck, when I say this argument cannot be refuted, I base
that not just on the evidence, but on the total inability of some pretty
sharp people, who tried very hard, and failed.
>
> >Shortly afterward, Jim disappeared from the newsgroup.
>
> Good for him!
> >
> > It wasn't long after that, that mcadams and co decided to pretend that
> > they saw no reactions at all:-)
>
> I don't see the reactions
I think it speaks to the credit of the people I just mentioned that they
could not sink to a level where they would tell such an outrageous and
preposterous lie.
The current "team" was obviously, not chosen for their intellect but for
their total lack of integrity.
Robert Harris
Bud
Robert Harris wrote:
> In article
> <27eaab12-cbcd-4a27...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 18, 4:12�pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> >
> > > Chuck, we both know that the reason you phrased it that way, was that
> > > you wanted to ridicule me.
> >
> > Guilty!
> > >
> > > You want to manipulate *WORDS* and insults Chuck. That's all you do
> > > around. You want to promote hate and express your bitterness.
> >
> > Not true.
>
>
> Yes it is, Chuck.
>
> I see nothing but bitterness and ad hominem attacks from you.
This is the guy who called me "stupid" and "dim" today.
> At least some of the others *try* to discuss evidence once in a great
> while, but you avert it all costs. You only promote hate and anger,
> Chuck.
>
>
>
> > I regard this as silly and fun-and sometimes serious-but
> > mostly a diversion.
>
> Interesting, and will you see it the same way if someday one of your
> close family members are murdered - even one that does not affect the
> lives of several billion people?
Where are the "close family members" of Kennedy?. Are they rattling
the chains of conspiracy?
> Would your attitude then, be "silly and fun"??
He`d likely be sad. And then irritated if a bunch of idiots tried to
make the death into something it wasn`t.
> > As I've said, its great entertainement to hear all
> > of your (meaning you, Healy, Jesus, Marsh, etc.) theories about
> > mystery shooters and forged photos and so on. You all have different
> > theories about who was behind it, who did it, who covered it up, etc.
>
> Yes and you have your "theory" as well, which in spite of being rejected
> by most analysts, should be given fair consideration.
Rather big of Bob to allow the obvious truth to be a consideration.
> It should that is, if you or your friends can ever post evidence that
> supports it. When do you intend to do that?
How about another large in-depth investigation? It would, of
course, find Oz culpable, as this is the only conclusion that honest
fact-finding can come to.
> > > > > > You may have MENSA level smarts, but your reading
> > > > > > comprehension skills rank right up there with Tom Rossley's. Besides,
> > > > > > I've seen your picture. You're too fat to crawl through any sewer.
> > >
> > > > > I'm sorry you are so bitter Chuck. But when you have to resort to
> > > > > personal insults all you really prove is that you can't handle the facts
> > > > > and evidence.
> > >
> > > > So I'm a "babbling idiot", but when I say you are too fat to fit
> > > > through the sewer it becomes "personal insults", right?
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, Chuck but if you post something with a little substance you
> > > will get my full respect. But when you go on with lunacy about Walmart
> > > or whatever, I will label you as babbling.
> >
> > You don't owe me an apology, and I'm not trying to earn your respect.
> > >
> > > Christ, your stuff isn't even funny.
> >
> > I amuse myself. If someone else gets a laugh or two out of it, fine.
> >
> > Your stuff is hilarious, though.
>
> If it's that bad, then you should have no problem debunking it, right
> Chuck?
>
> Why can't you do that?
I`d be happy to piss on your sandcastle, Bob. All you need to do is
post the particulars.
Would these people characterize the discussion as you have?
> > >Shortly afterward, Jim disappeared from the newsgroup.
> >
> > Good for him!
> > >
> > > It wasn't long after that, that mcadams and co decided to pretend that
> > > they saw no reactions at all:-)
> >
> > I don't see the reactions
>
> I think it speaks to the credit of the people I just mentioned that they
> could not sink to a level where they would tell such an outrageous and
> preposterous lie.
>
> The current "team" was obviously, not chosen for their intellect but for
> their total lack of integrity.
Your thinking we are "chosen", and don`t come here of our own
volition, speaks to your mental illness.
Also, I made the prediction a month ago when Bob started making
challenges that the inevitable result would be charges of dishonesty
thrown at any LN who couldn`t see what the kook claims can be "clearly
seen". I know my kooks, I didn`t have take one step down that path
before I knew where it was heading. The early CTers probably said the
same thing to anyone who couldn`t see the uniformed man with a badge
on the knoll they could clearly see.