The LN Gameplan Exposed!
robcap...@netscape.com
version of history are "kooks", and because we look for alternative
explanations in many cases of history we are "nuts".
This is done to attack the person rather than the context of what they
are saying. The LN gameplan is to make the person irrelevant and by
association their point of view. It is an old tactic that has been
used since the beginning of time.
Floyd Rudmin is a member of the Psychology Department, University of
Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway. He states, "By labeling an explanation of
events 'conspiracy theory,' evidence and argument are dismissed
because they come from a mentally or morally deficient personality,
not because they have been shown to be incorrect. Calling an
explanation of events "conspiracy theory" means, in effect, 'We don't
like you, and no one should listen to your explanation.'" We CTers
can all attest to this on this board, huh?
Rudmin goes on to say, "In earlier eras other pejorative labels, such
as "heresy," "witchery," and "communism" also worked like this. All
such labels implicitly define a community of orthodox believers and
try to banish or shun people who challenge orthodox beliefs. Members
of the community who are sympathetic to new thoughts might shy away
from the new thoughts and join in the shunning due to fear of being
tainted by the pejorative label." Sound familar doesn't it?
Canadian journalist Robert Sibley has said that conspiracy theory is
"a nihilistic vortex of delusion and superstition that negates reality
itself." Rudmin disagrees, " think that just the reverse is true.
There is nothing insane or sinister about conspiracy theory research.
It is rather matter of fact. A wide range of ordinary people from many
walks of life take an interest in the political and economic events of
our era. They think things through on their own, use the library, seek
for evidence, articulate a theory, communicate with other people with
similar interests. It is heartening that some citizens invest time and
effort to unearth and expose some of the conspiracies that damage our
society, our economy and our government."
Who is afraid the most of free thinking people (beyond the Pavlov dogs
on this board)? Rudmin tells us, "But it certainly does seem that
some historians and journalists are quite frightened of conspiracy
theory and its wide popularity. Those are the two professions whose
job it is to interpret our world for us. When ordinary people take on
the task of doing this themselves, it must mean that they don't
believe what the authorities say we should. Maybe the professionals
feel threatened when amateurs think about political events for
themselves." You think?
Rudmin explains, further, "People take on the task of explaining
things for themselves when the orthodox experts insist on saying
nonsense--for example, that Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone killed JFK.
A Reformation is a rebellion against arrogance. If historians and
journalists want to understand why they are being displaced by
conspiracy theory, it would be most reasonable to examine their own
failings first.
The correct big-word label for conspiracy theory would be "naive
deconstructive history." It is "history" because it explains events,
but only after they have happened. Past-tense. Conspiracy theory, as a
political act, is an after-the-fact complaint. To see conspiracies
while they are happening would require the resources and powers of
police forces and espionage agencies.
Conspiracy theory is "deconstructive history" because it is in
rebellion against official explanations and against orthodox
journalism and orthodox history. Conspiracy theory is radically
empirical: tangible facts are the focus, especially facts that the
standard stories try to overlook. There is a ruthless reduction down
to what is without doubt real, namely, persons. Conspiracy theory
presumes that human events are caused by people acting as people do,
including cooperating, planning, cheating, deceiving, and pursuing
power. Thus, conspiracy theories do not focus on impersonal forces
like geo-politics, market economics, globalization, social evolution
and other such abstract explanations of human events.
To call conspiracy theory "naive" does not mean that it is uncritical
or stupidly innocent. In fact, that is what conspiracy theorists might
say about orthodox explanations of events promoted by government
sources, by mainstream journalism, or by schoolbook history. For
example, it is naive to believe that the September 11, 1973, coup
d'etat against Allende was not orchestrated by the United States.
Rather, to here call deconstructive history "naive" means that
conspiracy theorists are unaware that they are doing deconstructive
history, and they are amateurs, untrained in deconstructive history.
Conspiracy theories arise when dramatic events happen, and the
orthodox explanations try to diminish the events and gloss them over.
In other words, conspiracy theories begin when someone notices that
the explanations do not fit the facts."
For the full article go here:
http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/conspiracy.htm
David Von Pein
No it isn't. Can't you get anything right?
You're only called a kook because you say stupid shit like:
"LHO shot no one" and "No one saw LHO do anything."
Those two quotes right there earn you your "kook" label.
It's the stupid and dead-wrong things you believe and say that earn
you the "kook" label, for Pete sake....it's not YOU personally. To any
reasonable person, this is quite obvious, of course.
>>> "The LN gameplan is to make the person irrelevant and by association their point of view." <<<
That statement is stupid (and backwards), of course. It's the "point-
of-view" of JFK conspiracy theorists that is first and foremost
"irrelevant". (What a stupid article you chose to prop up here.
Hilarious.)
>>> "Conspiracy theories begin when someone notices that the explanations do not fit the facts." <<<
LOL.
The JFK CTers pretty much invent their own set of "facts" surrounding
the entire Kennedy murder case (and Tippit's murder too). It's been
that way for years.
E.G.: when the CTers continue to believe stupid crap forever and ever,
even after these things have been fully explained in non-shady
ways....like the "Mauser" controversy; and the "Automatic vs.
Revolver" debate; and Dr. Perry's initial thoughts about JFK's throat
wound being a wound of entry; etc., etc. to infinity.
And if anyone thinks they can get a reasonable "explanation" out of a
JFK Conspiracy Kook who belongs in the "Anybody But Oswald" camp when
assessing the kook's version of the "facts" in the case, they're
dreaming! Because a CT-Kook's "facts" are far from being actual facts.
(Again, this is quite obvious as well.)
Vince B. put it quite accurately (and succinctly) when he said:
"Waiting for the conspiracy theorists to tell the truth is a
little like leaving the front-porch light on for Jimmy Hoffa." --
Vince Bugliosi
Bud
robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> The LN world tries to say all of us who do not accept the official
> version of history are "kooks", and because we look for alternative
> explanations in many cases of history we are "nuts".
>
> This is done to attack the person rather than the context of what they
> are saying. The LN gameplan is to make the person irrelevant and by
> association their point of view. It is an old tactic that has been
> used since the beginning of time.
>
> Floyd Rudmin is a member of the Psychology Department, University of
> Troms�, Troms�, Norway. He states, "By labeling an explanation of
This Rudmin sounds like a kook.
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oswald saw himself as a Hunter of Fascists. So are you saying that
President Kennedy was a fascist?
Man, old Jesus/Robcap just does't get it. Not a real deep thinker,
but we know this.
When you spew Connally shot JFK. When you spew the entire DPD was "in
on it". When you spew the totallity of the crap you spew, this isn't
research. It's sheer stupidity based on ignorance. And you, more
than most do it EVERY single waking moment. I've had occassion to
discuss ths case over the past 40 + years with CT's I've respected.
You sure are not one. Nor is any CT on this newsgroup. Bunch of
raving lunatics...and I've made no secret of it.
And then, you come right back with the above posting in an attempt to
justify you're inane stupidity one more time. And you wonder why
you're laughed at and scorned. Man, help society. Get an education.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "The LN world tries to say all of us who do not accept the official version of history are "kooks". .... This is done to attack the person rather than the context of what they are saying." <<<
>
> No it isn't. Can't you get anything right?
>
> You're only called a kook because you say stupid shit like:
>
> "LHO shot no one" and "No one saw LHO do anything."
These are true statments and you have no proof that would stand up to
a good investigation, period. You have nothing. Look at each piece
of "evidence" you have and there are more reasons why it isn't right,
instead of being right. This is why the CT community continues to
grow year by year.
>
> Those two quotes right there earn you your "kook" label.
Speaking the truth causes some to mock, i.e. those paid to defend the
government's lies, but I don't care what you think as you are in the
very small minority.
>
> It's the stupid and dead-wrong things you believe and say that earn
> you the "kook" label, for Pete sake....it's not YOU personally. To any
> reasonable person, this is quite obvious, of course.
It is me, you miss the point. What I say is who I am. I don't make
up stuff like to earn a paycheck. I write what I feel.
>
> >>> "The LN gameplan is to make the person irrelevant and by association their point of view." <<<
>
> That statement is stupid (and backwards), of course. It's the "point-
> of-view" of JFK conspiracy theorists that is first and foremost
> "irrelevant". (What a stupid article you chose to prop up here.
> Hilarious.)
It is not backwards, the first thing they did to Garrison was
discredit him and who he was. IF the person is discredited, then
anything they say is discredited by extension. You really should
learn this stuff as you are being paid well with our tax money to do
your job. Who is your boss again? I want to report that Davy is
going soft.
>
> >>> "Conspiracy theories begin when someone notices that the explanations do not fit the facts." <<<
>
> LOL.
Yuck, yuck, yuck.
>
> The JFK CTers pretty much invent their own set of "facts" surrounding
> the entire Kennedy murder case (and Tippit's murder too). It's been
> that way for years.
The only group inventing "facts" was that bunch of old geezers you
worship.
>
> E.G.: when the CTers continue to believe stupid crap forever and ever,
> even after these things have been fully explained in non-shady
> ways....like the "Mauser" controversy; and the "Automatic vs.
> Revolver" debate; and Dr. Perry's initial thoughts about JFK's throat
> wound being a wound of entry; etc., etc. to infinity.
None of this has been shown to be in error by anyone or anygroup with
any credibility in terms of being an unbiased party. It is clear to
anyone with reason the people the government parade in and out of
their hearings were there for one reason only, support the official
theory. Who can take in total what they say as gospel?
>
> And if anyone thinks they can get a reasonable "explanation" out of a
> JFK Conspiracy Kook who belongs in the "Anybody But Oswald" camp when
> assessing the kook's version of the "facts" in the case, they're
> dreaming! Because a CT-Kook's "facts" are far from being actual facts.
> (Again, this is quite obvious as well.)
We give them all the time, but your job won't allow you to accept what
is being said.
>
> Vince B. put it quite accurately (and succinctly) when he said:
>
> "Waiting for the conspiracy theorists to tell the truth is a
> little like leaving the front-porch light on for Jimmy Hoffa." --
> Vince Bugliosi
Reason number 1, 112 why he is a total ignaramous. He's a moron too!
robcap...@netscape.com
I think the "hunter of fascist" title was given to him by the
government. All commies hate fascist, right?
>
> Man, old Jesus/Robcap just does't get it. Not a real deep thinker,
> but we know this.
Talking with people like you we don't get alot of practice in the
"deep thinking" area, no what I mean?
>
> When you spew Connally shot JFK. When you spew the entire DPD was "in
> on it". When you spew the totallity of the crap you spew, this isn't
> research. It's sheer stupidity based on ignorance. And you, more
> than most do it EVERY single waking moment. I've had occassion to
> discuss ths case over the past 40 + years with CT's I've respected.
> You sure are not one. Nor is any CT on this newsgroup. Bunch of
> raving lunatics...and I've made no secret of it.
Loser, this is Rob, not Gil. No wonder you think LHO did it.
>
> And then, you come right back with the above posting in an attempt to
> justify you're inane stupidity one more time. And you wonder why
> you're laughed at and scorned. Man, help society. Get an education.
Boy, you need a tutor bad, and I'm not talking about a someone to help
you tie your shoes either. You are driving in the "slow" lane for
sure.
YoHarvey
wrote:
You have ths a bit backwards. CT's use the reverse scientific
method. They determine what happend, throw out all the data that
doesn't fit their conclusion and then hail their findings as the only
possible solution.
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Boy, you need a tutor bad, and I'm not talking about a someone to
help
you tie your shoes either. You are driving in the "slow" lane for
sure.
And once again our resident pathological liar Chico Jesus/Robcap/
CuriousGeorge DOES NOT ADDRESS THE COMMENTS. He never does. We're
used to this folks. Know what Jesus/Robcap, Healy, Rossley and Homes
share in common??? EVERYTHING!
robcap...@netscape.com
I don't have anything backwards as that paragraph and the few in front
of it are in quotation marks, thus I did not write them. The good,
very smart doctor wrote that comment. Some do, but you can't claim
every CT person does this, there is no way you could "doctor" the
evidence for a claim that big!
robcap...@netscape.com
Once again, you show how sad you are. Where did I not answer your
pathetic comments? Like that babble I put the above comment to was
"answering" any questions? Please.
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Although we know robcrap/curiousgeorge is old and homely, my
impression of him from his posts is that of a white Steve
Urkel...pants pulled up to his nipples, too short...drew carey
glasses, and a whiny piercing voice when he throws his hissy fits
because no one will agree with him. What a visual LOL
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Once again, you show how sad you are. Where did I not answer your
pathetic comments? Like that babble I put the above comment to was
"answering" any questions? Please.
I have asked YOU repeatedly. If JFK was shot from the front, where
did the bullet go? You avoid this question and hide. This is the
essence of a frontal shot....if as you say one existed. Answer the
question. I'll be more specific. If the throat wound was one of
entry, where is the bullet?
robcap...@netscape.com
You would be totally wrong. I'm young and good looking, exercise alot
so I'm in great shape. I picture you as "Cousin It" in the Addams
Family. I realize the above vision is your dream guy, but I'm way
better.
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
We've seen your "pic" on your videos Jesus. We know who you are no
matter how many times you dismiss it. The mere fact you have devoted
so much time to denying your pseudonyms only refinforces your lies.
learn from this. I do however understand that because GOD himself
made you this ugly why you would "hide" behind a computer telling us
all how good looking you are. Trust me on this. GOD did not give you
brains or looks. Live with it. Your family does. And btw, picture
me as you choose. I don't care. I'm educated and successful. We
know what you are, do we not? BTW, YOU AGAIN AVOID THE QUESTION I
ASKED, DON'T YOU?
robcap...@netscape.com
Yo-yo, I am surprised you don't know this. Due to the damage of the
skull inflicted the bullet was a high-velocity fragmentation (that
means it fall apart) bullet, and we know this from the death
certificate. The was no "bullet" to recover from his head. See, real
bullets don't act like CE399, where they come out virtually intact
after causing 7 wounds and breaking 2 bones. The Carcano was at best
a medium-velocity gun and the bullets they claim LHO used were full
metal jacketed so they **would not** fragmentate like the bullet that
hit JFK's head. As for your second question (and notice I'm answering
unlike you LNers who start attacking instead) the throat wound was
from a very small caliber according to the Parkland doctors.
Therefore, two possibilities are on the table in IMO. Firstly, the
mysterious Umbrella man could have fired a paralyzing dart capsule
from the umbrella he was holding (check it out, the CIA had this
techology in 1963) which works in a second or two and then dissolves.
Secondly, he could have been hit with a small caliber (like a .22) and
the bullet hit the spine and went down into the chest cavity. Dr.
Mantik has shown through MRI technology that no bullet can go through
the neck area and **not** hit the spine as the WC said happened. The
spinal column vertebrea take up too much of the neck space for
anything to pace by it and not hit the bone.
David Von Pein
>>> "Speaking the truth causes some to mock, i.e., those paid to defend the government's lies..." <<<
I'm paid to specifically mock kooks, not to support the Government.
Can't you get ANYTHING right, ever?
>>> "...but I don't care what you think, as you are in the very small minority." <<<
Yeah, just disregard the LN truth since you're on the side with the
largest head count. Right?
Nice policy. If you're a kook.
By the way, the particular theory you subscribe to ("LHO shot no one")
is certainly NOT the majority opinion in the USA. It's a much-smaller
minority, in fact, than the minority of 19% which currently (as of
2003 anyway) believes in the LN scenario.
Maybe you should re-think your "ABO" position (since you seem to enjoy
the company of other warm bodies around you for CT support).
>>> "It is me, you miss the point. What I say is who I am." <<<
Okay. Have it your way, kook.
So, given those parameters, I guess I now am supposed to despise YOU
as a human being too (instead of just despising and mocking your
idiotic position regarding the JFK murder case).
That's too bad, too. Because outside the confines of the JFK case,
you're probably a pretty fair-minded person. That's just a surmise
anyway, because a lot of JFK kooks are nice, reasonable people when
they step away from this case for awhile.
It's only when they climb the Grassy Knoll that they become
unreasonable, conspiracy-seeking nutcases. An odd disease indeed. And
one that perhaps psychiatrists and medical doctors worldwide should
try to find a cure for (or at least a NAME for it....maybe "Patsy
Paranoia Plague" or somethin' like that there).
>>> "I don't make up stuff to earn a paycheck." <<<
No, you just make up stuff for free.
>>> "I write what I feel." <<<
And to hell with the evidence!
"I FEEL CONSPIRACY! THEREFORE, A CONSPIRACY EXISTS!"
"I FEEL A PATSY! THEREFORE, A PATSY WAS FRAMED FOR TWO MURDERS IN
'63!"
Classic.
Can I play too?.....
"I FEEL AS THOUGH I'M CONVERSING WITH A BRAIN-IMPAIRED KOOK!
THEREFORE, ROBERT IS A KOOK OF THE RETARDED VARIETY!"
(Hey! You're right, Rob! It works! Thanks for that "I WRITE WHAT I
FEEL" tip, man!)
>>> "The first thing they did to Garrison was discredit him and who he was." <<<
And the fact that Jimbo was spouting utter nonsense and unsupportable
allegations against totally-innocent people regarding the
assassination of a U.S. Chief Executive should be overlooked, right?
BTW, what was the "first thing" that you think the unnamed "they" did
to Jim Garrison in order to "discredit" him (outside Jim's foolishness
re. the JFK case)?
Just wondering.
>>> "IF the person is discredited, then anything they say is discredited by extension." <<<
But there's no need to go about things in such a complicated, backward
fashion. The bullshit and unsupportable tripe gushed incessantly by
the kook will "discredit" him all by itself.
Just listen to Garrison on NBC-TV on 1/31/68 on "The Tonight Show".
His 5-gunmen (one in the sewer drain), 1-patsy, Anybody-But-Oswald
nonsense is utterly hysterical....and is pure unprovable garbage that
discredits the moron all by itself.
There is no need to go outside the JFK case to discredit him. Because
WITHIN the JFK case, King Kook Garrison easily self-implodes!
http://www.prouty.org/garrison/carson1.ram
http://www.prouty.org/garrison/carson2.ram
>>> "You really should learn this stuff, as you are being paid well with our tax money to do your job." <<<
Yeah, the one "lurker" per month who comes into this asylum needs to
know his tax money is well-spent, right? So I'd better shape up to
meet the 'Kook Standards', huh?
>>> "Who is your boss again?" <<<
If I told you, I'd have to "arrange" a car accident (kinda like we did
with Lee Bowers in '66). You catch my drift, right?
>>> "I want to report that Davy is going soft." <<<
And I want to report that Robcap is a kook. (Not exactly a brand-new
bulletin, granted. But worth repeating daily.)
>>> "We give them {reasonable explanations surrounding the assassination evidence} all the time, but your job won't allow you to accept what is being said." <<<
It never occurs to kooks like Robby that "what is being said" by the
CTers like Robcap is worthy of being mocked and ridiculed.
That might be the biggest irony of all.
BTW, Robcap.....Do you think that Robert Oswald probably knew his own
brother a little bit better than most people knew him? (Certainly
better than you or I knew him, right?)
If so, what do you make of Robert Oswald's following comments? .....
"It is my belief....my conviction....no one but Lee was involved
--- period. .... He had problems at home. He had problems on his job.
He was completely frustrated about what was going on around him. This
is not EXCUSING what he did. This is UNDERSTANDING what he did.
"He wanted to be somebody. And this opportunity came about
coincidental. Nothing planned. Nothin' organized. It HAPPENED that
way. It's one of those happenstances of history." -- Robert Oswald
(Brother of Lee Harvey Oswald); 2003
Is LHO's brother a dirty, rotten, no-good, Government-sponsored shill
too? Or don't you think that Lee's brother has studied the case enough
to offer up an informed opinion about the assassination that is worth
considering?
Just curious.
>>> "Reason number 1,112 why he {Vince Bugliosi} is a total ignaramous [sic; more irony; what's NOT to love about this kook?! I ask you?!]. He's a moron too!" <<<
The classic hits just keep on flowing from the "Kwazy Kook Kwarters"!
In this installment, we've got a crazy kook (Rob C.) calling a
respected attorney and author (Vince B.) a "total ignaramous [sic]"
and a "moron". (With the kook [Rob C.] also burying himself further by
saying that he's got 1,111 OTHER reasons to know that VB is a "total
ignaramous" [sic], to boot.)
And this comes from the e-lips of a mega-kook who can say the
following probably without exhibiting any redness in the face at all
(or even giggling a little bit, if you can imagine that).....
"LHO SHOT NO ONE."
Rob's middle initial MUST be "I" (for "Irony"). Either that, or "K",
for...well, you know.
==========================
CIA-SPONSORED DISINFO, INC.:
==========================
YoHarvey
A total and utter fabrication but typical of you Jesus/Robcap. So
typical. This is what makes you a total CT.
You confuse science fiction and reality. Mantik, like his buddy
Fetzer is a loon!! Ask the 9/11 CT's. He's certibily nuts...and you
apparently are a member of their club. There is NO scientific
evidence that Mantik is accurate whatsoever but you of course buy
into it because it promotes conspiracy. And now, you confirm it all
with the laughable "Umbrella Man" roflmao. Jesus/ This is why people
laugh at you. You promote this BS as if it were real yet provide NO
evidence of it being real. It's IN YOUR MIND. Kind of like Roswell,
NM.....
What surprises me Jesus is that although not educated, you don't sound
like an idiot. This is why I'm curious as to why you type things that
make YOU APPEAR to be an idiot? Bizarre. Regarding your comments
about FMJ shells, I suggest you read "Bullet Penetration" by Duncan
MacPherson. As for a bullet transiting the neck and NOT hitting the
spine, once again, I suggest you read "Bullet Penetration".
MacPherson is considered the finest wound ballistics mind on earth and
he made one very simple observation. "Anybody believing in a frontal
shot, knows little about physics and even less about
ballistics".....he must have been thinking about Mantik and Fetzer.
Your lack of scientifc knowledge is evident. It always has been.
People such as yourself make a fairly simple case complex...out of
necessity. As an American, I for one am embarrassed by your behavior
and your singular determination to LIE about the facts. I will not
allow that to happen.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Speaking the truth causes some to mock, i.e., those paid to defend the government's lies..." <<<
>
> I'm paid to specifically mock kooks, not to support the Government.
> Can't you get ANYTHING right, ever?
Sure, whatever you say. If you were paid to mock "kooks" you would be
mocking the LNers.
>
> >>> "...but I don't care what you think, as you are in the very small minority." <<<
>
> Yeah, just disregard the LN truth since you're on the side with the
> largest head count. Right?
Numbers don't hurt, but I disregard your theory because you have no
real proof. I go where the evidence leads.
> Nice policy. If you're a kook.
It works for you.
>
> By the way, the particular theory you subscribe to ("LHO shot no one")
> is certainly NOT the majority opinion in the USA. It's a much-smaller
> minority, in fact, than the minority of 19% which currently (as of
> 2003 anyway) believes in the LN scenario.
That's only because they don't know all the good details of how there
is no evidence against LHO. No conviction. He is as innocent as DVP.
>
> Maybe you should re-think your "ABO" position (since you seem to enjoy
> the company of other warm bodies around you for CT support).
No, my position is the right one, we know from his Marine service LHO
couldn't hit the side of a barn - even one standing still.
>
> >>> "It is me, you miss the point. What I say is who I am." <<<
>
> Okay. Have it your way, kook.
The more you call me this, the more I know I have truth on my side.
If you were so cofident in your theory, there would be no need to mock
others.
>
> So, given those parameters, I guess I now am supposed to despise YOU
> as a human being too (instead of just despising and mocking your
> idiotic position regarding the JFK murder case).
Do whatever you want. I like old movies, football, exercise and many
other everyday activities, but if you want to dislike me go ahead. I
won't take it personally as I know it is your job.
>
> That's too bad, too. Because outside the confines of the JFK case,
> you're probably a pretty fair-minded person. That's just a surmise
> anyway, because a lot of JFK kooks are nice, reasonable people when
> they step away from this case for awhile.
I am, and I'm fair minded here too. I didn't wake up one day and said
"Geez, JFK was killed by a conspiracy". I read alot about the case in
college and approached it in a fair way, but the evidence the
government claimed is so weak that it would not stand up in court.
Also, the poor job the DPD did in protecting LHO makes it even more
obvious. I mean he should have been the most guarded prisoner in US
history.
>
> It's only when they climb the Grassy Knoll that they become
> unreasonable, conspiracy-seeking nutcases. An odd disease indeed. And
> one that perhaps psychiatrists and medical doctors worldwide should
> try to find a cure for (or at least a NAME for it....maybe "Patsy
> Paranoia Plague" or somethin' like that there).
No, like I said above, I gave the official theory much consideration
and the case is too weak. This is something most LNers cannot say, as
they break out in a rash if they come near anything not supporting LHO
alone. I don't know how they arrived there so firmly if they can't
read the otherside's angle. It is like a young couple who are afraid
they will break up if they aren't together constantly. If a little
seperation ends a relationship then it wasn't meant to be. Same here,
if you can't read the otherside's story how can you be so sure yours
is right?
>
> >>> "I don't make up stuff to earn a paycheck." <<<
>
> No, you just make up stuff for free.
No, I can eventually find the cite for everything I say.
>
> >>> "I write what I feel." <<<
>
> And to hell with the evidence!
No, that was the WC's mantra!
>
> "I FEEL CONSPIRACY! THEREFORE, A CONSPIRACY EXISTS!"
> "I FEEL A PATSY! THEREFORE, A PATSY WAS FRAMED FOR TWO MURDERS IN
> '63!"
No, lack of real evidence made me see a conspiracy. Also, the main
"motive" the WC gave us for LHO is that he wanted to be famous, so how
do you explain him denying the deed? And claiming to be a patsy?
Doesn't make sense like almost everything in the official theory.
>
> Classic.
>
> Can I play too?.....
>
> "I FEEL AS THOUGH I'M CONVERSING WITH A BRAIN-IMPAIRED KOOK!
> THEREFORE, ROBERT IS A KOOK OF THE RETARDED VARIETY!"
I think I have proved I am your intellectual superior on many
occassions here.
>
> (Hey! You're right, Rob! It works! Thanks for that "I WRITE WHAT I
> FEEL" tip, man!)
You couldn't do that to save your life. You quote Bugman verbatim.
You quote the WCR verbatim. Almost nothing you write is your own
opinion.
>
> >>> "The first thing they did to Garrison was discredit him and who he was." <<<
>
> And the fact that Jimbo was spouting utter nonsense and unsupportable
> allegations against totally-innocent people regarding the
> assassination of a U.S. Chief Executive should be overlooked, right?
It wasn't utter nonesense and it certainly wasn't unsupportable. If
it were, they wouldn't have bugged a D.A.'s office and sent in spies
as "aides". They were afraid of him because he was on the right
track.
>
> BTW, what was the "first thing" that you think the unnamed "they" did
> to Jim Garrison in order to "discredit" him (outside Jim's foolishness
> re. the JFK case)?
They attacked his service record, they claimed he was gay, they
claimed he didn't really care about the dead president as his only
goal was fame for himself. They exaggerated things that he said,
remember the court was closed to cameras back then so the only way
people knew what was going on was through the print media. They
basically did the old character assassination tactics.
>
> Just wondering.
>
> >>> "IF the person is discredited, then anything they say is discredited by extension." <<<
>
> But there's no need to go about things in such a complicated, backward
> fashion. The bullshit and unsupportable tripe gushed incessantly by
> the kook will "discredit" him all by itself.
It wasn't tripe, again there was no need to bug a man's office if you
thought he was saying nothing. Therefore, they attacked his
character.
>
> Just listen to Garrison on NBC-TV on 1/31/68 on "The Tonight Show".
> His 5-gunmen (one in the sewer drain), 1-patsy, Anybody-But-Oswald
> nonsense is utterly hysterical....and is pure unprovable garbage that
> discredits the moron all by itself.
Well, I don't personally think there was a man in the sewer, but that
brings up a good question, why were the manhole covers not welded
shut? They are supposed to be by protocol.
>
> There is no need to go outside the JFK case to discredit him. Because
> WITHIN the JFK case, King Kook Garrison easily self-implodes!
You are forgetting the main point here, Carson was out to discredit
him upfront. I told you before what they did to him.
>
> http://www.prouty.org/garrison/carson1.ram
>
> http://www.prouty.org/garrison/carson2.ram
>
> >>> "You really should learn this stuff, as you are being paid well with our tax money to do your job." <<<
>
> Yeah, the one "lurker" per month who comes into this asylum needs to
> know his tax money is well-spent, right? So I'd better shape up to
> meet the 'Kook Standards', huh?
Get ship-shape recruit.
>
> >>> "Who is your boss again?" <<<
>
> If I told you, I'd have to "arrange" a car accident (kinda like we did
> with Lee Bowers in '66). You catch my drift, right?
>
> >>> "I want to report that Davy is going soft." <<<
>
> And I want to report that Robcap is a kook. (Not exactly a brand-new
> bulletin, granted. But worth repeating daily.)
>
> >>> "We give them {reasonable explanations surrounding the assassination evidence} all the time, but your job won't allow you to accept what is being said." <<<
>
> It never occurs to kooks like Robby that "what is being said" by the
> CTers like Robcap is worthy of being mocked and ridiculed.
No it doesn't, since anyone above the age of 10 has given up fairy
tales long ago and your version is full of them.
>
> That might be the biggest irony of all.
>
> BTW, Robcap.....Do you think that Robert Oswald probably knew his own
> brother a little bit better than most people knew him? (Certainly
> better than you or I knew him, right?)
Again, like Marina, he was afraid for his life. Any testimony he gave
is suspect. Furthermore, from what I have read over the years they
weren't that close. Remember, Lee was gone alot doing his
intelligence work.
>
> If so, what do you make of Robert Oswald's following comments? .....
>
> "It is my belief....my conviction....no one but Lee was involved
> --- period. .... He had problems at home. He had problems on his job.
> He was completely frustrated about what was going on around him. This
> is not EXCUSING what he did. This is UNDERSTANDING what he did.
Hey the guy wants to keep breathing, I understand. Anyone over the
age of 10 can tell you it is impossible for LHO to have done this all
by himself. There are also those pesky other attempts on JFK's life
in the weeks prior to Dallas. How does this compute on your radar.
>
> "He wanted to be somebody. And this opportunity came about
> coincidental. Nothing planned. Nothin' organized. It HAPPENED that
> way. It's one of those happenstances of history." -- Robert Oswald
> (Brother of Lee Harvey Oswald); 2003
He wanted to be someone so bad that after pulling off what every
expert rifleman in the world said they couldn't do, he claims he is
innocent and just a patsy. How does this make any sense?
>
> Is LHO's brother a dirty, rotten, no-good, Government-sponsored shill
> too? Or don't you think that Lee's brother has studied the case enough
> to offer up an informed opinion about the assassination that is worth
> considering?
He likes breathing and may have even gotten money, who knows, but his
words don't mean much as it is impossible for LHO to do what they
said.
>
> Just curious.
>
> >>> "Reason number 1,112 why he {Vince Bugliosi} is a total ignaramous [sic; more irony; what's NOT to love about this kook?! I ask you?!]. He's a moron too!" <<<
>
> The classic hits just keep on flowing from the "Kwazy Kook Kwarters"!
>
> In this installment, we've got a crazy kook (Rob C.) calling a
> respected attorney and author (Vince B.) a "total ignaramous [sic]"
> and a "moron". (With the kook [Rob C.] also burying himself further by
> saying that he's got 1,111 OTHER reasons to know that VB is a "total
> ignaramous" [sic], to boot.)
Who respects him? He hasn't tried a case in like, what?, 20 years?
He is washed up and if he didn't write this loser book no one would be
talking about him now. I love a guy who pre-types all his stuff is so
hard on everyone else. I would love to give you a spelling test
offline, I'm sure you are not really that good at spelling either. I
don't use a program to spell check on this board, I mean I'm talking
with nutjobs why bother.
>
> And this comes from the e-lips of a mega-kook who can say the
> following probably without exhibiting any redness in the face at all
> (or even giggling a little bit, if you can imagine that).....
>
> "LHO SHOT NO ONE."
Well we know he didn't shoot JFK or JDT, but he did shoot himself in
the marines. This act should have sent him to Leavenworth, but of
course he was protected for some reason all the time (until
11/22/63).
>
> Rob's middle initial MUST be "I" (for "Irony"). Either that, or "K",
> for...well, you know.
We know your is for "of" and your full name is Dave of Dumb.
robcap...@netscape.com
This is why it is a waste of time to answer your questions, your not
going to believe them anyway. Why is Fetzer (PHD) a loon? Why is
Mantik (Dr.) a loon? They have way more education than you, oh that's
right, your diety John said so. I am not talking about 9/11 asswipe.
Stay on topic. It doesn't mean their studies into this case are
faulty. Dr. Mantik used MRI technology so are you saying this is
loony technology? Get real. Why even ask questions you are the sad
one as you can't even answer a basic question but you know this is not
possible. Come on Bigdog/Justme/Yoharvey you need to really study what
was possible in 1963.
>
> What surprises me Jesus is that although not educated, you don't sound
> like an idiot. This is why I'm curious as to why you type things that
> make YOU APPEAR to be an idiot? Bizarre. Regarding your comments
> about FMJ shells, I suggest you read "Bullet Penetration" by Duncan
> MacPherson. As for a bullet transiting the neck and NOT hitting the
> spine, once again, I suggest you read "Bullet Penetration".
> MacPherson is considered the finest wound ballistics mind on earth and
> he made one very simple observation. "Anybody believing in a frontal
> shot, knows little about physics and even less about
> ballistics".....he must have been thinking about Mantik and Fetzer.
> Your lack of scientifc knowledge is evident. It always has been.
> People such as yourself make a fairly simple case complex...out of
> necessity. As an American, I for one am embarrassed by your behavior
> and your singular determination to LIE about the facts. I will not
> allow that to happen.
Why read all those loons? They are a bunch of wackjobs being paid by
the government. Bigdog you need to really get on board with the
program. Who needs to know about physics when all the doctors and
nurses at Parkland said there was a frontal shot to the throat? I'll
take their word anyday.
aeffects
post ALL you want toot's, you're irrelevant now...daBug be daDONE as
in WELL done!
David Von Pein
>>> "I disregard your theory because you have no real proof." <<<
I guess by "real proof", you mean a taped-recorded confession of LHO
saying at the top of his lungs -- "I KILLED JFK!" and "I KILLED J.D.
TIPPIT!". Right, Mr. Kook?
But that still wouldn't prove anything to a kook. You'd just say that
Oswald was coerced into confessing to two murders that somebody else
committed (with Oswald's arsenal of weapons).
~sigh~
>>> "I go where the evidence leads." <<<
If that were true, you'd be an LNer, of course.
Truth is, being a kook, you go where the kooky CT authors (like
Armstrong) lead you. You really have no mind of your own. You think
you do. But your mind belongs to Johnny Armstrong, Mark Lane, Ollie
Stone, Jimbo Garrison, and Joan Mellen.
Nice being a CT puppet, isn't it?
>>> "He {Proverbial Patsy Lee} is as innocent as DVP." <<<
What makes you think I'm innocent, kook?
I was hiding in the sewer with 4 other killers on November 22nd, you
dumbbell! You really CAN'T get anything right, can you?
>>> "We know from his Marine service LHO couldn't hit the side of a barn--even one standing still." <<<
I love it when the kooks drag out the old tired CT Myths all over
again, as if they are new once more. This one regarding Oswald and the
"side of the barn" is Myth #64 I believe.
Truth is, of course, that Oswald was a VERY GOOD shot by "civilian"
standards. But in the hands (and mind) of a kook, a 212 rating of
"Sharpshooter" becomes a crappy rating owned by someone who "couldn't
hit the side of a barn--even one standing still".
Amazing ignorance.
You're some kind of "CT Plant", aren't ya Robby? Sent here to make
even Holmes, Healy, and Walter look like the cream of the CT crop,
right? You can fess up. I won't tell anybody (except our one "lurker"
per month).
>>> "If you were so confident in your theory, there would be no need to mock others." <<<
Lookie! Rob The Kook gets another one wrong. Still batting .000 for
the season. But he thinks he's leading the league at .455 (or even
1.000 probably).
Truth is, I'd mock your nuttiness even if I were a CTer.
>>> "I didn't wake up one day and say "Geez, JFK was killed by a conspiracy". I read alot about the case in college and approached it in a fair way, but the evidence the government claimed is so weak that it would not stand up in court." <<<
It could have just SAT there, dorment on a table, with no prosecutor
present at all....and Lee Oswald would have been convicted of at LEAST
one murder (Tippit's).
And unless the jury box was filled with O.J. jurors, LHO would have
hanged for JFK's murder too. Only a kook could possibly believe
otherwise. Because.....
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if Lee Harvey Oswald had
nothing to do with President Kennedy's assassination and was
framed....this otherwise independent and defiant would-be
revolutionary, who disliked taking orders from anyone, turned out to
be the most willing and cooperative frame-ee in the history of
mankind!! Because the evidence of his guilt is so monumental, that he
could have just as well gone around with a large sign on his back
declaring in bold letters 'I Just Murdered President John F.
Kennedy'!!!"
"Anyone...ANYONE who would believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was
innocent, would believe someone who told them that they heard a cow
speaking the Spanish language!" -- V.T. BUGLIOSI; 1986
>>> "Also, the poor job the DPD did in protecting LHO makes it even more obvious." <<<
And that sloppiness on the part of the DPD on Sunday, November 24th
somehow ERASES all of that evidence that says LHO killed two people
two days earlier?
Just HOW does that work, kook? Ruby's bullet suddenly makes ALL OF THE
EVIDENCE against the man he murdered vanish into thin air. (Remember
now, I'm talking to you with the knowledge that you're in the "LHO
Shot No One" club.)
So tell me how Ruby's killing Oswald makes Oswald innocent.
I can't wait to hear this tale.
>>> "I can eventually find the cite for everything I say." <<<
Oh, yeah? Including the cite for your assertion a few days ago that
the three shells found in the Sniper's Nest could not be linked to
Oswald's rifle? (Where's the official "cite" for that bald-faced lie?)
Or maybe you're talking about the cite for your other assertion that
the two front-seat bullet fragments were never tied conclusively to
Lee Oswald's Carcano either. (Where's that citation for that? In your
attic, with Babushka Lady and her film maybe?)
You're a CT joke. Time to admit that, don't you think?
>>> "How do you explain him {Ozzie} denying the deed?" <<<
Most real killers like to separate themselves from their crimes.
Oswald relished the attention. Even one of the DPD detectives said
that. (I think it was James R. Leavelle.) He thought Oswald was
enjoying all the attention he was getting and all the turmoil he had
caused by killing two people in cold blood on Nov. 22nd.
Sure, Oswald wanted to be important on the world stage. He wanted to
do something that changed the world. And he wanted to do something
that people would remember him for.
And guess what, Rob? He succeeded on all three of those counts....if
you just stop to think about it for a minute.
>>> "And claiming to be a patsy?" <<<
Just part of the game Oswald was playing with his captors. He was
aiming that remark at the DPD anyway....not at the people who
supposedly "set him up" as the fall guy before the assassination. Why
can't you see the distinction of that?
Therefore, the kooks can't even win the "I'm just a patsy" debate
(unless you really want to think that the DPD was framing Oz for TWO
murders well in ADVANCE of November 22nd just because of the fact
Oswald "lived in the Soviet Union", which is precisely the reason that
Oswald himself gave for being "taken in" and for being used as a
"patsy").
So, was Oswald ONLY telling the truth when he uttered that one word
"patsy", but he was lying about the REASON he said he was being turned
into that patsy? Is that what you kooks want to believe?
>>> "I think I have proved I am your intellectual superior on many occassions here." <<<
Except when trying to spell "occasions".
Oh, btw, LOL time for your last hunk of hilarity. (I'm being told I'm
intellectually inferior by a nutcase who loves to say "LHO SHOT NO
ONE". I've almost reached my "Irony" capacity for today.)
>>> "Almost nothing you write is your own opinion." <<<
Goodie! The kook's still without a base hit in 2007!
Better start reading then.....
>>> "They were afraid of him {Garrison} because he was on the right track." <<<
Jim Garrison made a mockery of justice by trying to convict a man he
knew had ZILCH to do with the murder of the President.
Garrison was pure slime. Top to bottom.
But...at least you have a "Mellen" you can latch on to. She'll keep
propping Mr. Slimeball up from time to time so you won't lose faith in
good ol' Jimbo.
Just never read this Playboy article (it might make you cry...or reach
orgasm...I'm not sure which, since you're such an ABO kook).....
www.jfklancer.com/Garrison2.html
"Instead of referring to {Clay} Shaw (or "the defendant") a
great number of times as he tried to connect him to the conspiracy and
murder, as any prosecutor would do if he believed the person he was
prosecuting was guilty, unbelievably Garrison only referred to Shaw
ONCE in his entire summation {to the jury}, and then not to say that
the evidence showed he was guilty. NOT ONCE did Garrison tell the jury
he had proved Shaw's guilt or that the evidence pointed toward Shaw's
guilt." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 1380 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
>>> "They attacked his {Saint Garrison's} service record, they claimed he was gay, they claimed he didn't really care about the dead president, as his only goal was fame for himself. They exaggerated things that he said. .... They basically did the old character assassination tactics." <<<
Oh, cry me a fucking river! (Pass me the Garrison-embossed Kleenex,
Mr. Kook.)
If anyone's "character" ever deserved to be "assassinated", it was the
character of Earling Carrothers Garrison.
But, it seems fitting of your own "character" to defend Garrison's. I
wouldn't have expected anything less from you.
(Current Rob Batting Average: .000.)
>>> "Well, I don't personally think there was a man in the sewer." <<<
Hey! You just managed to foul a pitch off! Pretty soon you might have
your very first base hit!
>>> "But that brings up a good question, why were the manhole covers not welded shut? They are supposed to be by protocol." <<<
Yeah, kinda like that impossible-to-enforce Secret Service rule about
there being "no open windows anywhere along the President's motorcade
route", right?
Just...not...doable. Period. (Fletcher Prouty's absurdities
notwithstanding.)
>>> "You are forgetting the main point here, Carson was out to discredit him {King Jimbo G.} up front." <<<
And Johnny did a damn fine job of it too.
For that I say -- Hail Johnny!!
"Playboy gave Garrison the longest interview in the history of
the magazine in its October 1967 issue, 37 pages, and among other
radio and TV appearances, Mort Sahl got him on the Johnny Carson show
on January 31, 1968. "Johnny" may have been a comedian, but he had a
good, solid head on his shoulders, and he could spot a phony, or at
least an empty vessel, when he saw one." -- Vince Bugliosi; Pages
1369-1370 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
>>> "Again, like Marina, he {Robert Oswald} was afraid for his life." <<<
Oh? Robert Oswald told you this personally, did he? First I've heard
of that. (Luckily, though, we have "Triple-Zero" Caprio setting the
record straight about so many different things surrounding 11/22/63.)
>>> "Any testimony he {Robert Oswald} gave is suspect." <<<
That's the kook in you talking (again). And the quote I provided
earlier from Robert O. wasn't "testimony". It was said by Robert in
the year 2003, for heaven's sake.
~sigh time~
(BTW, you just struck out. Again.)
(C'mon! At least get hit by a pitch every now and then. This is
getting too easy!)
>>> "Furthermore, from what I have read over the years they {Robert & Lee Oswald} weren't that close." <<<
Ah! You just fouled off another pitch. But, while it's true that they
weren't really, really "close", they were still blood brothers, and
Lee did look up to his big brother as a kid (especially after Robert
joined the Marines). That was the main reason that Lee wanted to join
the Marine Corps in the first place....because his big brother had
joined. (Plus, of course, to get away from that kook of a mother they
both had. That's one of the main reasons Robert join the Marines too,
in fact.)
Maybe we shouldn't underestimate the unseen powers of "brotherhood".
When Robert visited Lee in jail that weekend in November 1963, Robert
could see that Lee was probably guilty. And Robert never seemed to
waver from that initial first feeling.
>>> "Remember, Lee was gone a lot doing his intelligence work." <<<
LOL. And Rob C. had a camera right there focused on Lee the whole
time, watching LHO sneaking off on his clandestine meetings to do
"intelligence" work for the Government (or whatever other made-up
organization Rob The Kook thinks might be appropriate to insert into
the fairy tale today; the "Oddfellows" maybe?).
>>> "Anyone over the age of 10 can tell you it is impossible for LHO to have done this all by himself." <<<
I see. I guess the WC was made up of all 9-year-olds then.
And I can tell Vince B. that he's young again once more!
>>> "There are also those pesky other attempts on JFK's life in the weeks prior to Dallas. How does this compute on your radar?" <<<
They'd compute better if there was just some semblance of PROOF that
any "attempts" had actually been made on JFK's life in those other
cities (Chicago, Tampa, or Miami).
There is the guy who was caught with a carload of ammunition and
weapons. But where's the TIE-IN TO DALLAS with respect to that
apparent ONE-MAN operation? There is none.
Furthermore, how does that incident of the guy with weapons in his
trunk tie-in (in any fashion) to any of the colorful characters that
the CTers believe DID kill Kennedy in Dallas? Answer: It doesn't. At
all.
It was another kook/loner who MIGHT have tried to kill JFK before
11/22/63. But, since he was grabbed well ahead of time, we'll never
know if he would have tried something or not.
It's just too bad that James P. Hosty was sleeping on the job in
November 1963. He was just about the only person in Dallas (except
Marina, who already knew of Lee's capacity to take a human life via
the Walker murder attempt in April) who possibly could have made a
significant difference in the way things turned out in Dealey Plaza.
Unfortunately, though, Hosty (as of November) didn't know about the
Walker attempt, and he had no really good reason to suspect that
Oswald was a danger to the President.
The rest is (tragic) history.
>>> "He {LHO} wanted to be someone so bad that after pulling off what every expert rifleman in the world said they couldn't do, he claims he is innocent and just a patsy. How does this make any sense?" <<<
Already explained earlier. Oswald did want to be "somebody". And by
SUCCESSFULLY KILLING THE PRESIDENT and then basking in the turmoil and
chaos and undivided attention that he ultimately received, he GOT HIS
WISH.
Why is that impossible to understand?
Oswald wanted to be "somebody". But he wanted to be a LIVING somebody
at the same time. He was not suicidal. And the Tippit killing
demonstrates that amply.
>>> "He {Robert Oswald} likes breathing..." <<<
And so too did his brother, Lee. (Just like I said above.)
>>> "His {Robert's} words don't mean much, as it is impossible for LHO to do what they said." <<<
Strike three! (Yet again.)
>>> "Who respects him {Vince Bugliosi}?" <<<
Many, many people.
I wonder who respects Robert Caprio though? (The opposing pitchers in
this JFK Ballgame love you, though; because you're an automatic
strikeout every time up.)
>>> "He {VB} hasn't tried a case in like, what? 20 years?" <<<
So what?
(Strike 1.)
>>> "He {VB} is washed up." <<<
Bullshit.
(Strike 2.)
>>> "And if he {VB} didn't write this loser book no one would be talking about him now." <<<
Hit the pine, kook.
(Strike 3!)
>>> "I would love to give you a spelling test offline, I'm sure you are not really that good at spelling either." <<<
Yet another wrong answer from Robby-boy.
>>> "I don't use a program to spell check on this board..." <<<
Nor do I.
>>> "We know he {"Always Innocent" Oswald} didn't shoot JFK or JDT." <<<
Another classic quote to add to Rob's ever-growing list of "Idiotic
Statements". Thanks. Your "Idiot" file is already enormous. Nice job.
>>> "But he {Patsy Oz} did shoot himself in the marines." <<<
That's funny, I thought it was another part of his body. (Where's the
"Marines"? Is that near the big toe someplace?)
>>> "Your full name is Dave of Dumb." <<<
That doesn't even earn you a final "foul tip", Robby my man. It's a
swing-and-a-miss.
I wonder what kind of silly manager keeps sending a boob up to the
plate who hasn't gotten a base hit the whole season?
I'll ponder that question as Rob "LHO SHOT NO ONE" Caprio whimpers
back to the dugout, bat in hand (as usual), after being demolished
once more on the JFK field of reality.
aeffects
nothing as usual....
my goodness daBug has you working 24/7 these day's... Hope you have a
good expense account...... I'm sure you're not getting union scale, or
is this part and partial of your act of contrition..... LMFAO!
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "I disregard your theory because you have no real proof." <<<
>
> I guess by "real proof", you mean a taped-recorded confession of LHO
> saying at the top of his lungs -- "I KILLED JFK!" and "I KILLED J.D.
TIPPIT!". Right, Mr. Kook?
Yes Mr. Nutjob! I mean they interviewed the guy for like 12 hours,
why is
there no recording of him confessing or anything else? Also, if they
had
guarded him better he would have gone to trial and we could have heard
all
the details, but the DPD can’t protect anyone I guess.
>
> But that still wouldn't prove anything to a kook. You'd just say that
> Oswald was coerced into confessing to two murders that somebody else
committed (with Oswald's arsenal of weapons).
Well, confessions usually are contended when the accused has no
lawyer. Why did
they not get him a lawyer? I mean for 48 hours he had no lawyer, this
is not normal.
I know he wanted John Abt in New York, but they should have gotten a
local lawyer
in the meantime, why not? Where was the legal representation?
>
~sigh~
~belch~
>
> >>> "I go where the evidence leads." <<<
>
If that were true, you'd be a LNer, of course.
You are trying to be funny right? There is no evidence in LN land,
therefore, I can’t be a LNer if I follow the evidence.
>
> Truth is, being a kook, you go where the kooky CT authors (like
> Armstrong) lead you. You really have no mind of your own. You think
> you do. But your mind belongs to Johnny Armstrong, Mark Lane, Ollie
Stone, Jimbo Garrison, and Joan Mellen.
No, they help to fill in the things I already suspect. Remember, I
started by reading the official document called the WCR, and
unsatisfied with this horrible and ridiculous account I began
searching for more information.
>
Nice being a CT puppet, isn't it?
I wouldn’t know, as I’m not one.
~belch~
>
> >>> "He {Proverbial Patsy Lee} is as innocent as DVP." <<<
>
What makes you think I'm innocent, kook?
I know you are not, DVP, as I have a report on you right here. You
should lay off of skimming money out of the till at work. They are on
to you.
>
> I was hiding in the sewer with 4 other killers on November 22nd, you
dumbbell! You really CAN'T get anything right, can you?
I know, you have the smell of sewer, he bleeds right through the
computer, just like shit!
> >>> "We know from his Marine service LHO couldn't hit the side of a barn--even one standing still." <<<
>
> I love it when the kooks drag out the old tired CT Myths all over
> again, as if they are new once more. This one regarding Oswald and the
"side of the barn" is Myth #64 I believe.
Sorry, but the truth is not myth. More people who were in the Marines
with him have said he was a horrible shot, vs. anyone you can find.
It is well documented with his scores as well.
>
> Truth is, of course, that Oswald was a VERY GOOD shot by "civilian"
> standards. But in the hands (and mind) of a kook, a 212 rating of
> "Sharpshooter" becomes a crappy rating owned by someone who "couldn't
hit the side of a barn--even one standing still".
I don’t think so since he barely qualified in his last Marine exam
(passed by 2 points) and he had no practice between this exam and the
assassination, so how is he better than a civilian that hunts and
practices all the time is? He isn’t is the answer.
>
Amazing ignorance.
You are something that is for sure. Lighten up on yourself.
>
> You're some kind of "CT Plant", aren't ya Robby? Sent here to make
> even Holmes, Healy, and Walter look like the cream of the CT crop,
> right? You can fess up. I won't tell anybody (except our one "lurker"
per month).
Don’t know anything about that, I don’t see our CTers posting much
anymore. I guess they are worn out trying to discuss this subject
with closed minds in the LN camp. This board has very little
discussion and should lose the title of a “discussion group”.
>
> >>> "If you were so confident in your theory, there would be no need to mock others." <<<
>
> Lookie! Rob The Kook gets another one wrong. Still batting .000 for
> the season. But he thinks he's leading the league at .455 (or even
1.000 probably).
You are the one saying I’m wrong, but as usual you have no proof to
show.
>
Truth is, I'd mock your nuttiness even if I were a CTer.
I don’t see what is so nutty about what I say. You think LHO is
guilty based on very little evidence and I think he would have beaten
the case in court. All that is the side issue though as the real
point is that LHO could not do what your theory claims by himself (in
terms of the SBT only with God’s help), therefore, common sense says
he had help at the very least. Help = conspiracy. Not real difficult
Dave.
>
> >>> "I didn't wake up one day and say "Geez, JFK was killed by a conspiracy". I read a lot about the case in college and approached it in a fair way, but the evidence the government claimed is so weak that it would not stand up in court." <<<
>
> It could have just SAT there, dorment on a table, with no prosecutor
> present at all....and Lee Oswald would have been convicted of at LEAST
one murder (Tippit's).
I doubt it, but then again you have shown with your lame mock up trial
you no very little about court proceedings. I won’t hold it against
you, but you have a very weak case.
>
> And unless the jury box was filled with O.J. jurors, LHO would have
> hanged for JFK's murder too. Only a kook could possibly believe
otherwise. Because.....
No, only people that were pressured into believing if they didn’t
convict they would be in big trouble as the evidence is very weak.
Besides, all the good intelligence work he was doing would have come
up.
>
> "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if Lee Harvey Oswald had
> nothing to do with President Kennedy's assassination and was
> framed....this otherwise independent and defiant would-be
> revolutionary, who disliked taking orders from anyone, turned out to
> be the most willing and cooperative frame-ee in the history of
> mankind!! Because the evidence of his guilt is so monumental, that he
> could have just as well gone around with a large sign on his back
> declaring in bold letters 'I Just Murdered President John F.
Kennedy'!!!"
Boy you are a naïve one, aren’t you. Like he knew about all the
things they were doing to frame him. Please. They are professionals
they knew how to do this and get away with it. How do you explain the
horrible effort by the WC if there was no coverup? I mean they
couldn’t have planned on a better group of numskulls if they tried
(except for Dick Russell).
>
> "Anyone...ANYONE who would believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was
> innocent, would believe someone who told them that they heard a cow
speaking the Spanish language!" -- V.T. BUGLIOSI; 1986
Nothing like proving anything huh? He just uses an abstract reference
to make his point, just pathetic.
~belch~
>
> >>> "Also, the poor job the DPD did in protecting LHO makes it even more obvious." <<<
>
> And that sloppiness on the part of the DPD on Sunday, November 24th
> somehow ERASES all of that evidence that says LHO killed two people
two days earlier?
You obviously aren’t keeping up, there is no real evidence linking him
to the two murders if you want to look and secondly, the DPD did a
horrible job of protecting him on purpose so there would be no trial.
This makes it all more suspicious.
>
> Just HOW does that work, kook? Ruby's bullet suddenly makes ALL OF THE
> EVIDENCE against the man he murdered vanish into thin air. (Remember
> now, I'm talking to you with the knowledge that you're in the "LHO
Shot No One" club.)
No nutjob it didn’t vanish as that would mean it existed in the first
place. Why was Ruby allowed to get so close to shoot LHO? Answer
that one.
> So tell me how Ruby's killing Oswald makes Oswald innocent.
>
I can't wait to hear this tale.
Based on the evidence he was innocent even before he was shot. Tell
me how Ruby got in so easy and shot LHO doesn’t prove there wasn’t a
conspiracy since they wanted LHO dead. I can’t wait to hear this
tale.
>
> >>> "I can eventually find the cite for everything I say." <<<
>
> Oh, yeah? Including the cite for your assertion a few days ago that
> the three shells found in the Sniper's Nest could not be linked to
Oswald's rifle? (Where's the official "cite" for that bald-faced
lie?)
You are getting desperate Dave as I never said that and you adding it
later is not going to prove it. I realize the three shells came from
the M-C as they were fired at some point to the time of the
assassination and left to frame LHO. I have always said you can’t
prove the fragments can’t be linked to LHO’s gun without a doubt and
even the WC said this as they used the term “very likely”. The CE399
is undoubtedly from the M-C, but it is an obvious plant and was not
actually fired at the president or JBC. Got it straight now.
>
> Or maybe you're talking about the cite for your other assertion that
> the two front-seat bullet fragments were never tied conclusively to
> Lee Oswald's Carcano either. (Where's that citation for that? In your
attic, with Babushka Lady and her film maybe?)
They weren’t. The term “very likely” is not definitive as I have
shown you several sources that said metal either matches or it
doesn’t, there is no “very likely” about it.
>
You're a CT joke. Time to admit that, don't you think?
I have no idea what you are talking about. I think I may discuss more
than the others on this board because I’m new and they have already
figured out not to waste their breath or fingers.
>
> >>> "How do you explain him {Ozzie} denying the deed?" <<<
>
> Most real killers like to separate themselves from their crimes.
> Oswald relished the attention. Even one of the DPD detectives said
> that. (I think it was James R. Leavelle.) He thought Oswald was
> enjoying all the attention he was getting and all the turmoil he had
caused by killing two people in cold blood on Nov. 22nd.
So, why deny doing something the top experts in the world said they
couldn’t do?
>
> Sure, Oswald wanted to be important on the world stage. He wanted to
> do something that changed the world. And he wanted to do something
that people would remember him for.
Again, so why deny it and say he was a patsy?
>
> And guess what, Rob? He succeeded on all three of those counts....if
you just stop to think about it for a minute.
Of course he did because he has been accused of being a killer without
a fair chance to defend himself.
>>> "And claiming to be a patsy?" <<<
>
> Just part of the game Oswald was playing with his captors. He was
> aiming that remark at the DPD anyway....not at the people who
> supposedly "set him up" as the fall guy before the assassination. Why
can't you see the distinction of that?
I wasn’t saying that about the conspirators. My question is simple, if
he craved world attention and he accomplished something the best shots
in the world couldn’t accomplish, why deny it?
>
> Therefore, the kooks can't even win the "I'm just a patsy" debate
> (unless you really want to think that the DPD was framing Oz for TWO
> murders well in ADVANCE of November 22nd just because of the fact
> Oswald "lived in the Soviet Union", which is precisely the reason that
> Oswald himself gave for being "taken in" and for being used as a
"patsy").
Of course we can, but only if you actually answer what I’m asking. I
notice you haven’t.
>
> So, was Oswald ONLY telling the truth when he uttered that one word
> "patsy", but he was lying about the REASON he said he was being turned
into that patsy? Is that what you kooks want to believe?
I’m not asking based on what I believe, I’m asking to get your
opinion. If he craved attention like the WC said (as they had no real
motive for LHO and this was their weak attempt) why deny doing the
deed? He should have been proud according to the WC.
>
> >>> "I think I have proved I am your intellectual superior on many occassions here." <<<
>
Except when trying to spell "occasions".
I type fast and make mistakes, can’t help it, but I will start typing
in Word first like you.
>
> Oh, btw, LOL time for your last hunk of hilarity. (I'm being told I'm
> intellectually inferior by a nutcase who loves to say "LHO SHOT NO
ONE". I've almost reached my "Irony" capacity for today.)
Your capacity in everything is quite low according to your wife.
>
> >>> "Almost nothing you write is your own opinion." <<<
>
> Goodie! The kook's still without a base hit in 2007!
>
> Better start reading then.....
>
www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
Why? I haven’t been in trouble with the law so what is with the
punishment?
>
> >>> "They were afraid of him {Garrison} because he was on the right track." <<<
>
> Jim Garrison made a mockery of justice by trying to convict a man he
knew had ZILCH to do with the murder of the President.
Not really, you obviously have read anything about PermIndex and who
the main group was behind it. You are naive and you don’t really know
that much about the bigger things in this case. You have spent all
your time on the details of the assassination, but have obviously not
read about big picture things. Read about PermIndex and learn
something. Clay Shaw worked for them.
>
Garrison was pure slime. Top to bottom.
Coming from you I’m sure he would be complimented if he was still
alive.
>
> But...at least you have a "Mellen" you can latch on to. She'll keep
> propping Mr. Slimeball up from time to time so you won't lose faith in
good ol' Jimbo.
I don’t latch onto anyone, I’m open to many researchers and other
people’s opinions. You are the one that latches onto people. You and
the Bugman should get a room, it is quite disgusting.
>
> Just never read this Playboy article (it might make you cry...or reach
> orgasm...I'm not sure which, since you're such an ABO kook).....
>
www.jfklancer.com/Garrison2.html
I have read it, but it doesn’t change the fact that he introduced a
lot of new information to the American people against a lot of
government pressure. You don’t have to agree with everything someone
says or does to still find worth in their effort. You should learn
this.
>
> "Instead of referring to {Clay} Shaw (or "the defendant") a
> great number of times as he tried to connect him to the conspiracy and
> murder, as any prosecutor would do if he believed the person he was
> prosecuting was guilty, unbelievably Garrison only referred to Shaw
> ONCE in his entire summation {to the jury}, and then not to say that
> the evidence showed he was guilty. NOT ONCE did Garrison tell the jury
> he had proved Shaw's guilt or that the evidence pointed toward Shaw's
guilt." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 1380 of "Reclaiming History" (c.
2007)
This from a guy who had one big case. Shaw was on trial because he
could get to him, he was a rep for the bigger fish Garrison knew he
would never be able to try. Through Shaw he was hoping to expose the
bigger fish, so perhaps this is why he did not refer to Shaw. He was
after Shaw due to his CIA ties.
>
> >>> "They attacked his {Saint Garrison's} service record, they claimed he was gay, they claimed he didn't really care about the dead president, as his only goal was fame for himself. They exaggerated things that he said. .... They basically did the old character assassination tactics." <<<
>
> Oh, cry me a fucking river! (Pass me the Garrison-embossed Kleenex,
Mr. Kook.)
You asked remember, probably not as all the coke you snort kind of
ruins the mind and memory.
>
> If anyone's "character" ever deserved to be "assassinated", it was the
character of Earling Carrothers Garrison.
Boy, you are so open-minded. I love it. You are living up to the
Archie Bunker moniker.
>
> But, it seems fitting of your own "character" to defend Garrison's. I
wouldn't have expected anything less from you.
Who cares what you expect. Garrison moved the case forward for many
people and made invaluable contributions to the non-official theory
believers.
>
(Current Rob Batting Average: .000.)
According to you. I think you are the one batting .000.
>
> >>> "Well, I don't personally think there was a man in the sewer." <<<
>
> Hey! You just managed to foul a pitch off! Pretty soon you might have
> your very first base hit!
>
> >>> "But that brings up a good question, why were the manhole covers not welded shut? They are supposed to be by protocol." <<<
>
> Yeah, kinda like that impossible-to-enforce Secret Service rule about
> there being "no open windows anywhere along the President's motorcade
route", right?
Not really, look at the news about the other two motorcades he had on
this trip and they will tell you all the windows were closed. People
act like all these things are strange, but all we have to do is look
at San Antonio and Houston (I think this was the other motorcade on
this trip) and all these things were done there.
>
> Just...not...doable. Period. (Fletcher Prouty's absurdities
notwithstanding.)
Really, do you think there are open windows for Dubya? Kind of doubt
it.
>
> >>> "You are forgetting the main point here, Carson was out to discredit him {King Jimbo G.} up front." <<<
>
And Johnny did a damn fine job of it too.
Johnny was a jackass.
>
> For that I say -- Hail Johnny!!
>
> "Playboy gave Garrison the longest interview in the history of
> the magazine in its October 1967 issue, 37 pages, and among other
> radio and TV appearances, Mort Sahl got him on the Johnny Carson show
> on January 31, 1968. "Johnny" may have been a comedian, but he had a
> good, solid head on his shoulders, and he could spot a phony, or at
> least an empty vessel, when he saw one." -- Vince Bugliosi; Pages
1369-1370 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
Please, Johnny was a moron as he gave half of his 300 million to his
ex-wife. How smart is that? Can’t you quote anyone besides Bugman?
>
> >>> "Again, like Marina, he {Robert Oswald} was afraid for his life." <<<
>
> Oh? Robert Oswald told you this personally, did he? First I've heard
> of that. (Luckily, though, we have "Triple-Zero" Caprio setting the
record straight about so many different things surrounding
11/22/63.)
Just assuming like you do with LHO, I mean you know everything about
LHO right down to what his favorite foods were and you never spoke
with him. If you can do it so can I, and besides you were the one
asking my opinion, remember?
aeffects
hon, who are you kidding, you enter rooms ass backwards, it's part of
you... how do you spell denial? All part of that obsessive-compulsive
problem you have, mostly brought on by extended crack use...... so
it's back to that spiritual experience, gig, son.... No way around it,
doomed if you don't
David Von Pein
I guess maybe that's because he didn't confess....or anything. (Duh.)
Let's see you come up with proof that it was a regular DPD policy to
record or transcribe the statements of prisoners/suspects, circa 1963.
Can you do that?
Plus, we have this from J. Will Fritz. (But Fritz, a 31-year veteran
of the Dallas Police Department as of 11/22/63, is probably just lying
out his fat ass, right Mr. Rob-Kook?).....
JOSEPH BALL -- "Did you have any tape recorder?"
CAPTAIN J.W. FRITZ -- "No, sir; I don't have a tape recorder. We need
one, if we had one at this time we could have handled these
conversations far better."
MR. BALL -- "The Dallas Police Department doesn't have one?"
CAPTAIN FRITZ -- "No, sir; I have requested one several times but so
far they haven't gotten me one."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fritz1.htm
>>> "Also, if they {the DPD} had guarded him {Oswaldovich The Great} better, he would have gone to trial and we could have heard all the details." <<<
Oh, you mean all of those "conspiracy details", right? You think that
a vast conspiracy would have been revealed by Patsy Oswald had he gone
to trial, huh? (He would have been a fool to step up on that witness
stand, of course, but that's another discussion.)
You kooks have been attempting to drag that "Patsy Plot" out into the
daylight for 44 years and 3 days now, and we haven't seen a vestige of
that plot proven yet. But I guess you think Oswald would have taken
that witness stand and started singing like a jaybird had he lived to
see his trial, right?
~Chuckle Time~
>>> "...But the DPD can't protect anyone I guess." <<<
So you think the DPD deliberately allowed Oswald to be killed in the
police basement? Is that it, kookmeister?
Or are you merely down in the dumps because your favorite patsy was
gunned down before he was convicted of the the two murders that he
positively committed on 11/22/63?
>>> "Why did they {the DPD} not get him {A.J. Hidell/O.H. Lee} a lawyer?" <<<
The President of the Dallas Bar Association (H. Louis Nichols) came to
see Oswald on Saturday, November 23rd and offered the services of the
DBA, but LHO turned down the offer and told Nichols that he might
contact him later if he could not secure Mr. Abt's services. .....
"The chief {Jesse Curry} had the officer open the door, and he
introduced me to Oswald, and told him my name and said that I was the
president of the Dallas Bar Association and had come up to see him
about whether or not he needed or wanted a lawyer. .... I said, "What
I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas
Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?" He said, "No, not now"."
-- H.L. Nichols; WC Testimony; April 8, 1964
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
And there's also this testimony from Captain Fritz.....
JOSEPH BALL -- "Did you say anything to him {Oswald} about an attorney
the first time you talked to him?"
CAPTAIN J.W. FRITZ -- "Yes, sir; the first time. He asked about an
attorney, and I told him he certainly could have an attorney any time
he wanted it. I told him he could have an attorney any time he liked,
any attorney he wanted. I told him, I said, we will do it. He said he
wanted an attorney in New York. And he gave me his name, Mr. Abt, and
he said that is who he wanted, and I told him he could have anyone he
liked."
[Later....]
CAPTAIN FRITZ -- "He {LHO} told me that he didn't want a lawyer and he
told me once or twice that he didn't want to answer any questions at
all. .... I talked to him about a lawyer a number of times and he said
he didn't want the local attorneys, some attorney had been up to see
him after one of these questionings, and he said he didn't want him at
all. He wanted Mr. Abt."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fritz1.htm
Still think Oswald was being denied legal representation, Mr. Mega-
Kook?
>>> "There is no evidence in LN land; therefore, I can't be a LNer if I follow the evidence." <<<
Let's listen to that one more time (just for the mindboggling
stupidity that exists within these few words):
"There is no evidence in LN land."
(It's even more mindbogglingly stupid the second time around.)
>>> "I started by reading the official document called the WCR, and unsatisfied with this horrible and ridiculous account, I began searching for more information." <<<
Yeah, why stick with the documented facts and the verified "It Was
Oswald" evidence when you can just as easily go "searching for more
information" until you find the pro-conspiracy kookshit you're
desperately seeking, right? Good plan.
>>> "More people who were in the Marines with him have said he {Oswald The Beautiful} was a horrible shot, vs. anyone you can find. It is well documented with his scores as well." <<<
Bullshit.
Dr. John Lattimer was able to acquire Oswald's original "Score Book"
from the Marines (or at least one such book that recorded some of
Oswald's rifle-range scores), and that book showed the results of two
of Oswald's near-perfect scores on the range (at a 200-yard distance,
which is more than twice the distance of Oswald's third shot in
Dallas, which was only 88 yards).
In a documentary a few years ago, Dr. Lattimer showed the two pages of
the Score Book on camera....one of the scores was "48 out of 50"; and
on another day, Oswald scored a "49 out of 50" on the 200-yard rifle
range.
Here's a photo showing those two pages of Oswald's Marine Corps Rifle
Score Book (with Dr. Lattimer's comments included):
http://i4.tinypic.com/52qekip.jpg
But it's best for you conspiracy-happy kooks if you keep on believing
that Lee Harvey Oswald couldn't hit the broadest side of the
proverbial barn, despite the fact that you're dead-wrong.
>>> "He {"Broad Side Of A Barn" Oswald} had no practice between this {Marine} exam and the assassination, so how is he better than a civilian that hunts and practices all the time?" <<<
Firstly, you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that Oswald "had no
practice" between the time he scored that 191 late in his 3-year hitch
in the Marines and the day of the assassination. He might very well
have practiced with his Carcano between March and November. Nobody can
prove he did; but nobody can prove he didn't either.
Secondly, while I'll readily admit that Oswald's shooting ability
could have been a tad rusty as of November 1963 (since he had been out
of the Marines for four years by that time), he DID spend three full
years in the U.S. Marine Corps and DID make some very good scores on
the rifle range during those three years.
In short, Lee Harvey Oswald was a TRAINED MILITARY RIFLEMAN (like it
or not). He was trained by men who know how to teach people how to
shoot rifles; and while Oswald was never in the top ("Expert")
category, he did make "Sharpshooter" in 1956, so the ability for some
pretty decent shooting with a rifle was certainly within the person
known as Lee H. Oswald.
Should I use the "It's like riding a bike--you never forget" analogy
here? (Okay...I just did anyway.)
>>> "You are the one saying I'm wrong, but as usual you have no proof to show." <<<
What is considered "proof" to a conspiracy-giddy kook anyway? Would a
note from God saying "It Was Lee" do the trick?
I guess it's going to take that heaven-sent message from above to
convince the kooks, because apparently the FIFTY-PLUS separate pieces
of individual evidence that lead toward Oswald's guilt are not nearly
enough for the "Anybody But Oz" loony-toons.
V.B. BREAK........
"As a prosecutor, I found out something -- and, really, you
don't have to be a prosecutor to know this; it's just common sense --
and that is: if you are innocent of a crime, there's probably not
going to be anything pointing toward your guilt. Why? Well, because
you're INNOCENT.
"But because of the nature of life, and the unaccountability of
certain things, every once in a while there might be one or two things
that point toward your guilt, even though you're innocent. And in very
rare situations, there might even be THREE things that point toward
your guilt even though you're completely innocent.
"But in this case {the JFK case}, EVERY SINGLE THING pointed
toward Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt. Everything!
"In "Reclaiming History", I set forth 53 separate pieces of
evidence that point irresistibly to Oswald's guilt. And under those
circumstances, it would not be humanly possible for him to be
innocent.
"Because you cannot have fifty-three separate pieces of evidence
pointing toward your guilt and still be innocent....at least not in
the world in which we live -- you know, 'I'm talking to you', 'you can
hear me', 'there's going to be a dawn tomorrow'....THAT world.
"Only in a fantasy world can you have fifty-three pieces of
evidence pointing to your guilt and still be innocent." -- VINCENT T.
BUGLIOSI; 2007
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2cdfdf0b58b5df8b
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858
>>> "I don't see what is so nutty about what I say." <<<
You supposedly have studied the evidence in this case (right??), and
yet you have the balls to say crap like this (on more than one
occasion):
"LHO shot no one."
and
"There is no evidence in LN land."
And then you have the additional gall to say this:
"I don't see what is so nutty about what I say."
(Apparently Robby wouldn't notice a pair of elephants sitting in his
bathtub, even when Rob's in the bathtub with them.)
Fact is (of course): The junk Rob spews is so "nutty", we could make a
gallon of peanut butter with it. (Those elephants might come in handy
here after all.)
>>> "You think LHO is guilty based on very little evidence..." <<<
There's that nutty talk again. (REALLY nutty.)
You're just plain wrong here, Rob. Simple as that. No matter how many
times you insist that there's "very little evidence" against Lee
Oswald, it still won't be true. The exact OPPOSITE is true, in fact.
There is so much evidence against Oswald for the two murders he
carried out on November 22, 1963, it's almost beyond belief.
I suppose that's part of the reason you just simply don't want to
believe in the vast assortment of evidence that exists against Mr.
Oswald; i.e., you probably think it's just "TOO PAT", right? It's too
convenient. Which means, per some CTers, that this huge mountain of
evidence (both physical and circumstantial) must somehow be fake or
manufactured in some way.
But at some point, the CTer making such bold claims must PROVE HIS
CASE, and prove that all (or ANY) of this evidence against LHO is, in
fact, "faked" or "planted", or whatever. Thus far, such proof has not
arrived.
In fact, CTers are pitiful in this regard. They don't really even TRY
to prove their claims about "phony evidence". They think that by just
SAYING the evidence is "no good", it magically makes it so. But, as
Vincent Bugliosi (a seasoned courtroom lawyer) would say -- "It's not
quite that easy!"
Speaking (again) of Vince, now seems like a pretty good time for
another "VINCE COMMON-SENSE BREAK". Let's bask in the following logic
for just a minute or two, shall we? (All quotes are directly from the
indicated pages of VB's 2007 masterwork "Reclaiming History: The
Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy".).....
"Not only was there PHYSICAL circumstantial evidence against
Oswald {e.g., guns, bullets, and fingerprints traced to the
defendant}, but there was an enormous amount of non-physical
circumstantial evidence, including the very most powerful in this
category: his flight from the murder scene, his resisting arrest, and
his telling one provable lie after another upon his apprehension, all
showing an unmistakable consciousness of guilt." -- VB; Page 528 of
Endnotes (on CD)
==========
"In a city of more than 700,000 people, what is the probability
of one of them being the owner and possessor of the weapons that
murdered both Kennedy and Tippit, and yet still be innocent of both
murders? Aren't we talking about DNA numbers here, like one out of
several billion or trillion? Is there a mathematician in the house?"
-- VB; Page 964
==========
"It is remarkable that conspiracy theorists can believe that
groups like the CIA, military-industrial complex, and FBI would murder
the president, but cannot accept the likelihood, even the possibility,
that a nut like Oswald would flip out and commit the act, despite the
fact that there is a ton of evidence showing that Oswald killed
Kennedy, and not an ounce showing that any of these groups had
anything to do with the assassination.
"It is further remarkable that these conspiracy theorists aren't
troubled in the least by their inability to present any evidence that
Oswald was set up and framed. For them, the mere belief or speculation
that he was is a more-than-adequate substitute for evidence." -- VB;
Pages 951-952
==========
"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists display
an astonishing inability to see the vast forest of evidence proving
Oswald's guilt because of their penchant for obsessing over the
branches, even the leaves of individual trees. And, because virtually
all of them have no background in criminal investigation, they look at
each leaf (piece of evidence) by itself, hardly ever in relation to,
and in the context of, all the other evidence." -- VB; Pages 952-953
==========
"I can tell the readers of this book that if anyone in the
future maintains to them that Oswald was just a patsy and did not kill
Kennedy, that person is either unaware of the evidence against Oswald
or simply a very silly person. .... Any denial of Oswald's guilt is
not worthy of serious discussion." -- VB; Page 969
http://blog.myspace.com/davidvp1961
>>> "The real point is that LHO could not do what your theory claims by himself (in terms of the SBT, only with God's help); therefore, common sense says he had help at the very least. Help = conspiracy. Not real difficult, Dave." <<<
And just because ALL of the physical (ballistics) evidence DOES,
indeed, tell the world that you are 100% wrong, with that evidence
showing that one gunman DID, indeed, pull off the assassination of
President Kennedy all by himself (i.e., with Lee Harvey Oswald's very
own C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, firing three shots from Oswald's
own workplace on the 6th Floor of the Texas School Book Depository
Building in Dealey Plaza)....you, a rabid conspiracist, choose to
believe exactly the OPPOSITE from what this ballistics evidence
indicates.
Is that about the size of the situation as she currently exists there
in Kookville? (Meaning: Things are normal in Kookville....everything
is upside-down and topsy-turvy.)
And maybe you should take a closer look at the Single-Bullet Theory,
Robert. It's the only possible scenario that makes a lick of sense
(when all of the physical evidence and all variables regarding the
victims are evaluated).
I've taken a pretty close look at the SBT, along with the crazy
solutions that some CTers have invented to replace the SBT; and if you
truly think that ANY theory purported by CTers (if you can even get a
CTer to talk about a detailed anti-SBT scenario, which is very rare)
is MORE reasonable and MORE convincing than the single-bullet
scenario, then you are immersed deeper in the CT quicksand than anyone
could possibly imagine.
If you peruse some of these articles below, you'll be able to see what
I mean:
A COMMON-SENSE APPROACH TO THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a7cf61c59d09bc05
THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY IN ACTION:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/88cd14ec6de230eb
WHERE'S THE LOGICAL CONSPIRACY-ORIENTED ALTERNATIVE TO THE SBT?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8ee3ea6cfa4a58c9
MORE SBT TALK (WITH A LARGE DOSE OF COMMON SENSE INCLUDED):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d16a5df97cccb32c
IN A (LONE) NUTSHELL -- THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30398a449c05b7
JOHN CONNALLY SAID THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY IS "POSSIBLE":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/741a872f58796bfe
THE ODD (BUT ALMOST CERTAINLY TRUE) JOURNEY OF BULLET CE399:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c565d3b4c930a683
TOO MANY CE399 BULLET FRAGMENTS IN JOHN CONNALLY? HARDLY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7bf79593cce78406
IF BULLET CE399 DIDN'T INJURE GOVERNOR CONNALLY, WHAT BULLET DID?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f90802d6225a380e
>>> "Like he {L.H. Oswald} knew about all the things they were doing to frame him. Please. They are professionals; they knew how to do this and get away with it." <<<
LOL time, kids!
The kook thinks that these "professionals" would have actually fired
upon JFK's limo from three (or more) different locations within the
framework of a "LET'S FRAME ONLY LEE HARVEY OSWALD AS OUR PATSY"
assassination plot.
Did those "professionals" have a patent on "Miracles Coming True",
too? They must have, if they forged ahead with a cuckoo scheme like
that one (which is a theory that gobs of CTers actually believe too).
>>> "How do you explain the horrible effort by the WC if there was no coverup?" <<<
What "horrible effort"? Their effort was outstanding, for they arrived
at THE TRUTH about what happened on November 22, and then published
their findings (a few warts and all) for all Americans to read.
Thousands of pages of testimony were published and 3,154 exhibits were
introduced into evidence by the WC (not counting the many extra
"Commission Documents"). 552 witnesses were interviewed (many at great
length). And a staff of full-time lawyers investigated and researched
the case for over nine months.
Maybe you should try reading this impressive 888-page document. After
all, the truth rests within it:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/contents.htm
>>> "They couldn't have planned on a better group of numskulls if they tried (except for Dick Russell)." <<<
What a surprise, huh?! Rob picks out as his WC hero the one person on
the Commission who was, by far, the biggest KNOW-NOTHING member of
that Commission (Richard Russell). Still batting triple-zero, Rob.
Good job. .....
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b9af777b0e813fd7
>>> "Nothing like proving anything, huh? He {Vince Bugliosi} just uses an abstract reference to make his point. Just pathetic." <<<
Spoken by the kook as if Bugliosi presented ZERO pieces of evidence
pointing to Oswald's guilt during the course of the 21-hour TV Docu-
Trial in 1986.
Maybe you should actually THINK before you post your foolishness, RC.
That might be nice for a change. And then you might want to actually
WATCH the TV Trial, to see the large amount of evidence against Oswald
that was introduced into the record of that trial (albeit a "mock"
trial, yes; but it's the exact same evidence that VB would have
introduced at Oswald's real trial; and all of it dooms Lee Harvey).
Or, you can read some "On Trial" excerpts in print form (below):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ccd8645d5da3d91
www.skepticfiles.org/weird/eoc8-4.htm
I guess Rob will next be saying that all of the following people were
liars, or were strong-armed, or were coerced by evil forces when they
each testified about things at that Mock Trial that point to a guilty
Lee Harvey Oswald (even though NONE of these witnesses was forced to
testify at the television "trial" in London, England, in July 1986;
each one of them appeared voluntarily):
Harold Norman, Wesley Frazier, Eugene Boone, Ruth Paine, Lyndal
Shaneyfelt, Jack Tatum, Charles Brehm, Marrion Baker, Ted Callaway,
Vincent Guinn, Charles Petty, Nelson Delgado, and Johnny Brewer (among
others).
>>> "There is no real evidence linking him {L.H.O.} to the two murders, if you want to look." <<<
Oh, I've looked. Perhaps you should look. Apparently you've
conveniently missed seeing the fifty or so things that incriminate
your favorite patsy. (Are all 50 "fake"? .... Put down the bottle.)
>>> "The DPD did a horrible job of protecting him {D.F. Drittal} on purpose, so there would be no trial." <<<
Hilarious! The DPD was willing to DELIBERATELY give the whole
department an irreversible black eye by allowing Ruby to shoot their
prisoner on live TV. Right, kookman?
And killing the patsy in front of 70 policemen and millions watching
on television would surely calm the public's fears that JFK's murder
was the result of some kind of conspiracy....wouldn't it, Robby?*
* = If a plot was brewing in Dallas, then the plotters killing Oswald
on TV in a police basement with cops all around him would certainly
have fueled more people's suspicions about a "conspiracy" than it
would squelch (and it did fuel such suspicions, of course). Which is
exactly the OPPOSITE of what any covert "plotters" would want the
general public to think, if there had, in fact, been an elaborate
"Let's Frame Oswald And Then Bump Him Off Before He Can Talk" type of
plot afoot in Dallas in 1963.
>>> "Why was Ruby allowed to get so close to shoot LHO? Answer that one." <<<
An amazing combination of things brought about the murder of JFK's
assassin in the police basement on November 24th, 1963. .....
1.) Jack Ruby and WHO he was; i.e., he was KNOWN by many DPD officers
and Dallas officials; and Ruby was SEEN by some of these people
earlier that weekend at DPD Headquarters. This made it very easy for
Ruby to blend in with the crowd at the bottom of the basement's ramp
just before Oswald was brought out. In effect, it would have been a
"normal" thing to have seen Jack Ruby there.
2.) The fact that the basement had been searched by police BEFORE Ruby
entered the basement at 11:20 AM. If Ruby had managed to sneak into
the basement a half-hour or so earlier, he almost certainly would have
been ejected by police officers. But Jack's timing was impeccable,
entering the basement probably no more than 45 seconds before Oswald
appeared.
3.) The moving of the police car which exited the basement garage just
seconds before the shooting....which allowed Ruby to sneak in
unnoticed by Officer Roy Vaughn, who was guarding the entrance ramp to
the garage, because Vaughn had to step into the street to stop traffic
so that Officer Pierce could drive out of the garage. Again, only the
incredibly-fortunate timing by Jack Ruby allowed him to gain entry
into that basement.
4.) Karen Carlin's telephone call to Ruby on Sunday morning. That
call, and its timing, permitted Ruby to be in the right place at just
the right time at 11:20 AM at the top of the Main St. ramp, just one
minute before Oswald was killed.
5.) Ruby's habit of almost always carrying a gun ON HIM wherever he
went. Because if Ruby HADN'T had this habit, he wouldn't have been
able to kill Oswald anyway (unless he had planned to beat Lee Harvey
to death with the brass knuckles that Jack had in his car, also known
as "Ruby's Thrift Shop On Wheels").
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0266a.htm
6.) Jack Ruby's violent temper and his willingness to "take the law
into his own hands". Without these character traits of Ruby's firmly
in place on 11/24/63, it's very likely that Mr. Oswald would have
lived to see the sun come up November 25th.
>>> "You are getting desperate Dave, as I never said that {i.e., Rob is saying here that he never claimed that the three bullet shells found in the SN were NEVER linked conclusively to Oswald's rifle}, and you adding it later is not going to prove it." <<<
How about my proving it with a cite from the Google post where you
actually said it? Would that suffice? Yes, you did make that stupid
claim about the bullet shells, on November 17, 2007.....
I SAID (while listing some of the evidence against Oswald):
"The three bullet shells in the SN."
ROB THEN SAID IN DIRECT RESPONSE (which is actually a double hunk of
idiocy, including its second part too):
"From a Carcano, but never proven they were from the C2766, which in
turn was never proven beyond a reasonable doubt to even belong to
LHO."
Here's the whole post by Rob-Kook (for verification):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/05c927c4ea5e3af1
>>> "They {the 3 SN shells} were fired at some point to the time of the assassination and left to frame LHO." <<<
And the DPD just happened to have three spent rifle cartridges on them
to "plant" beneath the killer's window, huh?
If that's not what you're suggesting, then what shells were
photographed by Day and Studebaker very shortly after the
assassination (and BEFORE the Carcano rifle of Oswald's was even
removed from the building)?
>>> "CE399 is undoubtedly from the M-C, but it is an obvious plant and was not actually fired at the president or JBC." <<<
You're an idiot. .....
WAS BULLET CE399 "PLANTED" IN PARKLAND HOSPITAL?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/84689b600ce41d68
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bceb46435b39817f
>>> "Got it straight now." <<<
Oh, sure. You're a freaking idiot. Couldn't be any clearer.
>>> "The term "very likely" is not definitive, as I have shown you several sources that said metal either matches or it doesn't, there is no "very likely" about it." <<<
Again, you're an idiot. I've proven that you're wrong about this (re.
the front-seat bullet fragments being provably linked to Oswald's
rifle "TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER WEAPONS"), but you refuse to
believe it.
I have even supplied weblinks to the testimony which proves this
important fact (a fact that every JFK researcher should know by heart,
and without ever having to refresh their memory).
But, I'll try it yet again.....
ROBERT FRAZIER -- "{CE}567 {one of the two front-seat bullet
fragments}, the one we have just finished."
JOHN McCLOY -- "Was likewise a portion of a bullet fired from that
rifle?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."
MR. McCLOY -- "You have no doubt about any of those?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "None whatsoever."
[Later...]
MR. FRAZIER -- "This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569 {the other of the
two bullet fragments found in the front seat of the limousine}, was
fired from this particular rifle, 139."
MEL EISENBERG -- "Again to the exclusion of all other rifles?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm
Another important point I'd like to make about the Warren Commission
and the "experts" who were called upon to testify for that
Commission......
Conspiracy theorists rarely, if ever, acknowledge the fact that the
Warren Commission went to additional lengths (beyond what they
certainly HAD to do, of course) to determine the truth with respect to
the major pieces of physical evidence connected with the assassination
(such as the ballistics/bullet evidence and the fingerprint evidence),
in that those pieces of evidence were examined by not only people
employed by the FBI....but also by INDEPENDENT experts OUTSIDE THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in these fields of evidence identification.
Independent experts Joseph Nicol of Illinois (for ballistics) and
Arthur Mandella of the New York City Police Department (for
fingerprint analysis) were brought in by the WC to examine various
pieces of evidence connected with the case, and both Nicol and
Mandella arrived at the exact same "LN-favoring" conclusions that the
FBI did.
In fact, one of the independent experts (Nicol) even went an "LN" step
beyond the FBI when he testified that one of the four bullets removed
from Officer J.D. Tippit's body could positively be linked to Lee
Harvey Oswald's Smith & Wesson .38 revolver to the exclusion of every
other gun on the planet. .....
JOSEPH NICOL -- "On specimen 602--I'm sorry--603 {one of the four
bullets taken out of Tippit's body}, which I have designated as Q-502,
I found sufficient individual characteristics to lead me to the
conclusion that that projectile was fired in the same weapon that
fired the projectiles in 606."
MEL EISENBERG -- "That is to the exclusion of all other weapons?"
MR. NICOL -- "Yes, sir."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/nicol.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/mandella.htm
So, it would appear to me that the Warren Commission did an excellent
job of getting at the truth of the matters concerning these very
important determinations regarding the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in the John
F. Kennedy murder case.
The Commission, in fact, utilized (in many instances) TRIPLE
redundancy when it came to arriving at conclusions about the evidence
in the case; i.e., the WC had up to three separate people (from both
Governmental and non-Governmental institutions) examine the critical
pieces of physical evidence in this murder case....and they ALL came
to the same basic conclusions when each of them testified for the WC
in 1964.
The Commission, come to think of it, possibly utilized that type of
redundancy in an effort to ward off the exact kind of allegations that
are still be hurled at the WC to this day -- i.e., allegations that
the "fox [the Government's own FBI] was investigating the chicken
coop".
But what about experts like the previously-mentioned Nicol and
Mandella (who worked for non-Federal Government organizations in
Illinois and New York)?
Did those independent experts in the fields of ballistics and
fingerprint identification supposedly lie to the Warren Commission,
too (per CTer beliefs)?
In short, is there anything that conspiracy theorists won't do, say,
twist, or allege in order to try to discredit the work that was done
by the Warren Commission and its legal staff in 1963 and 1964?
I think I know the answer to that last question. Don't you?
>>> "My question is simple: if he {LHO} craved world attention, and he accomplished something the best shots in the world couldn't accomplish, why deny it?" <<<
Denying it got him the same amount of world attention, idiot. And
that's because Oswald knew he was guilty and he also knew that he left
behind a popcorn trail for the police that convicts him 30 times over.
Perhaps that's a viable explanation for why he left behind those
bullet shells in the window, and the gun on the same 6th Floor, and
his fingerprints all over the place, and the shells on 10th Street,
etc. Maybe, deep down, he WANTED to get caught.
We know that he certainly EXPECTED to get caught, that's for sure. And
we know this via his actions that Friday morning in Irving (e.g.,
leaving behind the $170 and the wedding ring for Marina).
It's hard to get inside the head of a person who actually has it
inside him the capacity to murder the President of the United States.
That's what makes it a bit difficult to know what Oswald's exact
motives were; or why he was so incredibly stupid and inept after
performing the shooting (e.g., leaving behind enough "LHO Was Here"
evidence to make sure he'd be convicted, and then, on top of that,
also killing a policeman while in full flight from the first murder,
and doing the latter in front of many witnesses too).
But to think that ALL of this stuff has been conveniently "planted" by
other people after the fact is just too ridiculous to be considered.
Author and ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan said it very nicely in
his 2005 book when he said:
"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably
have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert,
or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly
coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most
conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of
"Keystone Kops", with the inability to recognize the implications of
the most elementary evidence, and "Evil Geniuses", with superhuman
abilities to fake physical evidence, that is in complete agreement
with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry M. Sturdivan; Page 246 of
"The JFK Myths"
www.amazon.com/review/R6EGCI0WHHGAD
Oh, btw, this statement of yours is dead-wrong (as per your norm) --
"He accomplished something the best shots in the world couldn't
accomplish."
Fact is, of course, that many people have duplicated (and even
bettered) Oswald's so-called "impossible feat", including some expert
riflemen in 1967 (for a CBS-TV special).
So you can take that CT Myth out back and bury it too. (Along with all
the other outdated/debunked myths you insist upon espousing as the
truth.)
>>> [Referring to Jim Garrison:] "You don't have to agree with everything someone says or does to still find worth in their effort. You should learn this." <<<
Garrison did NOTHING of a redeeming or "worthy" nature. Nothing. Quite
the opposite, in fact. He prosecuted a man he knew to be totally
innocent (Clay Shaw), and he believed in the craziest of all
imaginable JFK conspiracy theories -- a pre-arranged one-patsy plot
involving up to FIVE shooters blasting away at the President.
And: Garrison went further into nutsville territory by uttering this
brazen lie in 1967 (just one of the many lies and misrepresentations
he spewed forth in the late 1960s):
"The clincher, as far as I'm concerned, is that four cartridges
were found at the scene of the {J.D. Tippit} slaying. Now, revolvers
do not eject cartridges, so when someone is shot, you don't later find
gratuitous cartridges strewn over the sidewalk -- unless the murderer
deliberately takes the trouble to eject them. We suspect that
cartridges had been previously obtained from Oswald's .38 revolver and
left at the murder site by the real killers as part of the setup to
incriminate Oswald." -- Jim Garrison (Via October 1967 Playboy
Magazine interview)
Maybe Mr. Garrison should have taken a good look at these affidavits
before shooting off his mouth to Playboy in '67:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm
>>> "He {Kook Garrison} was after Shaw due to his CIA ties." <<<
Which, of course, were non-existent (apart from Shaw's "Domestic
Service" CIA involvement, which is a service that many, many other
ordinary Americans volunteered for and participated in as well).
You're talking crazy shit, as per usual.
>>> "Do you think there are open windows for Dubya? Kind of doubt it." <<<
Why wouldn't there be? President Bush never drives around in a
convertible with the top down. No President has done that since
Kennedy on 11/22/63. (Idiot.)
>>> "Can't you quote anyone besides Bugman {aka: Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq.}?" <<<
Well, my policy is this: Why not quote from the best source available
whenever possible? (IOW: Why quote a bunch of conspiracy kooks when
I've got Vince?) <chuckle>
Besides, your question is based on yet another inaccuracy....because
I've quoted many other people in my posts and reviews [see links below
for plenty of examples] -- e.g., Belin, Sturdivan, Davison, Myers,
Lattimer, Posner, Fuhrman, Rahn, Ford, Manchester, Bud (from this
forum, whose logic-filled posts many times rival the words of
Bugliosi), and many more. .....
www.google.com/group/alt.60s/browse_thread/thread/282746f40489bbe7
www.amazon.com/review/R2R0RQ0Q9AZY0M?tag=dvsre-20
www.amazon.com/review/R2C5UCFXVF7B4I?tag=dvsre-20
www.amazon.com/review/R6EGCI0WHHGAD?tag=dvsre-20
www.amazon.com/review/R3FTAF6Q657O77?tag=dvsre-20
www.amazon.com/review/RX09PCPWL9RCH?tag=dvsre-20
www.amazon.com/review/R2Y8HMTWRF6L2Q?tag=dvsre-20
www.amazon.com/review/R6QFDI7SQZF88?tag=dvsre-20
www.amazon.com/review/R3BEKTGVKJGI72?tag=dvsre-20
curtjester1
wrote:
> The LN world tries to say all of us who do not accept the official
> explanations in many cases of history we are "nuts".
>
> association their point of view. It is an old tactic that has been
> used since the beginning of time.
>
> Floyd Rudmin is a member of the Psychology Department, University of
> the explanations do not fit the facts."
>
I think LN double speak and obfuscation comes in a lot of varieties.
Tom had posted about the CIA and their document on the game plan to
discredit researchers and authors.
Of course the double speak can be quite schemed and intricate like a
Philadelphia Lawyer, but sometimes that is not the case such as how
brute power and obfusication can control a case.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp17.html
CJ
curtjester1
An article The Art Of Disinformation
http://educate-yourself.org/tg/tmdisinfoagents08jul04.shtml
Good comments about NG's and as you will able to see the MO of our LNT
'bretheren' exposed...-:)
CJ
muc...@gmail.com
Curses! Exposed again...
Walt
> >>> "I mean they {the DPD} interviewed the guy {Saint Oswald} for like 12 hours; why is there no recording of him confessing or anything else?" <<<
>
> I guess maybe that's because he didn't confess....or anything. (Duh.)
>
> Let's see you come up with proof that it was a regular DPD policy to
> record or transcribe the statements of prisoners/suspects, circa 1963.
> Can you do that?
Let's see you come up with proof that it was a regular DPD policy to
record or transcribe the statements of prisoners/suspects, circa
1963.
Can you do that?
Ya know, I'll bet it wouldn't be very diffucult to find a case on the
DPD files where the interrogators kept notes on the suspects responses
to questions.
How about it...... Can someone who is proficient at googling find a
case to stick up Von Pea Brains nose?
Walt
> You're just plain wrong here, Rob. Simple ...
>
> read more >>
Walt
http://educate-yourself.org/tg/tmdisinfoagents08jul04.shtml
Thanks forproviding the link, Curt. Why do I get a mental image of
David Von Pea Brain, when I read the discription of a disinformation
agent??
Walt
>
> Good comments about NG's and as you will able to see the MO of our LNT
> 'bretheren' exposed...-:)
>
> CJ- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
> David Von Pea Brain, when I read the discription of a disinformation
> agent??
>
> Walt
>
would need a team of psychOiatrists.
CJ
>
>
>
>
> > Good comments about NG's and as you will able to see the MO of our LNT
> > 'bretheren' exposed...-:)
>
> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Go, and sin no more.
CJ
tomnln
office
was to record "Mo-Town Tunes.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c13d4bc4-aa32-4eb0...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
curtjester1
> David thinks that the "Recording Room" directly across the hall from Fritz's
> office
> was to record "Mo-Town Tunes.
>
Wonder's .... "Superstitious"
CJ
> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:c13d4bc4-aa32-4eb0...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> ...
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
> On 26 Nov, 12:32, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:> David thinks that the "Recording Room" directly across the hall from Fritz's
> > office
> > was to record "Mo-Town Tunes.
>
> Fritzy was KKK, so I doubt he would have been listening to Stevie
> Wonder's .... "Superstitious"
actually the Chirelles were popular around that time, everyone loved
the Chirelles, even Fritz....Stevie came a bit later.... :)
> ...
>
> read more >>
curtjester1
> On Nov 26, 10:16 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 26 Nov, 12:32, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:> David thinks that the "Recording Room" directly across the hall from Fritz's
> > > office
> > > was to record "Mo-Town Tunes.
>
> > Fritzy was KKK, so I doubt he would have been listening to Stevie
> > Wonder's .... "Superstitious"
>
> actually the Chirelles were popular around that time, everyone loved
> the Chirelles, even Fritz....Stevie came a bit later.... :)
>
'Soldier Boy' to Lee on his new fangled tape system.....:-)
CJ
aeffects
> On 26 Nov, 14:19, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 26, 10:16 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 26 Nov, 12:32, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:> David thinks that the "Recording Room" directly across the hall from Fritz's
> > > > office
> > > > was to record "Mo-Town Tunes.
>
> > > Fritzy was KKK, so I doubt he would have been listening to Stevie
> > > Wonder's .... "Superstitious"
>
> > actually the Chirelles were popular around that time, everyone loved
> > the Chirelles, even Fritz....Stevie came a bit later.... :)
>
> I think that was the Shirelles, and well I could see, Fritz singing
> 'Soldier Boy' to Lee on his new fangled tape system.....:-)
yeah CJ you're right.... with a "S"... after a few quarts of Ba-Muoi-
Ba things had a tendency to blur a bit, even hearing! :)
> ...
>
> read more >>
David Von Pein
Why can't YOU do it yourself, Mr. Mega-Kook?
Doesn't "Google" exist on your computer?
Geez.
BTW, Fritz (et al) did keep "notes". So, what's your point anyway? I
was talking about TRANSCRIPTIONS or TAPED recordings, circa '63.