"Reclaiming History"--Nothing new!
lazu...@webtv.net
against LHO in VB's epic paean to Lone Nutterdom. There has been only
the crushing sound of silence since that question. Apparently, VB is
content to resort to his prosecutorial wizardry by rehashing (albeit in
a mountain of verbiage) what we've known all along, ever since the WCR
(since there's been no prosecuton evidence forthcoming since that opus)
without providing any proof of Oswald's guilt.
And if he can't prove LHO's sole guilt, then obviously he can't at the
same time prove there was no conspiracy. VB seems oblivious to the fact
that one cannot prove a negative, no matter hiow he blusters about
"demolishing" all conspiracy theories. Sure, some of the wildest
theories on the fringe can easily be debunked. But how about the
mainline theories pointing to high-level involvement? For example, just
like the WC before him he blindly accepts the word of his
friends/contacts at the CIA that they had "no operational interest in
LHO", when documentary evidence from the ARRB and even before them
proves otherwise. The same goes for the mob and Cuban Exiles. No matter
how many times he contends that these groups had no involvement in JFK's
murder, he has offered no proof whatsoever, other than his so-called
"logic and common-sense" approach. So, until he proves his claim that
LHO was a lone assassin with no help, it appears VB is FOS in denying
even the possibility of conspiracy.----Old Laz, who is skeptical of
people with tunnel vision
A closed mind gathers no facts.
eca...@tx.rr.com
caused by the same problem Question Man
Healey has.. We don't care to listen to
your extra stewpit conclusions based on
God knows what; it's certainly not the
evidence or CS&L that leads to your nutty
ideas.. (That's obvious.)
It's not that our minds are closed Laz..
The problem is that facts and CS&L bounce
off of your pointy head like ping-pong balls.
There is just so much you can teach a dolt.
But your solace will be this Lazermaroid..
Your IQ and objectivity rank light yrs ahead
of The Question Man. Gather up your shine kit
and crack pipe Laz.. You and Old-Timey Laz
may go now.. We'll wake you up when the Three
Stooges come on.
MR ;~D
1401Jul207
David Von Pein
And just how did the ARRB "prove" that?
Vince B. has an interesting line of thought on the CIA (one which is
really quite humorous...and forthright, IMO). Let's listen:
"Even though normally innocent they insist on acting guilty so that
conspiracy theorists will have more fodder for their charges. (They do
so because being innocent, they have no guilty conscience and continue
to be angered and shocked when they are later accused of a "cover-
up.")" -- VB
"The CIA had nothing to hide in thousands of previous documents the
agency initially refused to release voluntarily but ultimately did
release under court order. The CIA specializes in always acting
guilty, even when it is not, and always being, from a public relations
standpoint, its own worst enemy." -- VB
"To the point, arguably, of perversity, the silly spooks at Langley--
like the pathological liar who lies even when it would be to his
benefit to tell the truth--will fight Morley and his lawyer every inch
of the way, thereby helping them, every inch of the way, to convince
everyone that it has something to hide--Joannides's and perhaps its
own complicity in the assassination. .... Joannides and the CIA
conspired with Oswald to kill Kennedy as much as you and I did." -- VB
>>> "The same goes for the mob and Cuban Exiles. No matter how many times he contends that these groups had no involvement in JFK's murder, he has offered no proof whatsoever..." <<<
And what "proof" has anyone provided that links the Mob or the Exiles
to JFK's death? Or: what ironclad "proof" is there that Oswald was
"connected" in some way with the Mob?*
* = We know he was connected partially to anti-Castro Cuban
exiles....at least to the extent he was seen with Bringuier and
possibly others too. But if you read any entensive LHO biography--like
in "RH" or Jean Davison's excellent book--you can see that LHO's
"contact" with these anti-Castro exiles was almost certainly for his
OWN SOLITARY SELFISH PURPOSES....i.e., he wanted to get to Cuba, and
he didn't give a damn who he had to dupe to get there it would seem.
His flip-flopping ruse over to the "anti-Castro" side didn't work,
since he never got to Cuba via the exiles he contacted. But one
thing's for sure--there's not a speck of proof tying anti-Castro
exiles to the assassination of JFK. At the time of "Leopoldo's" call
to Odio in Sep. '63, there could not possibly have been a "plan" for
Oswald to kill Kennedy IN DALLAS.
If you think that these exiles worked with Oswald BEYOND late
September 1963, where's the evidence of this? Answer: None exists.
>>> "So, until he {VB} proves his claim that LHO was a lone assassin with no help..." <<<
That's odd (yet again)....I thought the CTers had the burden of
proving that Oswald WAS involved in a conspiracy, rather than the
reverse of LNers having to prove the negative that he was not involved
with a teammate(s).
Has the burden suddenly shifted to the LNers in this regard without my
knowing it?
BTW, where are those non-C2766 bullets? Has anyone found one yet?
lazu...@webtv.net
conspiracy. VB cannot/ should not make that claim, since as I said, one
cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on him. Theefore, he
should retract his pompous assertion. We already know you guys have
failed miserably in this regard.-----Old Laz, who believes "kook' is in
the eye of the beholder.
David Von Pein
Just as I thought....a CTer whining because of a differing LN opinion
re. a CTer's precious "conspiracy" that never existed.
Too...fucking...bad, kook. --- DVP; Who believes "kook" is in the
house of the CT-nut
===============================
"In the Kennedy case, I believe the absence of a conspiracy can be
proved to a virtual certainty." -- Vince B.
~~~~~~~~
"One of the principal frailties in the thinking processes of the
theorists is that they rarely ever carry their suspicions, which are
based on some discrepancy, anomaly, or contradiction they find, to
their logical conclusion. If they did, they'd see the 'reductio ad
absurdum' of their position.
"But for them, if something looks suspicious, that's enough. Instead
of asking, "Where does this go?"--that is, where does the discrepancy,
contradiction, or whatever, lead them?--they immediately give their
minds a breather and conclude that what they find is itself proof of a
conspiracy (or proof that Oswald is innocent).
"The discrepancy or contradiction is the ENTIRE story. And being the
entire story, it by itself discredits the entire twenty-six volumes of
the Warren Commission. Nothing else has to be shown or even argued."
-- VB
===============================
YoHarvey
Just as I thought---nothing new in the way of proof that there was no
conspiracy. VB cannot/ should not make that claim, since as I said,
one
cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on him. Theefore, he
should retract his pompous assertion. We already know you guys have
failed miserably in this regard.-----Old Laz, who believes "kook' is
in
the eye of the beholder.
Man, and I thought Chico Jesus was an idiot! He has
now been surpassed. A CT is ACTUALLY asking Bugliosi
TO PROVE THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY??? Hey
genius? The official WC stands as of 2007! The burden
to prove conspiracy rests with YOU...and after 44 years
you've failed miserably.
Bud
lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> Just as I thought---nothing new in the way of proof that there was no
> conspiracy. VB cannot/ should not make that claim, since as I said, one
> cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on him.
And he met that burden, by conclusively showing that Oswald
commited these crimes. He went no further than that, because there was
nowhere further than that to go. The kooks have gone everywhere, and
nowhere from there.