What's "Kooky" About a Conspiracy?
RICLAND
Some members of this forum do something no longer done outside of it:
they call people who believe in a conspiracy "kooks."
But what's kooky about believing there was a conspiracy?
If Oswald could shoot the President dead and walk away from the scene of
the crime, why is it so hard to believe others could have pulled it off
too?
The point here is that if you believe Oswald was a fumbling, psychotic,
$1.25 per hour loser, why is it so hard to believe that highly trained
professionals with unlimited resources could have accomplished what he
allegedly did?
As who these conspirators might be, can we at least agree there were
powerful men who would benefit from JFK's death? And if we agree with
this, can we agree further on who these individuals could have been?
Consider the following names:
Jimmy Hoffa
Carlos Marcello
Santos Trafficante
Lyndon Johnson
Gen. Cabell
Mayor Cabell (of Dallas)
Allen Dulles
et. al.,
H.L. Hunt
Howard Hunt
Can we at least agree the men listed above would have wanted or
benefited from Kennedy's death?
Linked to this is the notion that men like those in the list networked
in some way. There are any number of theories about how such networking
might have happened, but can we at least agree such a thing was possible?
The Shooters
The last players in this exercise are the persons who actually pulled
the trigger. Marita Lorenz claims the Cuban exiles from Operation 40 did
it. Operation 40 was a Frank Sturgis assassination team created to,
among other things, assassinate Castro. These assassins were highly
trained -- far better trained than Oswald -- and were known to have done
work for the CIA throughout South America.
Can we at least agree that if at Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963 these
assassins would have stood a far better chance of pulling off the
assassination than Lee Harvey Oswald?
Please refrain from spamming this thread. We've all been goofing off
lately and there's nothing wrong with that, but I would appreciate it
ever so much if we could respond to the above with honesty and intelligence.
Thanking you before hand,
ricland
--
Who Shot JFK?
http://tinyurl.com/2qgodj
David Von Pein
being used at least once (and hopefully many, many more times) to
describe the rabid CTers in VB's Kennedy book. Scroll down to
"RECLAIMING HISTORY" and see. I'm lovin' it. (Maybe Vince has been
reading the pro-LN posts at this Forum.) ~wink~ .....
http://www.kirkusreviews.com/kirkusreviews/magazine/nonfiction.jsp
aeffects
> And I am very, very pleased to see that that word ("kook"; "kooky") is
> being used at least once (and hopefully many, many more times) to
> describe the rabid CTers in VB's Kennedy book. Scroll down to
>
> http://www.kirkusreviews.com/kirkusreviews/magazine/nonfiction.jsp
ROTFLMFAO ------- you will always draw a laugh from me, David. Vince
Bugliosi has the perfect yes man pitching his bullshit.... GAWD help
the Nutter's
David Von Pein
A Kook" response from this writer. (And probably from VB too.)
For some unknown reason you actually WANT to be a kook.
Go figure.
To each his (kooky) own, I guess.
aeffects
> And your say-nothing posts, Mr. H., will continue to elicit a "You're
> A Kook" response from this writer. (And probably from VB too.)
>
> For some unknown reason you actually WANT to be a kook.
nah...
> Go figure.
pretty simple David -- My old man was a friend of JFK, if he was a
friend of my old man, couple that with JFK was my Commander-in-
Chief... what can I say, I want more than the WCR and the volumes. I
got a dog in this fight -- your side isn't filling out the story.
Matter of fact, your side whines constantly when challenged, that in
and of itself make anything you say SUSPECT...
and believe it or not, I don't care if LHO was involved. If he was, he
got his just-deserts, if NOT, you're covering up the premiere
conspiracy of ourtime....
So, who is the *kook* if you're wrong?
RICLAND
You hit on a good point, aeffects.
There's something almost un-American with pig-headedness like David's,
something fascist and anti-human rights.
Then again, also something very much American, I suppose -- the lynch
mob mentality -- "We'll give him a fair trial and then we'll hang him!"
ricland
--
Who Shot JFK?
http://tinyurl.com/247ybb
David Von Pein
Spoken by (supposedly) the same person who gave us these comments
(below) just 12 days ago. ....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1e9c63c68dcc7a1d
~big shrug of shoulder blades~
Bud
RICLAND wrote:
> Some members of this forum do something no longer done outside of it:
> they call people who believe in a conspiracy "kooks."
>
> But what's kooky about believing there was a conspiracy?
>
> If Oswald could shoot the President dead and walk away from the scene of
> the crime, why is it so hard to believe others could have pulled it off
> too?
The kooks have to believe a whole series of incredible, fantastic,
and downright impossible things for there to be a conspiracy in this
case. That they choose this immensly complex path, through thickets
and brambles, when there is a clear, clean path available, marks them
as kooks.
> The point here is that if you believe Oswald was a fumbling, psychotic,
> $1.25 per hour loser, why is it so hard to believe that highly trained
> professionals with unlimited resources could have accomplished what he
> allegedly did?
Isn`t that the same for every murder? Maybe it wasn`t really the
husband who shot his wife, why not interject a hit squad? Because this
is a kooky approach. Oz`s rifle, kept at the Paine`s. Oz carries long,
paper covered object into work. Oz is seen on the floor the shots were
fired from. Someone sees Oz shooting. No "professionals" would have
the advantages Oz had. No "proffesional hit squad" scenario makes the
least bit of sense.
> As who these conspirators might be, can we at least agree there were
> powerful men who would benefit from JFK's death?
You can easily say that powerful men would have benefitted had the
Warren Commission returned a finding of conspiracy.
> And if we agree with
> this, can we agree further on who these individuals could have been?
>
> Consider the following names:
>
> Jimmy Hoffa
> Carlos Marcello
> Santos Trafficante
> Lyndon Johnson
> Gen. Cabell
> Mayor Cabell (of Dallas)
> Allen Dulles
> et. al.,
> H.L. Hunt
> Howard Hunt
Wow, a list of people who didn`t like Kennedy.
> Can we at least agree the men listed above would have wanted or
> benefited from Kennedy's death?
Meaningless. This is the approach kooks are forced to take, the
round about way. Forty plus years of intense investigation can`t
directly link any of these people to a plot to kill Kennedy.
> Linked to this is the notion that men like those in the list networked
> in some way. There are any number of theories about how such networking
> might have happened, but can we at least agree such a thing was possible?
Not with what we have in evidence, no, we can`t.
muc...@gmail.com
> Some members of this forum do something no longer done outside of it:
> they call people who believe in a conspiracy "kooks."
>
> But what's kooky about believing there was a conspiracy?
To suspect or believe there was a conspiracy behind the assassination
isn't kooky. Insisting there was one is another matter. Making strong
claims, especially in a paranoid sort of way, based on weak evidence
and poor reasoning can be signs of kookiness. Posts that are littered
with strong language, accusations, insults, threats, and other
instances of questionable bedside manners, are not necessarily written
by kooks, but still tend to be annoying in the long run.
I hope that clears it up...
-Mark
Gil Jesus
> To suspect or believe there was a conspiracy behind the assassination
> isn't kooky. Insisting there was one is another matter.
So it's ok to BELIEVE or SUSPECT there was a conspiracy, as long as
you don't TELL anybody ? Is that what you're saying ?
muc...@gmail.com
Not really, but you snipped the rest of my response, so perhaps you
missed the next sentence.
Gil Jesus
Making strong claims, especially in a paranoid sort of way, based on
weak evidence
and poor reasoning can be signs of kookiness.
Gil Jesus: Calling people "paranoid" and accusing them of using "poor
reasoning" seems to me to be more of an opinion than anything else.
There is a difference between someone who makes an error and someone
who purposely deceives.
There is also a difference between respect and disrespect. Let me
explain.
It is common courtesy and newsgroup ettiquette when one makes a
"strong claim" that is in error, and YOU KNOW AT THE TIME THAT HE MADE
IT THAT IT WAS AN ERROR, to e-mail that person and discuss that error
with him. That's called respect.
But when you take that person to task in a public forum, like asking
for a source of a "strong claim" that may be in error, the purpose of
which can only be to humiliate the poster publicly, that's disrespect.
And it does more damage to the credibility of the humiliator than to
the humilated.
Sometimes egos get in the way of the postings here. And many times
those egos are the engine that drive people's attempts to humiliate
others.
People are not stupid and they can see through things like that.
The best way to avoid postings of "paranoid" people is to killfilter
them.
muc...@gmail.com
> Next sentence:
>
> Making strong claims, especially in a paranoid sort of way, based on
> weak evidence
> and poor reasoning can be signs of kookiness.
>
> Gil Jesus: Calling people "paranoid" and accusing them of using "poor
> reasoning" seems to me to be more of an opinion than anything else.
>
> There is a difference between someone who makes an error and someone
> who purposely deceives.
>
> There is also a difference between respect and disrespect. Let me
> explain.
>
> It is common courtesy and newsgroup ettiquette when one makes a
> "strong claim" that is in error, and YOU KNOW AT THE TIME THAT HE MADE
> IT THAT IT WAS AN ERROR, to e-mail that person and discuss that error
> with him. That's called respect.
>
> But when you take that person to task in a public forum, like asking
> for a source of a "strong claim" that may be in error, the purpose of
> which can only be to humiliate the poster publicly, that's disrespect.
>
> And it does more damage to the credibility of the humiliator than to
> the humilated.
You posted a quote from a speech that probably wasn't even held under
the heading "JFK mocks Right" a couple of months ago. No source was
given, and I posted a quick reply asking you to provide one. Your
quote seemed highly suspect, but I wasn't trying to humiliate or trap
you. I expected you to take my modest request seriously enough to take
a second look - and either provide a credible source or post a
retraction. It appears that you didn't.
Please feel free to explain how this puts my credibility into
question.
-Mark
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
>
>On 30 Mar., 03:36, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
>> Some members of this forum do something no longer done outside of it:
>> they call people who believe in a conspiracy "kooks."
>>
>> But what's kooky about believing there was a conspiracy?
>
>To suspect or believe there was a conspiracy behind the assassination
>isn't kooky.
That would be a given.
Particularly considering that statistically speaking, it would be far more
likely to consider a belief that there was *NOT* a conspiracy to be kooky.
After all, the numbers of people who believe the WCR are in the same range as
the number of people who believe Elvis is still alive, the Moon hoax, U.S.
Government using explosives on the twin towers, etc.
>Insisting there was one is another matter.
No, it isn't.
*Insisting* that there could *NOT* have been a conspiracy in light of the
evidence would be the "kooky" behavior.
If the evidence shows that there was one, it would simply be *normal behavior*
to insist that the evidence does indeed show one.
Why not tell us the difference between 'believing' and 'insisting' that there
was a conspiracy? You admit that it's *NOT* "kooky" to believe, but assert that
it *IS* kooky to "insist".
I believe that when I finish breakfast, and walk out to my car, that it will
start. Would I be a "kook" to insist to you that it *WILL* start?
>Making strong claims,
This is what the WC did. Claims that were contradicted BY THEIR OWN EVIDENCE.
I've already posted a number of instances where the WC simply lied about their
own evidence - but there's many more instances where they drew conclusions that
were not warranted, and examples that demonstrate that they were *intentionally*
avoiding the obvious conclusion.
They were acting as a prosecutors office, not as a fact-finding committee.
>especially in a paranoid sort of way, based on weak evidence
"weak evidence?" *THIS* is the sign of a kook... Such phrases...
Although DVP may not have coined the phrase - I first note its usage from him.
Interestingly, I killfiled him for his *CONSTANT* ducking and running - he
simply would not answer the evidence and cites I raised. He kept refusing to
support his own words.
Are *you* going to refuse to support your own words? Let's get into *SPECIFIC*
instances of the evidence and see...
Was it "weak evidence" when Brennan refused to identify Oswald?
Was it "weak evidence" when several dozen people specified that the limo slowed
down dramatically or even came to a stop?
Was it "weak evidence" when dozens of people described an occipital-parietal
location for the large head wound?
Was the total silence for several years about the 6.5mm virtually round object
in the AP X-ray "weak evidence?"
Was it "weak evidence" when an arguable majority of eyewitnesses put the shots
as coming from the Grassy Knoll - DESPITE THE FACT THAT ECHOES WOULD HAVE BEEN
COMING FROM THE *OTHER* SIDE? (Where the buildings were?)
Be sure to include citations...
>and poor reasoning can be signs of kookiness.
Bring it on... you can start with the "35 Questions", or the "Provable Lies of
the Warren Commission" and show the "weak evidence" and "poor reasoning". Be
*SPECIFIC*.
>Posts that are littered
>with strong language, accusations, insults, threats, and other
>instances of questionable bedside manners, are not necessarily written
>by kooks, but still tend to be annoying in the long run.
It is, I'm quite sure, annoying to have it pointed out when a person lies,
ducks, and runs away. All you have to do is avoid lying about the evidence...
and *ANSWER* points being made, be civil... and no "strong language,
accusations, insults, threats" will come your way.
While it would be stupidly inaccurate to claim that unwarranted "strong
language, accusations, insults, [and] threats" ever came from the CT'er camp -
it's simply a fact that they generally come from the other direction.
>I hope that clears it up...
Not really. You can start with *SPECIFICS*. Why do LNT'ers always shy away
from specifics?
>-Mark
<speculations snipped>
RICLAND
> RICLAND wrote:
>> Some members of this forum do something no longer done outside of it:
>> they call people who believe in a conspiracy "kooks."
>>
>> But what's kooky about believing there was a conspiracy?
>>
>> If Oswald could shoot the President dead and walk away from the scene of
>> the crime, why is it so hard to believe others could have pulled it off
>> too?
>
> The kooks have to believe a whole series of incredible, fantastic,
> and downright impossible things for there to be a conspiracy in this
> case. That they choose this immensly complex path, through thickets
> and brambles, when there is a clear, clean path available, marks them
> as kooks.
I've got a better definition: kooks are people without credentials who
believe in things not supported by proven fact.
But kooks are not people who question the status quo, were this the
case, you'd be a kook because the status quo (85%) believes there was a
conspiracy.
To prove my first contention name one public official -- with the
exception of Bugliosi -- who accepts the near-half-century conclusion of
the Warren Report.
Name just one, Bud.
Not as easy as you thought, is it? And that's because you're working
from a premise nearly half-a-century old -- anyone who doesn't accept
the Warren Report is a kook.
You need an upgrade, dude.
ricland
--
Who Shot JFK?
http://tinyurl.com/247ybb
RICLAND
> On 30 Mar., 03:36, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
>> Some members of this forum do something no longer done outside of it:
>> they call people who believe in a conspiracy "kooks."
>>
>> But what's kooky about believing there was a conspiracy?
>
> To suspect or believe there was a conspiracy behind the assassination
> isn't kooky. Insisting there was one is another matter. Making strong
> claims, especially in a paranoid sort of way, based on weak evidence
> and poor reasoning can be signs of kookiness. Posts that are littered
> with strong language, accusations, insults, threats, and other
> instances of questionable bedside manners, are not necessarily written
> by kooks, but still tend to be annoying in the long run.
>
> I hope that clears it up...
>
> -Mark
It doesn't.
Are you implying the members of the House Select Committee on the
Assassination are kooks?
ricland
--
Who Shot JFK?
http://tinyurl.com/247ybb
Gil Jesus
their opinions. There have always been really WILD theories out there
that I do not support, but I would not go label those people "kooks".
Mis-informed, maybe. In error, maybe. But not "kooks".
They are, after all, entitled to their opinion.
Perhaps many of us have a suspicion that has its roots in governmental
secrecy. Maybe it stems from programs like Operation Northwoods. Or
the secretive hearings of the Warren Commission, or the secret break-
in at the Watergate Hotel.
Perhaps it stems from the WC's suppression of Jack Ruby's connections
to Organized Crime. If they hid that , what else did they hide ?
In an open society, the word 'secrecy' is abhorrant. The Warren
Commission NEVER investigated the Kennedy murder as a homicide.
Instead, it rubber-stamped the FBI "investigation", led by a man whose
whole life was a lie. Fearful of his power, the Commission decided not
to lock horns with the meglomaniac J. Edgar Hoover, a man who was both
a liar and a blackmailer.
It was HIS lie that was published in the 26 volumes of the Warren
Commission Report, a lie that was later called by the House Select
Committee on Assassinations "seriously flawed".
That's putting it mildly.
I have presented on my Youtube channel (www.youtube.com/gjjdude) video
interviews of witnesses who were NEVER called by the Warren Commission
because they were IGNORED by the FBI.
They were ignored because their accounts of what happened that day in
Dealey Plaza did not support the lies of J. Edgar Hoover.
That's fact. Not "paranoia".
The House Select Committee concluded that Kennedy was murdered as a
result of a conspiracy. But the Lone Nutters ignore their work like it
didn't even exist.
Now THAT's kooky.
David Von Pein
And Gil will try to pretend he doesn't know exactly WHY the LNers
don't accept the HSCA's "conspiracy" declaration. Right, Gil?
You know darn well that the acoustics evidence is flawed and
questionable....don't you? Have you seen Dale Myers work on the
acoustics business (his linking all the films together and proving
McLain's cycle wasn't near where it needed to be to have recorded the
supposed "gunshot" impulses to match the HSCA's test impulses)?
Are LNers supposed to accept such obviously-flawed information? If
so...why?
tomnln
"RICLAND" <black...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:GdednfcwG73YhpDb...@comcast.com...
> muc...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 30 Mar., 03:36, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>> Some members of this forum do something no longer done outside of it:
>>> they call people who believe in a conspiracy "kooks."
>>>
>>> But what's kooky about believing there was a conspiracy?
>>
>> To suspect or believe there was a conspiracy behind the assassination
>> isn't kooky. Insisting there was one is another matter. Making strong
>> claims, especially in a paranoid sort of way, based on weak evidence
>> and poor reasoning can be signs of kookiness. Posts that are littered
>> with strong language, accusations, insults, threats, and other
>> instances of questionable bedside manners, are not necessarily written
>> by kooks, but still tend to be annoying in the long run.
>>
>> I hope that clears it up...
>>
>> -Mark
>
>
> It doesn't.
==================================================
> Are you implying the members of the House Select Committee on the
> Assassination are kooks?
>
> ricland
KOOK-SUCKERS are NOT avove Anything.
THAT's why they NEVER address evidence/testimony from the WVE they Endorse.
==================================================
tomnln
Let's determine the Value of your views.
Have you read the GPO edition of the WCR?
Have you read the GPO edition of the WC 26 volumes"
Have you read the GPO edition of the Church Report?
Have you read the GPO edition of the Church Report's 14 volumes?
Have you read the GPO edition of the HSCA?
Have you rad the GPO edition of the HSCA's 12 volumes?
Have you read the ARRB's Report?
Have you read ALL BOTH of the Dallas newapapers for that whole week
with the Original Reports?
The value of "Opinions" are determined by the amount of info one
has taken in on a given subject.
Please fill us in the value of YOUR Opinion?
Thanks in advance.
<muc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175260556....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
I Love it!
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175256945.8...@r56g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
I agree with you about "threats-insults".
How do you feel about the Right to RETALIATE?
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/ed_cage_page.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/baileynme.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tom_lowery.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/rob_spencer_page.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/law_suits.htm
How do you feel about WC Defenders REFUSING to address The
evidence/testimony from the WCR itself?
<muc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175253550....@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1175253550....@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> muc...@gmail.com says...
> >
> >On 30 Mar., 03:36, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
> >> Some members of this forum do something no longer done outside of it:
> >> they call people who believe in a conspiracy "kooks."
> >>
> >> But what's kooky about believing there was a conspiracy?
> >
> >To suspect or believe there was a conspiracy behind the assassination
> >isn't kooky.
>
>
> That would be a given.
I wouldn`t give it. I agree with Occam, there is no reason to
entertain complex theories unless simple ones are proven inadequate.
> Particularly considering that statistically speaking, it would be far more
> likely to consider a belief that there was *NOT* a conspiracy to be kooky.
If the concept of conspiracy isn`t kooky, why haven`t you kooks put
a conspiracy scenario on the table that explains what is known in
evidence? The reason is the kookiness of such a scenario would be
evident.
> After all, the numbers of people who believe the WCR are in the same range as
> the number of people who believe Elvis is still alive, the Moon hoax, U.S.
> Government using explosives on the twin towers, etc.
Or that Oz was not shooting at the limo. That is what you believe,
isn`t it, Ben. Only 7% of the people conclur with you. I`ve seen polls
where "Oswald as lone assassin" was in the 30% range. 7% is closer to
the percentage of people who believe those kooky things you mentioned
than 30% is.
> >Insisting there was one is another matter.
>
> No, it isn't.
>
> *Insisting* that there could *NOT* have been a conspiracy in light of the
> evidence would be the "kooky" behavior.
Lack of evidence. No shooter, no rifle, no shells, no prints...
> If the evidence shows that there was one, it would simply be *normal behavior*
> to insist that the evidence does indeed show one.
If it did.
> Why not tell us the difference between 'believing' and 'insisting' that there
> was a conspiracy? You admit that it's *NOT* "kooky" to believe, but assert that
> it *IS* kooky to "insist".
I didn`t like that distinction. I think a better way to put it is
many people have a vague idea that something fishy went on, and there
is no real reason to take great exception with that (some of my best
friends think JFK was killed by a conspiracy). The fantatical kook is
a diferent animal than this. An example would be Walt, who when I
produced a map prepared by the DPD, with the times and distances to
points of interest associated with the Tippit killing, went right to
work looking for things to satifsy his conspiracy yearnings. This
isn`t normal behavior, this is kooky. If I felt like typing for about
a week, I could give countless other examples. The kooks here believe
kooky things, say kooky things, and look at information in a kooky
manner. Hence, they are deserving of the label.
> I believe that when I finish breakfast, and walk out to my car, that it will
> start. Would I be a "kook" to insist to you that it *WILL* start?
No, but you would be a kook to claim your car could levitate. That
is on a par of most of the kook blather here.
> >Making strong claims,
>
> This is what the WC did. Claims that were contradicted BY THEIR OWN EVIDENCE.
So kooks claim. A picture of Oz holding the murder weapon is
meaningless to them. That Oz was seen on the floor the shoots were
fired from is equally meaningless. Kooks nulify (in their minds) every
good indication that explains what happened. And then badmouth the WC
because they didn`t do the same.
> I've already posted a number of instances where the WC simply lied about their
> own evidence -
You didn`t produce one verifiable lie.
> but there's many more instances where they drew conclusions that
> were not warranted, and examples that demonstrate that they were *intentionally*
> avoiding the obvious conclusion.
Like kooks do? Avoiding the obvious conclusion that it was Oz who
shot Tippit? That kind of intentional avoidance?
> They were acting as a prosecutors office, not as a fact-finding committee.
They went where the evidence led. It led to Oz.There is no other
reasonable conclusion to reach but that Oswald was shooting from the
6th floor of the TSBD. Kooks won`t even try to put a scenario on the
table explaining the events of that day. It would be a convolted mess
of unsupported conjecture. Apparently, that is what they think the WC
should have offered.
> >especially in a paranoid sort of way, based on weak evidence
>
>
> "weak evidence?" *THIS* is the sign of a kook... Such phrases...
>
> Although DVP may not have coined the phrase - I first note its usage from him.
> Interestingly, I killfiled him for his *CONSTANT* ducking and running - he
> simply would not answer the evidence and cites I raised. He kept refusing to
> support his own words.
Actually, he kept insisting on making points you didn`t like.
> Are *you* going to refuse to support your own words? Let's get into *SPECIFIC*
> instances of the evidence and see...
>
>
> Was it "weak evidence" when Brennan refused to identify Oswald?
It was a witness who had information, but choose not to divulge it
at that time for reasons of his own. Understandable, human reasons.
Why is that Jean Hill`s fear is a given? Or Ruby, when he said he
could only talk in Washingtion? These reservations are considered
valid, without question. Why is Brennan`s hesitancy to get involved
deeper than need be so hard for kooks to understand? They alledge this
massive plot, with powerful menacing chracters involved, why do they
find it strange Brennan was cautious?
> Was it "weak evidence" when several dozen people specified that the limo slowed
> down dramatically or even came to a stop?
If it did, it did.
> Was it "weak evidence" when dozens of people described an occipital-parietal
> location for the large head wound?
It`s not strong when the medical personel aren`t engaged in an
autopsy.
> Was the total silence for several years about the 6.5mm virtually round object
> in the AP X-ray "weak evidence?"
It surfaced later. There would be silence about evidence that fell
through the cracks.
> Was it "weak evidence" when an arguable majority of eyewitnesses put the shots
> as coming from the Grassy Knoll - DESPITE THE FACT THAT ECHOES WOULD HAVE BEEN
> COMING FROM THE *OTHER* SIDE? (Where the buildings were?)
Unproven conjecture about the echoes. The earwitness testimony is
weak evidence, the lack of consensus proves it`s uselessness.
> Be sure to include citations...
Points can be made without them.
> >and poor reasoning can be signs of kookiness.
>
> Bring it on... you can start with the "35 Questions", or the "Provable Lies of
> the Warren Commission" and show the "weak evidence" and "poor reasoning". Be
> *SPECIFIC*.
Been there, did that.
> >Posts that are littered
> >with strong language, accusations, insults, threats, and other
> >instances of questionable bedside manners, are not necessarily written
> >by kooks, but still tend to be annoying in the long run.
>
> It is, I'm quite sure, annoying to have it pointed out when a person lies,
> ducks, and runs away.
You didn`t seem too annoyed when I did it to you. You just lied
some more, and denied that I had.
> All you have to do is avoid lying about the evidence...
> and *ANSWER* points being made, be civil... and no "strong language,
> accusations, insults, threats" will come your way.
Bullshit. See Ben`s exchanges with Jean Davison, to witness Ben
being rude a nasty to a classy lady who only engaged him with the
evidence.
> While it would be stupidly inaccurate to claim that unwarranted "strong
> language, accusations, insults, [and] threats" ever came from the CT'er camp -
> it's simply a fact that they generally come from the other direction.
Deservedly so. You folks are after all kooks.
> >I hope that clears it up...
>
> Not really. You can start with *SPECIFICS*. Why do LNT'ers always shy away
> from specifics?
Ben only asks narrowly framed, loaded questions, and squeals like a
stuck pig when someone ventures out of what he consideres the
boundries. He is a sick, sick individual.
> >-Mark
>
> <speculations snipped>
aeffects
> > much...@gmail.com says...
>
> > >On 30 Mar., 03:36, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
> > >> Some members of this forum do something no longer done outside of it:
> > >> they call people who believe in a conspiracy "kooks."
>
> > >> But what's kooky about believing there was a conspiracy?
>
> > >To suspect or believe there was a conspiracy behind the assassination
> > >isn't kooky.
>
> > That would be a given.
>
> I wouldn`t give it. I agree with Occam, there is no reason to
> entertain complex theories unless simple ones are proven inadequate.
>
> > Particularly considering that statistically speaking, it would be far more
> > likely to consider a belief that there was *NOT* a conspiracy to be kooky.
>
> If the concept of conspiracy isn`t kooky, why haven`t you kooks put
> a conspiracy scenario on the table that explains what is known in
> evidence?
Simple answer, dozens of conspiracy theories exist, some made to
order. Reason? A farce called the WCR
<snip the nonsense>
aeffects
> RICLAND wrote:
> > Some members of this forum do something no longer done outside of it:
> > they call people who believe in a conspiracy "kooks."
>
> > But what's kooky about believing there was a conspiracy?
>
> > If Oswald could shoot the President dead and walk away from the scene of
> > the crime, why is it so hard to believe others could have pulled it off
> > too?
>
> The kooks have to believe a whole series of incredible, fantastic,
> and downright impossible things for there to be a conspiracy in this
> case. That they choose this immensly complex path, through thickets
> and brambles, when there is a clear, clean path available, marks them
> as kooks.
Dudster, I doubt it would be a difficult job putting together a list
of *nefarious deeds* committed at a nationsal level since JFK's
murder. We can start with WAR and rumors of WAR..... This country has
had a piss poor image since then, and continues to this day...
No need for impossible lists, complex paths, thickets and brambles--
all utter fucking Lone Neuter nonsense, a wet dream if you will....
Dudster's wet dream for sure....
Anthony Marsh
> Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1175253550....@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>> muc...@gmail.com says...
>>> On 30 Mar., 03:36, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>> Some members of this forum do something no longer done outside of it:
>>>> they call people who believe in a conspiracy "kooks."
>>>>
>>>> But what's kooky about believing there was a conspiracy?
>>> To suspect or believe there was a conspiracy behind the assassination
>>> isn't kooky.
>>
>> That would be a given.
>
> I wouldn`t give it. I agree with Occam, there is no reason to
> entertain complex theories unless simple ones are proven inadequate.
>
That is not what Occam said.
>> Particularly considering that statistically speaking, it would be far more
>> likely to consider a belief that there was *NOT* a conspiracy to be kooky.
>
> If the concept of conspiracy isn`t kooky, why haven`t you kooks put
> a conspiracy scenario on the table that explains what is known in
> evidence? The reason is the kookiness of such a scenario would be
> evident.
>
The government investigates conspiracies every day. Does that make them
kooks?
Anthony Marsh
> Hi Mark;
>
> Let's determine the Value of your views.
> Have you read the GPO edition of the WCR?
> Have you read the GPO edition of the WC 26 volumes"
> Have you read the GPO edition of the Church Report?
> Have you read the GPO edition of the Church Report's 14 volumes?
> Have you read the GPO edition of the HSCA?
> Have you rad the GPO edition of the HSCA's 12 volumes?
> Have you read the ARRB's Report?
> Have you read ALL BOTH of the Dallas newapapers for that whole week
> with the Original Reports?
>
Yes I have.
Have you read the WC documents not published in the 26 volumes?
Of course not.
Have you read the original CIA and FBI documents withheld from the
official investigations?
Of course not.
Bud
RICLAND wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > RICLAND wrote:
> >> Some members of this forum do something no longer done outside of it:
> >> they call people who believe in a conspiracy "kooks."
> >>
> >> But what's kooky about believing there was a conspiracy?
> >>
> >> If Oswald could shoot the President dead and walk away from the scene of
> >> the crime, why is it so hard to believe others could have pulled it off
> >> too?
> >
> > The kooks have to believe a whole series of incredible, fantastic,
> > and downright impossible things for there to be a conspiracy in this
> > case. That they choose this immensly complex path, through thickets
> > and brambles, when there is a clear, clean path available, marks them
> > as kooks.
>
>
> I've got a better definition: kooks are people without credentials who
> believe in things not supported by proven fact.
"proven fact" is another one of those meaningless kook phrases. It
wasn`t a "proven fact" that it was oswald that Ruby shot, to some
kooks. It could be disputed that Kennedy was shot, if one were
inclined..
> But kooks are not people who question the status quo, were this the
> case, you'd be a kook because the status quo (85%) believes there was a
> conspiracy.
What exactly do they believe? Why exactly do they believe it? Do
they think the conspiracy was more than Oz shooting, or do they
believe the conspiracy consisted only of a governmental cover-up?You
are doing the standard kook thing, you take information you don`t
understand, and misuse it.
> To prove my first contention name one public official -- with the
> exception of Bugliosi -- who accepts the near-half-century conclusion of
> the Warren Report.
>
> Name just one, Bud.
Does Jerry Ford count? I know of no public official who rejects the
WC`s findings. Of course, I`m not a student of the opinions of publuic
figures on this matter. I remember reading that Nixon thought it was a
liberal conspiracy to hang the killing of JFK on the right-wing when a
lefty actually did the deed.
> Not as easy as you thought, is it? And that's because you're working
> from a premise nearly half-a-century old -- anyone who doesn't accept
> the Warren Report is a kook.
Doubt many have read it.
> You need an upgrade, dude.
The obvious conclusion can only change if the circumstances change,
the evidence changes. Not because old evidence is more readily
available to the ignorant masses, some who, like yourself, flatter
themselves that they have some new insight to add. Actually, your
epiphanies are just the same old tired spin, it`s just new to you.
Anthony Marsh
There were actually two HSCA's. The first was looking for conspiracy and
considered kooks so the House wanted to shut it down. The second HSCA
committee was designed to endorse the WC.
Bud
I can think of a good reason. To shut the kooks up. They keep
bringing that HSCA findings up to rub in our faces, I say we agree
with them to accept it in it`s entirety. Oz fired all the shots at the
limo, killing JFK and injuring Connally, and there was some shot of an
unknown nature that hit nothing. Common ground at last!
David Von Pein
Now, all the kooks have to do is somehow glue together the official
HSCA findings and Ollie Stone's 6-shot, 3-gunman scenario which has
two shots hitting JFK from the front. That should give them fits for a
little while.
But no self-respecting conspiracy buff would merely "settle" for that
measly ol' HSCA 4-shot, Oswald-was-the-only-gunman-to-hit-anybody
plot.
CT-Kooks need it ALL! They need more shots than just the HSCA's 4 for
one thing (to replace the SBT with 3 shots alone); and they need the
head shot coming from a mystery killer on the Knoll; and they need
Oswald innocent of both the Tippit and Walker crimes too.
And they need Oswald as a patsy in all of these criminal acts, and
they need gobs of cover-up agents and photo-forgers and coerced
witnesses.
That's a tough road to hoe and make it gel with the HSCA's piddly-ass
4-shot plot.
Somebody go get Blakey and tell him he's nuts! He needs to add several
more shots and at least one more shooter!
tomnln
Is "Mark" one of your Aliases?
That's funny Marsh.
You Earlier Admitted you don't have the 26 volumes.
You Earlier Admitted you don't have the WC's Documents.
(5 CD's with 550,000 pages)
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:uu2dnSZFcdVkDpDb...@comcast.com...
Anthony Marsh
> Hey Marsh;
>
> Is "Mark" one of your Aliases?
>
> That's funny Marsh.
> You Earlier Admitted you don't have the 26 volumes.
I don't need to own my own set. I have had my hands on them many times
and can copy anything I want.
> You Earlier Admitted you don't have the WC's Documents.
> (5 CD's with 550,000 pages)
>
Many of those at at the AARC.
eca...@tx.rr.com
"aliases."
It's a REAL SORE SUBJECT with Tony..
MR ;~D
On Mar 31, 5:35 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> tomnln wrote:
> > Hey Marsh;
>
> > Is "Mark" one of your Aliases?
>
> > That's funny Marsh.
> > You Earlier Admitted you don't have the 26 volumes.
>
> I don't need to own my own set. I have had my hands on them many times
> and can copy anything I want.
>
> > You Earlier Admitted you don't have the WC's Documents.
> > (5 CD's with 550,000 pages)
>
> Many of those at at the AARC.
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Anthony Marsh" <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:uu2dnSZFcdVkDpDb...@comcast.com...
> >> tomnln wrote:
> >>> Hi Mark;
>
> >>> Let's determine the Value of your views.
> >>> Have you read the GPO edition of the WCR?
> >>> Have you read the GPO edition of the WC 26 volumes"
> >>> Have you read the GPO edition of the Church Report?
> >>> Have you read the GPO edition of the Church Report's 14 volumes?
> >>> Have you read the GPO edition of the HSCA?
> >>> Have you rad the GPO edition of the HSCA's 12 volumes?
> >>> Have you read the ARRB's Report?
> >>> Have you read ALL BOTH of the Dallas newapapers for that whole week
> >>> with the Original Reports?
>
> >> Yes I have.
>
> >> Have you read the WC documents not published in the 26 volumes?
> >> Of course not.
> >> Have you read the original CIA and FBI documents withheld from the
> >> official investigations?
> >> Of course not.
>
> >>> The value of "Opinions" are determined by the amount of info one
> >>> has taken in on a given subject.
>
> >>> Please fill us in the value of YOUR Opinion?
>
> >>> Thanks in advance.
>
> >>>http://www.whokilledjfk.net/
>
> >>> <much...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> them.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -