Are Lone Nutters Obssessive Compulsives?

RICLAND

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 1:16:55 PM4/28/07

to

Lone nutters offer no credible challenge to the conspiracy theorist
arguments. Instead they simply appear to be people obsessed with the
notion that authority (the Warren Report) must be obeyed and anyone who
doesn't obey it, is a "Kook."

When challenged on the evidence lone nutters employ evasive tactics.

For example, the Oswald-Tippit timeline discrepancy has yet to be
directly addressed by any of the lone nutters in this newsgroup. They
simply have no answer to it, so what they do when confronted with it is
shift the discussion to the witnesses and say, since the witnesses saw
Oswald shoot Tippit, he must have got there some way. Of course the fact
that the witnesses gave descriptions of shooters (2) who did not fit
Oswald's description, is dismissed by the lone nutters too.

As evidence of this, note how the lone nutters who respond to this
thread will uniformly avoid giving a direct answer to the Oswald-Tippit
timeline discrepancy.

Likewise, Nurse Audrey Bell's description of the bullet fragments she
witnessed removed from Gov. Connelly, or for that matter any of the
evidence or testimony that doesn't square with the Warren Report, lone
nutters dismiss or employ circumlocution when pressed for a response.

So, evidence does not drive the lone nutter theory, it cannot since lone
nutters refuse to give direct answers to evidence and testimony that
doesn't square with the Warren Report.

Which means lone nutters are driven by something else,A and I say that
something else is obsessive compulsive personalities grounded in the
notion that authority (the Warren Report) must be obeyed.

ricland
--
Reclaiming History ...???
The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Book
http://jfkhit.com

cdddraftsman

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 2:22:58 PM4/28/07

to

The only thing that LNer's obey are the rules of logic . All the
rules that Ricland refuses to employee because he has low
self esteem and as much interest in the truth as a alley cat
has for a marriage licence. Every post of his screams
" I Want To Be Noticed And Respected ! "
Hahhahahahahah ! TOO BAD ! YOU'LL
GET NONE HERE ! HAHAHAHA !
..........................tl

And while your at it , I need answers to why your so jealous of
my accomplishments at acj and why you've caused nothing but
embarrassment to the CTer side of the issues ? :

Ricland , your just jealous because I can post faster than you
and your jealous because I get a 3 Favorites Rating and you only got
a
1 ..

Your jealous because when I write I make sense and you don't .
Your very jealous because I don't have a homosexual friend by the
name
of Tom Rossley on my side and you do , which must be a embarrassment
for you also .

Your very very jealous that I'm a LNer and your a common variety
type CTer , which means your a lost voice in a crowd of millions ,
all
screaming for attention and no one getting any .

I also happen to know as a fact , so don't try to deny it , that
your jealous that I have critical thinking skills and you have a
brain
full of sour grapes .

Your jealous that I drink from the fountain of knowledge and you
only can gargle and that I don't consider stupidity a virtue , but
you
do .

Jealousy can ruin your life Ricland , I suggest ordering extra
supply's of stupid pills from Rossley , get adequate rest because
you've got a mammoth task ahead of yourself trying to put together a
web site that your unqualified to do and no one will ever read ,
while
I'm having the time of my life ripping to shreds Bozo Headed Gum Ball
Eaters like Rossley .

Which BTW , reminds me I've only got six more years till the big
5 0 , so I'd love to sit around talking to you because your such a
baffoon and you could learn a lot from me , but I've got to get back
to posting important new personal information on why certain CTer's
believe in strange things . Goodbye ! ........tl

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

ANSWER FOR YOUR CRIMES ! :
NOW !

tomnln

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 2:31:13 PM4/28/07

to

The only thing lowery drinks from and, gargles from are the thyousands of
truckers on the I-80.

his 2 biggest FEARS in life are Rossley & evidence/testimony.

http://whokilledjfk.net/

"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177784577.9...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

Bud

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 3:35:10 PM4/28/07

to

RICLAND wrote:
> Lone nutters offer no credible challenge to the conspiracy theorist
> arguments.

Present the conspiracy theory you kooks have come up with.

> Instead they simply appear to be people obsessed with the
> notion that authority (the Warren Report) must be obeyed and anyone who
> doesn't obey it, is a "Kook."

You kooks roll in shit because you believe it makes you cleaner.

> When challenged on the evidence lone nutters employ evasive tactics.

When corrected on the evidence, the kooks just act as if nothing
happened, wait a day or so, and post the same misrepresentation of
that evidence.

> For example, the Oswald-Tippit timeline discrepancy has yet to be
> directly addressed by any of the lone nutters in this newsgroup.

Oh, look, a kook lying on this newsgroup. Like I haven`t seen that
a hundred times.

> They
> simply have no answer to it, so what they do when confronted with it is
> shift the discussion to the witnesses and say, since the witnesses saw
> Oswald shoot Tippit, he must have got there some way.

At least six people said the saw him in the area with a gun. Thats
called corroboration, ace.

> Of course the fact
> that the witnesses gave descriptions of shooters (2) who did not fit
> Oswald's description,

The description that went out over police radio from this murder
was an excellent description of Oz.

> is dismissed by the lone nutters too.

You are dismissed by LN, because you have marginalized yourself by
speaking with authority on subjects you are nearly entirely ignorant
of.

> As evidence of this, note how the lone nutters who respond to this
> thread will uniformly avoid giving a direct answer to the Oswald-Tippit
> timeline discrepancy.

State, as fact, the time Oz performed any action from the time he
left the TSBD to the time of his arrest.

> Likewise, Nurse Audrey Bell's description of the bullet fragments she
> witnessed removed from Gov. Connelly, or for that matter any of the
> evidence or testimony that doesn't square with the Warren Report, lone
> nutters dismiss or employ circumlocution when pressed for a response.

The explaination for this is when kook are given explainations
they don`t like, they act as if a response hasn`t been given.

> So, evidence does not drive the lone nutter theory,

Evidence, tempered with common sense.

> it cannot since lone
> nutters refuse to give direct answers to evidence and testimony that
> doesn't square with the Warren Report.

How would you know?

> Which means lone nutters are driven by something else,A and I say that
> something else is obsessive compulsive personalities grounded in the
> notion that authority (the Warren Report) must be obeyed.

I don`t think the WC should have been formed. The information
developed by the DPD was enough to figure out what happened.

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 5:19:37 PM4/28/07

to

Bugliosi brought all these characters out of the woodwork.The fact that
they never acknowledge, & go thru hoops to deny every single aspect that
could lead to conspiracy in so many different aspects when called on it-
shows they are dishonest.

Bugliosi can believe the SBT, Oswald acted alone etc., but you know he's
gonna trash Stone, Garrison, Groden, Lifton, O'Conner,Bell, Custer,
Crenshaw, Hill and co. so that's why you can review his book before it
comes out.

tomnln

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 5:29:55 PM4/28/07

to

Does anyone tyhink Da Bug will address these?>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/Evid%20Tamp.htm

GOD knows that no WCR Supporter will touch them.

Especially that Child Molester tom lowery.

<lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20215-463...@storefull-3233.bay.webtv.net...

RICLAND

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 5:44:21 PM4/28/07

to

Bud wrote:
> RICLAND wrote:
>> Lone nutters offer no credible challenge to the conspiracy theorist
>> arguments.
>
> Present the conspiracy theory you kooks have come up with.

I've done it 10 times and you keep pretending it's not there. Here it is
again: the discrepancy in the Oswald-Tippit crime scene timeline. Oswald
could not have been there in the time required.

tomnln

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 5:55:34 PM4/28/07

to

http://whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm

There it is.

"RICLAND" <black...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:A9GdnWe-VYOlXa7b...@comcast.com...

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 6:12:03 PM4/28/07

to

>>> "Bugliosi brought all these characters out of the woodwork." <<<

Bullshit.

>>> "The fact that they {the vile & evil newsgroup LNers} never acknowledge..." <<<

More bullshit.

Plenty of "acknowledging" right here....

DEBATING THE JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION (PARTS 1-60):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d64779e514304326

And lots more "acknowledging" the CTers here....

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6db9ac1c27e26e32

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fe498bcd4159a122

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7d3264251021ff76

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/280ae58bf604bf99

>>> "...shows they are dishonest." <<<

A hat-trick of bullshit!

>>> "Bugliosi can believe the SBT..." <<<

Yep. And that's because the SBT is by far the best and most reasonable
scenario to explain the JFK/JBC wounds/wounding.

ANY anti-SBT theory pales by comparison. But, please, let's hear yours
and see if it comes anywhere NEAR the SBT on the following levels:

1.) Physical ballistics evidence (i.e., bullets...recovered vs. not
recovered).
2.) Z-Film evaluation.
3.) Wound pattern (via a multi-shot anti-SBT theory, which is
laughable to begin with).
4.) Logic.
5.) Common sense.

Allow me to dip into my VB quote basket (yet again)....

"Several factors make it clear that Kennedy and Connally WERE struck
by the same bullet. There's absolutely no evidence of the existence of
any separate bullet hitting Connally." -- Vince B.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30398a449c05b7

>>> "Oswald acted alone..." <<<

Yep. He sure did. ....

"Based on the evidence in this case, Lee Harvey Oswald is as guilty as
sin, and there's NOTHING that Mr. Spence can do about it. Mr. Spence,
in his argument to you {the jury during "ON TRIAL"}, no more desired
to look at the evidence in this case than one would have a desire to
look directly into the noonday sun. And I can't really blame him,
because if I were he, I wouldn't want to either. Because there's not
one tiny grain of evidence....not one microscopic speck of evidence
that ANYONE--other than Lee Harvey Oswald--was responsible for the
assassination of John F. Kennedy." -- Vince B.

>>> "You know he {VB} is gonna trash Stone, Garrison, Groden, Lifton, O'Conner [sic], Bell, Custer, Crenshaw, Hill and co..." <<<

Damn right. And deservedly so. Esp. Garrison and Stone in (tentative)
Chapter 33. ....

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/79aad61f970de446

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b3a8181c73cfa095

"It's been said that if you push something at someone long enough,
eventually they're going to start buying it -- particularly if they're
not exposed to any contrary view. ... And what's happened, is that the
shrill voice of the conspiracy buffs finally penetrated the
consciousness of the American people and convinced the majority of
Americans that there was a conspiracy. Even though the reality is that
no one has come up with one scrap of credible, substantive evidence
pointing in the direction of a conspiracy." -- Vince B.

aeffects

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 6:17:53 PM4/28/07

to

On Apr 28, 3:12 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Bugliosi brought all these characters out of the woodwork." <<<
>
> Bullshit.
>
> >>> "The fact that they {the vile & evil newsgroup LNers} never acknowledge..." <<<
>
> More bullshit.
>
> Plenty of "acknowledging" right here....
>
> DEBATING THE JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION (PARTS 1-60):http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d64779e514304326
>
> And lots more "acknowledging" the CTers here....
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6db9ac1c27e26e32
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fe498bcd4159a122
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7d3264251021ff76
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/280ae58bf604bf99
>
> >>> "...shows they are dishonest." <<<
>
> A hat-trick of bullshit!
>
> >>> "Bugliosi can believe the SBT..." <<<
>
> Yep. And that's because the SBT is by far the best and most reasonable
> scenario to explain the JFK/JBC wounds/wounding.

I'm sure the Reich felt Hitler had the most reasonable answers/
scenarios for Germany, damn near the entire country believed him, did
that make him right? Reasonable and the truth often, OFTEN clash --
especially David if your selling a theory, in this case the SBT....

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 6:46:49 PM4/28/07

to

Who was it that gouged the eyeballs out of your eye sockets, David H.?
Did Groden do that to you, so you wouldn't be able to examine the
excellent computerized toggling "SBT" imagery on your screen here in
the 21st century?

If these Z-Film clips are showing two guys being hit by SEPARATE
bullets...at virtually an identical point in time...I'll eat my own
Stetson hat (with relish on it).....

http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/225-226%20Full.gif

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4594.gif

http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/222-262%20full-small.gif

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 7:02:30 PM4/28/07

to

Regarding the SBT......

========================

WALTER CRONKITE (CBS-TV NEWS; 1967) -- "If all three shots hit, then
one of them would have had to pass through the President's neck,
emerge at 1,800 feet per second, headed on a downward path toward the
midst of the Presidential car and the six people in it, and vanish in
mid-air, hitting nothing, and leaving no mark. Well, this was more
than the Commission could stomach. Despite its own words, the Single-
Bullet Theory IS essential to its findings.

"Our own view on the evidence is that it is difficult to believe the
Single-Bullet Theory. But, to believe the other theories is even MORE
difficult. If the Governor's wounds were caused by a separate bullet,
then we must believe that a bullet passed through the President's
neck, emerged at high velocity on a course that was taking it directly
into the middle of the automobile, and then vanished without a trace.

"Or, we can complicate matters even further--as some do--by adding a
second assassin, who fires almost simultaneously with Oswald and whose
bullet travels miraculously a trajectory identical with Oswald's and
that second assassin, too, vanishes without a trace.

"Difficult to believe as the Single-Bullet Theory may be, it seems to
be the LEAST difficult of all those that are available.

"In the end, like the Commission, we are persuaded that a single
bullet wounded both President Kennedy and Governor Connally."

========================

Is Walter Cronkite just a WC shill/crackpot too?

The fictional Archie Bunker, being the kook he was, thought that
Cronkite was a Communist. What do the kooks here at The Google Asylum
think Cronkite was as they evaluate the above common-sense comments
made by Walter C.?

aeffects

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 7:23:05 PM4/28/07

to

On Apr 28, 3:46 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Who was it that gouged the eyeballs out of your eye sockets, David H.?
> Did Groden do that to you, so you wouldn't be able to examine the
> excellent computerized toggling "SBT" imagery on your screen here in
> the 21st century?
>
> If these Z-Film clips are showing two guys being hit by SEPARATE
> bullets...at virtually an identical point in time...I'll eat my own
> Stetson hat (with relish on it).....

You have a major failing, David. I, ME question Z-film validity, the
entire film. Why would I give credence as what is purported to be a
piece of celluloid fiction?

The WCR-SBT is based on LHO in that TSBD 6th floor window, AND the Z-
film. Bugliosi (amongst 10-20 Nutter authors) depends on the Z-film.
He, Bugliosi CAN'T validate the film...

I could carless about WHAT bullshit Bugliosi publishes. He has an
agenda, like you and those the Lone Nut creeps who kiss your ass
around here -- ALL support the SBT, hence the WCR...

so look here: http://www.jfkresearch.com/page3.html

half way down the right column: Altering the Zapruder Film by David
Healy (been there for 6-7 years now, no Nutter has challenged it
yet...) download it right to your desktop, it's a .pdf file....

If that film is/was altered, your Lone Nutter day's are finished,
along with the SBT/WCR and every author supporting both since 1964.
Until the alleged in-camer Zapruder film currently housed at NARA film
is forensically tested, you'll have to deal with CT/Z-film issues.

Your sounding errily familiar, like Bill Miller (aka: too many to
list) praytell, he's disappeared..... Wonder where..... LMAO!

Chowtime! ! ! !

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 7:56:07 PM4/28/07

to

>>> "You have a major failing, David." <<<

Yeah, I know. I'm speaking to you.

~spit~

>>> "Why would I give credence as what is purported to be a piece of celluloid fiction?" <<<

Break out the "LOL" icons...I need a bunch of 'em!

>>> "Bugliosi CAN'T validate the film." <<<

He doesn't need to. Already been done, kook.

Next....

>>> "I could carless [care less?] about WHAT bullshit Bugliosi publishes." <<<

Bullshit. You'll eat it up just like I will.

Hypocrite.

By the way, you really meant to say "I couldn't care less". Typical
mistake by someone who can't write correctly.

>>> "He {Bugliosi} has an agenda..." <<<

Hope so. And I hope it's "KOOK BASHING"...like my agenda. ;)

>>> "Like you..." <<<

Yep. Just like I said above.

>>> "And those Lone Nut creeps who kiss your ass around here..." <<<

Including you, of course.

You're an LNer in CT drag and you know it. You just won't admit it.
But you will soon enough.

(Healy's getting testy it seems. That Z-Film thing hit him hard I
guess. Time for din-din. He's hungry.)

>>> "Half way down {probably some kooksite I shall never visit} the right column: Altering the Zapruder Film by David Healy..." <<<

Who the fuck cares??

~yawn~

Only the most rabid of rabid kooks still cling to the Z-Film Hoax
nonsense. I guess you're one of them. Congrats. You've made "ULTRA
MEGA-KOOK" status via such idiocy. Nice job, Healy!

The next kook plateau is occupied by very few....Garrison among them.
Shooting for that level too?

>>> "No Nutter has challenged it yet." <<<

LOL. No reason to challenge your kookshit re. the Z-Film. It's an
ultra-nutty assertion to begin with (for oh so many obvious reasons
that you won't admit).

>>> "Download it right to your desktop..." <<<

No thanks. I'd rather toss my computer out the window. Downloading
"kookshit" gives my computer a virus...every time I do it. Tried it
with Fetzer junk one time. The screen exploded into a thousand pieces.
(I'm still removing the glass from my many wounds daily.)

Who needs more of that agony??

>>> "Until the alleged in-camer Zapruder film currently housed at NARA film is forensically tested, you'll have to deal with CT/Z-film issues.

>>> "Your [sic; yawn] sounding errily [sic, again] familiar, like Bill Miller (aka: too many to list) praytell, he's disappeared..... Wonder where..... LMAO!

Am I now supposed to be performing double-duty as Bill "Photo KOOK
Expert" Miller too?? Shit! I'm already accused of being Bugliosi, some
guy named Nick @ IMDB, some other guy at Lancer too....and now
Miller???

(I'm asking Vince for a raise. Being four people should garner me 4
checks. Right?)

>>> "Chowtime!" <<<

Enjoy your crow. I hear it goes down well once you get your feet out
of your yap. (Yours are in pretty deep though...so it'll prob'ly take
surgery to get them out.)

Oh, btw, after your din-din, give my best to Jimmy Fetzer as you crawl
back into bed with him. Okay?

Night.

Bud

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 8:22:47 PM4/28/07

to

RICLAND wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > RICLAND wrote:
> >> Lone nutters offer no credible challenge to the conspiracy theorist
> >> arguments.
> >
> > Present the conspiracy theory you kooks have come up with.
>
>
> I've done it 10 times and you keep pretending it's not there. Here it is
> again: the discrepancy in the Oswald-Tippit crime scene timeline.

There is no established timeline, so the existance of descrepancies
are meaningless.

> Oswald
> could not have been there in the time required.

There is no required time. He was there because the witnesses and
evidence says he was there.

aeffects

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 10:21:13 PM4/28/07

to

On Apr 28, 5:22 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> RICLAND wrote:
> > Bud wrote:
> > > RICLAND wrote:
> > >> Lone nutters offer no credible challenge to the conspiracy theorist
> > >> arguments.
>
> > > Present the conspiracy theory you kooks have come up with.
>
> > I've done it 10 times and you keep pretending it's not there. Here it is
> > again: the discrepancy in the Oswald-Tippit crime scene timeline.
>
> There is no established timeline, so the existance of descrepancies
> are meaningless.
>
> > Oswald
> > could not have been there in the time required.
>
> There is no required time. He was there because the witnesses and
> evidence says he was there.

Dudster, another comment like that and your back to 'backroom' clerk
status...

Bud

unread,

Apr 29, 2007, 2:51:21 PM4/29/07

to

aeffects wrote:
> On Apr 28, 5:22 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > RICLAND wrote:
> > > Bud wrote:
> > > > RICLAND wrote:
> > > >> Lone nutters offer no credible challenge to the conspiracy theorist
> > > >> arguments.
> >
> > > > Present the conspiracy theory you kooks have come up with.
> >
> > > I've done it 10 times and you keep pretending it's not there. Here it is
> > > again: the discrepancy in the Oswald-Tippit crime scene timeline.
> >
> > There is no established timeline, so the existance of descrepancies
> > are meaningless.
> >
> > > Oswald
> > > could not have been there in the time required.
> >
> > There is no required time. He was there because the witnesses and
> > evidence says he was there.
>
>
>
> Dudster, another comment like that and your back to 'backroom' clerk
> status...

Are you sure you`re not a random word generating program?