Open question
taral...@mailinator.com
a reasonable or credible conspiracy theory. Why?
justm...@gmail.com
> In the short time I have studied the assassination I have yet to read
> a reasonable or credible conspiracy theory. Why?
Because there aren't any. With all the CT kooks out there, none of
them can agree on one theory exclusively. The only thing they can all
agree on is that they all belive LHO was innocent. After that, their
left banging their heads against a wall and running in circles.
Gil Jesus
How droll.
justm...@gmail.com
> An open question from a closed mind.
>
> How droll.
A stupid comment from a NO mind
How droll.
taral...@mailinator.com
wrote:
Apparently Mr. Jesus believes one must have an open mind to revel in
the lies he contributes to this newsgroup. How droll. Can anybody
give me an explanation as to why Mr. Jesus is on this forum?
David Von Pein
>>> "Can anybody give me an explanation as to why Mr. Jesus is on this forum?" <<<
My guess is: Gil Jesus posts here daily because conspiracy-happy kooks
like to flock here daily. (Birds of a feather, you know.)
BTW, I think Tara will be interested in this 2003 JFK Assassination
Poll from ABC News linked below, wherein only 7% of the 1,031
respondents (which is twice as many respondents as the Gallup Poll,
btw) were of the opinion that Lee Harvey Oswald was NOT A GUNMAN in
Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63:
www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
ABC'S 2003 POLL REVEALS THAT 83% THINK OSWALD WAS SHOOTING AT JFK:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c0189f6da4be3133
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ecfae05e92eaf9f2
That "83 percent" stat makes you think twice about the "Anybody But
Oswald" conspiracy-crazed loons we see daily at this asylum/newsgroup,
because the poll indicates that such "ABO" kooks are certainly NOT
among the majority (not even close to the majority in fact) when it
comes to the specific question of: DID LEE HARVEY OSWALD FIRE A WEAPON
AT PRESIDENT KENNEDY IN DEALEY PLAZA?
But to hear the retards around these parts tell the story, Oswald was
totally innocent of firing a gun at ANYONE on November 22nd (including
both JFK and Officer Tippit).
Such is the kook mindset...and Bud (a very logical-thinking LNer from
this newsgroup) said it well in 2006 when he said:
"My take is that the problems of the [JFK] case don't lie with
the case itself, but with the kooks. That is where the focus needs to
be, at the source of the problem, not at its many manifestations. And
that's why Ben [Holmes] won't talk with me, because I don't play by
his rules, fight on the ground he chooses, or focus on what he decides
should be focused on." -- Bud; 06/11/06
taral...@mailinator.com
Mr. Von Pein, that poll is very interesting. At this early point in
my examining this case, I subscribe to the theory that Mr. Oswald was
obviously guilty. The question in my mind is whether or not he had
help.
David Von Pein
>>> "The question in my mind is whether or not he had help." <<<
IF OSWALD HAD ACCOMPLICES, WHERE WERE THEY WHEN LEE NEEDED THEM THE
MOST?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d70e836fe521bf46
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S SOLE GUILT -- POINT-BY-POINT:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4a6b3390021d657c
THE "PATSY PLOT" SILLINESS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/606503e4d63e74ad
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dd321914097fcd2d
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/30f318ea48653a72
HOW TO FRAME A LONE PATSY FOR JFK'S MURDER (AND HOW NOT TO DO IT):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f4466b08f8be7c36
bigdog
> On Jun 7, 10:06 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>> "Can anybody give me an explanation as to why Mr. Jesus is on this forum?" <<<
>
> > My guess is: Gil Jesus posts here daily because conspiracy-happy kooks
> > like to flock here daily. (Birds of a feather, you know.)
>
> > BTW, I think Tara will be interested in this 2003 JFK Assassination
> > Poll from ABC News linked below, wherein only 7% of the 1,031
> > respondents (which is twice as many respondents as the Gallup Poll,
> > btw) were of the opinion that Lee Harvey Oswald was NOT A GUNMAN in
> > Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63:
>
> >www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
>
>
> > That "83 percent" stat makes you think twice about the "Anybody But
> > Oswald" conspiracy-crazed loons we see daily at this asylum/newsgroup,
> > because the poll indicates that such "ABO" kooks are certainly NOT
> > among the majority (not even close to the majority in fact) when it
> > comes to the specific question of: DID LEE HARVEY OSWALD FIRE A WEAPON
> > AT PRESIDENT KENNEDY IN DEALEY PLAZA?
>
> > But to hear the retards around these parts tell the story, Oswald was
> > totally innocent of firing a gun at ANYONE on November 22nd (including
> > both JFK and Officer Tippit).
>
> > Such is the kook mindset...and Bud (a very logical-thinking LNer from
> > this newsgroup) said it well in 2006 when he said:
>
> > "My take is that the problems of the [JFK] case don't lie with
> > the case itself, but with the kooks. That is where the focus needs to
> > be, at the source of the problem, not at its many manifestations. And
> > that's why Ben [Holmes] won't talk with me, because I don't play by
> > his rules, fight on the ground he chooses, or focus on what he decides
> > should be focused on." -- Bud; 06/11/06
>
> >www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
>
> Mr. Von Pein, that poll is very interesting. At this early point in
> my examining this case, I subscribe to the theory that Mr. Oswald was
> obviously guilty. The question in my mind is whether or not he had
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is theoretically possible Oswald had help but highly unlikely. In
45+ years, not one bit of credible evidence has ever surfaced that
Oswald had even a single accomplice. Oswald could have only known 4
days in advance at most that the motorcade would be passing right in
front of his work place. All the circumstantial evidence indicates it
was a crime of opportunity, not a well planned hit. Oswald could have
learned from any number of new sources on either Monday or Tuesday
that the motorcade was going past the TSBD. He was staying at his
rented room during the week and did not have his rifle with him. That
is why he needed to make the special trip to Ruth Paine's house on
Thursday evening and why he returned to work on Friday carrying a
brown paper package. If he had an accomplice, it is likely he would
have had his accomplice take him back and forth to Ruth Paine's house
rather than trouble Buell Frazier for the ride. Unless of course you
think Frazier was the accomplice. I certainly don't.
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -
A few points:
1. There has not emerged a unified conspiracy theory because there
wasn't one.
2. The conspiracy nuts themselves cannot agree on who did it and why,
this is because they all pick up a few pieces of an unassembled puzzle
(in their minds it is unassembled) and they try to figure out what the
puzzle is supposed to depict by only looking at a few select pieces
rather than the entire body of evidence.
3. Some CT believe the mafia was behind the murder but others
maintain the Dallas Police Department was in on it for some
unclarified reason. Well to believe that the Mafia and the Dallas
Police Department were were allies in Kennedy's murder is child-like
and downright silly. Others maintain the CIA and the KGB (two
organizations that HATED one another inthe Cold War) were both working
together on it. This too causes educated, well read people to roll
their eyes and laugh to themselves. Others claim the Secret Service
was working in unison with anti-Castro or pro-Castro Cubans to murder
Kennedy. The claim that the SS was involved in Kennedy's murder in
ANY WAY is so outlandish it loses all credibility with sane
researchers from the outset. Still others believe that the Warren
Commission was actively seeking to cover-up the murder of Kennedy for
some unclarified reason. And it goes on and on and on. If the
conspiracy nuts asembled all of their evidence and all agreed on who
was behind the assassination and why they did it they would have at
least a little bit of credibility, but since they don't they are never
taken seriously by genuine scholars. Year after year scholarly
history books acknowledge that belief in an assassination conspiracy
is common but no credible has yet surfaced to lend credence to any
such theory. This eats away at the conspiracy nuts since deep down
they know that no scholars take them seriously. Occasionally an
otherwise respected scholar like Jim Fetzer, Michael Kurtz, or David
Mantik jumps on the bandwagon and becomes a hero within the conspiracy
community but for the most part, respected scholars such as David
Kennedy, James McPherson, John Garraty, and others agree that the
evidence to support such beliefs in conspiracy simply hasn't emerged
as yet.
4. Conspiracy believers are not bound by the limits of logic, common
sense, and reational behavior, therefore within THEIR world, things
like mysterious phone calls are hard evidence, alleged notes passed
(notes that they cannot produce), shadows in photographs, inaudible
blips on dictabelts, etc...are all credible evidence. In the real
world, the world in which the sun rises in the east and sets in the
west, the world in which people breathe oxygen, and photosynthesis
occurs thanks to carbon dioxide and oxygen, such silly things do NOT
weigh very heavily when solving an historical mystery. Real scholars
and conspiracy crazies will never be able to agree because in the
conspiracy world ANYTHING is possible and EVERYTHING happens for a
reason. This simply is not reality.
5. And finally, if Oswald was 100% not guilty, how did the invisible,
unidentifed conspirators convince Oswald to ACT like he was 100%
guilty? THis is an amazing trick. How did they get him to leave the
building within 2 minutes, walk seven blocks to catch a bus that WOULD
have stopped across the street from the TSBD, take a cab and have it
drop him off four blocks from his home, take his revolver and later
shoot a police officer with it, hide in a theater, attempt to shoot
another officer during his arrest, scream "Well it's all over now!"
ALL of if he were innocent. ONe would think that if the conspirators
were so adept at manipulating Oswald, why wouldn't they have
manipulated future murders as well to rub out other key individuals in
America that stood in the way of their imaginary goals.
Simply stated--belief in a conspiracy behind Kennedy's murder is silly
and child-like. It is akin to believing in UFOs, Bigfoot, time
travel, alien abductions, faked moon landings, 9/11 plots, and other
wastes of time.
aeffects
your credibility went out the window long ago shithead. So remember
your place now, that being of course .john prevaricator, aka L-I-A-R!
Paul May has no place in the annals of alt.conspiracy.jfk. Best change
into something else, shithead!
robc...@netscape.com
> In the short time I have studied the assassination I have yet to read
> a reasonable or credible conspiracy theory. Why?
YOU obviously are biased from the get go to believe it was a lone
nut. All the evidence in this case fails to support the theory it was
put forth with, thus another scenario has to be correct. The WC had
their chance and they blew it, but IF you want to stay on a sinking
ship be my guest.
robc...@netscape.com
this:
"My guess is: Gil Jesus posts here daily because conspiracy-happy
kooks
like to flock here daily. (Birds of a feather, you know.)"
This is coming from a man who has post practically more than any other
100 posters combined!!! IF one tallies his Dave Reitzes and Dave Von
Pein posts alone he is in the stratosphere, but IF we could add in
some of the other names he uses -- whew! Dave is hooked up to this
like a patient in the hospital that has an I.V. "drip" attached to his
arm!
Folks that do NOT want to fact the facts -- i.e. that the evidence the
WC gave us does NOT support their own theory -- always wonder why a
CTer is here. The funny thing is this is the CONSPIRACY BOARD! IF
they want to believe in their hokey theory why do they come here?
tomnln
"Steve" <sahi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:883d69fb-d12f-47de...@p4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
A few points:
SURE Steve;
Kinda like Believing the "Single Bullet Theory".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
taral...@mailinator.com
> "Steve" <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
YOU obviously are biased from the get go to believe it was a lone
nut. All the evidence in this case fails to support the theory it was
put forth with, thus another scenario has to be correct. The WC had
their chance and they blew it, but IF you want to stay on a sinking
ship be my guest.
With all due respect Mr. Robcap, the above is absurd. Have you Mr.
Robcap a more plausible scenario than Mr. Oswald did it? Do tell.
Gil Jesus
> Can �anybody
> give me an explanation as to why Mr. Jesus is on this forum?
Typical troll post.....don't ask ME why I'm here......ask someone who
wouldn't know.
The reason why i'm here is to expose the official lie and the frauds
who support it.
As a fraud who supports it, your distaste for me is understandable.
taral...@mailinator.com
Mr. Jesus again demonstrates the personality trait of a liar. Liars
do not remember what and when something is said. I personally said
several days ago I would no longer respond to lies. Hence, I no
longer ask Mr. Jesus direct questions as I know he will lie in his
response. I believe the word droll is appropriate right now.
For those who care, my distaste for Mr. Jesus has absolutely nothing
to do with his position on conspiracy. Again, Mr. Jesus demonstrates
his inability "to get it". Mr. Jesus is a proven and documented
fabricator. This appears to be the norm for the conspiracy crowd on
this particular forum. Is this that complicated?
Neil Coburn
the JFK murder was a local affair.No outsiders,only local talent
involved. The bullet planted at the hospital should have been
all the evidence we needed. Neil
robert harris
<3905e97b-9575-42dd...@o18g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
taral...@mailinator.com wrote:
> In the short time I have studied the assassination I have yet to read
> a reasonable or credible conspiracy theory. Why?
Problems with dyslexia perhaps?
Robert Harris