> > On May 7, 9:01 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On May 7, 6:16 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > What you are saying is your litmus test for whether to believe a
> > > > > witness depends on whether he supports your stupid ideas or not. It
> > > > > has nothing to do with the credibility or plausibility of the story
> > > > > they have to tell. Had Saunders been the one telling a story that
> > > > > supported your stupid theory, you would have embraced him and called
> > > > > Ed Hoffman a nutcase.

> > > >   Not necessarily.  Aside from the statement making some sense, I like
> > > > to make an assessment of the person making the statement too.

> > > You don't know any of these fucking people. How could you make an
> > > assessment of any of them. How could you assess Ed Hoffman. How could
> > > you assess Walter Rishel. They told you a story you wanted to hear so
> > > you bought it. That's all you know about either one of them.

> >   First, their stories were immediately put down by you, which gives
> > them a great deal of integrity.

> Oh, goody. Another of your dumbfuck litmus tests.

> > Second, many of the stories
> > corroborated each other about things that were seen or heard.

> Another dumbfuck observation. Hoffman claimed what he saw and Rishel
> claimed that Bowers had told him something. Hoffman does nothing to
> support that Bowers told Rishel anything and Rishel does nothing to
> support Hoffman saw anything.

> You're the kind of dumbfuck con artists dream about.

> >    I suspect your criteria is whether they support the wacky WC
> > theories.

> > > My criteria has been consistent throughout. If testimony can be
> > > corroborated with other evidence, it is believeable. If it can be
> > > refuted through other evidence, it should be rejected. If it can
> > > neither be corroborated nor refuted, it may or may not be true.

> >  Hmm.  Welp, if you get a case where testimony is refuted by other
> > evidence, how do you decide which of the 2 is the right one?

> The physical evidence almost always trump eyewitness testimony
> especially when there is so much physical evidence and it all points
> at one guy.

> I could take the dumbfuck approach like you do and just decide I like
> what a witness says because it doesn't sound like he is full of shit.

> > > > > As noted already, Ruby (or whoever it was) had time to get to
> > > > > Saunders workplace and appear 'shaken and ashen' from the exertion and
> > > > > > the murder he had helped with, no doubt under orders that he didn't
> > > > > > dare avoid.

> > > > > Right dumbfuck, Wanda Walker saw Ruby at the DMN shortly before the
> > > > > shooting and Saunders saw him shortly afterward, but you think in
> > > > > between he got into his Superman outfit and flew over to DP just so he
> > > > > could run down a hillside and then raced back to the DMN. I guess that
> > > > > isn't any sillier than any of the other stupid shit you have
> > > > > proposed.

> > > >   Julia Ann Mercer also saw Ruby before the assassination at Dealey
> > > > Plaza setting up the kill.  Do you believe her?

> > > Why would I. Two people placed Ruby at the DMN and it was normal for
> > > him to be there on a Friday to place his ad.

> What is there to corroborate Mercer?

> > > > And where's your
> > > > backup for Walker seeing him before the assassination?  Nowhere as
> > > > usual.

> > > She is one of two people who saw him at the DMN and as noted above,
> > > that is where he usually was on a Friday. Your idiotic belief would be
> > > that he dashed out of the DMN and then returned in time to be seen by
> > > Saunders. Only a dumbfuck like you would believe anything that silly.

> >   Actually, it makes more sense than your puny efforts.

> It probably does to a dumbfuck.

> > He was
> > "shaken and ashen'.

> Gee, he's probably the only person in the country who was shaken and
> ashen after finding out their President had been shot. <snicker>

> > Why would a low class sleazeball be disturbed
> > that JFK was shot at by someone and be so bothered?

> You don't think a lot of low class sleazeballs were upset that JFK had
> been shot? <snicker>

> > All his
> > connections to the mafia (says the HSCA) didn't like JFK, so why
> > wouldn't he echo those sentiments instead of playing the sad figure
> > looking to help out the poor wife of JFK?  But if he were seen shortly
> > before and had to rush to look like he was in his normal place, that
> > could explain his demeanor.

> Are you making this up as you go? Sorry. That question pretty much
> answers itself.

> > > > > Once again you ignore what Lee Bowers said under oath and on camera
> > > > > and believe a guy who claimed to be a close friend of Bowers even
> > > > > though none of Bowers family even knew who Walter Rishel was.

> > > >    Nope.  Rishel was more believable

> > > Why?

> >   For one, because you say he wasn't.

> Back to the dumbfuck litmus test.

> > That always gives importance to
> > anything in the case.  Two, he never seemed to cash in on his memory
> > as some have done.

> Of course not. Nobody would given him a nickel for his silly story.
> Some people just like the attention.

> > And he spoke very straight and not hesitant or
> > like a weasel.

> That's usually how con men speak.

> > Three, we already have statements about the efforts of
> > the FBI intimidating witnesses.

> If you mean we have a lot of bozos putting up websites making that
> claim, you are right. They are almost always second and third hand
> accounts. Almost never do they come from the person supposedly being
> intimidated.

> > If Bowers had a bigger story to tell,
> > you can be sure the FBI would find it out right away and jump on him
> > immediately.

> No, YOU can be sure of that. Intelligent people would only think that
> if there were some compelling evidence that happened.

> > Four,

> Careful. If you count much higher, you'll have to use your other hand.

> > the bigger story meshes with other stories from
> > around the GK.

> There were lots of people who thought they heard shots from the GK but
> nobody who saw a shot from the GK and plenty of people who should have
> seen a shooter on the GK if one had actually been there.

> > > Why?

> >   Because many people have succumbed to fear and in such situations
> > with the FBI. As noted to you.

> So you start with the assumption that Bowers was intimidated by the
> FBI. That's the dumbfuck approach.

> > > > since the FBI had been called
> > > > out by many as trying to shut up or imtimidate witnesses.

> Yes, there are many dumbfucks out there with websites

> > > Where is your evidence that the FBI tried to intimidate Bowers?

> >    The fact that you are acting like it didn't happen makes it more
> > liable to have happened, but the FBI has been caught intimidating
> > others, so the stories fit with others.  They 'corroborate' each other
> > about the FBI. Even on other cases.

> I asked for evidence that the intiimidated Bowers and you give us your
> assumptions. I guess if that's all you have...

> > > >  That Bowers
> > > > told only a close friend

> > > Where is your evidence that Rishel was a close friend?

> >   My lord!  How dumb can you get?  If he was told such flammable
> > stuff, he must have been a friend. He wasn't a US attorney or similar
> > taking a report of FBI misbehavior.  Use your head!

> So you have no evidence that he was a close friend of Bowers.

> If he knew something so explosive, why didn't somebody try to shut him
> up?

> > > > also makes sense if he didn't want to get in
> > > > trouble for opening his mouth with those he was afraid of.  It makes
> > > > sense, and Rishel doesn't scan as a guy trying to use his friend's
> > > > name to get into the news.

> > > You know nothing about Rishel except what you saw on a YouTube video.

> >   Well, that's not true.  As noted to you before, he's a witness that
> > you don't want to be believed.  Makes him very probably telling the
> > truth.  And indeed, I know what  I saw of him on the video.  And his
> > tale fits with others as to what they saw, and the FBI intimidation,
> > which also agrees with others.

> So the only thing you know about Rishel is what you saw on a YouTube
> video.

> > > > Having a friend that your family doesn't
> > > > know is not strange, it probably happens to many people.  I had many
> > > > friends at work and my family knew few of them.  I had friends I only
> > > > saw at lunch and my family knew none of them.

> > > There is nothing to corroborate anything Rishel said. You believe him
> > > because you want to believe him. No other reason.

> >   Nope.  Won't do.

> It will until you give us another reason to believe him.

> > You have been informed of the reasons above for
> > believing the Rishel statement, including your continuing efforts to
> > discredit him.

> The only reasons you have is that you want to believe him and I don't
> believe him. Is there anything else?

> > > > > But
> > > > > Rishel passed your litmus test of telling a wacky story to support
> > > > > your even wackier theory so he must be the one telling the truth and
> > > > > Bowers must have been the one who was lying.

> >   Nope.  Rishel's story fits in with others, as noted above.

> Really? Name one other person that Bowers told that he had been
> intimidated into lying by the FBI? If Bowers had intimidated into
> keeping his mouth shut, why did he do the Mark Lane interview?

> > You
> > really are disturbed by this Rishel thing aren't you?  It puts a big
> > hole in the WC wacko stuff doesn't it?  But it's not alone.  There are
> > too many things doing that, including incompetence from those that
> > shouldn't be incompetent in a major case like this.

> I'm not disturbed at all by it. I love it. It shows how wacky and
> desperate you assholes are to believe anything except what the real
> evidence tells us happened.

> > > > > >    I guess you can't follow multiple timelines at the same time.  No
> > > > > > one said that 'Ruby' and Tilson did their thing at the same instant.
> > > > > > You would like it to be that way, but IF it was Ruby at Saunders'
> > > > > > office, then he was faster on the road than Saunders.  I know this is
> > > > > > difficult to track, but try harder.

> > > > > Einstein couldn't follow your ridiculous thought processes.

> > > >   A bit too much for you, I see.  You'll just have to take a back seat
> > > > then and assume that I and everyone else reading knows what we're
> > > > talking about.

> > > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

> >   Uh-oh!  Sounds like you're going off the reservation again.  The
> > white coats may be coming to take you to the cackle farm any minute.
> > Don't worry, they'll take good care of you.

> You might want to look over your shoulder at the guy with the net.

> > > You are good for at least one belly laugh a day and this was it. I
> > > doubt you would know how to spell cat if we spotted you the C and the
> > > A.

> > > > Simple stuff.  Things happen simultaneously
> > > > everywhere.

> > > Simpleton better describes you.

> > > > > You've got on guy telling a story about a guy in overalls fleeing
> > > > > northward with the rifle and telling a story about a guy in a business
> > > > > suit fleeing with something hidden under his coat heading in the
> > > > > opposite direction and another witness who would have easily been able
> > > > > to see either one and yet he saw neither of them and you think that
> > > > > all fits together. Of course you do. You are a dumbfuck.

> > > >   On top of which, we don't know if there was any boxcars on the
> > > > tracks near there.

> > > Which does nothing to improve you silly story.

> > > > > >     Yep.  But it had no value, since it was perfectly possible for the
> > > > > > 'Ruby' guy to arrive at Saunder' office before him.  Especially if he
> > > > > > was 'shaken and ashen' when Saunders got there.

> > > > > It speaks volumes that even your fellow CTs think this is too
> > > > > ridiculous to claim. Even they know Ruby was at the DMN when JFK was
> > > > > shot.

> >   Because YOU say so?  That's not enough to blow anyone's nose.  It
> > sounds from statements that Ruby had the time to appear like he was
> > going about his regular routine.  But if that bothers you, you can
> > alays take comfort that Tilson said the guy with the 'object' was
> > 'ruby-like', not Ruby.

> So Tilson said he saw a guy who looked like Ruby but didn't say it was
> Ruby. You really nailed it this time <snicker>

> > Maybe he knew about this other stuff with
> > Saunders and had to put it that way.

> Maybe you're just a dumbfuck. Sorry. No maybe about that.

> > He knew what he saw, even if
> > there was a witness saying otherwise.

> He saw a guy dressed in a dark suit who from a distance and while
> driving by looked a little like Jack Ruby? I bet there weren't more
> than a few hundred guys in Dallas who would meet that criteria. Is
> there a record that he told anyone he saw Jack Ruby fleeing from the
> GK before Jack Ruby shot Oswald or did he just decide afterward that
> it might have been Ruby he saw?

> > > >   So far, you haven't provided anything that shows that someone saw
> > > > Ruby at the time of the assassination.  Before?  No backup, but
> > > > possible.  After the assassination, possible, but plenty of time to do
> > > > that.

> > > We have two witnesses who positively IDed Ruby at the DMN before and
> > > after the assassination and you give us one guy who could only say he
> > > saw a guy who spotted a guy that sort of looked like Ruby when he did
> > > a drive by of the area and we are supposed to believe Ruby was not at
> > > the DMN during the assassination. I guess that's the way it works in
> > > Dumbfuck World.

> >   We have nothing of the kind!  You provided nothing to show that was
> > the case.  Where's the statement, the video, the testimony at the WC?

> I don't base my beliefs on YouTube videos. I gave you Saunders
> testimony.

> > Nothing.  You just say things, as noted before and actually expect to
> > be believed...ridiculous!

> I don't expect dumbfucks to beleive me.

> > > > > >      As A side issue, I never bought that dumb story that a sleazy
> > > > > > little strip joint owner, who was no doubt connected to the Mafia,
> > > > > > would feel such a deep sadness at the death of a politician (that the
> > > > > > Mafia disliked) that he had to go and ruin his life and future by
> > > > > > killing the assassin in front of a bunch of cops that knew him.  It's
> > > > > > clear that Oswald had to be shut up, and Ruby was elected.  Do the job
> > > > > > or die yourself, and we'll get you out if possible.

> > > > > Of course that is clear to a dumbfuck. There is no evidence that
> > > > > supports any of it. You think by assuming things you can make them
> > > > > facts.

> > > >   Nope.  I don't say it's gospel.  I'm only pointing out a few things
> > > > about human nature and certain types of people.

> > > So now you are playing psychologist.

> >   Nope.  But most people have a bit of learning about other people,
> > and can suggest behavior.  I know you well, for instance, if I say
> > certain things, I can guarantee your reaction to them...:)

> You mean when you say dumbfuck things, you know I will call you a
> dumbfuck. I guess you got me there.

> > > Lots of people traveled to Cuba before Castro took over. It was a
> > > popular tourist destination.

> >   It wa a mafia run gambling location, like Las Vegas.  With the
> > connections the HSCA attributed to Ruby, he probably went there as a
> > messenger or doing someone a favor.

> You have no idea why Ruby went anywhere so that leaves you to assume
> all sorts of crazy things.

> > > > There is also a
> > > > note about the mafia bailing out Oswald on an earlier time when he got
> > > > himself into jail.

> > > Michael Griffith. There's a hell of a source. He's almost as dumb as
> > > you are. He rejects evolution.

> >  Ah!  Thank you!  I wasn't sure about him at first, but now that you
> > have put him down, he's going to be a topnotch source!...:)

> The two of you were made for each other.

> >   He seems to keep his religious beliefs out of his work on the
> > assassination,

> His embracing of creationism shows he is willing to believe things
> that not only are in absence of evidence but are in contraction to the
> evidence. He believes in creationism for the same reason you believe
> in JFK conspiracies. He wants to believe it and so he accepts it on
> faith alone.

> > and is respected among writers in his chosen area.

> He is respected by his fellow dumbfucks.

> > His
> > article on the findings of the HSCA were carefully done, so I can see
> > why you would like to discredit him.

> He obviously researched his materially maticulously and then fucked it
> all up.