All Conspiracy Believers are Virtually the Same
Steve
and ridiculous methods used by conspiracists to promote their
paranoia. Of course this week has focused on the nuts in the 9/11
conspiracy asylum but I was impressed with the similarities between
them and the Kennedy assassinatino nuts we have been plagued with in
America for forty-five years. Even though most conspiracy nuts will
never admit it (because they would appear more insane than they
already appear) MOST CT do believe in virtually ALL conspiracy
theories. There is an alarming amount of bleed-over between the
Kennedy assassination conspiracy nuts and the 9/11 nuts, and the faked
NASA moon landing nuts, and the Pearl Harbor nuts, and on and on and
on. Jimmy Fetzer one of the looniest humans currently not restrained
with leather straps was involved with the now totally discredited
"Scholars for Truth in the 9/11 Attacks" or some such nonsense. Jack
White, the old crazy man of the Kennedy assassination conspiracy camp
also has a website boasting his "findings" on the faked moon
landings. And the list goes on. None of these nuts are taken
seriously by educated people and they pose a danger and a risk to
America FAR outweighing any attacks on the WTC or assassinations of
American leaders. They are creating a generation that will believe
ANYTHING so long as it is fantastic, complicated, and conspiracy
oriented. They are helping to raise a generation of gullible, shadow-
chasing, fools.
THAT is the real tragedy to be addressed on today's date.
MSwanberg
I guess I am in the minority. I believe:
*12 American walked on the surface of the moon.
*9/11 was perpetrated by 19 middle-east terrorists with box-cutters.
*ONI had knowledge of an impending attack on American naval forces in
late 1941 but didn't believe Pearl Harbor was the likely target.
*Lee Harvey Oswald neither fired nor handled a rifle on 11/22/1963,
but forces conspired immediately to implicate him as the lone
assassin.
So... where do I fit in your hierarchy of "nuts"?
-Mike
aeffects
you're reaching nutter-troll, but you do keep coming back, there's
hope for you yet -- it does get better.
Your's in research,
Pappy Aeffects
p.s. got hair yet, son?
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -
You definately are in the minority. And you are living proof that a
person can be sane and well-grounded in one area of their mind and
totally detached from reality at the same time in another area. John
Brown circa 1856 comes to mind.
Ben Holmes
MSwanberg says...
>
>On Sep 11, 1:20=A0pm, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> This week there have been some great documentaries exposing the silly
>> and ridiculous methods used by conspiracists to promote their
>> conspiracy asylum but I was impressed with the similarities between
>> them and the Kennedy assassinatino nuts we have been plagued with in
>> never admit it (because they would appear more insane than they
>> already appear) MOST CT do believe in virtually ALL conspiracy
>> Kennedy assassination conspiracy nuts and the 9/11 nuts, and the faked
>> NASA moon landing nuts, and the Pearl Harbor nuts, and on and on and
>> with leather straps was involved with the now totally discredited
>> White, the old crazy man of the Kennedy assassination conspiracy camp
>> also has a website boasting his "findings" on the faked moon
>> seriously by educated people and they pose a danger and a risk to
>> America FAR outweighing any attacks on the WTC or assassinations of
>> ANYTHING so long as it is fantastic, complicated, and conspiracy
>> chasing, fools.
>>
>> THAT is the real tragedy to be addressed on today's date.
>
>
>I guess I am in the minority.
Unless up to 90% of Americans believe in these other nutty "conspiracies", then
no, you're not in the minority.
>I believe:
>
>*12 American walked on the surface of the moon.
>*9/11 was perpetrated by 19 middle-east terrorists with box-cutters.
>*ONI had knowledge of an impending attack on American naval forces in
>late 1941 but didn't believe Pearl Harbor was the likely target.
>*Lee Harvey Oswald neither fired nor handled a rifle on 11/22/1963,
>but forces conspired immediately to implicate him as the lone
>assassin.
>
>So... where do I fit in your hierarchy of "nuts"?
>
>-Mike
Ditto on all of them... except Pearl Harbor - we simply didn't have the
resources in place to decrypt and disseminate the information quickly enough.
Investigations conducted after the war demonstrate that we *had* the
information... in the form of still enciphered messages. (A topic of particular
interest to me due to my practice of a Japanese Martial Art, and many Japanese
friends.) But this is quite similar to 9/11 - we *had* most of the information
needed to put it together - but it was so widely scattered, and legal obstacles
were in the way, that no one agency put it together.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
MSwanberg
> In article <fbdcb12c-61a1-4076-a1a7-bc3e8fb3b...@e8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
110% agreed. We almost always have the knowledge ahead of time... but
it's wading through the false information that's the real chore. And
nearly impossible most of the time.
-Mike
MSwanberg
Very odd... so you think that ANY conspiracy theory is folly, and that
ANY conspiracy theorist is detached from reality, at least in that
aspect?
The truth of the matter is that conspiracies exist and they are well-
documented all the time. Governments overthrow other governments, and
usually by very shady, conspiratorial means. Our own government has
partaken in many such deals, and has in the end been bitten on the
butt by those deals. In fact, our government put the Taliban in
power. And Saddam Hussein. Noriega. And the list goes on and on.
There are also conspiracies in our everyday lives. In fact, the FTC
exists solely to look for such conspiracies. Oil companies conspire.
Auto manufacturers conspire. Technology manufacturers conspire.
So if conspiracies are real and do exist, incontrovertibly, why is it
so difficult to believe that occasionally a conspiracy hits high
levels of our government and our world?
-Mike
Walt
Hey Steve it's too difficult to refute your bullshit in this
forum.....But I'd like to talk to you ( I don't believe I've ever
talked to a village idiot before)
Call me at (213) EAT-SHIT
ShutterBun
> So if conspiracies are real and do exist, incontrovertibly, why is it
> so difficult to believe that occasionally a conspiracy hits high
> levels of our government and our world?
It's not difficult to believe. But when when one particular
accusation of conspiracy been exhaustively researched a number of
times and nothing was found, sooner or later you've got to conclude
there's nothing there.
LN'ers don't deny the existence of conspiracies per se. And we
certainly don't subscribe to the notion that "there couldn't have been
a conspiracy because our government would never do something evil."
Certainly "the government" has been involved in all sorts of shady,
even downright outrageous offenses at times. But the assassination of
JFK wasn't one of them.
David Von Pein
>>> "So you think that ANY conspiracy theory is folly, and that ANY conspiracy theorist is detached from reality, at least in that aspect?" <<<
Steve didn't say that at all.
He said you were "detached from reality" with respect to the one item
on your list that you think was a conspiracy -- the JFK case. And
Steve is right.
You, Mike, are particularly detached from reality to believe that "Lee
Harvey Oswald neither fired nor handled a rifle on 11/22/1963".
That type of belief is just plain silly (in light of the evidence that
says you're wrong).
Steve
You misunderstand my position. I don't disbelive in conspiracies. I
agree there have been a lot of them. And how do we know there have
been a lot of them? BECAUSE THEY WERE DISCOVERED AND EVIDENCE PROVED
THEIR EXISTENCE!!!
The Lincoln conspiracy is an excellent example. John Wilkes Booth,
Lewis Powell, David Herold, Geroge Azterodt, and Mary Surratt were all
involved in a plot to murder President Lincoln and Vice-President
Johnson. Since it was a REAL conspiracy, the evidence left behind
pointed to all of them and their various levels of complicity. They
were subsequently apprehended, tried and punished (some with death.)
The murder weapon was found, matched to Booth, witnesses verified the
involvement of Booth, and his escape and flight from justice was seen
as evidence of his guilt. The fact that he ran from the scene lent
credence to the conspiracy. This is the way a conspiracy operates in
the real world.
BUT in the Kennedy assassination nut house those who believe in a
conspiracy have been unable in 47 years to produce:
1. A gunman by name.
2. A location for the shot(s)
3. A murder weapon
4. A single bullet from any weapon other than Oswald's
5. A single credible eyewitness who can place an assassin anywhere
besides the SE corner window of the TSBD
6. A single assassin known to have fled the scene as Oswald did
7. A clear cut motive for this (these) imagined assassin(s)
8. A single fingerprint that points to anyone other than Oswald
And I could go on...but you should get the idea. Ruby and Oswald have
NEVER been linked in any credible fashion. Oswald and Ferrie have
NEVER been linked in any credible fashion. Ruby and Ferrie have NEVER
been linked in any credible fashion.
The Kennedy assassination conspiracy believers can't even get together
among themselves and agree on what they agree on. This is glaring
proof that they are wrong. There is NO doubt among LNers as to the
evidence. But ask ten CT nuts and you will get ten different
assassins (none of whom are named) ten motives (none of which even
remotely agree) ten locations (none of which concur with the wounds to
Kennedy and Connally) ten different weapons (none of which have EVER
been found or have EVER left a single bullet or fragment thereof, and
ten different number of assassins.
Is it any wonder that believers in a Kennedy conspiracy are
universally regarded as nuts?
MSwanberg
You are at speaking intelligently. I can appreciate that.
I was addressing Steve's attitude that ANY belief in conspiracy makes
one "detached from reality." Sounds like you aren't subscribing to
his notion on this.
-Mike
MSwanberg
Ummm, so where's the proof that LHO fired a rifle on 11/22/63? Didn't
the parafin test reveal that he hadn't fired one?
-Mike
Gil Jesus
> This week there have been some great documentaries exposing the silly
> and ridiculous methods used by conspiracists to promote their
> paranoia.
Was the assassination of Julius Caesar the work of a lone nut or was
it a conspiracy ?
Were the attacks of 9/11 the work of a single terrorist, or were they
the result of a planned conspiracy ?
Was the Roman ruler Caracella stabbed to death by only one of his
centurion guards or was it a conspiracy ?
Did the aunt of the Roman emperor Elagabalus CONSPIRE with his guards
by bribing them to murder him ?
Was the attempt on the life of Adolph Hitler the work of one man, or
was there a conspiracy to murder him ?
Was King Gustavus III of Sweden murdered by only one of his troops or
was there a conspiracy ?
YOU NEED TO DO SOME MORE STUDYING "PROFESSOR".
aeffects
> >>> "So you think that ANY conspiracy theory is folly, and that ANY conspiracy theorist is detached from reality, at least in that aspect?" <<<
>
> Steve didn't say that at all.
>
> He said you were "detached from reality" with respect to the one item
> on your list that you think was a conspiracy -- the JFK case. And
> Steve is right.
>
> You, Mike, are particularly detached from reality to believe that "Lee
> Harvey Oswald neither fired nor handled a rifle on 11/22/1963".
any proof he, LHO even HELD a rifle that day, shithead? Any proof the
MC found on the 6th floor was fired that day, hell, fired ANY time in
Nov up to the 23rd.... Ya need some proof moron! Get Vinnie on this...
MSwanberg
Well, I'll grant you one thing... if you ask 10 CTers what happened,
you'll likely get at least 9 different answers. But perhaps that's
because the wrong questions are being asked.
You are asking for what happened. The idea is that we'll NEVER know
what happened, so asking for people's opinions is going to be
speculation and, of course, you'll get varied answers.
However, the question that should be being asked is "what didn't
happen?" And most all CTers will say that "Oswald did it alone" did
NOT happen.
Your list is interesting. Let's look at them.
1. Naming a gunman could be quite difficult. If current CT idea is in
any way correct, then the trigger men quite possibly were already
"invisible" before the event took place. Trained assassins, illegals,
foreign nationals... whoever they may be, it is certain that we'll
never know for sure who they were. But that's not really the
importance of understanding the CT side of this. More on that in a
bit.
2. The locations for the shots have been very consistent for many
decades now, and even backed by the acoustical evidence (which I
happen to give credence to, so let's save that debate for another
thread). Knoll, TSBD (possibly even a second team in the SW window of
the 6th floor of the TSBD), 2nd or 3rd floor of the DalTex building.
There have been other speculations, but I find them pretty silly. I
don't believe anyone was in the sewer. I also don't believe that JFK
was shot by an SS agent either with a stray AR15 shot or a chrome-
plated pistol. I think those are folly. But in the end, the
locations for the shots are pretty static, overall.
3. 7.65 Mauser. At least that much we KNOW was found. Say all you
want about how the DPD was just blind and couldn't ID the weapon
(which would be the same DPD that caught LHO and gathered the spent
shells... either they're incompetent or they're not), but there is a
lot to show that a 7.65 Mauser was indeed found and reported.
4. How about a single bullet from Oswald's rifle that actually could
have been involved in the shooting? It's pretty unanimous, even among
the autopsists, that CE399 could NOT have been involved in the
shooting.
5. Likewise, there isn't a single credible witness that could place
Oswald in that window with a rifle in his hands. If you say Brennan,
then be prepared for the plethora of evidence against him as well...
many other witnesses -- some of them 1 or 2 floors below the "sniper's
nest" -- believe the shots originated from the SW corner of the TSBD.
Brennan was myopic as well and described an impossible amount of
things about the shooter, including height, even though the person
wasn't standing and was only viewed through a window that was open
about 12 inches. Likewise, the description of Oswald went out a good
15-20 minutes before Brennan even told anyone what he'd seen. So in
the end, saying there are no credible eyewitnesses to the contrary
brings us nowhere since there are no credible eyewitnesses to the deed
as purported by the WC.
6. I'm not sure what you're asking for here. There have been many
accounts by witnesses that other gunmen left the scene right after the
shooting.
7. Seriously? You don't understand any of the motives? Revenge.
Greed. Political power. OTOH, what's Oswald's motive? If you say
political, then why would he, a supposed Marxist, shoot someone who's
soft on communism? That makes no sense. Oh, I guess there's always
the "I want to be important" motive. But then why did he deny the
deed? That makes no sense either. In the end, Kennedy had made a LOT
of enemies, and many of them were extremely powerful. There's motive
all over this.
8. I could put that back in your court. Oswald's palm print didn't
show up in the FBI's investigation of the MC. Then later it shows
up? And there were SOMEone's fingerprints found in and around the
SN... but we've never been told whose.
So here we are... looking at the prevailing CT ideas. I am not
convinced that you understand them, but rather focus on the cockamamie
ones (and yes, there are many). And you also have this idea that the
ONLY way to prove Oswald didn't do it is to find the someone else who
did. But I put it to you thusly. If it could be proven that Oswald
didn't do it, and then also prove that it was indeed done, wouldn't it
seem logical to think that someone else HAD to do it? In the end,
it's not that difficult to show that there are many issues with the
"Oswald did it" idea.
-Mike
bigdog
I think I have figured it all out. JFK discovered evidence that FDR
had allowed Pearl Harbor to be attacked and was going to reveal it so
he had to be taken out. Since JFK had been the one to announce the
goal of sending a man to the moon by the end of the decade, the JFK
huggers had to be appeased so the goverment staged the moon landings
even though they knew that sending a man to the moon and returning him
safely was impossible. Then some pain-in-the-ass junior officer
working at the Pentagon uncovered evidence of the staged moon landings
and was going to make it public so he had to be taken out but it would
have been just too obvious if they had staged a burglary at his home
in order to kill him so they staged this elaborate attack by foreign
terrorists by first making a diversionary strike in New York and while
the public was focused on that, they staged a secondary attack on the
Pentagon junior officer's work place which was the C-ring of the
Pentagon so they flew a cruise missile into the Pentagon that
penetrated to the C-ring and then photoshopped the pictures of the
plane flying into the Pentagon to cover the fact the Pentagon had
really been hit by a cruse missile. Damn, four major conspiracies
uncovered and it only took me a few minutes to figure the whole thing
out. Sometimes I even amaze myself.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're not trying hard enough.
David Von Pein
>>> "Ummm, so where's the proof that LHO fired a rifle on 11/22/63? Didn't the parafin [sic] test reveal that he hadn't fired one?" <<<
You mean the same type test that was given to an FBI agent after that
agent had fired shots using Oswald's Carcano, with the agent's hands
AND cheek showing no nitrates on them at all?
CTers will always totally ignore that test on the FBI agent. (They
probably think it was a "fake" test.)
aeffects
you just keep coming back shithead, best put that crackpipe down, DVP
may be watching and you know how he feels about nutters getting close
to a conspiracy angle...
Nutter beware!
bigdog
That's a good place to start.
> The idea is that we'll NEVER know
> what happened, so asking for people's opinions is going to be
> speculation and, of course, you'll get varied answers.
>
A lot of us do know what happened because we are not determined to
delude ourselves with myths that are unsupported by credible evidence.
> However, the question that should be being asked is "what didn't
> happen?" And most all CTers will say that "Oswald did it alone" did
> NOT happen.
>
If only they had some credible evidence to demostrate that.
> Your list is interesting. Let's look at them.
>
> 1. Naming a gunman could be quite difficult. If current CT idea is in
> any way correct, then the trigger men quite possibly were already
> "invisible" before the event took place. Trained assassins, illegals,
> foreign nationals... whoever they may be, it is certain that we'll
> never know for sure who they were. But that's not really the
> importance of understanding the CT side of this. More on that in a
> bit.
>
If they were trained assassins why would they choose to take out the
target in a moving car in an area with little or no cover when they
couldn't even be sure before the event that the car would even have an
open top? Why not choose a location where they would have a clear shot
at a stationary target as was presented a few hours earlier when JFK
gave a speech in front of his Ft. Worth hotel. If you are going to
postulate a plot with no evidence to support it, you should at least
make up something that make's a little sense. And why can't you know
for sure who they were. If you are going to make things up, why not
make up the names of the shooters as well?
> 2. The locations for the shots have been very consistent for many
> decades now, and even backed by the acoustical evidence (which I
> happen to give credence to, so let's save that debate for another
> thread). Knoll, TSBD (possibly even a second team in the SW window of
> the 6th floor of the TSBD), 2nd or 3rd floor of the DalTex building.
> There have been other speculations, but I find them pretty silly. I
> don't believe anyone was in the sewer. I also don't believe that JFK
> was shot by an SS agent either with a stray AR15 shot or a chrome-
> plated pistol. I think those are folly. But in the end, the
> locations for the shots are pretty static, overall.
>
So your locations aren't as silly as other posulated locations.
> 3. 7.65 Mauser. At least that much we KNOW was found. Say all you
> want about how the DPD was just blind and couldn't ID the weapon
> (which would be the same DPD that caught LHO and gathered the spent
> shells... either they're incompetent or they're not), but there is a
> lot to show that a 7.65 Mauser was indeed found and reported.
>
And I thought you weren't going to get silly. No Mauser was ever
found. No one who took a close look at the weapon identified it as a
Mauser. That is a myth born out of a simple mistake which was
acknowledged by the person who made the mistake. But when you don't
have any real evidence on your side, make believe evidence is the best
you can come up with.
> 4. How about a single bullet from Oswald's rifle that actually could
> have been involved in the shooting? It's pretty unanimous, even among
> the autopsists, that CE399 could NOT have been involved in the
> shooting.
>
WTF??? They examined one of the two bodies. They did not have the
bullet at autopsy. How the hell would they know what CE399 could or
could not have done?
> 5. Likewise, there isn't a single credible witness that could place
> Oswald in that window with a rifle in his hands. If you say Brennan,
> then be prepared for the plethora of evidence against him as well...
> many other witnesses -- some of them 1 or 2 floors below the "sniper's
> nest" -- believe the shots originated from the SW corner of the TSBD.
> Brennan was myopic as well and described an impossible amount of
> things about the shooter, including height, even though the person
> wasn't standing and was only viewed through a window that was open
> about 12 inches. Likewise, the description of Oswald went out a good
> 15-20 minutes before Brennan even told anyone what he'd seen. So in
> the end, saying there are no credible eyewitnesses to the contrary
> brings us nowhere since there are no credible eyewitnesses to the deed
> as purported by the WC.
>
There isn't a single credible witness that can place any gunman
anywhere but the sniper's nest. Whether you find Brennan a credible
witness or not, at least there is a witness. His identification of
Oswald is corroborated by the finding of empty shells at the window
which were positively matched to the rifle found hidden on that same
floor, which was positively identified as belonging to Oswald and
which contained fresh fibers from the shirt he was wearing when
arrested. Why don't we also throw in the fact that the only two
recovered bullets were also postively matched to Oswald's rifle. I
suppose these were all just amazing coincidences. Anyone who is aware
of the evidence against Oswald and doesn't believe he fired the shots
that killed Kennedy is a fucking moron. There is no nice whay to say
that.
> 6. I'm not sure what you're asking for here. There have been many
> accounts by witnesses that other gunmen left the scene right after the
> shooting.
Oh, I suppose you are referring to Ed Hoffman. There's a credible
witness for you. You don't believe the guy who told police where he
saw a gunman firing from just minutes after the shooting and is
corroborated by numerous pieces of physical evidence and several other
witnesses but you want to believe some asshole who comes forward in
1967 and spins a tale that isn't corroborated by anything. His tale
just happens to dovetail with conspiracy theories that have already
been published and had become lore.
>
> 7. Seriously? You don't understand any of the motives? Revenge.
> Greed. Political power. OTOH, what's Oswald's motive? If you say
> political, then why would he, a supposed Marxist, shoot someone who's
> soft on communism? That makes no sense. Oh, I guess there's always
> the "I want to be important" motive. But then why did he deny the
> deed? That makes no sense either. In the end, Kennedy had made a LOT
> of enemies, and many of them were extremely powerful. There's motive
> all over this.
>
Who need's a motive. It has been proven beyond any doubt reasonable or
unreasonable that Oswald did it. Who the fuck cares why he did it?
> 8. I could put that back in your court. Oswald's palm print didn't
> show up in the FBI's investigation of the MC. Then later it shows
> up? And there were SOMEone's fingerprints found in and around the
> SN... but we've never been told whose.
>
Of course the palm print didn't show up in the FBI's investigation
because it had already been lifted off the rifle by Lt. Day. Why do
you think it strange Oswald's weren't the only fingerprints found in
the SN. Do you think he was the only one who worked there?
> So here we are... looking at the prevailing CT ideas. I am not
> convinced that you understand them,
That's an understatement?
>but rather focus on the cockamamie
> ones (and yes, there are many).
They are ALL cockamamie!!!
> And you also have this idea that the
> ONLY way to prove Oswald didn't do it is to find the someone else who
> did. But I put it to you thusly. If it could be proven that Oswald
> didn't do it, and then also prove that it was indeed done, wouldn't it
> seem logical to think that someone else HAD to do it? In the end,
> it's not that difficult to show that there are many issues with the
> "Oswald did it" idea.
>
It has been proven that Oswald did do it. Anyone with a knowledge of
the evidence and a functioning brain can figure that out. There is no
credible evidence he had even a single accomplice. ALL conspiracy
theories are make believe.
Robert
A conspiracy is simply TWO or more people who conspire to either carry
out a crime, or who help cover it up. Futhermore, IF a person knows
of a crime ahead of time and does NOT report it they are arrested and
charged with conspiracy to that crime. Most crimes are conspiracies
as more that one person has knowledge of the crime before and after
the crime. Many crimes also simply cannot be handled by one person
above the purse snatching stage.
Ditto large events in history, it is just pure ridiculousness to say a
single person caused these major events to happen, and that person was
the ONLY with knowledge before or after the crime.
I love how LNers constantly make it sound (just like portions of our
government) that conspiracies are as rare as "Haley's Comet" so we are
all nuts to believe in them.
Walt
Bravo!!.... Excellent post.... Did you take a lucidity pil?
MSwanberg
you interested in alternative theories and discussion, or are you just
here to spout forth insults without even listening?
To me, it is funny that you believe that a conspiracy involving
government personnel MUST be perfect or else it doesn't exist, and
then with the same breath you think that those same government
personnel can't pull off a decent hit. Why would they leave their
rifles and shells behind? That would be silly.
It's also odd that you find it very reasonable that LHO would hide the
rifle, but leave the shells in plain view. And that he would somehow
wipe his prints off of nearly the entire rifle, but leave one palm
print behind. That he would do it for fame, and then deny doing it.
And, motive IS important. If people went about committing random acts
of violence without motive, this would be a very different world than
the one we're living in.
Se, here's the thing. There is a plethora of stuff showing that WC
was fiction and bungled beyond all reasonability. As such, once you
go down that road of understanding, you start to see how other things
could be possible. So here's the thought. IF the WC was fiction and
IF it was a coverup, then it is possible that the coverup goes
further, to the evidence. Once you buy one side of that, the other
becomes a distinct possibility. That much is just deductive logic.
If you believe the government could purposely cover up the incident,
then you must also believe that they are capable of extending that
coverup to include the evidence.
It's not as if LHO was my best friend and so I am looking for ANY
reason to exculpate him. Frankly, I couldn't care less about LHO. In
fact, I wish it were just that simple, that a random dude took some
random shots at a president on a random day and got lucky and hit home
with at least one bullet. That would make things nice and neat and
easy.
But once I started looking at all of the surrounding stuff, I started
to see how other things could be possible, and indeed were. It's
called opening one's eyes.
Do I know what happened? No. Do I BELIEVE that the WC got it wrong?
Yes. And if they got stuff wrong, then they could have gotten a LOT
of stuff wrong. And when I start asking WHY they got stuff wrong, I
start to see that there was motive, not just stupidity, behind their
mistakes. Where there's motive, there's action. It's been well-
documented that both the WC staff and the HSCA staff felt that the CIA
and, to a lesser degree, the FBI were not being forthcoming. And if
that's the case, then a thinking person would want to ask "why?"
You don't seem to be asking why at all, bigdog, but rather just toeing
the government line, do or die.
-Mike
MSwanberg
Well, I think you're getting a little far into semantics here. Could
we say that (what's his name... the guy that gave Oswald the ride and
talked about the bag under his arm... Frazier?) conspired simply
because he may have suspected? I wouldn't say so. Should we say that
the mail-order house where Oswald ordered the rifle was a co-
conspirator? Again, I wouldn't say so.
I have this odd prediliction to try and boil things down to their
essence. COULD LHO have done it? Yeah, sure, I guess he could.
Could the WC just have made a cock-up of the investigation maybe
because they were lazy or nincompoops? Yeah, okay, I guess I could
believe that, to a degree. Could witnesses have lied? Yeah, okay,
maybe. Or maybe they embellished. Or misremembered.
But when a LOT of them are misremembering in the same direction, and
many of them are embellishing for seemingly no personal gain, you have
to start asking yourself... is it just that simple?
I choose to think not. I choose to think that there was a good deal
of shenanigans going on, before, during, and after the shots took
place in Dallas. And conspiracy or not, it sure seems to me that
Kennedy was killed for a bunch of reasons and it was then rapidly
covered up.
-Mike
bigdog
>
> A conspiracy is simply TWO or more people who conspire to either carry
> out a crime, or who help cover it up. Futhermore, IF a person knows
> of a crime ahead of time and does NOT report it they are arrested and
> charged with conspiracy to that crime. Most crimes are conspiracies
> as more that one person has knowledge of the crime before and after
> the crime. Many crimes also simply cannot be handled by one person
> above the purse snatching stage.
>
And even by that simple definition, Oswald's crime doesn't rise to the
level of conspiracy.
> Ditto large events in history, it is just pure ridiculousness to say a
> single person caused these major events to happen, and that person was
> the ONLY with knowledge before or after the crime.
>
So tell us. Who was John Hincley's accomplice? Or Mark Chapman's? Or
John Wayne Gacey's?
> I love how LNers constantly make it sound (just like portions of our
> government) that conspiracies are as rare as "Haley's Comet" so we are
> all nuts to believe in them.
No, you're only nuts if you believe in conspiracies for which there
isn't an ounce of credible evidence.
tomnln
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fcde59c7-d0e7-4987...@z28g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 14, 11:09 am, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>
> A conspiracy is simply TWO or more people who conspire to either carry
> out a crime, or who help cover it up. Futhermore, IF a person knows
> of a crime ahead of time and does NOT report it they are arrested and
> charged with conspiracy to that crime. Most crimes are conspiracies
> as more that one person has knowledge of the crime before and after
> the crime. Many crimes also simply cannot be handled by one person
> above the purse snatching stage.
>
And even by that simple definition, Oswald's crime doesn't rise to the
level of conspiracy.
> Ditto large events in history, it is just pure ridiculousness to say a
> single person caused these major events to happen, and that person was
> the ONLY with knowledge before or after the crime.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So tell us. Who was John Hincley's accomplice? I DON'T KNOW
Or Mark Chapman's? Or I DON'T KNOW
John Wayne Gacey's? tom lowery !
Thanks for askin ! ! ! !
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bigdog
> You are dealing far too much in absolutes to be taken seriously. Are
Not at all, unless you can provide credible evidence.
> and discussion, or are you just
> here to spout forth insults without even listening?
>
It wouldn't make sense to spout forth the insults without first
listening to the one being insulted.
> To me, it is funny that you believe that a conspiracy involving
> government personnel MUST be perfect or else it doesn't exist, and
> then with the same breath you think that those same government
> personnel can't pull off a decent hit. Why would they leave their
> rifles and shells behind? That would be silly.
>
I don't spend a whole lot of time second guessing hypothetical
conspiracies for which there is no evidence. That would be like
wondering why Bigfoot is so camera shy?
> It's also odd that you find it very reasonable that LHO would hide the
> rifle, but leave the shells in plain view.
Why is that odd? Do you think it would have made sense to scoop up the
shells? Do you think it would have been a better idea to take the
rifle with him? His actions indicate he simply wanted to get the hell
out of the building. Why would you second guess decisions that worked
out.
> And that he would somehow
> wipe his prints off of nearly the entire rifle, but leave one palm
> print behind. That he would do it for fame, and then deny doing it.
> And, motive IS important. If people went about committing random acts
> of violence without motive, this would be a very different world than
> the one we're living in.
>
I have no idea why he did it and I don't need to know why he did it in
order to know that he did do it. If tomorrow I were to go downtown and
randomly shoot and kill someone for no apparent reason, do you think I
would walk because the cops and the prosecutors couldn't figure out
why I did it?
> Se, here's the thing. There is a plethora of stuff showing that WC
> was fiction and bungled beyond all reasonability.
No even close.
> As such, once you
> go down that road of understanding,
I normally don't try to correct people's spelling errors but there is
an M-I-S in misunderstanding.
> you start to see how other things
> could be possible.
Unicorns are possible but good luck finding evidence of one.
> So here's the thought.
A first.
> IF the WC was fiction and
> IF it was a coverup, then it is possible that the coverup goes
> further, to the evidence.
So you apparently believe it makes sense just to dismiss the credible
evidence which ALL points to on man only as the culprit and then you
can make up any crazy theory you want because it requires no evidence.
> Once you buy one side of that, the other
> becomes a distinct possibility. That much is just deductive logic.
There is nothing logical about any JFK conspiracy theory ever put
forward. They all defy logic.
> If you believe the government could purposely cover up the incident,
> then you must also believe that they are capable of extending that
> coverup to include the evidence.
>
So your argument is that none of the evidence is genuine?
> It's not as if LHO was my best friend and so I am looking for ANY
> reason to exculpate him.
I didn't think LHO was your best friend and I have no idea why you are
looking for any reason to exculpate him.
> Frankly, I couldn't care less about LHO. In
> fact, I wish it were just that simple, that a random dude took some
> random shots at a president on a random day and got lucky and hit home
> with at least one bullet. That would make things nice and neat and
> easy.
>
Presto. Your wish has been granted.
> But once I started looking at all of the surrounding stuff, I started
> to see how other things could be possible, and indeed were. It's
> called opening one's eyes.
>
So how many different alternate truths do you believe in?
> Do I know what happened? No.
Uh, that is quite obvious.
> Do I BELIEVE that the WC got it wrong?
> Yes.
BUZZZZZZZZ!!! Wrong answer. Thanks for playing. Here are your lovely
parting gifts.
> And if they got stuff wrong, then they could have gotten a LOT
> of stuff wrong. And when I start asking WHY they got stuff wrong, I
> start to see that there was motive, not just stupidity, behind their
> mistakes. Where there's motive, there's action. It's been well-
> documented that both the WC staff and the HSCA staff felt that the CIA
> and, to a lesser degree, the FBI were not being forthcoming. And if
> that's the case, then a thinking person would want to ask "why?"
>
You mean we have a spy organization that tries to keep secrets. That's
shocking.
> You don't seem to be asking why at all, bigdog, but rather just toeing
> the government line, do or die.
>
Why should I ask why? I know what happened. It is incredibly obvious.
I don't toe the government line. I toe the line of truth and there is
only one. Oswald did it. Get over it.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you believe in a hereafter, maybe you will get a chance to ask
Oswald what his bunch of reasons were for killing JFK. Of course, I
don't think you will like the climate where he is residing.
MSwanberg
> listening to the one being insulted.
Sounds good. Keep going. Just makes you look like the fool. You
should also look up "ad hominem."
> I don't spend a whole lot of time second guessing hypothetical
> conspiracies for which there is no evidence. That would be like
> wondering why Bigfoot is so camera shy?
Very odd. Read the first post of this thread and others. You ASK for
alternative theories. Well, if you aren't paying attention to them,
why ask for them?
It's been said that it's a sign of insanity to keep asking for the
same thing expecting different results.
> Why is that odd? Do you think it would have made sense to scoop up the
> shells? Do you think it would have been a better idea to take the
> rifle with him? His actions indicate he simply wanted to get the hell
> out of the building. Why would you second guess decisions that worked
> out.
>
What evidence do you put forth that LHO was trying to get out of the
building? He bypassed a close exit and went and got a coke. Sounds
to me like he hadn't put 2 and 2 together yet.
> I have no idea why he did it and I don't need to know why he did it in
> order to know that he did do it. If tomorrow I were to go downtown and
> randomly shoot and kill someone for no apparent reason, do you think I
> would walk because the cops and the prosecutors couldn't figure out
> why I did it?
>
If there is question as to whether you did it, then yes, investigators
will look for motive. And if there is reasonable doubt that you may
have done it, and if you can show you have no possible motive for the
deed, then it is very possible that you may be acquitted by a jury of
your peers.
> So you apparently believe it makes sense just to dismiss the credible
> evidence which ALL points to on man only as the culprit and then you
> can make up any crazy theory you want because it requires no evidence.
>
No, I don't believe it makes sense at all. But when there seems to be
a lot of broken chains of evidence, people testifying that "I cannot
say that is the bullet I found," and others saying, "that's not what I
said, and there was no notary present at my deposition," logic leads
to a conclusion that wouldn't normally make sense. But then none of
this whole case makes sense.
> There is nothing logical about any JFK conspiracy theory ever put
> forward. They all defy logic.
>
They all defy the logic put forth by the WC, yes. But if you stop
listening to their addled ideas, missed opportunities to gather
evidence and testimony, and wonder why they think that Ruby's mother's
dental records are important to this case, you start to see that their
brand of logic isn't logic at all.
> So your argument is that none of the evidence is genuine?
>
My argument is that much of the evidence doesn't appear to be
genuine. And, where the evidence appears to support LHO's innocence,
the WC seems to just conclude the opposite for shoddy reasons.
> I didn't think LHO was your best friend and I have no idea why you are
> looking for any reason to exculpate him.
>
I'm not.
> So how many different alternate truths do you believe in?
>
I don't "believe in alternate truths." I see what I see, read what I
read, make judgments about what I think is sound, logical, legitimate
and then try to see if there is a possible explanation. If there is
no possible explanation, then I rethink my position on the legitimacy
of the point.
> You mean we have a spy organization that tries to keep secrets. That's
> shocking.
>
Yes, they keep secrets on matters of national security... which the
"official" reports on Oswald and the Kennedy Assassination have
nothing to do with national security. So why keep secrets on them?
> Why should I ask why? I know what happened. It is incredibly obvious.
> I don't toe the government line. I toe the line of truth and there is
> only one. Oswald did it. Get over it.
Yes, it is incredibly obvious to anyone who wishes to keep their eyes
closed.
Believe me, I wish you were correct. I wish my government had 100%
disclosure and no backdoor deals, nepotism, favoritism, cheating,
lying, stealing, and killing. I really do. But if they are not that
forthcoming, honest, and forthright, then it behooves us to look into
it and fix it. It's OUR government, after all.
-Mike
bigdog
> > It wouldn't make sense to spout forth the insults without first
> > listening to the one being insulted.
>
> Sounds good. Keep going. Just makes you look like the fool. You
> should also look up "ad hominem."
>
> > I don't spend a whole lot of time second guessing hypothetical
> > conspiracies for which there is no evidence. That would be like
> > wondering why Bigfoot is so camera shy?
>
> Very odd. Read the first post of this thread and others. You ASK for
> alternative theories. Well, if you aren't paying attention to them,
> why ask for them?
>
alternative theories. He simply points out the common traits among the
whack jobs who believe in the popular conspiracy theories. In many
cases they are they same whack jobs. We don't ask for conspiracy
theories. There is no need to do that. That would be like requesting
water from Niagra Falls.
> It's been said that it's a sign of insanity to keep asking for the
> same thing expecting different results.
>
Whose asking for conspiracy theories. We just laugh at the ones that
are being offered.
> > Why is that odd? Do you think it would have made sense to scoop up the
> > shells? Do you think it would have been a better idea to take the
> > rifle with him? His actions indicate he simply wanted to get the hell
> > out of the building. Why would you second guess decisions that worked
> > out.
>
> What evidence do you put forth that LHO was trying to get out of the
> building?
Uh, maybe because he did leave the building.
> He bypassed a close exit and went and got a coke. Sounds
> to me like he hadn't put 2 and 2 together yet.
>
You can work up quite a thirst killing a President.
> > I have no idea why he did it and I don't need to know why he did it in
> > order to know that he did do it. If tomorrow I were to go downtown and
> > randomly shoot and kill someone for no apparent reason, do you think I
> > would walk because the cops and the prosecutors couldn't figure out
> > why I did it?
>
> If there is question as to whether you did it, then yes, investigators
> will look for motive. And if there is reasonable doubt that you may
> have done it, and if you can show you have no possible motive for the
> deed, then it is very possible that you may be acquitted by a jury of
> your peers.
>
Do you really believe that horseshit? If I shot someone at random with
dozens of witnesses watching me do it and I still had the murder
weapon in my hand when the cops arrived, do you really think I would
walk because they couldn't prove why I did it?
> > So you apparently believe it makes sense just to dismiss the credible
> > evidence which ALL points to on man only as the culprit and then you
> > can make up any crazy theory you want because it requires no evidence.
>
> No, I don't believe it makes sense at all. But when there seems to be
> a lot of broken chains of evidence, people testifying that "I cannot
> say that is the bullet I found," and others saying, "that's not what I
> said, and there was no notary present at my deposition," logic leads
> to a conclusion that wouldn't normally make sense. But then none of
> this whole case makes sense.
>
Now that is a fascinating statement. "...logic leads to a conclusion
that wouldn't normally make sense." ???!!! WTF???
So are you saying the rules of logical thinking are different for
extraordinary events?
> > There is nothing logical about any JFK conspiracy theory ever put
> > forward. They all defy logic.
>
> They all defy the logic put forth by the WC, yes. But if you stop
> listening to their addled ideas, missed opportunities to gather
> evidence and testimony, and wonder why they think that Ruby's mother's
> dental records are important to this case, you start to see that their
> brand of logic isn't logic at all.
>
Nobody believes Jack Ruby's mothers dental records are important. They
are a perfect example of the kind of raw data that is contained in the
26 volumes of exhibits on which the WCR was based. Those 26 volumes
contain ALL the data that was collected during the course of the
investigation, good, bad, and indifferent. Not everything collected
during the course of the investigation was useful information but
nothing was discarded. It was the job of the WC to sift through that
mountain of data and make sense of it which is exactly what they did.
They had to determine what data was relevant and what data was
probative. They came to the only logical conclusion that the data
dictated and they explained in very reasonable terms why they came to
the conclusions they did and why they found some pieces of evidence
were not probative. They left everything they had in the records of
the 26 volumes so everyone could review their work because they had
nothing to hide. Had they tossed out anything, even Ruby's mother's
dental records, you assholes would be claiming that was evidence of a
cover up.
> > So your argument is that none of the evidence is genuine?
>
> My argument is that much of the evidence doesn't appear to be
> genuine. And, where the evidence appears to support LHO's innocence,
> the WC seems to just conclude the opposite for shoddy reasons.
>
There is ZERO credible evidence that supports Oswald's innocence. ALL
the credible evidence points to his guilt.
> > I didn't think LHO was your best friend and I have no idea why you are
> > looking for any reason to exculpate him.
>
> I'm not.
>
Oh, really.
> > So how many different alternate truths do you believe in?
>
> I don't "believe in alternate truths." I see what I see, read what I
> read, make judgments about what I think is sound, logical, legitimate
> and then try to see if there is a possible explanation. If there is
> no possible explanation, then I rethink my position on the legitimacy
> of the point.
>
When are you going to start?
> > You mean we have a spy organization that tries to keep secrets. That's
> > shocking.
>
> Yes, they keep secrets on matters of national security... which the
> "official" reports on Oswald and the Kennedy Assassination have
> nothing to do with national security. So why keep secrets on them?
>
How do you know that?
> > Why should I ask why? I know what happened. It is incredibly obvious.
> > I don't toe the government line. I toe the line of truth and there is
> > only one. Oswald did it. Get over it.
>
> Yes, it is incredibly obvious to anyone who wishes to keep their eyes
> closed.
>
> Believe me, I wish you were correct.
Again, your wish is granted.
> I wish my government had 100%
> disclosure and no backdoor deals, nepotism, favoritism, cheating,
> lying, stealing, and killing. I really do. But if they are not that
> forthcoming, honest, and forthright, then it behooves us to look into
> it and fix it. It's OUR government, after all.
>
What the hell does nepotism, favoritism, cheating, etc. have to do
with the assassination of JFK. All the evidence points to one guy. His
only current connection to the government at the time of the
assassination is that he was a person of interest to the FBI, one of
many such folks and there is nothing that would have made him stand
out above the rest as a threat to JFK.
Walt
Exactly right, Mike..... The conspiracy cover up committe has been
employing this fact for 45 years. The LNer's like to pick the
goofiest ideas and then use those outrageous theories as examples of
the thinking of all CT's. The snooty elitists on the government
controlled propaganda TV broadcasts always use the title 'Conspiracy
Theorist" in a derisive manner. This has been the primary tacit of the
LNer's for 45 years.... Discredit the truth seekers by picking one of
the more outrageous claims of one of them and then paint all of the
truth seekers as irrational nuts. I must say.... That tactic is
losing it's effectiveness....because the government has lost much of
it's credibility due to the lies they have been caught in over the
last 50 years.
Robert
Thanks Wally, and unfortunately for you I am always "lucid." When you
don't tell lies about the evidence then you don't see anything from
me.
Robert
Did he suspect? Where is your evidence for this claim? I know the WC
CLAIMED he saw something, but the evidence shows us differently. There
is NO evidence any bag was used by LHO to transport a rifle into the
TSBD, so what did Frazier really see?
IN fact, Frazier had more to be suspicious about than LHO did.
> I wouldn't say so.
YOU are ASSUMING there was something really to be suspicious about by
Frazier, and this has NEVER been proven to be true.
> Should we say that
> the mail-order house where Oswald ordered the rifle was a co-
> conspirator? Again, I wouldn't say so.
Why would we say that? IF every place that sold weapons was held
responsible for what was done with the weapon there would be NO
firearms allowed in this country! Also, there is NO real evidence
showing LHO ordered the weapon that was found in the TSBD.
> I have this odd prediliction to try and boil things down to their
> essence. COULD LHO have done it? Yeah, sure, I guess he could.
Follow the evidence and NOT the person.
> Could the WC just have made a cock-up of the investigation maybe
> because they were lazy or nincompoops?
The WC did NO investigating, that was the problem, they relied on two
suspect orgs for their information (FBI and CIA).
> Yeah, okay, I guess I could
> believe that, to a degree. Could witnesses have lied? Yeah, okay,
> maybe. Or maybe they embellished. Or misremembered.
Where are you going with all of this? Talk about "semantics."
> But when a LOT of them are misremembering in the same direction, and
> many of them are embellishing for seemingly no personal gain, you have
> to start asking yourself... is it just that simple?
Two-thirds of those asked said the shots came from the GK area! That
is a FACT!
> I choose to think not. I choose to think that there was a good deal
> of shenanigans going on, before, during, and after the shots took
> place in Dallas. And conspiracy or not, it sure seems to me that
> Kennedy was killed for a bunch of reasons and it was then rapidly
> covered up.
>
> -Mike
Thanks for your OPINION Mike, but NONE of what I said is "semantics",
it is a FACT! IF you don't believe it, look up the term conspiracy in
your dictionary.
Robert
> On Sep 14, 11:09 am, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > A conspiracy is simply TWO or more people who conspire to either carry
> > out a crime, or who help cover it up. Futhermore, IF a person knows
> > of a crime ahead of time and does NOT report it they are arrested and
> > charged with conspiracy to that crime. Most crimes are conspiracies
> > as more that one person has knowledge of the crime before and after
> > the crime. Many crimes also simply cannot be handled by one person
> > above the purse snatching stage.
>
> And even by that simple definition, Oswald's crime doesn't rise to the
> level of conspiracy.
IT SURE DOES AS YOU LNERS MENTION HE TOLD MARINA ABOUT ALL OF HIS
CRIMES! Why should we believe he wouldn't have told her about JFK IF
he did it???
Can you say CONSPIRACY??? Ditto George DeMohrenschildt.
> > Ditto large events in history, it is just pure ridiculousness to say a
> > single person caused these major events to happen, and that person was
> > the ONLY with knowledge before or after the crime.
>
> So tell us. Who was John Hincley's accomplice?
The Bushes probably as his brother was going to have dinner with one
of the Bush brothers the night after the shooting.
> Or Mark Chapman's?
He was in a trance similar to Sirhan. Who knows exactly who was
behind it, but the interesting part is Lennon was ending a five year
hiatus and coming out with a new record when he was killed. NO one
was ANY MORE ANTI-WAR than John, and the FBI had a file on him for
many years.
> Or
> John Wayne Gacey's?
Who knows as these may not have been investigated that way. The
simple truth is NO one can murder the number of people Gacey did and
have NO one who knows him suspect anything! I mean they say a wife
knows when her husband is unfaithful, but a serial killer can kill
10-20 people and NO one suspects anything? Come on.
The point is however, that LHO was NOT painted in the light of these
serial killers who are true loners, he was painted in the light of NOT
being able to keep his mouth shut about everything he did.
> > I love how LNers constantly make it sound (just like portions of our
> > government) that conspiracies are as rare as "Haley's Comet" so we are
> > all nuts to believe in them.
>
> No, you're only nuts if you believe in conspiracies for which there
> isn't an ounce of credible evidence.
YOU are a liar BigCon as there is a ton of credible evidence for most
of the things you mentioned.
Chuck Schuyler
>
> *12 American walked on the surface of the moon.
> *9/11 was perpetrated by 19 middle-east terrorists with box-cutters.
> *ONI had knowledge of an impending attack on American naval forces in
> late 1941 but didn't believe Pearl Harbor was the likely target.
> *Lee Harvey Oswald neither fired nor handled a rifle on 11/22/1963,
> but forces conspired immediately to implicate him as the lone
> assassin.
>
> So... where do I fit in your hierarchy of "nuts"?
>
> -Mike
You fit right in.
Walt
> You are dealing far too much in absolutes to be taken seriously. Are
> you interested in alternative theories and discussion, or are you just
> here to spout forth insults without even listening?
>
> To me, it is funny that you believe that a conspiracy involving
> government personnel MUST be perfect or else it doesn't exist, and
> then with the same breath you think that those same government
> personnel can't pull off a decent hit. Why would they leave their
> rifles and shells behind? That would be silly.
>
> It's also odd that you find it very reasonable that LHO would hide the
> rifle, but leave the shells in plain view. And that he would somehow
> wipe his prints off of nearly the entire rifle, but leave one palm
> print behind.
It's also odd that you find it very reasonable that LHO would hide the
rifle, but leave the shells in plain view. And that he would somehow
wipe his prints off of nearly the entire rifle, but leave one palm
print behind.
Mike...There never ever was an actual "palm print" on that
rifle.......This is a key point that you can prove for yourself. The
so called palm print is a lie that was created by the FBI and the DPD
to back up a statement that Henry Wade the lyin DA for Dallas county
made to reporters on Saturday morning 11 /23 /63. Wade told reporters
that they had found Oswald prints on the rifle, when in fact NO
IDENTIFIABLE prints had been found. This lie by LBJ's buddy, Henry
Wade, was THE key lie that condemned Oswald in the eyes of the
public.
There NEVER was a identifiable "palm print" found on that rifle. Lt
JC Day had found a SMUDGE that he thought might be a palm print on the
rifle's hand guard when he was dusting the rifle for prints in the
TSBD just minutes after it was found COMPLETELY BURIED beneath boxes
of books. Day lifted this SMUDGE and placed the cellophane tape on a
3 X 5 file card and added a noted to the card about where the "palm
print" had been found. This card later became CE 637 and the FBI and
the DPD made up a lie about it being an identifiable print and Day
had found it on the METAL gun barrel. You can prove that this is true
by studying the evidence .......
MSwanberg
> alternative theories. He simply points out the common traits among the
> whack jobs who believe in the popular conspiracy theories. In many
> cases they are they same whack jobs. We don't ask for conspiracy
> theories. There is no need to do that. That would be like requesting
> water from Niagra Falls.
>
My apologies. I confused this thread with the thread about Steve's
questions about why no one credible has come forth...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/24781555009c1d36/f5b7c8c900f9c96b#f5b7c8c900f9c96b
But I got the person right. Unless there's multiple Steves in here.
> Whose asking for conspiracy theories. We just laugh at the ones that
> are being offered.
>
And so do I. Some of them are wacky, I freely admit.
But not ALL of them. So let's agree to laugh (or maybe groan)
together at the wacky theories and then let's talk about the more
sound of them, rationally.
Lumping all CTers into an aggregate is a dangerous proposition. We're
NOT all alike and we don't all subscribe to all Conspiracy Theories.
> Uh, maybe because he did leave the building.
>
I believe Steve's point was that LHO was desperate to get out. Buying
a coke doesn't smack of desperation, to me.
> You can work up quite a thirst killing a President.
>
Granted. But now who's coming up with wacky points?
> Do you really believe that horseshit? If I shot someone at random with
> dozens of witnesses watching me do it and I still had the murder
> weapon in my hand when the cops arrived, do you really think I would
> walk because they couldn't prove why I did it?
>
Yes I do believe it. Motive is important. And the whole reason that
trial lawyers attempt to establish motive is because people do NOT
randomly commit acts of violence.
Incidentally, re-read what I'd said. You being caught with the murder
weapon in your hand does not allow for reasonable doubt. I said that
if there was reasonable doubt, then motive could be a powerful factor
in the courtroom.
In the end, it all boils down to aggregate human behavior, which says
that people almost never commit random acts of violence, and if they
do then they're probably disturbed, don't know what they're doing, and
will get caught with hard evidence... case closed.
However, if a person ditches the murder weapon, flees the scene,
establishes an alibi, then they committed the act with pre-
meditation. As such, there will assuredly be motive.
Please stop debating niggling crap and get on board with legitimate
reality. Also, address entire points, not 1 or 2 words out of each
sentence.
> Now that is a fascinating statement. "...logic leads to a conclusion
> that wouldn't normally make sense." ???!!! WTF???
> So are you saying the rules of logical thinking are different for
> extraordinary events?
>
Yes. That's precisely what makes them extraordinary. Otherwise, they
would be ordinary, and wouldn't surprise anyone, and there'd be no
alternative thinking. Or at least very little dissent.
If you think that the murder of JFK is not extraordinary, then you're
fooling yourself. What other murder has been so hotly debated even
many decades after the fact? That is the textbook definition of
extraordinary.
> Nobody believes Jack Ruby's mothers dental records are important. They
> are a perfect example of the kind of raw data that is contained in the
> 26 volumes of exhibits on which the WCR was based. Those 26 volumes
> contain ALL the data that was collected during the course of the
> investigation, good, bad, and indifferent. Not everything collected
> during the course of the investigation was useful information but
> nothing was discarded. It was the job of the WC to sift through that
> mountain of data and make sense of it which is exactly what they did.
> They had to determine what data was relevant and what data was
> probative. They came to the only logical conclusion that the data
> dictated and they explained in very reasonable terms why they came to
> the conclusions they did and why they found some pieces of evidence
> were not probative. They left everything they had in the records of
> the 26 volumes so everyone could review their work because they had
> nothing to hide. Had they tossed out anything, even Ruby's mother's
> dental records, you assholes would be claiming that was evidence of a
> cover up.
>
Well, they should have kept digging. Why even enter the dental
records into evidence when that time could be spent interviewing other
witnesses, like Acquila Clemmons? Or bringing Ruby to Washington so
that he can speak freely?
All it shows is that they looked at tripe and didn't bother to go the
extra mile to get at what's really important. It just shows that they
weren't really looking for the truth at all, but rather hoping to find
just enough to sort-of justify their pre-ordained conclusions.
> There is ZERO credible evidence that supports Oswald's innocence. ALL
> the credible evidence points to his guilt.
>
What you call credible and what I call credible is in discord. And
THAT's the issue. Until we come to ANY consensus about ANY piece of
evidence, we're just each talking through our hats.
> Oh, really.
>
Yes... really.
> When are you going to start?
>
Beg pardon? Start what? Reading?
Sorry, your question makes no sense.
> How do you know that?
>
Because that's the only recourse they have when court-ordered to
release documents. So any documents that aren't released, against the
JFK Records Act, must be due to National Security.
I might also turn that around... why do YOU think they aren't
releasing un-redacted information about LHO, a supposed Lone Nut with
no ties to intelligence organizations, especially the CIA? Do they,
perhaps, write missile defense passwords on memos about nobodies, and
then realize, "whoops, can't let those out into the wild"?
> What the hell does nepotism, favoritism, cheating, etc. have to do
> with the assassination of JFK. All the evidence points to one guy. His
> only current connection to the government at the time of the
> assassination is that he was a person of interest to the FBI, one of
> many such folks and there is nothing that would have made him stand
> out above the rest as a threat to JFK.
Please tell me you're being this obtuse on purpose. Are you seriously
that derogatory that you can't see the nose on your face?
The point is that our government is not the bastion of purity we all
believed them to be prior to 1963. And it behooves us to root that
out. ALL of it.
The JFK Assassination is just one example of their unjust ways. This
is the reason why this is important. If I believed that the mafia
alone killed Kennedy, I wouldn't be as passionate about this as I am
because at that I can just throw up my hands and say, "well, hell,
that's what I EXPECT the mafia to do: illegal things." And I might
research and read about the assassination just as passing fancy.
After all, we'll never get anyone on the stand to defend against
charges of murdering the president, so what would be the use in
getting up in arms about it?
But if the assassination was planned and executed by elements of our
government and those closely tied to the government, then we HAVE to
look into it. If we can prove ANYthing, then we can make this nation
just a little bit better by creating oversight on such activities.
MSwanberg
Sorry... I was indeed getting a tad obtuse there. I was just saying
that your point about how ANY assassination would have to have
witnesses before the fact and would therefore be a conspiracy doesn't
really say much.
My point is that, even if that is true, proving a conspiracy by the
letter of the definition doesn't really help us much. It doesn't get
us any closer to what actually happened.
Sorry, I just think you're backing into your proof. We aren't really
trying to prove a conspiracy, per se... we're trying to prove that the
idea that LHO did the shooting by himself is untrue. Just because the
prevailing theory, which is that elements (plural) of our government
and organized crime planned and executed the murder of the president,
equals that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy doesn't mean that the
chief aim of conspiracists in this matter is ONLY trying to show that
it was a conspiracy.
For instance, if what's-his-face (forgot his name... the dude that had
his chicken lunch on the 6th floor just prior to the shooting)
happened to see Oswald pull the trigger and told no one, you may be
able to prove that it was, by your definition, a conspiratorial act...
but that wouldn't really do a thing in proving that the WCR is
fiction, would it?
-Mike
MSwanberg
Interesting. All the better, then.
It only strengthens my point that LHO wouldn't be tidy in one way only
to be untidy in another. Then again, the shells were found aligned
next to each other, so maybe he was OCD...
I am kidding, of course. What I'm trying to get at is that half of
Oswald's purported post-shooting activities indicate one method of
thinking, and half say the opposite.
"I'm going to wipe the prints off this rifle so no one will know I did
it... um, except that it's easily traceable to my ordering it... oh,
then I will hide the rifle, which should make it difficult to tell
where the shooting occurred... oh wait, I stuck the barrel out the
window in front of hundreds of people and also left the shells next to
the same window as well as the boxes still stacked to make a sniper's
nest... Then I'm going to run downstairs to haul ass outta here and
go home to get my gun... but wait, first a coke... and now everyone
will know how important Lee Harvey Oswald is because I forced a nation
to put the leader's running mate into office... oh but wait, I'd
better tell everyone that I didn't shoot anybody so that they'll not
suspect me... then I'll hide by walking briskly down a main street
instead of alleys because surely no cop will see me... and I'm going
to duck into a theater so no one will even suspect I'm here... but I'm
not going to pay for a ticket so that I'm at least calling that
attention to myself..."
If anything, this Oswald of the WCR was extremely bi-polar.
-Mike
Walt
Mike, I got a feeling that you're not one to simply take someones word
about anything.... And that's as it should be. I urge you to study
the palm print issue and if you find that I'm incorrect about it then
challenge me. I've posted a lot of information about the palm print
over the years, so it should be pretty easy to goggle and find what
i've posted.
MSwanberg
I will definitely look into it for my own edification. But in the
end, here's my thoughts on the matter. One of several possibilities
seems to be what happened:
1) There never were any prints and the palm print got made up.
2) There was a shoddy job of dusting for prints and they magically
found one later, which is dubious at best.
3) There wasn't a palm print until after Oswald's death (the way
Stone's "JFK" purports)
All of those pretty well point to the same conclusion, don't they?
In the end, here's what I believe, be it correct or not.
LHO's rifle wasn't used in the assassination, but it was used
afterward for producing test bullets and CE399. Either way, it's
Oswald's rifle, so his print being on it really doesn't say anything.
It was his rifle, wasn't it?
It's kind of like the Tippit murder to me. I can imagine a very good
reason why LHO might have killed Tippit if, say, he was pretty sure
Tippit was there to kill HIM. So in the end, I am comfortable with
Oswald having killed Tippit, if he indeed did. If not, then it says a
LOT. But if he did, it really doesn't say much to me at all.
(Clarification: I am not comfortable that a police officer was
murdered... I am comfortable that proving Oswald killed him doesn't
change my mind about LHO's having shot the president or not)
The point I'm getting at is that sometimes there are multiple
possibilities, and it's nice to get all the details on them, but
sometimes that's all it is, just details, and it makes no difference.
And actually, assuming that it is Oswald's rifle, I sort of find it
odd that they DIDN'T find his prints all over it.
-Mike
Robert
I didn't say that! IF you can't quote me accurately, then don't quote
me.
> My point is that, even if that is true, proving a conspiracy by the
> letter of the definition doesn't really help us much. It doesn't get
> us any closer to what actually happened.
It is easy to prove a conspiracy -- two or more have to have
foreknowledge, or participate, or assist the one person who did the
crime later on.
Any help prior, during, or after makes it a conspiracy.
YOU are making this too complicated. YOU are using the definition
LNers give you for a conspiracy -- a Titanic sized boatload of people
have to be involved.
In the JFK case there is evidence for quite a few, but this is NOT the
standard for a conspiracy to be a conspiracy.
> Sorry, I just think you're backing into your proof. We aren't really
> trying to prove a conspiracy, per se... we're trying to prove that the
> idea that LHO did the shooting by himself is untrue.
This has BEEN PROVEN BY THE EVIDENCE, thus we are looking for other
options. The mere fact the WC painted LHO as a loudmouth who bragged
about all his alleged crimes would mean we have a conspiracy EVEN IF
HE DID SHOOT JFK (which he didn't) as he had to tell Marina and
DeMohrenschildt to name just two.
Let me say this too, I do believe LHO had a role in the assassination,
but I don't know all the details of what and how. I do NOT believe he
was invovled in any shooting aspect as this is what the evidence shows
us, but he could have been involved in other ways. I do believe he
tried to alert the FBI of this attempt, but I could be wrong, he could
have been on the side of the plotters.
It doesn't matter as I can't prove any of it, what matters is the
official theory CANNOT PROVE ITS CLAIMS AGAINST LHO.
> Just because the
> prevailing theory, which is that elements (plural) of our government
> and organized crime planned and executed the murder of the president,
> equals that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy doesn't mean that the
> chief aim of conspiracists in this matter is ONLY trying to show that
> it was a conspiracy.
YOU lost me. The reason it was a conspiracy can be seen in JFK's
policies as MANY would benefit from his removal. The FACT that some
of those policies were changed within days of his death prove this to
be valid.
> For instance, if what's-his-face (forgot his name... the dude that had
> his chicken lunch on the 6th floor just prior to the shooting)
> happened to see Oswald pull the trigger and told no one, you may be
> able to prove that it was, by your definition, a conspiratorial act...
> but that wouldn't really do a thing in proving that the WCR is
> fiction, would it?
>
> -Mike
YOU are obsessing over semantics. The police would simply scare him
with threats of charges to get him to spill his guts, there would be
no benefit to arrest him. I am talking about folks who AIDE AND ABET,
or tamper with evidence.
Walt
All of your above points are well taken....you show that you think
reasonably and logically.
Apparently you haven't studied all aspects of this case throughly...
(Very few have) I won't even enterain the idea that Oswald could
have been the man who shot JD Tippit.
I can't accept the information that came from the DPD, because I have
proof that they lied and created false evidence to frame Oswald. On
that basis, It's very difficult to take their word for anything. I
believe Oswald did NOT shoot Tippit based on the facts that the warren
Commission gave us. They said that Oswald was at his rooming house at
1:04 pm, and several good solid witnesses said that Tippit was shot a
few minutes after 1:00pm. One of the witnesses knew exactly what time
it was when she saw Tippit shot, and she said that it was about 1:06.
Another witness arrived on the scene a couple of minutes after the
shooting and noted that his watch read 1:10pm. Therefore no matter
how hard the liars try to change the time of the shooting to 1:15 they
have to lie to do it. It would have been physically impossible for
Oswald to travel on foot from his rooming house to the murder scene in
two minutes.
Steve
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The palm print was made up?
I see. If any evidence points to Oswald simply claim it was "made
up." Thank heaven YOU are no involved in any way in investigation
crimes or writing history.
Steve
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
So according to the idiot Walt, several police officers were willing
to forfeit their careers, their homes, the security of their families,
their retirement, and their lives if Oswald were executed (and their
frame-up was discovered) all to frame a man none of them knew or had
any vendetta against.
This kind of stilly stupid thinking is the hallmakr of the conspiracy
nuts. Reality and common sense goes right out the window in order to
support their stupid and unfounded conspiracy theories.
Walt
WHERE??..Did I say the palm print was made up??
What I said was...... The authorities had an unidentifiable SMUDGE
that Lt day THOUGHT might be a palm print when he lifted it from the
WOODEN foregrip of the rifle just a few minutes after it was pulled
from the cavern of boxes where it had been COMPLETELY covered by boxes
of books. They later used that smuge and claimed that it was Oswald's
palm print which Day had taken off the metal barrel. The whole
damned story is a lie....I know that you're too gutless and stupid to
bother yourself and dig out the FACTS about that so called "palm
print". You're content to eat the shit that the authorities handed
you.
MSwanberg
I don't believe I was quoting you, so much as attempting to reiterate/
understand your point as I was addressing it.
All I am saying is, if LHO told Marina and DeMohrenschildt that he was
about the kill JFK, and then he did the rest of it all on his own,
then that barely plinks the armor of the WCR. In short, so what? If
I were on the LN side and you proved to me that LHO told someone
beforehand, then I would be very thankful that you have demonstrated/
proven LHO's guilt. Actually, it would make the WC's case altogether,
wouldn't it, with the VERY small point that they were wrong that
someone else knew.
If, however, you are attempting to disprove the WCR, then it would be
far more helpful to address important points... like whether LHO shot
anybody or not. If you could prove that LHO was on the 1st or 2nd
floor the whole time, then that would REALLY say something.
In the end, I apologize if I have offended. I meant nothing of the
sort.
-Mike
MSwanberg
> reasonably and logically.
>
> Apparently you haven't studied all aspects of this case throughly...
> (Very few have) I won't even enterain the idea that Oswald could
> have been the man who shot JD Tippit.
>
> I can't accept the information that came from the DPD, because I have
> proof that they lied and created false evidence to frame Oswald. On
> that basis, It's very difficult to take their word for anything. I
> believe Oswald did NOT shoot Tippit based on the facts that the warren
> Commission gave us. They said that Oswald was at his rooming house at
> 1:04 pm, and several good solid witnesses said that Tippit was shot a
> few minutes after 1:00pm. One of the witnesses knew exactly what time
> it was when she saw Tippit shot, and she said that it was about 1:06.
> Another witness arrived on the scene a couple of minutes after the
>
> read more »
Yeah, I can't claim to be an expert. I only study the case part-time
and have only been doing so for about a dozen years. I know some
stuff... just not everything. :-)
Thanks for the compliment... I like to think that I think logically.
After all, I'm a programmer, so logic definitely helps.
When it comes to placing blame, I try to shy away from blaming entire
groups. When the LNers start asking us how many conspirators CTers
posit, they actually have a valid point of discussion, IMO.
So I hesitate to blame the DPD as a whole. Ditto the FBI, CIA, Joint
Chiefs, Mafia, etc. I don't think you have to have full cooperation
of everyone involved. And if there can be a few at the top, which it
seems like the top few DPD guys were not dealing 100% faithfully, then
the rest can sort of fall in line.
As a general rule, people in organizations such as police departments,
the FBI, the CIA, etc. tend to "look out for their own." So let's
come up with an illustrative situation. Let's say you and I are
Dallas cops, you're my boss, and I find something that appears to be
good evidence that exonerates Oswald. I give that to you. You give
it to Fritz, who gives it to the FBI. Later, the changed/altered
evidence is shown to me by the WC and I testify, "that doesn't appear
to be what I found."
Forget that the WC would probably discount my testimony, say that I
was mistaken, whatever. What would happen is that I would wonder what
happened. I might think you switched it. Or perhaps it was switched
somewhere far far above my pay-grade. In any case, I might just sit
on my hands as a matter of self-preservation. I mean, after all, I
testified truthfully, so I'm probably not liable for any perjury. But
I surely don't want to start accusing you, because you're my boss and
a fellow cop. And I'm not going to go to Fritz because if he's a bad
guy then I'll be in serious trouble. And if it's the FBI, then I
surely don't have the stones to march into Quantico and start
demanding answers.
So in the end, what happened? Are we all, you, me, Fritz, the FBI,
the WC, all co-conspirators? I wouldn't say so, although LNers would
seem to want me to say that yes, ALL of the DPD and the FBI are in on
it! But the reality is that no one person in that chain knows and
unless they want to risk personal trauma (up to and possibly including
death... but probably more just crap assignments from then on) then
nothing can get said.
Now, I might even ask you, and I might get stonewalled. Or maybe you
might tell me, "I dunno." And then it gets pushed up the line. Do
you continue the hunt for the truth at personal or professional risk?
See, I work in corporate America, and I see stuff like this all the
time. Things get ignored or forgotten. I put out opinions that I
KNOW are the best way to do things, but somewhere up the line, someone
disagrees (or more frequently doesn't pay any attention to the details
of the project). Do I want to go on a personal crusade to right the
wrong? Or do I just shrug it off and move on with my life, cursing,
yet accepting my fate, perhaps promising that one day, when I am in
charge, I will make better decisions?
I got a little long-winded... sorry about that. But I just wanted to
get out there that it is very easy for a few people to either conspire
or even make semi-honest mistakes that have the appearance of
impropriety, but in reality, it's just people being people.
-Mike
MSwanberg
> to forfeit their careers, their homes, the security of their families,
> their retirement, and their lives if Oswald were executed (and their
> frame-up was discovered) all to frame a man none of them knew or had
> any vendetta against.
>
> This kind of stilly stupid thinking is the hallmakr of the conspiracy
> nuts. Reality and common sense goes right out the window in order to
> support their stupid and unfounded conspiracy theories.
I don't think any of them had their jobs or lives at risk if Oswald
went to the chair. He would have to be convicted by a jury before
that could happen. And then the officers would likewise need to stand
trial. And as we've seen, there's only been ONE trial, and ZERO
convictions out of this.
However, they certainly didn't want to appear incompetent or stupid.
There was also a lot of information and mis/disinformation flying
around. So until all the evidence is gathered, labeled, and studied,
the DPD higher-ups were going on what they'd heard. And one of the
things they heard was straight from Johnson, who told them they had
their man.
So, if you're in the executive branch of the government (even local
law enforcement), and the leader of the federal executive branch calls
you on the phone personally and tells you anything, your best career
decision is not to go against that.
Is that co-conspiring? I'm not sure. I would imagine that would be
for a court of law to decide. But when the chips are falling, who are
you going to side with in the early hours of the event? The president
of the United States? Or the guy that apparently murdered his
predecessor?
As well, on the other hand, there WERE officers that forfeit their
lives and careers by going against the official findings... anyone?
Anyone? Roger Craig? Anyone?
-Mike
Steve
Your claims are so silly they don't deserve anuy serious rebuttal.
And additionally they crash into other conspiracy theories.
1. Walt the Idiot and Robert the Dumbass always claim that Oswald
would NEVER have been convicted in a court of law yet at the same time
they believe that the DPD worked to frame Oswald. Therefore all of
the work the DPD went to along with the FBI, the CIA, the Executive
branch of the government was still not enough to fool a jury of twelve
ordinary Texans.
2. The belief that young DPD officers, many just embarking on their
chosen profession, would conspire to frame a man they had never even
heard of prior to 11/22/63 and thus run the risk of being expose,
prosecuted, imprisoned, and kicked off the police force is so stupid I
cannot even muster the energy to respond to this bizarre claim of
yours.
3. Please explain when and where the Dallas PD met in secret to plan
and organize this massive frame-up. This couldn't have just occurred
on its own, it HAD to be planned with all officers involved being
apprised of their assigned role. I would be interested to learn from
you when this top secret gathering took place.
All of your other claims are just plain silly and stupid.
Walt
Hey Stevie.... Why do you think Oswald was executed without trial???
Could it have been because the conspirators KNEW that they were in
deep shit if Oswald wasn't silenced very quickly.
I'm sure you know that most Americans realized when the saw Oswald
murdered on live TV that they had witnessed and old fashioned lynching
of a scape goat. Americans are stupid ...they knew that there were
powerful forces at work...they were just helpless to do anything about
it. The wily bastards warned us immediately that if we weren't very
careful we might trigger a nuclear war, if we found that Castro and
the communists were responsible. Most americans we content to go
along with Johnson's lies if he could prevent a nuclear war.
Therefore all of
> the work the DPD went to along with the FBI, the CIA, the Executive
> branch of the government was still not enough to fool a jury of twelve
> ordinary Texans.
>
> 2. The belief that young DPD officers, many just embarking on their
> chosen profession, would conspire to frame a man they had never even
> heard of prior to 11/22/63 and thus run the risk of being expose,
> prosecuted, imprisoned, and kicked off the police force is so stupid I
> cannot even muster the energy to respond to this bizarre claim of
> yours.
>
> 3. Please explain when and where the Dallas PD met in secret to plan
> and organize this massive frame-up. This couldn't have just occurred
> on its own, it HAD to be planned with all officers involved being
> apprised of their assigned role. I would be interested to learn from
> you when this top secret gathering took place.
>
> All of your other claims are just plain silly and stupid.- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Stevie, I do believe that you are competing with Rob Caprio for the
title of the dumbest poster in this NG.
Anybody with at least a two digit IQ would know that it wouldn't have
required the massive conspiracy that you envision. Only a few men in
key positions were required. Nothing closes the ranks of the guys in
blue quicker than the murder of a fellow officer. Tippit's murder was
quickly blamed on Oswald, and therefore the entire DPD closed ranks to
see that Oswald got what he deserved. On that basis alone Oswald
didn't have a chance....
>
> All of your other claims are just plain silly and stupid.- Hide quoted text -
bigdog
>
> I will definitely look into it for my own edification. But in the
> end, here's my thoughts on the matter. One of several possibilities
> seems to be what happened:
>
> 1) There never were any prints and the palm print got made up.
>
> 2) There was a shoddy job of dusting for prints and they magically
> found one later, which is dubious at best.
>
There was nothing shoddy about it and the palm print was found that
afternoon by Lt. Day.
> 3) There wasn't a palm print until after Oswald's death (the way
> Stone's "JFK" purports)
>
Total bullshit. The palm print lifted from the rifle by Lt. Day was a
white powder print which was lifted off the rifle with adhesive. The
post mortem print taken from Oswald for comparison was a black ink
print.
> All of those pretty well point to the same conclusion, don't they?
>
Yes, that you are a fucked up kook.
> In the end, here's what I believe, be it correct or not.
>
It's not.
> LHO's rifle wasn't used in the assassination, but it was used
> afterward for producing test bullets and CE399. Either way, it's
> Oswald's rifle, so his print being on it really doesn't say anything.
> It was his rifle, wasn't it?
>
You are fucking asshole. It matched the only two bullets recovered
from the assassination.
> It's kind of like the Tippit murder to me. I can imagine a very good
> reason why LHO might have killed Tippit if, say, he was pretty sure
> Tippit was there to kill HIM. So in the end, I am comfortable with
> Oswald having killed Tippit, if he indeed did. If not, then it says a
> LOT. But if he did, it really doesn't say much to me at all.
>
That says a lot about how fucked up you are. You are okay with a cop
getting killed in the line of duty. FUCK YOU!!!
> (Clarification: I am not comfortable that a police officer was
> murdered... I am comfortable that proving Oswald killed him doesn't
> change my mind about LHO's having shot the president or not)
>
FUCK YOU anyway.
> The point I'm getting at is that sometimes there are multiple
> possibilities, and it's nice to get all the details on them, but
> sometimes that's all it is, just details, and it makes no difference.
>
The details make all the difference. It's easy to spin a cockamamie
conspiracy theory in the abstract. The devil is in the details. No
conspiracy theory has ever been put forth that can fill in the details
whereas the WCR filled in all the details. That's why it stands after
45 years and all alternatives just come and go.
> And actually, assuming that it is Oswald's rifle, I sort of find it
> odd that they DIDN'T find his prints all over it.
>
If you had ever bothered to read the WCR you would know why his prints
weren't all over it.
KOOK!!!
Walt
> On Sep 16, 1:38 pm, MSwanberg <mswanb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I will definitely look into it for my own edification. But in the
> > end, here's my thoughts on the matter. One of several possibilities
> > seems to be what happened:
>
> > 1) There never were any prints and the palm print got made up.
>
> How the do you make up a palm print?
>
> > 2) There was a shoddy job of dusting for prints and they magically
> > found one later, which is dubious at best.
>
> There was nothing shoddy about it and the palm print was found that
> afternoon by Lt. Day.
Big Hog wrote:....There was nothing shoddy about it and the palm print
was found that afternoon by Lt. Day.
Well ya got just a little of it right..... Lt Day DID in fact find
what is now CE 637 on that afternoon,at about 1:45pm. Only it was NOT
a palm print , at least not an identifiable palm print.
Lt Day knew that the likely places for prints on a rifle, were on the
rifles action near the trigger, and on the foregrip , which are the
places a rifle is held when firing. He spotted a couple of partial
prints on the rifle's magazine and covered them with scotch tape to
protect them from being rubbed or damaged. He also spotted what he
thought was a palm print on the wooden foregrip,. He knew that wood
absorbs oilrapidly so he would have to lift that print with a piece of
cellophane tape, which he did, and Tom Alyea watched him do it. He
placed that unidentifable smudge on a 3 X 5 file card and added a note
on the card which read..."from foregrip of rifle near end of barrell
(sic) c2766" he dated and placed his initials on the note and put
the card in an evidence envelope.
THAT"S where the so called "palm print" originated..... So you get 1/2
point for being half assed.
MSwanberg
> And additionally they crash into other conspiracy theories.
>
> 1. Walt the Idiot and Robert the Dumbass always claim that Oswald
> would NEVER have been convicted in a court of law yet at the same time
> they believe that the DPD worked to frame Oswald. Therefore all of
> the work the DPD went to along with the FBI, the CIA, the Executive
> branch of the government was still not enough to fool a jury of twelve
> ordinary Texans.
>
> 2. The belief that young DPD officers, many just embarking on their
> chosen profession, would conspire to frame a man they had never even
> heard of prior to 11/22/63 and thus run the risk of being expose,
> prosecuted, imprisoned, and kicked off the police force is so stupid I
> cannot even muster the energy to respond to this bizarre claim of
> yours.
>
> 3. Please explain when and where the Dallas PD met in secret to plan
> and organize this massive frame-up. This couldn't have just occurred
> on its own, it HAD to be planned with all officers involved being
> apprised of their assigned role. I would be interested to learn from
> you when this top secret gathering took place.
>
> All of your other claims are just plain silly and stupid.
Now you're being silly...
First, not all Conspiracy Theories have to mesh together. Some people
believe some things, others believe others. So rebutting my points by
saying that they don't mesh with others' points is ludicrous, at
best. As well, it's approval of those others' points. Are you saying
that my points aren't correct because you believe Walt's points to be
correct?
In that same vein of reasoning, part of the WCR are at odds with other
parts, or with the evidence. By your logic, that makes the WCR
"silly" and "[doesn't] deserve anuy [sic] serious rebuttal."
Second, if you are calling Day, Fritz, and Curry "young DPD officers"
"just embarking on their careers" then you must think it easy to climb
the ranks of a local law-enforcement agency. You must also think that
50+-year-olds are young.
Furthermore, no one said their actions were motivated out of a
personal vendetta. Was Fuhrman personally involved with OJ when he
tried to frame him? Had the two men even met prior to OJ's arrest and
trial?
You are attempting to deal in absolutes, which won't get us anywhere.
Third, I never said there was a secret meeting to formulate a plan.
Show me where I indicated anything of the sort, please.
What I indicated was that it wouldn't take the entire DPD to be
personally involved with full knowledge of the entire plan. I also
said that it wouldn't have to be a pre-meditated nefarious plan, just
one that was intended to have a common end. After all, they'd gotten
assurance from the highest point in the land that they had the right
man. So, their job became "don't cock this up."
In any case, you ascribe to me things that I did not say. In fact, I
believe the DPD's complicity in this matter to be very low. However,
they were ordered to turn everything, including the investigation,
over to the FBI. The DPD never handed any evidence directly to the
WC... it all went THROUGH the FBI.
There certainly seems to be stuff that would suggest some unscrupulous
behavior on the part of some DPD officers, but it really isn't 100%
necessary to the understanding that evidence could easily be tampered
with before it got entered into official WC record.
-Mike
MSwanberg
>
Hey look, I just found a palm print on my coke can...
There, I just made one up. Any further questions?
> There was nothing shoddy about it and the palm print was found that
> afternoon by Lt. Day.
>
Care to elaborate on why he didn't tell the FBI about it until days
later?
> Total bullshit. The palm print lifted from the rifle by Lt. Day was a
> white powder print which was lifted off the rifle with adhesive. The
> post mortem print taken from Oswald for comparison was a black ink
> print.
>
For some reason, the palm print on the rifle didn't get
photographed... or can you show me the photo?
No picky, no printy... simple as that.
> Yes, that you are a fucked up kook.
>
Ad hominem.
> You are fucking asshole. It matched the only two bullets recovered
> from the assassination.
>
My, we do get immature when faced with insurmountable logic, don't we?
Which two bullets would those be? CE399? The one that was originally
pointy? The one that we're not sure what stretcher it was found on?
The one that caused 7 wounds and emerged in nearly perfect shape? The
one that shattered Connally's rib, broke his wrist (but somehow he
could still hold onto his stetson), and then FELL OUT while the
patient was being operated on? The one that had no blood or fibers on
it?
What's the other one? One hit the pavement and wounded Tague... did
they find that one? One shattered Kennedy's head, but LNers are
always running on about how it didn't leave anything behind, as though
it just exploded. That leaves the supposed CE399. Where's the second
one?
Honestly, I'm asking. I'm not an expert on the SBT, so I am looking
for answers here.
> That says a lot about how fucked up you are. You are okay with a cop
> getting killed in the line of duty. FUCK YOU!!!
>
Keep reading.....
> FUCK YOU anyway.
>
It's a shame what happens to people who weren't hugged as a child,
isn't it? You are doing great! People like you, honestly. You're
good enough, and smart enough.
Also, you need to get your Dale Carnegie money back... those people
ripped you off.
> The details make all the difference. It's easy to spin a cockamamie
> conspiracy theory in the abstract. The devil is in the details. No
> conspiracy theory has ever been put forth that can fill in the details
> whereas the WCR filled in all the details. That's why it stands after
> 45 years and all alternatives just come and go.
>
You're only assuming it stands. A quarter or less of the general
populace actually buy its conclusions. And I would wager far fewer
have actually studied it, so the rest that believe its conclusions are
propping it up on the reputation of the WC itself, not on the content
of the report. I would bet good money after bad that the 25% number
would drop like a stone if they actually studied the matter.
> If you had ever bothered to read the WCR you would know why his prints
> weren't all over it.
>
Why read, when I have your vast knowledge of the subject at my
disposal? Enlighten me.
> KOOK!!!
Tee hee... makes me feel all tingly inside...
-Mike
bigdog
>
> THAT"S where the so called "palm print" originated..... So you get 1/2
> point for being half assed.
>
The palm print was not an unidentifiable smudge. It was positively
matched to the Oswald by both the FBI crime lab and the NYPD
fingerprint division. You get zero points for being a complete asshole.
bigdog
> > How the do you make up a palm print?
>
> Hey look, I just found a palm print on my coke can...
>
> There, I just made one up. Any further questions?
>
> > There was nothing shoddy about it and the palm print was found that
> > afternoon by Lt. Day.
>
> Care to elaborate on why he didn't tell the FBI about it until days
> later?
>
> > Total bullshit. The palm print lifted from the rifle by Lt. Day was a
> > white powder print which was lifted off the rifle with adhesive. The
> > post mortem print taken from Oswald for comparison was a black ink
> > print.
>
> For some reason, the palm print on the rifle didn't get
> photographed... or can you show me the photo?
>
> No picky, no printy... simple as that.
>
> > Yes, that you are a fucked up kook.
>
> Ad hominem.
>
> > You are fucking asshole. It matched the only two bullets recovered
> > from the assassination.
>
> My, we do get immature when faced with insurmountable logic, don't we?
>
illogical.
> Which two bullets would those be? CE399? The one that was originally
> pointy? The one that we're not sure what stretcher it was found on?
> The one that caused 7 wounds and emerged in nearly perfect shape? The
> one that shattered Connally's rib, broke his wrist (but somehow he
> could still hold onto his stetson), and then FELL OUT while the
> patient was being operated on? The one that had no blood or fibers on
> it?
>
Keep displaying your stupidity. Keep ignoring the two bullet fragments
that were found in the limo that were matched to the same rifle as
CE399. Keep parrotting the myth that CE399 was in nearly perfect
shape. And where the fuck did you get the idea that CE399 fell out
during surgery.
> What's the other one? One hit the pavement and wounded Tague... did
> they find that one? One shattered Kennedy's head, but LNers are
> always running on about how it didn't leave anything behind, as though
> it just exploded. That leaves the supposed CE399. Where's the second
> one?
>
You really don't know much about this case do you? You have no idea
what is in the WCR or you would know that. The only thing you know is
what some huckster CT author told you. He sold you the bullshit and
you ate it up.
> Honestly, I'm asking. I'm not an expert on the SBT, so I am looking
> for answers here.
>
It's quite obvious you aren't an expert on much of anything since you
have such a poor command of the facts. If you want answers, try
reading the WCR. You might actually learn something.
> > That says a lot about how fucked up you are. You are okay with a cop
> > getting killed in the line of duty. FUCK YOU!!!
>
> Keep reading.....
>
> > FUCK YOU anyway.
>
> It's a shame what happens to people who weren't hugged as a child,
> isn't it? You are doing great! People like you, honestly. You're
> good enough, and smart enough.
>
> Also, you need to get your Dale Carnegie money back... those people
> ripped you off.
>
> > The details make all the difference. It's easy to spin a cockamamie
> > conspiracy theory in the abstract. The devil is in the details. No
> > conspiracy theory has ever been put forth that can fill in the details
> > whereas the WCR filled in all the details. That's why it stands after
> > 45 years and all alternatives just come and go.
>
> You're only assuming it stands.
How would you know. You've never looked at it.
> A quarter or less of the general
> populace actually buy its conclusions. And I would wager far fewer
> have actually studied it,
Which explains why so few believe it. They don't know what is in the
report. They only know the bullshit from the CT side. They don't
believe it because the have been told not to believe it. If most
Americans would read the WCR, most Americans would believe it. They
are not as stupid as the average CT asshole.
> so the rest that believe its conclusions are
> propping it up on the reputation of the WC itself, not on the content
> of the report. I would bet good money after bad that the 25% number
> would drop like a stone if they actually studied the matter.
>
You would lose that bet.
> > If you had ever bothered to read the WCR you would know why his prints
> > weren't all over it.
>
> Why read, when I have your vast knowledge of the subject at my
> disposal? Enlighten me.
>
Right. Why educate yourself. Just stay stupid.
Walt
Obviously you've never actually LOOKED at CE 637..... Only an idiot
would believe the FBI and the NYPD "experts" after they actually
LOOKED at the photo of the "palm print". Nobody could call that an
identifiable print ....unless they are lying. As a matter of
FACT ...FACT... The FBI examined that smudge on 11 /23/63 when it was
sent to Washington along with the other evidence. The FBI lab
pronounced that smudge to be "useless for identification purposes".
I'm sure that you won't be able to see the WOOD grain in that photo
because you don't want to see it. However, there definitely IS wood
grain visible in the photo. That wood grain is PROOF that the smudge
was lifted from the wooden foregrip of a rifle, and NOT NOT from the
metal barrel.
PS....If you want to use juvenile name calling as a way of attempting
to insult.... you're gonna hafta do better than call me an asshole,
because It's a very weak tactic and totally ineffective. The fact
that you are forced to resort to juvenile name calling only proves
that you're berift of any substantive counter point.
Robert
That is NOT what the evidence shows, now does it? The point I am
making is EVEN IF WE AGREED WITH THE LNERS, and we DON'T, that LHO
acted, it is quite easy to show there could still be a conspiracy EVEN
WITH LHO PULLING THE TRIGGER. My example of him telling Marina and
DeMohrenschildt shows this. It is a simple example of how a
conspiracy could still be in place even with LHO as the shooter.
They act like the two are mutually exclusive.
> In short, so what? If
> I were on the LN side and you proved to me that LHO told someone
> beforehand, then I would be very thankful that you have demonstrated/
> proven LHO's guilt.
Show me proving LHO's guilt! IN fact, show ANYONE proving LHO's
guilt! I was utilizing and example to show how nutty their thinking
is.
> Actually, it would make the WC's case altogether,
> wouldn't it, with the VERY small point that they were wrong that
> someone else knew.
Hearsay is NOT admissible in court. Spousal privledge applies in
court. Furthermore, they would have to explain why neither (and
others) were ever arrested for their complicity in the crime.
> If, however, you are attempting to disprove the WCR, then it would be
> far more helpful to address important points... like whether LHO shot
> anybody or not. If you could prove that LHO was on the 1st or 2nd
> floor the whole time, then that would REALLY say something.
Read all my posts Mike, I do that every day here. I was simply
responding to Steve's crazy idea of what a conspiracy is, NOT a full
discussion on LHO's guilt or innocence. YOU will find that in other
posts I do.
Why are you making my points about what constitutes a conspiracy INTO
more than that???
> In the end, I apologize if I have offended. I meant nothing of the
> sort.
YOU didn't offend as I get much worse on here every day from all the
LNers like Ben, Walt, BigCon, SteveCon, TimsterCon, etc...
What I don't like is when someone takes my point and applies it to
something it was NOT meant to be applied to and then forms decisions
out of that.
MY point was towards the idea of a conspiracy and how LHO's
involvement in the shooting (something I don't believe by the way)
DOES NOT exclude a conspiracy as well.
Robert
I stand by my conviction that he would NOT have been found guilty in
court and as my long discussion with Ben the shill shows, there WOULD
NEVER HAVE BEEN A TRIAL AS THE SS AND FBI RUINED ALL THE EVIDENCE!
I never said ALL of the DPD was involved so you are simply lying when
you make this claim. Situation normal I guess.
The evidence falls apart upon examination and LHO would have had a
full team of defense lawyers to EXAMINE IT ALL!
The rest is allegations pertaining to things I did NOT bring up with
you so I will skip it.
> 2. The belief that young DPD officers, many just embarking on their
> chosen profession, would conspire to frame a man they had never even
> heard of prior to 11/22/63 and thus run the risk of being expose,
> prosecuted, imprisoned, and kicked off the police force is so stupid I
> cannot even muster the energy to respond to this bizarre claim of
> yours.
>
> 3. Please explain when and where the Dallas PD met in secret to plan
> and organize this massive frame-up. This couldn't have just occurred
> on its own, it HAD to be planned with all officers involved being
> apprised of their assigned role. I would be interested to learn from
> you when this top secret gathering took place.
>
> All of your other claims are just plain silly and stupid.- Hide quoted text -
Robert
Ah, come on Wally, we were FINALLY GIVEN A CHANCE TO FIGHT A POINT
TOGETHER, AND YOU HAVE TO GO AND RUIN IT!
Are you afraid Ben will get jealous?? Don't worry, I don't swing that
way!
MSwanberg
Sorry, I didn't realize that I wasn't allowed to post in this
newsgroup unless I had 100% knowledge of everything. Oh wait, that
ISN'T a pre-requisite of posting here. Guess I'm allowed to stay.
As such, why don't you help me understand? Hurling insults and
telling me I'm ignorant doesn't get us anywhere. And frankly, it only
makes me WANT to disbelieve you, and by extension, the WCR.
Are there points you wish to talk about to help me and everyone else
reading these posts to understand? You haven't demonstrated that you
have a command of the facts yourself, by the way. It's easy to say,
"read the report" but a true student of it would quote chapter and
verse, discussing the points and not the person being addressed.
So, who do you suggest I believe? Posner? Bugliosi? As though those
guys know any better...
-Mike
MSwanberg
> involvement in the shooting (something I don't believe by the way)
> DOES NOT exclude a conspiracy as well.
Okay, I apologize if I missed the point. But I'm still foggy on what
you're saying. If you could help me just a little more, I'd
appreciate it.
Yes, if LHO did the deed and had help, then it was a conspiracy... by
definition of the word. That much is true. But I'm not sure how that
really invalidates much of what the LNers are saying. If I were one
of them and you proved to me that LHO did indeed shoot the president,
but he just had help, then I would just say, "hm, okay... so the WCR
was only MOSTLY right... but LHO is still the guy!"
I'm see that you don't believe LHO is "the guy" so I'm not
understanding why you would even want to posit the idea that perhaps
he could have done it, but just had help.
In the end, I don't think the debate is really over "Lone gunman"
versus "conspiracy." I think the real debate is "Oswald did it and
the WC was correct" versus "No, it was perpetrated by others and
covered up by the WC et al."
I, for one, am not interested in debating the definition of words (my
girlfriend is a PhD English Professor, so I get enough of that at
home, LOL). I am interested in knowing what you people think about
the assassination. After all, there are a lot of people here who have
spent a lot of time and effort getting to know every nuance of the
case, so who better to ask?
I have formed an opinion on this case... but unlike a lot of people
here, my opinion isn't set in stone. It could still sway with new
information being presented. I also am not willing to stand fast on
some beliefs if there are possible alternatives that I find
plausible. What I usually do in those instances is just ignore that
when forming my opinion... throw it out, as it were.
In the end, I guess I am just looking for plausible explanations.
Much of what I've seen and read seems to have plausible explanations
for either side of the argument, but some don't. At least not that I
have seen. Yet.
Again, I am truly sorry if I took your words and went off on an
unrelated tangent with them. But thanks for helping me get back on
course.
-Mike
Walt
Rob Caprio wtote:.... "I never said ALL of the DPD was involved so you
are simply lying when you make this claim."
With Rob there is no room for a simple mis-understanding, or a
disagreement on a point..... If a person disagrees with him ..then
they are a liar.
>
> The evidence falls apart upon examination and LHO would have had a
> full team of defense lawyers to EXAMINE IT ALL!
>
> The rest is allegations pertaining to things I did NOT bring up with
> you so I will skip it.
>
>
>
> > 2. The belief that young DPD officers, many just embarking on their
> > chosen profession, would conspire to frame a man they had never even
> > heard of prior to 11/22/63 and thus run the risk of being expose,
> > prosecuted, imprisoned, and kicked off the police force is so stupid I
> > cannot even muster the energy to respond to this bizarre claim of
> > yours.
>
> > 3. Please explain when and where the Dallas PD met in secret to plan
> > and organize this massive frame-up. This couldn't have just occurred
> > on its own, it HAD to be planned with all officers involved being
> > apprised of their assigned role. I would be interested to learn from
> > you when this top secret gathering took place.
>
> > All of your other claims are just plain silly and stupid.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
When you snip the previous message, it's hard to tell WHO you're replying
to.
"MSwanberg" <mswa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e2ec8025-5805-4584...@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
MSwanberg
> Hi Mike;
>
> When you snip the previous message, it's hard to tell WHO you're replying
> to.
>
My apologies... I just hate it when a post gets so long that I can't
tell where it begins and ends, so I tried to prevent that in mine.
I'll try to be better at identifying who I'm replying to in the
future.
Thanks,
-Mike
Ben Holmes
Robert says...
>
>On Sep 16, 2:39=A0pm, MSwanberg <mswanb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 16, 12:43=A0pm, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sep 16, 11:53=A0am, MSwanberg <mswanb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Sep 15, 11:42=A0am, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Sep 14, 12:57=A0pm, MSwanberg <mswanb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Sep 14, 10:09=A0am, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Sep 11, 2:20=A0pm, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > This week there have been some great documentaries exposing t=
>he silly
>> > > > > > > and ridiculous methods used by conspiracists to promote their
>he 9/11
>> > > > > > > conspiracy asylum but I was impressed with the similarities b=
>etween
>> > > > > > > them and the Kennedy assassinatino nuts we have been plagued =
>with in
>> > > > > > > America for forty-five years. =A0Even though most conspiracy =
>nuts will
>> > > > > > > never admit it (because they would appear more insane than th=
>ey
>> > > > > > > already appear) MOST CT do believe in virtually ALL conspirac=
>y
>> > > > > > > theories. =A0There is an alarming amount of bleed-over betwee=
>n the
>> > > > > > > Kennedy assassination conspiracy nuts and the 9/11 nuts, and =
>the faked
>> > > > > > > NASA moon landing nuts, and the Pearl Harbor nuts, and on and=
> on and
>> > > > > > > on. =A0 Jimmy Fetzer one of the looniest humans currently not=
> restrained
>> > > > > > > with leather straps was involved with the now totally discred=
>ited
>> > > > > > > "Scholars for Truth in the 9/11 Attacks" or some such nonsens=
>e. =A0Jack
>> > > > > > > White, the old crazy man of the Kennedy assassination conspir=
>acy camp
>> > > > > > > also has a website boasting his "findings" on the faked moon
>taken
>> > > > > > > seriously by educated people and they pose a danger and a ris=
>k to
>> > > > > > > America FAR outweighing any attacks on the WTC or assassinati=
>ons of
>> > > > > > > American leaders. =A0They are creating a generation that will=
> believe
>> > > > > > > ANYTHING so long as it is fantastic, complicated, and conspir=
>acy
>> > > > > > > oriented. =A0They are helping to raise a generation of gullib=
>le, shadow-
>> > > > > > > chasing, fools.
>>
>> > > > > > > THAT is the real tragedy to be addressed on today's date.
>>
>r carry
>> > > > > > out a crime, or who help cover it up. =A0Futhermore, IF a perso=
>n knows
>> > > > > > of a crime ahead of time and does NOT report it they are arrest=
>ed and
>> > > > > > charged with conspiracy to that crime. =A0Most crimes are consp=
>iracies
>> > > > > > as more that one person has knowledge of the crime before and a=
>fter
>> > > > > > the crime. =A0Many crimes also simply cannot be handled by one =
>person
>> > > > > > above the purse snatching stage.
>>
>o say a
>> > > > > > single person caused these major events to happen, and that per=
>son was
>> > > > > > the ONLY with knowledge before or after the crime.
>>
>f our
>> > > > > > government) that conspiracies are as rare as "Haley's Comet" so=
> we are
>> > > > > > all nuts to believe in them.
>>
>=A0Could
>> > > > > we say that (what's his name... the guy that gave Oswald the ride=
> and
>> > > > > talked about the bag under his arm... Frazier?) conspired simply
>> > > > > because he may have suspected?
>>
>C
>> > > > CLAIMED he saw something, but the evidence shows us differently. Th=
>ere
>> > > > is NO evidence any bag was used by LHO to transport a rifle into th=
>e
>> > > > TSBD, so what did Frazier really see?
>>
>> > > > IN fact, Frazier had more to be suspicious about than LHO did.
>>
>>
>> > > > YOU are ASSUMING there was something really to be suspicious about =
>by
>> > > > Frazier, and this has NEVER been proven to be true.
>>
>> > > > > Should we say that
>> > > > > the mail-order house where Oswald ordered the rifle was a co-
>>
>> > > > Why would we say that? IF every place that sold weapons was held
>> > > > responsible for what was done with the weapon there would be NO
>e
>> > > > showing LHO ordered the weapon that was found in the TSBD.
>>
>> > > > > I have this odd prediliction to try and boil things down to their
>ld.
>>
>> > > > Follow the evidence and NOT the person.
>>
>> > > > > Could the WC just have made a cock-up of the investigation maybe
>>
>> > > > The WC did NO investigating, that was the problem, they relied on t=
>wo
>> > > > suspect orgs for their information (FBI and CIA).
>>
>> > > > > Yeah, okay, I guess I could
> okay,
>> > > > > maybe. =A0Or maybe they embellished. =A0Or misremembered.
>>
>> > > > Where are you going with all of this? =A0Talk about "semantics."
>>
>> > > > > But when a LOT of them are misremembering in the same direction, =
>and
>> > > > > many of them are embellishing for seemingly no personal gain, you=
> have
>> > > > > to start asking yourself... is it just that simple?
>>
>That
>> > > > is a FACT!
>>
>> > > > > I choose to think not. =A0I choose to think that there was a good=
> deal
>> > > > > of shenanigans going on, before, during, and after the shots took
>at
>> > > > > Kennedy was killed for a bunch of reasons and it was then rapidly
>> > > > > covered up.
>>
>> > > > > -Mike
>>
>",
>> > > > it is a FACT! =A0IF you don't believe it, look up the term conspira=
>cy in
>> > > > your dictionary.
>>
>> > > Sorry... I was indeed getting a tad obtuse there. =A0I was just sayin=
>g
>> > > that your point about how ANY assassination would have to have
>> > > witnesses before the fact and would therefore be a conspiracy doesn't
>> > > really say much.
>>
>e
>> > me.
>>
>> > > My point is that, even if that is true, proving a conspiracy by the
>et
>> > > us any closer to what actually happened.
>>
>> > It is easy to prove a conspiracy -- two or more have to have
>> > foreknowledge, or participate, or assist the one person who did the
>> > crime later on.
>>
>> > Any help prior, during, or after makes it a conspiracy.
>>
>> > LNers give you for a conspiracy -- a Titanic sized boatload of people
>> > have to be involved.
>>
>> > In the JFK case there is evidence for quite a few, but this is NOT the
>> > standard for a conspiracy to be a conspiracy.
>>
>ly
>> > > trying to prove a conspiracy, per se... we're trying to prove that th=
>e
>> > > idea that LHO did the shooting by himself is untrue.
>>
>> > This has BEEN PROVEN BY THE EVIDENCE, thus we are looking for other
>> > about all his alleged crimes would mean we have a conspiracy EVEN IF
>> > HE DID SHOOT JFK (which he didn't) as he had to tell Marina and
>> > DeMohrenschildt to name just two.
>>
>> > Let me say this too, I do believe LHO had a role in the assassination,
>e
>> > was invovled in any shooting aspect as this is what the evidence shows
>> > tried to alert the FBI of this attempt, but I could be wrong, he could
>> > have been on the side of the plotters.
>>
>> > It doesn't matter as I can't prove any of it, what matters is the
>> > official theory CANNOT PROVE ITS CLAIMS AGAINST LHO.
>>
>> > > prevailing theory, which is that elements (plural) of our government
>> > > and organized crime planned and executed the murder of the president,
>> > > equals that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy doesn't mean that the
>> > > chief aim of conspiracists in this matter is ONLY trying to show that
>> > > it was a conspiracy.
>>
>> > policies as MANY would benefit from his removal. =A0The FACT that some
>> > of those policies were changed within days of his death prove this to
>> > be valid.
>>
>d
>> > > his chicken lunch on the 6th floor just prior to the shooting)
>> > > happened to see Oswald pull the trigger and told no one, you may be
No it doesn't. Oswald was dead. There is no such thing as "spousal privilege"
attaching to a dead mate.
>Furthermore, they would have to explain why neither (and
>others) were ever arrested for their complicity in the crime.
>
>
>> If, however, you are attempting to disprove the WCR, then it would be
>> far more helpful to address important points... like whether LHO shot
>> anybody or not. =A0If you could prove that LHO was on the 1st or 2nd
>> floor the whole time, then that would REALLY say something.
>
>Read all my posts Mike, I do that every day here. I was simply
>responding to Steve's crazy idea of what a conspiracy is, NOT a full
>discussion on LHO's guilt or innocence. YOU will find that in other
>posts I do.
>
>Why are you making my points about what constitutes a conspiracy INTO
>more than that???
>
>
>> In the end, I apologize if I have offended. =A0I meant nothing of the
>> sort.
>
>YOU didn't offend as I get much worse on here every day from all the
>LNers like Ben, Walt, BigCon, SteveCon, TimsterCon, etc...
>
>What I don't like is when someone takes my point and applies it to
>something it was NOT meant to be applied to and then forms decisions
>out of that.
>
>MY point was towards the idea of a conspiracy and how LHO's
>involvement in the shooting (something I don't believe by the way)
>DOES NOT exclude a conspiracy as well.
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
bigdog
> On Sep 17, 8:36 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 17, 5:55 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > THAT"S where the so called "palm print" originated..... So you get 1/2
> > > point for being half assed.
>
> > The palm print was not an unidentifiable smudge. It was positively
> > matched to the Oswald by both the FBI crime lab and the NYPD
> > fingerprint division. You get zero points for being a complete asshole.
>
> Obviously you've never actually LOOKED at CE 637..... Only an idiot
> would believe the FBI and the NYPD "experts" after they actually
> LOOKED at the photo of the "palm print". Nobody could call that an
> identifiable print ....unless they are lying.
Once again, a CT asshole (sorry for the redundancy) pretends he is
more qualified to judge highly technical issues that highly trained
professionals. So tell us Walltard, what qualifications do you have to
do fingerprint matching. And do you want to add the NYPD crime lab to
the ever growing list of coconspirators?
> As a matter of
> FACT ...FACT... The FBI examined that smudge on 11 /23/63 when it was
> sent to Washington along with the other evidence. The FBI lab
> pronounced that smudge to be "useless for identification purposes".
> I'm sure that you won't be able to see the WOOD grain in that photo
> because you don't want to see it. However, there definitely IS wood
> grain visible in the photo. That wood grain is PROOF that the smudge
> was lifted from the wooden foregrip of a rifle, and NOT NOT from the
> metal barrel.
>
They were not talking about the palm print lifted by Lt. Day on
11/22/63, you dumbfuck.
> PS....If you want to use juvenile name calling as a way of attempting
> to insult.... you're gonna hafta do better than call me an asshole,
> because It's a very weak tactic and totally ineffective. The fact
> that you are forced to resort to juvenile name calling only proves
> that you're berift of any substantive counter point.
I'm not forced to resort to name calling. I do that just for shits and
giggles and because the names are appropriate for the ones I am
speaking to.
bigdog
> > All of your above points are well taken....you show that you think
> > reasonably and logically.
>
> > Apparently you haven't studied all aspects of this case throughly...
> > (Very few have) I won't even enterain the idea that Oswald could
> > have been the man who shot JD Tippit.
>
> > I can't accept the information that came from the DPD, because I have
> > proof that they lied and created false evidence to frame Oswald. On
> > that basis, It's very difficult to take their word for anything. I
> > believe Oswald did NOT shoot Tippit based on the facts that the warren
> > Commission gave us. They said that Oswald was at his rooming house at
> > 1:04 pm, and several good solid witnesses said that Tippit was shot a
> > few minutes after 1:00pm. One of the witnesses knew exactly what time
> > it was when she saw Tippit shot, and she said that it was about 1:06.
> > Another witness arrived on the scene a couple of minutes after the
> > shooting and noted that his watch read ...
>
> > read more »
>
> Yeah, I can't claim to be an expert. I only study the case part-time
> and have only been doing so for about a dozen years. I know some
> stuff... just not everything. :-)
>
posing as researchers.
> Thanks for the compliment... I like to think that I think logically.
> After all, I'm a programmer, so logic definitely helps.
>
Logic and JFK conspiracy theories are mutally exclusive.
> When it comes to placing blame, I try to shy away from blaming entire
> groups. When the LNers start asking us how many conspirators CTers
> posit, they actually have a valid point of discussion, IMO.
>
> So I hesitate to blame the DPD as a whole. Ditto the FBI, CIA, Joint
> Chiefs, Mafia, etc. I don't think you have to have full cooperation
> of everyone involved. And if there can be a few at the top, which it
> seems like the top few DPD guys were not dealing 100% faithfully, then
> the rest can sort of fall in line.
>
Given the number of people who took part in the investigation, in
order to engineer a post assassination cover up, you would need a cast
of thousands. Since all the evidence points to Oswald, to say that
some of the evidence is fraudulent is to say it is all fraudulent.
Fraudulent evidence would point in a different direction than genuine
evidence. Since it all points in the same direction, it is either all
fraudulent or all genuine. In order for it to all be fraudulent would
require a cast of thousands.
> As a general rule, people in organizations such as police departments,
> the FBI, the CIA, etc. tend to "look out for their own." So let's
> come up with an illustrative situation. Let's say you and I are
> Dallas cops, you're my boss, and I find something that appears to be
> good evidence that exonerates Oswald. I give that to you. You give
> it to Fritz, who gives it to the FBI. Later, the changed/altered
> evidence is shown to me by the WC and I testify, "that doesn't appear
> to be what I found."
>
None of the credible evidence exhonorates Oswald.
> Forget that the WC would probably discount my testimony, say that I
> was mistaken, whatever.
Of course they would because what you would be telling them would
contradict over 50 other pieces of solid evidence that Oswald did it.
> What would happen is that I would wonder what
> happened. I might think you switched it. Or perhaps it was switched
> somewhere far far above my pay-grade. In any case, I might just sit
> on my hands as a matter of self-preservation. I mean, after all, I
> testified truthfully, so I'm probably not liable for any perjury. But
> I surely don't want to start accusing you, because you're my boss and
> a fellow cop. And I'm not going to go to Fritz because if he's a bad
> guy then I'll be in serious trouble. And if it's the FBI, then I
> surely don't have the stones to march into Quantico and start
> demanding answers.
>
All conspiracy theories are based on such what-ifs. There is no
credible evidence to support any conspiracy theory.
> So in the end, what happened? Are we all, you, me, Fritz, the FBI,
> the WC, all co-conspirators? I wouldn't say so, although LNers would
> seem to want me to say that yes, ALL of the DPD and the FBI are in on
> it! But the reality is that no one person in that chain knows and
> unless they want to risk personal trauma (up to and possibly including
> death... but probably more just crap assignments from then on) then
> nothing can get said.
>
Spin it anyway you want. What you are suggesting would require
collusion on a grand scale involving virtually everyone involved in
the investigation.
> Now, I might even ask you, and I might get stonewalled. Or maybe you
> might tell me, "I dunno." And then it gets pushed up the line. Do
> you continue the hunt for the truth at personal or professional risk?
>
Yes.
> See, I work in corporate America, and I see stuff like this all the
> time. Things get ignored or forgotten. I put out opinions that I
> KNOW are the best way to do things, but somewhere up the line, someone
> disagrees (or more frequently doesn't pay any attention to the details
> of the project). Do I want to go on a personal crusade to right the
> wrong? Or do I just shrug it off and move on with my life, cursing,
> yet accepting my fate, perhaps promising that one day, when I am in
> charge, I will make better decisions?
>
> I got a little long-winded... sorry about that. But I just wanted to
> get out there that it is very easy for a few people to either conspire
> or even make semi-honest mistakes that have the appearance of
> impropriety, but in reality, it's just people being people.
>
Do you really think everyone involved in the investigation could be
coerced into engaging in a cover up and not speak up at the time or
any time during the next five decades, long after most if not all of
them were retired. It's preposterous on the surface of it.
Walt
Big Hog asked:....Do you really think everyone involved in the
investigation could be coerced into engaging in a cover up and not
speak up at the time or any time during the next five decades, long
after most if not all of them were retired.
In most cases no coercion was necessary..... Most of the people who
went along with the cover up did so believing that they were doing the
right thing.... Very early the news papers had convicted Oswald as the
assassin. Most folks didn't know the truth and relied on the
"experts" in government institutions to provide them with
information. Only a select few knew the truth and THEY were the ones
with the noose around their necks for conspiring to murder John
Kennedy. The few who knew the FACTS were either scared to death, and
refused to talk or they were silenced, with Oswald being the first to
be silenced.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Right, Waltards. You couldn't possibly have covered up a conspiracy
without thousands of people working to manipulate the evidence to to
create the same false impression. All the credible evidence points to
Oswald and no one else. In order to frame Oswald, you would have
needed 100% cooperation from everyone involved in gathering that
evidence. Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds. Of course you
don't. You're too fucking stupid.
MSwanberg
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I truly don't
see anything odd about the fact that people don't stand up to
superiors and don't ask questions outside of their pay-grade. I see
it all day everyday. And about things far less important than an
assassination.
People are lazy, self-protective, disinterested, and don't usually go
outside what they're paid to do. That's just human nature. Every
heard someone say, "not my job, man"? That's just how it is. Doesn't
make them evil or co-conspiratorial. Sure they may see one small
inconsistency in something, but they blow it off as their own
misunderstanding or mistake or miscommunication. And they also rely
on others, whose job it is to have oversight on such matters, to do
their job.
In the hypothetical scenario I posited, I might only have seen this
one small inconsistency. I could easily chalk it up to a mistake by
someone and just think, "well, there's a ton of other evidence, so
chances are small that there will be any issues with what I saw... so
I'm getting on with my life."
VERY few people would mount the sort of crusade that people like Roger
Craig did. And of course, we saw what it got him. Shot, car wrecks,
unemployed, multiple surgeries, murdered... few people are willing to
go through that for something that they just know they can't do
anything about. All you have to do is look at today's injustices,
things that some people REALLY feel are wrong... the war in Iraq, or
in Afghanistan, for instance. There are a LOT of people that feel
that those are wrong. But for some reason, not a one of them can seem
to do anything about it. The most that they can do is talk about it,
apparently.
Sorry to rain on your parade. Life just isn't like in the movies
where one guy makes a difference. Sure would be nice if it were,
though.
I respect your opinion; I only ask that you do me the same favor in
kind.
-Mike
MSwanberg
That is another excellent point. In many cases it appears that people
changed their testimony because they thought it was for the greater
good. People like Kenny O'Donnell who changed the location he thought
the shots came from because FBI agents told him that the Kennedy
family wanted to put the whole thing to rest as quickly as possible.
So he said TSBD instead of GK.
It just shows that people don't always do what is right... sometimes
they do what they THINK is right at the time. Doesn't make them
evil... just human.
-Mike
Walt
One of us is stupid that's for certain......
Who is so stupid that they would believe that a bullet could perform
outside of the laws of physics??
bigdog
>
> > Do you really think everyone involved in the investigation could be
> > coerced into engaging in a cover up and not speak up at the time or
> > any time during the next five decades, long after most if not all of
> > them were retired. It's preposterous on the surface of it.
>
> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I truly don't
> see anything odd about the fact that people don't stand up to
> superiors and don't ask questions outside of their pay-grade. I see
> it all day everyday. And about things far less important than an
> assassination.
>
> People are lazy, self-protective, disinterested, and don't usually go
> outside what they're paid to do. That's just human nature. Every
> heard someone say, "not my job, man"? That's just how it is. Doesn't
> make them evil or co-conspiratorial. Sure they may see one small
> inconsistency in something, but they blow it off as their own
> misunderstanding or mistake or miscommunication. And they also rely
> on others, whose job it is to have oversight on such matters, to do
> their job.
>
they changed jobs or retired which I'm sure everyone has done. You
don't think that even one of the thousands of people who would have to
have taken part in this alleged cover up would have come forward after
they no longer had any self interest in remaining silent. And how do
you suppose they got all those supervisors on board. And all of their
supervisors. How do you put together such a large team with the
knowledge that you are going to get 100% cooperation. Since the
gathering of evidence began within minutes of the shooting, you would
have to have the cover up already in place which means a lot of people
would have to have had foreknowledge of the assassination. Are you
really going to tell me you think anyone could line up a small army of
coconspirators to kill the President of the United States and not one
person would blow the whistle. That is so ridiculous it refutes
itself. The mental gymnastics you CTs must engage in to convince
yourself that there could have been a conspiracy is truly amazing. Why
are you so determined to engage in such self delusion?
> In the hypothetical scenario I posited, I might only have seen this
> one small inconsistency. I could easily chalk it up to a mistake by
> someone and just think, "well, there's a ton of other evidence, so
> chances are small that there will be any issues with what I saw... so
> I'm getting on with my life."
>
> VERY few people would mount the sort of crusade that people like Roger
> Craig did.
That's right, ignore every reliable witness whose testimony can be
corroborated and listen to the fairy tales spun by Roger Craig whose
statements are demonstrably false. He claimed to have seen Oswald flee
the scene in a station wagon when Oswald's former landlady saw him
board a bus just blocks from the TSBD and a cab driver later picked
him up a few blocks later. In addition, he had a bus transfer from the
bus in his pocket when arrested. You claim to want to look at this
case logically. So why do you do so many illogical things, like
believe Roger Craig.
> And of course, we saw what it got him. Shot, car wrecks,
> unemployed, multiple surgeries, murdered... few people are willing to
> go through that for something that they just know they can't do
> anything about. All you have to do is look at today's injustices,
> things that some people REALLY feel are wrong... the war in Iraq, or
> in Afghanistan, for instance. There are a LOT of people that feel
> that those are wrong. But for some reason, not a one of them can seem
> to do anything about it. The most that they can do is talk about it,
> apparently.
>
> Sorry to rain on your parade. Life just isn't like in the movies
> where one guy makes a difference. Sure would be nice if it were,
> though.
>
> I respect your opinion; I only ask that you do me the same favor in
> kind.
>
Why should I respect something that is so totally ridiculous. It's
like asking me to respect the opinion of someone who believes in a
flat earth.
Walt
Perhaps you're right BUT there are exceptions.... Thomas Edison, Ely
Whitney, Jonas Salk, Marconi.........
Sure would be nice if it were,
> though.
>
> I respect your opinion; I only ask that you do me the same favor in
> kind.
>
> -Mike- Hide quoted text -
John McAdams
<mswa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 11, 6:52=A0pm, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 11, 4:19=A0pm, ShutterBun <shutter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 11, 2:36=A0pm, MSwanberg <mswanb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Is it any wonder that believers in a Kennedy conspiracy are
>> universally regarded as nuts?
>
>
>
>3. 7.65 Mauser. At least that much we KNOW was found. Say all you
>want about how the DPD was just blind and couldn't ID the weapon
>(which would be the same DPD that caught LHO and gathered the spent
>shells... either they're incompetent or they're not), but there is a
>lot to show that a 7.65 Mauser was indeed found and reported.
>
Unfortunately, the very best evidence is film footage and still photos
of the rifle in place and being recovered.
Tom Alyea shot the rifle being recovered, and his 16 mm. footage shows
an MC.
Here are two stills:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day1.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day2.jpg
>4. How about a single bullet from Oswald's rifle that actually could
>have been involved in the shooting? It's pretty unanimous, even among
>the autopsists, that CE399 could NOT have been involved in the
>shooting.
>
I'm afraid that the best ballistics tests show that the bullet could
have done what it was supposed to have done and remain "pristine"
(except that it wasn't pristine).
Check out Lattimer's tests and Fackler's tests.
>5. Likewise, there isn't a single credible witness that could place
>Oswald in that window with a rifle in his hands. If you say Brennan,
>then be prepared for the plethora of evidence against him as well...
There is no "plethora of evidence" against him. Most of the stuff
conspiracists have thrown at him is bogus.
There was one problem: he told the WC that he might have seen Oswald
on TV before he went down to the lineup. That doesn't make him an
evil person, although it does lessen the value of his (sort of)
identification.
>many other witnesses -- some of them 1 or 2 floors below the "sniper's
>nest" -- believe the shots originated from the SW corner of the TSBD.
I'm not aware of this.
Of the three guys directly below the SN, two said the shots came from
directly above them, and one (Jarman) thought the shots came from
below and to the left.
That's zero witnesses for the "SW corner."
>Brennan was myopic
No, his eyes were injured *after* the assassination.
>as well and described an impossible amount of
>things about the shooter, including height, even though the person
>wasn't standing and was only viewed through a window that was open
>about 12 inches.
You can estimate the height of somebody just by looking at their
general build.
>Likewise, the description of Oswald went out a good
>15-20 minutes before Brennan even told anyone what he'd seen.
Not true. He apparently told Sawyer.
>So in
>the end, saying there are no credible eyewitnesses to the contrary
>brings us nowhere since there are no credible eyewitnesses to the deed
>as purported by the WC.
>
There is a ton of evidence against Oswald.
Do you deny that he ordered the rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods?
>
>8. I could put that back in your court. Oswald's palm print didn't
>show up in the FBI's investigation of the MC. Then later it shows
>up?
Check out the book FIRST DAY EVIDENCE. There are plenty of witnesses
*besides* Day (whom I assume you are willing to call a liar) who saw
the palm print in the Identification Bureau over the weekend.
>And there were SOMEone's fingerprints found in and around the
>SN... but we've never been told whose.
>
Oswald's were found there.
And there was an unidentified print or two.
Do you think this is unusual?
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Robert
Ah, isn't love grand?? Wally is DEFENDING STEVECON against me!
LOL!!
SteveCon has shown a propensity to lie, like you, so when he makes
unsupported claims about what I said of course I take back to him.
Ben defended SteveCon too, I wonder IF a "new partner" in in the
making?
Robert
What did Marconi do? Tesla INVENTED THE RADIO, but because he
wouldn't play ball and give ownership over to J.P. Morgan he lost it.
He was also working on free energy sources and Morgan with his
investment in General Electric couldn't allow that!
So again, what did Marconi do?
See how they lie to us in school?
Walt
Perhaps you'd better check Brennan's Affidavit and his testimony.....
Brennan said that the man with the HUNTING rifle who was dressed in
LIGHT COLORED clothing was STANDING...STANDING....STANDING, and
bracing the rifle against the side of the window. The Window HAD TO
BE WIDE OPEN for Brennan to see that the man was STANDING and he could
see all of his body from the hips to the top of his head.
>
> You can estimate the height of somebody just by looking at their
> general build.
>
> >Likewise, the description of Oswald went out a good
> >15-20 minutes before Brennan even told anyone what he'd seen.
>
> Not true. He apparently told Sawyer.
>
> >So in
> >the end, saying there are no credible eyewitnesses to the contrary
> >brings us nowhere since there are no credible eyewitnesses to the deed
> >as purported by the WC.
>
> There is a ton of evidence against Oswald.
>
> Do you deny that he ordered the rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods?
>
>
>
> >8. I could put that back in your court. Oswald's palm print didn't
> >show up in the FBI's investigation of the MC. Then later it shows
> >up?
>
> Check out the book FIRST DAY EVIDENCE. There are plenty of witnesses
> *besides* Day (whom I assume you are willing to call a liar) who saw
> the palm print in the Identification Bureau over the weekend.
>
> >And there were SOMEone's fingerprints found in and around the
> >SN... but we've never been told whose.
>
> Oswald's were found there.
>
> And there was an unidentified print or two.
>
> Do you think this is unusual?
>
> .John
>
> --
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Dear Stupid Bastard.... I defend the FACTS..... I don't give a damn
about being on one side or the other.... An intelligent person would
have realized that a long time ago.
MSwanberg
I apologize... I must not be doing a good job of making myself
understood. Or else you're just not reading the words.
My whole treatise is that you DON'T have to get a whole lot of people
on-board with nefarious goings-on to still muck up the works.
Ever play the secret game? Get a line of people and the first
whispers something to the second, who whispers it to the third and so
on. All it takes is ONE person in that line to totally change the
message for it to come out all wrong in the end. It doesn't mean that
that person got pre-agreed-upon buy-in from the entire group to change
the message and what to change it to.
As for people retiring, that would give them even LESS cause and power
to make any difference. See, here's the deal. If you were a cop in
the DPD who found something and it appeared to be switched, you may or
may not pursue the matter. Most wouldn't, simply because they're
human, lazy, self-protective, etc. And most people also have enough
humility to think that perhaps they were at fault.
Here's an example. I stopped at a red light, waited for a green
light, then proceeded. A guy coming from left to right ran his red
light and totaled my car. Right after the incident happened, where I
KNOW I saw a green light before proceeding into the intersection, the
other driver claimed he had a green light. I immediately starting
doubting myself. Did I imagine the green light? Was I mistaken? Was
I watching the perpendicular lights and just got distracted and
thought the other green was mine? I actually doubted what I'd seen
with my own eyes simply because someone said it wasn't so. This is
natural, especially when someone of authority tells people something
different. I KNOW I saw one thing, but someone whose opinion I
respect (or at least don't disrespect) could tell me the opposite and
I would start to doubt what I thought I knew.
So, as a cop, you may, but probably wouldn't, overreach your pay-grade
to try to get to the bottom of it. And then, years later, when you're
no longer a cop, why on earth would you suddenly have the gumption to
waltz into the DPD HQ, demand to see the people you used to report to,
and demand to know what happened? That's just ludicrous. If you sat
on it before, you'll sit on it later. And retiring doesn't suddenly
give you MORE authority to make inquiries.
Moving on... where did I say that I believe even a word of what Craig
said? Please show me that.
What I said was that he made waves and got the crap-end of the stick
for his troubles. Right or wrong, that's got to send a message. "Go
against the 'official' findings and this is what happens." In the
end, in the wake of it all, I might tell myself, "well, I can't bring
JFK back to life, so it's time to look out for #1."
So, until and unless you want to discuss THIS line of reasoning,
there's no need to keep down the road of thousands of conspirators all
with perfect knowledge of everything that's going on. That's just a
ludicrous thing to suggest and I am in no way saying that is the
case. I don't believe it, so stop asking me why I do.
Get in the discussion or get out. But stop reiterating stuff that's
not a part of the discussion.
-Mike
MSwanberg
People do make large contributions, yes. But they don't make large
changes all by themselves. Each of the people you mentioned made
great leaps in invention, but it's not as if they put their invention
in every household themselves.
That's all I'm saying.
-Mike
tomnln
Patrick Dean.
WC Lawyer tried to coerce Dean into committing Perjury.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/volume_v_sgt.htm
"MSwanberg" <mswa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fa8ff03-d5b8-48d0...@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
Walt
In this reply Rob demonstrates quite clearly that he has to show how
smart he is..... ( the sign of a very insecure person who needs to
show his "brillance") ....Nobody gives a damn about yer babbling
Rob....Those men were mentioned merely as a way of showing that one
man with an idea CAN make a difference.
tomnln
ALL in her own words !
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:e59ea226-7e51-491c...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
You tell us about 16mm movie film THEN show us 2 STILL Photos ! ! ! !
Are you having a Bad Day???
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4ab3b506....@news.supernews.com...
tomnln
CITATIONS ARE VITAL ! ! !
None of which offered below from John are OFFICIAL
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
Until Official Citations are offered, we are stuck with "Back Fence
Gossip".
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4ab3b506....@news.supernews.com...
John McAdams
>John, John, John !
>
>You tell us about 16mm movie film THEN show us 2 STILL Photos ! ! ! !
>
>Are you having a Bad Day???
>
The still photos are frame captures from the Alyea film.
The Alyea film shows a Mannlicher-Carcano.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Robert
I am NOT responsible for your FEELINGS or THOUGHTS Wally! I did NOT
declare myself to be brilliant by citing this FACT, I simply listed it
to show you how we are lied to in school.
NOW, IF you would get YOUR head OUT OF YOUR A** AND LEARN TO READ
MAYBE YOU WOULD KNOW THIS AT YOUR RIPE OLD AGE!
Carry on toots!
Herbert Blenner
The problem is that all ballistic tests have failed to reproduce entry
wounds resembling those on the two victims. In particular, I refer to
the 4 mm X 7 mm oval bullet hole surrounded by the 10 mm X 7 mm
elliptical abrasion on President Kennedy's back and the 15 mm
elliptical wound on Governor Connally's back.
Herbert
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
bigdog
>
> One of us is stupid that's for certain......
>
> Who is so stupid that they would believe that a bullet could perform
> outside of the laws of physics??
>
YOU.
bigdog
>
> > Why should I respect something that is so totally ridiculous. It's
> > like asking me to respect the opinion of someone who believes in a
> > flat earth.
>
> I apologize... I must not be doing a good job of making myself
> understood. Or else you're just not reading the words.
>
> My whole treatise is that you DON'T have to get a whole lot of people
> on-board with nefarious goings-on to still muck up the works.
>
Yes you do. Since all of the evidence implicates Oswald, to argue for
his innocence, you have make the case that all of the evidence was
manipulated. To do that, you need an army of co-conspirators.
Virtually everyone involved in the investigation would have to be on
board. It would make no sense that the manipulated evidence and the
genuine evidence would implicate the same person.
> Ever play the secret game? Get a line of people and the first
> whispers something to the second, who whispers it to the third and so
> on. All it takes is ONE person in that line to totally change the
> message for it to come out all wrong in the end. It doesn't mean that
> that person got pre-agreed-upon buy-in from the entire group to change
> the message and what to change it to.
>
WTF does that have to do with the JFK investigation. The dozens of
pieces of evidence that were developed were done so independently and
all pointed at one guy, Oswald.
> As for people retiring, that would give them even LESS cause and power
> to make any difference. See, here's the deal. If you were a cop in
> the DPD who found something and it appeared to be switched, you may or
> may not pursue the matter. Most wouldn't, simply because they're
> human, lazy, self-protective, etc. And most people also have enough
> humility to think that perhaps they were at fault.
>
It would also relieve them of any pressure to continue the cover up.
With no self interest at stake, why would all these people continue to
maintain their silence. To argue that is idiotic. Oh wait, I'm talking
to a CT. Never mind.
> Here's an example. I stopped at a red light, waited for a green
> light, then proceeded. A guy coming from left to right ran his red
> light and totaled my car. Right after the incident happened, where I
> KNOW I saw a green light before proceeding into the intersection, the
> other driver claimed he had a green light. I immediately starting
> doubting myself. Did I imagine the green light? Was I mistaken? Was
> I watching the perpendicular lights and just got distracted and
> thought the other green was mine? I actually doubted what I'd seen
> with my own eyes simply because someone said it wasn't so. This is
> natural, especially when someone of authority tells people something
> different. I KNOW I saw one thing, but someone whose opinion I
> respect (or at least don't disrespect) could tell me the opposite and
> I would start to doubt what I thought I knew.
>
Jesus Christ, you are really going off the deep end.
> So, as a cop, you may, but probably wouldn't, overreach your pay-grade
> to try to get to the bottom of it. And then, years later, when you're
> no longer a cop, why on earth would you suddenly have the gumption to
> waltz into the DPD HQ, demand to see the people you used to report to,
> and demand to know what happened? That's just ludicrous. If you sat
> on it before, you'll sit on it later. And retiring doesn't suddenly
> give you MORE authority to make inquiries.
>
This is really becoming entertaining to see the lengths you will go to
in order to maintain your exercise in self delusion. Why are you so
determined to believe something that is so fucking ridiculous.
> Moving on... where did I say that I believe even a word of what Craig
> said? Please show me that.
>
Must have been the part where you indicated Roger Craig was a
crusader.
> What I said was that he made waves and got the crap-end of the stick
> for his troubles. Right or wrong, that's got to send a message. "Go
> against the 'official' findings and this is what happens." In the
> end, in the wake of it all, I might tell myself, "well, I can't bring
> JFK back to life, so it's time to look out for #1."
>
It makes all the difference in the world whether he was right or
wrong. If you get the crap kicked out of you for making shit up, you
got what you deserved.
> So, until and unless you want to discuss THIS line of reasoning,
> there's no need to keep down the road of thousands of conspirators all
> with perfect knowledge of everything that's going on. That's just a
> ludicrous thing to suggest and I am in no way saying that is the
> case. I don't believe it, so stop asking me why I do.
>
So explain why ALL the evidence, gathered by thousands of people all
tell us the same thing, that Oswald did it. Bugliosi said it best.
Either Oswald killed JFK by himself, or thousands of people had to be
working together to make it look like he did. A small conspiracy could
not have framed Oswald. Everybody had to be on board to make that
happen and that is a ludicrous proposition. There is only one
conspiracy that is even a theoretical possibility. Oswald alone fired
the shots that killed JFK but he was working with a small band of co-
conspirators working with him behind the scenes. I don't for one
minute believe that is what happened, but I will concede the
theoretical possibility. In that case, the physical evidence would be
exactly the same as if Oswald had acted alone. On the other hand, if
you want to argue that Oswald was innocent or that he didn't fire the
shots, you are just plain fucked up and you deserve all the ridicule
that comes your way. There are things about which reasonable people
can disagree. Oswald's innocence is not one of them. The evidence
against Oswald is overwhelming and conclusive. If you believe
otherwise there are only two possibilities. You are ignorant of the
vast amounts of evidence of Oswald's guilt or you are an asshole.
There is no other possibilitity and there is no polite way to state
that.
MSwanberg
> On Sep 18, 3:28 pm, MSwanberg <mswanb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Why should I respect something that is so totally ridiculous. It's
> > > like asking me to respect the opinion of someone who believes in a
> > > flat earth.
>
> > I apologize... I must not be doing a good job of making myself
> > understood. Or else you're just not reading the words.
>
> > My whole treatise is that you DON'T have to get a whole lot of people
> > on-board with nefarious goings-on to still muck up the works.
>
> Yes you do. Since all of the evidence implicates Oswald, to argue for
> his innocence, you have make the case that all of the evidence was
> manipulated. To do that, you need an army of co-conspirators.
> Virtually everyone involved in the investigation would have to be on
> board. It would make no sense that the manipulated evidence and the
> genuine evidence would implicate the same person.
>
Uh, no... you don't. A single point of failure is all it takes.
You're the kind of guy that when his car stops working believes that
the entire machine simply up and died, every last part, all decided to
give up at precisely the same time. Oil, gas, washer fluid, crank
case, head gasket, exhaust... all must have stopped working at once,
or else the car simply must be able to continue on. Instead, you
should simply have checked the gas gauge.
All that evidence ended up in one place, did it not? All of it ended
up being entered into the WC's evidence, did it not? All of it got
there by way of the FBI, did it not?
It doesn't matter how diverse the collectors were. It all went
through the same funnel to the same point.
> > Ever play the secret game? Get a line of people and the first
> > whispers something to the second, who whispers it to the third and so
> > on. All it takes is ONE person in that line to totally change the
> > message for it to come out all wrong in the end. It doesn't mean that
> > that person got pre-agreed-upon buy-in from the entire group to change
> > the message and what to change it to.
>
> WTF does that have to do with the JFK investigation. The dozens of
> pieces of evidence that were developed were done so independently and
> all pointed at one guy, Oswald.
>
It has everything to do with it. And ignoring analogies just shows
how little logic you intend to use in this case. Analogies help us
understand things. They illustrate points. I have a point that you
refuse to understand. It's okay if you reject it, but you aren't even
trying to get it. Which shows that either you are unwilling or unable
to understand it. It also shows that you are truly not interested in
the good-spirited exchange of ideas, but rather just want to spew
venom wherever and whenever you can.
> > As for people retiring, that would give them even LESS cause and power
> > to make any difference. See, here's the deal. If you were a cop in
> > the DPD who found something and it appeared to be switched, you may or
> > may not pursue the matter. Most wouldn't, simply because they're
> > human, lazy, self-protective, etc. And most people also have enough
> > humility to think that perhaps they were at fault.
>
> It would also relieve them of any pressure to continue the cover up.
> With no self interest at stake, why would all these people continue to
> maintain their silence. To argue that is idiotic. Oh wait, I'm talking
> to a CT. Never mind.
>
No, it wouldn't. There would always be the "why come forth now? You
could have DONE something!" stuff heaved at them. As well, there is
far less credibility with each passing day. Finally, if they even
guessed at the powerful forces against them, then they're smart to
keep their mouths shut forever.
And most importantly, the point which you just can't get, is that they
may have doubted themselves, believed it for the greater good, and
that was how they went on with life. If I recall, Jackie Kennedy
herself heard the "official" word and said that she'd remembered it
differently so she must be mistaken.
Tom Rossely mentioned the testimony of Sgt Dean, where he tried to
bring off-record testimony onto the record. He made his attempt at
the time. He probably found that his attempts were getting him
nowhere, decided to stop banging his head against the wall, and moved
on. Did he later decide to right the wrong? Write some books?
You seem to live life as though it is a comic book, or a Star Trek
episode. The good guys aren't always good, the bad guys aren't pure
evil incarnate, and people do not risk everything just to make sure
that justice is done. I'm suggesting you get out and meet more
people, experience life a bit more, and then formulate your opinions
from the real people you meet, and not from TV shows or fairy tales.
> > Here's an example. I stopped at a red light, waited for a green
> > light, then proceeded. A guy coming from left to right ran his red
> > light and totaled my car. Right after the incident happened, where I
> > KNOW I saw a green light before proceeding into the intersection, the
> > other driver claimed he had a green light. I immediately starting
> > doubting myself. Did I imagine the green light? Was I mistaken? Was
> > I watching the perpendicular lights and just got distracted and
> > thought the other green was mine? I actually doubted what I'd seen
> > with my own eyes simply because someone said it wasn't so. This is
> > natural, especially when someone of authority tells people something
> > different. I KNOW I saw one thing, but someone whose opinion I
> > respect (or at least don't disrespect) could tell me the opposite and
> > I would start to doubt what I thought I knew.
>
> Jesus Christ, you are really going off the deep end.
>
How is that the deep end? It happened. Just that way. It's on
record with my insurance company and the local police force.
Incidentally, the officer indicated, for no apparent reason, that I
was the primary driver at fault. However, the insurance company
thought otherwise, and that's how it ended up.
In your world, I should be out writing books to clear my name on the
accident report. I should be camping out on the front lawn of the
other driver and the officer that wrote the report and hurling
obscenities at them to get them to change their minds.
But life just isn't that way. The report was wrong, it cost me
nothing (outside my deductible since the other driver didn't have
insurance), and I am okay with that. THAT's real life.
> > So, as a cop, you may, but probably wouldn't, overreach your pay-grade
> > to try to get to the bottom of it. And then, years later, when you're
> > no longer a cop, why on earth would you suddenly have the gumption to
> > waltz into the DPD HQ, demand to see the people you used to report to,
> > and demand to know what happened? That's just ludicrous. If you sat
> > on it before, you'll sit on it later. And retiring doesn't suddenly
> > give you MORE authority to make inquiries.
>
> This is really becoming entertaining to see the lengths you will go to
> in order to maintain your exercise in self delusion. Why are you so
> determined to believe something that is so fucking ridiculous.
>
How am I self-deluded? Just because I see that people are people, and
not caricatures from a comic book? Just because I understand that
retired people are just that... retired. That's not their cue to run
out and start campaigning for whatever little nugget of truth they
have from 40+ years ago.
So explain to me how a retired police officer would have MORE ability
to question the evidence. Come on... this was YOUR point. Explain
it. And let's see how many get on board with you. If you can sell
it, then I just might buy it. But you've placed it out there, you
refuse to defend it, and you think that name-calling is the way to
back your points up. How about getting into the conversation, instead
of trying to show off how many R-rated words you know?
> > Moving on... where did I say that I believe even a word of what Craig
> > said? Please show me that.
>
> Must have been the part where you indicated Roger Craig was a
> crusader.
>
"Going on a crusade" does not make one a "crusader," by the colloquial
definitions of the terms. Being a "crusader" attaches bravado and
justice to the deed. I never said (and if I did, please show me
where) that Craig was a "crusader." I merely said that he went on his
own campaign to attempt to right what he saw were wrongs. And instead
of being laughed at, which is standard for people who come up with
wacky ideas, he gets killed.
But I guess you're okay with that.
> > What I said was that he made waves and got the crap-end of the stick
> > for his troubles. Right or wrong, that's got to send a message. "Go
> > against the 'official' findings and this is what happens." In the
> > end, in the wake of it all, I might tell myself, "well, I can't bring
> > JFK back to life, so it's time to look out for #1."
>
> It makes all the difference in the world whether he was right or
> wrong. If you get the crap kicked out of you for making shit up, you
> got what you deserved.
>
Sure enough, you're okay with that. Hmmm, telling... very telling...
smacks of someone who avoided gym class because the other boys "throw
too hard."
Since you're trying to drag us into your "Sunday night at the movies"
idea of humanity, ever watch any murder mysteries? The innocent party
never murders someone who's making up impossible stuff about the
murderer. No. The GUILTY person kills the guy that truly KNOWS TOO
MUCH.
So, in your world, people who tell lies should be harassed, beaten,
and killed, correct? So, for Craig living in a fantasy world (which I
am guessing is your point) is just grounds for him to be murdered?
Come on... let's hear your justification for that.
What Bugliosi said, in a nutshell, was "I believe LHO did it, so
anything that says otherwise must simply be wrong, and so I ignore
it." He would have fit in perfectly on the WC.
Furthermore, if you truly had any sound points, you wouldn't have to
hide them behind silly insults. Perhaps you need to grow up a smidge
before attempting to have a grownup conversation.
-Mike
tomnln
Weren't you ever Curious about not seeing all 400 feet of the film Alyea
shot That Day???
I sure am ! ! !
Ben Holmes
MSwanberg says...
>
>On Sep 19, 2:18=A0pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 18, 3:28=A0pm, MSwanberg <mswanb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > > Why should I respect something that is so totally ridiculous. It's
>> > > like asking me to respect the opinion of someone who believes in a
>> > > flat earth.
>>
>> > I apologize... I must not be doing a good job of making myself
>> > understood. Or else you're just not reading the words.
>>
>> > My whole treatise is that you DON'T have to get a whole lot of people
>> > on-board with nefarious goings-on to still muck up the works.
>>
>> Yes you do. Since all of the evidence implicates Oswald,
It doesn't.
When you base an argument on a lie, the only point you've really made is that
you're willing to lie to "win" an argument.
>> to argue for
>> his innocence, you have make the case that all of the evidence was
>> manipulated. To do that, you need an army of co-conspirators.
>> Virtually everyone involved in the investigation would have to be on
>> board. It would make no sense that the manipulated evidence and the
>> genuine evidence would implicate the same person.
>>
>
>Uh, no... you don't. A single point of failure is all it takes.
>
>You're the kind of guy that when his car stops working believes that
>the entire machine simply up and died, every last part, all decided to
>give up at precisely the same time. Oil, gas, washer fluid, crank
>case, head gasket, exhaust... all must have stopped working at once,
>or else the car simply must be able to continue on. Instead, you
>should simply have checked the gas gauge.
>
>All that evidence ended up in one place, did it not? All of it ended
>up being entered into the WC's evidence, did it not? All of it got
>there by way of the FBI, did it not?
>
>It doesn't matter how diverse the collectors were. It all went
>through the same funnel to the same point.
And we *KNOW* that some of that evidence was altered while in FBI hands. The
Minox camera is an excellent example. The autopsy photos & X-rays while in the
hands of the S.S. is another great example. The evidence shows that evidence
was altered and destroyed.
This would not have needed to have happened if the case were as the WCR tried to
paint it.
Deception & lies aren't needed to support the truth.
>> > Ever play the secret game? =A0Get a line of people and the first
>> > whispers something to the second, who whispers it to the third and so
>> > on. =A0All it takes is ONE person in that line to totally change the
>> > message for it to come out all wrong in the end. =A0It doesn't mean tha=
Very simple... it's a lie. Why would a CT'er be forced to explain a lie, other
than merely pointing it out.
Not *all* of the evidence supported your theory that Oswald alone shot JFK.
There was indeed, much evidence that there were multiple gunmen, and there was
excellent evidence that Oswald was exactly who he professed to be, a patsy.
So when someone asserts that "all the evidence...", right away, I don't need to
read the rest, I know he's lying.
This also explains why LNT'ers refuse to actually deal with the evidence.
>> Bugliosi said it best.
>> Either Oswald killed JFK by himself, or thousands of people had to be
>> working together to make it look like he did.
I'll go one better... Up to 90% of America isn't stupid.
>> A small conspiracy could
>> not have framed Oswald.
How silly! An EXTREMELY SMALL conspiracy managed to control the evidence.
Hoover, as anyone who's taken a look at the Hoover control over the FBI, was a
virtual dictator who's word was law in the FBI.
>> Everybody had to be on board to make that
>> happen and that is a ludicrous proposition.
There were many who were "not on board", and they were simply ignored, or
browbeaten, or worse. I've documented FBI intimidation used in this case
against eyewitnesses who wanted to report things that the FBI didn't want to
hear, and everyone is *STILL* waiting, years later, for Toddy's devastating
refutation of the examples I brought up.
>> There is only one
>> conspiracy that is even a theoretical possibility. Oswald alone fired
>> the shots that killed JFK but he was working with a small band of co-
>> conspirators working with him behind the scenes.
In order to propose this, you must deny the factual medical evidence. This
explains why the autopsy report cannot be believed by LNT'ers, and why several
dozen eyewitnesses, who said the same thing as the Autopsy Report, have been
maligned by LNT'ers.
It's simply an irrefutable fact that JFK had a large BOH wound located in the
Occipital-Parietal area, and NOT seen in the altered BOH photo.
By altering and lying about the evidence of JFK's wounds, shots fired from the
front or sides could be discounted.
>> I don't for one
>> minute believe that is what happened, but I will concede the
>> theoretical possibility.
There is *FAR* greater evidence of a large BOH wound - yet I quite suspect that
such a thing is completely out of the question for you.
>> In that case, the physical evidence would be
>> exactly the same as if Oswald had acted alone.
But it *already* isn't. Indeed, the head wound had to be moved upward - because
the original information gave a virtually impossible trajectory for the alleged
SN.
>> On the other hand, if
>> you want to argue that Oswald was innocent or that he didn't fire the
>> shots, you are just plain fucked up and you deserve all the ridicule
>> that comes your way.
There is absolutely no reason based on a belief in conspiracy that CT'ers must
argue that Oswald was innocent. It's entirely possible to argue that Oswald was
guilty, AS WELL AS THE OTHER CONSPIRATORS. Unfortunately, CT'ers argue
utilizing the actual evidence, and it's the EVIDENCE that forces many CT'ers to
discount Oswald as a shooter.
The very evidence that LNT'ers run from, and refuse to provide reasonable
explanations for.
>> There are things about which reasonable people
>> can disagree. Oswald's innocence is not one of them.
Then you aren't talking about "reasonable" people, you're talking about faith.
>> The evidence
>> against Oswald is overwhelming and conclusive.
Then why did the WC lie about it?
>> If you believe
>> otherwise there are only two possibilities. You are ignorant of the
>> vast amounts of evidence of Oswald's guilt or you are an asshole.
I suspect that you've just defined yourself.
>> There is no other possibilitity and there is no polite way to state
>> that.
>
>
>What Bugliosi said, in a nutshell, was "I believe LHO did it, so
>anything that says otherwise must simply be wrong, and so I ignore
>it." He would have fit in perfectly on the WC.
That is, pretty much, what all LNT'ers say... "The WCR got it right, and anyone
or any evidence that says otherwise is simply wrong."
>Furthermore, if you truly had any sound points, you wouldn't have to
>hide them behind silly insults. Perhaps you need to grow up a smidge
>before attempting to have a grownup conversation.
>
>-Mike
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Walt
> In article <31379990-13e1-4840-ac2b-77b586f8e...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
> MSwanberg says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 19, 2:18=A0pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 18, 3:28=A0pm, MSwanberg <mswanb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > Why should I respect something that is so totally ridiculous. It's
> >> > > like asking me to respect the opinion of someone who believes in a
> >> > > flat earth.
>
> >> > I apologize... I must not be doing a good job of making myself
> >> > understood. Or else you're just not reading the words.
>
> >> > My whole treatise is that you DON'T have to get a whole lot of people
> >> > on-board with nefarious goings-on to still muck up the works.
>
> >> Yes you do. Since all of the evidence implicates Oswald,
>
> It doesn't.
You are so right Ben.... The evidence does NOT implicate Oswald....
Even the "trumped up " evidence of the Warren report doesn't convict
Oswald. They had to lie and distort evidence in their attempt to
convict him....That tells me they had no legitimate case against him.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On Sep 19, 5:58=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <31379990-13e1-4840-ac2b-77b586f8e...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> MSwanberg says...
>>
>> >On Sep 19, 2:18=3DA0pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sep 18, 3:28=3DA0pm, MSwanberg <mswanb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > Why should I respect something that is so totally ridiculous. It's
>> >> > > like asking me to respect the opinion of someone who believes in a
>> >> > > flat earth.
>>
>> >> > I apologize... I must not be doing a good job of making myself
>> >> > understood. Or else you're just not reading the words.
>>
>e
>> >> > on-board with nefarious goings-on to still muck up the works.
>>
>> >> Yes you do. Since all of the evidence implicates Oswald,
>>
>> It doesn't.
>
>You are so right Ben.... The evidence does NOT implicate Oswald....
>Even the "trumped up " evidence of the Warren report doesn't convict
>Oswald. They had to lie and distort evidence in their attempt to
>convict him....That tells me they had no legitimate case against him.
This is the basic problem... you rarely see those who profess a belief that
Oswald alone shot JFK who aren't afraid of the actual evidence. (and as a
result, lie about that evidence...)
Lies simply aren't needed to support the truth. If Oswald were a shooter - IT
DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE WAS NOT A CONSPIRACY!
So CT'ers really have "no dog in the fight"... it really doesn't matter if
Oswald were totally guilty or not.
What matters is the EVIDENCE. If "all" the evidence implicates Oswald, why did
the WC lie about, and bury the comparative tests performed to see if nitrates
would blast the cheek when firing a Mannlicher Carcano? Why did the WC bury the
alibi that Oswald had? Why did the WC intentionally speed up "Oswald", and slow
down Baker in recreation timings?
>> When you base an argument on a lie, the only point you've really made is =
>that
>> you're willing to lie to "win" an argument.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> to argue for
>> >> his innocence, you have make the case that all of the evidence was
>> >> manipulated. To do that, you need an army of co-conspirators.
>> >> Virtually everyone involved in the investigation would have to be on
>> >> board. It would make no sense that the manipulated evidence and the
>> >> genuine evidence would implicate the same person.
>>
>> >Uh, no... you don't. =A0A single point of failure is all it takes.
>>
>> >You're the kind of guy that when his car stops working believes that
>> >the entire machine simply up and died, every last part, all decided to
>> >give up at precisely the same time. =A0Oil, gas, washer fluid, crank
>> >case, head gasket, exhaust... all must have stopped working at once,
>> >or else the car simply must be able to continue on. =A0Instead, you
>> >should simply have checked the gas gauge.
>>
>> >All that evidence ended up in one place, did it not? =A0All of it ended
>> >up being entered into the WC's evidence, did it not? =A0All of it got
>> >there by way of the FBI, did it not?
>>
>> >It doesn't matter how diverse the collectors were. =A0It all went
>> >through the same funnel to the same point.
>>
>> And we *KNOW* that some of that evidence was altered while in FBI hands. =
>=A0The
>> Minox camera is an excellent example. =A0The autopsy photos & X-rays whil=
>e in the
>> hands of the S.S. is another great example. =A0The evidence shows that ev=
>idence
>> was altered and destroyed.
>>
>> This would not have needed to have happened if the case were as the WCR t=
>ried to
>> paint it.
>>
>> Deception & lies aren't needed to support the truth.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > Ever play the secret game? =3DA0Get a line of people and the first
>> >> > whispers something to the second, who whispers it to the third and s=
>o
>> >> > on. =3DA0All it takes is ONE person in that line to totally change t=
>he
>> >> > message for it to come out all wrong in the end. =3DA0It doesn't mea=
>n tha=3D
>> >t
>> >> > that person got pre-agreed-upon buy-in from the entire group to chan=
>ge
>> >> > the message and what to change it to.
>>
>> >> WTF does that have to do with the JFK investigation. The dozens of
>> >> pieces of evidence that were developed were done so independently and
>> >> all pointed at one guy, Oswald.
>>
>> >It has everything to do with it. =A0And ignoring analogies just shows
>> >how little logic you intend to use in this case. =A0Analogies help us
>> >understand things. =A0They illustrate points. =A0I have a point that you
>> >refuse to understand. =A0It's okay if you reject it, but you aren't even
>> >trying to get it. =A0Which shows that either you are unwilling or unable
>> >to understand it. =A0It also shows that you are truly not interested in
>> >the good-spirited exchange of ideas, but rather just want to spew
>> >venom wherever and whenever you can.
>>
>> >> > As for people retiring, that would give them even LESS cause and pow=
>er
>> >> > to make any difference. See, here's the deal. If you were a cop in
>> >> > the DPD who found something and it appeared to be switched, you may =
>or
>> >> > may not pursue the matter. Most wouldn't, simply because they're
>> >> > human, lazy, self-protective, etc. And most people also have enough
>> >> > humility to think that perhaps they were at fault.
>>
>> >> It would also relieve them of any pressure to continue the cover up.
>> >> With no self interest at stake, why would all these people continue to
>> >> maintain their silence. To argue that is idiotic. Oh wait, I'm talking
>> >> to a CT. Never mind.
>>
>> >No, it wouldn't. =A0There would always be the "why come forth now? =A0Yo=
>u
>> >could have DONE something!" stuff heaved at them. =A0As well, there is
>> >far less credibility with each passing day. =A0Finally, if they even
>> >guessed at the powerful forces against them, then they're smart to
>> >keep their mouths shut forever.
>>
>> >And most importantly, the point which you just can't get, is that they
>> >may have doubted themselves, believed it for the greater good, and
>> >that was how they went on with life. =A0If I recall, Jackie Kennedy
>> >herself heard the "official" word and said that she'd remembered it
>> >differently so she must be mistaken.
>>
>> >Tom Rossely mentioned the testimony of Sgt Dean, where he tried to
>> >bring off-record testimony onto the record. =A0He made his attempt at
>> >the time. =A0He probably found that his attempts were getting him
>> >nowhere, decided to stop banging his head against the wall, and moved
>> >on. =A0Did he later decide to right the wrong? =A0Write some books?
>>
>> >You seem to live life as though it is a comic book, or a Star Trek
>> >episode. =A0The good guys aren't always good, the bad guys aren't pure
>> >evil incarnate, and people do not risk everything just to make sure
>> >that justice is done. =A0I'm suggesting you get out and meet more
>> >people, experience life a bit more, and then formulate your opinions
>> >from the real people you meet, and not from TV shows or fairy tales.
>>
>> >> > Here's an example. I stopped at a red light, waited for a green
>> >> > light, then proceeded. A guy coming from left to right ran his red
>> >> > light and totaled my car. Right after the incident happened, where I
>> >> > KNOW I saw a green light before proceeding into the intersection, th=
>e
>> >> > other driver claimed he had a green light. I immediately starting
>> >> > doubting myself. Did I imagine the green light? Was I mistaken? Was
>> >> > I watching the perpendicular lights and just got distracted and
>> >> > thought the other green was mine? I actually doubted what I'd seen
>> >> > with my own eyes simply because someone said it wasn't so. This is
>> >> > natural, especially when someone of authority tells people something
>> >> > different. I KNOW I saw one thing, but someone whose opinion I
>> >> > respect (or at least don't disrespect) could tell me the opposite an=
>d
>> >> > I would start to doubt what I thought I knew.
>>
>> >> Jesus Christ, you are really going off the deep end.
>>
>> >How is that the deep end? =A0It happened. =A0Just that way. =A0It's on
>> >record with my insurance company and the local police force.
>>
>> >Incidentally, the officer indicated, for no apparent reason, that I
>> >was the primary driver at fault. =A0However, the insurance company
>> >thought otherwise, and that's how it ended up.
>>
>> >In your world, I should be out writing books to clear my name on the
>> >accident report. =A0I should be camping out on the front lawn of the
>> >other driver and the officer that wrote the report and hurling
>> >obscenities at them to get them to change their minds.
>>
>> >But life just isn't that way. =A0The report was wrong, it cost me
>> >nothing (outside my deductible since the other driver didn't have
>> >insurance), and I am okay with that. =A0THAT's real life.
>>
>> >> > So, as a cop, you may, but probably wouldn't, overreach your pay-gra=
>de
>> >> > to try to get to the bottom of it. And then, years later, when you'r=
>e
>> >> > no longer a cop, why on earth would you suddenly have the gumption t=
>o
>> >> > waltz into the DPD HQ, demand to see the people you used to report t=
>o,
>> >> > and demand to know what happened? That's just ludicrous. If you sat
>> >> > on it before, you'll sit on it later. And retiring doesn't suddenly
>> >> > give you MORE authority to make inquiries.
>>
>> >> This is really becoming entertaining to see the lengths you will go to
>> >> in order to maintain your exercise in self delusion. Why are you so
>> >> determined to believe something that is so fucking ridiculous.
>>
>> >How am I self-deluded? =A0Just because I see that people are people, and
>> >not caricatures from a comic book? =A0Just because I understand that
>> >retired people are just that... retired. =A0That's not their cue to run
>> >out and start campaigning for whatever little nugget of truth they
>> >have from 40+ years ago.
>>
>> >So explain to me how a retired police officer would have MORE ability
>> >to question the evidence. =A0Come on... this was YOUR point. =A0Explain
>> >it. =A0And let's see how many get on board with you. =A0If you can sell
>> >it, then I just might buy it. =A0But you've placed it out there, you
>> >refuse to defend it, and you think that name-calling is the way to
>> >back your points up. =A0How about getting into the conversation, instead
>> >of trying to show off how many R-rated words you know?
>>
>> >> > Moving on... where did I say that I believe even a word of what Crai=
>g
>> >> > said? Please show me that.
>>
>> >> Must have been the part where you indicated Roger Craig was a
>> >> crusader.
>>
>> >"Going on a crusade" does not make one a "crusader," by the colloquial
>> >definitions of the terms. =A0Being a "crusader" attaches bravado and
>> >justice to the deed. =A0I never said (and if I did, please show me
>> >where) that Craig was a "crusader." =A0I merely said that he went on his
>> >own campaign to attempt to right what he saw were wrongs. =A0And instead
>> >of being laughed at, which is standard for people who come up with
>> >wacky ideas, he gets killed.
>>
>> >But I guess you're okay with that.
>>
>> >> > What I said was that he made waves and got the crap-end of the stick
>> >> > for his troubles. Right or wrong, that's got to send a message. "Go
>> >> > against the 'official' findings and this is what happens." In the
>> >> > end, in the wake of it all, I might tell myself, "well, I can't brin=
>g
>> >> > JFK back to life, so it's time to look out for #1."
>>
>> >> It makes all the difference in the world whether he was right or
>> >> wrong. If you get the crap kicked out of you for
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>