The Lone Nutter Bhagavad Gita
RICLAND
Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama
Rama Rama Hare Hare
Earlier I wrote that the debate is over; and it is, and that's because
we're not dealing with a rational discussion of fact, we're dealing with
a group of people as dedicated to their belief system as those shaved
head idiots in orange sheets you used to see pan-handling at airports.
Rational debate requires certain rules chief among them that fact and
volume of fact must be recognized. Simply put, the Lone Nutters
recognize neither. They ignore opposing fact no matter the quantity.
This is similar to the Creationist and Evolution "debate." Is it really
a debate? Of course it isn't, and we know this because no matter how
much fact evolutionists bring to bear -- even skeletal evidence! -- the
Creationists will never accept evolution.
And the Lone Nutters will never accept conspiracy.
Bugliosi will never accept conspiracy.
Bugliosi finds the notion of an American coup d'état, sacrilege, too
horrible to contemplate, a notion so aberrant it is unpatriotic to even
think of.
The tip-off is when you talk to these people you discover there are
other communally agreed upon things they don't accept either. For
example, they don't accept the notion that the FBI and CIA were corrupt,
that J. Edgar Hoover was a closet transvestite, that the war in Iraq is
without merit.
In other words, scratch a Lone Nutter and you'll you get a card-carrying
John Bircher, NRA button on lapel, muddy creek Anabaptist who still
thinks the Rosenbergs deserved the electric chair.
ricland
--
"Prof Rahn's site is brilliant.
It only took me 10 visits before I was
able to navigate it just fine."
--cddraftsman
"We probably will never learn the truth about this case."
--Earl Warren, 1964
Who Shot JFK?
http://tinyurl.com/247ybb
lazu...@webtv.net
nutter who isn't a troll? I've never seen one of these know it all's
ever acknowledge the massive amount of good evidence for a conspiracy...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Good post- this ought to be circulated. Is there such thing as a lone
>nutter who isn't a troll? I've never seen one of these know it all's
>ever acknowledge the massive amount of good evidence for a conspiracy...
If it's a good post, tis unfortunate that I can't see it. Probably comes from
someone I have killfiled.
But whenever you point out the obvious to a LNT'er - they run in the opposite
direction. Take, for a simple example, the OVERWHELMING evidence of FBI
intimidation of eyewitnesses in this case. There's simply no room to 'debate'
it at all - so rather than simply admit it, Toddy simply refuses to answer the
post.
To the best of my recall - *no* LNT'er has admitted that eyewitnesses were
intimidated by the FBI.
RICLAND
> conspiracy involved in JFK's murder, but the questions raised have
> been answered for over 40 years...some people just will not let go.
>
[...]
> A man in a building shot a man in a car. He went home, got his pistol,
> and later killed another man. Two days later, another man killed this
> man and went to jail.
>
> That's your story.
>
> Not as exciting as dart-firing umbrellas and super-secret spy-tramps
> hiding in railroad cars, but that's the story.
>
> The rest is garbage.
>
>
Sure, fella.
Nonetheless, I've got a question for you.
Was Howard Hunt in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963?
tomnln
NEVER PROOF
"chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:1176309303.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 11, 1:49 am, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> There were many good reasons to initially suspect that there was a
> conspiracy involved in JFK's murder, but the questions raised have
> been answered for over 40 years...some people just will not let go.
>
> How many times do we need to revisit "The Tramps" thing?
>
> How thick is your skull not to see how patently ridiculous the whole
> "triangulation of fire" and guys firing from sewers, the knoll, Dal-
> Tex building etc. is?
>
> Does anyone with an I.Q. over 70 really think that the CIA, FBI, Mob,
> Cuba, anti-Castroites, etc. would've all perfectly orchestrated this
> hit and kept it covered up for 43 years? Clinton couldn't keep a cum
> stain on a dress a secret!
>
> What did anyone supposedly behind the JFK murder gain by putting ultra-
> liberal LBJ into office with his big spending war on poverty programs
> and timid (yes TIMID) prosecution of the Vietnam war?
>
> 9/11 "Truthers" are the only people more ridiculous than the "who shot
> John" cultists.
>
> Folks, it's Lee's rifle, and the recovered shells and bullets were
> fired from it. Lee fled the TSBD minutes later.
>
> If there was ANYONE ELSE firing at the motorcade, ALL OF THESE
> ADDITIONAL SHOTS MISSED. There is NO PROOF that JFK was struck by
> anything other than the rounds fired from Oswald's MC.
>
> Your side has nothing.
>
> Abandon the dark side for truth, light, and fresh air. Dwell among us
> free and clear thinkers.
>
> Don't you see that the JFK assassination conspiracy "story", replete
> with it's holy shrines and messianic figures is really a modern day
> religious/type fairy tale? It's folklore, not truth.
Fat...@aol.com
Rosenbergs were in fact guilty as hell. I certainly do believe they
got what they deserved.
Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
Fat...@aol.com says...
>
>On Apr 10, 2:53 pm, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
>> Hare Krishna Hare Krishna
>> Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
>> Hare Rama Hare Rama
>> Rama Rama Hare Hare
>>
>> Earlier I wrote that the debate is over; and it is, and that's because
>> we're not dealing with a rational discussion of fact, we're dealing with
>> a group of people as dedicated to their belief system as those shaved
>> head idiots in orange sheets you used to see pan-handling at airports.
>>
>> Rational debate requires certain rules chief among them that fact and
>> volume of fact must be recognized. Simply put, the Lone Nutters
>> recognize neither. They ignore opposing fact no matter the quantity.
>>
>> This is similar to the Creationist and Evolution "debate." Is it really
>> a debate? Of course it isn't, and we know this because no matter how
>> much fact evolutionists bring to bear -- even skeletal evidence! -- the
>> Creationists will never accept evolution.
>>
>> And the Lone Nutters will never accept conspiracy.
>>
>> Bugliosi will never accept conspiracy.
He already *has*. He argued so in court.
>> Bugliosi finds the notion of an American coup d'=E9tat, sacrilege, too
>> horrible to contemplate, a notion so aberrant it is unpatriotic to even
>> think of.
>>
>> The tip-off is when you talk to these people you discover there are
>> other communally agreed upon things they don't accept either. For
>> example, they don't accept the notion that the FBI and CIA were corrupt,
>> that J. Edgar Hoover was a closet transvestite, that the war in Iraq is
>> without merit.
>>
>> In other words, scratch a Lone Nutter and you'll you get a card-carrying
>> John Bircher, NRA button on lapel, muddy creek Anabaptist who still
>> thinks the Rosenbergs deserved the electric chair.
Silly. As much as 90% of Americans believe that there was a conspiracy - yet by
this reasoning above conservatives would never hold office.
Anthony Marsh
> conspiracy involved in JFK's murder, but the questions raised have
> been answered for over 40 years...some people just will not let go.
>
> How many times do we need to revisit "The Tramps" thing?
>
> How thick is your skull not to see how patently ridiculous the whole
> "triangulation of fire" and guys firing from sewers, the knoll, Dal-
> Tex building etc. is?
>
> Does anyone with an I.Q. over 70 really think that the CIA, FBI, Mob,
> Cuba, anti-Castroites, etc. would've all perfectly orchestrated this
> hit and kept it covered up for 43 years? Clinton couldn't keep a cum
> stain on a dress a secret!
>
You didn't know about Operations Northwoods until you read about it
here, some 40 years later. And there are tons of things which are still
being kept secret.
RICLAND
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Whether he was or wasn't, his presence is irrelevant towards Lee
> Harvey Oswald's direct guilt.
>
> You do understand that, don't you?
>
> By the way, my answer on Hunt is "no." Hunt was almost certainly where
> he said he was, and multiple witnesses have spoken up on his behalf
> over the years.
>
You're talking through your hat, fella.
The Liberty Lobby trial established without question Howard Hunt was in
Dallas on the 21st and 22. And who are these "multiple witnesses" who
claimed he wasn't?
Can you name one?
Finally, if Hunt's presence in Dallas was "irrelevant," as you say, why
did CIA top dogs Angleton and Helms initial a 1966 interoffice memo that
read: "We are going to have to explain why Hunt was in Dallas."?
RICLAND
Let me take a wild guess here:
You're a Lone Nutter, aren't you?
Fat...@aol.com
I have my doubts about a lone nut and certainly have doubts about the
WC.
But let us turn this around and wonder why just because you are a CT
that you have to believe the Rosenberg couple was innocent. Does
evidence ever enter into your thinking?
Bill Clarke
RICLAND
> On Apr 11, 5:11�pm, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
>> Fatm...@aol.com wrote:
>>> On Apr 10, 2:53 pm, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>> Hare Krishna Hare Krishna
>>>> Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
>>>> Hare Rama Hare Rama
>>>> Rama Rama Hare Hare
>>>> Earlier I wrote that the debate is over; and it is, and that's because
>>>> we're not dealing with a rational discussion of fact, we're dealing with
>>>> a group of people as dedicated to their belief system as those shaved
>>>> head idiots in orange sheets you used to see pan-handling at airports.
>>>> Rational debate requires certain rules chief among them that fact and
>>>> volume of fact must be recognized. Simply put, the Lone Nutters
>>>> recognize neither. They ignore opposing fact no matter the quantity.
>>>> This is similar to the Creationist and Evolution "debate." Is it really
>>>> a debate? Of course it isn't, and we know this because no matter how
>>>> much fact evolutionists bring to bear -- even skeletal evidence! -- the
>>>> Creationists will never accept evolution.
>>>> And the Lone Nutters will never accept conspiracy.
>>>> Bugliosi will never accept conspiracy.
The Rosenberg's were guilty as hell.
You miss the point.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Whether he was or wasn't, his presence is irrelevant towards Lee
>>> Harvey Oswald's direct guilt.
>>> You do understand that, don't you?
>>> By the way, my answer on Hunt is "no." Hunt was almost certainly where
>>> he said he was, and multiple witnesses have spoken up on his behalf
>>> over the years.
>> You're talking through your hat, fella.
>>
>> The Liberty Lobby trial established without question Howard Hunt was in
>> Dallas on the 21st and 22. And who are these "multiple witnesses" who
>> claimed he wasn't?
>>
>> Can you name one?
>>
>> Finally, if Hunt's presence in Dallas was "irrelevant," as you say, why
>> did CIA top dogs Angleton and Helms initial a 1966 interoffice memo that
>> read: "We are going to have to explain why Hunt was in Dallas."?
>
>
> The Rockefeller Commission looked at this extensively in 1974. Hunt
> wasn't there.
>
Hunt could not be in Dallas on 11-22-63. He was supervising the Kennedy
assassination from the Quarters Eye in Washington.
> Here is a short excerpt from McAdams' website concerning the witnesses
> who put Hunt in the D.C. area on 11-22-63.
>
> Quote:
>
> So a total of six people had testified that Hunt was in Washington on
> the day of the assassination. (Mark) Lane lacks the chutzpah to
> conceal all of them, so he mentions, and denigrates, two who worked
> for the CIA. He conceals the other CIA witness (Elizabeth Macintosh)
> by using another witness' confusion about her name. And he entirely
> conceals the fact that three witnesses in the Hunt household (two
> children and a domestic) told the Rockefeller Commission that he was
> there.
>
> End of quote.
>
> Hunt wasn't in Dallas on 11-22-63. Author Mark Lane is a pretty fair
> writer, but he is a writer with an agenda, and his agenda is not about
> getting to the truth concerning 11-22-63...it's about pushing his
> ultra-left goals, and if he has to wreck lives in the process, so be
> it.
>
Anthony Marsh
> On Apr 11, 5:50 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> You didn't know about Operations Northwoods until you read about it
>> here, some 40 years later. And there are tons of things which are still
>> being kept secret.
>
> nest, on the bag and on his MC rifle.
>
You miss the point. Various conspiracies have remained hidden for many
years.
LHO's prints belong at the sniper's nest. He worked there daily, you
know. And it was his rifle, so naturally his prints would be on it. I
bet we could find your prints where YOU work, that is if you actually work.
> Focus like a laser beam on the known, physical evidence. Ignore
> Operation Northwoods; it is irrelevant towards solving the JFK case.
>
> I knew about Operation Northwoods long before I ever found this NG,
> and I find that the attempt you and others try to make linking it to
> the JFK assassination absurd and comical.
>
I never linked it to the JFK assassination. It is but one example of
secret operations that the public knew nothing about for more than 40 years.
RICLAND
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Whether he was or wasn't, his presence is irrelevant towards Lee
>>> Harvey Oswald's direct guilt.
>>> You do understand that, don't you?
>>> By the way, my answer on Hunt is "no." Hunt was almost certainly where
>>> he said he was, and multiple witnesses have spoken up on his behalf
>>> over the years.
>> You're talking through your hat, fella.
>>
>> The Liberty Lobby trial established without question Howard Hunt was in
>> Dallas on the 21st and 22. And who are these "multiple witnesses" who
>> claimed he wasn't?
>>
>> Can you name one?
>>
>> Finally, if Hunt's presence in Dallas was "irrelevant," as you say, why
>> did CIA top dogs Angleton and Helms initial a 1966 interoffice memo that
>> read: "We are going to have to explain why Hunt was in Dallas."?
>
>
> The Rockefeller Commission looked at this extensively in 1974. Hunt
> wasn't there.
>
> who put Hunt in the D.C. area on 11-22-63.
>
> Quote:
>
> So a total of six people had testified that Hunt was in Washington on
> the day of the assassination. (Mark) Lane lacks the chutzpah to
> conceal all of them, so he mentions, and denigrates, two who worked
> for the CIA. He conceals the other CIA witness (Elizabeth Macintosh)
> by using another witness' confusion about her name. And he entirely
> conceals the fact that three witnesses in the Hunt household (two
> children and a domestic) told the Rockefeller Commission that he was
> there.
>
> End of quote.
>
> Hunt wasn't in Dallas on 11-22-63. Author Mark Lane is a pretty fair
> writer, but he is a writer with an agenda, and his agenda is not about
> getting to the truth concerning 11-22-63...it's about pushing his
> ultra-left goals, and if he has to wreck lives in the process, so be
> it.
>
You're flat wrong, which means McAdams' site has it flat wrong; and this
isn't the first time I've shown this.
First, please provide the link you reference from the McAdams' site above.
Second, please provide the names of six people who claim Hunt was in
Washington, DC.
Third, the Rockefeller Commission did not exonerate Hunt on the question
of his whereabouts on Nov. 22. This was in part because relevant CIA
records were not available to the Rockefeller Commission. However, by
the time of the Liberty Lobby trial (1985) these records were available.
Specifically, CIA payroll records showing Hunt was absent from his
office for key periods of time, on "sick leave" I believe. This was
roughly a 48 hours, or there abouts.
Fourth, not one witness -- including his family members -- confirmed he
was in Washington, DC. on nov 22; and we know this with certainty
because an odd thing about the Kennedy assassination is this: everyone
knows where they were when they first heard about it. Point being,
anyone who says, I don't know where I was when I heard Kennedy was shot,
is probably lying.
But to continue...
Mark Lane skillfully used Hunt's testimony before the Rockefeller
Commission to hang him. Hunt had told the Commission that sometime after
the assassination when accusations were being made he was one of the
shooters, he had to swear to his kids he wasn't in Dallas on Nov. 22.
But, Hunt had also testified to the Rockerfeller Commission he was with
his family on Nov. 22.
See the problem with that? If you do you're smarter than anyone on the
Rockerfeller Commission because none of them caught it. In fact, for
years Hunt kept telling these two lies until Lane nailed him to the wall:
"Mr. Hunt, if you were with your children on Nov. 22, why did you have
to swear to them you weren't in Dallas on Nov. 22?"
Hunt's jaw dropped.
Finally, no one -- NO ONE! -- testified they actually saw Hunt in DC on
nov. 22, and I defy you, McAdams, or Vince the Bug to produce the name
of one person who did.
tomnln
"chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:1176403124.2...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> >> Who Shot JFK?http://tinyurl.com/247ybb-Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Whether he was or wasn't, his presence is irrelevant towards Lee
>> > Harvey Oswald's direct guilt.
>>
>> > You do understand that, don't you?
>>
>> > By the way, my answer on Hunt is "no." Hunt was almost certainly where
>> > he said he was, and multiple witnesses have spoken up on his behalf
>> > over the years.
>>
>> You're talking through your hat, fella.
>>
>> The Liberty Lobby trial established without question Howard Hunt was in
>> Dallas on the 21st and 22. And who are these "multiple witnesses" who
>> claimed he wasn't?
>>
>> Can you name one?
>>
>> Finally, if Hunt's presence in Dallas was "irrelevant," as you say, why
>> did CIA top dogs Angleton and Helms initial a 1966 interoffice memo that
>> read: "We are going to have to explain why Hunt was in Dallas."?
>
tomnln
"RICLAND" <black...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:f4SdnV3DOZ54PYPb...@comcast.com...
David Von Pein
Oswald's prints "belong at the sniper's nest"??? That's the first time
I've heard anybody phrase it exactly like that. And, frankly, it's a
stupid way to phrase it, IMO.
On a daily basis, CTers continue to dismiss and/or ignore the amazing
BUILD-UP of the TOTALITY of the print/shell/rifle/paper bag evidence
that was ALL OSWALD'S AND ONLY OSWALD'S on that 6th Floor on November
22nd.
What are the odds of Oswald actually NOT being at that SN window at
12:30 on 11/22/63? The odds of him not being there must be almost a
negative number. Because, given the sum total of "OZ WAS HERE"
evidence, it's obvious that Lee Harvey Oswald WAS at that window, and
WAS firing a rifle at JFK at 12:30. .....
1.) Oswald's prints are the ONLY *IDENTIFIABLE* FRESH PRINTS on TWO
different boxes located DEEP inside the Sniper's Nest.
2.) Shells from Oswald's gun are in the Nest.
3.) Oswald's own gun is on the same 6th Floor (near the staircase,
which Oswald would have had to use to escape the sixth floor, due to
the elevators being on the FIFTH floor at that point in time).
4.) Witnesses physically SEE an "Oswald-like" person either shooting
at JFK's car or they see an "Oswald-like" person at the window just
seconds prior to the motorcade's arrival in the Plaza.
5.) And an empty paper sack (similar in handmade taped-up style to the
one seen being carried by LHO that morning) is in the Nest too....and
that bag has two of Oswald's prints on it!*
* = Number 5 above is, IMO, the kicker...i.e., the thing that
positively should tell any reasonable person that Lee Oswald was there
in that Sniper's Nest at 12:30 on Nov. 22nd.
HIS PRINTS ARE ON AN ITEM (AN *EMPTY* PAPER BAG) THAT HAS NO LOGICAL,
REASONABLE, AND *INNOCENT* REASON FOR BEING WHERE IT WAS FOUND SHORTLY
AFTER THE PRESIDENT'S MURDER!
Lee Harvey Oswald inadvertently signed his own name to the President's
murder. Many times over in fact! And he HIMSELF practically told the
world he was guilty, just as Vincent Bugliosi correctly pointed out in
a courtroom in 1986.....
"When he was interrogated, Oswald, from his own lips, he TOLD us he
was guilty....he told us he was guilty....almost the same as if he had
said 'I murdered President Kennedy'....he told us. How did he tell us?
Well, the lies he told, one after another, showed an UNMISTAKABLE
consciousness of guilt. If Oswald were innocent, why did he find it
necessary to deny purchasing that Carcano rifle from the Klein's store
in Chicago? Why did he even deny owning any rifle at all? Why did he
find it necessary to do that if he's innocent?" -- V. Bug.