Has any CTer in this group ever been "converted" to a LNer ?
Gil Jesus
conspiracy believer into a Lone Neuter. Anyone ever hear of such a
case ?
Just curious.
Sam Brown
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:071df9b1-9ce5-4602...@f52g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Yup.
bigdog
Yes, I was a CT. Dale Myers was a CT. I believe several of the LNs on
this board have admitted this as well. Eventually, common sense won
out over propaganda. The CTs on this board are beyond redemption. They
are too entrenched in their beliefs. They have embraced conspiracy
with a religous fervor. No amount of evidence to the contrary is ever
going to convince them. They will always find some half-assed excuse
for rejecting each and every piece of evidence that clearly shows
Oswald was the only shooter in DP. The purpose of the LNs on this
board is not to make converts of the CTs. They are lost souls. Our
purpose is to make sure the lurkers and the fence sitters hear both
sides of the issue. For too long, the CTs had the field to themselves
and they were successful in convincing a majority of Americans of a
myth. That cannot be allowed to continue.
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
It's often claimed... many LNT'ers claim that they used to be a CT'er - but none
of them have been able to document it.
bigdog
> In article <071df9b1-9ce5-4602-a5e8-5eb664706...@f52g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Right, asshole, that's just the kind of thing people would document.
Is there some sort of fucking club that we should have a membership
card from. How much shit has to be between someone's ears for them to
make a statement that fucking stupid.
aeffects
> "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
you've past/present sins to account for
When you show those that ARE aware re case evidence, testimony and
exhibits, you'll be rated. Till then you're sheeple...
How is your brother lately, make any new Academy Award winners....
LMAO!
aeffects
> On Dec 26, 8:36 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <071df9b1-9ce5-4602-a5e8-5eb664706...@f52g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
LMAO - Well now THERE is a novel approach..... like we've never heard
THAT before..... the three most notable, Gary Mack who went on to head
up the 6th Floor Museum, Dave Reitzes who went on to be David Von Pein
and stellar notoriety -- and my favorite Dale Myers of course.... the
above needed entry into the fray, this is the typical way....
the burning bush Lone Nut experience.... instant conversion.....
LMFAO!
> I absolutely believed that a large conspiracy killed JFK.
>
> In the early nineties, I visited Dealey Plaza, saw how small it was
> and how close the TSBD sixth floor window was from the spot that marks
> Z313, and I began to have a change of opinion.
I get a kick when I see that, "how small Dealey Plaza is..." LMAO.
It's clear as a bell, you have no conception of high-power firearms,
what it takes to do a deed like shooting/assassinating someone. For
that matter I doubt you've ever spoke to anyone-knowingly, that has.
> I also began doing something I had never done before with an mind.
>
> I read the "other side", the lone nut perspective on 11/22/63.
NOT a chance.....
> There is no doubt-none-that Oswald killed JFK and JD Tippit. A
> sensible conspiracist can argue that maybe there are some unknown
> connections, or that somebody hired or put Oswald up to it, but there
> is NO EVIDENCE that that occurred, and I certainly don't believe in
> anything other than Oswald alone.
then why persist here, it's done, fini, over for you. So, how long is
your contract to post here, you working off college loans?
> A belief in planted weapons, forged film, switched coffins, knoll
> shooters, shots from storm drains, etc. marks the believer as being
> either woefully uninformed about the events of 11/22/63, or as being
> an idiot.
then why persist here, it's done, fini, over for you. So, how long is
your contract to post here, you working off college loans?
Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
> In article <071df9b1-9ce5-4602-a5e8-5eb664706...@f52g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
When forced to choose, go LN 51%, CT 49% because the CT's have
countless
theories about countless individs. with no end in sight.
It always seemed that LBJ had to be involved, given the venality
of the individ. However, the PROOF is not there and no one else had
sufficent motive.
Gil Jesus
The proof is not there ? Au contraire mon frere:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fATmzROAs5E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ObQ1NWvbO0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAKhkKSwHJM
robcap...@netscape.com
Proof not there? You obviously have not read how he controlled the
ENTIRE investigation start to finish, why? Please. He hated JFK and
was tracking him since WWII and he knew JFK was going to make him
retire, and he hated RFK. No proof, now that is funny.
Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is no direct documentation that LBJ said to JEH or
anyone else: "I want that sob killed and I want it
done in Dallas. That's an order."
Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
>
> - Show quoted text -
The fact that LBJ's great pal, Johnny Conny, was almost killed
really hurts the CT, hurts it real bad.
Did LBJ kill Bobby The Sissy? if not, why not?
Ben Holmes
Ronald 'More-More' Moshki says...
>
>On Dec 26, 6:03=C2=A0pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 26, 5:45=EF=BF=BDpm, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki"
>>
>>
>>
>> <sector_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On Dec 26, 9:36=EF=BF=BDam, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> =
>wrote:
>>
>> > > In article <071df9b1-9ce5-4602-a5e8-5eb664706...@f52g2000hsa.googlegro=
>ups.com>,
>> > > Gil Jesus says...
>>
>> > > >I'm trying to gauge the sucess of the scumbags to "convert" a JFK
>> > > >conspiracy believer into a Lone Neuter. Anyone ever hear of such a
>> > > >case ?
>>
>> > > >Just curious.
>>
>- but none
>> > > of them have been able to document it.
>>
>> > When forced to choose, go LN 51%, CT 49% because the CT's have
>> > countless
>> > theories about countless individs. with no end in sight.
>>
>> > It always seemed that LBJ had to be involved, given the venality
> had
>> > sufficent motive.
>>
>> The proof is not there ? Au contraire mon frere:
>>
>=3D0ObQ1NWvbO0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DdAKhkKSwHJM
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Db-L5xYwb2ls
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DonZ76_i93IY
>
>
>The fact that LBJ's great pal, Johnny Conny, was almost killed
>really hurts the CT, hurts it real bad.
My guess is that you're referring to Gov. John B. Connally.
And no, it hurts it not at all. Particularly if you knew the facts, which you
clearly aren't aware of.
It's well known that LBJ had a shouting match with JFK about where Connally was
going to sit during the motorcade.
>Did LBJ kill Bobby The Sissy? if not, why not?
The FBI was certainly involved in that assassination as well. Although the
major role this time was taken by the LAPD.
I find it interesting that you evidently feel the need to begin name calling
already...
Todd W. Vaughan
None?
Really Benny?
I used to be a CT'er.
And I can document it.
Todd W. Vaughan
> In article <33739ab3-784f-44a1-a8fe-02584a7a2...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Ronald 'More-More' Moshki says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 26, 6:03=C2=A0pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 26, 5:45=EF=BF=BDpm, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki"
>
> >> <sector_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > On Dec 26, 9:36=EF=BF=BDam, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> =
> >wrote:
>
> >> > > In article <071df9b1-9ce5-4602-a5e8-5eb664706...@f52g2000hsa.googlegro=
> >ups.com>,
> >> > > Gil Jesus says...
>
> >> > > >I'm trying to gauge the sucess of the scumbags to "convert" a JFK
> >> > > >conspiracy believer into a Lone Neuter. Anyone ever hear of such a
> >> > > >case ?
>
> >> > > >Just curious.
>
> >> > > It's often claimed... many LNT'ers claim that they used to be a CT'er =
> >- but none
> >> > > of them have been able to document it.
>
> >> > When forced to choose, go LN 51%, CT 49% because the CT's have
> >> > countless
> >> > theories about countless individs. with no end in sight.
>
> >> > It always seemed that LBJ had to be involved, given the venality
> >> > of the individ. =EF=BF=BDHowever, the PROOF is not there and no one else=
> > had
> >> > sufficent motive.
>
> >> The proof is not there ? Au contraire mon frere:
>
> >=3D0ObQ1NWvbO0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DdAKhkKSwHJM
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Db-L5xYwb2ls
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DonZ76_i93IY
>
> >The fact that LBJ's great pal, Johnny Conny, was almost killed
> >really hurts the CT, hurts it real bad.
>
> My guess is that you're referring to Gov. John B. Connally.
>
> And no, it hurts it not at all. Particularly if you knew the facts, which you
> clearly aren't aware of.
>
> It's well known that LBJ had a shouting match with JFK about where Connally was
> going to sit during the motorcade.
Where, Benny, is this "well known"?
Where is it documented?
>
> >Did LBJ kill Bobby The Sissy? if not, why not?
>
> The FBI was certainly involved in that assassination as well. Although the
> major role this time was taken by the LAPD.
>
> I find it interesting that you evidently feel the need to begin name calling
> already...- Hide quoted text -
Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
> In article <33739ab3-784f-44a1-a8fe-02584a7a2...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Ronald 'More-More' Moshki says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 26, 6:03=C2=A0pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 26, 5:45=EF=BF=BDpm, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki"
>
> >> <sector_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > On Dec 26, 9:36=EF=BF=BDam, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> =
> >wrote:
>
> >> > > In article <071df9b1-9ce5-4602-a5e8-5eb664706...@f52g2000hsa.googlegro=
> >ups.com>,
> >> > > Gil Jesus says...
>
> >> > > >I'm trying to gauge the sucess of the scumbags to "convert" a JFK
> >> > > >conspiracy believer into a Lone Neuter. Anyone ever hear of such a
> >> > > >case ?
>
> >> > > >Just curious.
>
> >> > > It's often claimed... many LNT'ers claim that they used to be a CT'er =
> >- but none
> >> > > of them have been able to document it.
>
> >> > When forced to choose, go LN 51%, CT 49% because the CT's have
> >> > countless
> >> > theories about countless individs. with no end in sight.
>
> >> > It always seemed that LBJ had to be involved, given the venality
> >> > of the individ. =EF=BF=BDHowever, the PROOF is not there and no one else=
> > had
> >> > sufficent motive.
>
> >> The proof is not there ? Au contraire mon frere:
>
> >=3D0ObQ1NWvbO0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DdAKhkKSwHJM
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Db-L5xYwb2ls
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DonZ76_i93IY
>
> >The fact that LBJ's great pal, Johnny Conny, was almost killed
> >really hurts the CT, hurts it real bad.
>
> My guess is that you're referring to Gov. John B. Connally.
>
> And no, it hurts it not at all. Particularly if you knew the facts, which you
> clearly aren't aware of.
>
> It's well known that LBJ had a shouting match with JFK about where Connally was
> going to sit during the motorcade.
>
> >Did LBJ kill Bobby The Sissy? if not, why not?
>
> The FBI was certainly involved in that assassination as well. Although the
> major role this time was taken by the LAPD.
>
> I find it interesting that you evidently feel the need to begin name calling
>
> - Show quoted text -
I called you no names.
It is interesting that CT's invariably say:
"You LN's don't know the facts." That slur is never used in a
real debate. It's a logical absurdity since both sides can
endlessly repeat: "Youse people are sans facts."
There was a time when some us always said: "LBJ,LBJ,LBJ."
We want LBJ to be guilty because we decry his humanity
and loathe his every neutron.
But where's the vegan beef?
aeffects
perhaps if you got off your ass and answered the 45 questions, Ben
might have a few words with you -- from what I can gather he doesn't
spend much time these day's with trolls....
aeffects
you're full of shit.... who do you think your trying to fool? You've
been a .john Nutter since day one.... hell, he's probably your
handler.... LMAO!
Bud
<snicker> It scares the kooks that when reasonable people look
deeper into the case than what the conspiracy authors spoon feed the
public they come to the LN conclusion. Don`t worry Healy, that doesn`t
apply to fanatics and idiots.
Ben Holmes
Todd W. Vaughan says...
>
>On Dec 26, 9:36=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>> In article <071df9b1-9ce5-4602-a5e8-5eb664706...@f52g2000hsa.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Gil Jesus says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >I'm trying to gauge the sucess of the scumbags to "convert" a JFK
>> >conspiracy believer into a Lone Neuter. Anyone ever hear of such a
>> >case ?
>>
>> >Just curious.
>>
>t none
>> of them have been able to document it.
>
>
>None?
>
>Really Benny?
>
>I used to be a CT'er.
>
>And I can document it.
And yet, just like the mythical files you 'have' that can refute the FBI
Intimidation I've posted about - this "documentation" seems to be MIA.
Ben Holmes
Ronald 'More-More' Moshki says...
>
>On Dec 26, 9:42=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>> In article <33739ab3-784f-44a1-a8fe-02584a7a2...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.c=
>om>,
>> Ronald 'More-More' Moshki says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> On Dec 26, 5:45=3DEF=3DBF=3DBDpm, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki"
>>
>> >> <sector_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Dec 26, 9:36=3DEF=3DBF=3DBDam, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcoll=
>ege.com> =3D
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >> > > In article <071df9b1-9ce5-4602-a5e8-5eb664706...@f52g2000hsa.google=
>gro=3D
>> >ups.com>,
>> >> > > Gil Jesus says...
>>
>> >> > > >I'm trying to gauge the sucess of the scumbags to "convert" a JFK
>
>> >> > > >case ?
>>
>> >> > > >Just curious.
>>
>> >> > > It's often claimed... many LNT'ers claim that they used to be a CT'=
>er =3D
>> >- but none
>> >> > > of them have been able to document it.
>>
>> >> > When forced to choose, go LN 51%, CT 49% because the CT's have
>> >> > countless
>> >> > theories about countless individs. with no end in sight.
>>
>> >> > It always seemed that LBJ had to be involved, given the venality
> one else=3D
>> > had
>> >> > sufficent motive.
>>
>> >> The proof is not there ? Au contraire mon frere:
>>
>..
>> >=3D3D0ObQ1NWvbO0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3DdAKhkKSwHJM
>>
>> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3Db-L5xYwb2ls
>>
>> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3DonZ76_i93IY
>>
>> >The fact that LBJ's great pal, Johnny Conny, was almost killed
>> >really hurts the CT, hurts it real bad.
>>
>> My guess is that you're referring to Gov. John B. Connally.
>>
>ch you
>> clearly aren't aware of.
>>
>> It's well known that LBJ had a shouting match with JFK about where
>> Connally was going to sit during the motorcade.
>>
>> >Did LBJ kill Bobby The Sissy? if not, why not?
>>
>> The FBI was certainly involved in that assassination as well. Although the
>> major role this time was taken by the LAPD.
>>
>> I find it interesting that you evidently feel the need to begin name
>> calling already...
>
Nor did I accuse you of calling *ME* names.
>It is interesting that CT's invariably say:
>"You LN's don't know the facts."
By all means ... PROVE ME WRONG!!
But it's clear that you didn't know about the LBJ/JFK argument...
>That slur is never used in a
>real debate. It's a logical absurdity since both sides can
>endlessly repeat: "Youse people are sans facts."
>
>There was a time when some us always said: "LBJ,LBJ,LBJ."
>We want LBJ to be guilty because we decry his humanity
>and loathe his every neutron.
>
> But where's the vegan beef?
I'm not interested in speculation... let's deal with the facts and evidence,
Okay?
When you're ready to answer the evidence, let me know.
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
True. This issue has been discussed, and Toddy is well aware of the evidence
for this argument.
I've discovered that I simply have too many other things that occupy my time in
preference to answering trolls.
Toddy knows the evidence too well to have ever made the mistaken argument that
Ronald made, but sadly, it doesn't mean that Toddy will *admit* it. If it
weren't for the historical facts as the evidence shows, such an argument would
be powerful.
>> Where is it documented?
Been there, done that...
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
It would be incredibly easy to point to a posting history of being a CT'er - yet
no LNT'er has yet done so.
It would be easy to point to CT'ers, on this forum or not; who *knew* at one
time that someone was a CT'er, and is now a LNT'er - yet no LNT'er has yet done
so.
Toddy can make all the *claims* he want's to... but my statement stands: "many
LNT'ers claim that they used to be a CT'er - but none of them have been able to
document it." This isn't the first time that Toddy has claimed to 'be able to'
document something, yet continually fails to do so.
Walt
Gil, I believe you will find that there are gutless idiots who at one
time thought they were CT's. In reality they were just mentally
challenged screwballs who became confused by all of the crap that was
being propagated by the government.
Instead of getting off their lazy, low IQ, asses and doing some honest
research, they found it easier and more comfortable to accept Lyin
Bastard Johnson's, "Blue Ribbon Committee" version of the event.
I doubt that there is a single LN who ever was a REAL CT......
Although I guess it's possible... Because, there are after all some
well know intelligent people who have sunk into dementia.
Walt
aeffects
> On 26 Dec, 03:29, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to gauge the sucess of the scumbags to "convert" a JFK
> > conspiracy believer into a Lone Neuter. Anyone ever hear of such a
> > case ?
>
> > Just curious.
>
> Gil, I believe you will find that there are gutless idiots who at one
> time thought they were CT's. In reality they were just mentally
> challenged screwballs who became confused by all of the crap that was
> being propagated by the government.
frankly, I think they're Lone Nut *cowards* who need attention,
extreme attention. As infants perhaps they were dropped on their
head[s] one too many times....I don't think they're confused at all. I
think they prefer to have their thinking done for them.....
> Instead of getting off their lazy, low IQ, asses and doing some honest
> research, they found it easier and more comfortable to accept Lyin
> Bastard Johnson's, "Blue Ribbon Committee" version of the event.
>
> I doubt that there is a single LN who ever was a REAL CT......
b-i-n-g-o... the current crop of Nutter's are certainly not here for
debate, they're incompetent.... (perhaps they too, now understand the
futility defending the WCR)
Not one, ONE of the current crop of Nutter's would climb up on a
stage, turn on a microphone, face the audience and face-to-face debate
JFK assassination issues.....
> Although I guess it's possible... Because, there are after all some
> well know intelligent people who have sunk into dementia.
> Walt
^5 Walt!
aeffects
son, you have a ton of lone Nut mess to clean up..... you may began
anytime you like -- we're here to assist you in your monumental
endeavour
Bud
aeffects wrote:
> On Dec 27, 7:22 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > On 26 Dec, 03:29, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm trying to gauge the sucess of the scumbags to "convert" a JFK
> > > conspiracy believer into a Lone Neuter. Anyone ever hear of such a
> > > case ?
> >
> > > Just curious.
> >
> > Gil, I believe you will find that there are gutless idiots who at one
> > time thought they were CT's. In reality they were just mentally
> > challenged screwballs who became confused by all of the crap that was
> > being propagated by the government.
>
> frankly, I think they're Lone Nut *cowards* who need attention,
> extreme attention.
All I see from you kooks are claims and demands. Why does any ex-CT
LNer need to prove anything to you kooks? Gil asked a question. Some
people answered. If you didn`t like the answers given, I`d say thats
tough shit.
> As infants perhaps they were dropped on their
> head[s] one too many times....I don't think they're confused at all. I
> think they prefer to have their thinking done for them.....
Seeing the thinking you kooks do on your own, I`d suggest you find
someone to think for you.
> > Instead of getting off their lazy, low IQ, asses and doing some honest
> > research, they found it easier and more comfortable to accept Lyin
> > Bastard Johnson's, "Blue Ribbon Committee" version of the event.
> >
> > I doubt that there is a single LN who ever was a REAL CT......
>
> b-i-n-g-o...
Kooks are skeptical once more. What could be more meaningless?
>the current crop of Nutter's are certainly not here for
> debate, they're incompetent.... (perhaps they too, now understand the
> futility defending the WCR)
What is futile is trying to talk sense to idjits.
> Not one, ONE of the current crop of Nutter's would climb up on a
> stage, turn on a microphone, face the audience and face-to-face debate
> JFK assassination issues.....
When you kooks can put a feasible conspiracy scenario on the table
for consideration, perhaps we`ll have something to discuss. All we see
here are criticism of the WC and kook claims. Ben the Kook decides
that an exchange between LBJ and Kennedy had conspiratorial overtones.
Again, what could matter less how kooks choose to view these things?
aeffects
> aeffects wrote:
> > On Dec 27, 7:22 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > On 26 Dec, 03:29, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I'm trying to gauge the sucess of the scumbags to "convert" a JFK
> > > > conspiracy believer into a Lone Neuter. Anyone ever hear of such a
> > > > case ?
>
> > > > Just curious.
>
> > > Gil, I believe you will find that there are gutless idiots who at one
> > > time thought they were CT's. In reality they were just mentally
> > > challenged screwballs who became confused by all of the crap that was
> > > being propagated by the government.
>
> > frankly, I think they're Lone Nut *cowards* who need attention,
> > extreme attention.
>
> All I see from you kooks are claims and demands. Why does any ex-CT
> LNer need to prove anything to you kooks? Gil asked a question. Some
> people answered. If you didn`t like the answers given, I`d say thats
> tough shit.
demands for honesty... scary subject, eh? There's 45 questions out
there (not to mention 16 smoking guns). And, you think you have a
case? Get real dufus, LHO would walk.. we ain't talking PR baby -
> > As infants perhaps they were dropped on their
> > head[s] one too many times....I don't think they're confused at all. I
> > think they prefer to have their thinking done for them.....
>
> Seeing the thinking you kooks do on your own, I`d suggest you find
> someone to think for you.
don't go near a courtroom toots...... the WCR evidence, testimony and
exhibits did ALL the thinking we need -- as Harold Weisberg said so
long ago.... "...that's all you need..."
> > > Instead of getting off their lazy, low IQ, asses and doing some honest
> > > research, they found it easier and more comfortable to accept Lyin
> > > Bastard Johnson's, "Blue Ribbon Committee" version of the event.
>
> > > I doubt that there is a single LN who ever was a REAL CT......
>
> > b-i-n-g-o...
>
> Kooks are skeptical once more. What could be more meaningless?
next you'll be holding up DVP (aka Dave Reitzes jockstrap) too... LMAO
> >the current crop of Nutter's are certainly not here for
> > debate, they're incompetent.... (perhaps they too, now understand the
> > futility defending the WCR)
>
> What is futile is trying to talk sense to idjits.
then sashay right on out of here... or is it the substantial stipend,
working off a sentence, or simply no friends? North of the Charles
River crowd just have no where to turn, boxed in only thing to show
for the effort is the deflated WCR..... Gaw'd I do indeed feel sorry
for you...
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I've discovered that I simply have too many other things that occupy
my time in
preference to answering trolls.
Such as training Healy to fetch I'm guessing? As to having "young"
boys in your dojo bend over I'm guessing? Your reputation Holmes
speaks volumes. As we know you to also LIE considerably, nobody, I
repeat nobody really gives a shit about what you have in the way of an
itinerary. What HAS been established beyond anybodys reasonable doubt
is that YOU Holmes lie as much as Jesus/Robcap and Healy? Kinda like
the 3 stooges. You three are inseparable. Joined at the hip and the
mouth. Incapable of even ONE true statement. I'm beginning to
understand why YOU find it necessary to distance yourself from the
scum that Healy, Jesus/Robcap have proven to be. It's about your
reputation, correct Holmes? Have the balls to answer?
Bud
aeffects wrote:
> On Dec 27, 10:52 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > aeffects wrote:
> > > On Dec 27, 7:22 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > > On 26 Dec, 03:29, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > I'm trying to gauge the sucess of the scumbags to "convert" a JFK
> > > > > conspiracy believer into a Lone Neuter. Anyone ever hear of such a
> > > > > case ?
> >
> > > > > Just curious.
> >
> > > > Gil, I believe you will find that there are gutless idiots who at one
> > > > time thought they were CT's. In reality they were just mentally
> > > > challenged screwballs who became confused by all of the crap that was
> > > > being propagated by the government.
> >
> > > frankly, I think they're Lone Nut *cowards* who need attention,
> > > extreme attention.
> >
> > All I see from you kooks are claims and demands. Why does any ex-CT
> > LNer need to prove anything to you kooks? Gil asked a question. Some
> > people answered. If you didn`t like the answers given, I`d say thats
> > tough shit.
>
> demands for honesty... scary subject, eh?
No honest people on your side to hold a discussion with. You saw
what happened when Mark trounced Ben on that one question. Ben ran
behind his killfilter from him.
> There's 45 questions out
> there (not to mention 16 smoking guns).
If you want answers, get Bugliosi`s book. In your case, get it on
"Books on Tape", it has big words in it.
> And, you think you have a
> case? Get real dufus, LHO would walk..
Right to the chair.
> we ain't talking PR baby -
You`re talking nonsense. It`s all you ever talk.
> > > As infants perhaps they were dropped on their
> > > head[s] one too many times....I don't think they're confused at all. I
> > > think they prefer to have their thinking done for them.....
> >
> > Seeing the thinking you kooks do on your own, I`d suggest you find
> > someone to think for you.
>
> don't go near a courtroom toots...... the WCR evidence, testimony and
> exhibits did ALL the thinking we need -- as Harold Weisberg said so
> long ago.... "...that's all you need..."
Then get all your evidence, and convict a conspirator. You don`t
have anything that wouldn`t get tossed at the hearing. We all know
what happened when Garrison put kookshit in front of a jury.
> > > > Instead of getting off their lazy, low IQ, asses and doing some honest
> > > > research, they found it easier and more comfortable to accept Lyin
> > > > Bastard Johnson's, "Blue Ribbon Committee" version of the event.
> >
> > > > I doubt that there is a single LN who ever was a REAL CT......
> >
> > > b-i-n-g-o...
> >
> > Kooks are skeptical once more. What could be more meaningless?
>
> next you'll be holding up DVP (aka Dave Reitzes jockstrap) too... LMAO
You seem busy fondling the contents of Ben`s jockstrap.
> > >the current crop of Nutter's are certainly not here for
> > > debate, they're incompetent.... (perhaps they too, now understand the
> > > futility defending the WCR)
> >
> > What is futile is trying to talk sense to idjits.
>
> then sashay right on out of here... or is it the substantial stipend,
> working off a sentence, or simply no friends?
We`re not friends, junkie? You can be my lapdog, I`ll treat you
better than Ben does.
>North of the Charles
> River crowd just have no where to turn, boxed in only thing to show
> for the effort is the deflated WCR..... Gaw'd I do indeed feel sorry
> for you...
I feel for those that can make sense of what you just wrote.
> > > Not one, ONE of the current crop of Nutter's would climb up on a
> > > stage, turn on a microphone, face the audience and face-to-face debate
> > > JFK assassination issues.....
> >
> > When you kooks can put a feasible conspiracy scenario on the table
> > for consideration, perhaps we`ll have something to discuss. All we see
> > here are criticism of the WC and kook claims. Ben the Kook decides
> > that an exchange between LBJ and Kennedy had conspiratorial overtones.
> > Again, what could matter less how kooks choose to view these things?
> >
> > > > Although I guess it's possible... Because, there are after all some
> > > > well know intelligent people who have sunk into dementia.
> > > > Walt
> >
> > > ^5 Walt!
Healy gives Walt 5 stars, when Walt can`t even figure out what
window the shots were fired from. He`s a genius compared to Healy, who
can`t figure out who took the Zapruder film (hint: ZAPRUDER film).
Keep up the good work, kooks!
David Von Pein
LOL! LOL!
http://images.dvdtalk.com/images/smilies/rotflmao.gif
http://images.dvdtalk.com/images/smilies/rotflmao.gif
Bud,
Thanks for the great verbal birthday present represented by your last
quote above.
One more time for effect (and even for "AEffects") -- LOL!
And if anyone else wants to send me a birthday gift, feel free. (I
accept Visa, MasterCard, and PayPal. No gift wrapping needed. CS&L is
required, however, so I guess a gift from Healy, Holmes, and Walt is
out of the question.)
BTW, here's what President Kennedy was doing on the day I was
hatched...er, born:
www.jfklibrary.org/White+House+Diary/1961/December/27.htm?d=27&m=12&y=1961
Bud
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "Healy gives Walt 5 stars, when Walt can`t even figure out what window the shots were fired from. He`s a genius compared to Healy, who can`t figure out who took the Zapruder film (hint: ZAPRUDER film). Keep up the good work, kooks!" <<<
>
>
> LOL! LOL!
>
> http://images.dvdtalk.com/images/smilies/rotflmao.gif
>
> http://images.dvdtalk.com/images/smilies/rotflmao.gif
>
>
> Bud,
>
> Thanks for the great verbal birthday present represented by your last
> quote above.
You`re welcome, David, and Happy Birthday! Sucks to be a "near-
Christmas" baby, doesn`t it mean you get shorted, gfft-wise? I have a
niece who was born a few days before x-mas, and always was the victim
of "combo" presents, which usually amount to no better than a "gift
and a half" No fool her, she moved her birthday to the summer.
David Von Pein
Dang straight it does. (Why do you think I'm forced to shamelessly
solicit gifts over the Internet?) ~wink~
Walt
> David Von Pein wrote:
> > >>> "Healy gives Walt 5 stars, when Walt can`t even figure out what window the shots were fired from. He`s a genius compared to Healy, who can`t figure out who took the Zapruder film (hint: ZAPRUDER film). Keep up the good work, kooks!" <<<
>
> > LOL! LOL!
>
> >http://images.dvdtalk.com/images/smilies/rotflmao.gif
>
> >http://images.dvdtalk.com/images/smilies/rotflmao.gif
>
> > Bud,
>
> > Thanks for the great verbal birthday present represented by your last
> > quote above.
>
> You`re welcome, David, and Happy Birthday! Sucks to be a "near-
> Christmas" baby, doesn`t it mean you get shorted, gfft-wise?
Well it's not so bad being shorted gift-wise..... But it must hurt to
be shorted brain-wise, huh Pea brain?
I have a
> niece who was born a few days before x-mas, and always was the victim
> of "combo" presents, which usually amount to no better than a "gift
> and a half" No fool her, she moved her birthday to the summer.
>
>
>
> > One more time for effect (and even for "AEffects") -- LOL!
>
> > And if anyone else wants to send me a birthday gift, feel free. (I
> > accept Visa, MasterCard, and PayPal. No gift wrapping needed. CS&L is
> > required, however, so I guess a gift from Healy, Holmes, and Walt is
> > out of the question.)
>
> > BTW, here's what President Kennedy was doing on the day I was
> > hatched...er, born:
>
> >www.jfklibrary.org/White+House+Diary/1961/December/27.htm?d=27&m=12&y...- Hide quoted text -
Phil Ossofee
like the Magic bullet Theory, so why the hell are you guys so pompous?
Get this through your thickhead. No one in Dealey Plaza of the several
hundred witnesses said Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet,
and if you look at the earliest statements nobody up to the time of the
Warren Commission believed it either including FBI Agents, Doctors, and
Nurses.
Ben Holmes
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:b84446a9-3763-4e42...@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>On Dec 26, 4:29 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I'm trying to gauge the sucess of the scumbags to "convert" a JFK
>> conspiracy believer into a Lone Neuter. Anyone ever hear of such a
>> case ?
>>
>> Just curious.
>
>this board have admitted this as well.
And yet, none of these supposed "CT'ers" have ever been able to document this
alleged belief in the evidence - to this forum.
>Eventually, common sense won
>out over propaganda.
Sadly, it's the *evidence*, not "propaganda", that is persuasive. This explains
why many LNT'ers simply don't *know* the evidence in the detail that many CT'ers
on this forum do.
>The CTs on this board are beyond redemption. They
>are too entrenched in their beliefs.
The evidence hasn't changed. It's still there.
>They have embraced conspiracy
>with a religous fervor.
Indeed, faith is believing *without* the evidence to support it. LNT'ers and
trolls run from the evidence, as it doesn't support their faith.
>No amount of evidence to the contrary is ever
>going to convince them.
And in order to *prove* that - LNT'ers are going to refuse to provide any of
this alleged "evidence", and run away from the evidence provided by CT'ers.
>They will always find some half-assed excuse
>for rejecting each and every piece of evidence that clearly shows
>Oswald was the only shooter in DP.
>
> Then how come the FBI now admits they manufactured evidence
>against LHO?
> Hmmmmmm, answer that--if you can!
>
>> The purpose of the LNs on this
>board is not to make converts of the CTs. They are lost souls.
>
> The LN'ers are the true 'believers' in the righteousness and
>truthfulness and honesty of Government Uber alles (Government over all).
>
>> Our
>purpose is to make sure the lurkers and the fence sitters hear both
>sides of the issue. For too long, the CTs had the field to themselves
>and they were successful in convincing a majority of Americans of a
>myth. That cannot be allowed to continue.
>>
>
> Oh, S-U-R-E!
> That's why a consistently 80+% of the population polled still
>believe (since 1966), there *was* a conspiracy!
> Not only are you (LNers) a minority, but a tiny minority of "true
>believers" who won't budge from their incredible stubborness in seeing
>(looking at) mountains of new evidence (and lies) unearthed since Sept. 24,
>1964.
>
> There are none so blind than those who will not see.
Yep... and none so dishonest, either...
robcap...@netscape.com
<sector_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 7:27 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 5:45 pm, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki"
>
> > <sector_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 26, 9:36 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article <071df9b1-9ce5-4602-a5e8-5eb664706...@f52g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Gil Jesus says...
>
> > > > >I'm trying to gauge the sucess of the scumbags to "convert" a JFK
> > > > >conspiracy believer into a Lone Neuter. Anyone ever hear of such a
> > > > >case ?
>
> > > > >Just curious.
>
> > > > of them have been able to document it.
>
> > > When forced to choose, go LN 51%, CT 49% because the CT's have
> > > countless
> > > theories about countless individs. with no end in sight.
>
> > > It always seemed that LBJ had to be involved, given the venality
> > > sufficent motive.
>
> > Proof not there? You obviously have not read how he controlled the
> > ENTIRE investigation start to finish, why? Please. He hated JFK and
> > was tracking him since WWII and he knew JFK was going to make him
> > retire, and he hated RFK. No proof, now that is funny.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
"I want that sob killed and I want it done in Dallas. That's an
order."
I was talking about Hoover, you added the LBJ part. I think LBJ went
along with it, but I'm still not 100% sure if LBJ concocted the hit or
not. Hoover definitely KNEW JFK was in danger as the FBI had gotten
quite a few thefts, and if the Walter telex is true, they had definite
proof just days before. Throw in Chicago and Tampa (Miami too, that
is why they used a helicopter instead of a motorcade) and you have a
definite sign something was up. Add in the rumors on the street in
Texas that a hit was going to happen and you can see it was NOT the
work of a lone nut.
robcap...@netscape.com
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b84446a9-3763-4e42...@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 26, 4:29 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > conspiracy believer into a Lone Neuter. Anyone ever hear of such a
> > case ?
>
> > Just curious.
>
"Yes, I was a CT. Dale Myers was a CT. I believe several of the LNs on
this board have admitted this as well. Eventually, common sense won
out over propaganda."
You LNers really need to get with it and start to learn the meaning of
the word propaganda. It is designed to be used with STATE controlled
MEDIA, not individuals in books, articles or on this board. Anything
that gives you a choice is NOT propaganda in the truest form, it can
still have an effect to be sure, but it is does NOT provide continual
exposure to the same message to the masses. ALL things that state a
conspiracy was likely are forced into a choice medium. You can read,
watch or listen IF YOU WANT TO, but with the official theory this is
different. When ALL the MEDIA pronounces the SAME conclusion that LHO
did it and did it by himself, you have no choice to listen over time.
It is taught in schools, albeit some brave professors at the college
level (and I imagine some in other grades) venture out on the
conspiracy limb, that LHO did and did it by himself and that no other
conclusion is REALISTIC. This is the definition of propaganda. You
need to learn the difference. Goebbles did not use propaganda on a "by
choice" method and he is considered the father of this tool.
"The CTs on this board are beyond redemption. They are too entrenched
in their beliefs."
As if LNers aren't?
"They have embraced conspiracy with a religous fervor. No amount of
evidence to the contrary is ever going to convince them."
Maybe because there is NO evidence that shows LHO did the shootings,
let alone all by himself.
"They will always find some half-assed excuse for rejecting each and
every piece of evidence that clearly shows Oswald was the only shooter
in DP."
The only thing that is half-assed is your evidence.
>Then how come the FBI now admits they manufactured evidence
>against LHO?
> Hmmmmmm, answer that--if you can!
>
> > The purpose of the LNs on this
>
> board is not to make converts of the CTs. They are lost souls.
>
"The LN'ers are the true 'believers' in the righteousness and
truthfulness and honesty of Government Uber alles (Government over
all)."
It is funny he uses a German phrase to demonstrate his belief in his
government. It was usually used in terms of the country however,
"Deutschland Uber Alles", mean Germany over everything. It called for
the dedication of each citizen to put the country first, even to the
detriment of their family and themselves. This is not how the US
works, true there are very brave men and women who serve their
country, but they are not supposed to be asked to turn in their family
if they don't agree with the government like Nazi Germany. It is a
bad reference.
"Our purpose is to make sure the lurkers and the fence sitters hear
both sides of the issue. For too long, the CTs had the field to
themselves and they were successful in convincing a majority of
Americans of a myth. That cannot be allowed to continue."
What country do you live in? The CTers have had the field to
themselves? We can barley get something on television saying there
was a conspiracy. Only a handful of brave radio people discuss a
conspiracy. I don't know where you have been living for the last 44
years but the official theory is everywhere and the CT is excluded in
most places beyond the Internet.
>
>
>
> Oh, S-U-R-E!
> That's why a consistently 80+% of the population polled still
> believe (since 1966), there *was* a conspiracy!
> Not only are you (LNers) a minority, but a tiny minority of "true
> believers" who won't budge from their incredible stubborness in seeing
> (looking at) mountains of new evidence (and lies) unearthed since Sept. 24,
> 1964.
>
"There are none so blind than those who will not see."
Warren Commission, 9/18/64
Bill
wrote:
>I'm trying to gauge the sucess of the scumbags to "convert" a JFK
>conspiracy believer into a Lone Neuter. Anyone ever hear of such a
>case ?
>
>Just curious.
I'm new to this board (and frankly, I doubt I'll hang around: lots of
name-calling and precious little respectful exchange of ideas).
Anyway, I believed in a conspiracy in the JFK assination from when I
first saw the Zapruder film (early 70s, I think). But about 4 years
ago I became convinced that Oswald acted alone. The experience was
akin to losing one's religion - I DO think that's what the conspiracy
theory has become.
I'm not going to recite the reasons for my 'conversion' - that would
just open the doors to pointless re-statements of 'articles of faith'
- perhaps on both sides. Suffice to say that I am content and
satisfied in my own mind that Oswald acted alone. YMMV.
Bill
Ben Holmes
>
>On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 01:29:59 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus <gjj...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I'm trying to gauge the sucess of the scumbags to "convert" a JFK
>>conspiracy believer into a Lone Neuter. Anyone ever hear of such a
>>case ?
>>
>>Just curious.
>
>I'm new to this board (and frankly, I doubt I'll hang around: lots of
>name-calling and precious little respectful exchange of ideas).
There's no "respectful" exchange of ideas because LNT'ers (and that apparently
includes you) simply refuse to accept the known evidence.
Nor do LNT'ers even *try* to explain the evidence - they can't. It simply
doesn't support the WCR's theory.
I'd offer to allow you to explain some of the evidence, but not only are the
chances are that you simply don't know enough of the issues, but you've already
stated (below) that you aren't going to do so...
>Anyway, I believed in a conspiracy in the JFK assination from when I
>first saw the Zapruder film (early 70s, I think). But about 4 years
>ago I became convinced that Oswald acted alone. The experience was
>akin to losing one's religion - I DO think that's what the conspiracy
>theory has become.
On the contrary... the CT'ers on *this* forum believe in the historical fact of
conspiracy *BASED ON THE EVIDENCE*... and the LNT'ers base their faith on the
WCR.
Indeed, few LNT'ers are even knowledgeable on evidential issues beyond what the
WCR put forth.
Tell us, if Oswald alone did it - why did both WCR & HSCA *PROVABLY* lie about
their own collected evidence? (although, being a LNT'er - you probably have no
clue about what I just stated)
>I'm not going to recite the reasons for my 'conversion' - that would
>just open the doors to pointless re-statements of 'articles of faith'
>- perhaps on both sides.
This is quite common... CT'ers such as myself, and indeed most of them on this
forum - have no problems *whatsoever* citing and quoting the evidence that
supports our every statement... and LNT'ers can do nothing but duck and run.
Which is indeed, what you're doing now.
Making assertions, refusing to provide any proof of it, and stating in advance
that you have no intention of doing so.
If you're interested in supporting your faith, without any of the heartache of
being forced to confront (and inevitably lie about) the evidence, I suggest you
go to the censored forum on the JFK assassination. The censored forum is
pro-WCR, and will not allow anyone to point out that someone else is lying about
the evidence.
>Suffice to say that I am content and
>satisfied in my own mind that Oswald acted alone. YMMV.
How does it feel to be in such a small minority of Americans? Polls have
*always* placed a majority of Americans in the conspiracy camp, and indeed, have
risen as high as 90% of Americans who believe in a conspiracy.
>Bill
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <a4jan3hd17lu554ej...@4ax.com>, Bill says...
> >
> >On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 01:29:59 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus <gjj...@aol.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>I'm trying to gauge the sucess of the scumbags to "convert" a JFK
> >>conspiracy believer into a Lone Neuter. Anyone ever hear of such a
> >>case ?
> >>
> >>Just curious.
> >
> >I'm new to this board (and frankly, I doubt I'll hang around: lots of
> >name-calling and precious little respectful exchange of ideas).
>
>
> There's no "respectful" exchange of ideas because LNT'ers (and that apparently
> includes you) simply refuse to accept the known evidence.
By "known" evidence, Ben mean interpreting information in a kooky
manner.
> Nor do LNT'ers even *try* to explain the evidence - they can't. It simply
> doesn't support the WCR's theory.
Sure it does. Thats why the kooks cannot put anything reasonable on
the table for consideration. When kook opinions are floated, it is
evident that they are kooky.
> I'd offer to allow you to explain some of the evidence, but not only are the
> chances are that you simply don't know enough of the issues, but you've already
> stated (below) that you aren't going to do so...
Kooks look at the wrong things, and draw the wrong conclusions fro
the information they look at. Ben will make kook claims, but if
someone challenges him to support his claims, he merely killfiles the
challenger. He is a pussy afraid to support his own words.
> >Anyway, I believed in a conspiracy in the JFK assination from when I
> >first saw the Zapruder film (early 70s, I think). But about 4 years
> >ago I became convinced that Oswald acted alone. The experience was
> >akin to losing one's religion - I DO think that's what the conspiracy
> >theory has become.
>
> On the contrary... the CT'ers on *this* forum believe in the historical fact of
> conspiracy *BASED ON THE EVIDENCE*...
Based on kook interpretation of the evidence.
> and the LNT'ers base their faith on the
> WCR.
It`s easy to tell Oz was guilty with just the evidence developed by
the DPD.
> Indeed, few LNT'ers are even knowledgeable on evidential issues beyond what the
> WCR put forth.
Yah, they don`t generally read the crackpot conspiracy books the
kooks devour.
> Tell us, if Oswald alone did it - why did both WCR & HSCA *PROVABLY* lie about
> their own collected evidence?
Why can`t Ben prove this claim? He can`t establish one purposeful
deception. All he needs is a memo from one WC member to another
plotting deception. We are only treated to tortured interpretations.
> (although, being a LNT'er - you probably have no
> clue about what I just stated)
A kook claim. They are a dime a dozen here.
> >I'm not going to recite the reasons for my 'conversion' - that would
> >just open the doors to pointless re-statements of 'articles of faith'
> >- perhaps on both sides.
>
> This is quite common... CT'ers such as myself, and indeed most of them on this
> forum - have no problems *whatsoever* citing and quoting the evidence that
> supports our every statement...
It isn`t the evidence that is the problem in this case, it`s the
kook interpretation of the evidence. LN try to explain the evidence to
the kooks, they resist, favoring their own kooky interpretations.
>and LNT'ers can do nothing but duck and run.
> Which is indeed, what you're doing now.
Amazing that when Ben opts not to discuss the case with
individuals, it`s considered ok. Wgen others do the same thing, it`s
labeled "cutting and running". Same shit, different day with the
hypocrite Holmes.
> Making assertions, refusing to provide any proof of it,
Like you did in you discussions with Mark and myself.
> and stating in advance
> that you have no intention of doing so.
Stating in advance he has no desire to discuss his conclusions in
this atmosphere.
> If you're interested in supporting your faith, without any of the heartache of
> being forced to confront (and inevitably lie about) the evidence, I suggest you
> go to the censored forum on the JFK assassination. The censored forum is
> pro-WCR, and will not allow anyone to point out that someone else is lying about
> the evidence.
Whereas Ben killfiles those who challenge his faith.
> >Suffice to say that I am content and
> >satisfied in my own mind that Oswald acted alone. YMMV.
>
>
> How does it feel to be in such a small minority of Americans?
As are you. Most feel Oz was a shooter.
> Polls have
> *always* placed a majority of Americans in the conspiracy camp, and indeed, have
> risen as high as 90% of Americans who believe in a conspiracy.
Still another lie Ben refuses to support.
> >Bill
Todd W. Vaughan
> On Dec 26, 9:21 pm, "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 9:36 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article <071df9b1-9ce5-4602-a5e8-5eb664706...@f52g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Gil Jesus says...
>
> > > >conspiracy believer into a Lone Neuter. Anyone ever hear of such a
> > > >case ?
>
> > > >Just curious.
>
> > > of them have been able to document it.
>
>
> > Really Benny?
>
> > I used to be a CT'er.
>
> > And I can document it.
>
> you're full of shit.... who do you think your trying to fool?
Care to put your money where your mouth is?
>You've
> been a .john Nutter since day one.... hell, he's probably your
> handler.... LMAO!- Hide quoted text -
Todd W. Vaughan
> In article <83d1251f-00c1-4a3c-a048-2a180855d...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Todd W. Vaughan says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 26, 9:36=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
> >> In article <071df9b1-9ce5-4602-a5e8-5eb664706...@f52g2000hsa.googlegroups.=
> >com>,
> >> Gil Jesus says...
>
> >> >I'm trying to gauge the sucess of the scumbags to "convert" a JFK
> >> >conspiracy believer into a Lone Neuter. Anyone ever hear of such a
> >> >case ?
>
> >> >Just curious.
>
> >t none
> >> of them have been able to document it.
>
> >None?
>
> >Really Benny?
>
> >I used to be a CT'er.
>
> >And I can document it.
>
> Intimidation I've posted about - this "documentation" seems to be MIA.-
Oh, really?
Care to put your money where your mouth is?
Todd W. Vaughan
wrote:
> In article <9c297023-0a58-4659-941a-255e3994f...@x29g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Put your money where your mouth is, Ben.
- Hide quoted text -
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Holmes doesn't post anywhere but here, why is that dwarf??? We know
the reason, in any other forum you would be cornered to show proof of
your idiotic assertions. You wouldn't be able to call others liars and
tell them their running away because that is what you do everytime
your confronted. You can stick that killfilter where the sun doesn't
shine. It's a lame excuse and cowardly way out of debating or
answering any questions asked of you. BTW, you'll have to move Healy
and Chicos heads out of the way before you stuff that killfilter.
Bill
<ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
Here we go - you know virtually nothing about me yet you are very
comfortable making numerous assumptions and allowing those assumptions
to form the basis of your approach to me.
Where I come from (which is not America, by the way, just ONE of your
erroneous assumptions) what you are exhibiting is called prejudice.
I responded with honesty and integrity to a post that presented itself
as a genuine desire to know if anyone had 'converted' from one side to
the other. Since I have done so, I thought my experience would be of
interest to the original poster. I was interested in declaring that
experience for the benefit of that poster - I was not (and am not)
interested in re-hashing well trodden territory with people who
exhibit blatant prejudice against anyone who dares to disagree with
their 'sacred' position.
I was in the minority when I first believed in a conspiracy and if I
am in the minority now believing that Oswald acted alone so be it.
Being in the minority doesn't frighten me; in fact, I rarely even
think of it and certainly wouldn't allow it to influence what I
believe or think.
Bill.
Miss Rita
> How does it feel to be in such a small minority of Americans? Polls have
> *always* placed a majority of Americans in the conspiracy camp, and indeed, have
> risen as high as 90% of Americans who believe in a conspiracy.
Polls shouldn't mean a whole lot to anyone who wishes to make up his
or her own mind.
I'm pretty much impressed with most of your/s willingness to discuss
"evidence," but when you get to the "more people are on my side" you
lose credit. If you were half as much convinced of your belief as you
state, you wouldn't have to rely on polls.
I don't know if it was a conspiracy or not, and I'm most likely with
the "majority" of Americans on that. I really don't feel anything.
Rita
>
> >Bill
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
How does it feel to be in such a small minority of Americans? Polls
have
*always* placed a majority of Americans in the conspiracy camp, and
indeed, have
risen as high as 90% of Americans who believe in a conspiracy.
One more blatant lie by Holmes. It's neverending. The lies from
Holmes, Jesus/robcap/Holmes just keeeeeeeeeee on coming. So, I'll ask
Homes what he always asks others? Why does an honest man have to lie
Holmes? You must know the above figure you quote is a LIE. Or, do
you prefer distortion? I posted this thread earlier this year.
Holmes? Not as sharp as you thought you were. Or, you are
deliberately lying AGAIN.
Ben Holmes
Todd W. Vaughan says...
>
>On Dec 27, 9:35=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>> In article <83d1251f-00c1-4a3c-a048-2a180855d...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.c=
>om>,
>> Todd W. Vaughan says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>:
>> >> In article <071df9b1-9ce5-4602-a5e8-5eb664706...@f52g2000hsa.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> Gil Jesus says...
>>
>> >> >I'm trying to gauge the sucess of the scumbags to "convert" a JFK
>> >> >conspiracy believer into a Lone Neuter. Anyone ever hear of such a
>> >> >case ?
>>
>> >> >Just curious.
>>
> bu=3D
>> >t none
>> >> of them have been able to document it.
>>
>> >None?
>>
>> >Really Benny?
>>
>> >I used to be a CT'er.
>>
>> >And I can document it.
>>
>> And yet, just like the mythical files you 'have' that can refute the FBI
>> Intimidation I've posted about - this "documentation" seems to be MIA.-
>
>
>
>Oh, really?
So far... and, quite probably, and based on your past history, far into the
future as well.
>Care to put your money where your mouth is?
My "mouth" has spoken only the self-evident truth. It's up to *you* to produce
the evidence, not I.
And come to the Encino Judo Club... I'll have cash on hand.
Ben Holmes
Todd W. Vaughan says...
>
>On Dec 27, 10:18=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com>
>wrote:
>> In article <9c297023-0a58-4659-941a-255e3994f...@x29g2000prg.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> aeffects says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 26, 9:21 pm, "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Dec 26, 9:36 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> In article
>> >><071df9b1-9ce5-4602-a5e8-5eb664706...@f52g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> > Gil Jesus says...
>>
>> >> > >I'm trying to gauge the sucess of the scumbags to "convert" a JFK
>> >> > >conspiracy believer into a Lone Neuter. Anyone ever hear of such a
>> >> > >case ?
>>
>> >> > >Just curious.
>>
>- but
>> >>none
>> >> > of them have been able to document it.
>>
>> >> None?
>>
>> >> Really Benny?
>>
>> >> I used to be a CT'er.
>>
>> >> And I can document it.
>>
>> >you're full of shit.... who do you think your trying to fool? You've
>> >been a .john Nutter since day one.... hell, he's probably your
>> >handler.... LMAO!
>>
> - yet
>> no LNT'er has yet done so.
>>
>t one
>> time that someone was a CT'er, and is now a LNT'er - yet no LNT'er has yet=
> done
>> so.
>>
>> Toddy can make all the *claims* he want's to... but my statement stands:
>> "many LNT'ers claim that they used to be a CT'er - but none of them have
>> been able to document it." This isn't the first time that Toddy has
>> claimed to 'be able to' document something, yet continually fails to do so.
>
>
>
>Put your money where your mouth is, Ben.
My statement has yet to be proven wrong. Let me know how much money you care to
hand over...
Ben Holmes
I didn't make a single statement about you that isn't evidenced in your own
words.
>Where I come from (which is not America, by the way, just ONE of your
>erroneous assumptions)
Tell us, in what country was the Zapruder film available in the early 1970's?
It *was* quite probable that you'd have been able to see it around that
timeframe as an American - so it wasn't an unreasonable assumption.
>what you are exhibiting is called prejudice.
Also known as experience, when it comes to this topic. LNT'ers are dishonest
when they *do* speak to the evidence, and more often than not, refuse to do so
to begin with... exactly as you're doing.
You label it prejudice, I'd label it experience.
>I responded with honesty and integrity
LOL!
That has yet to be demonstrated.
"honesty and integrity" to me (and granted, others might take it differently)
refer to a man's ability to support his own words... you've already asserted
that you'll refuse to do so.
>to a post that presented itself
>as a genuine desire to know if anyone had 'converted' from one side to
>the other. Since I have done so, I thought my experience would be of
>interest to the original poster.
I'm *still* waiting for someone to come forth that can *PROVE* such an
assertion.
>I was interested in declaring that
>experience for the benefit of that poster - I was not (and am not)
>interested in re-hashing well trodden territory with people who
>exhibit blatant prejudice against anyone who dares to disagree with
>their 'sacred' position.
It's not "disagreement"... you can disagree all you like, and it won't bother me
in the least. I disagree with *many* of the other CT'ers here... in fact, I'd
be hard pressed to name a *SINGLE* CT'er that posts here that has not, at one
time or another, posted something that I disagreed with.
The emphasis one places on a particular piece of evidence, vice another, can
lead in many other different directions.
What CT'ers have in common is the ability to be honest with the evidence, just
as LNT'ers like yourself are either ignorant of the evidence, or will willingly
lie about it.
Which category you fit into is hard to say - since you refuse to debate the
evidence... hard to tell if you simply don't know it, or will quickly lie about
it if you speak on it.
>I was in the minority when I first believed in a conspiracy
Can you produce a poll from your country documenting that?
In America, a belief in a conspiracy has *ALWAYS* been the majority viewpoint.
I'm completely unaware of any country in which your statement would be a
truthful one - but I'm willing to examine any poll numbers you can cite.
>and if I
>am in the minority now believing that Oswald acted alone so be it.
>Being in the minority doesn't frighten me; in fact, I rarely even
>think of it and certainly wouldn't allow it to influence what I
>believe or think.
>
>Bill.
Unless you're willing to defend your beliefs, for what reason would you speak up
and assert them?
Ben Holmes
Miss Rita says...
>
>On Dec 28, 3:57 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>
>> How does it feel to be in such a small minority of Americans? Polls have
>> *always* placed a majority of Americans in the conspiracy camp, and indeed,
>> have risen as high as 90% of Americans who believe in a conspiracy.
>
>Polls shouldn't mean a whole lot to anyone who wishes to make up his
>or her own mind.
Nope... but it's certainly a point worth raising.
Even if *you* don't think so.
>I'm pretty much impressed with most of your/s willingness to discuss
>"evidence,"
That alone says volumes.
You clearly don't believe what the evidence has to say - or you'd not have put
quotes around the term.
>but when you get to the "more people are on my side" you
>lose credit. If you were half as much convinced of your belief as you
>state, you wouldn't have to rely on polls.
Quite frankly, I've *never* met someone who believes the WCR in person.
And based on my interest in the topic, I've discussed it with perhaps several
dozen people over the years.
While the number surely isn't over 50 people - and wouldn't be much of a poll, I
find it quite convincing that it matches well with the poll numbers I've seen in
the media.
>I don't know if it was a conspiracy or not, and I'm most likely with
>the "majority" of Americans on that. I really don't feel anything.
That is *NOT* the position of the "majority" of Americans.
Nor can you produce any poll that would support such a position.
>Rita
>
>>
>> >Bill
aeffects
wrote:
sitdown toots-e-roll... leave the guys alone. Remember, you don't like
men...
aeffects
oh and by-the-way... get your sorry ass off the seat and answer the 45
questions you idiot. then and ONLY then will YOU be considered debate
material -- till then you're living in a wet-dream (can a muncher live
a wet-dream? Only science can tell us.)
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <b1a64c5e-8182-4fa9...@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
> Miss Rita says...
> >
> >On Dec 28, 3:57 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
> >
> >> How does it feel to be in such a small minority of Americans? Polls have
> >> *always* placed a majority of Americans in the conspiracy camp, and indeed,
> >> have risen as high as 90% of Americans who believe in a conspiracy.
> >
> >Polls shouldn't mean a whole lot to anyone who wishes to make up his
> >or her own mind.
>
>
> Nope... but it's certainly a point worth raising.
And worth lying about, apparently. In Ben`s hands, polls are
nothing more than unsupported kook claims, as he has never produced
the polls that back him up.
> Even if *you* don't think so.
And you haven`t show a connection betwen what people believe and
the truth.
> >I'm pretty much impressed with most of your/s willingness to discuss
> >"evidence,"
>
>
> That alone says volumes.
>
> You clearly don't believe what the evidence has to say - or you'd not have put
> quotes around the term.
Or acknowledging the differing opinions of what constitutes
"evidence".
> >but when you get to the "more people are on my side" you
> >lose credit. If you were half as much convinced of your belief as you
> >state, you wouldn't have to rely on polls.
>
>
> Quite frankly, I've *never* met someone who believes the WCR in person.
Have you met anyone who read it?
> And based on my interest in the topic, I've discussed it with perhaps several
> dozen people over the years.
>
> While the number surely isn't over 50 people - and wouldn't be much of a poll, I
> find it quite convincing that it matches well with the poll numbers I've seen in
> the media.
The poll numbers you fail to produce, despite people asking you to
cite them for years?
> >I don't know if it was a conspiracy or not, and I'm most likely with
> >the "majority" of Americans on that. I really don't feel anything.
>
>
> That is *NOT* the position of the "majority" of Americans.
They feel Oz was a shooter. They seem to me to feel something fishy
occurred.
> Nor can you produce any poll that would support such a position.
What about the fact that Americans are not clammoring that these
conspirators be brought to justice? That speaks to a certain apathy.
> >Rita
> >
> >>
> >> >Bill
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Healy attacking another woman and calling her a lesbian. Ms Rita has
been here discussing this case since her first post. Healy took his
usual 2 minute break from sniffing Holmes ass to insult an innocent
poster who does not deserve it. Healys hatred for women is something
out of the ordinary. Could it be Healys wife LEFT HIM for another
woman? Was Healy abused as a child by his mother?? Or is it that Healy
is just mentally challanged and thinks the world owes him something?
Holmes? You preach of your integrity and honesty, how about telling
your ass sniffing slave to STFU. Does it make you feel more of a man
knowing you have a lapdog that follows you around on this board and
says the vile things he does to anyone that addresses you in a post?
Healy is already an embarrassment to humanity, apparently you admire
the fact that he makes you look like an embarrassment too.
37 posts in a row, and not one of them about the assassination. Healy
is in all forms of the word a "Worthless piece of rancid meat"
Walt
> On 28 Dec 2007 12:57:00 -0800, Ben Holmes
>
>
>
>
>
> <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 01:29:59 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com>
I don't know why you think you were ever a CT, Bill.... You may have
dabbled a bit and read some conspiracy books, looking for an easy
answer, but did you ever do any actual, honest to goodness,
research?? I would guess not, because anybody who is intellectually
honest, who has checked the records, cannot be a LNer.
Walt
Bill
<ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
The question was "Has anyone ever..." and my answer was "Yes, I
have..."
It was an honest answer and I reported it with integrity; whether you
think so or not is completely irrelevant.
The reasons for my conversion have more to do with reason than with
any particular evidence or interpretation of evidence. I'll explain a
portion of it (this is likely to get lengthy so I'll apologize up
front for that.)
I'm a retired Canadian police officer. In my 20+ year policing career
I served with three forces - from the smallest to the largest in my
country. Professionally, through investigations, courses and seminars,
I've intereacted with hundreds of different police forces across North
America. Personally, through travel for vacations or to visit family I
always took along some shoulder flashes and stopped in at the local
police station to meet with the local boys. Thousands of cops,
hundreds of forces - some big, some small, well-funded, under-funded,
some with questionable histories, some with sterling histories,
Canadian, American, British - every type of western police force
imagineable.
My point is, I know cops.
And cops love to talk. More than just about anything else, cops love
to talk. There are three excellent ways to spread a message:
telephone, television, tell-a-cop. You may think your wife's bridge
club is a gossipy bunch of hens but they are nothing compared to cops.
You may think the guys at the barbershop would rather talk than eat,
but they are amateurs compared to cops. You may think the kids at the
pool hall were innoculated with a record-player needle but they are
mutes compared to cops.
Cops L-O-V-E to talk. And they will talk to just about anyone. They
talk to each other, to their friends and families, to suspects, to
prisoners they are transporting, to citizens on the street, they even
talk to lawyers. If there's no one else around, cops will talk to
themselves.
Now, all JFK conspiracy theories - from the kooky to the inane - have
at least one thing in common: they all involve police officers.
And if you tell me that a bunch of cops could have inside knowledge -
even a little bit - of something as juicy as that and keep it quiet,
for forty years... you must be high.
Wouldn't happen. Couldn't happen. Never in a million years. To keep
them quiet you'd have to kill them all AND you'd have to do so
immediately because they wouldn't be able to keep their mouths shut
long enough for you to re-load.
Any conspiracy theory requires the impossible: cops who know how to
keep their mouths shut.
muc...@gmail.com
True enough, Justme, but how is that you're responding to Healy via
one of Bud's posts? I seem to have noticed the same pattern before, so
perhaps your newsreader is playing tricks on you(?)
-Mark
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <01007f1a-e23e-40c7-9dce-f97f4f519...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Calm down, little fellow. I'm sure Todd is perfectly willing to
consider other methods of payment.
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mark,
I just hit reply at the end of the last post, in error. I wasn't
responding to Healy, I was just making a comment and then addressed
the question to Holmes. I've always hit reply on the last post in the
thread. Thats why it looks like I was responding to Buds post. My
error, sorry if it confused you.
Gil Jesus
> And if you tell me that a bunch of cops could have inside knowledge -
> even a little bit - of something as juicy as that and keep it quiet,
> for forty years... you must be high.
>
> Wouldn't happen. Couldn't happen. Never in a million years. To keep
> them quiet you'd have to kill them all AND you'd have to do so
> immediately because they wouldn't be able to keep their mouths shut
> long enough for you to re-load.
>
> Any conspiracy theory requires the impossible: cops who know how to
> keep their mouths shut.-
Sorry Bill, but you're full of shit. I too was a police officer in the
US. We kept our mouths shut. On my first training patrol, my trainer
told me "You're going to see a lot of things out here involving
brother officers. What you see, you keep to yourself."
In one station was a motto up on the wall, "What you see here and what
you say here, when you leave, let it stay here."
So don't give me that bullshit that cops have diarrhea of the mouth.
Ask Serpico about police corruption and who talks.
Another incentive for them to stay quiet issomething we have in the US
called the "statute of limitations". Kennedy was a victim of the crime
of MURDER in the state of Texas and for MURDER, there is no statute of
limitations. In other words, if evidence surfaced 50 years from the
time of the crime and the perpetrator was still alive, he could be
tried for the crime.
Ask Byron De La Beckwith.
So don't tell me that the prospect of being tried and convicted for
murder, which carries the death penalty in Texas, isn't an incentive
for ANYONE who was involved in that murder to keep their mouths shut.
That's just plain Billshit.
Miss Rita
> In article <b1a64c5e-8182-4fa9-b5ee-c5f1e1089...@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
> Miss Rita says...
> >I don't know if it was a conspiracy or not, and I'm most likely with
> >the "majority" of Americans on that. I really don't feel anything.
>
> That is *NOT* the position of the "majority" of Americans.
>
> Nor can you produce any poll that would support such a position.
There is not many, if any, "Americans" alive who _know_ of a
conspiracy to kill Kennedy. "You" don't know, either, which is my
point. If you did you wouldn't need polls. Polls don't matter. At one
time the "majority" of people believed the earth was flat.
Otherwise, I don't give a flying damn who "believes" what about who
killed Kennedy.
Perhaps if you weren't such an obsessive you could actually
comprehend that which is written instead of defending a poll which is
best left stuck up your behind.
Rita
justm...@gmail.com
Bill, don't let what Jesus says bother you. Gil Jesus was a FAILURE as
a police officer. He quit because he was AFRAID of getting hurt and
putting his life on the line for his community. He's never served in
the arm forces, and from the looks of his past has been nothing but a
big mammas boy. He likes to toot his own horn, probably found it in
the junk car parts he sells out of his yard LOL. Go away Chico,
you're a bigot and a failure.
Ben Holmes
Anytime you give a LNT'er opinion - then immediately assert that you have no
intention of getting into any debate on the actual evidence in the case - you
aren't going to impress anyone *here* with your alleged "honesty and integrity".
Would you believe such an assertion coming from me?
Would you actually accept that I'm "honest and have integrity" if I told you
that there WAS a conspiracy, then refuse to support that statement with proof?
>The reasons for my conversion have more to do with reason than with
>any particular evidence or interpretation of evidence.
Ah! The truth comes out!
You're basing your faith on SPECULATION rather than evidence.
I'm beginning to suspect that you don't even have the basic knowledge that the
WCR provided.
Tell us, have you *read* the WCR?
>I'll explain a portion of it (this is likely to get lengthy so I'll
>apologize up front for that.)
Lengthy is never a problem. Accuracy and ability to cite are all that's worth
it on this forum...
Wow!
*This* is your evidence that there cannot have been a conspiracy???
That a few cops were too smart to implicate themselves??
If you want to impress anyone on *this* group with your knowledge of the case,
you can try the 45 Questions. I'll be happy to repost 'em if you can't find
'em.
Or try something simple... the 16 Smoking Guns are still waiting for any LNT'er
to respond to.
Ben Holmes
Miss Rita says...
>
>On Dec 29, 1:09=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>> In article <b1a64c5e-8182-4fa9-b5ee-c5f1e1089...@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.c=
>om>,
>> Miss Rita says...
>
>> >I don't know if it was a conspiracy or not, and I'm most likely with
>> >the "majority" of Americans on that. I really don't feel anything.
>>
>> That is *NOT* the position of the "majority" of Americans.
And, I might note, has *never* been. Each and every single poll *EVER* taken
has shown conspiracy to be the majority opinion.
>> Nor can you produce any poll that would support such a position.
>
>There is not many, if any, "Americans" alive who _know_ of a
>conspiracy to kill Kennedy. "You" don't know, either,
Actually, I do. The evidence is quite overwhelming if you examine it.
>which is my
>point. If you did you wouldn't need polls. Polls don't matter. At one
>time the "majority" of people believed the earth was flat.
Sadly, you've tried to imply that the majority of Americans are scratching their
head.
Yet you can't cite any poll that shows such. You *ARE NOT* "most likely with
the 'majority' of Americans on that"
This is really simple - MOST AMERICANS BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY.
It's really just that simple.
>Otherwise, I don't give a flying damn who "believes" what about who
>killed Kennedy.
Of course not... the poll numbers aren't something that you're comfortable with.
It must be a shock to realize what a minority your in.
>Perhaps if you weren't such an obsessive you could actually
>comprehend that which is written instead of defending a poll which is
>best left stuck up your behind.
The poll numbers are what they are. I can certainly realize why you despise
them, but a belief in a conspiracy has ALWAYS been the opinion of the majority.
>Rita
>
>>
>> >Rita
>>
>> >> >Bill
Bill
<papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>I don't know why you think you were ever a CT, Bill.... You may have
>dabbled a bit and read some conspiracy books, looking for an easy
>answer, but did you ever do any actual, honest to goodness,
>research?? I would guess not, because anybody who is intellectually
>honest, who has checked the records, cannot be a LNer.
>
>Walt
>
>
>
Well, I suppose that really depends on how you define 'research' I
used to read and compare anything I could get my hands on regarding
the murder of JFK - I suppose that qualifies as secondary research. I
made two trips to Dealey Plaza (it's smaller than I imagined it to be)
- the first to get a general 'lay of the land' and to visit the Sixth
Floor Museum; the second to satisfy myself about certain questions
that came to mind as a result of the first trip - I suppose that
qualifies as primary research.
But, as someone with professional experience as a detective, I don't
think anything that we 'non-professionals' do really qualifies as
research. I would say 'review' more correctly describes it.
After I retired, I began to take a broader view of things generally.
Not overnight, not all at once, but gradually I drifted more towards a
longer view of things. And as I stepped away from the mind-numbing
detail of all the evidence - real and imagined - and took a more
overall view, reason began to creep into my thinking.
Shocking, I know.
And the more I applied 'reasonableness' to the entirety of the murder
the more I became convinced that Oswald acted alone.
Generally, I try to avoid sweeping statements but since you indulged I
will allow myself to as well - anybody who is intellectually honest
and applies the long view of reasonableness will eventually conclude
that Oswald acted alone. That's my opinion - YMMV.
Bill.
Bill
wrote:
>Sorry Bill, but you're full of shit. I too was a police officer in the
>US. We kept our mouths shut. On my first training patrol, my trainer
>told me "You're going to see a lot of things out here involving
>brother officers. What you see, you keep to yourself."
>
>In one station was a motto up on the wall, "What you see here and what
>you say here, when you leave, let it stay here."
>
>So don't give me that bullshit that cops have diarrhea of the mouth.
>Ask Serpico about police corruption and who talks.
>
>Another incentive for them to stay quiet issomething we have in the US
>called the "statute of limitations". Kennedy was a victim of the crime
>of MURDER in the state of Texas and for MURDER, there is no statute of
>limitations. In other words, if evidence surfaced 50 years from the
>time of the crime and the perpetrator was still alive, he could be
>tried for the crime.
>
>Ask Byron De La Beckwith.
>
>So don't tell me that the prospect of being tried and convicted for
>murder, which carries the death penalty in Texas, isn't an incentive
>for ANYONE who was involved in that murder to keep their mouths shut.
>
>That's just plain Billshit.
Sorry, but you're just wrong. Cops are gossips - and the very worst
kind of gossips.
Oh, they/we claim otherwise - trainers say things - plaques get
mounted on walls. But if you have spent any amount of time around cops
- Canadian, American, British, it doesn't matter - then you know they
love to talk more than just about anything else.
Bill.
Miss Rita
wrote:
> In article <9f78820a-a611-453b-9ec1-638919889...@z26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> Miss Rita says...
> >There is not many, if any, "Americans" alive who _know_ of a
> >conspiracy to kill Kennedy. "You" don't know, either,
>
> Actually, I do. The evidence is quite overwhelming if you examine it.
Actually, if you did know, you wouldn't be relying on polls. You don't
"know." You believe you know, but you don't.
I don't need to cite a poll which states that a majority of Americans
don't know of a conspiracy. You show me textbook "fact," and then I'll
concede that you and I both "know." Until then, you are arguing what
you believe and not what you know.
> >which is my
> >point. If you did you wouldn't need polls. Polls don't matter. At one
> >time the "majority" of people believed the earth was flat.
>
> Sadly, you've tried to imply that the majority of Americans are scratching their
> head.
I stated clearly that the majority of Americans don't "know" of a
conspiracy to kill Kennedy.
They don't. Live with it, and stop trying to change what I say.
Actions like that on your part also degrade your position.
> Yet you can't cite any poll that shows such. You *ARE NOT* "most likely with
> the 'majority' of Americans on that"
>
> This is really simple - MOST AMERICANS BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY.
>
> It's really just that simple.
Are you really so obtuse that you can't comprehend the difference
between "knowing" and believing?
Hot damn, I believe you are.
> >Otherwise, I don't give a flying damn who "believes" what about who
> >killed Kennedy.
>
> Of course not... the poll numbers aren't something that you're comfortable with.
Oh, great, now you claim to know my comfort level.
> It must be a shock to realize what a minority your in.
What minority?
> >Perhaps if you weren't such an obsessive you could actually
> >comprehend that which is written instead of defending a poll which is
> >best left stuck up your behind.
>
> The poll numbers are what they are. I can certainly realize why you despise
> them, but a belief in a conspiracy has ALWAYS been the opinion of the majority.
The poll numbers are irrelevant until you can show "fact."
Got it?
No, I didn't think you did.
Rita
Bill
<ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
Lift your head above the minutae of evidence (real or imagined) and
apply reason - not speculation but reason - and you may be surprised
at what you are able to see.
Or not - it really doesn't matter to me. I stopped in to give a
straight forward answer to what I thought was a straight-forward
question.
Bill.
Walt
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:01:49 -0800 (PST), Walt
>
Bill.... I have one major advantage over you.... I K--N-O-W there
was a conspiracy to murder JFK, that's not speculation..it is a FACT.
Walt
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Prove it Walt, your revelation you received isn't doing much good if
you can't name names and show facts with proof. You're pretty much
making an ass of yourself if you can't support this claim you keep
making.
Ben Holmes
>
>On 29 Dec 2007 07:45:53 -0800, Ben Holmes
><ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>
>
>>*This* is your evidence that there cannot have been a conspiracy???
>>
>>That a few cops were too smart to implicate themselves??
>>
>>If you want to impress anyone on *this* group with your knowledge of
>>the case, you can try the 45 Questions. I'll be happy to repost 'em
>>if you can't find 'em.
>>
>>Or try something simple... the 16 Smoking Guns are still waiting for
>>any LNT'er to respond to.
>
>Lift your head above the minutae of evidence (real or imagined) and
>apply reason - not speculation but reason - and you may be surprised
>at what you are able to see.
It's not possible to apply "reason" without a foundation. That foundation is
the evidence.
That you're apparently willing to run away from that evidence illustrates your
character, nothing more.
>Or not - it really doesn't matter to me. I stopped in to give a
>straight forward answer to what I thought was a straight-forward
>question.
And are completely unwilling to support it.
That tells the tale.
>Bill.
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On 29 Dec, 09:57, Bill wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:01:49 -0800 (PST), Walt
>>
>> <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I don't know why you think you were ever a CT, Bill.... You may have
>> >dabbled a bit and read some conspiracy books, looking for an easy
>> >research?? =A0 I would guess not, because anybody who is intellectually
Yep... that's what the evidence demonstrates. Strange that a former cop is
unwilling to grant precedence to evidence over speculation. Whenever people
start talking about "reasonableness", you know right from the getgo that they
aren't people who are capable of defending their faith.
Gil Jesus
>
> Bill.... I have one major advantage over you.... �I �K--N-O-W �there
> was a conspiracy to murder JFK, that's not speculation..it is a FACT.
>
> Walt-
Walt, I wonder if anyone ever gets a fair trial in Canada with all the
TALKING the police there do.
I guess their courts never issue "gag" orders.
Ben Holmes
Miss Rita says...
>
>On Dec 29, 10:54=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com>
>wrote:
>> In article <9f78820a-a611-453b-9ec1-638919889...@z26g2000pre.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Miss Rita says...
>
>> >There is not many, if any, "Americans" alive who _know_ of a
>> >conspiracy to kill Kennedy. "You" don't know, either,
>>
>> Actually, I do. The evidence is quite overwhelming if you examine it.
>
>Actually, if you did know, you wouldn't be relying on polls.
Who's "relying" on polls?
It's the objective data that simply supports what I know in my own dealings with
people to be a fact.
The vast overiding majority of people are believers of conspiracy. I've never
*personally* met one who wasn't.
>You don't "know." You believe you know, but you don't.
Sadly, you're wrong.
There's no non-conspiratorial way to explain the evidence... that's why LNT'ers
such as yourself rarely even try.
But the 45 questions are still out there - waiting for a reasonable answer.
The 16 Smoking Guns that Bugliosi was unable to answer are still out there too.
If you *really* want to persuade anyone, those are the things that need
tackling, not the historically factual poll numbers.
>I don't need to cite a poll which states that a majority of Americans
>don't know of a conspiracy.
You do if you're trying to assert that.
>You show me textbook "fact," and then I'll
>concede that you and I both "know." Until then, you are arguing what
>you believe and not what you know.
I *KNOW* that there's a 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray.
I *KNOW* that it wasn't seen until the Clark Panel saw it.
I *KNOW* that even John McAdams was forced to run from that simple fact.
I *KNOW* that you won't be able to explain those facts in a non-conspiratorial
way either.
In fact, I also *KNOW* that you'll duck and run, rather than simply admit that
there's a bullet shown in an X-ray that WASN'T THERE THE NIGHT OF THE AUTOPSY.
>> >which is my
>> >point. If you did you wouldn't need polls. Polls don't matter. At one
>> >time the "majority" of people believed the earth was flat.
>>
>> Sadly, you've tried to imply that the majority of Americans are scratching
>> their head.
>
>I stated clearly that the majority of Americans don't "know" of a
>conspiracy to kill Kennedy.
I have no intention of playing semantical games with you.
I pointed out that you can't cite for your claimed assertion.
And quite clearly, you can't.
>They don't. Live with it, and stop trying to change what I say.
>Actions like that on your part also degrade your position.
Let's hear you admit the simple truth that a majority of Americans have *ALWAYS*
believed that there was a conspiracy.
You won't... however...
>> Yet you can't cite any poll that shows such. You *ARE NOT* "most likely
>> with the 'majority' of Americans on that"
>>
>> This is really simple - MOST AMERICANS BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY.
>>
>> It's really just that simple.
>
>Are you really so obtuse that you can't comprehend the difference
>between "knowing" and believing?
Not interested in your semantical games.
>Hot damn, I believe you are.
>
>
>> >Otherwise, I don't give a flying damn who "believes" what about who
>> >killed Kennedy.
>>
>> Of course not... the poll numbers aren't something that you're comfortable
>> with.
>
>Oh, great, now you claim to know my comfort level.
Prove me wrong... simply state for the record that you not only *KNOW* that each
and every poll ever taken shows that conspiracy was the belief of the majority,
but that you accept those numbers.
>> It must be a shock to realize what a minority your in.
>
>What minority?
Yep... denial is a sad thing...
>> >Perhaps if you weren't such an obsessive you could actually
>> >comprehend that which is written instead of defending a poll which is
>> >best left stuck up your behind.
>>
>> The poll numbers are what they are. I can certainly realize why you
>> despise them, but a belief in a conspiracy has ALWAYS been the opinion
>> of the majority.
>
>The poll numbers are irrelevant until you can show "fact."
No, they aren't. They show precisely what I'm asserting, that a majority of
Americans have *ALWAYS* believed in a conspiracy.
Nothing you can say or do is going to change that fact.
>Got it?
>
>No, I didn't think you did.
>
>Rita
Moron, aren't you? Now I remember why you were previously killfiled.
Miss Rita
wrote:
> In article <b049a7b4-1a04-48d1-9870-009d1c98e...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> Miss Rita says...
> Moron, aren't you? Now I remember why you were previously killfiled.
I clearly stated that polls which indicate "belief" are not the same
as knowing.
You want to call that "semantical games?" It is you who made an error
and are now "ducking" the issue. Again your position is degraded.
"If" you rely on polls you do _not_ know. Period.
Now, if you're too damn stupid to understand that, you'd better
killfile me again, because if you know so much, as you claim, you're
going to have to do better than call names, make blatant accusations
concerning my "comfort level," and refer to"semantical games" when you
cannot back up your own argument which is dead wrong concerning what a
majority of American people believe and what they "know."
Rita
Rita
aeffects
wrote:
sitdown toots-e-roll... you do a lot of pissing and moaning yet you do
nothing to advance the cause of Lone Nutterism, facts being what they
are -- no LN idiot has been able to persuade lurkers of ANYTHING... we
know your scam -- you're just another in the long, long, line of
disinfo agents, no, in your case you don't even post disinfo... but
you do look good dangling at the end of a string...
A face with 20 miles of bad road..... you need Slammin Sammy from down-
undah to hold you up kiddo.... carry on troop!
robcap...@netscape.com
>
> >>>>On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 01:29:59 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why all LNers think "No one has talked" over the 44 years is one of
the weirdest things they say. Many have talked, and many have died
for talking, and many have given researchers much to work with. The
reason many LNers think, I am guessing here, that NO ONE has talked is
because our major media have said the same message for 44 years, LHO
did it. So when someone does talk it simply either gets no coverage
or it is ridiculed and shown to be entirely impossible due to the
"evidence" at hand. This is why Walt's point of doing your own
research is so important, and this is true for any major event not
just the JFK case, because if you rely on the major media of any
country for the "whole story" you will not get it. You are getting
the story that suits those who own the company for the most part.
These owners have ties to many other major businesses and government
areas as well.
Your first post said you would NOT say what converted you to an LNer,
why? What is the big secret?
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <b049a7b4-1a04-48d1...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> Miss Rita says...
> >
> >On Dec 29, 10:54=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com>
> >wrote:
> >> In article <9f78820a-a611-453b-9ec1-638919889...@z26g2000pre.googlegroups.=
> >com>,
> >> Miss Rita says...
> >
> >> >There is not many, if any, "Americans" alive who _know_ of a
> >> >conspiracy to kill Kennedy. "You" don't know, either,
> >>
> >> Actually, I do. The evidence is quite overwhelming if you examine it.
> >
> >Actually, if you did know, you wouldn't be relying on polls.
>
>
> Who's "relying" on polls?
A better question would be whos misrepresenting them. That would be
Ben.
> It's the objective data that simply supports what I know in my own dealings with
> people to be a fact.
You travel in stupid circles.
> The vast overiding majority of people are believers of conspiracy. I've never
> *personally* met one who wasn't.
A vast majority believe Oz was JFK`s killer. And have from the
beginning.
http://cloud9.norc.uchicago.edu/dlib/jfk.htm
"At the time of the interview, 72 per cent were "pretty much
convinced" that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin, 26 per cent had
some doubt about his guilt."\
In more recent times, an ABS poll for the 40th anniversay found
only 7% of the respondeants felt Oz wasn`t a shooter.
Ben`s attempts to portray his beliefs to be in the majority is
typical of the was he misrepresents information.
> >You don't "know." You believe you know, but you don't.
>
>
> Sadly, you're wrong.
>
> There's no non-conspiratorial way to explain the evidence... that's why LNT'ers
> such as yourself rarely even try.
The kooks can`t even put a counter suggestion on the table that
isn`t obviously ridiculous, which is why they never try.
> But the 45 questions are still out there - waiting for a reasonable answer.
Waiting for a reasonable person with which to discuss them with.
You`ve shown yourself to be unwilling to support the claims made in
that series.
> The 16 Smoking Guns that Bugliosi was unable to answer are still out there too.
DVP showed where Bugs addressed the issues raised in that list in
his book.
> If you *really* want to persuade anyone, those are the things that need
> tackling, not the historically factual poll numbers.
No matter what the topic shifts to, the problem will remain the
same... kooks misrepresenting information.
> >I don't need to cite a poll which states that a majority of Americans
> >don't know of a conspiracy.
>
> You do if you're trying to assert that.
>
>
> >You show me textbook "fact," and then I'll
> >concede that you and I both "know." Until then, you are arguing what
> >you believe and not what you know.
>
> I *KNOW* that there's a 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray.
>
> I *KNOW* that it wasn't seen until the Clark Panel saw it.
Ben lies. I pointed him to Jerrol Custer`s testimony about that
object.
> I *KNOW* that even John McAdams was forced to run from that simple fact.
>
> I *KNOW* that you won't be able to explain those facts in a non-conspiratorial
> way either.
And Ben can`t establish the conspiracy motivations he imagines.
> In fact, I also *KNOW* that you'll duck and run, rather than simply admit that
> there's a bullet shown in an X-ray that WASN'T THERE THE NIGHT OF THE AUTOPSY.
Establish that. Until you can, it`s just another kook claim.
> >> >which is my
> >> >point. If you did you wouldn't need polls. Polls don't matter. At one
> >> >time the "majority" of people believed the earth was flat.
> >>
> >> Sadly, you've tried to imply that the majority of Americans are scratching
> >> their head.
> >
> >I stated clearly that the majority of Americans don't "know" of a
> >conspiracy to kill Kennedy.
>
> I have no intention of playing semantical games with you.
<snicker> They are usually his favorite kind, he uses them all the
time to escape tight spots.
> I pointed out that you can't cite for your claimed assertion.
>
> And quite clearly, you can't.
>
>
> >They don't. Live with it, and stop trying to change what I say.
> >Actions like that on your part also degrade your position.
>
>
> Let's hear you admit the simple truth that a majority of Americans have *ALWAYS*
> believed that there was a conspiracy.
They`ve also always believed Oz was a shooter. Does Ben? The fact
is that Ben`s beliefs about the assassination are in a minority even
amongst conspiracy believers.
> You won't... however...
>
>
> >> Yet you can't cite any poll that shows such. You *ARE NOT* "most likely
> >> with the 'majority' of Americans on that"
> >>
> >> This is really simple - MOST AMERICANS BELIEVE THAT
OZ WAS A SHOOTER. Ben is not in lockstep with the beliefs of the
public on the assassination.
>THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY.
> >>
> >> It's really just that simple.
> >
> >Are you really so obtuse that you can't comprehend the difference
> >between "knowing" and believing?
>
>
> Not interested in your semantical games.
>
>
> >Hot damn, I believe you are.
> >
> >
> >> >Otherwise, I don't give a flying damn who "believes" what about who
> >> >killed Kennedy.
> >>
> >> Of course not... the poll numbers aren't something that you're comfortable
> >> with.
> >
> >Oh, great, now you claim to know my comfort level.
>
>
> Prove me wrong... simply state for the record that you not only *KNOW* that each
> and every poll ever taken shows that conspiracy was the belief of the majority,
> but that you accept those numbers.
Americans used to believe it wasn`t safe going into the water until
an hour after eating also.
> >> It must be a shock to realize what a minority your in.
> >
> >What minority?
>
>
> Yep... denial is a sad thing...
Ben`s belief`s about the assassination are in the minority also. A
majority of the people`s beliefs about the assassination are in the
minority.
> >> >Perhaps if you weren't such an obsessive you could actually
> >> >comprehend that which is written instead of defending a poll which is
> >> >best left stuck up your behind.
> >>
> >> The poll numbers are what they are. I can certainly realize why you
> >> despise them, but a belief in a conspiracy has ALWAYS been the opinion
> >> of the majority.
> >
> >The poll numbers are irrelevant until you can show "fact."
>
>
> No, they aren't. They show precisely what I'm asserting, that a majority of
> Americans have *ALWAYS* believed in a conspiracy.
Ben puts the number as high as 90%, but has never supported that
figure.
> Nothing you can say or do is going to change that fact.
They believe Oz was a shooter. At least they got that right.
> >Got it?
> >
> >No, I didn't think you did.
> >
> >Rita
>
> Moron, aren't you? Now I remember why you were previously killfiled.
Ben killfiles all who disagree with him.
Ben Holmes
Miss Rita says...
>
>On Dec 29, 12:51=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com>
>wrote:
>> In article <b049a7b4-1a04-48d1-9870-009d1c98e...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Miss Rita says...
>
>> Moron, aren't you? Now I remember why you were previously killfiled.
Snipping and running were a few of those reasons.
Rather cowardly, wouldn't you say?
>I clearly stated that polls which indicate "belief" are not the same
>as knowing.
And you're too gutless to admit that you're trying to refute the facts with your
semantic games.
Hence your snipping...
>You want to call that "semantical games?"
You've snipped the context... no lurker can now understand what you're talking
about.
This is the action of a dishonest coward.
>It is you who made an error
>and are now "ducking" the issue. Again your position is degraded.
>
>"If" you rely on polls you do _not_ know. Period.
Sadly, you can't find anyplace where I've stated that I "rely" on poll numbers.
They are what they are, and they support my own experience.
The fact that you had to snip all of that demonstrates just how dishonest you
are.
>Now, if you're too damn stupid to understand that, you'd better
>killfile me again,
Plonk.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Dec 29, 9:24=A0am, Bill wrote:
>> On 28 Dec 2007 22:02:40 -0800, Ben Holmes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>> >In article <539bn3lr20gi0r5136l2q9ggeamp6nv...@4ax.com>, Bill says...
>>
>> >>On 28 Dec 2007 12:57:00 -0800, Ben Holmes
>> >><ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>In article <a4jan3hd17lu554ejl390ks4ku0l3fj...@4ax.com>, Bill says...
>>
>> >>>>On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 01:29:59 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com>
>> >>>>wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>I'm trying to gauge the sucess of the scumbags to "convert" a JFK
>> >>>>>conspiracy believer into a Lone Neuter. Anyone ever hear of such a
>> >>>>>case ?
>>
>> >>>>>Just curious.
>>
>> >>>>I'm new to this board (and frankly, I doubt I'll hang around: lots of
>> >>>>name-calling and precious little respectful exchange of ideas).
>>
>arently
>> >>>includes you) simply refuse to accept the known evidence.
>>
>imply
>> >>>doesn't support the WCR's theory.
>>
>e the
>> >>>chances are that you simply don't know enough of the issues, but you've=
> already
>> >>>stated (below) that you aren't going to do so...
>>
>> >>>>Anyway, I believed in a conspiracy in the JFK assination from when I
>> >>>>first saw the Zapruder film (early 70s, I think). But about 4 years
>> >>>>ago I became convinced that Oswald acted alone. The experience was
>> >>>>akin to losing one's religion - I DO think that's what the conspiracy
>> >>>>theory has become.
>>
> fact of
>> >>>conspiracy *BASED ON THE EVIDENCE*... and the LNT'ers base their faith =
>on the
>> >>>WCR.
>>
>> >>>Indeed, few LNT'ers are even knowledgeable on evidential issues beyond =
>what the
>> >>>WCR put forth.
>>
>e about
>> >>>their own collected evidence? =A0(although, being a LNT'er - you probab=
>ly have no
>> >>>clue about what I just stated)
>>
>> >>>>I'm not going to recite the reasons for my 'conversion' - that would
>> >>>>just open the doors to pointless re-statements of 'articles of faith'
>> >>>>- perhaps on both sides.
>>
>on this
>> >>>forum - have no problems *whatsoever* citing and quoting the evidence t=
>hat
>> >>>supports our every statement... and LNT'ers can do nothing but duck and=
> run.
>> >>>Which is indeed, what you're doing now.
>>
>advance
>> >>>that you have no intention of doing so.
>>
>ache of
>> >>>being forced to confront (and inevitably lie about) the evidence, I sug=
>gest you
>> >>>go to the censored forum on the JFK assassination. =A0The censored foru=
>m is
>> >>>pro-WCR, and will not allow anyone to point out that someone else is ly=
>ing about
>> >>>the evidence.
>>
>> >>>>Suffice to say that I am content and
>> >>>>satisfied in my own mind that Oswald acted alone. YMMV.
>>
>have
>> >>>*always* placed a majority of Americans in the conspiracy camp, and ind=
>eed, have
>> >>>risen as high as 90% of Americans who believe in a conspiracy.
>>
>>
>> >>Here we go - you know virtually nothing about me yet you are very
>> >>comfortable making numerous assumptions and allowing those assumptions
>> >>to form the basis of your approach to me.
>>
>wn
>> >words.
>>
>> >>Where I come from (which is not America, by the way, just ONE of your
>> >>erroneous assumptions)
>>
>0's?
>>
>> >It *was* quite probable that you'd have been able to see it around that
>> >timeframe as an American - so it wasn't an unreasonable assumption.
>>
>> >>what you are exhibiting is called prejudice.
>>
>honest
>> >when they *do* speak to the evidence, and more often than not, refuse to =
>do so
>> >to begin with... exactly as you're doing.
>>
>> >You label it prejudice, I'd label it experience.
>>
>> >>I responded with honesty and integrity
>>
>> >LOL!
>>
>> >That has yet to be demonstrated.
>>
>tly)
>> >refer to a man's ability to support his own words... you've already asser=
>ted
>> >that you'll refuse to do so.
>>
>> >>to a post that presented itself
>> >>as a genuine desire to know if anyone had 'converted' from one side to
>> >>the other. Since I have done so, I thought my experience would be of
>> >>interest to the original poster.
>>
>> >I'm *still* waiting for someone to come forth that can *PROVE* such an
>> >assertion.
>>
>> >>I was interested in declaring that
>> >>experience for the benefit of that poster - I was not (and am not)
>> >>interested in re-hashing well trodden territory with people who
>> >>exhibit blatant prejudice against anyone who dares to disagree with
>> >>their 'sacred' position.
>>
>ther me
>> >in the least. =A0I disagree with *many* of the other CT'ers here... in fa=
>ct, I'd
>> >be hard pressed to name a *SINGLE* CT'er that posts here that has not, at=
> one
>> >time or another, posted something that I disagreed with.
>>
>can
>> >lead in many other different directions.
>>
> just
>> >as LNT'ers like yourself are either ignorant of the evidence, or will wil=
>lingly
>> >lie about it.
>>
>> >Which category you fit into is hard to say - since you refuse to debate t=
>he
>> >evidence... hard to tell if you simply don't know it, or will quickly lie=
> about
>> >it if you speak on it.
>>
>> >>I was in the minority when I first believed in a conspiracy
>>
>> >Can you produce a poll from your country documenting that?
>>
>oint.
>>
>> >I'm completely unaware of any country in which your statement would be a
>> >truthful one - but I'm willing to examine any poll numbers you can cite.
>>
>> >>and if I
>> >>am in the minority now believing that Oswald acted alone so be it.
>> >>Being in the minority doesn't frighten me; in fact, I rarely even
>> >>think of it and certainly wouldn't allow it to influence what I
>> >>believe or think.
>>
>> >>Bill.
>>
An excellent rebuttal would be "Someone Would Have Talked" by Larry Hancock
For as he details, many people *did*.
>Many have talked, and many have died
>for talking, and many have given researchers much to work with. The
>reason many LNers think, I am guessing here, that NO ONE has talked is
>because our major media have said the same message for 44 years, LHO
>did it. So when someone does talk it simply either gets no coverage
>or it is ridiculed and shown to be entirely impossible due to the
>"evidence" at hand. This is why Walt's point of doing your own
>research is so important, and this is true for any major event not
>just the JFK case, because if you rely on the major media of any
>country for the "whole story" you will not get it. You are getting
>the story that suits those who own the company for the most part.
>These owners have ties to many other major businesses and government
>areas as well.
>
>Your first post said you would NOT say what converted you to an LNer,
>why? What is the big secret?
More that likely, it's a way to avoid a debate on the evidence... he either
doesn't know it well enough to debate it, or he's afraid to reveal that he, like
all other LNT'ers, can't stand up to the evidence.
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <55ea4684-ba17-44f3-ad51-6cdebf804...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
I agree with the assessment that he doesn't like know it, as a cop, it
would be likely he would be very upset by the investigation that was
conducted in this case. As a cop, I can't see how he would think the
"evidence" points to guilt for LHO (at least by himself).
Miss Rita
> In article <4e3483ee-3b51-4aaa-9685-19943b460...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> Miss Rita says...
>
>
>
> >On Dec 29, 12:51=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com>
> >wrote:
> >> In article <b049a7b4-1a04-48d1-9870-009d1c98e...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.=
> >com>,
> >> Miss Rita says...
>
> >> Moron, aren't you? Now I remember why you were previously killfiled.
>
> Snipping and running were a few of those reasons.
Fact: According to polls, the "majority" of Americans believe in a
conspiracy.
Fact: Belief and opinion do not constitute "knowing."
Fact: I stated that the majority of Americans do not know of a
conspiracy to kill Kennedy.
Fact: If a majority of Americans are of an opinion, a majority cannot
know. A "majority" speaks for itself. I do not need cites.
Fact: I do not know if there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy -- and I
do not have to be on one side or another.
Fact: I will snip all of your bullshit which does not deal with the
"fact" as I wrote it concerning what a majority of Americans do. This
includes your opinions as to my comfort level, your flat-out error in
interpreting what I wrote about a majority of Americans, and your
opinion as to what I may or may not believe, or how I may or may not
act on it.
Fact: The more crap you make up about me, the more inclined I am to
dismiss your interpretations of "evidence."
Fact: You are not trustworthy as is evidenced by your behavior in this
conversation with me.
Fact: You can either deal with it or killfile it, but you aren't going
to get anywhere by the method of communication you are now using.
Fact: I used to believe in a conspiracy to kill Kennedy.
Fact: Seeing the twisting and less-than-truthfulness behaviors of
people such as yourself made me stop and look at what the other side
has to say.
Fact: People who have lurked or are lurking "do" form opinions based
on what they read.
Fact: You are not doing your side any good, and if "you" had any guts,
you'd admit your mistake and/or shut the hell up.
Rita
Miss Rita
> Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >I stated clearly that the majority of Americans don't "know" of a
> > >conspiracy to kill Kennedy.
>
> > I have no intention of playing semantical games with you.
>
> <snicker> They are usually his favorite kind, he uses them all the
> time to escape tight spots.
Oh, he's nailed. I make an effort to get along with people now.
(Well, mostly.) To take a correct statement such as "The majority of
Americans don't know of a conspiracy to kill Kennedy" and do what he's
done is the epitome of stupidity that mostly defines Usenet.
I think the thing to remember is that there are some very good
arguments and intelligent people with a vast amount of opinions. There
are a lot of lurkers who read well-presented material and then go and
do research on their own. If what looks like bias is presented
politely and intelligently, I will respond in kind. Calling me names
and making wild-ass accusations ain't gonna get it.
A good example of what I'm talking about is the conversation I had
with a couple of people here the other day concerning LBJ. I've read a
lot of things about LBJ's accomplishments, and not the least of which
include his legislation concerning segregation. I live in the deep
South, and although very small, I saw a lot of this happening. On the
other hand, I also read that he liked to have people watch him sit on
the toilet. I went so far as to confirm it.
So, wanna take a poll about LBJ?
I just don't know.
Rita
aeffects
why waste time with known and confirmed idiots such as yourself....
Geez, I'm the only CT'er who converses with you and that's limited...
mostly you talk to yourself, endlessly..... GREAT advertising for the
Lone Nut cause.... Why you here anyway? .John find you trying to screw
a football?
aeffects
temper Rita.... there's plenty of guts to go around on the CT side of
the equation.... if LBJ get bashed here, its for good reason -- after
all, he was the ONLY one who benefited with JFK demise, right -- I
mean the US presidency is quite a plum and its no secret LBJ coveted
the office.... no secret, btw!
Why are Texans, transplanted ones included, so sensitive about LBJ?
Silly!
> Rita
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
Buddy the troll provided a citation - let's look at the relevant paragraph:
"Interestingly, 12 per cent of the respondents volunteered the opinion that the
assassin had been paid to do the job, and another 11 per cent thought he had
been ordered or persuaded to do it by some unspecified group. Somewhat
surprisingly, only 24 per cent said, in reply to a direct question, that the
assassination was the work of one man; 62 per cent of the public thought "other
people were involved too," and 14 per cent were uncertain."
Oh my! And here I thought 62 percent would be classified as a majority!
Maybe my education has been shortcircuited in the math department.
Or more likely, the trolls just love to lie.
Nah... I only killfile liars and cowards.
Any LNT'er who's willing to debate the evidence, willing to cite, and willing to
face the truth is more than welcome on this forum - as far as I'm concerned.
I don't need the trolls to post the evidence... but the trolls need me in order
to disrupt this forum.
>why waste time with known and confirmed idiots such as yourself....
>Geez, I'm the only CT'er who converses with you and that's limited...
>mostly you talk to yourself, endlessly..... GREAT advertising for the
>Lone Nut cause.... Why you here anyway? .John find you trying to screw
>a football?
I'm quite convinced that lurkers will quickly figure out who is reliable enough
to get their information from.
Bud
Follow your master`s lead and killfile me. It`s what pussies do.
> Geez, I'm the only CT'er who converses with you and that's limited...
As is you vocabulary.
> mostly you talk to yourself, endlessly.....
Adversaries that respond to me come off looking rather bad, not
that you would notice. But at least I`m not hiding from anyone.
> GREAT advertising for the
> Lone Nut cause.... Why you here anyway?
To attack kooks. Poor thinking should be opposed.
>.John find you trying to screw
> a football?
You`ve served you purpose, bringing my comments to Ben`s attention.
I see he replied, so I get to make him look bad once more. Thanks for
your assistance.
Todd W. Vaughan
Ah, I see, the Mafia didn't benefit.
Healy has spoken!
-- I
> mean the US presidency is quite a plum and its no secret LBJ coveted
> the office.... no secret, btw!
>
> Why are Texans, transplanted ones included, so sensitive about LBJ?
> Silly!
>
>
>
> > Rita- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Miss Rita
What I've seen here is bluff and run.
if LBJ get bashed here, its for good reason -- after
> all, he was the ONLY one who benefited with JFK demise, right -- I
> mean the US presidency is quite a plum and its no secret LBJ coveted
> the office.... no secret, btw!
Why should I care if LBJ gets bashed? I'm not impressed with out-and-
out accusations of murder towards him or anybody else based on
speculation. Hell, I'd give you the same consideration were you dead.
In any case, Walt didn't show his ass. He presented his side and I
presented mine on that matter. When disagreements arise, that's fine.
Making up crap about people is not fine, and that's what I've seen
from Ben.
> Why are Texans, transplanted ones included, so sensitive about LBJ?
> Silly!
Damned if I know. I've had my own problems with Texans. LBJ is on his
own.
Rita
Bud
> >> In more recent times, an ABC poll for the 40th anniversay found
> >> only 7% of the respondents felt Oz wasn`t a shooter.
> >>
> >> Ben`s attempts to portray his beliefs to be in the majority is
> >> typical of the was he misrepresents information.
>
>
> Buddy the troll provided a citation - let's look at the relevant paragraph:
Bud quoted the relevant portion. Seventy-two per cent felt Oswald
was the assassin. "The" is singular.
> "Interestingly, 12 per cent of the respondents volunteered the opinion that the
> assassin had been paid to do the job, and another 11 per cent thought he had
> been ordered or persuaded to do it by some unspecified group. Somewhat
> surprisingly, only 24 per cent said, in reply to a direct question, that the
> assassination was the work of one man; 62 per cent of the public thought "other
> people were involved too," and 14 per cent were uncertain."
>
>
> Oh my! And here I thought 62 percent would be classified as a majority!
72% thought Oz was THE assassin (singular) according to that
source. If you kooks want to make the case that he was put up to it by
someone, or paid to kill JFK by someone, by all means, make that case.
> Maybe my education has been shortcircuited in the math department.
I myself wouldn`t rule out that Oz was encouraged to kill JFK by
the Cubans. But that doesn`t mean I believe in a conspiracy.
> Or more likely, the trolls just love to lie.
I directly quoted the report. How can it be a lie, I cited the
source, and you didn`t contest the source. The fact is, the American
people have always largely accepted that Oz was a/the shooter.
Something you kooks can`t bring yourself to admit, but then try to
portray your beliefs as mainstream.
You can`t pass muster on your own criteria. Who in this discussion
has been dishonestly try to portray his beliefs as that of the
mainstream public? Who is the pussy that killfiles all disenting
opinion? Why demand of others what you don`t do yourself?
> Any LNT'er who's willing to debate the evidence, willing to cite, and willing to
> face the truth
<snicker> All I need to do is admit you are right?
>is more than welcome on this forum - as far as I'm concerned.
I don`t give a flying fuck if you like me here or not. Your
displeasure brings me pleasure.
> I don't need the trolls to post the evidence... but the trolls need me in order
> to disrupt this forum.
Wasn`t it you who wrote that it was a valid tactic to annoy the
posters who annoy you?
> >why waste time with known and confirmed idiots such as yourself....
> >Geez, I'm the only CT'er who converses with you and that's limited...
> >mostly you talk to yourself, endlessly..... GREAT advertising for the
> >Lone Nut cause.... Why you here anyway? .John find you trying to screw
> >a football?
>
> I'm quite convinced that lurkers will quickly figure out who is reliable enough
> to get their information from.
You`re ability to firmly believe the things you want to believe is
well documented. It`s called faith.
Walt
Walt didn't show his ass. Huh? Why would you want to see my ass?
Are you queer?
Walt
Bud
Miss Rita wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2:38�pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> > > >I stated clearly that the majority of Americans don't "know" of a
> > > >conspiracy to kill Kennedy.
> >
> > > I have no intention of playing semantical games with you.
> >
> > � �<snicker> They are usually his favorite kind, he uses them all the
> > time to escape tight spots.
>
> Oh, he's nailed. I make an effort to get along with people now.
> (Well, mostly.) To take a correct statement such as "The majority of
> Americans don't know of a conspiracy to kill Kennedy" and do what he's
> done is the epitome of stupidity that mostly defines Usenet.
Ben is a garden variety fanatic. What the public really thinks
about the assassination, and what they really know about the
assassination might be interesting. Ben is only interested in
information that can be represented in a way he thinks is beneficial
to his cause.
> I think the thing to remember is that there are some very good
> arguments and intelligent people with a vast amount of opinions. There
> are a lot of lurkers who read well-presented material and then go and
> do research on their own. If what looks like bias is presented
> politely and intelligently, I will respond in kind. Calling me names
> and making wild-ass accusations ain't gonna get it.
He is a fairly unbalanced individual.
> A good example of what I'm talking about is the conversation I had
> with a couple of people here the other day concerning LBJ.
I read some of this. LBJ wanted the Presidency so bad he was
willing to kill for it? then why did hr decline running for re-
election?
> I've read a
> lot of things about LBJ's accomplishments, and not the least of which
> include his legislation concerning segregation. I live in the deep
> South, and although very small, I saw a lot of this happening. On the
> other hand, I also read that he liked to have people watch him sit on
> the toilet. I went so far as to confirm it.
Doesn`t make him a bad person (I thought he held conversations with
people while on the throne, that isn`t quite the same as getting
enjoyment from having people seeing him dropping a duece).
Bud
<snicker> This is who you were trying to hold a discussion with,
Rita. It`s a barren wasteland here.
Miss Rita
> On 29 Dec, 18:46, Miss Rita <r_hans...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Walt didn't show his ass. Huh? Why would you want to see my ass?
> Are you queer?
Oh, well, I suppose seeing you behave like a human being twice in one
month is a bit too much to hope for.
Rita