Join: "Exposing the Ignorant"
YoHarvey
community.....one by one! Start new thread, comment on existing
threads. The freedom is yours. Nothing edited.
tomnln
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b444b805-48f6-4b14...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Exactly how much evidence/testimony will we find there?????
aeffects
all that you can do pukster is start threads....... so sad, so SAD
(your giving legitimately confused Lone Nuts a bad name toots-e-roll)
justm...@gmail.com
Enough evidence to put you and the other 2 stooges to shame junkie.
Read the title of the website, its not a JFK research site you moron.
EXPOSING THE IGNORANT....a term you fit into nicely Healy. Any
questions????
aeffects
wrote:
keep them post coming you old fraudulent Vietnam Vet..... a couch
cyber warrior...... smells of tuna! LMFAO!
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your dedication will be posted shortly junkie....is that 1711 Rawhide
Street? Want to make sure we have the right address and phone number
ROFLMAO....you moron!
aeffects
step right up hon...... I'm waiting for you.... got the balls, er
pussy!
aeffects
by-the-way hon, looks like you're stalking me AND threatening me? Can
you handle this?
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
awwww hit a nerve did i? when you learn to stfu you'll be much smarter
for it. I wouldn't stalk you if you were the last living rodent on
earth Healy, don't flatter yourself. Once again...as YoHarvey said the
site is Exposing the Ignorant. You'll have your very own page
LOL....Merry Xmas Junkie
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
BTW...you don't consider Rossleys site stalking and threatening anyone
do you? He has pages for loads of different people trying to
accomplish whatever it is hes trying to accomplish. Soooooo, I guess
Rossley would be stalking and threatening everyone on his website too
huh? IDIOT!
Sam Brown
"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:727d6a18-9c5f-4947...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
What a shiteous neighbourhood you live in Defects. Is it public housing? No
wonder you're so bitter and twisted. Loser.
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
Seems rather ironic that the very people who can't answer the 45 questions are
posting about "ignorance"
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <b0ec58f9-bdf3-427e-80f6-07ff605c2...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
45 questions?
Walt
> In article <b0ec58f9-bdf3-427e-80f6-07ff605c2...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Ben ... I'm sure the LNer's can answer most of the questions, but the
real question is:... Can they answer them HONESTLY. And of course
they can't.... It seems to me that they don't really know the meaning
of the the word "honesty''
It's rather sad that they will lie through their teeth to protect
their egos. If they are as intelligent as many of them appear to be,
then they have to know that the Warren Report is a pack of lies,
which they accepted because it was proffered by venerable
authorities. ( Much like a little kid who believes everything an
adult he admires says) They are so sure that they are smarter than
the peons who refuse to accept the Warren Report, that they make utter
fools of themselves by lying when the truth is crystal clear and
right there in front of them. (Example) Howard Brennan said the man
he saw aiming a rifle from a TSBD window was dressed in LIGHT colored
clothing. It is a fact that Lee Oswald was NOT wearing a light
colored sport shirt nor was he wearing white trousers...( he didn't
even own any clothing like that) Yet rather than concede the obvious
truth, they'll wiggle and squirm and lie through their teeth.... What
a pathetic bunch of egotistical, losers they are.
Walt
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On 17 Dec, 09:03, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>>In article <b0ec58f9-bdf3-427e-80f6-07ff605c2...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>> aeffects says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 16, 7:19 pm, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> A new newsgroup dedicated to exposing the ignorance of the CT
>> >> community.....one by one! Start new thread, comment on existing
>> >> threads. The freedom is yours. Nothing edited.
>>
>> >>http://rossleysignorance.wetpaint.com/
>>
>> >all that you can do pukster is start threads....... so sad, so SAD
>> >(your giving legitimately confused Lone Nuts a bad name toots-e-roll)
>>
>> Seems rather ironic that the very people who can't answer the 45 questions
>> are posting about "ignorance"
>
>Ben ... I'm sure the LNer's can answer most of the questions, but the
>real question is:... Can they answer them HONESTLY.
Well, when I refer to "answering" the questions - I refer to providing an
explanation ... and naturally, a LNT'er would want to provide one that is *NON*
conspiratorial in nature. Yet to do so - must be incredibly hard to do (and
remain a credible answer) because no-one yet has done so.
Bud, for example (And McAdams too, come to think of it) both proffered
"answers" that basically amounted to a denial of the validity of the questions.
Sadly - that isn't going to be persuasive to any but other LNT'ers.
>And of course they can't.... It seems to me that they don't really know
>the meaning of the the word "honesty''
Many, if not most of them; don't.
>It's rather sad that they will lie through their teeth to protect
>their egos. If they are as intelligent as many of them appear to be,
>then they have to know that the Warren Report is a pack of lies,
>which they accepted because it was proffered by venerable
>authorities. ( Much like a little kid who believes everything an
>adult he admires says) They are so sure that they are smarter than
>the peons who refuse to accept the Warren Report, that they make utter
>fools of themselves by lying when the truth is crystal clear and
>right there in front of them. (Example) Howard Brennan said the man
>he saw aiming a rifle from a TSBD window was dressed in LIGHT colored
>clothing.
And yet, you can't even *get* a LNT'er to simply admit this.
>It is a fact that Lee Oswald was NOT wearing a light
>colored sport shirt nor was he wearing white trousers...( he didn't
>even own any clothing like that) Yet rather than concede the obvious
>truth, they'll wiggle and squirm and lie through their teeth.... What
>a pathetic bunch of egotistical, losers they are.
>
>Walt
Yep... and then they'll say that *WE* are discounting such eyewitnesses as
Brennan... yet it's *THEY* who *MUST* discount what they said.
I've challenged LNT'ers several times to name an eyewitness that they can fully
accept - and only one person came forward with a name - and surprising no-one
I'm sure - the eyewitness they named gave statements that LNT'ers can't accept.
Sam Brown
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:4a74ce1e-1785-4877...@e67g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Tell me something honestly Walt. Do you condone Tomlns and Healeys behaviour
on the group?
Would you pick either one of them to represent your point of view?
>
>
Walt
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
I parted ways with Tomnln a long time ago...... We simply don't see
eye to eye. But he does share my basic belief that the Warren Report
is a CROCK! My primary problem with Tom is if he knows a witness lied
( and many of them did) then he thinks anything the witness said can't
be used at all. A good example is Officer Marion Baker..... Tom
thinks that Baker's statements all have to be tossed out because he's
a liar. In my opinion that's a classic case of "throwing out the
baby with the bath water"..... Once you do that you've robbed
yourself of valuable information.
There's no denying that Baker was inside the TSBD about 30 seconds
after the last shot was fired. I believe he DID encounter Oswald in
the lunchroom, but Oswald appearred so innocuous that he completely
dismissed him from his mind. However he encountered a second TSBD
employee on either the third or fourth floor who was walking away from
the stairs and aroused Baker's suspiction to the point that he took
some notice of the man's physical appearance.( 5' 10", 165 lbs, dark
hair, dressed in light colored jacket and trousers) Truly appeared
on the scene, and vouched for the man as being an employee so Baker
turned him loose.
Tom would not agree with any of this because Baker submitted a couple
of different affidavits, therefore he's a liar and he can't belived.
I believe Baker was just a cop trying to keep his job and keep his
family safe and fed.
Walt
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
"Sam Brown" <samjb...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:47663279$0$31444$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> What a shiteous neighbourhood you live in Defects. Is it public housing?
> No wonder you're so bitter and twisted. Loser.
DANG! ! !
I thought sam was gonna address evidence/testimony this time.
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
NOT A CHANCE!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Brown
I'm sorry Walt but you didnt answer my question. I happen to think you are a
good bloke (and have for a long time). I've emailed you when you've dropped
off the radar before, you may remember. Just because you believe something I
don't, doesn't mean that I have to be immature and rude whenever I address
you. That unfortunately is the modus operandi of Tomln, Healey and Gil "the
bigot" Jesus. They are disgraceful examples of CT'ers AND Americans. I just
wish someone on your side of the fence would tell them so.
>
> I parted ways with Tomnln a long time ago...... We simply don't see
> eye to eye. But he does share my basic belief that the Warren Report
> is a CROCK! My primary problem with Tom is if he knows a witness lied
> ( and many of them did) then he thinks anything the witness said can't
> be used at all. A good example is Officer Marion Baker..... Tom
> thinks that Baker's statements all have to be tossed out because he's
> a liar. In my opinion that's a classic case of "throwing out the
> baby with the bath water"..... Once you do that you've robbed
> yourself of valuable information.
>
> There's no denying that Baker was inside the TSBD about 30 seconds
> after the last shot was fired. I believe he DID encounter Oswald in
> the lunchroom, but Oswald appearred so innocuous that he completely
> dismissed him from his mind. However he encountered a second TSBD
> employee on either the third or fourth floor who was walking away from
> the stairs and aroused Baker's suspiction to the point that he took
> some notice of the man's physical appearance.( 5' 10", 165 lbs, dark
> hair, dressed in light colored jacket and trousers) Truly appeared
> on the scene, and vouched for the man as being an employee so Baker
> turned him loose.
>
> Tom would not agree with any of this because Baker submitted a couple
> of different affidavits, therefore he's a liar and he can't belived.
> I believe Baker was just a cop trying to keep his job and keep his
> family safe and fed.
> Walt
He should be censured by CT'ers for his appalling behaviour NOT his opinions
regarding the assassination. IMHO.
Enjoy your Christmas Walt.
aeffects
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
well Sammy, if there's a problem with you understanding that hte
Zapruder film is altered just speak up hon..... bragging about
homosexual affair[s] on thios board get you no where..... you see, we
don't give a shit who you sleep with.... if you got the balls to enter
the JFK assassination debate, by all means..... you don't either grow
a pair or get the fuck out, it's that simple -- even the dumbest of
Lone Nutter's understand that and they have for the past 15 years.....
What the hell is your excuse? (Your brother is a Hollyweird animator?
Shit hon, there are real life authors who post here)
Get a grip and get with the program you inchoate moron...
aeffects
someone send this moron a copy of the WCR.... I think she might
actually cry any moment.....
aeffects
> "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:47663279$0$31444$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>
>
> > "aeffects" <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote in message
not a chance.... she's too busy kissing Walter's ass.... she doesn't
know anything about this case.... we'll call her the provocateur from
Four Elephants....
> http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htmhttp://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
>
> NOT A CHANCE!
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Brown
There you go again using "inchoate" in the wrong context. ROTFLMAO! Moron.
justm...@gmail.com
> "aeffects" <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sam, if Walt has eyes and intelligence then reading the above posts
from Healy proves your point perfectly. They don't care who you sleep
with, but they bring it up in every post. Enough said.
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <4a74ce1e-1785-4877-8dd9-571252c1f...@e67g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> Walt says...
>
> >On 17 Dec, 09:03, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
> >>In article <b0ec58f9-bdf3-427e-80f6-07ff605c2...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >> aeffects says...
>
> >> >On Dec 16, 7:19 pm, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> A new newsgroup dedicated to exposing the ignorance of the CT
> >> >> community.....one by one! Start new thread, comment on existing
> >> >> threads. The freedom is yours. Nothing edited.
>
> >> >>http://rossleysignorance.wetpaint.com/
>
> >> >all that you can do pukster is start threads....... so sad, so SAD
> >> >(your giving legitimately confused Lone Nuts a bad name toots-e-roll)
>
> >> Seems rather ironic that the very people who can't answer the 45 questions
> >> are posting about "ignorance"
>
> >Ben ... I'm sure the LNer's can answer most of the questions, but the
> >real question is:... Can they answer them HONESTLY.
>
> Well, when I refer to "answering" the questions - I refer to providing an
> explanation ... and naturally, a LNT'er would want to provide one that is *NON*
> conspiratorial in nature. Yet to do so - must be incredibly hard to do (and
> remain a credible answer) because no-one yet has done so.
You make the fallacy of presuming that any explanation *must* point to
conspiracy.
> Bud, for example (And McAdams too, come to think of it) both proffered
> "answers" that basically amounted to a denial of the validity of the questions.
> Sadly - that isn't going to be persuasive to any but other LNT'ers.
It's almost comical to see a close-minded person like you accuse
others of being in denial. You're not above the normal principles of
discourse, so why shouldn't the validity of your questions be fair
game?
Let's have a look at your WC lie #12, for example. According to you,
the WC was lying when they used "obstructed view" as a reason for
dismissing Wilma Tice's recollection of seeing Jack Ruby at Parkland
on 11/22/63.
1) Mrs. Tice saw a man standing in a crowd. According to her WC
testimony, she was able to see his face, but how much more than that?
2) In addition to verbal testimony, Mrs. Tice drew the WC a diagram.
Conceivably indicating people standing between her and "Jack", no?
3) That her view was obstructed was one of *five* reasons stated by
the WC for dismissing the testimony of Mrs. Tice.
You haven't established that the WC was "lying" in this instance. At
most, you have found a slight, insignificant overstatement.
PS: To steer lurkers in the "right" direction, you even pointed out
how amusing it was that the WC would argue that Mrs. Tice had never
seen Jack Ruby before, when they didn't appear to be embarrassed that
Brennan had never seen Oswald before. It's typically dishonest of you
to ignore that one witnessed a man shooting at the President, the
other a man behaving unremarkably in a crowd.
-Mark
aeffects
wrote:
"prove perfectly" ? What kind of nonsense is that... Is it any wonder
there are WCR believers still out there....
2 hours
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <4a74ce1e-1785-4877...@e67g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> Walt says...
> >
> >On 17 Dec, 09:03, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
> >>In article <b0ec58f9-bdf3-427e-80f6-07ff605c2...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >> aeffects says...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >On Dec 16, 7:19 pm, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> A new newsgroup dedicated to exposing the ignorance of the CT
> >> >> community.....one by one! Start new thread, comment on existing
> >> >> threads. The freedom is yours. Nothing edited.
> >>
> >> >>http://rossleysignorance.wetpaint.com/
> >>
> >> >all that you can do pukster is start threads....... so sad, so SAD
> >> >(your giving legitimately confused Lone Nuts a bad name toots-e-roll)
> >>
> >> Seems rather ironic that the very people who can't answer the 45 questions
> >> are posting about "ignorance"
> >
> >Ben ... I'm sure the LNer's can answer most of the questions, but the
> >real question is:... Can they answer them HONESTLY.
>
> Well, when I refer to "answering" the questions - I refer to providing an
> explanation ... and naturally, a LNT'er would want to provide one that is *NON*
> conspiratorial in nature. Yet to do so - must be incredibly hard to do (and
> remain a credible answer) because no-one yet has done so.
Many of the questions ask for the motivations of unnamed persons.
Who could provide the motivations of people you can`t even provide the
name of?
The real question is, why is this approach the only one available
to you?
> Bud, for example (And McAdams too, come to think of it) both proffered
> "answers" that basically amounted to a denial of the validity of the questions.
> Sadly - that isn't going to be persuasive to any but other LNT'ers.
Reasonable arguments don`t work on kooks. You don`t like our
responses to your questions, what could matter less?
> >And of course they can't.... It seems to me that they don't really know
> >the meaning of the the word "honesty''
You aren`t in the least interested in a honest discussion of the
points you raise, that much is established.
> Many, if not most of them; don't.
Many, if not most of you kooks seem retarded.
> >It's rather sad that they will lie through their teeth to protect
> >their egos. If they are as intelligent as many of them appear to be,
> >then they have to know that the Warren Report is a pack of lies,
> >which they accepted because it was proffered by venerable
> >authorities. ( Much like a little kid who believes everything an
> >adult he admires says) They are so sure that they are smarter than
> >the peons who refuse to accept the Warren Report, that they make utter
> >fools of themselves by lying when the truth is crystal clear and
> >right there in front of them. (Example) Howard Brennan said the man
> >he saw aiming a rifle from a TSBD window was dressed in LIGHT colored
> >clothing.
>
>
> And yet, you can't even *get* a LNT'er to simply admit this.
Name an LN who disputes that Oz was wearing only his white t-shirt
when he shot JFK.
> >It is a fact that Lee Oswald was NOT wearing a light
> >colored sport shirt nor was he wearing white trousers...( he didn't
> >even own any clothing like that) Yet rather than concede the obvious
> >truth, they'll wiggle and squirm and lie through their teeth.... What
> >a pathetic bunch of egotistical, losers they are.
> >
> >Walt
>
> Yep... and then they'll say that *WE* are discounting such eyewitnesses as
> Brennan... yet it's *THEY* who *MUST* discount what they said.
All information needs to be viewed in the proper context and in a
reasonable light. Again, have the kooks done anything to establish the
historical reliability of witnesses to crimes? When a bank robber robs
a bank, how do the discriptions of that criminal provided by the
witnesses compare to the actual person caught and convicted. How do
they score on details like clothing, heights, weights, hair color?
Kooks are clueless on the basis of which to weigh witnesses testimony,
yet proceed as if it is gospel (except, as noted, when it is witness
testimony that is detrimental to the patsy).
> I've challenged LNT'ers several times to name an eyewitness that they can fully
> accept - and only one person came forward with a name - and surprising no-one
> I'm sure - the eyewitness they named gave statements that LNT'ers can't accept.
The witnesses in Dealey, with few exceptions, didn`t see anything
useful to an investigation. Like in the case of the Beltway Sniper,
when the source of the shots is unknown by the witnesses, what the
witnesses of the crime relate is more detrimental to investigation
than useful.
Sam Brown
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:98003756-f5a5-4056...@e67g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Makes you wonder doesn't it?
tomnln
Walt never identifies which of Baker's FIVE (5) Accounts Walt Believes.
WHICH of Baker's THREE(3) Positions does Walt believe Baker was IN when he
spotted Oswald?
WHICH of Oswald's FOUR (4) Positions according to Baker does Walt believe?
http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
In Court Procedures, when a witness has been Proven to have Intentionally
Lied,
ALL of his testimony is "Discarded" by the Court.
With Baker's MULTIPLE accounts, thay cannot possibly be considered
"MISTAKES".
Burly...@gmail.com
Interesting. I hear, Mr. Rossley, that you should maybe want to
familiarize yourself with the courtoom procedures to the fullest
extent.
> With Baker's MULTIPLE accounts, thay cannot possibly be considered
> "MISTAKES".- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
> He should be censured by CT'ers for his appalling behaviour NOT his
> opinions regarding the assassination. IMHO.
>
>
> Enjoy your Christmas Walt.
ABOMINATIONS have /Already been "censured" by GOD.
sam brown can NOT take Retaliation NOR, evidence/testimony>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burly...@gmail.com
> "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:47675556$0$13919$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > He should be censured by CT'ers for his appalling behaviour NOT his
> > opinions regarding the assassination. IMHO.
>
> > Enjoy your Christmas Walt.
>
> ABOMINATIONS have /Already been "censured" by GOD.
Mr. Rossley,
Do you believe that Almighty God condones the type of talk that
comes from you? You use words even I won't repeat because of their
vulgarity.
What does He say about the use of vulgarity and profanity you use on
a constant level here--regardless of who said what, first?
>
> sam brown can NOT take Retaliation NOR, evidence/testimony>>>
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htmhttp://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
Gil Jesus
Burlyguard only judges CTers, not LNers. That's why he uses the
phrase, "regardless of who said what first". It doesn't matter to him
who started it, he'll judge the CTer every day. He doesn't say
anything when THEY use profanity, make websites to trash you, or post
personal information about CTers. That's all acceptable to him. Don't
take it personally.
His position is that we should take their grief and pray for them. But
ask him this question:
Why didn't John the Baptist pray for Herod, rather than reveal Herod's
sin to him ?
Then tell Burlyguard to read Ezekiel 3:18-19 for the answer and stop
trying to stifle those who speak the TRUTH.
Sam Brown
tomnln
<Burly...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5a628441-d1e5-4fac...@p1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Interesting. I hear, Mr. Rossley, that you should maybe want to
> familiarize yourself with the courtoom procedures to the fullest
> extent.
Does thgis indicate that you are ready to address officer Baker's five
different
accounts of his encounter with Oswald?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
<Burly...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:be869cb5-655c-48af...@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> Mr. Rossley,
>
> Do you believe that Almighty God condones the type of talk that
> comes from you? You use words even I won't repeat because of their
> vulgarity.
>
> What does He say about the use of vulgarity and profanity you use on
> a constant level here--regardless of who said what, first?
I Retaliate against Anyone who uses profanity towards me rather than address
evidence/testimony.
I never saw your concern when others attacked me First.
WHAT does this have to do with addressing evidence/testimony?
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> sam brown can NOT take Retaliation NOR, evidence/testimony>>>
tomnln
> Grow up Gums.
Nobody expected you to address the issues Coward.
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:973c17aa-7d7d-4366...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Looks like Burly should get shovels for Christmas.
YoHarvey
> "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:4769a694$0$26204$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:uSeaj.8099$E01....@newsfe22.lga...
>
> >>news:47675556$0$13919$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> >>> He should be censured by CT'ers for his appalling behaviour NOT his
> >>> opinions regarding the assassination. IMHO.
>
> >>> Enjoy your Christmas Walt.
>
> >> ABOMINATIONS have /Already been "censured" by GOD.
>
> >> sam brown can NOT take Retaliation NOR, evidence/testimony>>>
>
>
> > Grow up Gums.
>
> Nobody expected you to address the issues Coward.
>
>
>
> >>http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
> >>http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Burlyguard only judges CTers, not LNers. That's why he uses the
phrase, "regardless of who said what first". It doesn't matter to him
who started it, he'll judge the CTer every day. He doesn't say
anything when THEY use profanity, make websites to trash you, or post
personal information about CTers. That's all acceptable to him. Don't
take it personally.
This is the website Chico Jesus referrs to:
He HATES the truth!
tomnln
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:42f5a57a-ed07-4902...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 17, 12:13 am, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Dec 17, 12:10 am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 16, 9:08 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > > > > > > > A new newsgroup dedicated to exposing the ignorance of the
>> > > > > > > > CT
>> > > > > > > > community.....one by one! Start new thread, comment on
>> > > > > > > > existing
>> > > > > > > > threads. The freedom is yours. Nothing edited.
>>
>> > > > > > > >http://rossleysignorance.wetpaint.com/
>>
>> > > > > > > all that you can do pukster is start threads....... so sad,
>> > > > > > > so SAD
>> > > > > > > (your giving legitimately confused Lone Nuts a bad name
>> > > > > > > toots-e-roll)
>>
>> > > > > > junkie.
>> > > > > > Read the title of the website, its not a JFK research site you
>> > > > > > moron.
>> > > > > > EXPOSING THE IGNORANT....a term you fit into nicely Healy. Any
>> > > > > > questions????
>>
>> > > > > keep them post coming you old fraudulent Vietnam Vet..... a couch
>>
>> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > > Rawhide
>> > > > Street? Want to make sure we have the right address and phone
>> > > > number
>> > > > ROFLMAO....you moron!
>>
>> > > step right up hon...... I'm waiting for you.... got the balls, er
>> > > pussy!
>>
>> > by-the-way hon, looks like you're stalking me AND threatening me? Can
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> for it. I wouldn't stalk you if you were the last living rodent on
>> earth Healy, don't flatter yourself. Once again...as YoHarvey said the
>> site is Exposing the Ignorant. You'll have your very own page
>> LOL....Merry Xmas Junkie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> BTW...you don't consider Rossleys site stalking and threatening anyone
> do you? He has pages for loads of different people trying to
> accomplish whatever it is hes trying to accomplish. Soooooo, I guess
> Rossley would be stalking and threatening everyone on his website too
> huh? IDIOT!
I'm NOT the least bit surprised that you STILL don't recognize your Team's
own words.
I'm Also NOT the least bit surprised you still Dodge your own
evidence/testimony>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
ps;
Take Tiny steps.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
Never evidence/testimony>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:628df50f-b908-480d...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Walt
As near as I can tell you are basing your OPINION that Baker lied, on
the Altgen's photo of a man who looks like Oswald standing on the
steps of the TSBD. Thay man may, or may not, be Lee Oswald.... So
you can't use that as a basis for saying Baker lied.
But if it will make you feel better I agree that Baker lied, so did
Brennan, So did Oswald, So did. Fritz , so did Day, So did Henry Wade,
So did Curry, so did ............
I almost always reject anything that was said by the witnesses after
the first day....... What the witnesses said with in minutes and
hours of the murder of JFK is the very best info. Sure there are
some folks who saw things differently than others but it's usually
posible to sort out the facts. Baker's original affidavit is the
closest to the truth.....Is it 100% accurate?? I doubt it, but the
events are recounted as he remembered them from a few hours earlier.
At the time he wrote his original affidavit ( 4 or 5 pm) he was only
aware that the detectives had found that some of the shots had come
from the TSBD and therefore he may have seen someone who could have
been involved in the shooting. In reading his affidavit I get the
distinct impression that he was NOT thinking of a lunchroom encounter
with a man when he wrote that he was on either the third or fourth
floor when he saw a man walking away from the stairway.
After running up three or four flights of stairs he would most
certainly have been huffing and puffing. If he had only ran up one
flight of stairs to the second floor he probably wouldn't have been
breathing hard, so he wouldn't have thought the second floor was the
third or fouth floor.
He said he "called to the man" on the fouth floor, and commanded him
to "Come here"
This doesn't fit with the Lunchroom encounter....... He wouldn't have
seen a man walking away from the stairs, because the lunchroom was two
rooms removed from the stairs....and if he was confronting a man in a
lunchroom, it would have been silly for him to command that man to
"Come here". Can you visulize Baker opening the lunchroom door (he
never mentioned opening any door in his affidavit) and encountering
Oswald just a couple of feet away and Yelling...."COME HERE"....?? It
simply absurd.... The more likely response from Baker would have
been..."Stand still" not "COME HERE" that command indicates the man
on the fourth floor was at some distance away from Baker.
Baker described that fourth floor man as : about 30 years old, 5' 9'
tall, weighing about 165 pounds, with dark hair, and wearing a light
colored jacket. ( notice how Baker's description matches EXACTLY
with the description of the sixth floor gunman as seen by Brennan,
Rowland, Fisher and Edwards.)
Since this man was on either the third or fourth floor he was much
closer to the sixth floor than Oswald had been in the lunchroom.
Walt
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
>
> In Court Procedures, when a witness has been Proven to have Intentionally
> Lied,
> ALL of his testimony is "Discarded" by the Court.
>
> With Baker's MULTIPLE accounts, thay cannot possibly be considered
> "MISTAKES".- Hide quoted text -
Papa Andy
> A new newsgroup dedicated to exposing the ignorance of the CT
> community.....one by one! Start new thread, comment on existing
> threads. The freedom is yours. Nothing edited.
>
> http://rossleysignorance.wetpaint.com/
no sensayuma, eh, Harv?
A
justm...@gmail.com
Are you trying to say that the entire DPD lied Walt, along with
Brennan?
>
> I almost always reject anything that was said by the witnesses after
> the first day....... What the witnesses said with in minutes and
> hours of the murder of JFK is the very best info. Sure there are
> some folks who saw things differently than others but it's usually
> posible to sort out the facts. Baker's original affidavit is the
> closest to the truth.....Is it 100% accurate?? I doubt it, but the
> events are recounted as he remembered them from a few hours earlier.
> At the time he wrote his original affidavit ( 4 or 5 pm) he was only
> aware that the detectives had found that some of the shots had come
> from the TSBD and therefore he may have seen someone who could have
> been involved in the shooting. In reading his affidavit I get the
> distinct impression that he was NOT thinking of a lunchroom encounter
> with a man when he wrote that he was on either the third or fourth
> floor when he saw a man walking away from the stairway.
>
> After running up three or four flights of stairs he would most
> certainly have been huffing and puffing. If he had only ran up one
> flight of stairs to the second floor he probably wouldn't have been
> breathing hard, so he wouldn't have thought the second floor was the
> third or fouth floor.
So now you're an expert on what Bakers physical condition was that
day? Did it ever occur to you he might have been physically fit to
run up 10 flights of stairs without huffing and puffing? This is total
speculation on your part Walt, you're deciding for Baker what he was
and wasn't capable of doing.
>
> He said he "called to the man" on the fouth floor, and commanded him
> to "Come here"
>
> This doesn't fit with the Lunchroom encounter....... He wouldn't have
> seen a man walking away from the stairs, because the lunchroom was two
> rooms removed from the stairs....and if he was confronting a man in a
> lunchroom, it would have been silly for him to command that man to
> "Come here". Can you visulize Baker opening the lunchroom door (he
> never mentioned opening any door in his affidavit) and encountering
> Oswald just a couple of feet away and Yelling...."COME HERE"....?? It
> simply absurd.... The more likely response from Baker would have
> been..."Stand still" not "COME HERE" that command indicates the man
> on the fourth floor was at some distance away from Baker.
Now you're making an assumption of what Baker would have said
LOL...this is too much. You haven't a CLUE how Baker would have
handled this meeting...again this is YOUR opinion of what YOU think
should have happened.
>
> Baker described that fourth floor man as : about 30 years old, 5' 9'
> tall, weighing about 165 pounds, with dark hair, and wearing a light
> colored jacket. ( notice how Baker's description matches EXACTLY
> with the description of the sixth floor gunman as seen by Brennan,
> Rowland, Fisher and Edwards.)
>
> Since this man was on either the third or fourth floor he was much
> closer to the sixth floor than Oswald had been in the lunchroom.
Again speculating that the man Baker saw was someone other then LHO.
Should we start counting how many "Ifs" we find in these posts you
make? You are NOT an expert on Bakers physical condition on that day
nor his personality to be able to state your way is the way it should
have happened.
>
> Walt
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
>
> > In Court Procedures, when a witness has been Proven to have Intentionally
> > Lied,
> > ALL of his testimony is "Discarded" by the Court.
>
> > With Baker's MULTIPLE accounts, thay cannot possibly be considered
> > "MISTAKES".- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Not all....but many of them did..... Why did they lie?? Most of
them lied simply to cover incompetence. The entire world was focused
on the DPD........They made some really bonehead errors that made them
look like a very imcompetent bunch of keystone cops. ( Hoover was mad
as hell because of the stupid mistakes by the DPD.)
And there is absolutely no doubt that Brennan lied....it's documented,
and he admitted it.
Did all of these people lie because they were part and parcel to the
conspiracy??? No of course not...But their lies aided and abetted the
killers.
>
> > I almost always reject anything that was said by the witnesses after
> > the first day....... What the witnesses said with in minutes and
> > hours of the murder of JFK is the very best info. Sure there are
> > some folks who saw things differently than others but it's usually
> > posible to sort out the facts. Baker's original affidavit is the
> > closest to the truth.....Is it 100% accurate?? I doubt it, but the
> > events are recounted as he remembered them from a few hours earlier.
> > At the time he wrote his original affidavit ( 4 or 5 pm) he was only
> > aware that the detectives had found that some of the shots had come
> > from the TSBD and therefore he may have seen someone who could have
> > been involved in the shooting. In reading his affidavit I get the
> > distinct impression that he was NOT thinking of a lunchroom encounter
> > with a man when he wrote that he was on either the third or fourth
> > floor when he saw a man walking away from the stairway.
>
> > After running up three or four flights of stairs he would most
> > certainly have been huffing and puffing. If he had only ran up one
> > flight of stairs to the second floor he probably wouldn't have been
> > breathing hard, so he wouldn't have thought the second floor was the
> > third or fouth floor.
>
> So now you're an expert on what Bakers physical condition was that
> day?
The respitory system of anybody will respond to exertion....Even a
person in excellent physical shape will have an an increased heart
beat, and breathing rate, after running up three or four flights of
stairs.
Did it ever occur to you he might have been physically fit to
> run up 10 flights of stairs without huffing and puffing? This is total
> speculation on your part Walt, you're deciding for Baker what he was
> and wasn't capable of doing.
I'm surprised that you would so blatantly display yer ignorance.
>
>
>
> > He said he "called to the man" on the fouth floor, and commanded him
> > to "Come here"
>
> > This doesn't fit with the Lunchroom encounter....... He wouldn't have
> > seen a man walking away from the stairs, because the lunchroom was two
> > rooms removed from the stairs....and if he was confronting a man in a
> > lunchroom, it would have been silly for him to command that man to
> > "Come here". Can you visulize Baker opening the lunchroom door (he
> > never mentioned opening any door in his affidavit) and encountering
> > Oswald just a couple of feet away and Yelling...."COME HERE"....?? It
> > simply absurd.... The more likely response from Baker would have
> > been..."Stand still" not "COME HERE" that command indicates the man
> > on the fourth floor was at some distance away from Baker.
>
> Now you're making an assumption of what Baker would have said
> LOL...this is too much.
Well laugh yer ass off..... cuz the jokes on you.
You haven't a CLUE how Baker would have
> handled this meeting...again this is YOUR opinion of what YOU think
Yes that's true.... I can THINK....I don't need a bunch of silver
tongued lawyers to SPECULATE and then hand me their pile of B.S. And
whether you admit it or not...any person with any intelligence at all
will admit that 90 % of the Warren Report is based on
SPECULATION. .....and not sound speculation at that.
> should have happened.
>
>
>
> > Baker described that fourth floor man as : about 30 years old, 5' 9'
> > tall, weighing about 165 pounds, with dark hair, and wearing a light
> > colored jacket. ( notice how Baker's description matches EXACTLY
> > with the description of the sixth floor gunman as seen by Brennan,
> > Rowland, Fisher and Edwards.)
>
> > Since this man was on either the third or fourth floor he was much
> > closer to the sixth floor than Oswald had been in the lunchroom.
>
> Again speculating that the man Baker saw was someone other then LHO.
> Should we start counting how many "Ifs" we find in these posts you
> make? You are NOT an expert on Bakers physical condition on that day
> nor his personality to be able to state your way is the way it should
> have happened.
Don't bother me by presenting the crap the W.C. put out....I'm not an
idiot, and only an idiot would believe that crap.
Walt
justm...@gmail.com
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes that's true.... I can THINK....I don't need a bunch of silver
tongued lawyers to SPECULATE and then hand me their pile of B.S. And
whether you admit it or not...any person with any intelligence at all
will admit that 90 % of the Warren Report is based on
SPECULATION. .....and not sound speculation at that.
Why would you? You have a bunch of CT'ers handing you BS and you shell
out your own. Any person with any intelligence will admit that the CT
community would throw themselves out a 10 story window before ever
admitting that the WC was NOT all lies like they try to make it out to
be. Because the WR doesn't fit the way you CT's want things to happen
it's all a lie. When you can start proving all of these theories and
ridiculous statements that are made, maybe someone will listen. Do you
actually think that if any of you were a tad close to the truth that
the gov't wouldn't be doing something to either shut you up before you
exposed something they didn't want exposed or reopen the case to see
if there was any truth in all these stories on the net?
Why don't you contact the DPD and tell them that you think their
entire police force back in 1963 were a bunch of liars and they aided
in the assassination of JFK? That would get the ball rolling wouldn't?
Of course with no proof, it would probably get your asses thrown in
jail. If you're so sure of yourselves, do something about it...let's
see who in a higher up position will even listen. Good luck
Walt
EXPERT ON BAKER'S PHYSICAL CONDITION??? Is that necessary to know
that a persons respiratory rate increases with exertion??....Duh.
I'm curious why you ommitted Baker's DESCRIPTION of the man he
encountered on either the third or fourth floor????
Do you lack the guts to admit that Baker's DESCRIPTION does NOT fit
Lee Oswald?? Do you also lack the intelligence to see that Baker's
DESCRIPTION matches the description that Arnold Rowland gave of the
man with the hunting rifle that he saw behind the wide open WEST end
window of the TSBD. The man was about 30.... he weighed about 165
pounds....he was about 5 '9" tall...... He had DARK hair.... and he
was wearing a light colored jacket.
C'mon so just a glimmer of intelligent, independent,
reasoning.....quit regurgitating the SPECULATION of the Warren Report.
Walt
Walt
Don't be stupid..... The goverment has power over the mind control
media. There's no need to threaten any "kook", when they can simply
make anybody who disagrees with them appear to be a 'kook". Most
people will run away from being associated with a "kook".....so if a
government a stooge like Dan Blather, or Tom Brokethelaw labels
someone a kook, they have effectively isolated the "Kook".
But make no mistake..... the truth cannot be destroyed. It's always
there, standing like the Rock of Gibraltar....It's just a matter of
time before the truth will be revealed. Are you going to be one of
those with egg on their face??
Walt
Walt
their
entire police force back in 1963 were a bunch of liars and they aided
in the assassination of JFK? That would get the ball rolling
wouldn't?
Of course with no proof, it would probably get your asses thrown in
jail.
WOW!!! what a revealing insight into your mind..... Since when is it
legal, and appropriate, to "throw someone in jail" for expressing
their ideas??? Where the hell do you live.....Iran??
Walt
Walt
Duh..... How many of the "higher up" listened to those who refused to
believe the earth was flat?? Who was correct in the end?? The "higher
ups", or the peons, who were being thrown in dungeons for
hierarchy?
justm...@gmail.com
No Walt, I'm going to be one of those who sits back and watches the
rest of you spin in circles for another 44 years. We'll all be dead
and still nothing will change. Posting on a newsgroup isn't going to
do a thing but cause the conflicts in interest that it does. You want
action take it to someone who will listen. That's if you can find
someone besides the other kooks who think like you do. Walt? There is
no comparison to the CT truth and the Rock of Gibraltar. The rock will
still be standing 500 yrs from now so will history and the WCR.
Times they are a changin Walt, the younger generation doesn't care
about the JFK assassination. When all of the baby boomers are gone, it
will be a moot case. You can scream and rant till the day you die, you
have NEVER produced another suspect with any evidence, you have never
produced another weapon(s), you have never produced proof there were
shots fired from other than the TSBD. All you have done is taken the
evidence thats been provided and try to rip it apart word by word.
Find something sinister in every sentance. The CT's favorite line is
witness testimony is accurate and the witnesses haven't lied. Why is
it that all the witnesses used in the WCR are called liars by the
CT's?? The only witness testimony the CT's listen too are the people
who fit into their agenda of a conspiracy. You pick and chose who is a
credible witness and who isn't. Well the government already did that
Walt...and there isn't a thing you can do to change it. You've tried
for over 40 years, and failed.
Walt
"Failed"?.....No I don't think so. As I pointed out sooner or later
the flat earthers will be shown to be the gutless fools, that they
are. There's no doubt in my mind that it will happen.... Because when
I first started to SERIOUSLY examine the evidence. I prayed for
guidance.... I was shown that the murder of President kennedy, was the
work of the devil, performed by his henchmen. An unseen hand has
guided me in my quest for the truth. I now KNOW the truth, even if I
don't know all of the details.
Walt
justm...@gmail.com
In your mind Walt...it's all in your mind. When you can name a name
and prove it...then it will be more then a pipe dream. Good luck
Walt
Psssst....I said I KNOW the truth.... You're the one who needs
'"luck'"
Walt
justm...@gmail.com
Ah thats right, the revelation that came to you with the answers.
Have you ever considered talking to a shrink?
Walt
Don't be ridiculous...... When I said I was guided in finding answers
I didn't get them in a dream, or hear a voice. When I had a question
about some aspect of the case the answer usually came from the Warren
Report. When I had a question about the murder of president Kennedy
and didn't know where to find the answer ..... I merely opened the
Warren report and the answer was right there in front of me. I was
stunned the first time it happened......and it has happened several
times. Believe it or not.........
Walt
justm...@gmail.com
Yet the ct's continually say the WR is a bunch of lies. Ok, double
standard going on again. The WR is only good for the CT's when they
can twist it around and make it fit their agenda. I get it now. Hmmm
the WR says LHO is guilty, must be you're agreeing with them, thats
nice Walt...welcome to the LN side!
Walt
Are you really this obtuse?? I think yer just playin dumb.....But
then again............
I've always said the Warren Report is a pack of lies. Meaning that the
book is basically a gross distortion of the truth.
It's impossible to show those distortions without using the book. Are
you really so dumb that you can't understand that??
Walt