NEW GOOGLE JFK GROUP
Gil Jesus
It's a group where we can discuss credible conspiracy theories in the
JFK ASSASSINATION without the LN bashing and BS.
I invite all of my fellow conspiracy believers and friends to join.
Gil Jesus
chuck schuyler wrote:
> discuss your endless theories and duke it out over 'how it happened'.
> When you have it narrowed down to 5-10 theories, from the current
> 6,569,022 theories, c'mon back and will compare them to the Oswald
> Alone view. See you in a few decades.
>
> I hope 'Poison Dart/Umbrella Man' makes the final cut. It's my
> favorite;)
>
> By the way, what's your theory?
Gil Jesus:
Wow, you guys really get angry when you're cut out, huh ? When you
find out there's a MODERATED group where you can't harass or use
vulgarity. If all the conspiracy theorists who post here left his
newsgroup, you'd be screwed huh ?
No one to add fuel to your fires of disinformation and dishonesty.
Like the king without clothes, you see your side wrapped up in a neat
little package, covered with the most glorious material in your fantasy
kingdom. You practice denial as if it were a religion, use the WC
Report like it was a bible, and defend the works of that meglomaniac
liar Hoover like he was Jesus Christ himself.
For most of you have never done any research and all you can do is to
refer to the websites of John McAdams or Ken Rahn. Rather than seek the
truth, like the Warren Commission you so wholeheartedly worship, you
prefer to just go with the flow.
Why not, it's easier. Just cut and paste.
Your side has little, if any, knowledge of the historical goings-on
during the Kennedy administration, what kinds of forces he was up
against, or what he was trying to accomplish.
In addition, you have little or no knowledge in the field of criminal
justice, little or no knowledge of what constitutes evidence, little or
no understanding of the chain of possession of evidence and little or
no understanding of the legal ramifications of that chain.
Keep shooting those melons, it doesn't mean a thing, unless, of
course, Oswald was shooting melons.
Not having been on a police dept, I doubt you would understand what
goes on during an interrogation of a prisoner, or to what extent an
interrogater would go to extract information from a suspect who was
withholding. Especially in the 1960's and especially in the South.
Never in the history of criminal jurisprudence has there ever been a
murder case like this one, where every single piece of evidence was in
question. It doesn't happen in a real investigation, trust me I know.
And this crime was beyond the capability of any one person, Oswald or
anyone else, and on that basis, there was a conspiracy, whether you
like it or not.
Gil Jesus
Here's my new group for anyone who wants to join. It is MODERATED by
me. I'm pulling a McAdams for the other side.
Gil Jesus
chuck schuyler wrote:
> Gil Jesus:
>
> Sounds like you are admitting defeat.
>
> Good riddance!
Gil Jesus: Not really. My mom once told me to ignore ignorant people.
It works for me.
David Von Pein
up-front statement at the top of the page:
"The "Lone Nut" theorists need not apply for membership."
Nothing like shutting off all opposing points-of-view, huh? (Not to
mention shutting down all common sense as well.)
Happy CT Hunting. Let us know if your new group's members ever "solve"
the case.
Gil Jesus
justm...@gmail.com
and speculation. You haven't had any proof in 43 years and you won't in
the next 43 years.
Make sure to invite Tomln over, he can continue to post his accusations
to felon supporters.
I wonder if he utters those words in his sleep?
I've been banned from his JFK chat room on paltalk. I've been in there
several times with different names. If you pretend to agree with old
Tom, you're his buddy, if you pretend you have little knowledge of the
case...you're his buddy (and he loves preaching to you) but if you
stand up for what you believe, your cussed at...insulted and then
bounced from his room.
There is no discussing this case with Tomln...he's an idiot!! I must
admit it was very entertaining to go in his paltalk room and make his
blood pressure soar.
Justme
Gil Jesus
justm...@gmail.com wrote:
> I've been banned from his JFK chat room on paltalk. I've been in there
> several times with different names.
Gil Jesus: So you admit you're a sneak and dishonest.
curtj...@hotmail.com
> I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
>
> Here's my new group for anyone who wants to join. It is MODERATED by
> me. I'm pulling a McAdams for the other side.
>
> It's a group where we can discuss credible conspiracy theories in the
> JFK ASSASSINATION without the LN bashing and BS.
>
>
> I invite all of my fellow conspiracy believers and friends to join.
>
Thanks Gil! I hope your ejections are much more justified than over at
McA's.
CJ
aeffects
chuck schuyler wrote:
> discuss your endless theories and duke it out over 'how it happened'.
> When you have it narrowed down to 5-10 theories, from the current
> 6,569,022 theories, c'mon back and will compare them to the Oswald
> Alone view. See you in a few decades.
chuckie, chuckie, CHUCKIE -- you can't even handle ONE CT theory, where
the hell do you get off suggesting anything of anyone around here? You
inconsiderate puke, you...
<snip the remaining nonsense>
justm...@gmail.com
Never was dishonest, he knew it was me everytime. I just enjoyed
watching him make an ass of himself. It was always good for a laugh :)
Gil Jesus
black...@aol.com
Congrats! Best wishes and good luck with the new group.
Gil Jesus
black...@aol.com wrote:
> Congrats! Best wishes and good luck with the new group.
Gil Jesus: Thanks, Dave. It's good to see that someone on your side of
the fence has some class !!
black...@aol.com
Your welcome! I hope the atmosphere there is less contentious.
But I may not be on the side you think I'm on. I AM very persnickety
and fussy about evidence, and it sometimes brings me into disgreement
with others. But I'm still pretty open-minded about a lot of things.
Good luck!
tomnln
I bounce for Disruption & Profanity ONLY
Which of those bad manners did you display?
If your view is correct, you are Obligated to teach others.
If your view is correct, you have the Responsibility to teach others.
ps;
WHY do you use "Aliases" like a common Criminal?
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168470387.5...@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1168474779....@o58g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Gil Jesus
cdddraftsman
Rossley's Chaterroo & Stumperroo Paltalk scam ! Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa !
...............TL
PS : Told you so BOZO , Conspiracy is finished !
Walt
chuck schuyler wrote:
> Gil Jesus wrote:
>
> > Wow, you guys really get angry when you're cut out, huh ? When you
> > find out there's a MODERATED group where you can't harass or use
> > vulgarity. If all the conspiracy theorists who post here left his
> > newsgroup, you'd be screwed huh ?
>
> that semi-intelligent people like yourself believe the vast majority of
> 'stuff' that passes as 'research'. I find this board to be fun, and I
> do learn a thing from time-to-time.
> >
> > No one to add fuel to your fires of disinformation and dishonesty.
>
> >
> > Like the king without clothes, you see your side wrapped up in a neat
> > little package, covered with the most glorious material in your fantasy
> > kingdom.
>
> are the one that wants to wrap JFK's murder into a neat package called
> conspiracy and dismiss the hard physical evidence as planted, forged or
> altered.
>
> You practice denial as if it were a religion, use the WC
> > Report like it was a bible,
>
> 'pilgrimage' there to cry at the at grassy knoll Calvary, where JFK was
> slain for the sins of mankind. CE399 and the Zfilm are holy artifacts,
> and the WC is your Judas.
>
> and defend the works of that meglomaniac
> > liar Hoover like he was Jesus Christ himself.
>
> >
> > For most of you have never done any research and all you can do is to
> > refer to the websites of John McAdams or Ken Rahn. Rather than seek the
> > truth, like the Warren Commission you so wholeheartedly worship, you
> > prefer to just go with the flow.
> >
> > Why not, it's easier. Just cut and paste.
>
> a fanciful conspiracy but I woke up. The WC is a solid piece of work.
> The WCR, like the 9/11 commission report, isn't perfect, but it's darn
> good.
>
> > Your side has little, if any, knowledge of the historical goings-on
> > during the Kennedy administration, what kinds of forces he was up
> > against, or what he was trying to accomplish.
>
> to the great events of the day with 'Nam, civil rights, the Cold War,
> etc. Kennedy was an ordinary politician banging every babe he could
> and he had a mixed record of success as a President. He was Clinton
> with Addison's Disease (instead of Herpes like Bubba).
>
> This is just a case about bullets and palm prints. LHO's weapons.
> Ballistics. A man in a building shot at a man in a car. That's all it
> is. You want to elevate it to something more because he was POTUS, and
> Camelot and all of that jazz.
> >
> > In addition, you have little or no knowledge in the field of criminal
> > justice, little or no knowledge of what constitutes evidence, little or
> > no understanding of the chain of possession of evidence and little or
> > no understanding of the legal ramifications of that chain.
>
> trust the people-the real experts from the FBI and DPD-that tell us the
> palm print is LHO's, the ballistics evidence ties his weapons to the
> murders, etc.
>
> >
> > Keep shooting those melons, it doesn't mean a thing, unless, of
> > course, Oswald was shooting melons.
>
> >
> > Not having been on a police dept, I doubt you would understand what
> > goes on during an interrogation of a prisoner, or to what extent an
> > interrogater would go to extract information from a suspect who was
> > withholding. Especially in the 1960's and especially in the South.
> >
> > Never in the history of criminal jurisprudence has there ever been a
> > murder case like this one, where every single piece of evidence was in
> > question. It doesn't happen in a real investigation, trust me I know.
> >
> > And this crime was beyond the capability of any one person, Oswald or
> > anyone else, and on that basis, there was a conspiracy, whether you
> > like it or not.
>
> the evidence arrayed against Oswald. Three shots in 8.3 seconds, and
> the longest shot was 88 yards, possibly through a 4X scope. Witnesses
> saw a man shooting from that window and Oswald fled the scene...hmmm,
> wonder what that could mean. It's LHO's rifle at the SN. Explain that.
> Explain the ballistics and palm print evidence. Explain the autopsy
> report showing the POTUS was hit in the back/neck with the first shot,
> and that it passed through the front of his neck, and that the second
> shot hit him in the back of his head.
>
> We have the evidence. You have 'theories' about the Mob, Vietnam, Big
> Oil, Oswald worked for the CIA. The Cubans. It's an endless and
> embarrassing list.
>
> You guys want to clear Oswald at all costs.
tomnln
I have a Live Audio Chat Room on www.paltalk.com
Download & Use for FREE.
Once Logged on select Rooms, Social Issues & Politics.
Then select Government & Politics.
Scroll down to room called "Who Killed John F. Kennedy?"
I start between 8-9 pm e.s.t. EVERY NITE.
We can transfer files to one another Instantly.
ANY Exhibits of Evidence, ANY Testimony from WC/HSCA Volumes.
Look forward to seeing you there.
tomnln
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1168564409.9...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
Gil Jesus
>
> Thanks Gil! I hope your ejections are much more justified than over at
> McA's.
> >
Gil Jesus. I'm only ejecting for bashing. That's why I've left out the
LNers in advance.
Gil Jesus
cdddraftsman wrote:
> 2 replies in 7 messages by you ? Turning into a bigger Flopperroo than
> Rossley's Chaterroo & Stumperroo Paltalk scam ! Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa !
> ...............TL
>
> PS : Told you so BOZO , Conspiracy is finished !
Gil Jesus: Apparently not only is english your worse subject, but you
have a problem with math too.
JC
guilty hidden in the misty woods". Its awefully misty after a rain when
the sun comes out. One of several of the railroad employees S. M.
Holland heard the shot, saw the puff of smoke, went where it was with
his railroad buddies and saw muddy footprints on the fence and car
bumper like someone had stept up on them. The parking lot behind the
fence was packed with cars. Guess everyone had a clue where the
motorcade route was hu?(:-) The deaf man on the overpass saw 2 men and
a gun. No one much seemed to care what a deaf man saw, or any of the
other 50 grassy knowle wittenesses! Especially the Warren Commission.
Gofigure.
Gil Jesus
Hi JC. I don't know about Nostradamus, but I've wondered about those
cars in the parking lot. How easy it would be for a gunman to fire from
the fence and then jump into the open trunk of one of those cars with
the weapon. It wouldn't be difficult, for sure. But if I were planning
that, I'd be afraid that those cars would have been searched. However,
chances are that if the car had belonged to a police officer or a
sheriff's deputy, it might not be searched.
That parking lot was used by the deputies to park their personal
vehicles.
JC
<sorry bout that Chuck, i ment to post it inthe group>(:-)
JC: The conffessed shooter from the grassy knowl behind the picket
fence James Files said it was a custom bullet to explode on impact.
Gofigure. It was a Remington Fireball XP 100 Pistol that fires a bullet
like from a high powered deer rifle. I assure you, firing sucha bullet
from a pistol make a much more awesome noise! In the dictabelt
recording, the last bullet is distinctly from a different gun,CANNON! A
friend said a mofia fellow he knew told him there were 8 shooter's there
that day. James Files left the shell casing on the grassy knoll with his
teeth marks in the casing wich have been matched to his dental records.
He was not intended to be the main shooter only a backup shooter incase
the others missed, he took the shot! The deaf man on the overpass saw 2
men behind the fence, one put the gun in a case and both left. His
testimony was poo pooed like many others saying the shots came from the
grassy knowle.
JC
If Nostridomus was right "an innocent was accused of the deed" "The
guilty hidden in the misty woods". Its awefully misty after a rain when
the sun comes out. One of several of the railroad employees S. M.
Holland heard the shot, saw the puff of smoke, went where it was with
his railroad buddies and saw muddy footprints on the fence and car
bumper like someone had stept up on them. The parking lot behind the
fence was packed with cars. Guess everyone had a clue where the
motorcade route was hu?(:-) The deaf man on the overpass saw 2 men and a
gun. No one much seemed to care what a deaf man saw, or any of the other
50 grassy knowle wittenesses! Especially the Warren Commission.
Gofigure.
Gil Jesus: Hi JC. I don't know about Nostradamus, but I've wondered
about those cars in the parking lot. How easy it would be for a gunman
to fire from the fence and then jump into the open trunk of one of those
cars with the weapon. It wouldn't be difficult, for sure.
JC: Don't know they jumpt in a trunk.
Gil Jesus: But if I were planning that, I'd be afraid that those
cars would have been searched. However, chances are that if the car had
belonged to a police officer or a sheriff's deputy, it might not be
searched. That parking lot was used by the deputies to park their
personal vehicles.
JC: Well i did not know that, i assumed people parked and walked to
better viewing spot. I posted an article subject Ford/JFK, in it is a
connection to a man who flashed a secret service i.d. to the cop that
ran up the grassy knowle, i think it gave his name via photo i.d. by
that cop latter on. A wow connection!
tomnln
encountered him
was NEVER Identified.
The Warren commission never even investigated it.
NOR, did they investigate the FAKE Secret Service Agent found Behind the
TSBD.
"JC" <jesus...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15957-45A...@storefull-3255.bay.webtv.net...
Grizzlie Antagonist
Gil Jesus wrote:
> New google group called JFKconspiracy moderated by Me. :)
>
> It's a group where we can discuss credible conspiracy theories in the
> JFK ASSASSINATION
But where do you find a credible conspiracy theory?
John McAdams
>New google group called JFKconspiracy moderated by Me. :)
>
>It's a group where we can discuss credible conspiracy theories in the
>JFK ASSASSINATION without the LN bashing and BS.
>
>I invite all of my fellow conspiracy believers and friends to join.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/jfkconspiracy
>
Interestingly, JFK groups dominated by conspiracists have a history of
turning very nasty, as people who believe in different *kinds* of
conspiracies go after each other.
A few years ago, the "Zapruder film alteration" people were going back
and forth with "Zapruder film alteration" unbelievers.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ben Holmes
What's *truly* funny is that John will never stick around and debate the
evidence with those who are willing to label his actions for what they are.
John ran screaming away from the 6.5mm virtually round object after I presented
him with too many specific facts.
aeffects
John McAdams wrote:
> On 10 Jan 2007 06:33:22 -0800, "Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >New google group called JFKconspiracy moderated by Me. :)
> >
> >It's a group where we can discuss credible conspiracy theories in the
> >JFK ASSASSINATION without the LN bashing and BS.
> >
> >I invite all of my fellow conspiracy believers and friends to join.
> >
> >http://groups.google.com/group/jfkconspiracy
> >
>
> Interestingly, JFK groups dominated by conspiracists have a history of
> turning very nasty, as people who believe in different *kinds* of
> conspiracies go after each other.
>
> A few years ago, the "Zapruder film alteration" people were going back
> and forth with "Zapruder film alteration" unbelievers.
ah.... which way did he go, George -- which way did he go....film
alteration crowd is alive and well -- perhaps you need to get out more?
aeffects
John McAdams wrote:
> On 10 Jan 2007 06:33:22 -0800, "Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >New google group called JFKconspiracy moderated by Me. :)
> >
> >It's a group where we can discuss credible conspiracy theories in the
> >JFK ASSASSINATION without the LN bashing and BS.
> >
> >I invite all of my fellow conspiracy believers and friends to join.
> >
> >http://groups.google.com/group/jfkconspiracy
> >
>
> Interestingly, JFK groups dominated by conspiracists have a history of
> turning very nasty, as people who believe in different *kinds* of
> conspiracies go after each other.
>
> A few years ago, the "Zapruder film alteration" people were going back
> and forth with "Zapruder film alteration" unbelievers.
A few years ago? Check again there guy! Good to see your on top of the
game..... ROFLMAO!
dfd...@roadrunner.com
John McAdams wrote:
> On 10 Jan 2007 06:33:22 -0800, "Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >New google group called JFKconspiracy moderated by Me. :)
> >
> >It's a group where we can discuss credible conspiracy theories in the
> >JFK ASSASSINATION without the LN bashing and BS.
> >
> >I invite all of my fellow conspiracy believers and friends to join.
> >
> >http://groups.google.com/group/jfkconspiracy
> >
>
> Interestingly, JFK groups dominated by conspiracists have a history of
> turning very nasty, as people who believe in different *kinds* of
> conspiracies go after each other.
John:
Are you kidding me? This group is moderated!! Do you not think that
"cddraftsman", David Von Pien, and others do not go after CT's and vice
versa to the level of being nasty??? Is that not the old adage of the
"pot calling the kettle black?" I have seen comments accusing other
participants of being child pornographers, whether or not that is true, is
not germane to this topic. I do not recall whether or not these
accusations where posted on this forum or not, but the fact remains, these
comments have been posted on the web, and this topic should be about the
topic of JFK's assassination, not a members personal life; (FYI - I am a
conservative and father of 4, I definitely feel that child pornographers
should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.) I think that a forum
that is moderated by a LN or a CT is inherently biased. This forum is
clearly moderated by LN's, you don't attempt to be neutral in the debate
at all -- you are quite clearly a LN and a WC supporter. I respect your
position and the rest of the LNs and encourage debate of the facts.
However; what I have come to realize is that an issue that is a "fact" to
an LN; is hearsay, a lie, an exaggeration, or just plain BS to a CT and
vice versa. Although my personal research to date leans toward CT, my
ultimate goal is the truth of the JFK assassination. I fear that the only
way I will ever know the real truth of this matter is the day Jesus Christ
answers that question for me after I have departed this world.
John McAdams
wrote:
Oh, my! You mean they are still doing it?
I guess nothing is ever resolved -- at least not to the satisfaction
of everybody.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>
>John McAdams wrote:
>> On 10 Jan 2007 06:33:22 -0800, "Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >New google group called JFKconspiracy moderated by Me. :)
>> >
>> >It's a group where we can discuss credible conspiracy theories in the
>> >JFK ASSASSINATION without the LN bashing and BS.
>> >
>> >I invite all of my fellow conspiracy believers and friends to join.
>> >
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/jfkconspiracy
>> >
>>
>> Interestingly, JFK groups dominated by conspiracists have a history of
>> turning very nasty, as people who believe in different *kinds* of
>> conspiracies go after each other.
>
> John:
>
>
>Are you kidding me? This group is moderated!!
Are you reading this on alt.assassination.jfk, or alt.conspiracy.jfk?
The former is moderated, the latter is not.
A fair number of messages are cross-posted to both groups. If a
message has only alt.conspiracy.jfk in the "Newsgroups" header, we
moderators never saw it.
So please don't blame us for anything that appears only on the
Nuthouse.
>Do you not think that
>"cddraftsman", David Von Pien, and others do not go after CT's and vice
>versa to the level of being nasty??? Is that not the old adage of the
>"pot calling the kettle black?" I have seen comments accusing other
>participants of being child pornographers, whether or not that is true, is
>not germane to this topic.
On the MODERATED NEWSGROUP we would not allow such accusations to be
posted directed at any *poster.*
We might allow them to be posted if they concern somebody who does not
post on the newsgroup. Such activities might go to the credibility of
some person pushing a particular theory.
>I do not recall whether or not these
>accusations where posted on this forum or not, but the fact remains, these
>comments have been posted on the web, and this topic should be about the
>topic of JFK's assassination, not a members personal life; (FYI - I am a
>conservative and father of 4, I definitely feel that child pornographers
>should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.) I think that a forum
>that is moderated by a LN or a CT is inherently biased.
To reject a post on the moderated group requires that both I (an LN)
and Peter (a CT) vote to reject it.
>This forum is
>clearly moderated by LN's, you don't attempt to be neutral in the debate
>at all -- you are quite clearly a LN and a WC supporter. I respect your
>position and the rest of the LNs and encourage debate of the facts.
>However; what I have come to realize is that an issue that is a "fact" to
>an LN; is hearsay, a lie, an exaggeration, or just plain BS to a CT and
>vice versa. Although my personal research to date leans toward CT, my
>ultimate goal is the truth of the JFK assassination. I fear that the only
>way I will ever know the real truth of this matter is the day Jesus Christ
>answers that question for me after I have departed this world.
>
It might not be so simple:
1.) CT goes to heaven. Is before God, and is told he can ask one
question. He asks "Who killed John Kennedy?" God answers "It was
Oswald, all by himself." CT think "I didn't know the cover-up went
this high!"
2.) CT goes to heaven. Is before God, and is told he can ask one
question. He asks "Who killed John Kennedy?" God answers "you know .
. . I have a theory about that."
There is a 3.), but Dave Perry knows it, and I've forgotten it right
now.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
justm...@gmail.com
I bounce for Disruption & Profanity ONLY
Which of those bad manners did you display?
If your view is correct, you are Obligated to teach others.
If your view is correct, you have the Responsibility to teach others.
ps;
WHY do you use "Aliases" like a common Criminal?
Now that is the biggest joke I've encountered so far Tomln. I never
used profanity, I never disrupted...I asked you a question you couldn't
answer!! On second thought you did answer with your infamous question
"Do you support felons, yes or no?" Your chat room is for idiots like
yourself and thank God there are only 2 other morons that sit with you
night after night listening to your bs. Have you ever had more then 5
people in that room who have stayed and discussed views with you?? Not
for longer then 5 minutes because the second someone disagrees or poses
a question to you that you can't answer you insult and bounce them.
One hell of a way to run a chat room that is supposidly open for
discussion. I'd add to your little KMart announcement, "Open for
discussion as long as you agree with what I am here to discuss"
Here's a suggestion for you Tomln, why don't you change the name of
your room to My JFK beliefs, agree with them or do not enter! I have
encountered quite a few conspiracy buffs in my time, but NEVER have I
met anyone as moronic as you. Your website and your chat room both are
a failure.
Just as you are!
Walt
dfde...@roadrunner.com wrote:
Although my personal research to date leans toward CT, my
> ultimate goal is the truth of the JFK assassination. I fear that the only
> way I will ever know the real truth of this matter is the day Jesus Christ
> answers that question for me after I have departed this world.
>
>
>
Dear dfde...... I agree that unless you were one of the major players
in the conspiracy ( like J.Edna Hoover, or LBJ etc) there is no way
that you can know with 100% certainty that the murder was a conspiracy.
However, anybody who is willing to lay aside all of the irrelevant B.S.
and examine the basic facts that are relevant to the case, can 99%
certain that Oswald certainly did not shoot JFK as described by the
Warren Commission. It's really not very difficult or
complicated.....but it does require some serious research. Once you
know the truth. beyond a shadow of doubt, that a particular piece of
evidence presented by the Warren Commission is false, the curtain is up
and it's much easier to discern the truth.
For example: If you study the story about the "palm print" on the
rifle, you will find as I did that the J.C.Day did NOT find an
identifiable "palm print" on the metal barrel of the rifle as he
claimed. He said he found Oswald's palm print on the underside of the
metal barrel of the rifle beneath the wooden stock, about 3 inches back
from the muzzle end of the rifle. He was lying. This feat was as
physically impossible as the Single Bullet THEORY, but easier to prove
that it would have been impossible.
Walt
tomnln
Please tell us if the authorities Altered the Walker back yard photo 3
times?
You can be a Great Asset to American Justice if your willing to debate me &
prove me wrong.
Just let me know if you wanna discuss evidence/testimony OR, Exchange
Insults?
I Love BOTH subjects.
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168695878.1...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
Gil Jesus
Anthony Marsh
> On 10 Jan 2007 06:33:22 -0800, "Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> New google group called JFKconspiracy moderated by Me. :)
>>
>> It's a group where we can discuss credible conspiracy theories in the
>> JFK ASSASSINATION without the LN bashing and BS.
>>
>> I invite all of my fellow conspiracy believers and friends to join.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/jfkconspiracy
>>
>
> Interestingly, JFK groups dominated by conspiracists have a history of
> turning very nasty, as people who believe in different *kinds* of
> conspiracies go after each other.
>
As differentiated by this newsgroup controlled by WC defenders who are
allowed to make personal attacks on the conspiracy believers?
tomnln
<dfd...@roadrunner.com> wrote in message
news:1168666412.1...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
Gerry Simone (O)
Oswald touched the barrel while the gun was disassembled.
Not saying he did that on November 22nd, 1963 or shot the President, but a
print on the underside of the barrel and covered by the wooden stock shows
that he could only have done that if he had earlier ownership or
possession of the gun.
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:1168709638.3...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Gerry Simone (O)
Do you allow that in here?
Why do you need another moderated NG?
Doesn't this one show up in Google?
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:45a85dea...@news.newsguy.com...
Chad Zimmerman
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1168692734.0...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Wrong newsgroup guys.
alt.conspiracy.jfk is not moderated and flaming posts go up there all the
time. AAJFK is moderated
and done so primarily by John McAdams (LN) and Peter Fokes (CT). I fill in
on occassion, but receive
moderation notices regarding posts.
If you want forums moderated by unbiased people, perhaps you can find them
on Venus, Mercury or
some other planet. They sure are hard to find around here. As with any group
of people, personalities
clash and this group certainly isn't any different.
Chad
>
>
tomnln
Can't you defend your Position?
You have a Responsibility
You have an Obligation
To Defend Truth
To Defend Justice.
WHY would you NOT TEACH what you believe to be the Truth?
Were you LYING?
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:mebqh.16714$sE7....@newsfe21.lga...
Anthony Marsh
There you go again, spilling the beans. Admitting for all to see that
the moderation rules are not being followed properly.
> If you want forums moderated by unbiased people, perhaps you can find them
> on Venus, Mercury or
> some other planet. They sure are hard to find around here. As with any group
> of people, personalities
> clash and this group certainly isn't any different.
>
Jeez, I think most people are smart enough to figure out the bias here.
> Chad
>
>>
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> dfde...@roadrunner.com wrote:
> Although my personal research to date leans toward CT, my
>> ultimate goal is the truth of the JFK assassination. I fear that the only
>> way I will ever know the real truth of this matter is the day Jesus Christ
>> answers that question for me after I have departed this world.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Dear dfde...... I agree that unless you were one of the major players
> in the conspiracy ( like J.Edna Hoover, or LBJ etc) there is no way
> that you can know with 100% certainty that the murder was a conspiracy.
Wrong. The physical evidence proves conspiracy. Even Hoover believed it
was a conspiracy, but he could not prove who did it. He believed Castro
was behind it.
> However, anybody who is willing to lay aside all of the irrelevant B.S.
> and examine the basic facts that are relevant to the case, can 99%
> certain that Oswald certainly did not shoot JFK as described by the
> Warren Commission. It's really not very difficult or
Well, I hate to nit pick, but even if the WC got the details wrong and it
did not happen as they explained, Oswald could still have shot the
President. AND it could also be a conspiracy.
Chad Zimmerman
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HKednRgL9cUnAzfY...@comcast.com...
You are having trouble (as usual) reading what I wrote. I said that I do
receive the moderation notices. If I object to one of John's or Peter's
adjucated posts, I send a note. If I don't, then my vote is counted as a
'Yes'. Thus, I do partake in the moderation of posts, I just don't
actually moderate the INBOX and post.
>
>> If you want forums moderated by unbiased people, perhaps you can find
>> them on Venus, Mercury or
>> some other planet. They sure are hard to find around here. As with any
>> group of people, personalities
>> clash and this group certainly isn't any different.
>>
>
> Jeez, I think most people are smart enough to figure out the bias here.
Yep, all they have to do is see how you bounce around the board spouting
anti-WC and anti-LN rhetoric.
Chad
eca...@comcast.net
before you in that the LN
faction has a clear and
convincing evidence *pattern*
CTism has no such thing;
only questions in lieu of
evidence, much less an
evidence *pattern*
But if you have really
done your research which I
doubt, even if Christ came
down on a plank of light and
decreed that Oswald had
done it alone, I doubt you
would be persuaded.
Here's a reference that may
help you. Google up:
0457Jan607
under alt.assassination.jfk
Good luck,
MR ;~D 0331Jan1507
Anthony Marsh
I do understand that you are being a naughty boy and revealing the fact
that the rules are not being followed.
>
>>> If you want forums moderated by unbiased people, perhaps you can find
>>> them on Venus, Mercury or
>>> some other planet. They sure are hard to find around here. As with any
>>> group of people, personalities
>>> clash and this group certainly isn't any different.
>>>
>> Jeez, I think most people are smart enough to figure out the bias here.
>
> Yep, all they have to do is see how you bounce around the board spouting
> anti-WC and anti-LN rhetoric.
>
Wow. And how about anti-government rhetoric for good measure?
The point is how far such rhetoric can be taken. And which side is
allowed to say what it wants while the other side is censored. McAdams
can say two words and then tells me that I can not.
>
> Chad
papakoc...@evertek.net
Gerry Simone (O) wrote:
> Why do you say that Day is lying?
Gerry I'd love to take you through this one step at a time,and since the
subject under discussion is the palm print that Day said he found on the
metal barrel of the rifle I think we should both LOOK at that "palm
print". That "palm print" became commission exhibit # 637. If you don't
have a copy of CE 637 perhaps you can obtain one from Tomnln's web site.
I'll await your reply acknowledging that you have a good copy of CE
637.
Walt
Walt
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Walt wrote:
> > dfde...@roadrunner.com wrote:
> > Although my personal research to date leans toward CT, my
> >> ultimate goal is the truth of the JFK assassination. I fear that the only
> >> way I will ever know the real truth of this matter is the day Jesus Christ
> >> answers that question for me after I have departed this world.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Dear dfde...... I agree that unless you were one of the major players
> > in the conspiracy ( like J.Edna Hoover, or LBJ etc) there is no way
> > that you can know with 100% certainty that the murder was a conspiracy.
>
> Wrong. The physical evidence proves conspiracy. Even Hoover believed it
> was a conspiracy, but he could not prove who did it. He believed Castro
> was behind it.
A person cannot be 100% certain that there was a conspiracy by using the
physical evidence..... I 'm 100% sure that there was a conspiracy but
that strong conviction isn't from the physical evidence alone.
It's strange that you would cite the physical evidence as proof of
conspiracy and in the same breath act as if Hoover only "believed" that
there was a conspiracy. Hoover KNEW that JFK had been murdered by a band
of conspirators ...because he was the leader of the band.
>
> > However, anybody who is willing to lay aside all of the irrelevant B.S.
> > and examine the basic facts that are relevant to the case, can 99%
> > certain that Oswald certainly did not shoot JFK as described by the
> > Warren Commission. It's really not very difficult or
>
> Well, I hate to nit pick, but even if the WC got the details wrong and it
> did not happen as they explained, ( THEORIZED) Oswald could still have shot the
> President. AND it could also be a conspiracy.
Sure....and and in THEORY a ten year old could be an NFL quarterback,
if he was 6' 6" and weighed 250 pounds ........
Walt
Walt
Gerry Simone (O) wrote:
> LN Bashing.
>
> Do you allow that in here?
>
> Why do you need another moderated NG?
>
> Doesn't this one show up in Google?
Gerry....In a recent post you asked me how I know that J.C.Day was lying
about finding the the palm print on the bottom of the metal barrel. I'd
like to take you step by step and show you how I know that Day lied about
that print.... .But posting to the censored group is too damned slow and
cumbersome. I'd prefer to post the info at alt.conspiracy.jfk, do you
agree?
Walt
Chad Zimmerman
And since I do take a limited but active role in the moderation process,
just how does that violate the charter?
>
>>
>>>> If you want forums moderated by unbiased people, perhaps you can find
>>>> them on Venus, Mercury or
>>>> some other planet. They sure are hard to find around here. As with any
>>>> group of people, personalities
>>>> clash and this group certainly isn't any different.
>>>>
>>> Jeez, I think most people are smart enough to figure out the bias here.
>>
>> Yep, all they have to do is see how you bounce around the board spouting
>> anti-WC and anti-LN rhetoric.
>>
>
> Wow. And how about anti-government rhetoric for good measure?
> The point is how far such rhetoric can be taken. And which side is allowed
> to say what it wants while the other side is censored. McAdams can say two
> words and then tells me that I can not.
You still haven't bothered to show how he erred with that, Tony. It is
just hot air thus far. Substantiate your argument or keep huffing.
Chad
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> Walt wrote:
>>> dfde...@roadrunner.com wrote:
>>> Although my personal research to date leans toward CT, my
>>>> ultimate goal is the truth of the JFK assassination. I fear that the only
>>>> way I will ever know the real truth of this matter is the day Jesus Christ
>>>> answers that question for me after I have departed this world.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Dear dfde...... I agree that unless you were one of the major players
>>> in the conspiracy ( like J.Edna Hoover, or LBJ etc) there is no way
>>> that you can know with 100% certainty that the murder was a conspiracy.
>> Wrong. The physical evidence proves conspiracy. Even Hoover believed it
>> was a conspiracy, but he could not prove who did it. He believed Castro
>> was behind it.
>
> A person cannot be 100% certain that there was a conspiracy by using the
> physical evidence..... I 'm 100% sure that there was a conspiracy but
> that strong conviction isn't from the physical evidence alone.
>
Yes, a person CAN be 100% certain that there was a conspiracy just from
the physical evidence. Shots from two directions is enough. You don't need
to prove who pulled the triggers or who hired them.
> It's strange that you would cite the physical evidence as proof of
> conspiracy and in the same breath act as if Hoover only "believed" that
> there was a conspiracy. Hoover KNEW that JFK had been murdered by a band
> of conspirators ...because he was the leader of the band.
>
Hoover was not the mastermind of the JFK assassination. He believed it was
a conspiracy only because of the hoaxes linking Oswald to Castro.
>>> However, anybody who is willing to lay aside all of the irrelevant B.S.
>>> and examine the basic facts that are relevant to the case, can 99%
>>> certain that Oswald certainly did not shoot JFK as described by the
>>> Warren Commission. It's really not very difficult or
>> Well, I hate to nit pick, but even if the WC got the details wrong and it
>> did not happen as they explained, ( THEORIZED) Oswald could still have shot the
>> President. AND it could also be a conspiracy.
>
> Sure....and and in THEORY a ten year old could be an NFL quarterback,
> if he was 6' 6" and weighed 250 pounds ........
>
Irrelevant.
> Walt
tomnln
OR, do you have a little boy in your throat?
Start with officer Baker's Lies HERE>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:RGuqh.18529$sE7....@newsfe21.lga...
justm...@gmail.com
myself in any way, shape or form against you and your hogwash. IMO
Oswald is guilty. And please don't post your damn website to me again,
I've never been to it nor do I intend on going to it in the future.
And before you ask your famous question again (sigh) YES I SUPPORT
FELONS!!!! I gave up trying to debate with you in your paltalk room,
there is no such thing as discussion with you. You have a one track
mind (what little there is left to it) and your a rude, miserable old
man.
Ben Holmes
justm...@gmail.com says...
>
>Tomln...let's get one thing straight here. I do NOT need to defend
>myself in any way, shape or form against you and your hogwash. IMO
>Oswald is guilty. And please don't post your damn website to me again,
>I've never been to it nor do I intend on going to it in the future.
>And before you ask your famous question again (sigh) YES I SUPPORT
>FELONS!!!! I gave up trying to debate with you in your paltalk room,
>there is no such thing as discussion with you. You have a one track
>mind (what little there is left to it) and your a rude, miserable old
>man.
And LNT'ers are dishonest cowards... what's new?
papakoc...@evertek.net
Chad .....do you have the balls to examine the evidence which shows
that DPD detective Lt. J.C.Day was lying about the circumstances
surrounding a key piece of evidence.... the "palm print" ?
Walt
>
> >
> >
tomnln
THAT says it all.
ps;
There has NEVER been anyone named "justme" in my chat room.
Proving that you are also a LIAR.
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169043051.4...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Chad Zimmerman
<papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:1168961843....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hmm. Gee, Walt, wasn't this thread about the creation of a new Google JFK
group?
Is there some reason that now all of a sudden you want me to discuss palm
prints?
I have no problem doing so and we all might learn something new. I suggest
that you
start a new thread on that topic if you'd like and I'll place my sack of
procreation within
that thread for you to take swings at. Is that what you really want?
Really, do you really think you need to flex biceps in the high school
lockerroom in order
to challenge someone to a discussion?
Chad
>
> Walt
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>
>
Gerry Simone (O)
<papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:1168898743.7...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Gerry Simone (O)
my Outlook Express is only configured for mcadams.posc.mu.edu
We can chat here or I can email you...tonight or later this week please.
thanks.
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:1168905744.0...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...