OT: "On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs"

[Alex Foyle]

Not specifically on JFK, but still a very interesting study and article on
the viability of conspiratorial beliefs:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3417640/Oxford-University-physicist-formulates-long-conspiracy-theories-remain-secret.html

[Anthony Marsh]

Nothing new. Just the typical WC defender using Reductio ad Absurdum.
Did Watergate take everyone in the government to accomplish? Silly trash.

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- show quoted text -

Nothing new. Just the typical WC defender using Reductio ad Absurdum.
Did Watergate take everyone in the government to accomplish?

How many times do you have to be told? The Watergate cover-up was
discovered within one year. It has been over 52 years since the JFK
assassination. Your example is just plain silly.

[Bud]

Thats the point of the articles, when conspiracies actually exist they
can be exposed.

> Silly trash.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

News bulletin: The Watergate cover up WAS discovered. The break in was in
June 1972. Nixon resigned in August of 1974. About two years.

Nixon couldn't control the people involved. Or the other agencies.

You keep citing Watergate as an example of a conspiracy without realizing
that it was uncovered.

If I were you I would stop.

[Alex Foyle]

On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 5:59:48 AM UTC+1, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:

> If I were you I would stop.

Very good advice, but he can't, it's all he thinks he is.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, eventually all conspiracies are exposed. Was Watergate exposed the
next day? Did Nixon confess?

>> Silly trash.
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, finally you admit that there was a cover-up. And it took a whole
year to uncover it. AFTER the election. So the cover-up worked as long as
it had to.

Not everyone is stupid enough to believe for 52 yesrs that the JFK
assassination was not a conspiracy. You can fool 10% of the people all the
time.

[bigdog]

The line has been attributed to many people including Ben Franklin and
Carlos Marcello so I don't know who actually said it first but it goes
like this:

Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead.

If sounds like something that Franklin might say. Or Marcello.

This is the problem conspiracy hobbyists are faced with. The killing of
JFK was the easy part. Covering it up by making Oswald the patsy is the
hard part. It would require a small army of people at all levels of
government. Local, state, federal. Since the entire body of evidence
points to Oswald it stands to reason that if some of it is tainted it
would all need to be tainted. If only some of it were tainted, why would
the tainted evidence point to the same guy as the genuine evidence. For it
all to be tainted, you would need to have virtually everyone involved in
gathering and analyzing the evidence on board with the cover up. So did
the masterminds have these people on board before the assassination or did
they carry out the assassination and then convince all the investigators
to join in on the cover up. I'm not sure which of those alternatives is
more preposterous.

[Bud]

That the crime was a criminal conspiracy was established immediately.

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- hide quoted text -

The Watergate coverup was exposed within a year. It doesn't matter whether
Nixon confessed.

You need to be told, yet again: It's been 52 years since the JFK
assassination. Game's over, Anthony. It was Oswald, in the TSBD, with the
Carcano.

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- hide quoted text -

On 1/29/2016 4:35 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Anthony Marsh
> - show quoted text -
> Nothing new. Just the typical WC defender using Reductio ad Absurdum.
> Did Watergate take everyone in the government to accomplish?
>
>
>
>
> How many times do you have to be told? The Watergate cover-up was
> discovered within one year. It has been over 52 years since the JFK
> assassination. Your example is just plain silly.
>


Well, finally you admit that there was a cover-up. And it took a whole
year to uncover it.

One year. Not "a whole" 52 years. Who served prison time for your kooky
JFK conspiracy? That's right. Nobody. You can't even name a conspirator.
When called on to do that, you blame a dead forensic artist who had
nothing to do with the assassination.

Sad.


But keep using Watergate as an example. It only serves to prove your
desperation and inability to prove a JFK conspiracy.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! It would NOT require a "small army of people", it just needed
about 20 people on the front end and 30 or so people on the back end.
There were many people that were not part of the conspiracy, but were
directed to help cover up evidence of anything but the 'lone nut'
scenario. What's preposterous is saying that without the slightest notion
of what happened, particularly if they believe in the word of th WCR.

As well, there is NOT an "entire body of evidence" that points to
Oswald as th shooter at the motorcade. He was seen in the 2nd floor
lunchroom by Carolyn Arnold at about 12:15pm or later, and then seen in
that same lunchroom seconds after the shooting by Officer Baker and
supervisor Truly. Worse even, there were 2 men seen at about the same
time in the 6th floor window with a gun. Oswald couldn';t just rush up
there and grab the window position, since the 2 men were there first.

Just ridiculous these LNs.

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Killing JFK in Dallas and then framing a person for the act was incredibly
dumb. You have local officials/police all over the case. A mix of state,
local and federal officials investigating things?

All of these individuals - the different agencies, the bureaucracies, the
conflicts, the individual personalities - involved? There has to be
confidence beforehand that one could keep the lid on this. Then confidence
you can control things during the investigation. And then confidence
afterwards? For years?

Impossible, simply impossible.

Do the conspiracy believers know anything about how government works? How
bureaucracies work? How human nature works? They have a cartoon
understanding of things.

[Anthony Marsh]

1978
We Won, You LOST.
Get a new job, harassing homeless people.

'

[Bud]

<snicker> Only fifty people. Not be be confused with a small army.

> There were many people that were not part of the conspiracy, but were
> directed to help cover up evidence of anything but the 'lone nut'
> scenario.

And for some reason the hobbyists feel most of these people were unaware
of what was transpiring right in front of them, but the hobbyists can see
it clearly from the outside looking in. What a silly hobby!

> What's preposterous is saying that without the slightest notion
> of what happened, particularly if they believe in the word of th WCR.

Warren Commission was constrained by reality. You are not.

> As well, there is NOT an "entire body of evidence" that points to
> Oswald as th shooter at the motorcade.

Just more than was ever necessary to convict anyone in the whole history
of crime.

> He was seen in the 2nd floor
> lunchroom by Carolyn Arnold at about 12:15pm or later,

Even if it were true it still wouldn`t be an alibi.

> and then seen in
> that same lunchroom seconds after the shooting by Officer Baker and
> supervisor Truly.

Unfortunately for it to be an alibi you need someone during, not before
and after.

> Worse even, there were 2 men seen at about the same
> time in the 6th floor window with a gun.

Most witnesses said there was only one person in that window prior to
the shooting.

> Oswald couldn';t just rush up
> there and grab the window position, since the 2 men were there first.
>
> Just ridiculous these LNs.

Yes, ridiculous to weigh the evidence properly, to do so would do great
harm to the silly hobby.

> Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Not that it was a political crime ordered by the President. Everyone
said it was just a third-rate burglary.

[Anthony Marsh]

This is what I've been telling you guys for 30 years. The difference
between the crime and the cover-up. Ever hear of Watergate?
That crime took only a handful of people. Covering it up took many more
people. The people who covered it up were not the same as the burglars.

> points to Oswald it stands to reason that if some of it is tainted it
> would all need to be tainted. If only some of it were tainted, why would

No, silly. Not all of it has to be tainted. Do you claim that ALL the
evidence in the OJ Simpson was tainted? Fake blood, fake wounds at the
crime scene?

> the tainted evidence point to the same guy as the genuine evidence. For it

Because he was framed, like OJ Simpson.

> all to be tainted, you would need to have virtually everyone involved in
> gathering and analyzing the evidence on board with the cover up. So did

They don't need to know what they are covering up and why. Did the
mechanics who rebuilt the limo have to know WHY they were ordered to
destroy the original parts? Did they have to know the latest theory of
the case?

> the masterminds have these people on board before the assassination or did
> they carry out the assassination and then convince all the investigators
> to join in on the cover up. I'm not sure which of those alternatives is
> more preposterous.
>

Reductio ad Absurdum. You have never looked at real cases with real
crimes and real cover-ups.

[bigdog]

Conspiracy theorists for the most part believe the government is
monolithic and is controlled by the puppet master of a shadow government
known only as "they". They don't seem to understand all the fiefdoms that
comprise the government bureaucracy and that all these little fiefdoms
have their own agendas. In just the federal government, there are three
separate branches of government. Within the executive branch alone there
are many cabinet departments and within those departments are many
bureaus. Even a President's cabinet members have their own agendas which
may or may not conform with the desires of the President. Does anyone
think Hillary was all in for Obama while serving as SOS. The House and the
Senate don't get along even when controlled by the same party. As one long
time Democrat Senator advised a newly elected colleague, "The Republicans
are our opponents, the House is the enemy". Throw the state and local
agencies involved in the investigation and you have a real pot of stew.
Good luck trying to get all those entities onboard to cover up the murder
of a POTUS. It would have been the first time in the history of the
republic that there was universal cooperation on anything.

[Anthony Marsh]

So what? Cops do dumb things all the time. Like framing OJ Simpson
because their case was so weak.

> local and federal officials investigating things?
>
> All of these individuals - the different agencies, the bureaucracies, the
> conflicts, the individual personalities - involved? There has to be
> confidence beforehand that one could keep the lid on this. Then confidence
> you can control things during the investigation. And then confidence
> afterwards? For years?
>
> Impossible, simply impossible.
>

So you claim that all conspiracies are impossible. I guess you never
heard that the CIA conspired to kill Castro. How well did that go?
Did they have a press conference in 1960 to announce their plans?

> Do the conspiracy believers know anything about how government works? How
> bureaucracies work? How human nature works? They have a cartoon
> understanding of things.
>

We know that conspiracies happen. Not just on TV or in the movies. The
government is always prosecuting conspiracies so they must be real.

>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/1/2016 2:14 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Anthony Marsh
> - hide quoted text -
> On 1/29/2016 4:35 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>> Anthony Marsh
>> - show quoted text -
>> Nothing new. Just the typical WC defender using Reductio ad Absurdum.
>> Did Watergate take everyone in the government to accomplish?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> How many times do you have to be told? The Watergate cover-up was
>> discovered within one year. It has been over 52 years since the JFK
>> assassination. Your example is just plain silly.
>>
>
>
> Well, finally you admit that there was a cover-up. And it took a whole
> year to uncover it.
>
>
>
>
> One year. Not "a whole" 52 years. Who served prison time for your kooky
> JFK conspiracy? That's right. Nobody. You can't even name a conspirator.
> When called on to do that, you blame a dead forensic artist who had
> nothing to do with the assassination.
>

Because the case was not investigated and no one brought to justice.
Maybe it was taken care of privately.
I already named Frank Bender, but you don't know who he was.
I already named Richard Helms, but you give him a pass because you think
he was just doing his job.

[OHLeeRedux]

You didn't win anything. Conspiracy based solely on acoustics -- no names,
no weapons, no witnesses. And then the acoustic "evidence" was completely
debunked.

If that's what you call winning, you need to consult a dictionary.

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- hide quoted text -

No, Nixon did not order the Watetgate break-in. And no, "everybody" did not say it was a third-rate burglary.

You're zero for two, Comrade.

[mainframetech]

Naah. Not impossible at all. Rather staight forward really. First,
we have the proof now that their plan worked, since we're still arguing if
it was a conspiracy or not. Second, The control was easy, and was mainly
handled by the FBI, who came in early to the case and took charge of the
evidence (which they manipulated) and the witnesses, whom they questioned
and intimidated or whose statements they changed as it suited their
purposes. The limousine was taken care of by the SS who sent it off the
be refurbished a couple days after the murder, destroying any evidence
that may have still been there.

It was well handled under the guise of the FBI doing a bangup job of
getting on the case and pursuing the guilty party.

> Do the conspiracy believers know anything about how government works? How
> bureaucracies work? How human nature works? They have a cartoon
> understanding of things.

I worked for the government for over 5 years and I saw them slow and
dumb at times, and I saw them move as fast as lightning when it was
needed.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Thanks for the history lesson, professor.
What is you PhD in?
Mind telling us about the Easter Bunny or any other fairy tale?

> think Hillary was all in for Obama while serving as SOS. The House and the
> Senate don't get along even when controlled by the same party. As one long

Who said same party? I didn't know that they were both controlled by the
Tea Party.

> time Democrat Senator advised a newly elected colleague, "The Republicans
> are our opponents, the House is the enemy". Throw the state and local
> agencies involved in the investigation and you have a real pot of stew.

So what?

> Good luck trying to get all those entities onboard to cover up the murder
> of a POTUS. It would have been the first time in the history of the
> republic that there was universal cooperation on anything.
>

No one said the local dog catcher was in on the plot.
You've way overdone your Reductio ad Absurdum.
Now we have to invent a new term just for you.
Reductio ad Infinitum.

[Anthony Marsh]

The Warren Commission Report is a work of fiction.

>> As well, there is NOT an "entire body of evidence" that points to
>> Oswald as th shooter at the motorcade.
>
> Just more than was ever necessary to convict anyone in the whole history
> of crime.
>

Wade could convict a ham sandwich.

>> He was seen in the 2nd floor
>> lunchroom by Carolyn Arnold at about 12:15pm or later,
>
> Even if it were true it still wouldn`t be an alibi.
>
>> and then seen in
>> that same lunchroom seconds after the shooting by Officer Baker and
>> supervisor Truly.
>
> Unfortunately for it to be an alibi you need someone during, not before
> and after.
>
>> Worse even, there were 2 men seen at about the same
>> time in the 6th floor window with a gun.
>
> Most witnesses said there was only one person in that window prior to
> the shooting.
>

Most? Where do you get MOST? Just making up crap again.

[mainframetech]

It's sure a good thing you have no clue what you're talking about.
Many people could be misled if you did. All government departments and
agencies have one abiding goal. Survival. and next, to maximize income
based on good reputation. Next is to expand territory of control of
people and resources. From there they may branch down into minor goals,
but the main goals do most of the motivating.

However, what you have misunderstood for a good while now, is that the
JFK case did NOT need any depts. working together, it needed individuals
in a few depts. to work with each other to accomplish a single goal, the
demise of JFK, who was in the way of some of them making a lot of money.
Some worked for a better 'in' with the bigger guys in the plot, like
Burkley who became the physician to LBJ soon after the shooting. He had
been helpful at the autopsy and before.

So your idea of depts. working together had no bearing on the JFK case.

Your mention of Hillary having a separate agenda is corrent, but
everyone was awar of it. She wanted to be president and wanted to rakc up
a really good base of information about foreign affairs for the future.
She wanted also to rack up a good reputation, and to get Obama's support
if she ran for the W.H. all still in the open, and not a secret from
anyone with any knowledge.

Chris

[BOZ]

I moved past the front door [of Nicole's condo] to take a closer look.
There were candles burning inside, and I could hear faint music playing.
It was obvious that Nicole was expecting company. I wondered who the f--k
it was this time. I wondered if maybe Faye was coming over with some of
her boy-toys so they could all get wild and dirty while my kids were
sleeping upstairs.

Just as I was beginning to get seriously steamed, the back gate squeaked
open. A guy came walking through like he owned the f--king place. He saw
me and froze. He was young and good-looking, with a thick head of har,
and I tried to place him, but I'd never seen him before. I didn't even
know his name: Ron Goldman.

"Who the f--k are you?" I said.

"I, uh--I just came by to return a pair of glasses," he replied,
stammering.

"Really? A pair of glasses, huh?"....

--O. J. Simpson, If I Did It: Confessions of a Killer, p. 128

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

The conspiracy people (Morley does this; Simpich/DiEugenio, Garrison did
to a smaller degree) promote a sort of annotated "conspiracy history"
which consists solely of accounts of the operations of the CIA and FBI
during that period. And that history is focused on events such as
Operation Northwood (the Pentagon) and Mongoose and the other CIA actions
such as overthrowing Mossadegh or Arbenz or the FBI's COINTELPRO program.
Nasty stuff to be sure but hardly complete.

So, they wallow in that admittedly sordid and ugly history and extrapolate
from those successful conspiracies and apply it to the JFK assassination.
The CIA did dirty deed "A" or "B" and therefore they did "C", killing JFK
and covering it up.

Talbot tries to tie this all together in his book on Dulles. He promotes a
"deep state" theory that there was (and is) a secret national security
apparatus combining the government and private sector that really run
security policy. And that this deep state, on orders of Dulles, killed
JFK. A sort of super military industrial complex idea that Eisenhower
talked about.

Yes, sure, maybe. But this "deep power blob" is still a bureaucracy; it's
run by managers and administrators who carry out the orders from the top.
It's not a single entity. Dulles can order the overthrow of Mossadegh but
it's a bridge too far to think he could order the murder of JFK, the
framing of another man, and then a giant coverup over half a century of
those acts. Cui bono? What's the benefit to all of these different parts,
administrators, managers?

[Anthony Marsh]

It's what the cover-up artists said.
OK, Nixon did not order the "Watetgate" break-in. That was someone else.
But Nixon authorize the burglars to break in to the Watergate.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you call it winning when you kill the patsy so that there can be no
trial.

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- hide quoted text -

Allow me to translate: Anthony has no response whatsover to your
well-reasoned argument, so he just scrapes together some of his stock
smartass remarks and some Latin terms that he looked up on Google to make
himself look smart.

Sad.

[Bud]

"up"is "down" to conspiracy hobbyists.

> >> As well, there is NOT an "entire body of evidence" that points to
> >> Oswald as th shooter at the motorcade.
> >
> > Just more than was ever necessary to convict anyone in the whole history
> > of crime.
> >
>
> Wade could convict a ham sandwich.

Cant tell if that is a strawman or just a non sequitur but it certainly
doesn`t have anything to do with what I wrote.

> >> He was seen in the 2nd floor
> >> lunchroom by Carolyn Arnold at about 12:15pm or later,
> >
> > Even if it were true it still wouldn`t be an alibi.
> >
> >> and then seen in
> >> that same lunchroom seconds after the shooting by Officer Baker and
> >> supervisor Truly.
> >
> > Unfortunately for it to be an alibi you need someone during, not before
> > and after.
> >
> >> Worse even, there were 2 men seen at about the same
> >> time in the 6th floor window with a gun.
> >
> > Most witnesses said there was only one person in that window prior to
> > the shooting.
> >
>
> Most?

Is this another word you are unfamiliar with?

> Where do you get MOST?

The evidence.

> Just making up crap again.

I doubt you even know the point I was making. What group was I referring
to?

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 7:24:53 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> Naah. Not impossible at all. Rather staight forward really. First,
> we have the proof now that their plan worked, since we're still arguing if
> it was a conspiracy or not.

So what you are saying is the existence of you suspicions is proof of the
validity of your suspicions. Brilliant logic!!!

[bigdog]

Woodward began suspecting from the start there was something more to it.
It took a lot of persistent work by him and Bernstein to break through the
stonewalling that was being done by the White House. Of course they
weren't the only ones working the story. The Senate hearings revealed the
existence of the Oval Office taping system which proved to be Nixon's
undoing. Until then it was suspected that there probably had been White
House involvement but that the proof was never going to surface.

[Allan G. Johnson]

It took less than one year for Deep Throat to start talking, no Deep
Throat yet has emerged from the JFK case.

[bigdog]

And all those entities compete against one another for the taxpayers
money. They don't cooperate with one another.

> However, what you have misunderstood for a good while now, is that the
> JFK case did NOT need any depts. working together, it needed individuals
> in a few depts. to work with each other to accomplish a single goal, the
> demise of JFK, who was in the way of some of them making a lot of money.
> Some worked for a better 'in' with the bigger guys in the plot, like
> Burkley who became the physician to LBJ soon after the shooting. He had
> been helpful at the autopsy and before.
>

To pull off the conspiracy you guys imagine just about everyone involved
in the investigation would have needed to be in on it since all the
evidence pointed at Oswald. Either all the evidence was genuine or it was
all faked. Or as Bugliosi put it, either Oswald did it or thousands of
people worked together to make it look like he did.

> So your idea of depts. working together had no bearing on the JFK case.
>
> Your mention of Hillary having a separate agenda is corrent, but
> everyone was awar of it. She wanted to be president and wanted to rakc up
> a really good base of information about foreign affairs for the future.
> She wanted also to rack up a good reputation, and to get Obama's support
> if she ran for the W.H. all still in the open, and not a secret from
> anyone with any knowledge.
>

Neither wants to accept the blame for Benghazi and each wants to drop that
turd on the other's doorstep.

[bigdog]

No matter who they imagine the bogeyman to be, they all would need the
cooperation of virtually everyone involved in the evidence gathering and
analysis to pull off the cover up and that is where it gets really silly.

[Mark Florio]

You're saying Burkley was involved in the conspiracy in order to become
LBJ's personal doctor? As if that was a promotion? He was ALREADY
personal physician for a president. He entered the JFK White (he had
worked in Ike's WH as well) in 1961 as assistant to JFK's personal doctor
Janet Travell. After she left in 1963, he was promoted to her position.
Mark

[BOZ]

Marsh has glossolalia.

[Anthony Marsh]

Reductio ad Absurdum. Did everyone in the government participate in the
Castro assassination plots?

[Anthony Marsh]

YOU should accept the blame for Benghazi. Hillary did not control the
CIA. Obama reacted too late to help, based on faulty information.
At Benghazi there were two separate events.
First the protests at the Emabassy which were peaceful.
Second, the long-planned guerrilla attack on the CIA barracks.

[Anthony Marsh]

Jesus, try to pay attention. James McCord is the one who spilled the
beans. Lots of Deep Throats have emerged.

[Anthony Marsh]

Once again you ignore simple facts. James McCord, literally in inside
man, spilled the beans. And for whom was he working. Richard Helms.

[Anthony Marsh]

You don't have any evidence. Just disinformation.

[Anthony Marsh]

"Northwood [sic]?" Are you sure you know what the Hell you are talking
about? Maybe you have never actually seen the documents, but these were
real programs, not just paranoia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

They are used as EXAMPLES of complex conspiracies involving the whole
government. Something you claim is impossible.

> such as overthrowing Mossadegh or Arbenz or the FBI's COINTELPRO program.
> Nasty stuff to be sure but hardly complete.
>
> So, they wallow in that admittedly sordid and ugly history and extrapolate
> from those successful conspiracies and apply it to the JFK assassination.
> The CIA did dirty deed "A" or "B" and therefore they did "C", killing JFK
> and covering it up.
>

Same cast of characters. Same MO. Usual suspects.

> Talbot tries to tie this all together in his book on Dulles. He promotes a
> "deep state" theory that there was (and is) a secret national security
> apparatus combining the government and private sector that really run
> security policy. And that this deep state, on orders of Dulles, killed
> JFK. A sort of super military industrial complex idea that Eisenhower
> talked about.
>

Ever hear of Deep Politics?

> Yes, sure, maybe. But this "deep power blob" is still a bureaucracy; it's
> run by managers and administrators who carry out the orders from the top.
> It's not a single entity. Dulles can order the overthrow of Mossadegh but
> it's a bridge too far to think he could order the murder of JFK, the

Only one or two kooks claim that Dulles killed JFK.
Why don't you debunk the alien theory just to prove what a genius you are?

> framing of another man, and then a giant coverup over half a century of
> those acts. Cui bono? What's the benefit to all of these different parts,
> administrators, managers?
>

Yeah sure, like YOU know all the names of the administrators and
managers of ALL those other operations.
You don't even know who the NSA's liaison to the CIA was in 1954.
Give you a hint. It's not in any history book.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[OHLeeRedux]

3:53 PMBOZ

- show quoted text -

Marsh has glossolalia.



I had to look that up. And yes, he does.

[ajohnstone]

"No one said the local dog catcher was in on the plot"

Since i know some love trivial irrelevancies on this site...Who did
eventually get the custody of Jack Ruby's beloved dogs...The local
dog-catcher?

[BOZ]

Benghazi Hearings Prove Hillary Deliberately Deceived Us
Written by Chip Wood

Benghazi Hearings Prove Hillary Deliberately Deceived Us

Democrats are portraying Hillary Clinton's testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi as an incredible victory for the presidential aspirant. We're told that she and her immediate staff even held a celebratory dinner after her 11 hours of testimony last Thursday were over.

Man, talk about rewriting history! This is a classic example of the old adage about telling a lie. Make it big enough and repeat it often enough, and pretty soon most people will accept it as the truth. There is no doubt that this is what Hillary's most ardent defenders -- several of whom served on that Benghazi panel -- are determined to do regarding the actions and legacy of the former secretary of state.

But, in fact, the hearing revealed precisely the opposite. It showed conclusively that Hillary knew, almost immediately, that the attacks on our facilities in Benghazi, Libya, were a preplanned terrorist attack -- not a spontaneous protest over an anti-Muslim video.
ULINE Shipping Supplies
Huge Catalog! Over 30,000 Products. Same Day Shipping from 11 Locations
www.ULINE.com

Remember, this was in the closing weeks of the 2012 presidential contest. Just the week before the 9/11 attacks in Benghazi, Vice President Joe Biden got a standing ovation when he told the Democratic National Convention, "Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive." Clearly, this message wouldn't fly if the public learned that an al-Qaida affiliate in Libya was responsible for the murder of our ambassador to the country and three other Americans.

The night of the attack in Benghazi, Hillary issued a public statement blaming the assault on an obscure YouTube video. This was in line with the official policy of the Obama administration that al-Qaida was "on the run."

But just 45 minutes after releasing that misleading statement, Hillary sent a private email to her daughter Chelsea in which she said, "Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Qaeda-like group."

If it weren't for the Benghazi Select Committee, we would never have learned about the existence of this email. In fact, we probably wouldn't even know about Hillary's private email server, which she used all during the time she served as secretary of state.

But the embarrassing revelations didn't end there. Thanks to the committee, we also learned that the very next day after the attacks, Hillary had a telephone conversation with Hesham Kandil, the prime minister of Egypt, in which she said: "We know that the attack Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack -- not a protest."

Again, we can thank the Select Committee on Benghazi for forcing the State Department to release that summary of Hillary's telephone call. Yet that very same day, then-White House press secretary Jay Carney continued the charade, when he declared, "We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack."

In other words, it was the deliberate policy of Clinton and the rest of the Obama administration to deceive the public, even while they told the truth in private. On September 25, 2012 -- two weeks after the murders in Libya -- Barack Obama continued the ruse when he told the U.N. General Assembly, "There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy."

In her testimony before the Select Committee, Hillary blamed the "confusing" and "contradictory" information we were receiving from Libya for the discrepancy between her remarks in private and what she and the rest of the Obama administration were telling the public.

Her staff and supporters may be eager to peddle this baloney to a gullible public. And yes, the mainstream media, which is already in the tank for the Democrats, is no doubt willing to repeat it endlessly.

But thanks to the House Select Committee on Benghazi, the record is there for everyone to see. Hillary knew the truth almost from the moment the assault began. Yet she knowingly participated in a cover-up for strictly political motives.

Is this really the sort of person a majority of voters will make the next commander in chief? If so, God help this Republic.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

[BOZ]

The Plot to Destroy Nixon
By Patrick Buchanan
August 04, 2015

In his new biography "Being Nixon: A Man Divided," Evan Thomas concedes a
point. Richard Nixon, he writes, "was not paranoid; the press and the
'Georgetown set' really were out to get him."

Carl Bernstein's review found Thomas' book deficient in its failure to
chronicle the "endemic criminality" of the Nixon presidency.

Yet, recent revelations suggest that "endemic criminality" is a phrase
that might well be applied to the newsroom of The Washington Post when Bob
Woodward and Bernstein worked there.

Consider. In "All the President's Men," Woodward and Bernstein admit that,
in collusion with Post editors and with the approval of Post lawyers, they
approached half a dozen Watergate grand jurors.

Admitting this was a "seedy venture," they assured us no grand juror had
violated his or her oath, and they got nothing.

Yet, from recent books by Jeff Himmelman about Ben Bradlee, Max Holland
about Mark Felt, a.k.a. "Deep Throat," and Geoff Shepard's "The Real
Watergate Scandal: Collusion, Conspiracy, and the Plot That Brought Nixon
Down," out today, the truth is otherwise.

Woodward and Bernstein deceived us about not breaching the grand jury.

They had. The source identified in their book as "Z," a "woman ... in a
position to have considerable knowledge of the secret activities of the
White House and CRP [Committee to Re-Elect the President]" was a grand
juror.

Notes of Bernstein's conversation with this woman were found by Himmelman
in Bradlee's files. Post editor Barry Sussman also told Alan Pakula, who
made the movie starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman, that Carl had
breached the grand jury.

What does this tell us?

Woodward and Bernstein lied for four decades in denying their success in
breaching the grand jury. And Bradlee knew they had been lying.

When Post lawyer E. B. Williams had his ex parte contact with old friend
Judge John Sirica, to put the fix in and get the judge not to expose or
punish Woodward and Bernstein, Williams almost surely knew the reporters
were lying.

In his memoir, Judge Sirica reveals what he would have done had Bernstein
and Woodward gotten a grand juror to violate his oath:

"Had they actually obtained information from that grand juror, they would
have gone to jail."

Thus, Woodward and Bernstein, with the collusion of Post editors and
lawyers, got a grand juror to violate her oath and spill secrets. Then
Bradlee got E. B. Williams, godfather to Sirica's daughter, to put the fix
in with that compliant judge, and all of them covered up the conspiracy.

While pursuing Nixon, the "Georgetown set" was hiding the same sort of
mendacities and obstruction of justice that got Nixon's men prison time.

Nor does it stop there.

As we discovered, a decade ago, "Deep Throat," whose moniker came from a
dirty movie, was FBI Deputy Director Mark Felt.

In giving Woodward information from witness testimony to the grand jury,
Felt was violating his oath and engaged in criminal misconduct, which,
exposed, would have gotten him fired in disgrace and put in prison, and
Woodward implicated as the beneficiary of his crimes.

Woodward and Bernstein benefited mightily from the fruits of Felt's
criminality, getting a Pulitzer for the Post, and having their careers
made by collusion with this corrupt civil servant and serial lawbreaker.

The subtitle of the new paperback of "All the President's Men" is, "The
Greatest Reporting Story of All Time."

Excuse me, but how much reporting does it take to scribble down notes from
Mark Felt telling you who said what to the grand jury that day?

This is stenography, not reporting.

What was Felt's motivation in leaking grand jury secrets to Woodward? Max
Holland's book "Leak" tells the story.

Felt sought to cast acting FBI Director Pat Gray, an honorable man, as an
incompetent who could not keep secrets. This would result in Gray being
passed over for permanent director. With the FBI top job open, President
Nixon would likely turn to -- Deputy Director Mark Felt.

Lovely fellow, that Felt.

Of all the Watergate offenses of the Nixon White House, the "Huston Plan"
is often called the most terrifying. And what was the plan worked up by my
old friend Tom Charles Huston in 1970?

After Black Panthers began murdering cops and a Greenwich Village bomb
factory -- where an anti-personnel bomb was being prepared to massacre
noncommissioned officers and their dates at a dance at Fort Dix -- blew
up, Huston, with CIA, National Security Agency and Defense Intelligence
Agency backing, urged the reinstatement of FBI practices used from FDR to
LBJ.

These included warrantless wiretaps and surreptitious entries, "black-bag
jobs," to stem the epidemic of terror bombings.

Nixon OK'd the plan, but rescinded his approval five days later after J.
Edgar Hoover's objection.

And who had been in charge of FBI black-bag jobs in the LBJ era?

Mark Felt. Maybe when Woodward met Deep Throat in that garage, Felt was
just casing the place.

In conclusion...

[OHLeeRedux]

6:32 AMAnthony Marsh

- show quoted text -

You don't have any evidence. Just disinformation.

Pot, meet kettle.

[Bud]

None you`re aware of. I don`t think you know much about this case.

> Just disinformation.

Disinformation and Datinformation.

[OHLeeRedux]

ajohnstone

http://www.ronaldecker.com/rubysdog.html

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, you see how it works. I set it up for you and you deliver the
punchline. I didn't mean to impugn ALL dog catchers. My apologies to ALL
dog catchers. It was just one example at random of some low-level
worker.

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, if there is a distinction to be made I don't think Burkley was JFK's
personal physician. I think his title was physician to the President. Not
to JFK.

Travell was more or less kicked out for giving amphetamines to the
President.

[Anthony Marsh]

Thanks, I never knew that word existed before.
Did YOU invent it? I'll give you a steel penny for it.
Just post your REAL NAME and REAL address and I'll put it in the mail
tomorrow.

[Anthony Marsh]

I upload the evidence. You, nothing.

[Anthony Marsh]

No thanks. I already have a Uline catalog.

[mainframetech]

With all the foofaraw over Hillary's private email server, I wonder why
no one has done the same investigation of Colin Powell and HIS private
email server during his stint as SOS.

Chris

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- hide quoted text -

You offer nothing to prove your silly theories, and everyone knows that
you don't. It must be frustrating for you to know that nobody believes
you.

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh, but that's ok because he is a man and a conservative. Also because
he was a military man. They say that housewives should not be handling
classified documents, only pots and pans. Like Julia Child.
For those of you in the know that's known as IRONY.

> Chris
>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't want the Nazis to believe me. Most conspiracy believers do. And
they are the majority. I guess that's why you don't like majority rule.

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- hide quoted text -
On 2/7/2016 7:38 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Anthony Marsh
> - hide quoted text -
> On 2/5/2016 9:18 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>>
>> 6:32 AMAnthony Marsh
>> - show quoted text -
>> You don't have any evidence. Just disinformation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Pot, meet kettle.
>>
>
>
> I upload the evidence. You, nothing.
>
>
>
> You offer nothing to prove your silly theories, and everyone knows that
> you don't. It must be frustrating for you to know that nobody believes
> you.
>


I don't want the Nazis to believe me. Most conspiracy believers do.

Wrong. Nobody with an ounce of common sense believes you.

[BOZ]

YOU LIKE MOB RULE> YOU OLD SOCIALIST

[Anthony Marsh]

False. And I was never a socialist.

[Alex Foyle]

On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 5:50:39 AM UTC+1, Alex Foyle wrote:

> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905

Always fascinating to watch what threads turn into these days ... but
quickly back to the study, because some methods were apparently flawed:

http://littleatoms.com/david-grimes-conspiracy-theory-maths

Thanks to Dave Reitzes for the link. Most of the objections have been
addressed in the comment section of the online version of the study:

http://www.plosone.org/article/comments/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0147905

[BOZ]

Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Club of Rome , SKULL AND BONES
don't control. INFLUENCE!

[BOZ]

On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 12:50:39 AM UTC-4, Alex Foyle wrote:
> Not specifically on JFK, but still a very interesting study and article on
> the viability of conspiratorial beliefs:
>
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3417640/Oxford-University-physicist-formulates-long-conspiracy-theories-remain-secret.html

U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917, page 2947

Congressman Calloway announced that the
J.P. Morgan interests bought 25 of America's leading newspapers, and
inserted their own editors, in order to control the media.



The CHAIRMAN: The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Texas, a member
of the [defense appropriations] committee.

Mr. CALLAWAY: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the
Record a statement that I have of how the newspapers of this country have
been handled by the munitions manufacturers.

The CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from Texas asks unanimous consent to extend
his remarks in the Record by inserting a certain statement. Is there any
objection?

Mr. MANN: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, may I ask whether
it is the gentleman's purpose to insert a long list of extracts from
newspapers?

Mr. CALLAWAY: No; it will be a little, short statement not over 2 1/2
inches in length in the Record.

The CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection?

There was no objection.

Mr. CALLAWAY: Mr. Chairman, under unanimous consent, I insert into the
Record at this point a statement showing the newspaper combination, which
explains their activity in the war matter, just discussed by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. MOORE]:

"In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, ship building and
powder interests and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men
high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most
influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them
to control generally the policy of the daily press in the United States.

"These 12 men worked the problems out by selecting 179 newspapers, and
then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for
the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press
throughout the country. They found it was only necessary to purchase the
control of 25 of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed upon;
emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international,
of these papers; an agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was
bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each
paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions
of preparedness, militarism, financial policies and other things of
national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the
purchasers.

"This contract is in existence at the present time, and it accounts for
the news columns of the daily press of the country being filled with all
sorts of preparedness arguments and misrepresentations as to the present
condition of the United States Army and Navy, and the possibility and
probability of the United States being attacked by foreign foes.

"This policy also included the suppression of everything in opposition to
the wishes of the interests served. The effectiveness of this scheme has
been conclusively demonstrated by the character of the stuff carried in
the daily press throughout the country since March, 1915. They have
resorted to anything necessary to commercialize public sentiment and
sandbag the National Congress into making extravagant and wasteful
appropriations for the Army and Navy under false pretense that it was
necessary. Their stock argument is that it is 'patriotism.' They are
playing on every prejudice and passion of the American people."

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/11/2016 8:17 PM, BOZ wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 10:00:54 PM UTC-4, Alex Foyle wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 5:50:39 AM UTC+1, Alex Foyle wrote:
>>
>>> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905
>>
>> Always fascinating to watch what threads turn into these days ... but
>> quickly back to the study, because some methods were apparently flawed:
>>
>> http://littleatoms.com/david-grimes-conspiracy-theory-maths
>>
>> Thanks to Dave Reitzes for the link. Most of the objections have been
>> addressed in the comment section of the online version of the study:
>>

Hey I just read that he discovered gravity waves.

>> http://www.plosone.org/article/comments/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0147905
>
> Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Club of Rome , SKULL AND BONES
> don't control. INFLUENCE!
>

Yeah, you forgot the Illuminati. Coincidence?

[BOZ]

The Order of Skull and Bones is Illuminati USA. Read Antony Sutton's
America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull &
Bones.

[Anthony Marsh]

Says who?

[BOZ]

http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres10/SuttonBones.pdf

[Anthony Marsh]

As I said, says who?

[BOZ]

Says I. GOOF!